Revisiting Autofocus
Monday, May 10, 2021 at 18:37 I’ve decided to revisit the original Autofocus system (or Autofocus 1 as it was later called). It’s always been one of my favourite systems, and I want to see what it’s capable of. As the name suggests it’s not just a way of getting lots of work done, but also a way of focusing that work so that it sifts your to-do list to accelerate what is going someplace and gets rid of stuff which is going nowhere. I’m not sure that that this aspect has been explored enough by me, so my intention is to give it a good long run to see how much it succeeds in emphasing the positive and removing the negative.
This means that the tests will be concentrating on quality of work rather than quantity.
So let’s get going.
My first observation is that Autofocus feels quite unlike any other system. There’s an immediate sense of calm and control.
I’ve been working on it now for two or three hours and have accumulated two pages worth of tasks - thirty-one lines to the page, one task per line. From memory it can handle a lot more than that. I’ve done nothing spectacular so far, just the usual routine jobs like email, paper, Facebook, messages, and so on. And of course writing this blog post. This conforms to my recollections of doing it in the past - it always seems to home in on getting the routine stuff right first - getting things to inbox zero.
I’m talking as if the system has a mind of its own, and sometimes it does seem like that. But in reality of course the system is just a vehicle for my mind to operate. The system itself should be as unobtrusive as possible.
Update tomorrow.
Reader Comments (32)
I know what you mean. It's very easy to get bored with any time management system, whether or not it consists of going round and round a list. But in fact I think a time management system just reflects what happens in our lives. Most of life is repetition of small actions day after day, week after week.
But - and it's a huge but - repetition is the way that we improve performance. In almost all mental and physical disciplines reps are the key to advancing. Reps are the reason I can touch type this at 60 wpm, that I can drive a car safely, that I can ride a bike, that I can speak several languages, that I can spell correctly, that I have strong muscles, etc, etc, etc.
So Autofocus just reflects the fact that most days comprise very much the same actions. And even the exciting new project involves planning, questioning, emailing, keeping records, reading, discussing, thinking, ordering equipment, and so on. The same actions as with the previous project but directed to a different end.
If life wasn't like that, then we'd be out of our depth with everything we do.
So the solution to losing the meaning of going around and around the list is to find the meaning of what we are doing as a result of going around and around the list.
I remember introducing several friends to Autofocus when it was introduced, typical folks who don't spend their free time thinking and playing with this stuff. They all loved its simplicity.
<< So the solution to losing the meaning of...>>
Your entire response was lovely - and I agree with the tenor of the message. I should have added that so much of my life - 3 young kids, a private clinical practice, etc - is governed by repetition i.e. See client at certain hour, update clinical note, update invoice, etc. When I have discretionary time, I prefer to be a bit more spontaneous with how I spend my time. It doesn't always work, but I haven't maintained a traditional list of any sort for a few years now. Things are working out.
<< I think in the second paragraph, you mean "quality of work rather than *quantity*." >>
Yes, I do. Thanks for the save!
<< I haven't maintained a traditional list of any sort for a few years now. Things are working out. >>
You might find this post of mine from 2008 fits what you are doing:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/3/predicting-your-day.html
It has a couple of follow ups:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/5/predicting-your-day-follow-up.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/9/predicting-the-day-follow-up-ii.html
It worked very well for me but I think I then got distracted by other things such as developing Autofocus.
I was about to give FVP another go but , inspired by your post, I've switched to AF1.
100% agree with this. There's something relaxing about the system that makes it stand out. I think that previously you described it as "restful."
I've tried to go back to AF1 a couple of times in recent years but I've found this difficult after becoming accustomed to Simple Scanning. It feels tough to reimpose dismissal/working on minimum one task per page. Regardless, AF1 is a great system. I have fond memories of using it. Wouldn't be surprised if I try it again in the future.
<< It feels tough to reimpose dismissal/working on minimum one task per page. >>
Dismissal is not intended to be tough. It's actually a let out, which makes Autofocus less tough than Simple Scanning, not more.
In Simple Scanning (if you're like me) you will end up with some tasks which simply never move. You are therefore faced with a choice of either a) forcing yourself to do them, b) leaving them on the list as a constant reproach to your lack of willpower, or c) deleting them. None of these are pleasant alternatives.
Autofocus gives you a much easier way to do it. The task (with its page) is automatically removed from the active list, but kept in reserve so you can at any time decide to reinstate it. All three of a), b) and c) don't apply.
AF1's approach to older/dismissed items is more structured than SNL in some ways -- or at least the rules are more explicit and objective. But SNL's approach is more fluid -- you don't need any special prompting to review the older items. I'm wondering how this new trial will play out.
< Dismissal is not intended to be tough. It's actually a let out, which makes Autofocus less tough than Simple Scanning, not more... >
This is such an interesting perspective. I never thought of it in this way. I can see the truth in this.
For instance, one thing I always liked about AF1 (compared to Simple Scanning) is that I would be much more willing to write down "maybe"/exploratory items, knowing that I could calmly leave them on the list and the system would (eventually) take care of them. Whereas in Simple Scanning, I tend to write down fewer items and to constantly preen tasks as I whirl around the list. Simple Scanning is conducive to a rush of productivity (it essentially allows you to jump to any task), but I've found it less relaxing than AF1.
That said, I suspect that my willingness to delete tasks in Simple Scanning is why I was able to use to system successfully for long periods of time. Deleting tasks may not be pleasant at times but at least I didn't have any hang-ups about it. And this kept the list under full control.
Anyway, in my prior post I probably didn't express myself well. I wasn't objecting to dismissal or the rules of AF1. (I have a special fondness for AF1.) What I was trying to say is that after using Simple Scanning (which is nearly ruleless) for a while, I've found it tough to return to other long list systems with more rules. It's kind of like playing tennis with the net down and then putting the net back up. Of course (to extend the analogy), it's still arguable that the game is better (more fun, more skill-building) with the net up.
Your post gives me good inspiration for a return to AF1. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if I went back to it.
This has a couple of effects. First, it allows pages to hang around a bit more before getting dismissed -- giving those tasks a bit more time to percolate in my mind. This reduces the sense of pressure to make a decision about those last few tasks lingering on a page.
I've also modified slightly the way I handle dismissed items. These pages are all grouped together at the beginning of the notebook, as a result of my first rule change that only the first active page can be dismissed. They are never interspersed with the active pages, which can happen with standard AF1. So, my second new rule is to scan through all those pages (as much or as little as I want) whenever I finish working the last active page and return to the beginning of the list. I just flip to the first dismissed page and scan -- no rules. When I come to the end of the dismissed pages and arrive at the first active page, then I work them following the usual AF1 rules.
So far, this seems to preserve the sense of pacing and calm and focus that AF1 always seems to generate, but with an additional sense of freedom. It is very reminiscent of Serial No-List but seems to have more of a sense of structure and completion and calm. SNL can sometimes feel a bit frenetic.
I've only been doing this for two days, so I am not sure these effects will persist. I imagine that as dismissed pages accumulate, the rule to scan them at every pass through the list might become burdensome. But so far I like it very much.
Why not just leave out the dismissal rule altogether? As far as I can see it would have much the same result.
Dismissal under my rules has two purposes:
1. To prune the list so that stuff that's going somewhere is helped on its way, and stuff that's going nowhere gets removed.
2. To provide an incentive to get the more difficult stuff started.
Your rules basically remove both of those purposes. So I don't see why you would want to keep dismissal at all,
I guess I feel a need to put those tasks on the back burner, but still review them in some systematic way, less frequently than the main list. For me, these items still have potential. They are not going anywhere *right now*, but I am not ready just to set them aside. If I know I have a systematic and reliable way of revisiting those tasks, then I feel completely free to dismiss items for now and stay focused on the active items.
SNL was very good at that, but was not quite as systematic and complete as I would like. Older pages could sit for a long time without being reviewed at all. It is similar to FVP in this respect -- the earliest items on the list can be neglected completely for long periods if the active end of the list is very active and chaotic.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.
You get stressed because you don't want to review dismissed tasks, so your answer is to leave tasks which should have been dismissed on the list so that you have to review them all the time. Or something like that.
An alternative way of doing it would be to do your reviews of dismissed tasks at regular intervals, say once a week - or whatever interval you prefer.
That would be much easier than reviewing all of the pages all of the time, which is what your method seems to end up with.
On the other hand, sometimes I leave the last active page because I am feeling the pull of items on the early active pages, and so it’s not a good time to take a break to review the dismissed items. In those cases, I can skip the dismissed items altogether.
Either way, it’s easy to do, because the dismissed pages are all grouped together at the beginning.
This is what I meant by scanning the dismissed items without any specific rules. I can take some time to scan and review, or skip it, or only review some of them - whatever feels natural at the time.
Of course you are entitled to make whatever amendments you like to Autofocus, but I still feel that you are making things more difficult for yourself rather than easier.
For a start you have (if I understand your description correctly) a lot more fully active pages than my Autofocus rules would produce. This slows down the speed at which you get through the list, which has the effect of making it more difficult to handle urgent tasks or finish tasks which require more than one session. Knowing from past correspondence the number of pages you are likely to have open, this could be a serious problem.
Secondly, it appears from what you are saying that you hardly ever succeed in finishing a page. I draw this conclusion from your saying that the dismissed pages are all grouped together. This is in spite of keeping your pages active for much longer than the Autofocus rules would allow. If I'm correct in thinking this, it would be the result of not being incentivised by the dismissal rules.
So to sum up what seems to me to be happening:
1) Not using dismissal as an incentive results in a lot of tasks not being done which could have been done without much additional effort.
2) Not getting properly rid of dismissed pages results in stuff which is going nowhere hanging around for much longer than is advisable "just in case". If this were a house, an office, a garage or a warehouse that would be a recipe for chaos.
3) The parts of Autofocus which do the auto-focusing have been removed - with the result that instead of having a well-focused body of work which you can work to completion, you have a diffuse mass of stuff, much of which will be wasted effort and will never see completion. Isn't that the sort of scenario which the Theory of Constraints is designed to combat?
Thanks for your observations and feedback, as always.
Here is another way to look at what I am doing:
(1) Only the first active page is subject to dismissal. This has a few effects -- it reduces the dismissal pressure somewhat, which also reduces the incentive to close a page -- in my case, this is a good tradeoff. It also causes all the dismissed pages to be clumped together at the beginning of the notebook, before any of the active pages.
(2) When you finish scanning the last active page and nothing stands out, then consider the task "Review dismissed pages?" If this task stands out, then flip to the beginning of the dismissed pages, and review them; and then continue on with the active pages as usual. If this task does not stand out, then flip to the beginning of the active pages, and proceed as usual.
The main benefit I get from this is that the review of dismissed items is more systematic and reliable. This eliminates most of the reluctance to dismiss items that I have had in the past, for fear that those items would never been seen again.
<< For a start you have (if I understand your description correctly) a lot more fully active pages than my Autofocus rules would produce. >>
I currently have 5 active pages, three of which are more than 80% complete. I have one completed page. Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to be about the same as what you might have after a week of working the list.
Overall I have dismissed 3 pages so far, and have completed / deleted one of those dismissed pages.
I also had about 10 pages from the previous FVP experiment I was doing. At some point I decided to treat these as dismissed pages. This approach seems to be working quite well. Three of them have been deleted/completed.
<< This slows down the speed at which you get through the list, which has the effect of making it more difficult to handle urgent tasks or finish tasks which require more than one session. >>
So far I have not had any difficulties with this, but you are right, this does tend to be a problem area for me. So far my approach to dismissal seems to be helping, rather than exacerbating.
<< Secondly, it appears from what you are saying that you hardly ever succeed in finishing a page. I draw this conclusion from your saying that the dismissed pages are all grouped together. >>
The grouping is a result of my rule that only the first active page is subject to dismissal. I haven't had any trouble completing pages.
<< This is in spite of keeping your pages active for much longer than the Autofocus rules would allow. >>
In fact, what I am finding is that the pages get dismissed or completed *more quickly*. This may be counter-intuitive. I think it happens this way because I know the dismissed items will be reviewed reliably and systematically, so I don't have any reluctance to dismiss things. So far, things get dismissed when they are ready to be dismissed, without any artificial pressure.
I am not seeing any of the other negative effects you are describing.
It's difficult to judge a method without actually trying it out. I might have a go, but first I need to understand your method a bit better:
1) How do you get the dismissed pages to be contiguous if you haven't had any trouble completing pages? Or are you using a loose-leaf folder? But in that case you could have got them contiguous without changing the dismissal rules. There's definitely something I'm missing here.
2) I don't understand what you mean when you say "I think it happens this way because I know the dismissed items will be reviewed reliably and systematically, so I don't have any reluctance to dismiss things". Are you saying that they can't get reviewed reliably and systematically under the standard rules? And if you are so concerned about them getting reviewed reliably and systematically why were you so reluctant to do the task "Review dismissed tasks"? There's definitely something I'm missing here too.
If you can enlighten me about these two things I will try to give it a go. I'm testing something else out at the moment so it won't be immediate.
<< How do you get the dismissed pages to be contiguous if you haven't had any trouble completing pages? >>
This is the result of my rule that only the first active page is subject to dismissal.
<< Are you saying that they can't get reviewed reliably and systematically under the standard rules? >>
I'm not saying they *CAN'T* get reviewed reliably and systematically under the standard rules -- only that I never found a way to do it that was effective for me.
Most people seemed to do fine with a "Review dismissed items" task on their main list. But this approach never had any "pull" for me -- that task would almost never stand out, especially if it was surrounded by other tasks on the active list that had more of an immediate pull. I even found myself "dismissing" that task pretty often!
This same kind of thing happens with *any* task, especially high-level tasks, where I don't happen to remember any of the details or context behind the task. They just don't have any "pull". If I add a bit of detail, then it helps engage my intuition and I get a much stronger sense of the relative importance and urgency of the task. So I suppose I could write something like "Review dismissed - especially the stuff about such-and-such", and that might help the task stand out -- but this seems somewhat counter to the idea of having dismissed those items in the first place.
On the other hand, with my new approach, when I have completed the last active page and nothing else stands out, this often seems like a natural time to take a little break from the active list and review the old dismissed items. There is less "competition" with the other active tasks.
And since those dismissed items are all grouped together at the beginning of the notebook, before the active pages, it is also a smooth transition physically to go from the last active page back to the beginning of the notebook and review these older items. I don't have to remember any details or context -- I am just taking advantage of a natural break in the workflow.
<< And if you are so concerned about them getting reviewed reliably and systematically why were you so reluctant to do the task "Review dismissed tasks"? >>
It wasn't really a matter of reluctance or active resistance -- it just didn't stand out.
Me: How do you get the dismissed pages to be contiguous if you haven't had any trouble completing pages?
You: This is the result of my rule that only the first active page is subject to dismissal.
I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make any sense to me. What happens to the pages that are finished without dismissal? Do you tear them out? If you leave them in place, then the dismissed pages will not be grouped together. They will be grouped with the finished pages, which hopefully will outnumber them.
In any case, since on every pass you are scanning both dismissed pages and pages which ought to be dismissed, I can't see what dismissal achieves. If you are going to scan the pages anyway what is the point of the rule?
<< I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make any sense to me. What happens to the pages that are finished without dismissal? Do you tear them out? >>
Ah! Yes, I see that I have not explained clearly.
You are correct, the pages that are finished without dismissal *are* interspersed with the dismissed pages. But they are marked as "done" and I just don't even notice them anymore. If you ignore these completed pages, then the dismissed pages are contiguous. In retrospect, it is obvious that not everyone would automatically ignore the completed pages like I do -- I'm sorry for creating this misunderstanding!
The main point, in my mind, is that the dismissed pages are segregated from the active pages.
<< In any case, since on every pass you are scanning both dismissed pages and pages which ought to be dismissed, I can't see what dismissal achieves. >>
I think that is what I wrote originally, but later tried to amend and clarify it. I don't scan the dismissed pages on every pass. I do this: When I finish scanning the last active page and nothing stands out, then I consider the task "Review dismissed pages?" If this task stands out, then I flip to the beginning of the dismissed pages, and review them; and afterwards, I continue on with the active pages as usual. But if "Review dismissed pages?" does not stand out, then I flip to the beginning of the active pages, and proceed as usual.
It's like having a permanent task standing on its own at the end of the list -- "Review dismissed pages?"
In practice this is all very simple and easy -- I'm sorry if my explanation has made it seem so complicated.
Thanks for the clarification. But it doesn't help me understand what the advantages of your system are to you:
1) So the dismissed pages are not contiguous after all, but you just don't notice the finished pages? How is this better than marking up dismissed tasks with a highlighter as in the rules? I don't get it.
2) It is relatively rarely that nothing stands out on the last active page so it seems unlikely that you would be reviewing dismissed tasks any more often than you would be using my original rules.
So I still don't understand what the advantages of either of your changes in the rules are, even for you.
I seem to be aiming at a bit of a moving target here. The explanation changes every time I raise a question!
There is less page-flipping to hunt for the highlighted pages. And when you come to the end of the dismissed items, you transition smoothly into the first active pages.
It's a small matter but does seem to make the process a little more natural.
<< 2) It is relatively rarely that nothing stands out on the last active page so it seems unlikely that you would be reviewing dismissed tasks any more often than you would be using my original rules. >>
For me, it doesn't work that way. When nothing stands out on the last active page, it is often a natural break in the flow of the active work -- so it is often a good time to review the dismissed items.
I'm not saying any of this is a major transformation. Overall these are minor changes that make handling dismissed items more effective for me, preserving all the major benefits of AF (series of closed lists, emergent focus, calm), while also recreating some of the natural flow of Serial No-List but with a more systematic approach to reviewing the older/dismissed items.
It's been one week since I retried AF1 on paper and have been quite productive and am enjoying it a lot.
I also spent a bit of time over the weekend going through old forum threads about AF1 to see if I can remember why I moved off it and why MF created AF2,3, et. al. The most general issue is that people (including myself) would spend too much time on some pages and not circulate through the list. Since then I have been trained, though Mark's systems, to do a lot more "little and often," which results in getting more projects making progress more readily which is great and mroe trips through the entire list.
Dismissal was another issue. This past week I have been very liberal with dismissal, after all if I can't even do five minutes on a task "Little and often" I am clearly not going to work on it today. I am reviewing dismissed pretty frequently and am putting some back as other projects are completed.
So a big thumbs up for me so far on my time down time management lane....
I think there's one more factor which was that it didn't deal well with urgent tasks.
It all boils down to the fact that in order to work successfully it needs people to move quickly through the list. That keeps the whole list alive and solves the urgent task problem. Though for really urgent tasks the principle "If it needs doing now, do it now" applies.
And as I've been saying to Seraphim, dismissal is intended to be both an incentive and a way of pruning the list to ensure that it's relevant. One thing it is most definitely not intended to be is a punishment for failure!
This is so much better than deleting a task forever (which I powerfully resist) and also the GTD "someday/maybe" concept of prejudging a task as "someday" before it ever goes on the active list. It seems much more productive to throw everything on the active list and let the process sort out which items become "someday/maybe" through dismissal.
I'm excited to revisit AF. Regarding your last comment, Mark: that is my biggest problem with AF as well - I can spend a lot of time on older pages and never get to the more recent and/or urgent tasks. What about an amendment to the system? What about starting with the last page and working around that one until nothing stands out, then the next-to-last, and so on? I think I'm going to experiment with that today and I will report back.
<< What about starting with the last page and working around that one until nothing stands out, then the next-to-last, and so on? >>
Yes, I I think I tried that back in the day. I can't remember what my conclusions were, but presumably they weren't favourable, otherwise they'd have been incorporated in the rules.
There was a tweak I came up with to start each day on the page before yesterday (PBY). That way you never get stuck in the older pages, and the newer stuff is looked at every day at least once. Each day you put the date next to the first item added that day, then the next day you start on the page with yesterday's date, although I preferred starting on the page before yesterday's dated page because I don't add an enormous amount of new items each day.
That is very interesting. I’m going to try that today. Thanks!