Get Everything Done

Hi folks!

I'm new around here, but I've been lurking for at least a month now, reading old blog posts and discussions. I've found a lot of fascinating ideas, though I don't think any of it is quite what I was looking for.

So -- of course -- I'm now developing a system of my own! (Isn't that par for the course around here?) I started out trying to follow SuperFocus, but it just didn't feel right to me. I really liked nuntym's Context Autofocus (CAF) system, but it still didn't feel quite right either. Also, using 3x5 index cards instead of a notebook appeals to me for some reason, so I decided to devise my own Autofocus variant based on index cards instead of a notebook.

My system is still being developed, and I don't have a good name for it, but I'm trying to combine AF1 and AF2 with contexts in a different way than CAF, while utilizing GTD "next actions" as well. I'm currently trying to incorporate the 3T system to increase focus on finishing while trying to maintain the flexibility of AF1. (I'm not just feeding everything through 3T like AF4-3T does.) I'm not ready to post the rules just yet, but I intend to later.

Does anyone else have a preference for using index cards, or is it just me?

Deven

A year or two ago, I read David Allen's book and tried to implement a GTD system using index cards. Using one task per card, it was a large stack indeed, but it seemed workable. The problem I found was that I couldn't block out the time for the weekly review process, and without it, the whole system fell apart in a month or two.

As for portability, see Merlin Mann's "Hipster PDA" page -- a stack of index cards with a binder clip is just as portable as a small notebook is:

http://www.43folders.com/2004/09/03/introducing-the-hipster-pda

This time, I'm not using one task per card, but rather one context per card and 1-2 lines per task. I'm leaning towards Mark Forster's ideas in general, while keeping some of David Allen's ideas in mind at the same time.

Being an Autofocus variant, my system retains the universal capture simplicity of AF1, but the processing rules require GTD-style "next actions" in a useful yet unobtrusive way. My system maintains a focus on urgent tasks that AF1 lacks, and an awareness of context without going overboard with it as GTD can. I'm using a continuous review process to avoid the weekly review process that GTD uses, which I found to be a fatal flaw for me.

Finally, I devised my own dismissal/review process that feels more natural, and I think it will meet the Autofocus goals of automatic intuitive filtering without being arbitrary or causing stress that something that was dismissed really shouldn't have been. I'm flagging urgent and important tasks and incorporating that information into the processing and dismissal rules. (I'm toying with the idea of flagging unfinished, but I think integrating 3-T into the processing may provide a sufficient focus on finishing without overemphasizing it.)

However, many of the decisions I made have been based more on my own speculation and influenced by Mark's blog postings, his own reviews of his systems, and the discussion forums on this site. What I don't have is a baseline of real-world experience with using my system, so I'll have to report back later how well it's working in practice. I'm interested in finding others who would like to give it a try, but I'm hesitant to post the rules yet, since it may still be too much in flux...

To be clear, I do treat each card as a "page" in Autofocus terms. These index cards have only 10 lines on them, not counting the "title" area. Obviously this is a far cry from the 25-35 lines that Mark recommends for AF1, but my dismissal rules are different, so I don't expect this to be a problem. In fact, it feels like an advantage to narrow the closed lists down to 10 items or less, but I'll have a better feel for it after I've worked the system longer.

I just wrote a fairly long reply and the website ate it. :(

I'll just post a quick summary for now -- basically, I'm marking important (*) and urgent (**) tasks, using GTD-style "next actions" (sometimes), using context labels on cards and moving cards between Urgent, Active and Inactive stacks, taking advantage of the random-access nature of index cards. Cards in the Urgent stack (i.e. with at least one urgent task) are processed AF2-style, while cards in the Active stack (i.e. with no urgent tasks) are processed AF1-style. The "standing out" principle applies; my system never tries to force anything. I have dismissal rules too, but I haven't gotten to the point of using them yet. I'm currently experiment with incorporating 3T into the system, but unsure how to do that without disrupting the processing flow.

My goal is to maintain the simple universal capture, rational/intuitive balance, comfortable processing flow and low resistance of AF1, while incorporating the effectiveness of AF2 for handling urgent tasks, the efficiency of context awareness and next actions from GTD and hopefully the effectiveness of 3T for finishing tasks as well.

Any thoughts/feedback/ideas?

I am unhappy with SuperFocus, but that deserves a separate thread:

http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1681171

Mark:

Thanks for the tips on saving the post, I'll keep that in mind.

I've responded to most of your other post in the other thread, but I'll respond to this part here:

<< In the same way I think forcing the pace by incorporating 3T will have the same result. >>

My thinking is to incorporate a "Top 3" list into the processing, but NOT to chain them as you did with AF4-3T. Hopefully this will retain a focus on finishing tasks without creating a rigid workflow that destroys the value of the AF1 system.

A year or two ago, I tried implementing GTD with index cards, using one card per task. It wasn't bad, and it did allow for easy sequencing of tasks, but it took a lot of cards. In the end, GTD didn't work for me because I couldn't keep up with the required weekly reviews, but David Allen has good ideas.

For my current system, I am putting multiple tasks on each card, using 1-2 lines per task. I am using GTD-style "next actions" because I do believe that uncertainty about where to start is a source of resistance. However, to maintain the ease of universal capture, I don't require next actions on initial entry.

Re-entered tasks do require a next action, unless the task itself qualifies as a next action because it's obvious how to start. (e.g. "call Mom") When I have a next action for a task, it is always written on the next line, with an arrow from the previous line. (I draw an L-shaped arrow to indicate it derives from the task above.)

I do have context labels on each card, although my system could easily be used without contexts. The default context is a catch-all category, used for universal capture and anything that doesn't really need to be categorized. Depending on which instance of the system I'm using, I have "Work" or "Personal" as the default context. (I initially used "New" but that made it difficult to tell the stacks apart when clipped together.)

I'm at a loss for a good name for my system. I like the "Context Autofocus" name, but I wouldn't want anyone to confuse my system with nuntym's system, though my system is indeed derived from his. I thought about calling it "Hipster Autofocus" after the "Hipster PDA" name, but I really hate that name. I could call it "Index Autofocus" because it's based on index cards. I'm not sure -- does anyone have good suggestions for a name?

ubi:

<< I've used index cards in the past for various things, including writing papers, autofocus, Big Three list for today, etc. I think it's best to keep only one narrowly-focused topic on each card, because the great thing about index cards is that they aren't connected. They can be spread out and shuffled into any order that makes sense at the moment. They can also be segregated into contexts or other categories. So if you use them for tasks, you can decide which ones are useful to carry around for a given period of time (but you must always have a few blank ones and a pen). Some cards can be set aside, or filed in a tickler or In tray for tomorrow, etc. >>

I've tried it both ways, and so far I'm liking it this way better. The cards function as a page does in AF1 (albeit smaller), and provides the benefits of a series of closed lists. Using a stack of index cards with one task per card is an open list, and it seems like it might be harder to get a sense of progress with one large open list.

I do take advantage of the inherent shuffling capability of the index cards, but not quite the same way. I'm labeling each card with a broad context, and grouping cards with the same context together in the Active stack, while allowing arbitrary shuffling of the Urgent stack by priority.

<< But the single greatest thing about index cards is the feeling of tearing one in half when you've completed something. It's so much more satisfying than checking a box or crossing out one line in a long list. >>

Absolutely! But you still get that same feeling when you clear the last task on a card and tear it up. On the other hand, with one task per card, that might encourage finishing. Hmm...

matthewS:

<< Please give example of broad context. >>

An example of a broad context would be "Errands" for tasks to be done while I'm out and about (i.e. neither at home nor at work), or perhaps a person's name for tasks I need to do with (or discuss with) a particular person. Or "Waiting" for things where followup is the only action I can take.

The idea behind broad contexts is not to get wrapped up in categorizing tasks, but to provide some basic organization for better efficiency. The purpose of the context is to keep related items together so you don't have to go searching for them when the time comes, to group items with a high context switch overhead, and in the case where the context is inappropriate to the current situation (e.g. "Errands" while sitting at my desk at work), allow the entire context to be skipped until later.

<< Would a project or list ever count as a context for you? Or do you ever use cards that way? Such as all steps for print project or everything to pack for a trip. >>

Yes, a project or list can count as a context. For example, I made a context for Christmas for holiday-related tasks -- decorating, shopping, wrapping, etc. Where you draw the line is entirely up to you; only use contexts that make things easier, not harder. I don't assign a context for most of my work projects, but I do assign one for a certain subset of my tasks of related work that require a different mode of thinking. When in doubt, DON'T create a new context, because overcategorization is a danger in itself.

Note that I have a generic default context ("Work" or "Personal", depending on the instance of my system) that I use for universal capture of new tasks, although initial entry onto a card with a specific context is also allowed.