Get Everything Done

You need a master list of everything you plan to do anytime soon, just like most of Mark's systems. It can be paper notebook or electronic. Like FV, the pages don't matter.

Cycle the entire list in order, doing anything that "stands out." When you reach the top of the list, you *must* do the first task. If you *cannot* do it now (e.g., it's "clean bathroom" and you're at work), then you can rewrite it at the end and cross it out, but then you must do the new top task (or, rarely, repeat the above exception).

The key here is that the standing out is influenced by your desire to avoid the top task on the list, which you are likely to be resisting. This means that some things you are resisting - but resisting less - will "stand out" even though they otherwise wouldn't.

Here are some key advantages:

1. Pressure is put on the top of the list, just like FV.

2. It has many of the advantages of FV, but removes the main disadvantage of FV - having more than one task selected at a time.

3. It's very simple and has very low overhead.

4. It uses structured procrastination and little-and-often in a very simple, natural way that is akin to Mark's systems.

5. It can respond pretty much immediately to urgent items, just like FV.

6. If you let the "standing out" happen "nearly randomly," it has a lot of the same advantages of the random system, except an out-of-context task is never selected, and there is just enough element of "psychological readiness" to make it less resistive.

Anyone want to join me in trying it?

Note that the system responds to how effective your "standing out" mechanism is. If you are prone to picking only quick and easy things - or practically nothing - then you are often forced to do the first task, which you have likely been resisting. On the other hand, if you have a strong "choice muscle" and your standing out mechanism picks a variety of things, then you aren't as often forced to do the first task. So it is somewhat self-correcting, and it may tend to train your choice muscle.

That was my concern as well - that this system has a lot of potential, but it will be hard for it to attract testers on the heels of the randomized system. Anyway, I will be testing it and will let y'all know how it turns out. I really think it has a lot of potential. Ever since FV came out, I've wanted a simple way to achieve the power of the features of FV with only one task selected at a time. I suspect that this system, or something like it, may be the answer.

I'm also wondering if Mark has ever tried this, since it's simple enough and close enough to his own systems that he may very well have thought of it before me.

Austin,
I love this! I have also been thinking about ways to use some of FVs advantages in a simpler way. I have a schedule spreadsheet where 'things I need to do work' are in a separate column. This method allows me to just scan that column. Since I read your post, I have been trying this. So far so good.

Thanks, y'all.

Regrettably, my work for the past week was taken over by a mass of scheduled things, travel, etc, and I had almost no discretionary time in which to test the system. Today things are finally settling back to normal, discretionary time for most of the day. So I am going to start giving this a thorough trial.

Austin,

Still working great for me!
Question for clarification please: Do you "restart" everyday? ie: begin each day by looking down the list for something to stand out, then when back to the top "do first item". That's how I've been approaching it...

Mark Thomas

Sounds very interesting.

One, would one start at the bottom of the list and move upwards working on what "stands out" at the beginning of the day? So, one may complete several tasks before reaching the first task?

Two, once you reach and work on the very first task, then would you move down the list and work on what "stands out?" Would one normally cycle to the end of the list before moving back to the top?

I really like the idea of this simple system. Urgent items could always be added to the bottom and worked on before moving back to the first task.

Mark Thomas,

No official rule yet. I typically start at the top but with no compulsion the first time. Sometimes I start with the first task added yesterday. You could also just pick up where you left off. Let me know what works for you..

Pastor Chris,

You only move one direction, forward. I considered backwards instead but decided against it. Feel free to try it and let us know how it works, though.

Thanks everyone for the helpful feedback.

Cricket,

It comes with just about all of Mark Forster-style systems (although I created this system, it is entirely based on his ideas and methods, at least as I have understood them) that you work on a task for as long as you feel like working on it. You don't need "discipline" to decide that first task needn't (or shouldn't) be worked on for very long. You can just realize that it only needs brief treatment and move on. You know what is urgent and what isn't. Besides, by the time you are forced to do a task, you have always had opportunity to scan the entire list and work on whatever stands out as ready to be done.

Very interesting results so far. I am pleasantly surprised at how effective the self-balancing effect is. When my standing-out mechanism is prone to selecting quick and easy things and passing over things that require more sustained effort (which are also generally more important), I am often required to do something I have been putting off. This tends to strengthen my standing-out mechanism such that I choose things that in other systems I put off. I have been impressed at how well this works. Today I have done a number of important things that in any other system I would have delayed much longer.

Ubi,
I have been doing the 'slide' if the first item is out of context. If I don't, my super power of finding reasons that something is not currently doable kicks in. Doing the slide keeps the first item in a position that forces me to deal with it on a regular basis.

Y'all may be right, but I've always appreciated the shrinking effect and the feeling of constantly moving forward that comes from always deleting the first task whether you've done it or postponed it.

Regarding a name, I've been brainstorming it for days and haven't settled on something. One that came to mind was "auto-balance" because of the self-balancing effect, but I don't want to use that name unless it conclusively turns out to be as good as it initially appears to be, and even then I'm not sure if I like it or not. Suggestions welcome.

Mark, I'm glad you are finding it useful. I would be very interested in your continued feedback, ultimate conclusions, etc.

Cricket,

A few things come to mind. 1.) You'll have this problem in any system, 2.) The force mechanism naturally tends to balance hard work and easy work as described above, and 3.) How did something really fun and enjoyable that you want to procrastinate with get to the oldest task on the list in the first place? The only way this happens is if you have a lot of self-discipline to do the important things, in which case, consider it a reward. Otherwise those tasks will stay at the end of the list because you are picking them often.

In addition to that, I have to think that if I only had to slide rather than re-enter, I would be more prone, not less prone, to deciding that I "can't" do something when I really can.

I thought about adding a second "pressure point" - the oldest task entered yesterday - and then the system would have been called "the Oyster system" from "Oldest YeSTERday." This would have given the system more of a DIT feel, but I ended up concluding that it probably would do more harm than good to have a second force point. I may try it eventually, but first I want to give the existing system a fair and thorough trial. I suspect "the Oyster system," as interesting as its name is, may never come to fruition.

Update. I have been working the system for two days and, by the numbers, it is going really well. I've tried many of the systems here and the tweaks Austin made really fit my way of working. The amount of work I gotten done in the past two days has eclipsed the amount of work of work I have accomplished at the "start" of other systems-which is always higher for me because of the initial enthusiasm.

Note: Reentering works better than sliding for me.

I think it is interesting that out of all the systems of time management I have tried, Mr. Forster's various system and this website have been the most productive for me and lasted longer than any other I have purchased or read about in the past two decades. So much so that whenever I advise colleagues and others, I always point them first to one of Mark's (free) systems, his books, and the knowledge found in these forums. In some ways, this whole enterprise, for me, is a splendid example of open source knowledge and procedures and a positive community to sharpen one's own abilities in this particular sphere of interest.

How are people getting on with this system? It looks very simple & effective.

Mark,

What were your conclusions on this? How long did you use it, or are you still using it?

I took a break to experiment more, ended up overwhelmed from all the switching, and went to DIT to get everything swept and in order again. However, that's not to say I've concluded this system isn't any good.

Thanks to others as well for their helpful feedback. Anybody still using it? Has your experience of its effectiveness changed since you last reported?

Hi Austin,

I have been using your system for the last 3-4 days. My initial impressions are that it is simple and effective to implement. It has helped me clear a nasty number of backlog items over this period. I like the simplicity of the method. There are basically very few rules to have to remember and I think this really helps one to work the system.

It seems like it is easy to spot the items of resistance and it appears to be particularly useful for dealing with different contexts in a logical way. I assume this system works better with a shortish' list (I have about 35-40 items on my list at the moment) however I don't know for sure yet if this is the case.

I suppose a long period of time is needed in road testing any system. I would like to give it a good month or so to properly work the system but that will depend on my ability to be consistent and not keep switching to other methods!


Well done and thank you for sharing your system with us all.

Leon,

That is very encouraging to hear. I think you and others are right that the list should be kept short. This is also true of the Final Version, as opposed to, say, AF1. AF1 was intended to let you throw everything that comes into your mind at it and let it "focus" the work and filter out the other stuff; helping you make decisions subconsciously. FV, on the other hand, instructs you to list only things you actually intend to take action on sometime soon. I think that is also necessarily in this new system. I'm still not sure what to call it.

Still using it with good results. Will probably continue with this system for 30 days since I have a habit of switching systems before fully ascertaining whether a particular system is worthwhile.