Get Everything Done

I've been using the "serial no-list" / "inverse AF4" method for a full month now -- as described here http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2730943


Here are some observations:
-- This is probably the easiest, lightest weight, no-pressure method I've ever used. It has given me a constant sense of being focused on the right things. Using the method gives me a sense of calm and order.

-- It's also probably given me the fastest responsiveness to new things -- a responsiveness I've been able to sustain for several weeks. This is more than any system I've ever used. I've always had bursts of productivity when starting a new system, but after a short time it would level out, or run into conflicts, and the productivity would drop. With this method, the responsiveness and productivity has just gradually been increasing.

-- A 72-page journal is just about perfect for a full month of work. Each page has 24 lines. Most days, I enter about 25-35 tasks. I've never exceeded a single two-page spread on a single day. I usually complete 50% to 80% of the tasks the same day they are entered.

-- It's relatively rare to re-enter unfinished tasks. I usually end the day with less than 5 tasks on the page that were crossed out and re-entered. Usually it's the same 1-2 tasks. I'm not really sure why there are so few re-entries. I think I tend to stick with things longer till they are done.

-- Old pages with outstanding tasks typically hang around for about a week, give or take. They tend to be interesting / engaging to read. There are always a few things that got done without referring to those pages, so I just cross them out. The remaining tasks tend to be good fodder for thought & engagement -- for longer-term thinking. Just reading through them feels worthwhile, even if I don't do anything with them at the moment.

-- Sometimes I run across an older task that pops out at me, "OH NO! I'd better get that done right away!" As I read through the older pages, if there are too many entries like this, it starts to feel like a backlog of debt -- it starts to create anxiety and pressure. If I can't take action on them right now (for one reason or another), it seems to help just to take two or three of those tasks and copy them to my current (today's) page so they will get more attention. That alone seems to relieve the sense of debt. Often those tasks get handled right away. And strangely enough, sometimes they get handled by being deleted! I haven't been able to make any sense of the dynamics here. Why was it bothering me so much, only for me to realize it didn't need done at all?



Just like with no-list, this method seems automatically to guide me to establishing better routines. But that effect seems to be amplified. I really don’t understand how it happens. For example:
-- I've moved many of my daily routine tasks from the beginning of the day to the end of the day. This seems to improve my ability to focus on the main work of the day. It also tends to reduce the time spent on those routine tasks.

-- I used to check high-priority email all through the day (from key colleagues, etc.). I changed it to checking ALL unread email through the day -- for example, when changing tasks, or after a break -- and then whatever doesn't get handled immediately, gets handled at end of day. Somehow this has dramatically reduced the time I spend on email, increased my overall responsiveness, and my total inbox size seems to be much smaller. I was surprised by how this worked out. I thought it might be faster and more responsive, but also more distracting, and wasn't sure it was a good idea. But knowing I will process all email thoroughly at end of day gives me the freedom to READ the new email immediately but not have to DECIDE or ACT on it till later. This almost eliminates the sense of distraction -- it seems to arise from reading the email but not knowing how to get closure on it, so I can't let it go. Now, it's easy to let it go. I know I'll see it at end of day. And by then, I've already subconsciously worked out what to do with it. At least, that's how it seems to be happening.

-- My weekly routine has improved - mainly deciding which days to go into the office, and which days to work from home. Again, I am not really sure how this happened. It just DID. I wasn't making a conscious effort about it.

-- My moments of downtime are much better spent. Let's say I'm waiting for a meeting to start, I have 3 minutes. I used to pull out my phone and check up on whatever, or do some web surfing, which in retrospect was almost a complete waste of time and gave me a headache. Instead, I've been pulling out my notebook more often, and reading through the old tasks, which makes me think, and get engaged, and motivated, and sparks new thoughts, and, OH it's time for the meeting to start. It's becoming more and more of a routine to pull out the notebook instead of the phone. It's a much better break, it leaves me energized, not brain-numbed. In past, with long-list systems, I would sometimes have the same experience, but it was equally likely to leave me with a sense of overwhelm and stress at how much stuff wasn't getting done -- which would create resistance to the system -- and prompt me to go to my phone on breaks for relief.



Here are some questions I still have:
-- I've always had a strong intuition for systems and the "big picture". This method works very well with such a mindset. I wonder how it would work with people who don't have a naturally strong bent for systems thinking. I'm guessing that everyone has strong intuition for the totality of their world, their full context, even if they aren't "systems thinkers", and this method will only strengthen that natural intuition. So maybe it would work for everyone. But I just don't know. Everyone has their own strengths and temperament.

-- Do I really need the list at all? I wonder if this method approximates the natural behavior of so many people who are able to get so much done, and so much of the RIGHT STUFF done, without any identifiable system at all. When I do go "off list", I actually don't feel like I am doing anything differently. And especially, I don't feel like I am "cheating". It just feels like a natural extension of whatever I was doing on-list.

-- Sometimes I've been tempted to switch to a dated annual journal. I used a Moleskine daily journal for most of last year, and it was nice to have all my notes and things with me all the time, from the whole year. I also liked to enter reminders on future pages. I might give this a try. I wonder if it would change the dynamics to start sometimes with tasks already written on the page, instead of starting with a blank page. I wonder if I could get used to carrying it around all the time.

-- I wonder if those tasks that hang around for a week or two and occasionally create that niggling sense of anxiety will eventually cause this method to crash and burn. I think another month or two of trialing this method should be able to tell. This is my biggest worry about the system right now.

A few of you have been trialing this method as well. Any observations?

Mark - Great! Let me know what you think!

Alan - Yes, please report back after you give it some more time. I also find the list doesn't ever seem to get stale.

Bernie - Interesting developments!

Yes, I don't think a limit of 22 tasks per page would work for me. I use a little notebook ( https://fieldnotesbrand.com/products/signature-sketchbook-notebook ) which has 24 lines. I start a new spread each day, which gives me the left-hand page and the right-hand page for a total of 48 lines. This has proven completely adequate. Most days use the full left-hand page and a bit of the right-hand page. It is important to be able to see it all in one glance.


I was tempted to use checklists for routine tasks, but resisted the temptation, for a few reasons:

(1) As soon as I started writing down the checklist, it started to feel like debt. Worse, it started to feel like a DAILY debt. I hated that feeling.

(2) It also felt like it would interfere with the natural propensity of No-List to allow these routines to emerge and develop naturally. I *love* this characteristic of No-List. I can't say I really understand how it works -- but it is wonderful, and I was afraid the checklist would interfere with it. Too much conscious planning (what I "ought" to be doing each day), not enough organic emergence (following intuition).

(3) The last time I used checklists, the checklist started dominating my day. I don't want to give recurring tasks so much emphasis.


Regarding email -- I don't actually check it constantly. Probably once every 30 or 45 minutes -- for example, after a meeting ends, or after I finish a stretch of work on a single task, or after returning from a break. It's a quick check-in, before I return to my no-list. It typically takes me 2-3 minutes to deal with the unread emails that have arrived. Maybe 5 minutes, if there's an email or two that need immediate response. It keeps me aware and responsive. Emails that need a longer response are saved till the end of the day << that's the key to it. I don't worry about them any more. I know I will take care of them same-day, or at least next-day if my end-of-day routine is cut short.


<< I am interested in David C's "4x2" and nuntym's "TT," >>

Yes, so am I. I've been watching both of those threads -- they've both given me many new insights in one way or another. Very interesting stuff.

RE 4x2 -- I am afraid it's got too much structure, and I would start to resist it. The serial no-list seems to have its own kind of structured procrastination, anyway.

RE TT -- It just seems too complicated for me. Serial No-List is just so simple and seems to give similar benefits.

Maybe "complicated" isn't the right word. I just don't like having to distinguish between "urgent" and "non-urgent". Everything just goes on the list in the same place. The list is so short, it is easy to process it even when these things are mixed together.

It might not give the same diagnostic insights as keeping the items separated, but I am not sure that matters. I suppose the purpose of the diagnostic insights is to improve one's process and steer one's intuition in a better direction. But with No-List, I find that this happens automatically.

<< Mark's idea of dotting the Urgent/Unfinished tasks could inject Serial No-List with some TT flavor… at least the Unfinished ones could get dotted without any friction as they are rewritten, and it will keep all work in progress highly visible. >>

I haven't tried this, but I don’t think it's necessary with Serial No-List. The current page is where all the action happens, and it takes about 15 seconds to scan the whole thing. And it only takes a couple minutes to scan the previous pages. So it's already easy enough to maintain a sense for which items are unfinished and which haven't been started. The two kinds of tasks have a very different feel -- at least in my experience. Also, the unstarted tasks tend to stay behind on the older pages, unless they keep popping up in my mind when I start up the new daily page. These dynamics are enough to keep me focused on the right things.

So I am guessing adding a special symbol to unfinished tasks would only get in the way of one's intuition -- as well as creating extra overhead.

Cricket -

I think you would like Theory of Constraints. There’s a long chapter in Eli Goldratt’s book, The Goal, that talks about Mendeleyev and his discovery of the Periodic Table. The key thing is, he was not imposing an order from “outside”. He was *revealing* an intrinsic order that already exists. This is the key. There is a real order to things, a real cause-and-effect, even in such complex and nuanced things as factories, supply chains, retail stores, project management - and time management.

Theory of Constraints is all about discovering and revealing this intrinsic order. We often discover it first through intuition but have a very hard time articulating it clearly. Goldratt’s genius was being able to systematically combine emotion, intuition, and logic to reveal, clarify, and validate the intrinsic order in the complex situations we face every day, with all their conflicts and ambiguity - and then use this knowledge to break the conflicts and get better and better results that never before seemed possible.

I think Mark’s systems are very similar - they leverage our emotion and intuition to help us discover the intrinsic order that already exists in all the demands on our time we face every day.

Cricket -

<< Sounds fascinating, but I wonder if there's much new in it for me. I'm already very familiar with constraints for physical processes.... >>

Actually, based on everything you wrote here, I think you'd love the book. It was written for people like you.

I've always been a systems-thinker too, and would naturally find and leverage the constraints of systems. The book goes so deep into all the implications of what this really means, and why it is so powerful, that it has been transformational for me. I use the concepts from the book all the time, both at work and in personal life. They've taken my natural intuition for systems to a much higher level.


<< I even watch the process at fast-food restaurants to see the bottlenecks. Resource management games suck me in. >>

LOL, I do the same thing. I think you would really like this book.

Nicole -

<< Seraphim, did you ever use Do-It-Tomorrow? >>

Yes, I used it for maybe six months, immediately before Mark introduced AF1, and have returned to it several times over the years. I've probably spent more time using DIT than any other time management system.


<< What I really liked about DIT is that it gives me a very good feel for my day-to-day workload. But I could never keep it up to more than a few days in a row. >>

That was my experience also. It would work very well until I would have a series of overloaded or meeting-heavy days. It was often difficult to recover fully after that.

Those circumstances always created a backlog. And by DIT’s rules, if you have a backlog, you should make it your Current Initiative to clear out the backlog. But at the same time, the series of overwhelming days was usually the result of some new focus or new change in direction. And *that* needed Current-Initiative-level attention as well. This always seemed to create a conflict that needed sorting out before I could really move forward -- often triggering an Audit of Commitments. In other words, it was always disruptive and time-consuming, and happened often enough to be really troublesome.

Serial No-List is more free-form. A daily routine or order does seem to emerge and evolve -- more on that below. It doesn't feel quite as satisfying as DIT's daily cadence and feeling of completeness, but then again, perhaps that sense of completion was just an illusion, since it was so hard to sustain. Serial No-List does much better at handling those disruptions to the daily routine. It's proven much more sustainable for me.


<< I'm trying your Serial No-List, and what I miss about it is the option to postpone something to tomorrow. >>

I know what you mean. Sometimes I have been tempted to pre-load a new page for the next day. In the end, I just started writing those things in today’s page, together with whatever else comes up during the course of the day. That almost always works just fine. The items is parked there till it "stands out" during one of my occasional back-scans of the older pages.

But sometimes, the item keeps niggling at me after I write it down. It's usually because I am worried that when tomorrow arrives, I may be absorbed in tomorrow's work and never backscan today's page and see the task. If it niggles at me like that, then I just create a reminder for it in Outlook.


<< I was wondering if you have experience with how the dynamics of DIT compare to the dynamics of Serial No-List. >>

Yes, I've thought about this sometimes.

For me, Serial No-List has more sense of structure and completeness than FVP or No-List, but less than DIT.

Every time I have used DIT, it seems to give the same particular kind of structure and cadence to the day. I really like that feeling of relaxed, focused, reliable cadence (though it never seems to last...).

Serial No-List tends to give a structure to the day, too. But it evolves (and seems to improve) over time. For example, at first I was starting each day by opening my notebook and writing down whatever was on my mind. After a time, I gradually shifted to starting each day looking over my calendar and scanning for urgent emails -- and only then moving to my notebook. It seemed to help give more context to the day and alert me to any urgent things I may have forgotten about (such as early-morning meetings). But this prompted me to develop a better system for reminding me of early-morning meetings, and also helped me realize that none of the unread emails are ever so urgent as to require attention immediately at start of day. So those things stopped bothering me, and I went back to something more like DIT -- starting each day with my notebook, and tending to start actual activity with whatever "Current Initiative" needs focus.

Sometimes Serial No-List seems to hit a "sweet spot" that can last for a few days or weeks -- it gets into a nice cadence. But then something about my routine starts to niggle at me -- something isn't working quite right -- and Serial No-List forces me to address it. That can be a little disruptive to the satisfying sense of cadence and flow, but eventually a new "sweet spot" emerges that's even better than the previous one.

But to be honest, sometimes that "sweet spot" can be elusive. I've been going through that recently, dealing with health issues again and some changes at work. The thing I've realized is that the disruption is not so much some artifact of the system, but just a reflection of whatever is actually happening in my life right now. This helps me to address the life and work issues more directly, rather than looking for a way to tweak Serial No-List to fix it. The system itself is fine, it just reflects reality back at you and makes you deal with it.


Another area of contrast is recurring items. With DIT, I found that the Daily Tasks part of the Will-Do list tended to collect a lot of recurring items that didn't *really* need to be done every day -- but it REALLY FELT GOOD to do them every day anyway. It gave me a feeling of calm and control to know I was always on top of all those things. But in the end, the pleasure of checking off all those tasks every day would take my attention away from my Current Initiative and one-off tasks.

With Serial No-List, the recurring tasks seem to take care of themselves more automatically. And the ones that don't, keep showing up on my list, bothering me, until I figure out a workable system to handle them automatically. This seems to free up more mental space for dealing with the stuff that requires more focused attention and creativity.

Hm, there are probably more differences but those are the ones that immediately come to mind.