Discussion Forum > Getting things planned
+JMJ+
Alan,
The system I am developing right now can be effectively be used for planning for projects. This is the feature I am trying to develop and I think it is near completion enough that I am confident I can present the concept here.
As I had previously discussed in "Are You Happy With Superfocus,"
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1501554
the system goes back to old-style AF in which all tasks are in one column, and that all urgent/unfinished tasks are preceded with a special mark to distinguish them from all other tasks. I have decided, however, that this special mark should be a plus sign (+) for the urgent/unfinished task furthest from the end instead of a double dot, and a dash (-) instead of a heavy dot for the rest of the unfinished/urgent tasks. So a sample page would be:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
- Urgent task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
Now let's say you want to add the tasks of a project into your list. You can place them in "Project: Task" format like I do, and thus a sample page could be:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Project B: task
Project A: task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
- Project A: task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Project C: task
- Urgent task
- Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
As you can see, project tasks and non-project tasks can get jumbled up in the list; besides, you do not need, nor is it even advisable, to do all tasks of a project at one go. So if you are going to use this list to plan for projects, you must have a way of (1) marking which tasks in a list to act on, and (2) a way of processing those marked items effectively and efficiently.
So here is where my reason for changing the special mark of unfinished/urgent tasks goes in: I want to use the heavy dot (•) for marking <<projects and contexts>> so that I can work on them <<exclusively>> when needed, because (1) heavy dots can easily be written over dashes, and (2) heavy dots are more noticeable (at least to my eye) than dashes.
So for example, in the sample page above, I need to work on some tasks for Project A. So I mark them with heavy dots and mark the furthest one from the end with a heavy double dot:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Project B: task
Project A: task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
•• Project A: task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Project C: task
- Urgent task
• Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
• Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
I then process them AF2 style (from the end of the list backwards) until <<all>> of the tasks marked with heavy dots are finished, after which I can go back to either Forward/AF1 mode or Backwards/AF2 mode.
I call this Context Focusing, or CF.
The thing is, we have all been using CF for quite a while now, the contexts being urgent, unfinished, and non-urgent tasks ^___^.
But anyways, where else do I use CF?
1) At work. The nature of my work does not need heavy planning, and by the time I clock out, all outstanding work must be finished. By placing "••Work Diligently Til Timed Out" to the end of my list, and entering all work related tasks with a heavy dot, all other tasks without a dot, and just working on all tasks with a heavy dot ONLY, I eliminated the need for a separate list each for work and home:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
- Urgent task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
••Work Diligently Til Timed Out
• Work-related task
• Work-related task
Errand for later
• Work-related task
Home Task
• Work-related task
2) Checklists. CF eliminates my need for separate lists of recurrent things to do.
3) Context-related tasks. I do not need to make separate lists of things to buy or what to do in errands. They just lie in my list until they are needed to be done, then marked for CF so they can be efficiently be done in one go.
Anyways, I hope that helps.
God bless.
Alan,
The system I am developing right now can be effectively be used for planning for projects. This is the feature I am trying to develop and I think it is near completion enough that I am confident I can present the concept here.
As I had previously discussed in "Are You Happy With Superfocus,"
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1501554
the system goes back to old-style AF in which all tasks are in one column, and that all urgent/unfinished tasks are preceded with a special mark to distinguish them from all other tasks. I have decided, however, that this special mark should be a plus sign (+) for the urgent/unfinished task furthest from the end instead of a double dot, and a dash (-) instead of a heavy dot for the rest of the unfinished/urgent tasks. So a sample page would be:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
- Urgent task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
Now let's say you want to add the tasks of a project into your list. You can place them in "Project: Task" format like I do, and thus a sample page could be:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Project B: task
Project A: task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
- Project A: task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Project C: task
- Urgent task
- Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
As you can see, project tasks and non-project tasks can get jumbled up in the list; besides, you do not need, nor is it even advisable, to do all tasks of a project at one go. So if you are going to use this list to plan for projects, you must have a way of (1) marking which tasks in a list to act on, and (2) a way of processing those marked items effectively and efficiently.
So here is where my reason for changing the special mark of unfinished/urgent tasks goes in: I want to use the heavy dot (•) for marking <<projects and contexts>> so that I can work on them <<exclusively>> when needed, because (1) heavy dots can easily be written over dashes, and (2) heavy dots are more noticeable (at least to my eye) than dashes.
So for example, in the sample page above, I need to work on some tasks for Project A. So I mark them with heavy dots and mark the furthest one from the end with a heavy double dot:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Project B: task
Project A: task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
•• Project A: task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Project C: task
- Urgent task
• Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
• Project A: task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
I then process them AF2 style (from the end of the list backwards) until <<all>> of the tasks marked with heavy dots are finished, after which I can go back to either Forward/AF1 mode or Backwards/AF2 mode.
I call this Context Focusing, or CF.
The thing is, we have all been using CF for quite a while now, the contexts being urgent, unfinished, and non-urgent tasks ^___^.
But anyways, where else do I use CF?
1) At work. The nature of my work does not need heavy planning, and by the time I clock out, all outstanding work must be finished. By placing "••Work Diligently Til Timed Out" to the end of my list, and entering all work related tasks with a heavy dot, all other tasks without a dot, and just working on all tasks with a heavy dot ONLY, I eliminated the need for a separate list each for work and home:
Non-urgent task
+ Unfinished task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
- Urgent task
- Unfinished task
- Urgent task
- Urgent task
Non-urgent task
Non-urgent task
••Work Diligently Til Timed Out
• Work-related task
• Work-related task
Errand for later
• Work-related task
Home Task
• Work-related task
2) Checklists. CF eliminates my need for separate lists of recurrent things to do.
3) Context-related tasks. I do not need to make separate lists of things to buy or what to do in errands. They just lie in my list until they are needed to be done, then marked for CF so they can be efficiently be done in one go.
Anyways, I hope that helps.
God bless.
June 3, 2011 at 22:05 |
nuntym
nuntym
I haven't used this method in a while, and I'm sure I'm going to leave out bits, but it may prompt others to contribute. I'll use a project I'm working on as an example: clean up a big hard disk at work that's cluttered with years of digital image files that need to be culled and organized. (And I'm doing this on-the-fly, so please be understanding!)
1. Get a big stack of index cards, maybe 4x6 inch cards.
2. For a project, write out the big-level goals you want to achieve for that project. So, for mine, I might write "Anyone can sit down at this computer and easily find the image they're searching for," "Anyone can look at how the files are organized and understand how to add new files to it," "Progress will be achieved so easily and effortlessly, yet be so visible and encouraging, that I can't wait to work on it every day." Write each of these goals on its own card. (Hmm -- do I detect Mark's "future reality"?)
3. Now, we go down a level and iterate through each of the top-level goals. What needs to happen to achieve each one? These are still somewhat visionary, we're not at the level of tasks yet. Each of these ideas goes on its own card.
So, for example, I might write, "I've identified the stakeholders and worked out what they want to see in a finished system," "I've documented the criteria I'm using for culling the files," "I've documented how to use the software to catalog the files," "I work on the system via the little-and-often process."
So for each top-level goal, there's now a little stack of intermediate objectives.
4. Sweep through each of these new cards for a new iteration, and at this level, we start getting to the tasks. "Identify stakeholders," "Schedule vision meeting with stakeholders," "Schedule time to work on the system," "Research other image libraries and document advantages/disadvantages," etc.
Each new task can go on its own card.
5. So you now have piles of cards that contain your vision, intermediate objectives that support the vision, and specific tasks that support the objectives. The task cards can then be put in a chronological order, or entered into Superfocus, or however you want to do it.
One of the advantages of this system is that it starts with the *feelings* you want to associate with a successful outcome, and then your mind works backward from that to figure out how to achieve those feelings and outcomes. And because it's on little dinky cards, it's not as intimidating as a big ol' computer screen.
I think, too, we often zip right to the tasks first (the bottom-up approach), but for a big or long project, it might be more useful to take time to start with the end in mind, and the feelings you want to associate with that goal and the progress you make toward that goal. Otherwise, you could wind up doing tasks in a blind panic everyday, and that's not good.
You could do this process using an outliner or mind-mapper app, if that's your preference.
I could see using Mark's "Dreams" protocol alongside the cards as a daily check-in on the project's progress -- what's better? What's still different between current and future reality? And that journaling could create new vision, new objectives, new tasks, all of which could be easily slipped into the card deck, or outliner, or whatever.
Don't know if this is the kind of thing you were after, Alan, but it is pretty low overhead except for the time needed to sit and dream and think.
1. Get a big stack of index cards, maybe 4x6 inch cards.
2. For a project, write out the big-level goals you want to achieve for that project. So, for mine, I might write "Anyone can sit down at this computer and easily find the image they're searching for," "Anyone can look at how the files are organized and understand how to add new files to it," "Progress will be achieved so easily and effortlessly, yet be so visible and encouraging, that I can't wait to work on it every day." Write each of these goals on its own card. (Hmm -- do I detect Mark's "future reality"?)
3. Now, we go down a level and iterate through each of the top-level goals. What needs to happen to achieve each one? These are still somewhat visionary, we're not at the level of tasks yet. Each of these ideas goes on its own card.
So, for example, I might write, "I've identified the stakeholders and worked out what they want to see in a finished system," "I've documented the criteria I'm using for culling the files," "I've documented how to use the software to catalog the files," "I work on the system via the little-and-often process."
So for each top-level goal, there's now a little stack of intermediate objectives.
4. Sweep through each of these new cards for a new iteration, and at this level, we start getting to the tasks. "Identify stakeholders," "Schedule vision meeting with stakeholders," "Schedule time to work on the system," "Research other image libraries and document advantages/disadvantages," etc.
Each new task can go on its own card.
5. So you now have piles of cards that contain your vision, intermediate objectives that support the vision, and specific tasks that support the objectives. The task cards can then be put in a chronological order, or entered into Superfocus, or however you want to do it.
One of the advantages of this system is that it starts with the *feelings* you want to associate with a successful outcome, and then your mind works backward from that to figure out how to achieve those feelings and outcomes. And because it's on little dinky cards, it's not as intimidating as a big ol' computer screen.
I think, too, we often zip right to the tasks first (the bottom-up approach), but for a big or long project, it might be more useful to take time to start with the end in mind, and the feelings you want to associate with that goal and the progress you make toward that goal. Otherwise, you could wind up doing tasks in a blind panic everyday, and that's not good.
You could do this process using an outliner or mind-mapper app, if that's your preference.
I could see using Mark's "Dreams" protocol alongside the cards as a daily check-in on the project's progress -- what's better? What's still different between current and future reality? And that journaling could create new vision, new objectives, new tasks, all of which could be easily slipped into the card deck, or outliner, or whatever.
Don't know if this is the kind of thing you were after, Alan, but it is pretty low overhead except for the time needed to sit and dream and think.
June 4, 2011 at 14:43 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
I need to credit the method to my first coach, PJ Eby, from whom I learned it. His method was different and of course had more detail and rationale, this is my adaptation of it based on my faulty memory.
June 4, 2011 at 15:05 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Hi nuntym,
Thanks for sharing your "Context Focus" idea -- I've been following your suggestions in the other thread for a "single-coiumn SF" and I like where you're heading with this. Your idea of highlighting tasks that are in the current project or context sounds great. I've adapted your "single-column SF" idea to use AF4-style dismissal instead of AF1, because I personally prefer it, but other than that your idea has been working really well for me.
One question about your CF system: what do you do if you highlight, say, ten tasks in the current context, but only get three of them finished? Do you need to rewrite the unfinished ones, since your "heavy dot" highlighting overwrites the "+" signs, etc -- or do you have some other way of marking these as no longer being highlighted?
Thanks,
- Erik.
Thanks for sharing your "Context Focus" idea -- I've been following your suggestions in the other thread for a "single-coiumn SF" and I like where you're heading with this. Your idea of highlighting tasks that are in the current project or context sounds great. I've adapted your "single-column SF" idea to use AF4-style dismissal instead of AF1, because I personally prefer it, but other than that your idea has been working really well for me.
One question about your CF system: what do you do if you highlight, say, ten tasks in the current context, but only get three of them finished? Do you need to rewrite the unfinished ones, since your "heavy dot" highlighting overwrites the "+" signs, etc -- or do you have some other way of marking these as no longer being highlighted?
Thanks,
- Erik.
June 4, 2011 at 23:45 |
Kiwi Erik
Kiwi Erik
+JMJ+
Hi Erik,
<<Thanks for sharing your "Context Focus" idea -- I've been following your suggestions in the other thread for a "single-coiumn SF" and I like where you're heading with this.>>
You're welcome! I'm glad it's working for you.
<<I've adapted your "single-column SF" idea to use AF4-style dismissal instead of AF1, because I personally prefer it, but other than that your idea has been working really well for me.>>
Wow, AF4-style dismissal? I couldn't imagine how you're doing that! Please do tell.
<<One question about your CF system: what do you do if you highlight, say, ten tasks in the current context, but only get three of them finished? Do you need to rewrite the unfinished ones, since your "heavy dot" highlighting overwrites the "+" signs, etc -- or do you have some other way of marking these as no longer being highlighted?>>
As I mentioned, it is not a good idea to mark all or most of a good-sized project at a time, because I doubt anyone has infinite time or stamina to do all of them at once. CF is meant to process a few (around up to five) tasks at a time, depending on your time, circumstances, and energy. So yes, if you have already marked ten items for CF and then you can only do three, you have to re-write the seven unfinished tasks. That's the system's way of saying you've bitten off more than you can chew ^__^
This is one more aspect of the system I am developing that I like: it's self checking. It'll tell you whether you're overconfident with your resources and abilities, yet will reward you with less tasks per page once you've done lots of your items.
You see, one thing about SF that I don't like is that it <punishes> you for thinking of urgent things to do and for leaving tasks unfinished. Just think for a moment: in SF, whenever you think of something urgent to do or leave a task unfinished, you add an item to C2 of either the next page or your current page. That means you <add> items to do in supposedly a closed page: for example, you left a page with 10 tasks left in it, and when you get back to it you find that page's tasks had just climbed to 15! And you <have> to do all 5 of the additional tasks (aside from the other tasks in that page) <before> you can leave it...only to find that you have added <again> to the page you are going to! I mean, who will <not> develop resistance to the idea?!
Not so with this system: each and every page tops with 25 tasks, and you cannot add to them. That means every time you do CF, you decrease the number of tasks for consideration in each page you have processed with CF. Well, yes, you add to the end of your list everytime you add unfinished and urgent tasks there, but that is what we do to ALL AF's, even SF, right?
Anyways, sorry for the rant.
God bless.
Hi Erik,
<<Thanks for sharing your "Context Focus" idea -- I've been following your suggestions in the other thread for a "single-coiumn SF" and I like where you're heading with this.>>
You're welcome! I'm glad it's working for you.
<<I've adapted your "single-column SF" idea to use AF4-style dismissal instead of AF1, because I personally prefer it, but other than that your idea has been working really well for me.>>
Wow, AF4-style dismissal? I couldn't imagine how you're doing that! Please do tell.
<<One question about your CF system: what do you do if you highlight, say, ten tasks in the current context, but only get three of them finished? Do you need to rewrite the unfinished ones, since your "heavy dot" highlighting overwrites the "+" signs, etc -- or do you have some other way of marking these as no longer being highlighted?>>
As I mentioned, it is not a good idea to mark all or most of a good-sized project at a time, because I doubt anyone has infinite time or stamina to do all of them at once. CF is meant to process a few (around up to five) tasks at a time, depending on your time, circumstances, and energy. So yes, if you have already marked ten items for CF and then you can only do three, you have to re-write the seven unfinished tasks. That's the system's way of saying you've bitten off more than you can chew ^__^
This is one more aspect of the system I am developing that I like: it's self checking. It'll tell you whether you're overconfident with your resources and abilities, yet will reward you with less tasks per page once you've done lots of your items.
You see, one thing about SF that I don't like is that it <punishes> you for thinking of urgent things to do and for leaving tasks unfinished. Just think for a moment: in SF, whenever you think of something urgent to do or leave a task unfinished, you add an item to C2 of either the next page or your current page. That means you <add> items to do in supposedly a closed page: for example, you left a page with 10 tasks left in it, and when you get back to it you find that page's tasks had just climbed to 15! And you <have> to do all 5 of the additional tasks (aside from the other tasks in that page) <before> you can leave it...only to find that you have added <again> to the page you are going to! I mean, who will <not> develop resistance to the idea?!
Not so with this system: each and every page tops with 25 tasks, and you cannot add to them. That means every time you do CF, you decrease the number of tasks for consideration in each page you have processed with CF. Well, yes, you add to the end of your list everytime you add unfinished and urgent tasks there, but that is what we do to ALL AF's, even SF, right?
Anyways, sorry for the rant.
God bless.
June 5, 2011 at 2:40 |
nuntym
nuntym
@Alan
"What is a great low-overhead high-yield planning method?"
Miindmapping!
"What is a great low-overhead high-yield planning method?"
Miindmapping!
June 5, 2011 at 12:38 |
Erik
Erik
<< Miindmapping! >>
Alternatively, Collapsible Outlining.
Mindmapping just join the two ends of the outlining list into a circle. ;-)
http://getitdone.quickanddirtytips.com/streamline-your-writing.aspx "Streamline Your Writing Using Outline Tools"
Alternatively, Collapsible Outlining.
Mindmapping just join the two ends of the outlining list into a circle. ;-)
http://getitdone.quickanddirtytips.com/streamline-your-writing.aspx "Streamline Your Writing Using Outline Tools"
June 6, 2011 at 8:23 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
'What is a great low-overhead high-yield planning method? '
Do you reeeaally want something simple, though?
Do you reeeaally want something simple, though?
June 7, 2011 at 15:39 |
smileypete
smileypete
Um, If it works well,why not?
June 7, 2011 at 16:08 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
OK, what I find very useful to divide things into different areas on paper, then prioritise within and between those areas.
I can then cover the main priorities in different areas, but have the option to pick up on any 'loose ends' in those areas as well (something that AF/SF/GTD doesn't handle so well!)
I find it helpful to work out a quick 'game plan' for the day to best cover the areas I need to. During the day I can also do or add anything that comes up as I go.
Simple enough? Too simple? :-)
I can give some concrete real life examples if that helps.
I can then cover the main priorities in different areas, but have the option to pick up on any 'loose ends' in those areas as well (something that AF/SF/GTD doesn't handle so well!)
I find it helpful to work out a quick 'game plan' for the day to best cover the areas I need to. During the day I can also do or add anything that comes up as I go.
Simple enough? Too simple? :-)
I can give some concrete real life examples if that helps.
June 8, 2011 at 10:16 |
smileypete
smileypete
So, Alan, is that low overhead and high yield enough for you?
Or despite that is it just too simple, and not complicated enough? :-)
Or despite that is it just too simple, and not complicated enough? :-)
June 10, 2011 at 14:49 |
smileypete
smileypete
Thanks for the reminder. It seems like a good idea. I have not tried it to see whether it really works. Will do.
June 10, 2011 at 18:57 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Ref mindmapping ...
I just found Thinking Space for Android, http://www.thinkingspace.net/ , that looks to be a very good mind mapping app. That leads me to reading Mark's views on FreeMind/ MindManager http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/7/28/mindmanager.html and using mind mapping for hard thinking http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/7/19/hard-thinking.html ...
I just found Thinking Space for Android, http://www.thinkingspace.net/ , that looks to be a very good mind mapping app. That leads me to reading Mark's views on FreeMind/ MindManager http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/7/28/mindmanager.html and using mind mapping for hard thinking http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/7/19/hard-thinking.html ...
June 12, 2011 at 12:29 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
SuperFocus, etc. don't deal much with planning directly, but I'm convinced planning is a very important aspect of working on big important things. But is GTD/GTP a great planning method? Is Dreams? Is "write 'plan XYZ' in SuperFocus? What is a great low-overhead high-yield planning method?