Get Everything Done

Melanie:

Just checking to make sure that wasn't sarcastic. :)

Give me some time to test AF1NDF1 (and perhaps subsequent versions!) and maybe I can convince you to give it another try later, once I believe it's stable. Meanwhile, I'm very interested in any feedback and ideas on what you speculate might work or fail, based on your experience and training. Do you believe that AF1NDF1 addresses the issues you had with AF2NDP5, or is further tuning needed?

Of course, I'm also quite interested in what Mark thinks of this Focus list as a tweak to AF1, should he choose to weigh in...

Learning as I go:

You're correct, I was indeed asking which Focus list guidelines would be more efficient, mine or nick61's. My intuition says mine, but obviously I'm biased! :)

I hate rewriting an entire list; it takes forever. But in this case, I had to do so to switch from AF2NDP5 to AF1NDF1, because I was using one index card per task for AF2NDP5. While this replaced the frequent rewriting with shuffling cards, I've decided I still don't like single-task cards, even though it can be quite convenient for adding extra information. I need a bit of a window into the task list, and one task was too narrow of a view. (This wasn't a flaw in AF2NDP5 but a tradeoff of implementing it on index cards that way.)

Unlike the AF2ND series, AF1NDF1 only requires rewriting of incomplete tasks, like AF1. I have high hopes for this one, but I've had high hopes for most systems I've tried. I guess I'm just an optimist! :) As always, time will tell...

If you want to try AF1NDF1, you could simply choose to view your MIT's for each day as "urgent" to you (since you intend to have them done within a day), which qualifies them for the Focus list without breaking the rules, or even bending them much!

You might want to consider rewriting partially-worked tasks, though. I believe Mark has said repeatedly that this provides a psychological benefit over just leaving it on the list where it was. I'm not in a position to validate that, but it rings true to me...

Much as I like the single master list idea in AF1, I do believe having a separate Focus list may be worth the added complexity, and it's a technique that can be used with a number of base systems as starting points...

Learning as I go:

The ability to shuffle single-task cards is powerful, but it's hard not to miss the forest for the trees when you put your nose up against the bark! LOL

Using the same system since 2007 is impressive. If it's working that well for you, stick with it!

I haven't read the DIT book, but I do like Mark's systems and way of thinking in general. AF1 seems really close to what I'm looking for, but I need to be able to juggle urgent tasks reliably as well. I'm basically using the scientific method to try to evolve Mark's systems into one that works well enough for me that I can use it successfully for years on end as you have.

I try to make small changes based on a hypothesis about how it might improve the system, then spend some time using it to learn whether the hypothesis was correct. All of the changes sound promising, which is why I've tried them. Some do work well, others are failures, but they're all educational. I only wish I could recruit more testers to help me, because feedback from actual use is quite helpful.

Melanie's feedback led me to rethink the system and realize that a cleaner, simpler system might work even better than the one I had, leading to AF1NDF1 as the current experiment. While I might have come to the same conclusion later, her feedback was valuable and helped spur more rapid improvement (hopefully!) to the system.

But you're wrong in thinking that I wouldn't want your data. I value your contributions to the conversation, and if you were inclined to actually test these systems, the results would be of great interest to me. Yes, you have unique challenges, but resistance is a concern for me too, and I would particularly value your data as a "stress test" of the resistance mechanics of the systems. Of course, I might never be able to beat your present system for your own use, but you can always revert to your present system if you test something which turns out to be inferior for you. That being said, I'm not trying to pressure you into trying it -- I quite understand if you don't want to put your current success at risk by experimenting.

And as far as breaking rules goes, I'm fine with executive overrides! I don't let arbitrary rules of a time management system act as a straitjacket for me, but I'm interested in having a set of rules/guidelines that makes me more efficient and effective in pursuit of my goals.

P.S. My name is spelled like the number seven. :)

Seraphim,

Good points, thanks for weighing in! It sounds like you mentally maintain a "Current Initiative", which is certainly a powerful tool.

Clearly there's no single system that works equally well for everyone, but I have definitely noticed a significant fondness for AF1 across a broad swath of users, including Mark himself. However, everyone agrees that AF1 is weak at handling urgent tasks, which can be very important for people who have to juggle urgent priorities on a regular basis.

Note that the Focus list I'm using here is NOT about "focus work" per se. It's about focusing the LIST on a handful of tasks that need regular attention. They might be small, simple tasks that just need to be done ASAP. Or you might have a "Current Initiative" on the Focus list that needs "little and often" work -- or a heavy task that DOES demand a large chunk of focused attention. The real purpose of the Focus list is to identify a FEW tasks that need to remain "on the radar" at all times. Clutter that radar too much, and it won't work.

The hypothesis I'm testing with AF1NDF1 relates to AF1 and AF2. While AF1 was seen as great overall, but weak on urgent tasks, AF2 was somewhat the reverse -- great at urgent tasks, but not so great overall because old tasks would tend to be forgotten. My hypothesis is that AF2 worked so well for urgent tasks because it always started the task selection process with the most recent task each time, and that urgent tasks were usually recent (or recently rewritten when working "little and often"), and that tasks were more likely to be selected for action if they were considered more frequently.

My priority tweaks to AF2ND were based on the same principle (making sure priority tasks are considered more frequently), but I think AF1NDF1 is a simpler approach that feels like an improvement to me, so I'm trying it. The idea is that scanning the Focus list every time you start task selection will give AF2's benefits to those few tasks, while returning to the Main list to continue scanning will give AF1's benefits in general...

Cricket, what would it take to convince you to help me with testing? Your feedback was quite valuable when I was experimenting with Prioritized FV! (Plus, I had the sense that you and I had similar needs and similar thinking...)

Learning as I go:

I'm not upset about misspelling my name, just thought I'd point it out since it does get old seeing your name misspelled over and over again! LOL

Part of the appeal of AF1 is the sheer simplicity of it, but as you say, it may require some subconscious processing ability that you personally cannot rely on anymore. Over a year ago, I was experimenting with my own Autofocus variant (based on AF1, AF2, nuntym's Context Autofocus, GTD and ideas of my own) that used categories, but it was just too complex for what I want. (I can email you the rules if you're curious, but I've abandoned it for my own use.)

Regardless, I'm glad you have a system that works for you.

Cricket:

As an open list with universal capture, an AF1 list can grow to significant size. (Seraphim was an extreme case, of course!) If you refuse to ever delete anything, the list might grow without bound, but at least you'll consider everything eventually. And in reality, if you neglect a task for long enough, it often becomes unnecessary anyhow! So I really don't have a problem, personally, with just deleting things as I notice they've become irrelevant. Mark's systems often include a dismissal process, but I prefer incremental deletion.

<< I can't choose just 5 things to focus on. I've set several projects aside, to pick up after more-urgent projects are done. I need to get more efficient, and drop more from my daily routine. >>

The idea of the Focus list is to keep urgent tasks and deadlines on the radar... but it occurs to me that any recurring daily tasks probably DO belong on the Focus list as well. Consider it retroactively added to the AF1NDF1 rules. :)

As for picking up to 3 tasks from the Main list to "promote" to the Focus list, that isn't meant to imply that those are the only things you would work on, not at all. It's just supposed to be things that you specifically want to complete ASAP, but the limit is to keep the Focus list from growing to an unreasonable size. (Too much beyond 5-9 tasks will likely become an Unfocused list instead!)

The intent of this Focus list is NOT that you should be spending all or most of your time working on those tasks. It's only intended to remind you frequently of those tasks so they don't get lost in the Main list. If the tasks on the Focus list don't "stand out", then you'll end up spending most of your time on the Main list, and that's fine. It's supposed to focus the LIST, not your time.

So, how can I convince you to help me with testing? :D

Learning as I go:

I certainly understand if you don't want to try any of the systems I'm experimenting with, but I'm still very interested in your thoughts about what you think will and won't work, even if it's only based on speculation rather than actual experience with the system. Speculation may be a thought exercise only, but it could still lead to good insights. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on resistance and how to manage it, though I know this is really Mark's specialty. (But your perspective is still interesting as a self-described extreme case.)

Learning as I go:

Thanks for your thoughtfulness about the spelling of my name, but seriously, it's not that big a deal. If you remember, great. If you forget, no worries. I don't intend to bring it up again; it was meant as an aside, not a rebuke! Relax!

I realize that resistance is Mark's specialty and the source of your knowledge, I'm just curious what you would have to say about it. How you would synthesize a summary of Mark's wisdom, if you will...

Cricket:

It seems to me that if I were only allowed to work on tasks in the Focus list, that would encourage growth of that list, since I might be tempted to add Could/Should/Might tasks to the list so they're "available" to select. I consider the length of the Focus list to be a critical factor, and I'm leery of anything that would encourage a longer Focus list, since that would defeat the purpose of it.

That being said, I hear you about tasks from the Main list serving as possible distractions from the Focus list, but I don't think that adding a rule to only work on the Focus list would help, since it's always possible to ignore the rules or stop using the system. But I do think that putting such a distraction onto the Focus list would likely be a mistake, unless it's truly something that you want to drive to completion. Even if that's the case, if you already have your "Top 3" filled up, at least pick of them to replace so you're not extending the Focus list further. Three extra tasks seems sufficient, don't you think?

As for the 7+/-2 thing, I searched and apparently it's "one of the most highly cited papers in psychology", way back in 1956:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

I'm sure that's the reference I had heard about. Interestingly, in searching for the reference above, I found mention of a 2008 study suggesting the real limit is FOUR!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/the-limits-of-m.html
http://www.livescience.com/2493-mind-limit-4.html

So whether the limit is 7+/-2 (i.e. 5-9) or only 4, either way it seems preferable to try to keep the Focus list in the single digits, and 4 or fewer might be ideal. I don't see anything wrong with an empty Focus list; then you're effectively using something closer to stock AF1. The Focus list is intended to keep a few things "on the radar", not to dictate what you work on.

Part of the question in my mind is how routine daily tasks are best handled. Including them in the Focus list makes that list longer, but they might get lost on the Main list. Adding a third Daily list (checklist) might be a reasonable option, or just scheduling the time outside the system. Thoughts?

nuntym:

I've never used a "dashboard" system. You must have me confused with someone else on that one.

As for developing your system into this, it's funny. I've been evolving AF2ND (your invention) for quite some time now, but this Focus list idea made me decide to switch to the original AF1 as a base instead, to make AF1NDF1 -- which means I've stopped using your idea of rewriting the oldest task automatically as in AF2ND. However, I'm still keeping your idea of incremental deletion instead of "dismissal" -- that still feels right to me. I've also stopped using my own idea of adapting the rules for prioritized tasks, though I'm still marking some tasks with 1-2 stars for emphasis. (Officially, prioritization is not part of the AF1NDF1 rules.)

So far, I'm really liking AF1NDF1 a lot, it seems to work better than anything I've tried before, with much less rewriting than the AF2ND series, while remaining efficient for managing urgent tasks due to keeping a short Focus list. Also, because it's so simple (much like AF1), I've found myself actually USING the system more consistently, which I've always found difficult in general.

I still haven't found a way to force myself to do high-resistance tasks, but I don't really think any list processing system can really do that. Nevertheless, AF1NDF1 has been very effective at keeping such tasks front and center (as intended) and hard to forget, and I have indeed made some "little and often" progress that I might not have otherwise, so I guess the jury's still out on this one.

So far, AF1NDF1 is doing an excellent job of staying on top of urgent tasks thanks to the Focus list. So far, so good. We'll see where it stands in a month, though! :)

As for your CAFR system, it's an interesting idea. Certainly there's a lot to be said for doing some pre-planning, since intentions matter and may help with high-resistance tasks in particular. (I need to give this point more thought...) Personally, I like stars better than arrows for marking prioritized tasks, but maybe that's just because they're more fun to draw! :)

It seems like saying "ALL Priority and High Priority tasks must be done by the end of the day" may end up being wishful thinking, and for myself, I completely disagree with your method for weeding the list. Just because a task is over 14 days old doesn't mean that I want it prioritized. I have dozens of ancient tasks on my list that months old -- some even years old. Would it be good to have them done in a more timely fashion? Sure, but not at the expense of other tasks that are more important to be doing now. Are they irrelevant for being old? No. Maybe that system works for you, but I'll stick with your incremental deletion strategy from AF2ND, thanks!

Learning as I go:

You're right, I wasn't very clear in the way I wrote that. My previous attempts (Prioritized FV and the entire AF2NDP series) involved keeping a single list and marking prioritized tasks with one or more stars, then having the rules apply in certain ways based on the number of stars on a task.

AF1NDF1, on the other hand, only uses the Focus list. As you correctly point out, this is a prioritization mechanism, but a different approach. What I meant was that prioritization by adding stars to a task isn't part of the official rules -- only the Focus list is. I still use 1-2 stars to highlight tasks of interest, but that's more as a visual indicator of importance. Unlike the AF2NDP systems, the processing doesn't change at all when I add or remove stars with AF1NDF1, save that the starred tasks might be more likely to "stand out" perhaps.

I've long been a proponent of prioritization, but you're right -- it seem to be generally frowned upon, perhaps because Mark has stated that his attempts to add prioritization never seem to work right, or something to that effect.

While I agree that the Focus list does prioritize some tasks above all others, note there is a significant difference between a short Focus list and allowing unlimited numbers of priority tasks at unlimited priority levels, as I previously did. With the AF2NDP series, I sometimes had as many as 5 stars on some tasks, which involved a lot of rewriting. Now, I don't feel the need to add more than 2 stars to any task, and it's not required at all. The Focus list still does its job quite well without stars on any tasks.

Cricket:

Interesting ideas. With AF1NDF1, I'm still using index cards, but I do put dates so I know when a task was added or last rewritten. (I've debated whether I should be tracking the original date when rewriting a task, but current I don't.) Since I'm using one line per task (unless more are needed), I can fit up to 10 tasks on a single index card, and I've found there's some added motivation from wanting to finish the card once most of it is crossed out. Then I get to rip it up!

I'll have to try your goal-tying idea, that sounds effective.

I'm thinking that maybe I should amend the official rules for AF1NDF1 to say that all same-day goals also belong on the Focus list automatically, which would cover the daily checklist items without any other special rules. Thoughts? (It's basically interpreting "urgent" to include them.)

Learning as I go:

Don't worry too much about the terminology of calling them "rules" -- since nobody is policing you, and the system is for your own benefit, you might well feel free to violate them at will if that works for you. I could call them "guidelines" instead, but that would seem to encourage breaking them! While I don't see anything wrong with choosing to break the "rules", and I'll do so myself, the best reason I see for calling them "rules" instead of "guidelines" is as a reminder that breaking them might have consequences. It's just that the consequences are that you might get different results, not that someone can tell you that you MUST do what the rule says.

Breaking the rules in a consistent way that leads to an improvement in results is good, and helps inform the process of refining the rules to find what works best. Breaking the rules in a way that leads to a degradation in results is okay, but you might be missing out. Perhaps the system would be more effective if you follow the rules -- or perhaps not. It's always hard to know, isn't it?

Part of the problem is that one must devise "rules" by speculation and hypothesis, informed by experience and logic... but until you actually lock them down and try to follow them, you just don't know if they'll work in practice. Every system worth trying usually sounds good on paper, and needs to be tested. Following the rules makes the test more valid. Disregarding them may invalidate the test, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong -- at worst, you've invented your own variant without formalizing it!

Cricket,

While the idea isn't to use the Focus list alone and ignore the Main list, if you inevitably choose something from the Focus list, the effect is the same. After all, you only end up looking at the Main list when nothing on the Focus list "stands out".

Let's consider this a retroactive update/clarification to the AF1NDF1 rules, since there's no real processing change here to justify assigning a new name. Same-day goals belong on the Focus list automatically, just like urgent tasks and tasks with hard external deadlines.

As for making the Focus list optimistic, I take that to mean including more same-day goals than you're confident you can actually accomplish. I guess this is one approach, but I'm still wary of letting the Focus list grow too long. If you have 10+ tasks on the Focus list, it starts to seem less focused and maybe an invitation to chaos, but that's just my opinion/speculation. Perhaps some people could have good results with 20 tasks on a Focus list, but I suspect it's a bit much!

So, can I convince you to give AF1NDF1 a try? I could use more feedback! :)

nuntym:

Yes, unexpected events may happen, which is the main reason it seems a little wishful to say that the planned tasks "must" be done by the end of the day. I could agree with "should", but "must" seems to ignore the reality that sometimes things just won't go as planned, perhaps despite your best efforts. Perhaps failures to complete the tasks could trigger an evaluation process to determine why?

On the other point, you say "Traditionally, the tasks placed in systems based off Mark's ideas are meant to at the very least started soon (i.e. Within weeks)." I'm not sure I agree with this assessment; here's a quote from the AF1 rules: "As you think of new items, add them to the end of the list. One of the characteristics of this system is that you can chuck anything at it. I recommend that you enter everything that comes to mind without trying to evaluate. The system itself will do the evaluation." It explicitly says "anything" and "everything" -- not "anything you intend to start soon"...

On the other hand, I would certainly agree that Mark's dismissal processes are indeed designed to weed older, neglected tasks from the system. As such, I would expect that tasks would have a hard time surviving a year through the normal dismissal process. That being said, I don't care for the dismissal process at all, and much prefer incremental deletion as in AF2ND. Granted, this means old tasks can and do remain on the list indefinitely, but I consider this a feature, not a bug. Recent tasks are not inherently more valuable than old ones that have survived repeated review, in my mind.

Does it clutter the system to have years-old tasks in it? Well, obviously it makes the list longer, but does that translate into clutter? The dictionary definition of "clutter" says "to fill or cover with scattered or disordered things that impede movement or reduce effectiveness". So I guess the real question is whether it reduces effectiveness of the system. If it does, then it may tend to make the system irrelevant, as in your experience.

What are the options for handling old tasks, in general? (1) Keep them in the list indefinitely. (2) Delete/dismiss them from the list, on the assumption that you'll never do them anyway. (3) Move them to a "Someday/Maybe" list for later consideration. (4) Try to force yourself to do them. (Are there any others I've missed?)

I don't like automatically deleting tasks on the assumption that they'll never be done. Granted, that assumption may prove correct. Nevertheless, I would rather make that determination on a case-by-case basis during an incremental review process, not as a consequence of processing rules that automatically treat old tasks as a problem. I also don't like the "Someday/Maybe" list approach, because I've tried it and found that I just never return to the list at all, in practice. As for forcing myself to do them, it just doesn't work for me -- the more a system relies on compulsion, the more resistance I feel toward the system itself.

Hence, I'm left with keeping the old tasks on the list as the only viable option for me. That means I need a system that can deal with an arbitrarily long list effectively, and not get cluttered up by old tasks that do need to remain on the list. This is why I've put so much effort into trying to find or devise a system that works to meet my needs... if AF1NDF1 doesn't fit the bill, I'll try yet again!

I do believe that stock AF1 gets cluttered by old tasks easily, but I'm not sure that the old tasks really affect AF1NDF1's effectiveness very much, because the Focus list keeps the most relevant tasks up-front, and the others are reviewed at a more leisurely pace. Also, the old tasks are less likely to "stand out" (which is why they're old!) and therefore will tend to be skipped over relatively quickly.

Certainly, if you have any ideas for a better solution that doesn't involve removing the old tasks from the list, I'm very interested to hear them.

As for your point that 14-day-old tasks just become "Pre-Priority" tasks, that doesn't change the assumption implicit in your 14-day rule: that everything SHOULD be done within two weeks. After all, "What SHOULD I be doing this day?" is your question for determining "Pre-Priority" tasks in the first place. I don't want a rule dictating that I SHOULD be working on a task just because it's been 2 weeks since I thought of it. Sure, I can choose not to keep it on the Priority list, but it still becomes an explicit decision to be made on each old task on a daily basis, which certainly suggests to me that older tasks will inherently clutter CAFR because of the 14-day rule. But if it works for you, more power to you!

Cricket:

In the past, my "Someday/Maybe" list became a place where tasks went to die and be forgotten forever, but you do make an interesting point. Perhaps it would indeed be helpful to get some distance from old tasks so they can be "out of sight, out of mind" for a time. Certainly, there's plenty of tasks that I know I won't be touching in the near future. I still want a time-management system that works with long lists, but I think I will give it a try.

However, rather than making one long Hibernation list, I think I will actually incorporate it into my tickler file, which I'm already using to track future tasks. I can just have the hibernation time be measured in months, pick how many months out I want to review the task, and file it in the tickler file under that month. (Since I'm using index cards of up to 10 tasks each, I think I'll just move the entire index card into the tickler file based on the task I want to review first.) Then when the tickler file moves to the new month, I can review whatever tasks I hibernated until that month.

I don't know how well it will work in practice, and this is necessarily a long-term experiment, but it definitely seems worth a try.

There's so many things that I want done, it's crazy. I think I will use this question for triage: "Am I likely to work on this task this month?" If not, then I'll hibernate it until at least next month. Otherwise, there's not much that I really WANT to put off for months, even though I likely will!

Besides, if a time comes when I feel like working on an older task, I can always pull out the Hibernate list in advance of its due date...

Well, with AF1NDF1, everything with an external deadline belongs on the Focus list, so I'm only considering tasks on my Main list for hibernation.

So I've gone through both my Home and Work systems to move old tasks that I'm not likely to work on this month into hibernation. Most of them I've hibernated to next month by default. For my home list, my Main list dropped from 57 tasks to 22 tasks. I don't have the exact prior count for my Work list, but I went from September 4 with 77 tasks on my Main list and 8 tasks on my Focus list to today with 59 tasks on my Hibernate list for October, 24 tasks on my Main list and 3 tasks on my Focus list. (I moved several tasks from my Focus list to my Main list also.)

I'm still not convinced that AF1NDF1 would be negatively impacted by a longer list, but it still feels good to have the old tasks out of sight, out of mind -- and knowing that I don't have to spend time and mental energy evaluating tasks that I'm unlikely to select anyway. The question will be whether any of them are ever remembered and worked in the future! Time will tell, as always.