Discussion Forum > Pre-defining task outcomes clearly
PS how does one "join" the forum here, didn't see a link, and the "email Mark" post was a long time ago. . .
October 28, 2012 at 3:28 |
HansBKK
HansBKK
Hans, I do not know if this is exactly answer to your question. In my opinion, there are two constantly alternating phases in any time management system: choosing what to do (review) and doing it. Every system (incl. every Mark`s system) takes it differently: not only as for how often these phases alternate (DIT=once a day, FV=once per every chain, which can be from several minutes to several hours, AF=even more often, Covey system: once a day, GTD: very often, almost constantly etc.), but they also differ by specific rules about how to choose tasks (GTD: as you want, FV: in specific order...). So there are people who prefer to have predefined whole day, some prefer to make predefinition of tasks more times a day...and some prefer both depending on context, type of work etc.
But the time itself is not the only difference. Another factor is constraint on tasks available for predefinition (review): FV:you can choose from all tasks, AF:only from current page, SF: you are forced to choose both from current page plus you HAVE to do all the tasks from second column. This is another characteristic of Mark systems, which is IMO independent on the first. And of course, some people like various types of constraints, some (incl. me) prefer to have freedom to choose from all tasks - that is why I use FV (with some changes.)
But I do not think you can put all the systems on a scale (as you suggest) - they differ qualitatively, not quantitatively.
But the time itself is not the only difference. Another factor is constraint on tasks available for predefinition (review): FV:you can choose from all tasks, AF:only from current page, SF: you are forced to choose both from current page plus you HAVE to do all the tasks from second column. This is another characteristic of Mark systems, which is IMO independent on the first. And of course, some people like various types of constraints, some (incl. me) prefer to have freedom to choose from all tasks - that is why I use FV (with some changes.)
But I do not think you can put all the systems on a scale (as you suggest) - they differ qualitatively, not quantitatively.
October 28, 2012 at 20:49 |
Daneb
Daneb
HansBKK:
<< how does one "join" the forum here, didn't see a link, and the "email Mark" post was a long time ago. . . >>
You email Mark.
<< how does one "join" the forum here, didn't see a link, and the "email Mark" post was a long time ago. . . >>
You email Mark.
October 28, 2012 at 22:15 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
HansBKK wrote:
<< Some systems seem to encourage little pre-definition of tasks, just dump it in the list and keep working ... Others encourage/force a higher degree of discipline, so that you need to define "done" outcomes clearly even if only in your mind, in order to use the system effectively. >>
I've used most of these systems extensively. I think your observation about is generally correct, but it's not an absolute.
For example, if you ONLY dump things into AF and let AF do all the processing, you may eventually find yourself focusing more on small things, recurring things, and administrivia, rather than making significant progress on the big things. The encouragement of little-and-often is very helpful to getting those larger projects started, but it doesn't *automatically* drive them to completion. That's a big reason SFv3 was developed -- to correct this problem with AF1.
With DIT, on the other hand, you can also use it as a catch-all -- just write everything down on the page for Tomorrow. The problem is that the daily list is supposed to be a Will Do list, so using it as a catch-all can be risky and confusing. In the DIT book, Mark does address this. He says that anything you want to explore, think about, consider, decide whether you want to commit to it, etc., can go onto your list. The implicit commitment is that you will "think about" the item. So, if you put a vague or open-ended item on your DIT list, it should always carry this "think about, and decide what to do with..." prefix. I've struggled with this, because I simply *forget* that it's a tentative item, and list starts to feel more like a "could do" instead of a "will do" list, and DIT simply doesn't function well when it changes like that.
One method I use to fix this is to write a question mark at the end of the item. Let's say the idea pops into my mind to re-read The Hobbit. If I just wrote "The Hobbit" on my list, and it's on my WILL DO list, I am usually moving to fast to think much about the fact that this is a tentative item that needs a decision whether to commit. Two things will happen: I either pick up the book off the shelf and start reading it (bad distraction), or I ignore the item and it's still there at end of day (which tends to create a nasty backlog in a day or two that doesn't get processed efficiently like it would in AF1). So instead, I write "Re-read The Hobbit?". And this helps me remember that this is a question, not a task: my only task right now is to answer the question.
This approach is helpful with AF1 also, but with DIT it is critical.
What helps galvanize BOTH lists is the "audit your commitments" idea. Whether you are using AF1 or DIT or anything in between, it is still true that your tasks flow from your commitments, and it's very helpful -- VERY helpful -- to go through each item on your list, and jot down (in one or two words, using a different color of ink than you usually use) which commitment spawned that task. Do this as frequently as needed, if you start feeling like you are swimming in a sea of tasks with no particular focus or drive to completion. It helps refocus the whole things. DIT *needs* this, but AF1 can also benefit from it.
<< Some systems seem to encourage little pre-definition of tasks, just dump it in the list and keep working ... Others encourage/force a higher degree of discipline, so that you need to define "done" outcomes clearly even if only in your mind, in order to use the system effectively. >>
I've used most of these systems extensively. I think your observation about is generally correct, but it's not an absolute.
For example, if you ONLY dump things into AF and let AF do all the processing, you may eventually find yourself focusing more on small things, recurring things, and administrivia, rather than making significant progress on the big things. The encouragement of little-and-often is very helpful to getting those larger projects started, but it doesn't *automatically* drive them to completion. That's a big reason SFv3 was developed -- to correct this problem with AF1.
With DIT, on the other hand, you can also use it as a catch-all -- just write everything down on the page for Tomorrow. The problem is that the daily list is supposed to be a Will Do list, so using it as a catch-all can be risky and confusing. In the DIT book, Mark does address this. He says that anything you want to explore, think about, consider, decide whether you want to commit to it, etc., can go onto your list. The implicit commitment is that you will "think about" the item. So, if you put a vague or open-ended item on your DIT list, it should always carry this "think about, and decide what to do with..." prefix. I've struggled with this, because I simply *forget* that it's a tentative item, and list starts to feel more like a "could do" instead of a "will do" list, and DIT simply doesn't function well when it changes like that.
One method I use to fix this is to write a question mark at the end of the item. Let's say the idea pops into my mind to re-read The Hobbit. If I just wrote "The Hobbit" on my list, and it's on my WILL DO list, I am usually moving to fast to think much about the fact that this is a tentative item that needs a decision whether to commit. Two things will happen: I either pick up the book off the shelf and start reading it (bad distraction), or I ignore the item and it's still there at end of day (which tends to create a nasty backlog in a day or two that doesn't get processed efficiently like it would in AF1). So instead, I write "Re-read The Hobbit?". And this helps me remember that this is a question, not a task: my only task right now is to answer the question.
This approach is helpful with AF1 also, but with DIT it is critical.
What helps galvanize BOTH lists is the "audit your commitments" idea. Whether you are using AF1 or DIT or anything in between, it is still true that your tasks flow from your commitments, and it's very helpful -- VERY helpful -- to go through each item on your list, and jot down (in one or two words, using a different color of ink than you usually use) which commitment spawned that task. Do this as frequently as needed, if you start feeling like you are swimming in a sea of tasks with no particular focus or drive to completion. It helps refocus the whole things. DIT *needs* this, but AF1 can also benefit from it.
November 4, 2012 at 19:40 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim - I've book marked this page and will return to your comment when DIT arrives. Very helpful stuff.
November 4, 2012 at 22:10 |
avrum
avrum
I think a mix is needed. Many tasks just need to be done and planning is irrelevant. But many tasks are just ideas or fit into a larger context and should have more definition and management.
Most of Mark's systems are geared to just processing tasks. They don't consider the definition, just whether they are ready to be done. Planning is considered an independent factor to be handled separately by whatever method is useful for each task.
Covey (for example) takes an opposite approach and focuses on planning with a very simplistic take on managing the doing, and ignoring the minutia. I like Mark's approach but at present feel it has a tendency to promote busywork. This isn't necessarily so, but for my own use I feel the need to introduce perspective on the tasks to keep focus on the more important stuff.
(Aside: Seraphim seems to have the same conclusion coincidentally. I think each system designed is teaching us by what it does and doesn't achieve by it's nature.)
Most of Mark's systems are geared to just processing tasks. They don't consider the definition, just whether they are ready to be done. Planning is considered an independent factor to be handled separately by whatever method is useful for each task.
Covey (for example) takes an opposite approach and focuses on planning with a very simplistic take on managing the doing, and ignoring the minutia. I like Mark's approach but at present feel it has a tendency to promote busywork. This isn't necessarily so, but for my own use I feel the need to introduce perspective on the tasks to keep focus on the more important stuff.
(Aside: Seraphim seems to have the same conclusion coincidentally. I think each system designed is teaching us by what it does and doesn't achieve by it's nature.)
November 5, 2012 at 1:18 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
would you mind commenting more on
>but for my own use I feel the need to introduce perspective on the tasks to keep focus
How do you do it? Is it something you are doing already or just thinking about? (It is something what I also contemplate about these days).
would you mind commenting more on
>but for my own use I feel the need to introduce perspective on the tasks to keep focus
How do you do it? Is it something you are doing already or just thinking about? (It is something what I also contemplate about these days).
November 5, 2012 at 10:18 |
Daneb
Daneb
I haven't got it figured, but consider this:
It's possible to categorize many things I work on into a few subject areas.
Looking at only tasks within a subject area helps clarify which should be done soon and which shouldn't.
It's possible to categorize many things I work on into a few subject areas.
Looking at only tasks within a subject area helps clarify which should be done soon and which shouldn't.
November 5, 2012 at 12:20 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan, yes, this is also something I think about. My ideas/experiences are:
With one list (for me): (+): quick task addition, simplicity, you can work with FV/AF systems, (-): sometimes I lose track from what is important, I tend to doing less important/routine tasks+busyworks+small routines to doing what is really important.
With more lists: (+) you have good overview, (-): you cannot use FV/AF easily+system is more complicated to keep, to add new tasks...
It is of course possible to have one long list TOGETHER WITH mentioned subjects with each task, but...isn't it overkill?
Also, it is probably important to choose the number of subjects/lists wisely. The GTD way of dissecting life into 100+ projects is too confusing and overwhelming for me. I tried to have around 10 general subject areas (personal+work). That worked for me somehow but at the end I changed to FV, which works best for me so far.
Maybe it would be easier to combine DIT with these "several subject areas" lists. I have to read the DIT book finally. I ordered it today...
(sorry for departure from original subject of this thread)
With one list (for me): (+): quick task addition, simplicity, you can work with FV/AF systems, (-): sometimes I lose track from what is important, I tend to doing less important/routine tasks+busyworks+small routines to doing what is really important.
With more lists: (+) you have good overview, (-): you cannot use FV/AF easily+system is more complicated to keep, to add new tasks...
It is of course possible to have one long list TOGETHER WITH mentioned subjects with each task, but...isn't it overkill?
Also, it is probably important to choose the number of subjects/lists wisely. The GTD way of dissecting life into 100+ projects is too confusing and overwhelming for me. I tried to have around 10 general subject areas (personal+work). That worked for me somehow but at the end I changed to FV, which works best for me so far.
Maybe it would be easier to combine DIT with these "several subject areas" lists. I have to read the DIT book finally. I ordered it today...
(sorry for departure from original subject of this thread)
November 5, 2012 at 13:19 |
Daneb
Daneb
The process of auditing my commitments (as explained in the DIT book, and in many places on this site) really helped me identify those "subject areas".
I spent half an hour doing this on Saturday: I went through every single task on my main list and some of my backlog lists, and tried to identify the commitment that generated that task, using just one word. I then went back through and made a list of those commitments:
Me (*)
Dad
Job
Kids' schooling
Garage
ALB
Politics
Church project
Water project
Biz ideas
Writing
Newspaper idea
I then started drawing all this on a big piece of paper (desk-blotter size), drawing a big red box around each of these major areas, and then writing the name of each task nearby the big red box. This helped me make sure that each task was properly connected up with the commitment, and it also helped me see how much work was being generated by each commitment.
Just going through this process -- writing it all down and mapping everything out on a big piece of paper -- gave me a MUCH clearer idea of everything going on.
It also gave me a much better idea of where to DRAW THE LINE. I can't possibly keep up a real commitment to all these things. So my wife and I talked about the whole thing, made a prioritized list, and then drew a line. (I won't tell you where I drew the line - you can guess if you want!) Everything below the line is no longer a commitment. There is no expectation that I will do anything at all in those areas any time soon.
This is so freeing!
- If I have a new biz idea, sure I can write it on the list, maybe even write a paragraph or two of notes about it. But do I actually take action on the task? First thing to do: check the list of commitments!! Is it "above the line"? No? OK, file it away in the biz idea folder. Probably a dud anyway, I have never had any ideas that actually worked!! LOL But if I ever find myself with extra time on my hands, maybe I can bring "biz ideas" above the line, and then I'll have a big folder of ideas to sort through -- instead of a bunch of half-finished projects and false starts and discouragement.
- If I write something on a friend's Facebook page and get the idea that I should collect all those things and write a book someday (as some friends have said I should!), OK, I can save a clipping to OneNote and file it away, but beyond that I can just leave it alone! This frees me up just to write a few Facebook comments without some larger half-commitment lurking somewhere behind it. This also frees me to stop responding on Facebook at all! Do those posts really make much difference, anyway? I doubt it!! I never really spend much time here, but dropping it altogether gives me more time to focus on my commitments!
- I also started to see what Alan said -- you can get a better sense of the relative urgency of each task, when you look at them all under the header of the commitment that they belong to.
(*)
If anybody cares, here is a bit more detail of what those different commitments actually mean:
Me - health, calendar, personal mgmt and overhead, personal development
Dad - stuff I do because I'm a dad and husband - manage budget, insurance, etc.; help around the house, help with kids, teach daughter how to drive, help son choose college classes, play Sorry with the 4-year-old, etc. :-)
Job - my job - could be broken into sub-areas but generally it's under control. My personal life is the part that's always out of control. :-)
Kids' schooling - help my wife help the kids with some of their schoolwork - spinoff from "Dad"
Garage - we need to build a new garage - spinoff from "Dad"
ALB - admin, taxes, etc. for my wife's business
Politics - local political activism
Church project - help our local church with a project
Water project - stop a local company from polluting the aquifer
Biz ideas - always popping into my head, never bear any fruit
Writing - always writing something or other, never publishing
Newspaper idea - start a national liberty newspaper - yeah right! Like I don't already have enough to do! - a spinoff of Politics and Biz ideas
I spent half an hour doing this on Saturday: I went through every single task on my main list and some of my backlog lists, and tried to identify the commitment that generated that task, using just one word. I then went back through and made a list of those commitments:
Me (*)
Dad
Job
Kids' schooling
Garage
ALB
Politics
Church project
Water project
Biz ideas
Writing
Newspaper idea
I then started drawing all this on a big piece of paper (desk-blotter size), drawing a big red box around each of these major areas, and then writing the name of each task nearby the big red box. This helped me make sure that each task was properly connected up with the commitment, and it also helped me see how much work was being generated by each commitment.
Just going through this process -- writing it all down and mapping everything out on a big piece of paper -- gave me a MUCH clearer idea of everything going on.
It also gave me a much better idea of where to DRAW THE LINE. I can't possibly keep up a real commitment to all these things. So my wife and I talked about the whole thing, made a prioritized list, and then drew a line. (I won't tell you where I drew the line - you can guess if you want!) Everything below the line is no longer a commitment. There is no expectation that I will do anything at all in those areas any time soon.
This is so freeing!
- If I have a new biz idea, sure I can write it on the list, maybe even write a paragraph or two of notes about it. But do I actually take action on the task? First thing to do: check the list of commitments!! Is it "above the line"? No? OK, file it away in the biz idea folder. Probably a dud anyway, I have never had any ideas that actually worked!! LOL But if I ever find myself with extra time on my hands, maybe I can bring "biz ideas" above the line, and then I'll have a big folder of ideas to sort through -- instead of a bunch of half-finished projects and false starts and discouragement.
- If I write something on a friend's Facebook page and get the idea that I should collect all those things and write a book someday (as some friends have said I should!), OK, I can save a clipping to OneNote and file it away, but beyond that I can just leave it alone! This frees me up just to write a few Facebook comments without some larger half-commitment lurking somewhere behind it. This also frees me to stop responding on Facebook at all! Do those posts really make much difference, anyway? I doubt it!! I never really spend much time here, but dropping it altogether gives me more time to focus on my commitments!
- I also started to see what Alan said -- you can get a better sense of the relative urgency of each task, when you look at them all under the header of the commitment that they belong to.
(*)
If anybody cares, here is a bit more detail of what those different commitments actually mean:
Me - health, calendar, personal mgmt and overhead, personal development
Dad - stuff I do because I'm a dad and husband - manage budget, insurance, etc.; help around the house, help with kids, teach daughter how to drive, help son choose college classes, play Sorry with the 4-year-old, etc. :-)
Job - my job - could be broken into sub-areas but generally it's under control. My personal life is the part that's always out of control. :-)
Kids' schooling - help my wife help the kids with some of their schoolwork - spinoff from "Dad"
Garage - we need to build a new garage - spinoff from "Dad"
ALB - admin, taxes, etc. for my wife's business
Politics - local political activism
Church project - help our local church with a project
Water project - stop a local company from polluting the aquifer
Biz ideas - always popping into my head, never bear any fruit
Writing - always writing something or other, never publishing
Newspaper idea - start a national liberty newspaper - yeah right! Like I don't already have enough to do! - a spinoff of Politics and Biz ideas
November 5, 2012 at 20:04 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Thanks, Seraphim. I am waiting for DIT book (I should receive it in several days, funny thing I am in the same situation like avrum - as he said in other post - I have been following this blog for quite a long time, but without reading this book). And afterwards, I will definitely try what you suggested.
November 5, 2012 at 22:03 |
Daneb
Daneb
Seraphim, you've always seemed like a busy and generous person with too much on your plate. Now I see it's true!
I finally forced myself to focus on a few projects when I did that milestone chart. The columns were getting too narrow! And you know what? The projects I committed to are moving faster than ever before. I have more enthusiasm for them. Some weeks only the external commitments get attention. Other weeks the rest do -- sometimes I even catch up on them! And sometimes a personal project falls so far behind the milestones that it gets re-evaluated.
The dropped projects are safely tucked away. And you know what? I don't feel at all guilty about dropping them. The other projects are moving so fast, I know I'll be able to resurrect one of the others (or find a new more-important one) very soon.
Check out Covey's Roles and Goals description. He identifies his roles (about 7) and each week picks at least one task for each of them. Those would be your commitments. It might be a simple as ice cream with the kid not in the week-long hockey tournament, but it's something.
Also look up "Wheel of Life" for ways to evaluate and balance them. Ann Bachrach has one in episode 49. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/create-your-personal-wheel/id292885019 . Basically, it's a regular report card evaluating each area. If the wheel is unbalanced, there are problems. If an area is going well, it still needs maintenance.
When I started Mark's Dreams book, I gave each of my Roles a paragraph in my Future Vision, to ensure all got attention. I wish I kept it up, but things are going smoothly enough now I don't want to jinx it.
You might find ways to work on more than one commitment with a single task. Be careful, though. It's too easy to fool yourself. Each task gets assigned to exactly one commitment, and anything else is gravy.
Congrats again!
I finally forced myself to focus on a few projects when I did that milestone chart. The columns were getting too narrow! And you know what? The projects I committed to are moving faster than ever before. I have more enthusiasm for them. Some weeks only the external commitments get attention. Other weeks the rest do -- sometimes I even catch up on them! And sometimes a personal project falls so far behind the milestones that it gets re-evaluated.
The dropped projects are safely tucked away. And you know what? I don't feel at all guilty about dropping them. The other projects are moving so fast, I know I'll be able to resurrect one of the others (or find a new more-important one) very soon.
Check out Covey's Roles and Goals description. He identifies his roles (about 7) and each week picks at least one task for each of them. Those would be your commitments. It might be a simple as ice cream with the kid not in the week-long hockey tournament, but it's something.
Also look up "Wheel of Life" for ways to evaluate and balance them. Ann Bachrach has one in episode 49. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/create-your-personal-wheel/id292885019 . Basically, it's a regular report card evaluating each area. If the wheel is unbalanced, there are problems. If an area is going well, it still needs maintenance.
When I started Mark's Dreams book, I gave each of my Roles a paragraph in my Future Vision, to ensure all got attention. I wish I kept it up, but things are going smoothly enough now I don't want to jinx it.
You might find ways to work on more than one commitment with a single task. Be careful, though. It's too easy to fool yourself. Each task gets assigned to exactly one commitment, and anything else is gravy.
Congrats again!
November 5, 2012 at 22:51 |
Cricket
Cricket
Another benefit of knowing which commitment each task and project belongs to:
You might have too many of one type of commitment -- or too few.
Politics, Water project, Church and Newspaper (you said it would be a national liberty one) could be lumped under "Community Service". That's a lot, but if you dropped all of them, you might miss an important part of your life -- or you might realize there's a better way for you to fill it at this point in your life. By picking one thing at a time, you'll finish it and be reliable -- which is more valuable than starting a dozen. (Insert rant about "can't say no" people who "can't say no" to the next project and leave the first in my lap.)
You might have too many of one type of commitment -- or too few.
Politics, Water project, Church and Newspaper (you said it would be a national liberty one) could be lumped under "Community Service". That's a lot, but if you dropped all of them, you might miss an important part of your life -- or you might realize there's a better way for you to fill it at this point in your life. By picking one thing at a time, you'll finish it and be reliable -- which is more valuable than starting a dozen. (Insert rant about "can't say no" people who "can't say no" to the next project and leave the first in my lap.)
November 6, 2012 at 3:40 |
Cricket
Cricket
A further benefit, and one that's pushing me, is that when you have stuff organized by work area, it functions as a management point for other people working on stuff. You know where things are, where they are going, and then the things that are happening today can be pulled out into today's working list.
November 6, 2012 at 18:06 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I think one of Mark's 'acceptance criteria' for allowing a new member onto the forum should be. "Have you bought and read Do It Tomorrow by Mark Forster?"! I was stunned (tongue in cheek) that some of our regular contributors haven't previously read it!
Could this now spawn a huge amount of input into the forum on DIT? I really hope so. DIT has saved my bacon on a number of occasions, usually when GTD has beaten me into submission and overwhelm (seems like such a good idea at the time doesn't it? That David Allen, honestly...) and I can only thank Mark for the DIT masterpeice.
That said, if I see 'Set up DIT' in whichever system again, I will probably go postal soon. Just shows you how often I fall off all the time management system wagons.
Everybody, buy the book. It's worth it's weight in gold, and who knows, you may then be qualified to write about it in this forum :-)
Could this now spawn a huge amount of input into the forum on DIT? I really hope so. DIT has saved my bacon on a number of occasions, usually when GTD has beaten me into submission and overwhelm (seems like such a good idea at the time doesn't it? That David Allen, honestly...) and I can only thank Mark for the DIT masterpeice.
That said, if I see 'Set up DIT' in whichever system again, I will probably go postal soon. Just shows you how often I fall off all the time management system wagons.
Everybody, buy the book. It's worth it's weight in gold, and who knows, you may then be qualified to write about it in this forum :-)
November 7, 2012 at 21:09 |
Simon Gooch
Simon Gooch
Cricket - Thanks for writing extensively on the "roles" ideas. A long time ago, when I was using Planner Pads ( https://plannerpads.com ), I tried organizing around "roles" but I found it too artificial, too much like a top-down mandate, divorced from reality. I like the audit approach described in DIT better, because you look through your actual tasks -- where you are actually spending your time mental energy, and not where you think you OUGHT to spending it -- and then seeing what commitments actually emerge from that analysis. I got a lot more of that sense of "fire within" that Covey talks about, when he talks about roles, doing it like this, than thinking about it in the abstract. I saw all kinds of patterns and trends, and got all kinds of ideas about what is really important and what isn't. It was a very powerful exercise.
But maybe that's not what you meant...
But maybe that's not what you meant...
November 12, 2012 at 23:38 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
It sounds like working top down and working bottom up are both important. Top-down, using someone else's list, you ignore what you already know about what's important and the list isn't yours. Bottom-up, any role you're currently neglecting might continue to be neglected. Also, any role that has more than its share of projects might appear to be many roles (one for each committee) rather than one (volunteer).
Doing it both ways, though, takes advantage of what you already know about yourself and opens new lenses so you can see new patterns.
Any votes for adding "start from the middle" to the process?
Doing it both ways, though, takes advantage of what you already know about yourself and opens new lenses so you can see new patterns.
Any votes for adding "start from the middle" to the process?
November 13, 2012 at 4:01 |
Cricket
Cricket
BTW WOW what a motherload of collective research, and a super diversion for creative procrastination, thanks!
Lots of factors common to all TM systems are dealt with by the various flavours, and I'm trying to systematically isolate and compare these, and thought I'd initiate an arbitrarily focused discussion on one of them.
Some systems seem to encourage little pre-definition of tasks, just dump it in the list and keep working, which encourages the maintenance of flow - AF1 seems the dominant example here.
Others encourage/force a higher degree of discipline, so that you need to define "done" outcomes clearly even if only in your mind, in order to use the system effectively. GTD takes that approach, and I think in the MF world here, it seems to also be critical to DIT, since you're trying to define a "day's worth of work" in advance.
Am I on track so far?
It seems clear that this goal refinement process is valuable and perhaps even critical to defining the work that needs to be done, just a question of whether that process should be done as a discrete step at a predefined spot in the system's processing flow, or as an organic part of the "Doing" process as opposed to Allen's separation of "defining your work" and "cranking widgets".
So I'm asking for two dimensions of questions here:
First, assuming you agree with the two "polar" examples of DIT and AF1 from the MF universe above, how do you see the other various systems fitting in on the scale?
Just as a prompt list, I'm sure not complete: AF2, AF3, AF4, AF4R, DWM, 3-T, SFv3, Dreams, and FV. Feel free to comment on your favorite personal tweaked system if it's relevant to this specific issue, but I'd prefer to keep things simple (Hah! 8)
Secondly and more generally, which approach do you feel fits your needs, and how do that relate to your personality/psychology profile wrt increasing your effectiveness and overcoming procrastination? Or is one approach suitable for a particular context, time of day, degree of urgency ATM, etc and you've come up with a flexible adaptation of this aspect within one of the standard systems?
Hoping for a fruitful discussion, and thanks in advance.