Discussion Forum > Does SuperFocus follow Autofocus principles?
I'm puzzled what AutoFocus principles you feel are absent from SF. My experience with SF is that it failed the "low mental overhead" test, as I had a battle with complexity brought in by that optional C2 stuff.
To your last question, Mark has answered yes.
To your last question, Mark has answered yes.
December 20, 2011 at 22:15 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Deven:
It's difficult to respond to what you say without knowing which key principles you think it doesn't follow.
And as Alan says, yes, I have tried AF1 since SF, but found the same problems with it that I developed SF to solve.
AF1 is however the easiest system to keep to of all the systems described on this site.
It's difficult to respond to what you say without knowing which key principles you think it doesn't follow.
And as Alan says, yes, I have tried AF1 since SF, but found the same problems with it that I developed SF to solve.
AF1 is however the easiest system to keep to of all the systems described on this site.
December 21, 2011 at 10:08 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<< It's difficult to respond to what you say without knowing which key principles you think it doesn't follow. >>
I didn't have time to explain when I wrote the first post in this thread, so I thought I'd start with the question to get people thinking about it, then followup later.
<< And as Alan says, yes, I have tried AF1 since SF, but found the same problems with it that I developed SF to solve. >>
I agree with the need to address the problems with AF1. SuperFocus does address those problems, but the cure may be worse than the disease.
<< AF1 is however the easiest system to keep to of all the systems described on this site. >>
I believe that's because of the magic of the "standing out" principle and how that interrelates with resistance, and of course the simplicity of the system helps too.
You have also cited AF1 as your favorite of all your systems, if not necessarily the best. Is it still your favorite or are you more fond of SuperFocus or your Final Version now?
Quoting from your reply in my first thread:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1677163#post1681738
<< As I've discovered (as if I needed reminding!) through my ceaseless experimenting with the Final Version, any attempts to force the pace in a time management system always seem to result in resistance building up against the system. >>
Wasn't this what made Autofocus so innovative? Minimize resistance, because knowing what we SHOULD do is useless if we'll just procrastinate and ignore it?
<< This may be what you are finding as the problem with SuperFocus. The forcing of the pace by having a compulsory C2 can destroy the flow of AF1. >>
That's it, exactly! I believe that the compulsory C2 rules in SuperFocus destroy the flow of AF1, because the system is trying to force you to do things that you aren't ready to do.
Here is how you articulated the "standing out" principle in the Autofocus rules:
http://www.markforster.net/autofocus-system/
<< Go through the page more slowly looking at the items in order until one stands out for you.
This is the heart of the system. Don’t try to prioritise items mentally - this will interfere with the balance between the rational and intuitive parts of your mind. Instead wait for a feeling of release about an item. It’s hard to describe but easy to recognise. You just feel that the item is ready to be done. If you go on down the page, you may find that you feel drawn back to that item. Once you get that feeling about a task all resistance to doing the task vanishes, and it becomes easy to do. >>
Although incorporated by reference, SuperFocus doesn't really seem to follow this principle very well at all, because of the compulsory C2 rule:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/2/10/rules-for-superfocus.html
<< Continue working in the same way by circulating around the first page until no more tasks feel ready to be done. All tasks in Column 2 must be worked on before you can move to a new page. >>
Working tasks that "stand out" because they're ready to be done is "the heart of the system" in Autofocus. (I agree that it is.) Despite being derived from Autofocus, SuperFocus expects you to work on tasks that are NOT ready to be done. Isn't this just inviting resistance and resentment, towards the task AND the system? As I see it, this rule is gutting the heart of Autofocus.
In fact, you clearly identified the inherent problems with Column 2:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/2/26/sf-tips-4-make-good-use-of-column-2.html
<< 1) Compulsion. Anything that goes into Column 2 has to be done. It has to continue to be worked on until it is finished. This means it is important to be clear what “finished” means in relation to the task in question. Since all the tasks in Column 2 have to be worked on every time a page is started, it’s imporant that there aren’t too many - otherwise the system will become rigid instead of flexible.
2) A limit. The use of Column 2 is limited by the length of the page. This means that overuse of Column 2 will result in the system seizing up. Hopefully when this happens (or is seen to be likely to happen) it will encourage a good look at how much one is putting in Column 2. The limit is there for a purpose, and problems with it should be seen as a sign to take corrective action. >>
Having a lot of tasks in Column 2 is bad: "the system will become rigid instead of flexible" and there is a risk of "the system seizing up". You can game the system by carefully defining "finished" to avoid the need to re-enter tasks in Column 2, or you can take "a good look at how much one is putting in Column 2", which requires avoiding new tasks because unfinished tasks end up in Column 2.
In effect, Column 2 is really just an unprioritized to-do list of "must do" tasks -- and you've already blogged about how much you hate to-do lists:
http://www.markforster.net/to-do-lists/
<< There is only one disadvantage of a to-do list. It doesn’t work! >>
While Autofocus follows the "little and often" principle, SuperFocus can't follow this principle very well either, because "little and often" encourages growth of Column 2, which must be avoided for SuperFocus to remain effective. Or to be more precise, SuperFocus is great for repeatedly doing a little work on a small group of tasks, but poor at encouraging a little work on a large group of tasks.
You later cited the compulsory nature of the rules as a problem in SuperFocus:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1453964
<< I'm coming to the conclusion that the problem I've been having getting SuperFocus to flow properly is due to the compulsory nature of the current rules. >>
Despite this, you decided to retain the compulsion and tweak the details of the processing rules instead. Does your Final Version contain similar compulsory rules?
I don't know if these are "key principles" of Autofocus per se, but SuperFocus also seems to weaken the automatic focusing effect that gives Autofocus its name (because unfinished tasks are exempt from dismissal even if they deserve to be dismissed) and upset the balance between the rational and intuitive parts of the brain (because of the rigid requirement to finish all tasks started).
Most of these issues with SuperFocus could probably be solved with one simple change -- enter unfinished tasks in Column 1 and reserve Column 2 for urgent tasks only. This would make the system flow much more like AF1 while retaining effectiveness with urgent tasks. (In fact, it would likely deal with urgent tasks even better, without the distraction of unfinished tasks in Column 2.)
Obviously, this change would do nothing over AF1 to encourage finishing. While finishing tasks is important, I believe that SuperFocus places too much emphasis on finishing, and sacrifices too much of Autofocus in pursuit of that goal. There has to be a better way.
<< It's difficult to respond to what you say without knowing which key principles you think it doesn't follow. >>
I didn't have time to explain when I wrote the first post in this thread, so I thought I'd start with the question to get people thinking about it, then followup later.
<< And as Alan says, yes, I have tried AF1 since SF, but found the same problems with it that I developed SF to solve. >>
I agree with the need to address the problems with AF1. SuperFocus does address those problems, but the cure may be worse than the disease.
<< AF1 is however the easiest system to keep to of all the systems described on this site. >>
I believe that's because of the magic of the "standing out" principle and how that interrelates with resistance, and of course the simplicity of the system helps too.
You have also cited AF1 as your favorite of all your systems, if not necessarily the best. Is it still your favorite or are you more fond of SuperFocus or your Final Version now?
Quoting from your reply in my first thread:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1677163#post1681738
<< As I've discovered (as if I needed reminding!) through my ceaseless experimenting with the Final Version, any attempts to force the pace in a time management system always seem to result in resistance building up against the system. >>
Wasn't this what made Autofocus so innovative? Minimize resistance, because knowing what we SHOULD do is useless if we'll just procrastinate and ignore it?
<< This may be what you are finding as the problem with SuperFocus. The forcing of the pace by having a compulsory C2 can destroy the flow of AF1. >>
That's it, exactly! I believe that the compulsory C2 rules in SuperFocus destroy the flow of AF1, because the system is trying to force you to do things that you aren't ready to do.
Here is how you articulated the "standing out" principle in the Autofocus rules:
http://www.markforster.net/autofocus-system/
<< Go through the page more slowly looking at the items in order until one stands out for you.
This is the heart of the system. Don’t try to prioritise items mentally - this will interfere with the balance between the rational and intuitive parts of your mind. Instead wait for a feeling of release about an item. It’s hard to describe but easy to recognise. You just feel that the item is ready to be done. If you go on down the page, you may find that you feel drawn back to that item. Once you get that feeling about a task all resistance to doing the task vanishes, and it becomes easy to do. >>
Although incorporated by reference, SuperFocus doesn't really seem to follow this principle very well at all, because of the compulsory C2 rule:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/2/10/rules-for-superfocus.html
<< Continue working in the same way by circulating around the first page until no more tasks feel ready to be done. All tasks in Column 2 must be worked on before you can move to a new page. >>
Working tasks that "stand out" because they're ready to be done is "the heart of the system" in Autofocus. (I agree that it is.) Despite being derived from Autofocus, SuperFocus expects you to work on tasks that are NOT ready to be done. Isn't this just inviting resistance and resentment, towards the task AND the system? As I see it, this rule is gutting the heart of Autofocus.
In fact, you clearly identified the inherent problems with Column 2:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/2/26/sf-tips-4-make-good-use-of-column-2.html
<< 1) Compulsion. Anything that goes into Column 2 has to be done. It has to continue to be worked on until it is finished. This means it is important to be clear what “finished” means in relation to the task in question. Since all the tasks in Column 2 have to be worked on every time a page is started, it’s imporant that there aren’t too many - otherwise the system will become rigid instead of flexible.
2) A limit. The use of Column 2 is limited by the length of the page. This means that overuse of Column 2 will result in the system seizing up. Hopefully when this happens (or is seen to be likely to happen) it will encourage a good look at how much one is putting in Column 2. The limit is there for a purpose, and problems with it should be seen as a sign to take corrective action. >>
Having a lot of tasks in Column 2 is bad: "the system will become rigid instead of flexible" and there is a risk of "the system seizing up". You can game the system by carefully defining "finished" to avoid the need to re-enter tasks in Column 2, or you can take "a good look at how much one is putting in Column 2", which requires avoiding new tasks because unfinished tasks end up in Column 2.
In effect, Column 2 is really just an unprioritized to-do list of "must do" tasks -- and you've already blogged about how much you hate to-do lists:
http://www.markforster.net/to-do-lists/
<< There is only one disadvantage of a to-do list. It doesn’t work! >>
While Autofocus follows the "little and often" principle, SuperFocus can't follow this principle very well either, because "little and often" encourages growth of Column 2, which must be avoided for SuperFocus to remain effective. Or to be more precise, SuperFocus is great for repeatedly doing a little work on a small group of tasks, but poor at encouraging a little work on a large group of tasks.
You later cited the compulsory nature of the rules as a problem in SuperFocus:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1453964
<< I'm coming to the conclusion that the problem I've been having getting SuperFocus to flow properly is due to the compulsory nature of the current rules. >>
Despite this, you decided to retain the compulsion and tweak the details of the processing rules instead. Does your Final Version contain similar compulsory rules?
I don't know if these are "key principles" of Autofocus per se, but SuperFocus also seems to weaken the automatic focusing effect that gives Autofocus its name (because unfinished tasks are exempt from dismissal even if they deserve to be dismissed) and upset the balance between the rational and intuitive parts of the brain (because of the rigid requirement to finish all tasks started).
Most of these issues with SuperFocus could probably be solved with one simple change -- enter unfinished tasks in Column 1 and reserve Column 2 for urgent tasks only. This would make the system flow much more like AF1 while retaining effectiveness with urgent tasks. (In fact, it would likely deal with urgent tasks even better, without the distraction of unfinished tasks in Column 2.)
Obviously, this change would do nothing over AF1 to encourage finishing. While finishing tasks is important, I believe that SuperFocus places too much emphasis on finishing, and sacrifices too much of Autofocus in pursuit of that goal. There has to be a better way.
December 21, 2011 at 20:14 |
Deven
Deven
Astounding essay. I think you've nailed the issue.
December 21, 2011 at 20:28 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Deven:
<< There has to be a better way.>>
There is - the Final Version.
I'm well aware of all the issues about AF1 and SF, which is why I have been spending so long trying to perfect a better system. It's been one of the major challenges of my life, but I expect when I release it most people will think it's terribly simple and obvious. Yet every detail has been the result of a huge amount of effort.
So far the Final Version addresses the following points that you have made:
1) It uses the magic of the standing out principle, and although it is a bit more complicated than AF1, has the same sense of flow.
2) It deals with both urgent and unfinished tasks efficiently but without compulsion and without their interfering with each other.
3) There's no problem having a large number of unfinished tasks.
4) It strengthens the automatic focusing process which gives AF its name.
<< There has to be a better way.>>
There is - the Final Version.
I'm well aware of all the issues about AF1 and SF, which is why I have been spending so long trying to perfect a better system. It's been one of the major challenges of my life, but I expect when I release it most people will think it's terribly simple and obvious. Yet every detail has been the result of a huge amount of effort.
So far the Final Version addresses the following points that you have made:
1) It uses the magic of the standing out principle, and although it is a bit more complicated than AF1, has the same sense of flow.
2) It deals with both urgent and unfinished tasks efficiently but without compulsion and without their interfering with each other.
3) There's no problem having a large number of unfinished tasks.
4) It strengthens the automatic focusing process which gives AF its name.
December 22, 2011 at 1:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<<Most of these issues with SuperFocus could probably be solved with one simple change -- enter unfinished tasks in Column 1 and reserve Column 2 for urgent tasks only. This would make the system flow much more like AF1 while retaining effectiveness with urgent tasks. (In fact, it would likely deal with urgent tasks even better, without the distraction of unfinished tasks in Column 2.)>>
That's (almost) exactly what I'm doing. C2 only has urgent tasks. Unfinished tasks go to the end of the list in C1 as per AF1. An exception could be what I call "fast track" unfinished tasks, which go into C2 of the next page as per SF. But you could argue that these are also a type of urgent tasks. In my day-to-day practice, I hardly ever enter such fast track type tasks. As long as I cycle through my list fast enough (at least once per one or two days), this isn't really necessary for me. The way I use C2, it only ever contains between zero and four items per page.
I'm using this AF1/SF hybrid since several months, and I'm very satisfied with it. It really has this unique AF1 feeling and flow. The only reason I might abandon it is if after testing, the Final Version proves more effective still.
<<Most of these issues with SuperFocus could probably be solved with one simple change -- enter unfinished tasks in Column 1 and reserve Column 2 for urgent tasks only. This would make the system flow much more like AF1 while retaining effectiveness with urgent tasks. (In fact, it would likely deal with urgent tasks even better, without the distraction of unfinished tasks in Column 2.)>>
That's (almost) exactly what I'm doing. C2 only has urgent tasks. Unfinished tasks go to the end of the list in C1 as per AF1. An exception could be what I call "fast track" unfinished tasks, which go into C2 of the next page as per SF. But you could argue that these are also a type of urgent tasks. In my day-to-day practice, I hardly ever enter such fast track type tasks. As long as I cycle through my list fast enough (at least once per one or two days), this isn't really necessary for me. The way I use C2, it only ever contains between zero and four items per page.
I'm using this AF1/SF hybrid since several months, and I'm very satisfied with it. It really has this unique AF1 feeling and flow. The only reason I might abandon it is if after testing, the Final Version proves more effective still.
December 22, 2011 at 7:54 |
Marc (from Brussels)
Marc (from Brussels)
"So far the Final Version addresses the following points"
Ouaouhh ! I am impatient to test it. Will you make a book this time ?
What is great with AF systems is that when you work with it you don't seem to be working. It is just fun and pleasure. I love it.
Ouaouhh ! I am impatient to test it. Will you make a book this time ?
What is great with AF systems is that when you work with it you don't seem to be working. It is just fun and pleasure. I love it.
December 22, 2011 at 9:26 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
Marc (and others);
It's worth remembering that SuperFocus was specifically developed because the Forum members were requesting a method that gave priority to getting tasks finished.
As for urgent tasks, the sort of thing you are suggesting was covered pretty comprehensively in the discussions for AF1. It's not really an AF/SF hybrid. It's just a variation on AF1.
It's worth remembering that SuperFocus was specifically developed because the Forum members were requesting a method that gave priority to getting tasks finished.
As for urgent tasks, the sort of thing you are suggesting was covered pretty comprehensively in the discussions for AF1. It's not really an AF/SF hybrid. It's just a variation on AF1.
December 22, 2011 at 11:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark
"So far the Final Version"
I was wondering when you plan to release the new version of AF and if you plan to make a new book. Just an idea :
I dream about a real and practical book which could help people to organize themselves and may be to build their own organization. A kind of bible may be done by focus summarized immediately operational i.e. Why, how to make and use a tickler. What kind of AF for what organization ?
This could be very interesting, it could be a synthesis of all your best tips and ideas you encountered during your career and sure would help many people.
It is different if you work for yourself or if you work in a big company.
"So far the Final Version"
I was wondering when you plan to release the new version of AF and if you plan to make a new book. Just an idea :
I dream about a real and practical book which could help people to organize themselves and may be to build their own organization. A kind of bible may be done by focus summarized immediately operational i.e. Why, how to make and use a tickler. What kind of AF for what organization ?
This could be very interesting, it could be a synthesis of all your best tips and ideas you encountered during your career and sure would help many people.
It is different if you work for yourself or if you work in a big company.
December 22, 2011 at 13:24 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
Mark:
In case you missed my earlier question -- is Autofocus (AF1) still your favorite system, or are you more fond of SuperFocus or the Final Version now?
<< I'm well aware of all the issues about AF1 and SF, which is why I have been spending so long trying to perfect a better system. It's been one of the major challenges of my life, but I expect when I release it most people will think it's terribly simple and obvious. Yet every detail has been the result of a huge amount of effort. >>
Isn't it amazing how much hard work it can take to make something seem easy? I hope your Final Version book discusses the design process; that would be as interesting as the system itself.
Understanding the experiments (even the failed ones) would also be valuable to anyone who wants to make a variant of your Final Version, since it may not be the perfect system for everyone even if it's the perfect system for you...
<< 1) It uses the magic of the standing out principle, and although it is a bit more complicated than AF1, has the same sense of flow. >>
Sounds good. It's probably impossible to solve AF1's problems without additional complexity, but as long as it maintains the same sense of flow, that's what really matters.
<< 2) It deals with both urgent and unfinished tasks efficiently but without compulsion and without their interfering with each other. >>
This means separate lists of urgent and unfinished tasks? If you're not using compulsion, how was the Final Version attempting to force the pace, as you mentioned earlier? Does the Final Version ever tell you to work on tasks that don't stand out?
<< 3) There's no problem having a large number of unfinished tasks. >>
That will certainly support the "little and often" principle.
<< 4) It strengthens the automatic focusing process which gives AF its name. >>
I'm confused. You've said that the Final Version includes universal capture and automatic filtering:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/9/19/key-principles-of-the-new-system-ii-universal-capture.html
<< The ideal time management system needs to have a "universal capture" capability. What I mean by this is that you don’t need to do any pre-editing of tasks that you put into the system. Anything and everything that you think of can be entered and the system itself relied upon to filter out the rubbish. >>
[...]
<< The Final Version system automatically carries out this filtering in a flexible way. The system is designed to produce the right load for the time available, but it is also designed to ensure that this load consists of the right stuff. Not only that, but in the process goals will be clarified and worthwhile emerging new ideas exploited to the full. >>
On the other hand, you also said this:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1600928#post1606095
<< I'm not quite sure what you are going to make of the Final Version, in which there is no such thing as dismissal. You are expected to _do_ anything you put on your list - and quickly too! >>
How can this filtering take place if you have universal capture without pre-editing, but you're expected to do anything you put on your list?
In case you missed my earlier question -- is Autofocus (AF1) still your favorite system, or are you more fond of SuperFocus or the Final Version now?
<< I'm well aware of all the issues about AF1 and SF, which is why I have been spending so long trying to perfect a better system. It's been one of the major challenges of my life, but I expect when I release it most people will think it's terribly simple and obvious. Yet every detail has been the result of a huge amount of effort. >>
Isn't it amazing how much hard work it can take to make something seem easy? I hope your Final Version book discusses the design process; that would be as interesting as the system itself.
Understanding the experiments (even the failed ones) would also be valuable to anyone who wants to make a variant of your Final Version, since it may not be the perfect system for everyone even if it's the perfect system for you...
<< 1) It uses the magic of the standing out principle, and although it is a bit more complicated than AF1, has the same sense of flow. >>
Sounds good. It's probably impossible to solve AF1's problems without additional complexity, but as long as it maintains the same sense of flow, that's what really matters.
<< 2) It deals with both urgent and unfinished tasks efficiently but without compulsion and without their interfering with each other. >>
This means separate lists of urgent and unfinished tasks? If you're not using compulsion, how was the Final Version attempting to force the pace, as you mentioned earlier? Does the Final Version ever tell you to work on tasks that don't stand out?
<< 3) There's no problem having a large number of unfinished tasks. >>
That will certainly support the "little and often" principle.
<< 4) It strengthens the automatic focusing process which gives AF its name. >>
I'm confused. You've said that the Final Version includes universal capture and automatic filtering:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/9/19/key-principles-of-the-new-system-ii-universal-capture.html
<< The ideal time management system needs to have a "universal capture" capability. What I mean by this is that you don’t need to do any pre-editing of tasks that you put into the system. Anything and everything that you think of can be entered and the system itself relied upon to filter out the rubbish. >>
[...]
<< The Final Version system automatically carries out this filtering in a flexible way. The system is designed to produce the right load for the time available, but it is also designed to ensure that this load consists of the right stuff. Not only that, but in the process goals will be clarified and worthwhile emerging new ideas exploited to the full. >>
On the other hand, you also said this:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1600928#post1606095
<< I'm not quite sure what you are going to make of the Final Version, in which there is no such thing as dismissal. You are expected to _do_ anything you put on your list - and quickly too! >>
How can this filtering take place if you have universal capture without pre-editing, but you're expected to do anything you put on your list?
December 22, 2011 at 15:34 |
Deven
Deven
Marc:
<< That's (almost) exactly what I'm doing. C2 only has urgent tasks. Unfinished tasks go to the end of the list in C1 as per AF1. An exception could be what I call "fast track" unfinished tasks, which go into C2 of the next page as per SF. But you could argue that these are also a type of urgent tasks. In my day-to-day practice, I hardly ever enter such fast track type tasks. As long as I cycle through my list fast enough (at least once per one or two days), this isn't really necessary for me. >>
I would agree that your "fast track" tasks are indeed a type of urgent task, not an exception to the rule.
<< The way I use C2, it only ever contains between zero and four items per page. >>
Does this mean that you leave urgent items in C2 as you move to the next page? Or do you re-enter them on the following page before leaving the current page? It seems like a bad idea to leave urgent items in C2 on a page you won't be looking at again until it comes back around, so I hope you're carrying them over to the next page.
If C2 contains only urgent tasks, does that make the compulsory C2 rule in SF become desirable instead of problematic? Doing a little (even if it's just one minute) on each urgent task would qualify as "running a dash", as Merlin Mann discusses here:
http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/08/kick-procrastinations-ass-run-a-dash
I'm debating whether to include a "run a dash" rule in my system, or just keep it as a suggestion.
<< I'm using this AF1/SF hybrid since several months, and I'm very satisfied with it. It really has this unique AF1 feeling and flow. The only reason I might abandon it is if after testing, the Final Version proves more effective still. >>
My intuition said that putting unfinished items back in C1 as AF1 does would recapture the same sense of flow. Glad to hear real-world confirmation of that!
Regarding Mark's reply:
<< It's worth remembering that SuperFocus was specifically developed because the Forum members were requesting a method that gave priority to getting tasks finished. >>
I was unaware that was the impetus for SuperFocus, and it's true that my suggested modification would defeat that purpose, since it would be no better than AF1 at finishing. Nevertheless, I still don't think SuperFocus could work for me, but I can see how it could work great for anyone without resistance issues...
<< That's (almost) exactly what I'm doing. C2 only has urgent tasks. Unfinished tasks go to the end of the list in C1 as per AF1. An exception could be what I call "fast track" unfinished tasks, which go into C2 of the next page as per SF. But you could argue that these are also a type of urgent tasks. In my day-to-day practice, I hardly ever enter such fast track type tasks. As long as I cycle through my list fast enough (at least once per one or two days), this isn't really necessary for me. >>
I would agree that your "fast track" tasks are indeed a type of urgent task, not an exception to the rule.
<< The way I use C2, it only ever contains between zero and four items per page. >>
Does this mean that you leave urgent items in C2 as you move to the next page? Or do you re-enter them on the following page before leaving the current page? It seems like a bad idea to leave urgent items in C2 on a page you won't be looking at again until it comes back around, so I hope you're carrying them over to the next page.
If C2 contains only urgent tasks, does that make the compulsory C2 rule in SF become desirable instead of problematic? Doing a little (even if it's just one minute) on each urgent task would qualify as "running a dash", as Merlin Mann discusses here:
http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/08/kick-procrastinations-ass-run-a-dash
I'm debating whether to include a "run a dash" rule in my system, or just keep it as a suggestion.
<< I'm using this AF1/SF hybrid since several months, and I'm very satisfied with it. It really has this unique AF1 feeling and flow. The only reason I might abandon it is if after testing, the Final Version proves more effective still. >>
My intuition said that putting unfinished items back in C1 as AF1 does would recapture the same sense of flow. Glad to hear real-world confirmation of that!
Regarding Mark's reply:
<< It's worth remembering that SuperFocus was specifically developed because the Forum members were requesting a method that gave priority to getting tasks finished. >>
I was unaware that was the impetus for SuperFocus, and it's true that my suggested modification would defeat that purpose, since it would be no better than AF1 at finishing. Nevertheless, I still don't think SuperFocus could work for me, but I can see how it could work great for anyone without resistance issues...
December 22, 2011 at 16:01 |
Deven
Deven
Deven:
<< In case you missed my earlier question -- is Autofocus (AF1) still your favorite system, or are you more fond of SuperFocus or the Final Version now? >>
I thought my post answered that question. What more do you want me to say?
<< In case you missed my earlier question -- is Autofocus (AF1) still your favorite system, or are you more fond of SuperFocus or the Final Version now? >>
I thought my post answered that question. What more do you want me to say?
December 22, 2011 at 19:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<< How can this filtering take place if you have universal capture without pre-editing, but you're expected to do anything you put on your list? >>
Please note this is a continuing development process and many things have changed from my original concept. Comparing something I wrote months ago with what I am writing today will get you nowhere.
That's all the detail I'm prepared to release at the moment.
<< How can this filtering take place if you have universal capture without pre-editing, but you're expected to do anything you put on your list? >>
Please note this is a continuing development process and many things have changed from my original concept. Comparing something I wrote months ago with what I am writing today will get you nowhere.
That's all the detail I'm prepared to release at the moment.
December 22, 2011 at 19:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<< I thought my post answered that question. What more do you want me to say? >>
Your post suggests that you consider the Final Version to be the most effective, by far.
However, you've said that favorite is different from effective:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/1/25/review-of-the-systems-autofocus-4.html#comment11578583
<< I don't think the fact that something is one's favourite system necessarily means that it is the most effective. >>
Here is how you described AF1 a few months ago:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1573250#post1573923
<< 1) Whenever I tried something different which failed, I always went back to AF1 with a sigh of relief (as indeed I have this time).
2) AF1 is the only system I have ever tried (including all my other ones) which hasn't somewhere along the line caused me to start resisting the system itself. >>
This seems like a pretty strong endorsement of AF1 as standing the test of time, and it's understandable why it would be your favorite, even if it's not the most effective.
So, if you've answered the question, perhaps I've failed to discern it, but it's still not clear to me if AF1 remains your favorite, or if you're more fond of the Final Version now, even if it's not finalized yet.
<< I thought my post answered that question. What more do you want me to say? >>
Your post suggests that you consider the Final Version to be the most effective, by far.
However, you've said that favorite is different from effective:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/1/25/review-of-the-systems-autofocus-4.html#comment11578583
<< I don't think the fact that something is one's favourite system necessarily means that it is the most effective. >>
Here is how you described AF1 a few months ago:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1573250#post1573923
<< 1) Whenever I tried something different which failed, I always went back to AF1 with a sigh of relief (as indeed I have this time).
2) AF1 is the only system I have ever tried (including all my other ones) which hasn't somewhere along the line caused me to start resisting the system itself. >>
This seems like a pretty strong endorsement of AF1 as standing the test of time, and it's understandable why it would be your favorite, even if it's not the most effective.
So, if you've answered the question, perhaps I've failed to discern it, but it's still not clear to me if AF1 remains your favorite, or if you're more fond of the Final Version now, even if it's not finalized yet.
December 22, 2011 at 20:42 |
Deven
Deven
Mark:
<< Please note this is a continuing development process and many things have changed from my original concept. Comparing something I wrote months ago with what I am writing today will get you nowhere.
That's all the detail I'm prepared to release at the moment. >>
Fair enough. We're all curious about the Final Version, but it's your prerogative to keep it under wraps. The hints you've dropped have been tantalizing indeed, but this is your process and it will take however long it takes for you to release the details. We shall continue to wait with bated breath. :)
<< Please note this is a continuing development process and many things have changed from my original concept. Comparing something I wrote months ago with what I am writing today will get you nowhere.
That's all the detail I'm prepared to release at the moment. >>
Fair enough. We're all curious about the Final Version, but it's your prerogative to keep it under wraps. The hints you've dropped have been tantalizing indeed, but this is your process and it will take however long it takes for you to release the details. We shall continue to wait with bated breath. :)
December 22, 2011 at 20:47 |
Deven
Deven
@Deven
<< There has to be a better way.>>
>>There is - the Final Version.
Until we get FV, I'd suggest that you try DWM2 as another option.
[- DWM2 is a simple list under the stand-out and little and often rules. Dismissal takes place on tasks that are not actioned in 7 days. New tasks are given 31 days]
In my opinion, DWM2 handles very well all the points adressed by Mark in this post. Besides, due to its lack of "page boundaries", there is a 5th feature that may fit people's needs:
-It naturally adapts to different enviroments, timetables, etc. You don't need to break any rule just follow the list and do what stands out and is possible.
<< There has to be a better way.>>
>>There is - the Final Version.
Until we get FV, I'd suggest that you try DWM2 as another option.
[- DWM2 is a simple list under the stand-out and little and often rules. Dismissal takes place on tasks that are not actioned in 7 days. New tasks are given 31 days]
In my opinion, DWM2 handles very well all the points adressed by Mark in this post. Besides, due to its lack of "page boundaries", there is a 5th feature that may fit people's needs:
-It naturally adapts to different enviroments, timetables, etc. You don't need to break any rule just follow the list and do what stands out and is possible.
December 24, 2011 at 3:38 |
paco_pepe
paco_pepe
On the perils of compulsion:
I'm finding that unfinished tasks are helped along just by marking them clearly, rather than setting a compulsory rule to work them in a certain manner. Call it a "dashboard" effect or a CAF-derivative (nuntym's), but I am now marking every unfinished task with an open circle when I rewrite it at the end of my AF1 list. The open circle does not come with any obligation or rule whatsoever, but when I flip a page, I am immediately and eagerly drawn to the open circles, knowing that they tend to make the most impact. Also, when I see a stray open circle on the earlier pages of my notebook, I want to wrap it up. It is like a lost orphan needing to be rescued.
In general, I'm finding that such a "display" or "dashboard" approach is more effective than any rule: just show me what's true right now, and I will figure out what needs to be done. Displaying the right information in a compelling way is very powerful.
For what it's worth, my earlier, detailed, cumbersome, heavy-handed approach to a dashboard has completely imploded, and I feel no desire to revive it. I am back to my AF1 notebook and Google Calendar. Those open circles are all the dashboard I need.
I'm finding that unfinished tasks are helped along just by marking them clearly, rather than setting a compulsory rule to work them in a certain manner. Call it a "dashboard" effect or a CAF-derivative (nuntym's), but I am now marking every unfinished task with an open circle when I rewrite it at the end of my AF1 list. The open circle does not come with any obligation or rule whatsoever, but when I flip a page, I am immediately and eagerly drawn to the open circles, knowing that they tend to make the most impact. Also, when I see a stray open circle on the earlier pages of my notebook, I want to wrap it up. It is like a lost orphan needing to be rescued.
In general, I'm finding that such a "display" or "dashboard" approach is more effective than any rule: just show me what's true right now, and I will figure out what needs to be done. Displaying the right information in a compelling way is very powerful.
For what it's worth, my earlier, detailed, cumbersome, heavy-handed approach to a dashboard has completely imploded, and I feel no desire to revive it. I am back to my AF1 notebook and Google Calendar. Those open circles are all the dashboard I need.
December 24, 2011 at 4:59 |
Bernie
Bernie
paco_pepe:
<< In my opinion, DWM2 handles very well all the points adressed by Mark in this post. >>
Yes, you're right about DWM2, but the Final Version handles urgent and unfinished tasks more powerfully.
<< In my opinion, DWM2 handles very well all the points adressed by Mark in this post. >>
Yes, you're right about DWM2, but the Final Version handles urgent and unfinished tasks more powerfully.
December 24, 2011 at 9:18 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
DWM (the original) fits index cards very well. Just saying. Number cards, keep the D,W, and M cards visible (today, today+1 week, today+1 month), and tear up a card when it's empty.
December 24, 2011 at 13:50 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
paco_pepe:
<< Until we get FV, I'd suggest that you try DWM2 as another option. >>
Thanks, but DWM and DWM2 feel unsuitable for me; I don't want a strict calendar-based dismissal process like that, especially at work where I can't arbitrarily discard my assignments because my time management system told me so. I have a large backlog of tasks that don't suddenly become unimportant because I can't get to them right away.
<< Until we get FV, I'd suggest that you try DWM2 as another option. >>
Thanks, but DWM and DWM2 feel unsuitable for me; I don't want a strict calendar-based dismissal process like that, especially at work where I can't arbitrarily discard my assignments because my time management system told me so. I have a large backlog of tasks that don't suddenly become unimportant because I can't get to them right away.
December 27, 2011 at 16:38 |
Deven
Deven
Alan:
<< DWM (the original) fits index cards very well. Just saying. Number cards, keep the D,W, and M cards visible (today, today+1 week, today+1 month), and tear up a card when it's empty. >>
Good point. If I were interested in using DWM, I'd probably do that.
<< DWM (the original) fits index cards very well. Just saying. Number cards, keep the D,W, and M cards visible (today, today+1 week, today+1 month), and tear up a card when it's empty. >>
Good point. If I were interested in using DWM, I'd probably do that.
December 27, 2011 at 16:39 |
Deven
Deven
Bernie:
<< On the perils of compulsion: >>
Nice turn of phrase there.
<< I'm finding that unfinished tasks are helped along just by marking them clearly, rather than setting a compulsory rule to work them in a certain manner. Call it a "dashboard" effect or a CAF-derivative (nuntym's), but I am now marking every unfinished task with an open circle when I rewrite it at the end of my AF1 list. >>
This is a good idea, but I'm taking a slightly different approach.
Quoting from David Allen's Getting Things Done (GTD) book (2001 paperback edition, page 242):
<< You are either attracted to or repelled by the things on your lists; there isn't any neutral territory. You are either positively drawn toward completing the action or reluctant to think about what it is and resistant to getting involved in it. Often it's simply the next-action decision that makes the difference between the two extremes. >>
Any task on my list may include a GTD-style "next action" on the following line, connected to the task with an L-shaped arrow at the start of the line. For ease of universal capture, next actions are not required for initial task entry, though encouraged. Except for tasks obvious enough to qualify as a next action (e.g. "call Mom"), my system requires a next action on any re-entered task. Even if nothing else is done, determining the next action for a task is considered as "actioning" that task. When processing the Urgent stack, any urgent task considered must have a next action or be re-entered with one before continuing to the next task. Similarly, when processing the Active stack, any important task considered must have a next action or be re-entered with on before continuing to the next task. (Important tasks are marked with one star and urgent tasks with two stars.)
The effect of these rules is to make urgent/important/unfinished tasks more likely to "stand out" because they take up two lines on the card and clearly identify what to do next, and to simultaneously reduce resistance to doing those tasks by making the decision on what the next action is. I hope that this gives sufficient impetus to drive the completion of unfinished tasks without compulsion, but I'm not sure yet if it does.
<< On the perils of compulsion: >>
Nice turn of phrase there.
<< I'm finding that unfinished tasks are helped along just by marking them clearly, rather than setting a compulsory rule to work them in a certain manner. Call it a "dashboard" effect or a CAF-derivative (nuntym's), but I am now marking every unfinished task with an open circle when I rewrite it at the end of my AF1 list. >>
This is a good idea, but I'm taking a slightly different approach.
Quoting from David Allen's Getting Things Done (GTD) book (2001 paperback edition, page 242):
<< You are either attracted to or repelled by the things on your lists; there isn't any neutral territory. You are either positively drawn toward completing the action or reluctant to think about what it is and resistant to getting involved in it. Often it's simply the next-action decision that makes the difference between the two extremes. >>
Any task on my list may include a GTD-style "next action" on the following line, connected to the task with an L-shaped arrow at the start of the line. For ease of universal capture, next actions are not required for initial task entry, though encouraged. Except for tasks obvious enough to qualify as a next action (e.g. "call Mom"), my system requires a next action on any re-entered task. Even if nothing else is done, determining the next action for a task is considered as "actioning" that task. When processing the Urgent stack, any urgent task considered must have a next action or be re-entered with one before continuing to the next task. Similarly, when processing the Active stack, any important task considered must have a next action or be re-entered with on before continuing to the next task. (Important tasks are marked with one star and urgent tasks with two stars.)
The effect of these rules is to make urgent/important/unfinished tasks more likely to "stand out" because they take up two lines on the card and clearly identify what to do next, and to simultaneously reduce resistance to doing those tasks by making the decision on what the next action is. I hope that this gives sufficient impetus to drive the completion of unfinished tasks without compulsion, but I'm not sure yet if it does.
December 27, 2011 at 17:15 |
Deven
Deven
Mark:
What are your thoughts on the relationship between GTD-style "next actions" and resistance?
What are your thoughts on the relationship between GTD-style "next actions" and resistance?
December 27, 2011 at 17:16 |
Deven
Deven
Deven:
<< I don't want a strict calendar-based dismissal process like that, especially at work where I can't arbitrarily discard my assignments because my time management system told me so. I have a large backlog of tasks that don't suddenly become unimportant because I can't get to them right away. >>
I think you're missing the point of calendar-based dismissal:
1) It doesn't force you to arbitrarily discard your assignments. What it does do is force you to decide what is important enough to get on with before it expires.
2) In DWM2 you have to take some action on a new task/project within 30 days. This is because if you haven't started on an important task within this sort of timescale, then you need to ask yourself why. Are you resisting it? Have you taken on too much work? Should it be shelved completely until a later date? Does the project itself need rethinking? etc. etc.
3) In DWM2 once you've started a project/task, you have to take further action on it within seven working days. This is because starting something but then not taking any further action on it means you've basically wasted the time you spent on starting it. If you do this with a lot of projects, you are wasting time big time!
<< I don't want a strict calendar-based dismissal process like that, especially at work where I can't arbitrarily discard my assignments because my time management system told me so. I have a large backlog of tasks that don't suddenly become unimportant because I can't get to them right away. >>
I think you're missing the point of calendar-based dismissal:
1) It doesn't force you to arbitrarily discard your assignments. What it does do is force you to decide what is important enough to get on with before it expires.
2) In DWM2 you have to take some action on a new task/project within 30 days. This is because if you haven't started on an important task within this sort of timescale, then you need to ask yourself why. Are you resisting it? Have you taken on too much work? Should it be shelved completely until a later date? Does the project itself need rethinking? etc. etc.
3) In DWM2 once you've started a project/task, you have to take further action on it within seven working days. This is because starting something but then not taking any further action on it means you've basically wasted the time you spent on starting it. If you do this with a lot of projects, you are wasting time big time!
December 27, 2011 at 19:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<< What are your thoughts on the relationship between GTD-style "next actions" and resistance? >>
I think identifying the "next action" is ONE way of overcoming resistance. I think a problem with GTD is that the "next action" is the ONLY way the system allows.
In all my systems from DIT onwards you can use whatever way suits the task best. If you want to write a "next action" that's fine. If you want to write a complete task or project that's fine too.
What I do stress is that when putting a task or project into the system you should be clear in your mind what has to be done in order to finish it.
<< What are your thoughts on the relationship between GTD-style "next actions" and resistance? >>
I think identifying the "next action" is ONE way of overcoming resistance. I think a problem with GTD is that the "next action" is the ONLY way the system allows.
In all my systems from DIT onwards you can use whatever way suits the task best. If you want to write a "next action" that's fine. If you want to write a complete task or project that's fine too.
What I do stress is that when putting a task or project into the system you should be clear in your mind what has to be done in order to finish it.
December 27, 2011 at 19:48 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<I think identifying the "next action" is ONE way of overcoming resistance. I think a problem with GTD is that the "next action" is the ONLY way the system allows.>>
Mark, you are absolutely right. Some projects (many, for me) have an ever-changing next action. Particularly with knowledge work, multiple projects may depend on a set of knowledge that evolves as you do your work/research. Any concrete next action is likely to be out of date before you actually work on it.
Even certain simple tasks can have a fuzzy next action, such as "call Jim." Well, in the end, as things unfold, I often find it easier to email Jim or catch him at the kids' soccer game or ... whatever. I much prefer to write "Contact Jim," even though it's a GTD no-no. If I feel resistance to that, it's usually due to doubting what I plan to tell him, which won't be helped by deciding resolutely on a medium of communication. When I tossed out GTD's next-action dogma, things got much easier.
That being said, the next-action lesson is very, very valuable (when one first hears of it), and it is one of the positive things GTD gave me. However, as Mark wrote above, the next-action is *one* way to overcome resistance, a tool that works for certain tasks with certain people. It is not *the* way.
This could all be semantics, though. Which of the following is the true next action?
a. Contact Jim
b. Phone Jim
c. Pick up the telephone
d. Take a step toward the telephone
e. Decide to take a step toward the telephone
As David Allen discusses, your next action need only be written at the level that clarifies it for you. In AutoFocus terms, this would be the level that allows it to stand out; if it fails to stand out, then it may need more detail.
So, really, one could call just about anything a next action and argue that the only question is how much detail to specify in order to remove resistance.
Mark, you are absolutely right. Some projects (many, for me) have an ever-changing next action. Particularly with knowledge work, multiple projects may depend on a set of knowledge that evolves as you do your work/research. Any concrete next action is likely to be out of date before you actually work on it.
Even certain simple tasks can have a fuzzy next action, such as "call Jim." Well, in the end, as things unfold, I often find it easier to email Jim or catch him at the kids' soccer game or ... whatever. I much prefer to write "Contact Jim," even though it's a GTD no-no. If I feel resistance to that, it's usually due to doubting what I plan to tell him, which won't be helped by deciding resolutely on a medium of communication. When I tossed out GTD's next-action dogma, things got much easier.
That being said, the next-action lesson is very, very valuable (when one first hears of it), and it is one of the positive things GTD gave me. However, as Mark wrote above, the next-action is *one* way to overcome resistance, a tool that works for certain tasks with certain people. It is not *the* way.
This could all be semantics, though. Which of the following is the true next action?
a. Contact Jim
b. Phone Jim
c. Pick up the telephone
d. Take a step toward the telephone
e. Decide to take a step toward the telephone
As David Allen discusses, your next action need only be written at the level that clarifies it for you. In AutoFocus terms, this would be the level that allows it to stand out; if it fails to stand out, then it may need more detail.
So, really, one could call just about anything a next action and argue that the only question is how much detail to specify in order to remove resistance.
December 28, 2011 at 6:39 |
Bernie
Bernie
Deven:
>>Thanks ....
You are welcome.
>> I don't want a strict calendar-based dismissal
Let me add, just in case:
Note that tasks are time dependent more than calendar dependent. They have 7 *working* days "lives" (like a video game) before they are dismissed (or 30 if they are new). Alan's suggestion helps to understand this concept. You don't even need to write dates.
Note as well that dismissed means: "At moment, I don't invest more time on this task" and therefore "I store it for further consideration". As advised for any AF system, you may later:
- reenter the task in the list at a more convenient time
- reword the task, split it ...
- send it to your reminding system
- keep it dismissed (stored and highlight)
- delete it
- ...
>>Thanks ....
You are welcome.
>> I don't want a strict calendar-based dismissal
Let me add, just in case:
Note that tasks are time dependent more than calendar dependent. They have 7 *working* days "lives" (like a video game) before they are dismissed (or 30 if they are new). Alan's suggestion helps to understand this concept. You don't even need to write dates.
Note as well that dismissed means: "At moment, I don't invest more time on this task" and therefore "I store it for further consideration". As advised for any AF system, you may later:
- reenter the task in the list at a more convenient time
- reword the task, split it ...
- send it to your reminding system
- keep it dismissed (stored and highlight)
- delete it
- ...
December 28, 2011 at 9:49 |
paco_pepe
paco_pepe
Deven and paco_pepe:
<< Note that tasks are time dependent more than calendar dependent. >>
Yes, PP is absolutely right. I should have picked up on the use of the word "calendar" myself.
In DWM2 the recommended way of numbering the pages is with A-G (like a music scale) and 1-30, e.g. F19. So each page is numbered on both a 7-day scale and a 30-day scale. When, say, a new page F is opened, all the unstarred tasks on the old page F lapse. Similarly when a new page 19 is opened, all the starred tasks remaining on the old page 19 lapse.
Note that you only open a new page on the days when you are actually doing some work on the list, so the numbering is not dependent on the calendar.
<< Note that tasks are time dependent more than calendar dependent. >>
Yes, PP is absolutely right. I should have picked up on the use of the word "calendar" myself.
In DWM2 the recommended way of numbering the pages is with A-G (like a music scale) and 1-30, e.g. F19. So each page is numbered on both a 7-day scale and a 30-day scale. When, say, a new page F is opened, all the unstarred tasks on the old page F lapse. Similarly when a new page 19 is opened, all the starred tasks remaining on the old page 19 lapse.
Note that you only open a new page on the days when you are actually doing some work on the list, so the numbering is not dependent on the calendar.
December 28, 2011 at 10:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
A-to-G, 1-to-7, hmmm ...
December 29, 2011 at 23:09 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie:
<< A-to-G, 1-to-7, hmmm ... >>
No, A to G and 1 to 30, not 7.
<< A-to-G, 1-to-7, hmmm ... >>
No, A to G and 1 to 30, not 7.
December 30, 2011 at 18:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, I meant that A-to-G reminds me of 1-to-7, which is one of the hints you've dropped about the Final Version.
December 31, 2011 at 6:30 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie:
Sorry, misunderstood you. You're obviously better at remembering what I've written in the past than I am!
Sorry, misunderstood you. You're obviously better at remembering what I've written in the past than I am!
December 31, 2011 at 8:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
http://www.markforster.net/blog/category/review-of-systems
Although SuperFocus is derived from Autofocus, I'm not happy with it, because it doesn't seem to follow several of the key principles that made Autofocus great. Is it just me, or does anyone else see this too?
Mark, have you tried AF1 again since SF?