Discussion Forum > Adaptive Focus?
DWM2 - I highly recommend this as the base on which we use the algorithm. It is a very robust system: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/27/review-of-the-systems-dwm-day-week-month-2.html
DSAF - Another good time-based dismissal system that we can use as base: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2037791
AF2ND - This system always makes my list looking fresh, and can be used if the list starts looking stale: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1908142
Random Time Management - I find this really can cut into willpower problems since it hijacks willpower with an RNG; it also seems to be good at processing older items. Poor performance on handling urgent items though: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random-time-management.html
AF1 - A very relaxed way of handling tasks. Rather poor at handling hard and urgent tasks though: http://markforster.squarespace.com/autofocus-system/
AF2 - Powerful when it comes to urgent tasks, weak when it comes to hard and old tasks: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/6/27/autofocus-2-time-management-system-af2.html
Final Version - you need a lot of willpower (imho) to use this effectively, but very effective if you do.
SMEMA/3T - If you need lots of focus, and if you have lots of energy to do so, then these are great systems; expect to get bogged down though if you don't: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/7/the-simplest-and-most-effective-method-of-all.html http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/4/live-demo-tomorrow-november-5.html
DSAF - Another good time-based dismissal system that we can use as base: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2037791
AF2ND - This system always makes my list looking fresh, and can be used if the list starts looking stale: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1908142
Random Time Management - I find this really can cut into willpower problems since it hijacks willpower with an RNG; it also seems to be good at processing older items. Poor performance on handling urgent items though: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random-time-management.html
AF1 - A very relaxed way of handling tasks. Rather poor at handling hard and urgent tasks though: http://markforster.squarespace.com/autofocus-system/
AF2 - Powerful when it comes to urgent tasks, weak when it comes to hard and old tasks: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/6/27/autofocus-2-time-management-system-af2.html
Final Version - you need a lot of willpower (imho) to use this effectively, but very effective if you do.
SMEMA/3T - If you need lots of focus, and if you have lots of energy to do so, then these are great systems; expect to get bogged down though if you don't: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/7/the-simplest-and-most-effective-method-of-all.html http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/4/live-demo-tomorrow-november-5.html
May 9, 2014 at 1:05 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
Not a bad idea, but I don't think it's a good idea to make it *too* complicated.
How about the following:
- use the randomizer on the first page (making use of the "sliding rule")
- use AF1 on the last pages, starting with the last page on which there is a crossed off (actioned) task.
- use the reverse of AF2 on everything in between (i.e. you start from the first task on p.2 each time you select a new task. Use this method until it takes you to a task on one of the last pages, then use AF1 from there on.
Not a bad idea, but I don't think it's a good idea to make it *too* complicated.
How about the following:
- use the randomizer on the first page (making use of the "sliding rule")
- use AF1 on the last pages, starting with the last page on which there is a crossed off (actioned) task.
- use the reverse of AF2 on everything in between (i.e. you start from the first task on p.2 each time you select a new task. Use this method until it takes you to a task on one of the last pages, then use AF1 from there on.
May 9, 2014 at 1:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<And yet without exception each and everyone of them we discard or set aside for another system, either new or old. We have been thinking it could be because we get bored of them, we need novelty, etc.>>
This is a little overstated. The people who post here are a small, self-selected portion of those who use Mark's systems, and by nature we are the type who like to experiment with productivity systems. The fact that we sometimes switch frequently does not necessarily suggest that the systems are not maintainable in the long term. And I think that most of us have found at least one or two systems that, when we choose to use them for a long time without switching, they work quite well consistently. I have personally found this with DIT, FV, UTMS, and the Remelsbach system.
This is a little overstated. The people who post here are a small, self-selected portion of those who use Mark's systems, and by nature we are the type who like to experiment with productivity systems. The fact that we sometimes switch frequently does not necessarily suggest that the systems are not maintainable in the long term. And I think that most of us have found at least one or two systems that, when we choose to use them for a long time without switching, they work quite well consistently. I have personally found this with DIT, FV, UTMS, and the Remelsbach system.
May 9, 2014 at 3:48 |
Austin
Austin
@Mark Forster: <<I don't think it's a good idea to make it *too* complicated.>>
Well maybe making the algorithm *too* specific would make the system too complicated, maybe just a set of rough recommendations of which system to use for some circumstances would suffice.
Although I think it is wrong that you can change systems on the drop of the hat; I think it would be best if one can change system only when he/she has reached the end of the list.
<<How about the following:>>
Hmm, interesting ideas, but aren't those recommendations a bit too specific, Mark? Why did you recommend those steps?
@Austin: <<This is a little overstated.>>
Yeah you're right there Austin, I did make too much of an oversweeping statement there. And yes you're right about people finding systems that they stick with for quite a while; even for me I stick with DWM2 for the longest time.
However, I really do think there is merit in being able to choose which task processing system to use based on the specific circumstances of the moment, which is why I made this thread, and I wish other people would share what they think about the best use of their favored systems in this regard,
Well maybe making the algorithm *too* specific would make the system too complicated, maybe just a set of rough recommendations of which system to use for some circumstances would suffice.
Although I think it is wrong that you can change systems on the drop of the hat; I think it would be best if one can change system only when he/she has reached the end of the list.
<<How about the following:>>
Hmm, interesting ideas, but aren't those recommendations a bit too specific, Mark? Why did you recommend those steps?
@Austin: <<This is a little overstated.>>
Yeah you're right there Austin, I did make too much of an oversweeping statement there. And yes you're right about people finding systems that they stick with for quite a while; even for me I stick with DWM2 for the longest time.
However, I really do think there is merit in being able to choose which task processing system to use based on the specific circumstances of the moment, which is why I made this thread, and I wish other people would share what they think about the best use of their favored systems in this regard,
May 9, 2014 at 4:40 |
nuntym
nuntym
For the people who have used SuperFocus v.3, what have you found to be its strengths and weaknesses, and which circumstances would it be best to use the system, and when should one avoid it?
I am asking because I honestly did not try this system.
I am asking because I honestly did not try this system.
May 9, 2014 at 4:43 |
nuntym
nuntym
<<However, I really do think there is merit in being able to choose which task processing system to use based on the specific circumstances of the moment, which is why I made this thread, and I wish other people would share what they think about the best use of their favored systems in this regard,>>
I think that is true. Here are my own preferences: I agree with you that when resistance to getting moving is an issue, Remelsbach works very well. When I find that I'm not resisting using a system, but I'm using the systems to procrastinate, I'll use DIT because it has less tolerance for that sort of thing and the focus is more on getting the right work done every day. When I'm in the same context all day and I just want a relaxed day of getting a lot of different things worked on, I'll use FV. When I want to focus on completing one or two assignments, but getting little one-offs done as necessary, I'll use UTMS. Finally, when I have a major project due in a day or two and want to work on just that one project all day, I'll use either SMEMA or timed bursts, or even just an impromptu today list.
I think that is true. Here are my own preferences: I agree with you that when resistance to getting moving is an issue, Remelsbach works very well. When I find that I'm not resisting using a system, but I'm using the systems to procrastinate, I'll use DIT because it has less tolerance for that sort of thing and the focus is more on getting the right work done every day. When I'm in the same context all day and I just want a relaxed day of getting a lot of different things worked on, I'll use FV. When I want to focus on completing one or two assignments, but getting little one-offs done as necessary, I'll use UTMS. Finally, when I have a major project due in a day or two and want to work on just that one project all day, I'll use either SMEMA or timed bursts, or even just an impromptu today list.
May 9, 2014 at 17:14 |
Austin
Austin
I'll add that there are some systems which do actually facilitate rapid switching without a significant downside, and others that take time to get up and running. AF1 is an example of one that takes time to get up and running. Remelsbach and FV are two systems that start working right away, and don't work any less well at the beginning than they do later on. You can switch back and forth between FV and Remelsbach as often as you want (obviously not mid-FV chain, though) because both systems start working right away and do not function any differently over time.
May 9, 2014 at 17:36 |
Austin
Austin
Good thinking, linking us to descriptions. And thanks! I'd forgotten AF2. Today that seems like a good choice. (Change that. Just finished describing Reverse FV.)
This matches my observations about myself. Randomizer is great for breaking inertia or resistance, but I don't trust it to give me the urgent things, so it only works if I'm confident the urgent things are under control. A variation on FV is good if I'm not confident, and want to make the best choice, but not if I finish the chain. (I'll always reactivate the oldest task rather than delete or defer.)
Systems with fixed dismissal don't work for me. I'd have to dismiss or quickly action too many large, high-resistance projects. I want to focus on just a few and keep momentum.
This matches my observations about myself. Randomizer is great for breaking inertia or resistance, but I don't trust it to give me the urgent things, so it only works if I'm confident the urgent things are under control. A variation on FV is good if I'm not confident, and want to make the best choice, but not if I finish the chain. (I'll always reactivate the oldest task rather than delete or defer.)
Systems with fixed dismissal don't work for me. I'd have to dismiss or quickly action too many large, high-resistance projects. I want to focus on just a few and keep momentum.
May 9, 2014 at 17:49 |
Cricket
Cricket
nuntym:
<< Hmm, interesting ideas, but aren't those recommendations a bit too specific, Mark? Why did you recommend those steps? >>
First I'd emphasis that I wasn't "recommending" them; I was only suggesting them as possibles. I hadn't tried the idea out at all when I wrote the post and was just playing with the idea - which I do find a good one as I said.
However if you want my specific reasoning for my specific suggestions:
1) The AF1 method of working a page is great for thinning out urgent and routine tasks, and is therefore most suitable for the end of the list.
2) The Randomizer is the best there is for getting rid of resistance to the really tough tasks which won't budge. Therefore suitable for getting the first page moving, which is where they all end up.
3) Selecting forward repeatedly from the first task on the list was the first TM system I ever thought up. It had two disadvantages though: 1) I always ended up skipping the tough nuts on the first page which had been passed over time after time; 2) there was a long journey to get to the urgent and routine tasks at the far end of the list. Using the Randomizer for the first page and AF1 for the last pages seems to solve both these problems.
I started trying this out today, but I've been away for most of the day so haven't really been able to judge it yet.
<< Hmm, interesting ideas, but aren't those recommendations a bit too specific, Mark? Why did you recommend those steps? >>
First I'd emphasis that I wasn't "recommending" them; I was only suggesting them as possibles. I hadn't tried the idea out at all when I wrote the post and was just playing with the idea - which I do find a good one as I said.
However if you want my specific reasoning for my specific suggestions:
1) The AF1 method of working a page is great for thinning out urgent and routine tasks, and is therefore most suitable for the end of the list.
2) The Randomizer is the best there is for getting rid of resistance to the really tough tasks which won't budge. Therefore suitable for getting the first page moving, which is where they all end up.
3) Selecting forward repeatedly from the first task on the list was the first TM system I ever thought up. It had two disadvantages though: 1) I always ended up skipping the tough nuts on the first page which had been passed over time after time; 2) there was a long journey to get to the urgent and routine tasks at the far end of the list. Using the Randomizer for the first page and AF1 for the last pages seems to solve both these problems.
I started trying this out today, but I've been away for most of the day so haven't really been able to judge it yet.
May 9, 2014 at 21:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Austin:
<< The people who post here are a small, self-selected portion of those who use Mark's systems, and by nature we are the type who like to experiment with productivity systems. >>
This is something I've pointed out several times. Over the last month about 13,500 individuals visited this site, of whom only 43 left one or more comments.
<< The people who post here are a small, self-selected portion of those who use Mark's systems, and by nature we are the type who like to experiment with productivity systems. >>
This is something I've pointed out several times. Over the last month about 13,500 individuals visited this site, of whom only 43 left one or more comments.
May 9, 2014 at 21:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym wrote:
<< maybe, we have been doing all of this the wrong way >>
I have also been thinking we (or at least I) have been doing all this the wrong way.
As much as I am intrigued by Mark's reasoning two posts back, and as much as part of me wants to go give it a try just for fun, I don't think I will. And it's because I came to a very different conclusion about what the problem really is.
About a month ago, I posted this well-researched article on how people actually make use of their task lists: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2324914
Two statistics from their results really stood out for me:
41% of to-do items were never completed
15% of dones started as to-do items
I spent some time reflecting on this, and realized these numbers are pretty accurate for me as well. If anything, my own numbers are a little more extreme: a higher percentage of the items on my lists never get done. And I'd say the 15% of dones starting as to-do items is about right.
Here is where most of my "dones" actually happen:
- Done immediately after becoming aware of the task:
-- Wife asks me to do something
-- Coworker asks me to do something
-- Email triggers an action (most of which are short and immediate)
-- "Walking around" triggers an action (whether at home, at work, driving around, etc.)
- Done collaboratively in a pre-scheduled meeting
- Done immediately after a pre-scheduled meeting, as a result of an "action item" assigned in that meeting
- Done as a result of habit, routine, or schedule
My "deep focus", personal kanban, and "calendar as kanban" experiments all pointed in this direction also: they made me realize how much (or how little) discretionary time I really have, after I take care of regular habit items (personal care, commuting, eating, evening routine with family, etc.), take care of recurring maintenance (email, etc.), and meetings.
So, I have come to the conclusion that spending a lot of time trying to optimize how I spend my discretionary time delivers about as much value as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :-)
That just isn't where the real value is to be found.
The study I referenced above demonstrates that it's not just me.
This doesn't mean we can just let our task management fester into chaos. It does mean it just isn't the area that needs a lot of focus and optimization for most people to make a big impact on their personal effectiveness. The discretionary task management just needs enough attention so it doesn't create a lot of stress and isn't a total mess.
The simplest method I've found for actually handling tasks is to sort them in Outlook or in my paper notebook so I handle the most-recently added items first. In other words, I enter tasks just like in DIT, but I process them differently: just look at the most recent stuff first, and go backwards. Don't worry about dismissal or anything like that at all. Just work on the most recently entered items that seem to need attention. Maybe put a star or something next to the critical items with deadlines, and focus on those first. Or maybe not. Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter a whole lot. When you run out of time, stop working. (again, emphasizing schedule and calendar over the to-do list)
If you get stuck, combine this approach with a random number generator: choose the item 1-20 items down from the top of the list (ie., counting down from the most recently entered item). This means you will always choose one of the top twenty most recently entered items.
Focusing on the most recent items only, seems to work OK because that's where the freshest items are. If something rolls off the list, out of site, it's probably OK -- if it's really needed, you'll think of it anyway, or someone else will remind you.
And then, stop worrying about it, and focus attention where bigger benefits can be made:
- how you handle immediate needs
- how you handle your routine, habits, and schedule
- how you handle your calendar.
This has been helping me a lot. I feel like I have more time and am getting a lot more done. And the really funny thing is, the discretionary items have been handled pretty well too: I really feel like the right things are getting done.
<< maybe, we have been doing all of this the wrong way >>
I have also been thinking we (or at least I) have been doing all this the wrong way.
As much as I am intrigued by Mark's reasoning two posts back, and as much as part of me wants to go give it a try just for fun, I don't think I will. And it's because I came to a very different conclusion about what the problem really is.
About a month ago, I posted this well-researched article on how people actually make use of their task lists: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2324914
Two statistics from their results really stood out for me:
41% of to-do items were never completed
15% of dones started as to-do items
I spent some time reflecting on this, and realized these numbers are pretty accurate for me as well. If anything, my own numbers are a little more extreme: a higher percentage of the items on my lists never get done. And I'd say the 15% of dones starting as to-do items is about right.
Here is where most of my "dones" actually happen:
- Done immediately after becoming aware of the task:
-- Wife asks me to do something
-- Coworker asks me to do something
-- Email triggers an action (most of which are short and immediate)
-- "Walking around" triggers an action (whether at home, at work, driving around, etc.)
- Done collaboratively in a pre-scheduled meeting
- Done immediately after a pre-scheduled meeting, as a result of an "action item" assigned in that meeting
- Done as a result of habit, routine, or schedule
My "deep focus", personal kanban, and "calendar as kanban" experiments all pointed in this direction also: they made me realize how much (or how little) discretionary time I really have, after I take care of regular habit items (personal care, commuting, eating, evening routine with family, etc.), take care of recurring maintenance (email, etc.), and meetings.
So, I have come to the conclusion that spending a lot of time trying to optimize how I spend my discretionary time delivers about as much value as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :-)
That just isn't where the real value is to be found.
The study I referenced above demonstrates that it's not just me.
This doesn't mean we can just let our task management fester into chaos. It does mean it just isn't the area that needs a lot of focus and optimization for most people to make a big impact on their personal effectiveness. The discretionary task management just needs enough attention so it doesn't create a lot of stress and isn't a total mess.
The simplest method I've found for actually handling tasks is to sort them in Outlook or in my paper notebook so I handle the most-recently added items first. In other words, I enter tasks just like in DIT, but I process them differently: just look at the most recent stuff first, and go backwards. Don't worry about dismissal or anything like that at all. Just work on the most recently entered items that seem to need attention. Maybe put a star or something next to the critical items with deadlines, and focus on those first. Or maybe not. Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter a whole lot. When you run out of time, stop working. (again, emphasizing schedule and calendar over the to-do list)
If you get stuck, combine this approach with a random number generator: choose the item 1-20 items down from the top of the list (ie., counting down from the most recently entered item). This means you will always choose one of the top twenty most recently entered items.
Focusing on the most recent items only, seems to work OK because that's where the freshest items are. If something rolls off the list, out of site, it's probably OK -- if it's really needed, you'll think of it anyway, or someone else will remind you.
And then, stop worrying about it, and focus attention where bigger benefits can be made:
- how you handle immediate needs
- how you handle your routine, habits, and schedule
- how you handle your calendar.
This has been helping me a lot. I feel like I have more time and am getting a lot more done. And the really funny thing is, the discretionary items have been handled pretty well too: I really feel like the right things are getting done.
May 10, 2014 at 6:18 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
This is actually the long hoped-for revolution in the way that you look at those 400+ items on your to do list that caused you so much trouble in the past and which you were so reluctant to let go of, isn't it?
What you are describing is essentially AF2, but liberated from the weight of trying to get all 400+ tasks done.
This is actually the long hoped-for revolution in the way that you look at those 400+ items on your to do list that caused you so much trouble in the past and which you were so reluctant to let go of, isn't it?
What you are describing is essentially AF2, but liberated from the weight of trying to get all 400+ tasks done.
May 10, 2014 at 10:46 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
In the meantime, my little experiment (and that's all it is) of mixing the Randomizer, Reverse AF2 and AF1 is going surprisingly well. What seems to have happened is that it's taken the best of each system and junked the worst, as follows:
THE BEST (kept)
Randomizer
- Reduces resistance to nearly zero.
Reverse AF2
- Great for processing tasks of medium urgency and resistance.
AF1
- Great for dealing quickly with systematic and urgent tasks.
THE WORST (junked)
The Randomizer
- Entirely oblivious to my petty concerns about urgency and importance
Reverse AF2
- Not good with tasks with high resistance or urgency.
AF1
- Slow at processing high and medium resistance tasks.
THE BEST (kept)
Randomizer
- Reduces resistance to nearly zero.
Reverse AF2
- Great for processing tasks of medium urgency and resistance.
AF1
- Great for dealing quickly with systematic and urgent tasks.
THE WORST (junked)
The Randomizer
- Entirely oblivious to my petty concerns about urgency and importance
Reverse AF2
- Not good with tasks with high resistance or urgency.
AF1
- Slow at processing high and medium resistance tasks.
May 10, 2014 at 10:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So at the risk of oversimplifying, its starting to look like we're developing a very comprehensive and powerful list management system, which perhaps can be described this way:
1. Core element - open list, throw everything at it.
2. Work the list using any number of tools at your disposal - AF 1-4, FV, etc.
3. Apply the principal of little and often.
Couple quick questions: I've been here since 2008 and have used all the systems quite extensively. How would you teach this to someone new?
Mark, would you consider adding a tab or a page which provides an up-front link to instructions for all the systems? I find they are kind of hard to locate, or maybe its just me.
1. Core element - open list, throw everything at it.
2. Work the list using any number of tools at your disposal - AF 1-4, FV, etc.
3. Apply the principal of little and often.
Couple quick questions: I've been here since 2008 and have used all the systems quite extensively. How would you teach this to someone new?
Mark, would you consider adding a tab or a page which provides an up-front link to instructions for all the systems? I find they are kind of hard to locate, or maybe its just me.
May 10, 2014 at 18:22 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil:
<< Mark, would you consider adding a tab or a page which provides an up-front link to instructions for all the systems? I find they are kind of hard to locate, or maybe its just me. >>
They are hard to locate, even for me. It's a result of the organic growth of the ideas on this site. As I've said before this site is no longer one of my main priorities so I can't promise anything. If other people would like to have a go at collecting links to the various systems, then I'll open a permanent webpage on which they can be displayed.
Post your results please at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2347515
<< Mark, would you consider adding a tab or a page which provides an up-front link to instructions for all the systems? I find they are kind of hard to locate, or maybe its just me. >>
They are hard to locate, even for me. It's a result of the organic growth of the ideas on this site. As I've said before this site is no longer one of my main priorities so I can't promise anything. If other people would like to have a go at collecting links to the various systems, then I'll open a permanent webpage on which they can be displayed.
Post your results please at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2347515
May 10, 2014 at 22:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Paul McNeil:
<< I've been here since 2008 and have used all the systems quite extensively. How would you teach this to someone new? >>
It's quite a big task actually. With the exception of AF1 and FV, most of the systems have been described for people who are already familiar with the main ideas and systems on the site.
It would take quite a long post to do it justice - that's after it's been finalized and properly tested out. And of course the trouble with long posts is that people don't read them properly!
<< I've been here since 2008 and have used all the systems quite extensively. How would you teach this to someone new? >>
It's quite a big task actually. With the exception of AF1 and FV, most of the systems have been described for people who are already familiar with the main ideas and systems on the site.
It would take quite a long post to do it justice - that's after it's been finalized and properly tested out. And of course the trouble with long posts is that people don't read them properly!
May 10, 2014 at 22:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster wrote:
<< This is actually the long hoped-for revolution in the way that you look at those 400+ items on your to do list that caused you so much trouble in the past and which you were so reluctant to let go of, isn't it? >>
Well, maybe. :-)
The revolution is the clear realization that 85%+ of the results I generate have nothing to do with my task management process / list / system. So it needs just enough management to prevent it from becoming a problem. Even the most perfect, adaptive, intelligent algorithm for capturing and choosing tasks will only solve 15% of the problem of personal workflow management. I think this is why I've never been really happy for very long with any task-management system.
<< What you are describing is essentially AF2, but liberated from the weight of trying to get all 400+ tasks done. >>
Well, maybe. :-) What I'm doing right now, for that 15% of results that are generated through some kind of to-do list, does resemble AF2 in some ways. But really, I'm trying not to commit to any particular way of managing that.
15% is nothing to sneeze at -- 15% of a workweek is nearly a whole working day. But I'm finding I am getting more "bang for the buck" by focusing on the other 85%:
- Establishing a sustainable schedule with the right balance of regularity vs flexibility: "how I spend my day is how I spend my life"
- Identifying problem areas in my routines and habits, and fixing them
- Getting better at immediate closure: don't carry a big load of task debt in the first place
<< This is actually the long hoped-for revolution in the way that you look at those 400+ items on your to do list that caused you so much trouble in the past and which you were so reluctant to let go of, isn't it? >>
Well, maybe. :-)
The revolution is the clear realization that 85%+ of the results I generate have nothing to do with my task management process / list / system. So it needs just enough management to prevent it from becoming a problem. Even the most perfect, adaptive, intelligent algorithm for capturing and choosing tasks will only solve 15% of the problem of personal workflow management. I think this is why I've never been really happy for very long with any task-management system.
<< What you are describing is essentially AF2, but liberated from the weight of trying to get all 400+ tasks done. >>
Well, maybe. :-) What I'm doing right now, for that 15% of results that are generated through some kind of to-do list, does resemble AF2 in some ways. But really, I'm trying not to commit to any particular way of managing that.
15% is nothing to sneeze at -- 15% of a workweek is nearly a whole working day. But I'm finding I am getting more "bang for the buck" by focusing on the other 85%:
- Establishing a sustainable schedule with the right balance of regularity vs flexibility: "how I spend my day is how I spend my life"
- Identifying problem areas in my routines and habits, and fixing them
- Getting better at immediate closure: don't carry a big load of task debt in the first place
May 11, 2014 at 3:38 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
"And yet without exception each and everyone of them we discard or set aside for another system, either new or old."
I've detailed this previously but to recap it's because we don't want to do all of our work because it's not as much fun as doing other things right now which will provide an immediate neurological hit, things like surfing the web, watching a film or going out shopping. To counter this we outsource our choice to a system which makes the decisions for us. For a while we're fired up and it works but it quickly becomes a routine and doesn't change the underlying fact that we don't want to do the work. The fact that we know we should do the work has absolutely no bearing on it, it's akin to an addiction. The system falters and we conclude that it had some problems which we can fix in the next system.
This is exactly analagous to the packaged diet industry. We don't want to eat food we know we should eat all the time because it's not as quick and mentally satisfying as the processed stuff absolutely everywhere around us. To counter this we outsource our choice to a diet which makes the decisions for us. For a while it works but again it doesn't change the underlying fact that we want to eat the kind of food that got us this big. Again it's akin to an addiction, there is a mental hit in eating that kind of food and the fact that we know we shouldn't has no bearing on it. The diet fails and we hunt around for a better one.
Seraphim's post is spot on, there is no value in making ever more complex systems to deal with a human condition. He describes trying to manage discretionary time as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. I've described it as pushing your peas around your plate instead of eating your food. All you really need is a calendar and a simple list and an understanding that if you don't do something then it won't ever get done, so if it's playing on your mind then get going on it. If there's a real sense of fear then Mark's idea of "just getting out the file" helps, just get started one way or the other and before you know it you'll be making progress.
I found this recently which sums up my feelings on the matter http://medium.com/thinking-about-thinking/7173d1cc6f95
[File link edited to make it live - the "s" needed to be removed from https. - MF]
I've detailed this previously but to recap it's because we don't want to do all of our work because it's not as much fun as doing other things right now which will provide an immediate neurological hit, things like surfing the web, watching a film or going out shopping. To counter this we outsource our choice to a system which makes the decisions for us. For a while we're fired up and it works but it quickly becomes a routine and doesn't change the underlying fact that we don't want to do the work. The fact that we know we should do the work has absolutely no bearing on it, it's akin to an addiction. The system falters and we conclude that it had some problems which we can fix in the next system.
This is exactly analagous to the packaged diet industry. We don't want to eat food we know we should eat all the time because it's not as quick and mentally satisfying as the processed stuff absolutely everywhere around us. To counter this we outsource our choice to a diet which makes the decisions for us. For a while it works but again it doesn't change the underlying fact that we want to eat the kind of food that got us this big. Again it's akin to an addiction, there is a mental hit in eating that kind of food and the fact that we know we shouldn't has no bearing on it. The diet fails and we hunt around for a better one.
Seraphim's post is spot on, there is no value in making ever more complex systems to deal with a human condition. He describes trying to manage discretionary time as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. I've described it as pushing your peas around your plate instead of eating your food. All you really need is a calendar and a simple list and an understanding that if you don't do something then it won't ever get done, so if it's playing on your mind then get going on it. If there's a real sense of fear then Mark's idea of "just getting out the file" helps, just get started one way or the other and before you know it you'll be making progress.
I found this recently which sums up my feelings on the matter http://medium.com/thinking-about-thinking/7173d1cc6f95
[File link edited to make it live - the "s" needed to be removed from https. - MF]
May 11, 2014 at 15:21 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
<< All you really need is a calendar and a simple list and an understanding that if you don't do something then it won't ever get done, so if it's playing on your mind then get going on it. >>
Well, you've described very well the way that my wife manages her time. She's a brilliant organizer, working mainly off the back of an envelope.
Unfortunately I am quite incapable of working like that. If I tried to work that way my life (and probably hers as well) would be reduced to complete chaos. I have plenty of evidence to prove that!
Yet, I'm the one who has among many other things:
1) Written three books (proper ones published by the biggest publisher in the UK)
2) Build up a successful business from scratch, inventing both the content and the business methods myself.
3) Earned (and more importantly kept) enough money through my business, without employing a single person, to retire comfortably.
4) Raised £150,000 in one weekend last year for my church's refurbishment project without running a single event.
5) Deals with the claims for rebate of tax on the c. 200 monthly subscribers to the above refurbishment project in ten minutes a month.
My invention of time management systems was originally to enable me to succeed in doing no. 2) since I knew that I would never succeed in running a business without them. The systems proved so successful in my life that they became what the business was about (which was not the original intent - it started off as life-coaching).
I don't believe I could have done any of those things just with "a calendar and a simple list and an understanding that if you don't do something then it won't ever get done", though I'm not denying that there are people who could. My task has always been helping the people who can't do it that way (who include myself).
My current favourite task is teaching myself Chinese (Mandarin) developing the learning methods as I go along. For me developing the system is as important as learning the language - perhaps more so. Very early days yet!
http://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/2b0fd56b-d321-482b-9ec6-be745003bc43/f37e45cad5253750c8d145a2acee54a4
<< All you really need is a calendar and a simple list and an understanding that if you don't do something then it won't ever get done, so if it's playing on your mind then get going on it. >>
Well, you've described very well the way that my wife manages her time. She's a brilliant organizer, working mainly off the back of an envelope.
Unfortunately I am quite incapable of working like that. If I tried to work that way my life (and probably hers as well) would be reduced to complete chaos. I have plenty of evidence to prove that!
Yet, I'm the one who has among many other things:
1) Written three books (proper ones published by the biggest publisher in the UK)
2) Build up a successful business from scratch, inventing both the content and the business methods myself.
3) Earned (and more importantly kept) enough money through my business, without employing a single person, to retire comfortably.
4) Raised £150,000 in one weekend last year for my church's refurbishment project without running a single event.
5) Deals with the claims for rebate of tax on the c. 200 monthly subscribers to the above refurbishment project in ten minutes a month.
My invention of time management systems was originally to enable me to succeed in doing no. 2) since I knew that I would never succeed in running a business without them. The systems proved so successful in my life that they became what the business was about (which was not the original intent - it started off as life-coaching).
I don't believe I could have done any of those things just with "a calendar and a simple list and an understanding that if you don't do something then it won't ever get done", though I'm not denying that there are people who could. My task has always been helping the people who can't do it that way (who include myself).
My current favourite task is teaching myself Chinese (Mandarin) developing the learning methods as I go along. For me developing the system is as important as learning the language - perhaps more so. Very early days yet!
http://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/2b0fd56b-d321-482b-9ec6-be745003bc43/f37e45cad5253750c8d145a2acee54a4
May 12, 2014 at 0:16 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
[Afternote: In the cold light of day (I wrote it in the small hours last night) this sounds too much like a personal attack on you, which was not my intention. Rather than go through an extensive re-writing exercise, I'll leave it as it is. But please read it as a passionate defence of discretionary time management and its value, and the value of good systems in general too.]
<< The revolution is the clear realization that 85%+ of the results I generate have nothing to do with my task management process / list / system. So it needs just enough management to prevent it from becoming a problem. Even the most perfect, adaptive, intelligent algorithm for capturing and choosing tasks will only solve 15% of the problem of personal workflow management. I think this is why I've never been really happy for very long with any task-management system. >>
I'd put it a different way.
You have been trying to fit 400+ tasks into a space that has been eaten up by several factors, among which I will only mention the few from your past and present descriptions of your workload which strike me as the worst: 1) you have fallen into the trap of treating stuff as immediate which doesn't require to be dealt with immediately, which then generates more "immediate" work, 2) you have taken on more responsibilities than you are capable of dealing with, 3) you have over-scheduled your day/week with meetings, the purpose of which is to produce yet more work. 4) you have then expected the tiny amount of discretionary time left over to be enough to process this bloated workload.
The result is that the management of your discretionary time is and has been a disaster. The reason you haven't been happy with any task-management system is that you simply haven't given it a chance. How do you expect that you would produce more than 15% of results from discretionary time given this situation? I'm full of admiration that you managed to produce any at all.
Discretionary time management could be of real help to you if you took steps to cut back the non-discretionary parts of your day. Discretionary time management is not about re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is about developing and maintaining the systems which would have prevented the Titanic hitting the iceberg in the first place.
My natural instinct in all the things I've mentioned in my post to Chris (above) is to produce systems which reduce the work involved to the absolute minimum required with the aim of producing the best possible results. Have a look at the link at the end of the to see how when I am introduced to a field I know absolutely nothing about (Mandarin Chinese) I just naturally try to pare it down to the essentials. And when I find something that works I stick to it and when something doesn't work I either try to improve it or junk it.
[Afternote: In the cold light of day (I wrote it in the small hours last night) this sounds too much like a personal attack on you, which was not my intention. Rather than go through an extensive re-writing exercise, I'll leave it as it is. But please read it as a passionate defence of discretionary time management and its value, and the value of good systems in general too.]
<< The revolution is the clear realization that 85%+ of the results I generate have nothing to do with my task management process / list / system. So it needs just enough management to prevent it from becoming a problem. Even the most perfect, adaptive, intelligent algorithm for capturing and choosing tasks will only solve 15% of the problem of personal workflow management. I think this is why I've never been really happy for very long with any task-management system. >>
I'd put it a different way.
You have been trying to fit 400+ tasks into a space that has been eaten up by several factors, among which I will only mention the few from your past and present descriptions of your workload which strike me as the worst: 1) you have fallen into the trap of treating stuff as immediate which doesn't require to be dealt with immediately, which then generates more "immediate" work, 2) you have taken on more responsibilities than you are capable of dealing with, 3) you have over-scheduled your day/week with meetings, the purpose of which is to produce yet more work. 4) you have then expected the tiny amount of discretionary time left over to be enough to process this bloated workload.
The result is that the management of your discretionary time is and has been a disaster. The reason you haven't been happy with any task-management system is that you simply haven't given it a chance. How do you expect that you would produce more than 15% of results from discretionary time given this situation? I'm full of admiration that you managed to produce any at all.
Discretionary time management could be of real help to you if you took steps to cut back the non-discretionary parts of your day. Discretionary time management is not about re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is about developing and maintaining the systems which would have prevented the Titanic hitting the iceberg in the first place.
My natural instinct in all the things I've mentioned in my post to Chris (above) is to produce systems which reduce the work involved to the absolute minimum required with the aim of producing the best possible results. Have a look at the link at the end of the to see how when I am introduced to a field I know absolutely nothing about (Mandarin Chinese) I just naturally try to pare it down to the essentials. And when I find something that works I stick to it and when something doesn't work I either try to improve it or junk it.
May 12, 2014 at 2:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
With reference to my suggested method of combining the Randomizer, Reverse AF2 and AF1, I'm finding that the weak point is Reverse AF2. Anyway, since Reverse AF2 was the first system I ever invented (it had no name in those far off days), the exercise has been helpful in reminding me why it was not the last!
May 12, 2014 at 9:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, with "first system ever invented" do you mean even before GED and things you did before publishing the books?
May 12, 2014 at 11:29 |
Christopher
Christopher
Christopher:
I'm going back probably to the late 80s or early 90s here. So yes, way before any of those things.
I'm going back probably to the late 80s or early 90s here. So yes, way before any of those things.
May 12, 2014 at 11:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
First, a comment on arranging deck chairs on the titanic. I think sometimes it's true, I spend more time fiddling with these systems than I do working them, but for the most part I have had the most amazing experiences of stress free productivity. Most of my friends and colleagues are amazed at what I am able to accomplish through my management of time - I'm full time pastor of a parish that has doubled in growth in the last 4 years, I've almost finished my course work for my PhD in religious studies and Buddhism, I ran and won a seat as a trustee in our last municipal election, I'm chair of our school board's audit committee (with a 250,000,000 budget) and I'm having a blast. I even taught a second year university course last fall (70 students) with no teaching assistants, and anyone who has ever taught for the first time knows how much work that is. I also learned to read German last spring and I'm about to take a French translation exam in a few weeks. Every time I get tempted to move back to Covey or GTD my life suddenly gets frighteningly chaotic. So for me, there's more going on here than just fiddling with systems and avoiding work.
May 12, 2014 at 13:21 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
On another note...
I've been thinking. It seems to me that the huge value I felt when I first started using Mark's systems was a kind of liberation brought on by a sense of control about my work and a complete lack of resistance. What a great way to live! But the liberation doesn't always last, probably because no system is going to take away my own responsibility for making decisions about my work. Since I started using randomizer, however, I felt that the combination of knowing what my work is (control) and the lack of resistance has been the key to stress free life. But now, introducing adaptive focus seems to be introducing resistance again, as I have to make decisions about which "tool" to use.
So I'm trying something that eliminates that decision and its working beautifully. I have taken the decision-making out of "which tool to use" as well: In the morning I use SMEMA, because I usually wake up with stuff on my mind that I have to do anyway. In the afternoon I use randomizer because I have no motivation and my resistance to all tasks is unusually high. In the evening I use some version of AF (usually 1) so I can tie up loose ends, maybe finish off a page or two that have orphan tasks. I populate the list using DWM2 (with the dots - for the dismissal). Those are all the process decisions I need to make, which allows me to direct my energy to my work.
So far it's working beautifully and I'm feeling a sense of freedom that borders on spiritual.
I've been thinking. It seems to me that the huge value I felt when I first started using Mark's systems was a kind of liberation brought on by a sense of control about my work and a complete lack of resistance. What a great way to live! But the liberation doesn't always last, probably because no system is going to take away my own responsibility for making decisions about my work. Since I started using randomizer, however, I felt that the combination of knowing what my work is (control) and the lack of resistance has been the key to stress free life. But now, introducing adaptive focus seems to be introducing resistance again, as I have to make decisions about which "tool" to use.
So I'm trying something that eliminates that decision and its working beautifully. I have taken the decision-making out of "which tool to use" as well: In the morning I use SMEMA, because I usually wake up with stuff on my mind that I have to do anyway. In the afternoon I use randomizer because I have no motivation and my resistance to all tasks is unusually high. In the evening I use some version of AF (usually 1) so I can tie up loose ends, maybe finish off a page or two that have orphan tasks. I populate the list using DWM2 (with the dots - for the dismissal). Those are all the process decisions I need to make, which allows me to direct my energy to my work.
So far it's working beautifully and I'm feeling a sense of freedom that borders on spiritual.
May 12, 2014 at 13:22 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Hi Mark, I understand and please be assured it's not my intention to disparage any methodologies which help people achieve what matters in their lives. I was just interested to see nuntym's opening post which suggested that since systems get abandoned what we need is to try even harder to use the right system. That to me is begging the question.
To use the diet analogy again, lots of people have great success on a packaged diet such as Weight Watchers, so in that sense they can work. My own personality is such that I want to know why it works, and that comes down to outsourcing decisions about what you're allowed to eat to the framework of the diet, eliminating lots of wrong foods and restricting calories. So then I look at the effect of restricting calories and certain types of food and the effect that has. Then I get into the nutritional science behind it and ultimately understand why the diet works. Now knowing this I can implement the underlying science and in a more personally tailored way without needing the higher level diet package. I'm no longer "on a diet", I'm simply following a change of lifestyle based on an understanding of what I'm trying to achieve.
I followed the same path with personal productivity systems. The journey was pretty much the same as the article I linked to (thanks for editing to http). The end result now is that I know in intricate detail how and why this human condition works and how and why I sabotage my own discretionary time. So I am at peace with that. If I want to get something done that is not very appealing I know I have to do it, in which case I make a start on it. I no longer need to have a system like AF or FV tell me I should do it, just as I no longer need a Weight Watchers to tell me what I can eat.
If you like, the productivity system approach is like the diet approach for me, it can work and usually does for a while but I sabotage my own progress, and that's okay because I know why. The solution for me isn't a new system or diet, it's the understanding of why it always pans out this way and why the bits that work do work, and then just getting on and incorporating them into my lifestyle. Hence for me no more diets, now I eat much better because I understand the nutritional science behind it, and no more productivity systems, now I am much more productive in both daily and long term goal aspects of my life because I understand the psychology behind it.
From there the tools I use are simple ones which support those changes, so the behavioural changes if you like drive the tools used, while diets and productivity systems are tools which are trying to drive change, often successfully but also often against the grain leading to an insidious feeling of stress or guilt.
To use the diet analogy again, lots of people have great success on a packaged diet such as Weight Watchers, so in that sense they can work. My own personality is such that I want to know why it works, and that comes down to outsourcing decisions about what you're allowed to eat to the framework of the diet, eliminating lots of wrong foods and restricting calories. So then I look at the effect of restricting calories and certain types of food and the effect that has. Then I get into the nutritional science behind it and ultimately understand why the diet works. Now knowing this I can implement the underlying science and in a more personally tailored way without needing the higher level diet package. I'm no longer "on a diet", I'm simply following a change of lifestyle based on an understanding of what I'm trying to achieve.
I followed the same path with personal productivity systems. The journey was pretty much the same as the article I linked to (thanks for editing to http). The end result now is that I know in intricate detail how and why this human condition works and how and why I sabotage my own discretionary time. So I am at peace with that. If I want to get something done that is not very appealing I know I have to do it, in which case I make a start on it. I no longer need to have a system like AF or FV tell me I should do it, just as I no longer need a Weight Watchers to tell me what I can eat.
If you like, the productivity system approach is like the diet approach for me, it can work and usually does for a while but I sabotage my own progress, and that's okay because I know why. The solution for me isn't a new system or diet, it's the understanding of why it always pans out this way and why the bits that work do work, and then just getting on and incorporating them into my lifestyle. Hence for me no more diets, now I eat much better because I understand the nutritional science behind it, and no more productivity systems, now I am much more productive in both daily and long term goal aspects of my life because I understand the psychology behind it.
From there the tools I use are simple ones which support those changes, so the behavioural changes if you like drive the tools used, while diets and productivity systems are tools which are trying to drive change, often successfully but also often against the grain leading to an insidious feeling of stress or guilt.
May 12, 2014 at 13:40 |
Chris
Chris
Chris, thank you for these thoughts. I think a lot of us (all of us?) can relate to your sentiments, though we may take a slightly different approach to solving the problem. You figured out how to correct the "gaming" and then decided you really only need a simple list system, consisting of home, work, text calendar, and sometimes a paper today list. That's great, but someone here could reason in the same way and reach this conclusion instead: "I've figured out how to correct the 'gaming,' so now all I need is a simple list and a simple algorithm to decide in what order to proceed - the Final Version." That person arguably has an even simpler method than you do, since he has only one list. I can't relate to Seraphim's 400+ tasks at all. I've always done a double-take when I see his numbers. I *never* have more than 100 tasks, and it's rare that my FV list grows to more than a few pages. In fact, every so often I even catch up to "today" - meaning everything on my list was entered today.
The No S Diet has been working really well for me for months, too.
I always find your posts here interesting and insightful, though.
The No S Diet has been working really well for me for months, too.
I always find your posts here interesting and insightful, though.
May 12, 2014 at 14:40 |
Austin
Austin
I think the key thing here is the (I) statements For example:
<<Chris: (I) no longer need to have a system like AF or FV tell me (I) should do it, just as (I) no longer need a Weight Watchers to tell me what I can eat.>>
Works for Chris? Great! My question is... for how long?
Two decades of clinical work has taught me the following... many things work for many people in the short-run. The holy of holies is to find the thing(s) that works in the long run.
As a therapist, I've hung my hat on Family Systems theory/therapy to deliver long-term results. In the productivity world, I think Barbara Sher's "Isolation is the dream killer" rings true every time (or at least whenever I fulfill a major goal).
<<Chris: (I) no longer need to have a system like AF or FV tell me (I) should do it, just as (I) no longer need a Weight Watchers to tell me what I can eat.>>
Works for Chris? Great! My question is... for how long?
Two decades of clinical work has taught me the following... many things work for many people in the short-run. The holy of holies is to find the thing(s) that works in the long run.
As a therapist, I've hung my hat on Family Systems theory/therapy to deliver long-term results. In the productivity world, I think Barbara Sher's "Isolation is the dream killer" rings true every time (or at least whenever I fulfill a major goal).
May 12, 2014 at 15:27 |
avrum
avrum
Some really useful and insightful comments here. Thank you Paul, Chris, Austin and avrum. I don't think I'm even going to attempt to reply fully to each one. Just a few personal comments:
1) Re re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic and/or pushing peas around the plate. This of course can happen with almost anything. One of the reasons I picked Chinese as a "special project" was the immense amount of deckchair arranging that goes into language learning. If you google "learning Chinese" you will find an immense amount of conflicting theories. Some of it is sensible, some of it gimmicky and some of it frankly nonsense. It's not helped by the fact that some of the people who talk the most sense also talk the most nonsense at other times!
2) As Chris says the solution is to get to where you understand why it works and why it doesn't and then keep it stripped down to those basic structures.
3) And perhaps the most important point of all, the effort to get and keep the systems right is immensely worthwhile.
I feel a blog post coming on!
1) Re re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic and/or pushing peas around the plate. This of course can happen with almost anything. One of the reasons I picked Chinese as a "special project" was the immense amount of deckchair arranging that goes into language learning. If you google "learning Chinese" you will find an immense amount of conflicting theories. Some of it is sensible, some of it gimmicky and some of it frankly nonsense. It's not helped by the fact that some of the people who talk the most sense also talk the most nonsense at other times!
2) As Chris says the solution is to get to where you understand why it works and why it doesn't and then keep it stripped down to those basic structures.
3) And perhaps the most important point of all, the effort to get and keep the systems right is immensely worthwhile.
I feel a blog post coming on!
May 12, 2014 at 16:40 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
"Works for Chris? Great! My question is... for how long?"
I can't really answer that. It's not a matter of "works". It would be like asking me how long me not smoking will work for, or me not base jumping will work for, or how long me learning to speak French will work for. I learn things and incorporate what is useful.
The journey into nutritional science started a few years ago, and moving towards simple tools to support getting on with my life happened around three years ago after around 25 years of trying to convince myself that the right productivity system was just around the corner, coinciding with the untimely deaths of several friends, something which brings wasted time (and ironically health issues) into focus quite well.
I can't really answer that. It's not a matter of "works". It would be like asking me how long me not smoking will work for, or me not base jumping will work for, or how long me learning to speak French will work for. I learn things and incorporate what is useful.
The journey into nutritional science started a few years ago, and moving towards simple tools to support getting on with my life happened around three years ago after around 25 years of trying to convince myself that the right productivity system was just around the corner, coinciding with the untimely deaths of several friends, something which brings wasted time (and ironically health issues) into focus quite well.
May 12, 2014 at 20:55 |
Chris
Chris
Hi Austin,
"That's great, but someone here could reason in the same way and reach this conclusion instead: "I've figured out how to correct the 'gaming,' so now all I need is a simple list and a simple algorithm to decide in what order to proceed - the Final Version." That person arguably has an even simpler method than you do, since he has only one list."
Indeed, either way the key is the bit where the sleeves get rolled up and the work gets done.
"That's great, but someone here could reason in the same way and reach this conclusion instead: "I've figured out how to correct the 'gaming,' so now all I need is a simple list and a simple algorithm to decide in what order to proceed - the Final Version." That person arguably has an even simpler method than you do, since he has only one list."
Indeed, either way the key is the bit where the sleeves get rolled up and the work gets done.
May 12, 2014 at 21:10 |
Chris
Chris
<<the key is the bit where the sleeves get rolled up and the work gets done.>>
Agreed. As always, it's a question of personal taste. Like Mark's wife, my better half gets A LOT done, with little resistance (at least in the areas of productivity), and without any established system or tools (not even a regular to-do list). She gets an idea, throws herself into it, and produces impressive results.
It's enviable, and a total disaster when I try it. So I need to cobble together bits of motivation, accountability and tools that help chip away at my own resistance. It's a never ending battle. But like Paul, I have shipped a few things that I'm damn proud of. And for that, I tip my hat to Sher, Covey, Allen and Forster and others.
Agreed. As always, it's a question of personal taste. Like Mark's wife, my better half gets A LOT done, with little resistance (at least in the areas of productivity), and without any established system or tools (not even a regular to-do list). She gets an idea, throws herself into it, and produces impressive results.
It's enviable, and a total disaster when I try it. So I need to cobble together bits of motivation, accountability and tools that help chip away at my own resistance. It's a never ending battle. But like Paul, I have shipped a few things that I'm damn proud of. And for that, I tip my hat to Sher, Covey, Allen and Forster and others.
May 12, 2014 at 21:45 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
<< She gets an idea, throws herself into it, and produces impressive results. >>
I can do that too, but the problem with it I find for myself (obviously I can't speak for your wife) is that I get so carried away by enthusiasm for the project that everything else falls into chaos. I can end up rather like a farmer who gets so carried away with building a new barn that he neglects to sow for the harvest.
At times like that I need my TM system to act as a brake rather than an accelerator.
Without the brake, whether I achieve impressive results from the project depends entirely on whether I get it finished before the surrounding chaos has grown to such an extent that it starts to undermine the project.
<< She gets an idea, throws herself into it, and produces impressive results. >>
I can do that too, but the problem with it I find for myself (obviously I can't speak for your wife) is that I get so carried away by enthusiasm for the project that everything else falls into chaos. I can end up rather like a farmer who gets so carried away with building a new barn that he neglects to sow for the harvest.
At times like that I need my TM system to act as a brake rather than an accelerator.
Without the brake, whether I achieve impressive results from the project depends entirely on whether I get it finished before the surrounding chaos has grown to such an extent that it starts to undermine the project.
May 13, 2014 at 9:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
You may remember back on May 12, 2014 at 9:38 I was experimenting with the Randomizer, reverse AF2 and AF1?
Well, after jiggling around a bit more, I seem to have come up with a very nice system. It's in fact the obvious progression from my discovery that the weak link was reverse AF2, but it took me a while to get to it because I was trying to find a way of moving from Randomizer to AF1 in the same pass through the list.
But what I've found is that it works much better just to do alternate passes through the list with the Randomizer and AF1. In fact it doesn't just work much better. It works extremely well.
How I do it:
!) I start by going through the list as normal in AF1 with one exception - there is no compulsion to do any tasks on a page. This also means there is no dismissal.
2) Once I've got to the end of the list I go through the list again using the Randomizer. I set the maximum for the number of lines on the page and use the sliding rules. Once I get to the end of the list I let the Randomizer take me to a task on the first page, and once I've done that task I switch back to AF1.
This system provides very fast passes through the list, which means that it works for all but the most urgent of urgent tasks and also gives plenty of opportunity for "little and often".
I recommend everyone to give it a try. If it keeps working for me, I'll write it up in a proper blog post (and we can add the link to the "Systems" menu tag).
[Afternote: I've made one slight change to the above. I kept finding that finishing the Randomizer pass by letting it take me to a task on the first page caused me to forget that I was then supposed to switch to AF1. So now at the end of the Randomizer pass, when a throw takes me off the end of the list I let it go and start at the beginning of the list with AF1.]
Well, after jiggling around a bit more, I seem to have come up with a very nice system. It's in fact the obvious progression from my discovery that the weak link was reverse AF2, but it took me a while to get to it because I was trying to find a way of moving from Randomizer to AF1 in the same pass through the list.
But what I've found is that it works much better just to do alternate passes through the list with the Randomizer and AF1. In fact it doesn't just work much better. It works extremely well.
How I do it:
!) I start by going through the list as normal in AF1 with one exception - there is no compulsion to do any tasks on a page. This also means there is no dismissal.
2) Once I've got to the end of the list I go through the list again using the Randomizer. I set the maximum for the number of lines on the page and use the sliding rules. Once I get to the end of the list I let the Randomizer take me to a task on the first page, and once I've done that task I switch back to AF1.
This system provides very fast passes through the list, which means that it works for all but the most urgent of urgent tasks and also gives plenty of opportunity for "little and often".
I recommend everyone to give it a try. If it keeps working for me, I'll write it up in a proper blog post (and we can add the link to the "Systems" menu tag).
[Afternote: I've made one slight change to the above. I kept finding that finishing the Randomizer pass by letting it take me to a task on the first page caused me to forget that I was then supposed to switch to AF1. So now at the end of the Randomizer pass, when a throw takes me off the end of the list I let it go and start at the beginning of the list with AF1.]
May 14, 2014 at 21:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
In this case, what is the sliding rule? Is it affected by page ends?
May 15, 2014 at 0:36 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
<< In this case, what is the sliding rule? Is it affected by page ends? >>
Yes, the rule is that if you land on a line with a crossed-off task, then you slide to the first line after it which has an active task. If there's no active task before the end of the page, then you continue the slide at the beginning of the *same* page.
<< In this case, what is the sliding rule? Is it affected by page ends? >>
Yes, the rule is that if you land on a line with a crossed-off task, then you slide to the first line after it which has an active task. If there's no active task before the end of the page, then you continue the slide at the beginning of the *same* page.
May 15, 2014 at 8:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Excellent idea. Similar to my previous practice of doing AF1 on the last page when I landed on it with randomizer, but more comprehensive, flexible, quicker. I like it so far. Quick question about switching between randomizer and AF1. Switching from randomizer to AF1 happens, as I understand it, when randomizer takes you off the last page (with your modification). What about switching from AF1 to randomizer? Do you start the randomizer from the last task you completed during the AF1 cycle or from the first task on the first page?
May 15, 2014 at 21:00 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
I may have answered my own question. If I start the randomizer from the last task I did with AF1, I could still end up on the last page, so I start the radnomizer from the first task, done or not, on the first page.
May 15, 2014 at 21:04 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil:
<< Similar to my previous practice of doing AF1 on the last page when I landed on it with randomizer, but more comprehensive, flexible, quicker. >>
The problem with using AF1 on the same pass as the randomizer is that when you finish a recurring task it can get left behind so that it's no longer on the AF1 processed page(s). The result is that quite urgent tasks can then find themselves at the mercy of the randomizer. I couldn't find any way of overcoming this except to have alternate full passes.
<< Quick question about switching between randomizer and AF1. Switching from randomizer to AF1 happens, as I understand it, when randomizer takes you off the last page (with your modification). What about switching from AF1 to randomizer? Do you start the randomizer from the last task you completed during the AF1 cycle or from the first task on the first page? >>
The first task on the first page.
<< Similar to my previous practice of doing AF1 on the last page when I landed on it with randomizer, but more comprehensive, flexible, quicker. >>
The problem with using AF1 on the same pass as the randomizer is that when you finish a recurring task it can get left behind so that it's no longer on the AF1 processed page(s). The result is that quite urgent tasks can then find themselves at the mercy of the randomizer. I couldn't find any way of overcoming this except to have alternate full passes.
<< Quick question about switching between randomizer and AF1. Switching from randomizer to AF1 happens, as I understand it, when randomizer takes you off the last page (with your modification). What about switching from AF1 to randomizer? Do you start the randomizer from the last task you completed during the AF1 cycle or from the first task on the first page? >>
The first task on the first page.
May 15, 2014 at 22:03 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Paul MacNeil: <<So far it's working beautifully and I'm feeling a sense of freedom that borders on spiritual. >>
Woo! Great job! :D THIS is what I want to see when I made this thread: people working out ways to get what they need from Mark Forster's and other's systems and adopt them into their lives.
<<But now, introducing adaptive focus seems to be introducing resistance again, as I have to make decisions about which "tool" to use. So I'm trying something that eliminates that decision and its working beautifully.>>
I realized this too, Paul, so I decided on using "fallback" tools on what to use whenever I am having resistance. I discussed this in my DWM2 thread.
@Mark Forster: <<I recommend everyone to give it a try. >>
Nice one Mark :) I'm still having fun with my own use of DWM2, Randomizer, and AF4-Closed-List-Processing (which I explained in the DWM2 thread) so I'll try it later.
Woo! Great job! :D THIS is what I want to see when I made this thread: people working out ways to get what they need from Mark Forster's and other's systems and adopt them into their lives.
<<But now, introducing adaptive focus seems to be introducing resistance again, as I have to make decisions about which "tool" to use. So I'm trying something that eliminates that decision and its working beautifully.>>
I realized this too, Paul, so I decided on using "fallback" tools on what to use whenever I am having resistance. I discussed this in my DWM2 thread.
@Mark Forster: <<I recommend everyone to give it a try. >>
Nice one Mark :) I'm still having fun with my own use of DWM2, Randomizer, and AF4-Closed-List-Processing (which I explained in the DWM2 thread) so I'll try it later.
May 17, 2014 at 13:14 |
nuntym
nuntym
Thanks, Mark and Nuntym for your replies. For the last few days I have pretty much adopted Mark's randomizer and AF1 system and it seems to be meeting my needs amazingly well, although I am going to confess that I'm feeling a tiny bit of resistance when I'm in the AF1 mode. I'm sure it has something to do with taking responsibility for the choices I make. I feel most free when I'm in randomizer mode, although, weirdly, perhaps even paradoxically, sometimes I dread going into randomizer mode because there's some stuff on the list I don't want to do. Does that make sense?
May 20, 2014 at 1:20 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil:
<< I am going to confess that I'm feeling a tiny bit of resistance when I'm in the AF1 mode. >>
The AF1 pass is really an opportunity to action stuff which needs to get done more quickly than can be left up to random chance. I'm thinking of things like checking your email and other routine work, plus any new stuff that requires to be cleared urgently.
That's why there is no requirement to do any tasks on a page (or indeed during the entire pass come to that).
<< I feel most free when I'm in randomizer mode, although, weirdly, perhaps even paradoxically, sometimes I dread going into randomizer mode because there's some stuff on the list I don't want to do. Does that make sense? >>
Perfect sense!
<< I am going to confess that I'm feeling a tiny bit of resistance when I'm in the AF1 mode. >>
The AF1 pass is really an opportunity to action stuff which needs to get done more quickly than can be left up to random chance. I'm thinking of things like checking your email and other routine work, plus any new stuff that requires to be cleared urgently.
That's why there is no requirement to do any tasks on a page (or indeed during the entire pass come to that).
<< I feel most free when I'm in randomizer mode, although, weirdly, perhaps even paradoxically, sometimes I dread going into randomizer mode because there's some stuff on the list I don't want to do. Does that make sense? >>
Perfect sense!
May 20, 2014 at 9:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
We have been thinking of task systems we can use every time we have discretionary time which will carry us through whatever tasks we need to do. In response to that desire Mark Forster and many of us have made many such systems. And yet without exception each and everyone of them we discard or set aside for another system, either new or old. We have been thinking it could be because we get bored of them, we need novelty, etc.
Well I have been thinking: could it be because each system is not suitable for ALL situations?
Maybe the solution is not to use one of these system, but to use ALL (or maybe MOST) of them depending on the situation.
Here's the scenario: you have a list of tasks. Let's either not think of dismissal for now, or use a time-based dismissal system like DWM2 or DSAF which is not affected by the task choosing process you are going to use. Looking at your own situation right now, how would you process the task?
Maybe you are feeling low on willpower right now? Use the randomizer, which has been shown to cut through resistance. Maybe the list is getting stale and you want to make it look fresh? Use AF2ND or FV. Maybe you are really hyped and full of energy right now? Use SFv3. Maybe you need to finish a particular project ASAP? Use SMEMA. And so on.
Please note that the algorithm I just outlined is probably not correct and definitely not complete. And yes, I am thinking of making an algorithm to determine the method/s to use depending on subjective (one's energy, willpower, courage, anxiety levels), temporal (amount of time, urgency), aesthetic (list looking stale), and other criteria.
So what I think we need is looking at our use of the different systems in the past and try to remember what exactly made those system work for us and what made them not work. From our recollections and experiences we may just be able to make an algorithm that we can use. I will start with my own recollections in the next post.