Discussion Forum > Cleaning the system
Alan, my SF list has reached this stage too. It was a consequence of getting my page count down to a manageable number: the unmanageable part of that number became dismissals!
I wonder whether it would help (perhaps, would even be fun) to run dismissal the same way we run regular actioning, by scanning the dismissed pages for items that "stand out" in one of the following ways:
- delete it
- set a reminder for a future date, when it is likely to be more relevant
- file it with a related project (not to be seen again until working on that project)
- reenter it in C1 to become active right now
And when you visit a page without anything standing out, then it's time to, er, "dismiss" the dismissed page, which can only mean ... a Someday/Maybe list?
Perhaps a better name would be a Clutter list.
Being a bit of a pack rat, I handle clutter by boxing it up and storing it away, without forcing myself to part with it just yet. After a few months, it is much easier to get rid of a large portion of it—never all of it, but certainly much of it. Some of it will turn out to have been sorely missed ("so thaaaaat's where that went!") and promptly reinstated, but that is rare.
So, if our doubly-dismissed pages went into a Someday/Maybe/Clutter file, and if we were to review them at rare sporadic intervals, perhaps we would gain the upper hand.
A little system like this might be a lot of fun:
- make a "tickler" file system with folders for each month
- put doubly-dismissed pages in next month's folder
- review them again when that month arrives
- if nothing stands out, push it ahead two months this time; next time four, then eight, etc. (make little notes about this interval at top of page)
- if anything stands out, the page gets "new life" by pushing ahead only one month.
The more stale a page gets, the less we have to look at it. Yet, if we ever wake up in a cold sweat, wondering whether some dismissed item from three months ago has become terribly, suddenly urgent, we can easily rifle through those tickler folders in about ten minutes.
Eventually, when it is time to put the page off for a year or more, we will finally be struck by its utter silliness and just toss the thing in the trash.
As a final coup, we could make a file called Things I Possibly May Never Do At All But Don't Want To Forget.
Where's the harm? The key is to have the right buckets, yes? And perhaps this is precisely the bucket that's been missing. We can safely stuff things in there and then forget all about them. If that's what it takes to get the dirt out of our way, I'm game.
I wonder whether it would help (perhaps, would even be fun) to run dismissal the same way we run regular actioning, by scanning the dismissed pages for items that "stand out" in one of the following ways:
- delete it
- set a reminder for a future date, when it is likely to be more relevant
- file it with a related project (not to be seen again until working on that project)
- reenter it in C1 to become active right now
And when you visit a page without anything standing out, then it's time to, er, "dismiss" the dismissed page, which can only mean ... a Someday/Maybe list?
Perhaps a better name would be a Clutter list.
Being a bit of a pack rat, I handle clutter by boxing it up and storing it away, without forcing myself to part with it just yet. After a few months, it is much easier to get rid of a large portion of it—never all of it, but certainly much of it. Some of it will turn out to have been sorely missed ("so thaaaaat's where that went!") and promptly reinstated, but that is rare.
So, if our doubly-dismissed pages went into a Someday/Maybe/Clutter file, and if we were to review them at rare sporadic intervals, perhaps we would gain the upper hand.
A little system like this might be a lot of fun:
- make a "tickler" file system with folders for each month
- put doubly-dismissed pages in next month's folder
- review them again when that month arrives
- if nothing stands out, push it ahead two months this time; next time four, then eight, etc. (make little notes about this interval at top of page)
- if anything stands out, the page gets "new life" by pushing ahead only one month.
The more stale a page gets, the less we have to look at it. Yet, if we ever wake up in a cold sweat, wondering whether some dismissed item from three months ago has become terribly, suddenly urgent, we can easily rifle through those tickler folders in about ten minutes.
Eventually, when it is time to put the page off for a year or more, we will finally be struck by its utter silliness and just toss the thing in the trash.
As a final coup, we could make a file called Things I Possibly May Never Do At All But Don't Want To Forget.
Where's the harm? The key is to have the right buckets, yes? And perhaps this is precisely the bucket that's been missing. We can safely stuff things in there and then forget all about them. If that's what it takes to get the dirt out of our way, I'm game.
June 10, 2011 at 3:22 |
Bernie
Bernie
Hi Alan and all, Thanks for this topic. I find it very interesting.
From my own experiences I realized that my list increased little by little until it gets unmanageable. Of course I dismiss a lot and cross, and clean but the result was that i needed sometime to start a new list and extract from the oldest one the most important tasks for reporting on the new one. I thought it was the price to pay for using the system, until I found a solution which works quiet well even if it is tiring...
I spoke about Omnifocus. As you know I use this software to collect my project and future or may be tasks and plan my bigs rocks about them. On the other hand I use SF for collecting everything which happen and act on my tasks. The problem was to work on both system ! But I found the key !!!!
It is REVIEW !!!!!
At the beginning of my day I put on my AF everything which comes to my mind. Then I go to Omnifocus and extract all tasks which are actionable today. Then I let AF fulling little by little.
At the end of the day I have about 1 or 2 A4 pages. Then I check all the task and report on OF with start date and due date. This is very boring it takes me from 15 mn to 1 hour but it is necessary.
Little by little the system works well because all is centralized in OF.
Once a week I do my weekly review, erases tasks and projects, add start and dues dates, report on AF the most important weekly projects, report on diary the deadlines and plan tasks I have to do about my future appointments.
So the system is auto cleaned by theses review. I find it very tiring and boring but I must admit that since I do this the system works very fast and cleans my non valuable tasks. Another advantage is have at a glance the all list of my project which are about 250 for the moment.
Hope this help
From my own experiences I realized that my list increased little by little until it gets unmanageable. Of course I dismiss a lot and cross, and clean but the result was that i needed sometime to start a new list and extract from the oldest one the most important tasks for reporting on the new one. I thought it was the price to pay for using the system, until I found a solution which works quiet well even if it is tiring...
I spoke about Omnifocus. As you know I use this software to collect my project and future or may be tasks and plan my bigs rocks about them. On the other hand I use SF for collecting everything which happen and act on my tasks. The problem was to work on both system ! But I found the key !!!!
It is REVIEW !!!!!
At the beginning of my day I put on my AF everything which comes to my mind. Then I go to Omnifocus and extract all tasks which are actionable today. Then I let AF fulling little by little.
At the end of the day I have about 1 or 2 A4 pages. Then I check all the task and report on OF with start date and due date. This is very boring it takes me from 15 mn to 1 hour but it is necessary.
Little by little the system works well because all is centralized in OF.
Once a week I do my weekly review, erases tasks and projects, add start and dues dates, report on AF the most important weekly projects, report on diary the deadlines and plan tasks I have to do about my future appointments.
So the system is auto cleaned by theses review. I find it very tiring and boring but I must admit that since I do this the system works very fast and cleans my non valuable tasks. Another advantage is have at a glance the all list of my project which are about 250 for the moment.
Hope this help
June 10, 2011 at 8:31 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
Another option would be to declare all lists and files as closed, start a new notebook from scratch, write a new list with the current commitments, and use all the old lists and files as quarry for ideas and info.
June 10, 2011 at 8:45 |
Rainer
Rainer
Basically the idea of dismissal is to get things off your active list, so that it is kept reasonably short.
Tasks should remain as dismissed items (i.e. highlighted but not crossed out) only if there is a reasonable prospect of their being re-instated in the reasonable future (a week or so).
Otherwise they should be crossed out altogether, preferably immediately, but certainly as soon as it becomes apparent that they are not going to be done in a week or so.
If you have more than around twenty dismissed tasks awaiting review, you have too many.
If you think something might become urgent at some time in the future or you want to review it again, put a reminder on Outlook or whatever to look at it again.
If you want to keep lists of things you're never going to do, you are of course free to do so just as you are free to fill your house with old copies of magazines and newspapers. But don't imagine it has anything to do with time management!
Tasks should remain as dismissed items (i.e. highlighted but not crossed out) only if there is a reasonable prospect of their being re-instated in the reasonable future (a week or so).
Otherwise they should be crossed out altogether, preferably immediately, but certainly as soon as it becomes apparent that they are not going to be done in a week or so.
If you have more than around twenty dismissed tasks awaiting review, you have too many.
If you think something might become urgent at some time in the future or you want to review it again, put a reminder on Outlook or whatever to look at it again.
If you want to keep lists of things you're never going to do, you are of course free to do so just as you are free to fill your house with old copies of magazines and newspapers. But don't imagine it has anything to do with time management!
June 10, 2011 at 9:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Somehow I was never quite aware of the "week or so" scale for reinstating dismissed tasks. For my case that should be refined to "a month or so" for housework as corresponds to the relative frequency of doing work around the house. But even the 1 week guideline for work is tough. What I mean is, there's all kinds of things that I know ought to be done, but they aren't urgent. I don't know when they will be got to, but it's probably after the current big project is achieved. I have no idea when that will be, but it's way longer than a week, and also less than a year.
I think these things come down to planning and filing. If I file this information in the right place, and have a plan that will bring that file back to action in the future, that should serve. It's harder to do that "stick it in August", but I think it's more valuable if organized.
I have definitely come to regard all things such as "Things I Possibly May Never Do At All But Don't Want To Forget." as dangerous clutter. If it's just a mass of things, it will constantly grow and never do anything of value. I think you (I) need to get precise about each such thing and determine when and why you might want to remember such things, and in thinking about that detail, decide for most that forgetting is not a big deal, OR on what occasion will you want this thing to come back.
I tend to think along Bernie's lines, but I think we both should be more aggressive in cutting things down. Even well-organized files are just clutter if you never go through them. And even if you go through them, it's still clutter if it's mostly (well-organized) things that you will never touch. Maybe REVIEW is an answer, but the sooner you kill things, the less you need to be bothered by their presence.
I think these things come down to planning and filing. If I file this information in the right place, and have a plan that will bring that file back to action in the future, that should serve. It's harder to do that "stick it in August", but I think it's more valuable if organized.
I have definitely come to regard all things such as "Things I Possibly May Never Do At All But Don't Want To Forget." as dangerous clutter. If it's just a mass of things, it will constantly grow and never do anything of value. I think you (I) need to get precise about each such thing and determine when and why you might want to remember such things, and in thinking about that detail, decide for most that forgetting is not a big deal, OR on what occasion will you want this thing to come back.
I tend to think along Bernie's lines, but I think we both should be more aggressive in cutting things down. Even well-organized files are just clutter if you never go through them. And even if you go through them, it's still clutter if it's mostly (well-organized) things that you will never touch. Maybe REVIEW is an answer, but the sooner you kill things, the less you need to be bothered by their presence.
June 10, 2011 at 14:09 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
A few questions to think about:
Why am I afraid of losing this thing, item, or idea?
Does this pile of paper protect me?
Am I commited to do this task, or am I afraid of doing it?
Is there a better way to appreciate my fear than holding onto things I possibly never will do?
Hm, well, questions not only to think about, but also to feel about.
Why am I afraid of losing this thing, item, or idea?
Does this pile of paper protect me?
Am I commited to do this task, or am I afraid of doing it?
Is there a better way to appreciate my fear than holding onto things I possibly never will do?
Hm, well, questions not only to think about, but also to feel about.
June 10, 2011 at 14:46 |
Rainer
Rainer
I found DWM solved this issue very well. Most mornings there are a few tasks ready for review, and I nearly always delete them. As it's a computer file, the dismissed items don't pile up. I did wonder whether the list size would be similarly stable in SF.
June 11, 2011 at 14:14 |
Laurence
Laurence
Basically a list of "Things I May Never Do At All But Don't Want to Forget" is just clutter.
Why?
Because if the project means anything to you at all, it will resurface in your mind in any case.
If it doesn't resurface in your mind, then what have you lost?
Note that this is different from drawing up a list of things you DO intend to do and then actively working at ticking them off one by one.
Why?
Because if the project means anything to you at all, it will resurface in your mind in any case.
If it doesn't resurface in your mind, then what have you lost?
Note that this is different from drawing up a list of things you DO intend to do and then actively working at ticking them off one by one.
June 11, 2011 at 15:46 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, what a huge change this would be for my SuperFocus notebook!!
<<[Dismissed tasks] should be crossed out altogether, preferably immediately, but certainly as soon as it becomes apparent that they are not going to be done in a week or so. ... If you have more than around twenty dismissed tasks awaiting review, you have too many.>>
With this principle in mind, I can see much more clearly how SuperFocus worked for you and how you got through the list and through those reviews so nicely.
This has deep, deep implications for how one uses SuperFocus and even for what its purpose is perceived to be. Is it for time management, for planning, for idea capture ... and what do we mean by "time management" anyway?
Clearly, SuperFocus is at least for idea capture: "throw anything at it." This is not limited to things we'll do this week, but to anything at all, including pure speculation. We have all experienced SuperFocus' sifting power: no need to categorize, prioritize, calendarize ... just see what stands out.
This brings us to time management. If "time management" means answering "what am I going to do right now?" then SuperFocus' major feature—its C1/C2 process of scanning and standing out—covers time management.
But some tasks don't stand out. They are sifted away by dismissal. This brings us to planning (and Alan's "dirt"), which is where, it seems, some of us have been confused. I have been using SuperFocus as a kind of intuitive medium-range planning tool. Its no-categories, no-priorities, free-wheeling structure was so appealing that I imagined it gradually chewing on all of my ideas, sifting and resifting and resifting until things eventually got done. This worked wonderfully in many cases. I would start a project, get stuck, put it on hold, see it dismissed, let it incubate for a month until I had a new idea, then pull it out of dismissal and watch it get finished.
But if I had used the one-week standard, things would have been different. I'd have quickly struck that project from SuperFocus and filed it someplace for later review, maybe tucked it into a next month's tickler folder. This could work, but I would need better structures to handle the volume of dismissals. It's hard to imagine a filing system that would beat SuperFocus for incremental review, the way it keeps putting these "stuck" items in front of me so that even when they don't stand out, I am still having ideas about them.
But perhaps that is an essential tradeoff: the one-week shelf life makes SuperFocus a very tight, efficient time management system ("what am I going to do right now?") while planning is left to other structures and other processes. Maybe getting through that list multiple times a day, with only twenty items to review, is so efficient that it creates plenty of space to revive items from those other structures?
Mark, is this what are you thinking? You once gave a "sifting" example of entering a long list of books to read in the future and seeing them quickly dismissed. Assuming you would not read them all in a week, what would you do with those titles once they were dismissed and struck out? What would be the value of having entered them?
<<... if the project means anything to you at all, it will resurface in your mind in any case. If it doesn't resurface in your mind, then what have you lost?>>
Though this is anathema to the "write everything down to get it off your mind" camp, which I bought into years ago, you clearly have a point.
I think it is a question of energy drain. Some tasks will drain energy by sitting on my list not getting done week after week, but other tasks will drain energy if not written down and gotten out of my head. I don't want to attempt a taxonomy, but it seems clear that both exist. Then there are tasks with data attached (measurements, software version #, etc.) that will not pop back into my head on their own.
Well, what do all you forum readers think? Am I terribly far off with all this? Is anyone else struck by a dismissal shelf life of one week and twenty items?
<<[Dismissed tasks] should be crossed out altogether, preferably immediately, but certainly as soon as it becomes apparent that they are not going to be done in a week or so. ... If you have more than around twenty dismissed tasks awaiting review, you have too many.>>
With this principle in mind, I can see much more clearly how SuperFocus worked for you and how you got through the list and through those reviews so nicely.
This has deep, deep implications for how one uses SuperFocus and even for what its purpose is perceived to be. Is it for time management, for planning, for idea capture ... and what do we mean by "time management" anyway?
Clearly, SuperFocus is at least for idea capture: "throw anything at it." This is not limited to things we'll do this week, but to anything at all, including pure speculation. We have all experienced SuperFocus' sifting power: no need to categorize, prioritize, calendarize ... just see what stands out.
This brings us to time management. If "time management" means answering "what am I going to do right now?" then SuperFocus' major feature—its C1/C2 process of scanning and standing out—covers time management.
But some tasks don't stand out. They are sifted away by dismissal. This brings us to planning (and Alan's "dirt"), which is where, it seems, some of us have been confused. I have been using SuperFocus as a kind of intuitive medium-range planning tool. Its no-categories, no-priorities, free-wheeling structure was so appealing that I imagined it gradually chewing on all of my ideas, sifting and resifting and resifting until things eventually got done. This worked wonderfully in many cases. I would start a project, get stuck, put it on hold, see it dismissed, let it incubate for a month until I had a new idea, then pull it out of dismissal and watch it get finished.
But if I had used the one-week standard, things would have been different. I'd have quickly struck that project from SuperFocus and filed it someplace for later review, maybe tucked it into a next month's tickler folder. This could work, but I would need better structures to handle the volume of dismissals. It's hard to imagine a filing system that would beat SuperFocus for incremental review, the way it keeps putting these "stuck" items in front of me so that even when they don't stand out, I am still having ideas about them.
But perhaps that is an essential tradeoff: the one-week shelf life makes SuperFocus a very tight, efficient time management system ("what am I going to do right now?") while planning is left to other structures and other processes. Maybe getting through that list multiple times a day, with only twenty items to review, is so efficient that it creates plenty of space to revive items from those other structures?
Mark, is this what are you thinking? You once gave a "sifting" example of entering a long list of books to read in the future and seeing them quickly dismissed. Assuming you would not read them all in a week, what would you do with those titles once they were dismissed and struck out? What would be the value of having entered them?
<<... if the project means anything to you at all, it will resurface in your mind in any case. If it doesn't resurface in your mind, then what have you lost?>>
Though this is anathema to the "write everything down to get it off your mind" camp, which I bought into years ago, you clearly have a point.
I think it is a question of energy drain. Some tasks will drain energy by sitting on my list not getting done week after week, but other tasks will drain energy if not written down and gotten out of my head. I don't want to attempt a taxonomy, but it seems clear that both exist. Then there are tasks with data attached (measurements, software version #, etc.) that will not pop back into my head on their own.
Well, what do all you forum readers think? Am I terribly far off with all this? Is anyone else struck by a dismissal shelf life of one week and twenty items?
June 18, 2011 at 9:19 |
Bernie
Bernie
<<Basically a list of "Things I May Never Do At All But Don't Want to Forget" is just clutter.>>
Well, I was being a tad facetious with that label, but yes, much of that list is clutter, and the all-around best thing would be to discard that clutter immediately. The trouble is that some of it is not clutter—in fact it is very valuable—and I am the sort who has trouble telling the difference when I am in the thick of things.
For example, I spent eight years devoted to a certain rare style of kung fu, and thus I kept certain gear, books, some DVD's, a practice routine, and various related to-dos. However, in the middle of that eight-year period, I spent several two-to-four-month stints doing very little and about 14 months (in a row) almost entirely neglecting it. Had I applied a standard de-cluttering process in that 13th month—you know, "throw out anything you haven't used in six months"—I'd have had to dump all of those items.
Yet, in the fifteenth month, I came back to it as strong as ever and went on for another four years of very dedicated work and life-changing experiences. Among the items saved by not "decluttering" were rare course manuals (printed just once, for a specific seminar), my notes taken during classes, and of course the uniforms and shoes that I did not have to buy all over again.
The key is that, during that 13th month, I really did not know whether I was ever coming back to that practice. All I knew is that I was still drawn to the topic and hence to those items, and even to those to-dos (books to track down, training variations to try, etc.).
Lest this kung fu thing sound gratuitously rare and contrived, here are some others:
- Mark's "five book" system, for managing reading material, has been dismissed from my SuperFocus list twice and threatens to do so again. But I *like* it! Though I have deleted many other items off my list, I still feel drawn to this one and do not want to delete it.
- I once bought an ultrasonic toothbrush and did not open the box for three years. But now, I've been using it every day for seven years, and I don't miss those first three years at all. The unopened box took up some room on my counter, but only slightly more room than the opened, in-use item does now.
- I found an old analog tape cassette and told a friend I will digitize it and post mp3's. Although this was over two years ago, I am still absolutely certain I will do it, and I look forward to having it finished. I have actually done one or two preparatory things about it, but it just hasn't risen above the racket of everyday life yet. And yes, it's been dismissed from SuperFocus a couple of times since March.
Well, having outed myself as a Truly Silly Person, all I can say is there is a very real class of items & tasks that I intuitively know have value to me, despite the fact that I can't say when/if I will take my next action on them. The passage of time helps a lot, always revealing another wave of stuff to discard, stuff that no longer has any appeal, but always a critical slice remains.
Well, I was being a tad facetious with that label, but yes, much of that list is clutter, and the all-around best thing would be to discard that clutter immediately. The trouble is that some of it is not clutter—in fact it is very valuable—and I am the sort who has trouble telling the difference when I am in the thick of things.
For example, I spent eight years devoted to a certain rare style of kung fu, and thus I kept certain gear, books, some DVD's, a practice routine, and various related to-dos. However, in the middle of that eight-year period, I spent several two-to-four-month stints doing very little and about 14 months (in a row) almost entirely neglecting it. Had I applied a standard de-cluttering process in that 13th month—you know, "throw out anything you haven't used in six months"—I'd have had to dump all of those items.
Yet, in the fifteenth month, I came back to it as strong as ever and went on for another four years of very dedicated work and life-changing experiences. Among the items saved by not "decluttering" were rare course manuals (printed just once, for a specific seminar), my notes taken during classes, and of course the uniforms and shoes that I did not have to buy all over again.
The key is that, during that 13th month, I really did not know whether I was ever coming back to that practice. All I knew is that I was still drawn to the topic and hence to those items, and even to those to-dos (books to track down, training variations to try, etc.).
Lest this kung fu thing sound gratuitously rare and contrived, here are some others:
- Mark's "five book" system, for managing reading material, has been dismissed from my SuperFocus list twice and threatens to do so again. But I *like* it! Though I have deleted many other items off my list, I still feel drawn to this one and do not want to delete it.
- I once bought an ultrasonic toothbrush and did not open the box for three years. But now, I've been using it every day for seven years, and I don't miss those first three years at all. The unopened box took up some room on my counter, but only slightly more room than the opened, in-use item does now.
- I found an old analog tape cassette and told a friend I will digitize it and post mp3's. Although this was over two years ago, I am still absolutely certain I will do it, and I look forward to having it finished. I have actually done one or two preparatory things about it, but it just hasn't risen above the racket of everyday life yet. And yes, it's been dismissed from SuperFocus a couple of times since March.
Well, having outed myself as a Truly Silly Person, all I can say is there is a very real class of items & tasks that I intuitively know have value to me, despite the fact that I can't say when/if I will take my next action on them. The passage of time helps a lot, always revealing another wave of stuff to discard, stuff that no longer has any appeal, but always a critical slice remains.
June 18, 2011 at 9:47 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie:
In answer to your two posts above:
1) My recommendation is that if you think something needs reviewing after a period of time has passed then it should go into a reminder system. Outlook Tasks is ideal for this and means you can vary the review timing for different projects. For instance you may feel you want to review whether to read "War and Peace" in a month's time, but your project to sail solo around the world would be better off reviewed in a year's time. Leaving them in AF/SF would simply clutter your mind up (not to mention your notebook).
2) Can I point out that your Kung Fu example doesn't actually fall into the category of "Things I May Never Do At All But Don't Want to Forget"? This category doesn't refer to things you've been working at for four years already! Neither does the mp3 example since you are "absolutely certain" you are going to do it. I could also point out that if you had had a rigorous de-cluttering programme it might have resulted in your using the toothbrush several years earlier than you actually did. What's that leave us with? Oh, yes, my five-book system. Cross it off your list and I bet you'll have a go at using it in less than five months!
In answer to your two posts above:
1) My recommendation is that if you think something needs reviewing after a period of time has passed then it should go into a reminder system. Outlook Tasks is ideal for this and means you can vary the review timing for different projects. For instance you may feel you want to review whether to read "War and Peace" in a month's time, but your project to sail solo around the world would be better off reviewed in a year's time. Leaving them in AF/SF would simply clutter your mind up (not to mention your notebook).
2) Can I point out that your Kung Fu example doesn't actually fall into the category of "Things I May Never Do At All But Don't Want to Forget"? This category doesn't refer to things you've been working at for four years already! Neither does the mp3 example since you are "absolutely certain" you are going to do it. I could also point out that if you had had a rigorous de-cluttering programme it might have resulted in your using the toothbrush several years earlier than you actually did. What's that leave us with? Oh, yes, my five-book system. Cross it off your list and I bet you'll have a go at using it in less than five months!
June 18, 2011 at 10:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, thank you for making it all the way through my long posts on a Saturday.
I have to conclude we are saying the same things, though I seem to have really muddied the waters by naming my category "Things I May Never Do At All But Don't Want to Forget."
Let's rename it "Maybe." Whenever I de-clutter, physical items or tasks, there is always a hefty Maybe pile in addition to the Yes and No piles. My Maybe pile is intractable against such simple rules as "if you haven't used it in six months ..." and so for a system to work for me, it has to be at peace with my Maybe pile, as SuperFocus has been.
A highly exhilarating part of my SuperFocus experience has been watching these Maybes get done, NOW, one by one, without resistance, without some ridiculous process of sorting/estimating/scheduling, without vainly trying to rationalize why I know intuitively that "I'm not done with that thing yet!" That's why this topic has stirred up my passion—if I have to shuttle my Maybes away into a mausoleum of a file system, then we are back to the bad old days of incubator lists and Weekly Reviews, etc.
But you are right: beyond a certain critical mass, the Maybes gum up the works. So when my list grows too long, I will have to compromise by moving some of the dismissed Maybes into a reminder/review system. I think I will simply take the oldest ones and "box them up," the way I box up physical clutter to revisit in a few months. The passage of time is very effective at turning my Maybes into Yesses or Nos, and the really neat thing is that time runs all by itself!
As for the examples, you are right that the tape doesn't fit. Nevertheless, I am looking at my list now, and there is no shortage of examples to replace it, such as my idea to swap the closet door for the bathroom door because they face opposite directions but the bathroom door has a dent on the outside ... and other equally amazing gems. I could cross them out, but they will just nag me while I'm taking a shower. The kung fu stuff really was a Maybe, for over a year, as I really wasn't sure that I was ever going back; items we've used in the past become clutter the moment we know that we won't want them in the future.
So, we are agreed: stale dismissals migrate to a reminder/review system. Mine will have a major section called "Maybe," but I will also strive to keep a good selection of fresher Maybes out on the main list, hoping they will suddenly get done and exhilarate me.
From one dad to another,
Happy Father's Day!
(If it's not that day in the UK, feel free to have good feelings anyway!)
I have to conclude we are saying the same things, though I seem to have really muddied the waters by naming my category "Things I May Never Do At All But Don't Want to Forget."
Let's rename it "Maybe." Whenever I de-clutter, physical items or tasks, there is always a hefty Maybe pile in addition to the Yes and No piles. My Maybe pile is intractable against such simple rules as "if you haven't used it in six months ..." and so for a system to work for me, it has to be at peace with my Maybe pile, as SuperFocus has been.
A highly exhilarating part of my SuperFocus experience has been watching these Maybes get done, NOW, one by one, without resistance, without some ridiculous process of sorting/estimating/scheduling, without vainly trying to rationalize why I know intuitively that "I'm not done with that thing yet!" That's why this topic has stirred up my passion—if I have to shuttle my Maybes away into a mausoleum of a file system, then we are back to the bad old days of incubator lists and Weekly Reviews, etc.
But you are right: beyond a certain critical mass, the Maybes gum up the works. So when my list grows too long, I will have to compromise by moving some of the dismissed Maybes into a reminder/review system. I think I will simply take the oldest ones and "box them up," the way I box up physical clutter to revisit in a few months. The passage of time is very effective at turning my Maybes into Yesses or Nos, and the really neat thing is that time runs all by itself!
As for the examples, you are right that the tape doesn't fit. Nevertheless, I am looking at my list now, and there is no shortage of examples to replace it, such as my idea to swap the closet door for the bathroom door because they face opposite directions but the bathroom door has a dent on the outside ... and other equally amazing gems. I could cross them out, but they will just nag me while I'm taking a shower. The kung fu stuff really was a Maybe, for over a year, as I really wasn't sure that I was ever going back; items we've used in the past become clutter the moment we know that we won't want them in the future.
So, we are agreed: stale dismissals migrate to a reminder/review system. Mine will have a major section called "Maybe," but I will also strive to keep a good selection of fresher Maybes out on the main list, hoping they will suddenly get done and exhilarate me.
From one dad to another,
Happy Father's Day!
(If it's not that day in the UK, feel free to have good feelings anyway!)
June 19, 2011 at 8:35 |
Bernie
Bernie
I couldn't abide a huge and growing list of undifferentiated maybes. I also would not be comfortable setting a date, such as 6 months from now, and setting things aside like that.
My solution — I'm not sure it's the best — is to take your swap door project and file it under home improvement. ( I would consider also whether I really need a written reminder. I could just delete this one. ) Then I add home improvement to AF if it's not already there. Likely that door swap isn't standing out because I don't hugely mind the dent, there are bigger more exciting projects going, i'm busy, etc.
When the governor announces he'll stay at my place next year, I'll pull out the Home Improvement file and operation door swap will stand out.
In the event Home Improvement gets dismissed, I'll seek out a larger category (maintain my stuff?) and file it there.
As one final measure, I have a perpetual Review Files task which gets me to go through and keep these files trim but not forgotten. Here ( as well as above ) it helps to keep your big picture in mind. Consider what really matters as you don't need to keep files for things that don't matter.
Not sure mine is the best approach, but dodges the giant Maybe.
My solution — I'm not sure it's the best — is to take your swap door project and file it under home improvement. ( I would consider also whether I really need a written reminder. I could just delete this one. ) Then I add home improvement to AF if it's not already there. Likely that door swap isn't standing out because I don't hugely mind the dent, there are bigger more exciting projects going, i'm busy, etc.
When the governor announces he'll stay at my place next year, I'll pull out the Home Improvement file and operation door swap will stand out.
In the event Home Improvement gets dismissed, I'll seek out a larger category (maintain my stuff?) and file it there.
As one final measure, I have a perpetual Review Files task which gets me to go through and keep these files trim but not forgotten. Here ( as well as above ) it helps to keep your big picture in mind. Consider what really matters as you don't need to keep files for things that don't matter.
Not sure mine is the best approach, but dodges the giant Maybe.
June 19, 2011 at 13:59 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Sometimes I find myself using something like Alan's approach.
Example: Item A and Item B are never standing out, and upon reflection I realize it's because they are interdependent in some way. I can't realistically give each one due consideration standing on its own.
When I realize this is happening, there are several things I can do:
- I can rewrite the two tasks to address more effectively what needs to be done. Maybe Item B must be done first, and only then can I do Item A. So I will rewrite it as "Do B, then A"
- I can group them into a "project", enter the "project" on my list, and file the details of Items A and B in a project folder (Alan's approach)
- I can search through my list to find other related tasks that might also need simultaneous consideration
- I can use a combination of the above approaches
In general I don't like burying tasks in topical folders because the general topics never stand out for me. So I only do this when it's really necessary, and then I try to write the project onto my list in such a way as to make sure it's engaging in some way -- perhaps a few words reminding me of one of the key tasks for that project.
Example: Item A and Item B are never standing out, and upon reflection I realize it's because they are interdependent in some way. I can't realistically give each one due consideration standing on its own.
When I realize this is happening, there are several things I can do:
- I can rewrite the two tasks to address more effectively what needs to be done. Maybe Item B must be done first, and only then can I do Item A. So I will rewrite it as "Do B, then A"
- I can group them into a "project", enter the "project" on my list, and file the details of Items A and B in a project folder (Alan's approach)
- I can search through my list to find other related tasks that might also need simultaneous consideration
- I can use a combination of the above approaches
In general I don't like burying tasks in topical folders because the general topics never stand out for me. So I only do this when it's really necessary, and then I try to write the project onto my list in such a way as to make sure it's engaging in some way -- perhaps a few words reminding me of one of the key tasks for that project.
June 22, 2011 at 21:14 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<< In general I don't like burying tasks in topical folders because the general topics never stand out for me.>>
Same problem for me too, Seraphim. I find it tremendously more effective when the actual detail is on the list, rather than its topic or project name. This seems to have created a lot of resistance to scratching things off the list!
But as always, we don't know how a system will really work until we try it. If I return to SuperFocus, I will experiment with ruthlessly scratching things out. At the moment, though, my C2 is inactive, and the notebook has become a loose version of AF that runs sort of in the background of the "Dreams" process. That is, when I feel "Pulled" to write reminders. ;)
Same problem for me too, Seraphim. I find it tremendously more effective when the actual detail is on the list, rather than its topic or project name. This seems to have created a lot of resistance to scratching things off the list!
But as always, we don't know how a system will really work until we try it. If I return to SuperFocus, I will experiment with ruthlessly scratching things out. At the moment, though, my C2 is inactive, and the notebook has become a loose version of AF that runs sort of in the background of the "Dreams" process. That is, when I feel "Pulled" to write reminders. ;)
June 23, 2011 at 6:59 |
Bernie
Bernie
+JMJ+
>><< In general I don't like burying tasks in topical folders because the general topics never stand out for me.>>
Same problem for me too, Seraphim. I find it tremendously more effective when the actual detail is on the list, rather than its topic or project name. This seems to have created a lot of resistance to scratching things off the list!<<
In CAF, project tasks are already incorporated into the list. No need to put them in separate files except for resources and other information for each project. Also, I found CAF to be good at both maintaining one's focus for long periods of time at a particular task or project (what I like to call "brute forcing") through micro goals, AND encouraging "little and often." I have less resistance in finishing projects and previously tough tasks now.
God bless.
>><< In general I don't like burying tasks in topical folders because the general topics never stand out for me.>>
Same problem for me too, Seraphim. I find it tremendously more effective when the actual detail is on the list, rather than its topic or project name. This seems to have created a lot of resistance to scratching things off the list!<<
In CAF, project tasks are already incorporated into the list. No need to put them in separate files except for resources and other information for each project. Also, I found CAF to be good at both maintaining one's focus for long periods of time at a particular task or project (what I like to call "brute forcing") through micro goals, AND encouraging "little and often." I have less resistance in finishing projects and previously tough tasks now.
God bless.
June 23, 2011 at 7:21 |
nuntym
nuntym
<< In general I don't like burying tasks in topical folders because the general topics never stand out for me.>>
I concur, but the key (for me) is the way in which these topical folders are used.
a) stuff goes into the folder only when they didn't stand out, yet will be needed later.
b) as soon as something is inserted, also pull something out that relates.
c) as soon as something is completed related to the topic, the folder is consulted for followup.
So it doesn't ever need to stand out for its own sake.
I concur, but the key (for me) is the way in which these topical folders are used.
a) stuff goes into the folder only when they didn't stand out, yet will be needed later.
b) as soon as something is inserted, also pull something out that relates.
c) as soon as something is completed related to the topic, the folder is consulted for followup.
So it doesn't ever need to stand out for its own sake.
June 23, 2011 at 15:27 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<<I concur, but the key (for me) is the way in which these topical folders are used ...>>
Alan, your a/b/c criteria sound very sensible. I think I've even outlined something similar in earlier posts, but I haven't yet kept up even that minimal level of structure for more than a few days without forgetting all about it. Maybe I will get there in time.
Alan, your a/b/c criteria sound very sensible. I think I've even outlined something similar in earlier posts, but I haven't yet kept up even that minimal level of structure for more than a few days without forgetting all about it. Maybe I will get there in time.
June 24, 2011 at 3:21 |
Bernie
Bernie
Well, as long as you follow (a), you won't lose too much if you neglect (b) and (c)
:-)
:-)
June 24, 2011 at 14:57 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I think I've found a partial solution for dealing with the items buried in project folders.
At home, my inbox (non-urgent mail and papers) and stack of active project material of different sorts would grow and grow till an SF task would finally stand out and I'd go deal with them.
I didn't like dealing with these things in one big go -- nor in a periodic series of small goes (SF C2). I wanted to deal with them on a more continual basis. I was wishing that each item of mail, and each folder of project material, could each be an item on my SF list.
So I decided to organize my home tasks that way. I got a stack of 15 accordion folders, and put them on a shelf. I filled them up with current papers, tasks, folders, and odds and ends like old keys, an Ethernet cable I didn't know what to do with, an old cell phone I'm not sure I want to keep active, etc.
I then made some rules:
New material goes into the rightmost accordion folder. When it gets full, I add a new accordion folder.
One of the folders is red. It serves as a "bookmark", and it also serves the same purpose as SF Column 2.
I start each new period of discretionary time by going through the red folder. I look through everything in that folder, and work on whatever stands out (which is different from SF C2, which normally requires you to process EVERYTHING, not just whatever stands out.
I then replace the red folder on the shelf, and take down the accordion folder immediately to the right. I look through everything, and work on whatever stands out. If nothing stands out, the whole thing goes in the trash (or into a "dismissal bin" -- haven't worked this out completely yet). When I'm done, if there's still something left in this accordion folder, I replace it on the shelf to the LEFT of the red folder. I then take the red folder down again, and process it again.
Following this process, I quickly found that it was useful to group related tasks into project folders, and then put those project folders on the shelf, mixed in with all the other accordion folders. I come to each project in turn, look through everything in the folder, do whatever stands out. If it's urgent, or pressing, and I want to give it special attention, I can put the project folder into the red accordion folder. Otherwise I just put it back on the shelf with the rest of the accordion folders.
One nice thing about this is that I go through all the stuff in the project folders each time I come across it. So, things don't get buried -- they get looked at each cycle through the shelf.
I liked this so much I copied all my personal SF tasks out of the book and onto scraps of paper that are now in the accordion folders. So far it's working very nicely.
At home, my inbox (non-urgent mail and papers) and stack of active project material of different sorts would grow and grow till an SF task would finally stand out and I'd go deal with them.
I didn't like dealing with these things in one big go -- nor in a periodic series of small goes (SF C2). I wanted to deal with them on a more continual basis. I was wishing that each item of mail, and each folder of project material, could each be an item on my SF list.
So I decided to organize my home tasks that way. I got a stack of 15 accordion folders, and put them on a shelf. I filled them up with current papers, tasks, folders, and odds and ends like old keys, an Ethernet cable I didn't know what to do with, an old cell phone I'm not sure I want to keep active, etc.
I then made some rules:
New material goes into the rightmost accordion folder. When it gets full, I add a new accordion folder.
One of the folders is red. It serves as a "bookmark", and it also serves the same purpose as SF Column 2.
I start each new period of discretionary time by going through the red folder. I look through everything in that folder, and work on whatever stands out (which is different from SF C2, which normally requires you to process EVERYTHING, not just whatever stands out.
I then replace the red folder on the shelf, and take down the accordion folder immediately to the right. I look through everything, and work on whatever stands out. If nothing stands out, the whole thing goes in the trash (or into a "dismissal bin" -- haven't worked this out completely yet). When I'm done, if there's still something left in this accordion folder, I replace it on the shelf to the LEFT of the red folder. I then take the red folder down again, and process it again.
Following this process, I quickly found that it was useful to group related tasks into project folders, and then put those project folders on the shelf, mixed in with all the other accordion folders. I come to each project in turn, look through everything in the folder, do whatever stands out. If it's urgent, or pressing, and I want to give it special attention, I can put the project folder into the red accordion folder. Otherwise I just put it back on the shelf with the rest of the accordion folders.
One nice thing about this is that I go through all the stuff in the project folders each time I come across it. So, things don't get buried -- they get looked at each cycle through the shelf.
I liked this so much I copied all my personal SF tasks out of the book and onto scraps of paper that are now in the accordion folders. So far it's working very nicely.
June 27, 2011 at 19:00 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
When you first start a new list, you write down whatever comes to mind. Naturally a lot of pressing and important issues come to mind, and you enter them in, and start working. You have a beautiful modest sized list that's mostly stuff that's important, that you've been neglecting, that just came up. The list sings at you. Everything you see is important, and it's easy to find an important item that you're ready and able to tackle.
But then you finish some of those. You add new items, some important, some less so. You do the more serious items, and carry on. Over time, the list gets more and more stuff, both good and bad, but the bad stuff sticks around while the good stuff gets cleared out. Eventually you get to a point where there's 5 great things to work on and 500 things you might work on maybe but maybe you won't.
When you have a list like this, it's no wonder resistance grows and the system starts to fail. It's dirty, and needs to be cleaned up. Purge all the chaff, and leave only the grains.
This is what the dismissal rules aim to achieve in autofocus. So you agreessively dismiss stuff, and your active pages are kept lean and mean. A secondary problem soon arises: As the weeks go by you acquire a mass of dismissed tasks and pages. These too must be purged or it will be like your house is clean because all the clutter is in the shed packed bottom to top, and you can never find anything out of storage.
I'm thinking this stage calls for aggressive action (little and often): Take a hard look at the dismissed items. For each item, imagine you never do it. If this causes no more than regret, delete the item. If it needs doing, but only after something else is achieved, file it with the other thing, and make sure that other is noted as a reminder.
A clear vision or goal helps. Ask whether a task contributes to the vision, or if neglect hinders the goal. If not, kill it. If so, figure where it fits that vision, and plan it in due course. Dedicate your efforts to the most immediate considerations towards that vision. Delete the rest. Add new items that matter.
Once things are clean, the system should start humming like it did at the beginning. It will be full of useful tasks, and it will be easy to pick stuff to work on. Or at least that's the theory.