Get Everything Done

Simon:

<< an issue that has bothered me for a while about list-based time management systems -- there are only so many hours in the week >>

This is of course not just a problem with list-based time management systems. It is a problem with life itself!

<< In fact my experience putting books in AutoFocus 1 (still my favourite TM system, BTW!) was that I ended up with 8-10 titles and didn't make much progress on any of them. >>

I did try an experiment in which I put around 40 books on my Autofocus 1 list. If you search you might be able to find my post on the subject. The system dismissed nearly all of them very quickly (within a day I think) leaving me with a couple or so to read.

[Afternote: Found it! It was 57 books and I was left with 5. http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/12/23/autofocus-the-book-selection.html ]

Another experiment I did was to read "War and Peace" using one of the Autofocus systems (can't remember which one). I succeeded without any problem.

[Afternote: It was SuperFocus 3. See http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/9/handling-various-tasks-in-superfocus.html ]

I think a lot of the trouble people have had with AF in its various incarnations is that they see the "dismissal" process as a punishment for not doing everything. What it's in fact supposed to be is a way of narrowing one's focus to what one can handle what is really important without neglecting the smaller essential maintenance tasks (hence the name Autofocus).

<< it would be better to narrow the 30 items down to say 3 or 4 items, and then work 5-10 hours per week on those 3-4 items. >>

If you were going to work on only 3 or 4 items a week, those would presumably be major projects. AF though is designed to deal with tasks of all sizes. If I had 30 or 40 tasks on my list, at least 20 of those would only take minutes to complete.

If you are dealing with nothing but 3 or 4 major projects, what are you going to do about the small trivial but necessary tasks that are part of everyone's life? Have a separate list for them? In that case you are right back to having a long list of stuff.

Simon:

<< I am also guilty of being afraid of dismissal, fearing that some great idea or activity is going to be lost and forgotten. >>

Whereas with your suggested narrowed list of 3 or 4 items you can be absolutely sure that some great ideas and activities are going to be lost and forgotten.

<< As a result, my AF lists tend to balloon to 80+ items after a week or two >>

That's about the size my AF1 list normally stabilizes at. I find that's about right.

<< Recently I came to realize that even if I had a perfect technique for processing this list of 80 items, it would be impossible to make meaningful progress on any of them. >>

Why would it be impossible to make meaningful progress on any of them? To take an extreme example, if you worked all the time on one project out of the 80 you would make considerable progress on it. You wouldn't make any progress on the other 79, but that's life.

If you have 80 items on your AF list what should happen is that you work a lot on some of them, a little on some of them, and nothing at all on others. Some projects prosper, some keep going slowly and some die. That's how it's supposed to work. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. All that sort of stuff.

<< For example, if I were able to overcome procrastination and worked on every item sequentially for 15 minutes before moving to the next, it would take 20 hours to work through all 80 items in a week. >>

Yes, but the whole point of AF is that you don't do that. You don't want to work the same amount of time on every task/project. You want to see which ones get your interest and enthusiasm and run with them. The others get selected out.

<< The other realization is that it takes many hours of work on a single goal to begin to accomplish something meaningful. A single project that requires 80 hours of work results in a more meaningful and durable outcome than 1 hour put into 80 little projects. >>

That's why AF gets you working on a few projects while the others get left behind and eventually sifted out..

<< So my problem with list-based systems is that they shift focus toward making incremental progress (measured in minutes per week) on many small activities, and away from making meaningful, long-term progress on a few core projects. >>

Spending equal time on a whole raft of small projects is exactly what AF is designed not to do. It's intended to get you to spend unequal time on them.

<< On the reading front, I originally kept a few books in my AutoFocus list, and although I initially found it very appealing to slice off 20 minutes here and 40 minutes there, it ended up being too difficult to make meaningful progress on those books because my time was just spread around between too many activities. A few years ago I just started dedicating an hour a day to reading. If I miss a day then I have to read two hours the next day. Since then I have spent 740 hours reading 45 books, and the hour-a-day habit has become a permanent, ingrained ritual. >>

That's a very good approach for reading or anything else that you want to work on in a sustained regular way (e.g. study, practising a musical instrument, physical fitness). However my experience is that it's practically impossible to maintain more than three blocks of time like this unless you are in an artificial environment like a school, where you have nothing else impinging on what you are doing.

<< It strikes me that the same technique should be applied to other areas as well. So what happens to the AutoFocus list? Maybe projects stay out of it entirely and it is used to handle the mundane and trivial tasks of life. Or maybe it just needs an aggressive dismissal system. I've been thinking maybe of just automatically deleting anything more than 4 or 5 days old, with the thinking that a serious and current activity should be worked on at least once every few days. >>

4 or 5 days is just about where dismissal takes place in my AF list anyway.

Melanie:

<< Would you say that AF1 and following is designed for people who have a hard time deciding how to spend their time? >>

I invented AF1 mainly because it was becoming obvious to me through the comments on this forum and elsewhere that people were ignoring the bit in Do It Tomorrow about auditing their commitments if they got behind. They were still trying to do everything.

So I wanted to design a system which would do it for them automatically. Here's an extract from the original instructions ( http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/1/6/autofocus-system-instructions.html ):

Why it works
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The system works by providing a framework which balances the rational and intuitive parts of the brain.

If we try to run our lives with our rational brain only, we will tend to make plans which are subverted by our own minds because our minds don’t work on purely rational grounds. Most of us have experienced occasions on which we know (with our rational brain) that we would be better served to do certain things, but nevertheless our natural inclination is to reject them.

On the other hand, if we try to run our lives by following our natural inclinations only we will have a strong tendency to drift, become impulsive and act irrationally.

However when these two ways of thinking are in balance we are able to make rational decisions which are fully in accord with our deeper feelings and emotions. The Autofocus system provides a framework which enables this. Although I talk about “the system” making the choices, what I really mean is that the system provides a framework which allows us to make these balanced decisions ourselves in a non-stressful way.

-------------------------------

Melanie:

Another quote from the original instructions:

" DO expect things to move at different rates. Some things will move fast, some slowly, some will stop for a period, and some will be rejected altogether. This is how it’s supposed to work. "

And another extract:

What can you expect from the system?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is based purely on my own experience of working the system for a number of weeks, but what I have found is as follows:

A greatly increased volume of work. I have found that I am able to process work much faster. This seems to be mainly due to the fact that there is very little friction in the way of resistance or procrastination.

A lack of stress. Although obviously one still has to do the work, there are no great barriers of resistance to overcome or feelings of overwhelm. In fact just about all my work has become pleasurable. The more I’ve learned to trust the system, the more this has been the case.

Focus on what is important. It’s very difficult to focus on what is important with one’s rational mind alone, because what your conscious mind thinks is important may not be what your subconscious mind thinks is important. What I’ve found is that looking back on what I’ve done I can see that the focus produced by the system feels “right” - right for me in my current circumstances.

Very fast processing of routine actions. My speed at doing various essential routine tasks has increased exponentially. The sort of things I am thinking of are replying to emails, answering comments on my blog, returning phone calls, etc. etc.

Thorough processing of major tasks and projects. The system encourages a “little and often” approach to major tasks. The result is that a project, such as setting up this trial, can be dealt with over a period of time in a very methodical way. One other result of the “little and often” approach is that ideas and insights naturally spring up as a result of one’s mind engaging with the task over a period of time.

Simon:

That's very different from my own experience. I remember it as a very productive time, in which the small things in my life were all working like clockwork as well. It was also a time in which the whole of my work seemed to flow, not just parts of it.

It's difficult to do a postmortem on something that happened over five years ago, but I'll try to make a few comments.

<< looking back I can't remember a single enduring thing I accomplished during that time >>

Can you remember the enduring things you accomplished in Winter 2008 or Summer 2009?

<< For me, that's where a list-based system falls short, because the list is not going to provide any incentive to work on something difficult. >>

The AF list does provide incentive in that if you don't work on something it is likely to get dismissed. But it's main motive power is by reducing resistance to the more difficult work.

<< Little and often, although a great idea, encourages you to walk away at the first sign of trouble and reward yourself for giving up with a fun activity from your list. >>

That's not how little and often works. The aim of little and often is to reduce resistance to more difficult work. Once you get something under way it develops momentum.

<< Whereas if you set aside 30-60 minutes a day for one or two key projects, and work at them every day for many months, the 30-60 minute time box is going to force you to push ahead through the difficult parts, and working every day will keep the momentum up and your mind focused on the project. >>

Working 30-60 minutes a day on a project IS working "little and often". It's exactly what "little and often" is about.

AF is designed to ease you into this. Just having a 30-60 minute time-box doesn't provide you with any incentive. In fact it's only too easy to spend a good deal of the time fiddling around and achieving very little.

<< Just now I drew a line through everything on my AF list more than a week old. >>

Normally I would have expected nothing to be left on my list after a week anyway. As I said in my earlier posting, I find that dismissal kicks in around the 4 to 5 day mark.

Melanie:

I very much liked the random method. But I had two problems with it:

1) There is no control over when you do a task. It may happen immediately or it may be several days down the line. This doesn't matter with many tasks, but it does matter with some.

2) It isn't suitable for any task you want to work on regularly. You might find yourself doing it two or three times in one day and then not doing it again for a matter of days.

But I did really enjoy the lack of resistance and the mild form of gambling addiction!

Simon:

<< On a somewhat related note, although I loved using random tasks selection, I wonder if it defeats the benefit of a system like AutoFocus to filter your task list? With random selection, you come back to the problem of 15 minutes per day x 80 tasks = 20 hours per week not making much progress in any area. >>

Well, I think it's important to realize that random selection is NOT an Autofocus system. It works on entirely different principles. In AF you have continuous input in the form of "standing out", which I sometimes have to remind people is not done by "the system" but by you!

In random selection, the only input you get into the system is what you put on the list and how long you work on something once it's been selected. Everything else you have handed over to the random selector. You have to remember that the random selector couldn't care less about your desires, fears, priorities, etc.

Certain consequences follow from this:

1) Every task will get done.

2) How long it will take for any individual task to be selected from the list is out of your control.

3) The main factor in how long it will take for every task to be done is the length of the list.

4) The length of the list IS under your control, so you do have control of how long it will take for every task to get done..

My conclusion from this is that if you want random selection to work well, you need to keep the size of the list down. You can decide how long is acceptable for the "every task done" interval. Then experiment to see what the maximum number of tasks is that allows you to keep within that interval.

For example (the figures are purely illustrative):

You decide that two days is the longest time a task should remain undone. You have 100 tasks on your list and it is taking four days before all of them have been actioned. If you now do not allow more than 50 tasks on your list, the target of two days before they are all actioned will be achieved. If you only put 25 tasks on the list, you could guarantee every task would be done within 24 hours (assuming no variations in the length of time available to work on the list).

So unlike AF, you need a degree of pre-selection before putting stuff on the list. Otherwise it may be more than a week before you can guarantee that any individual task will be actioned.

Simon:

Pondering what I wrote in my last post, I came to the conclusion that random selection would work extremely well on a day list. You could very quickly find by trial and error how many tasks you could do in a day and make sure the list did not exceed that.

The problem with day lists without random selection is that there is a very strong in-built tendency in most people to do the easy tasks first. There's also a very strong tendency to make the list too large. The result is that not everything gets done, and the things left undone tend to be the more challenging and difficult ones.

These disadvantages disappear with random selection because the selector is totally indifferent to our feelings about a particular task. Therefore if some stuff doesn't get done, it is no more likely to be the challenging and difficult ones than any others.

I think it's also probably easier to get the right number of tasks on the list if you are using random selection. I think that taking all the psychological factors out of the selection of tasks also takes away some of the element of self-deception which goes into drawing up a day list. I'm not sure about this, so I'll have to experiment.

Simon:

<< I have tried using random selection a few times, and at times I have really felt like it was "the answer" because it really breaks up limiting mental patterns and predictable routines. I always run into two problems though: (1) although some tasks are deleted immediately after actioning them, most tasks tend to spawn two or three additional tasks, and the list starts to get baggy, (2) after a few days I get excited by a few of the tasks and start to realize what it is I really want to do. Then mental pressure starts to build up when the randomizer starts choosing irrelevant tasks. >>

Both these problems are solved if you use a day list.

<< On a shorter day-length list, I still feel that mental pressure start to build up when there are a few items on the list that must be done by the end of the day, and halfway through the day they still haven't been attended to. I suppose a way around that would be to ensure you only have a day's worth of tasks on the list. >>

Yes, that's the idea of a day list - to only have a day's worth of tasks on the list. You need to make pretty certain that it really is only a day's work. Every task should be finished by the end of the day. If you overrun make a shorter list the following day.

I've been experimenting with this over the last few days, and I found another useful method. If you have something that you want to get out of the way early in the day, then start the day with a list containing only enough tasks to last to lunchtime. As soon as you have actioned the critical task, you can make the list long enough to last all day.