Discussion Forum > "The Perfect To-Do System"
I am also coming to find that the simplest productivity systems that get out of your way tend to be the best.
April 7, 2021 at 7:14 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Mike Brown:
I agree totally with what the two articles say. That's why I advise people to use paper and pen rather than digital.
The only system I use digital for is The Next Hour, which is my standard system when travelling. It's just more convenient not to have to cart around additional paper. I use an ordinary note page in Evernote on my phone. Even though I don't use any tags, annotations or anything else other than tick boxes, it's still slower than paper and pencil - but much, much faster than any to-do apps.
I agree totally with what the two articles say. That's why I advise people to use paper and pen rather than digital.
The only system I use digital for is The Next Hour, which is my standard system when travelling. It's just more convenient not to have to cart around additional paper. I use an ordinary note page in Evernote on my phone. Even though I don't use any tags, annotations or anything else other than tick boxes, it's still slower than paper and pencil - but much, much faster than any to-do apps.
April 7, 2021 at 10:45 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
However, in response to the implied question "Is there such a thing as the perfect to-do system?", I wrote down a list of what I would want in one:
It must be a long-list system so everything is covered
It must be capable of being run with a single sheet of paper and pen only
The system must be able to access any part of the list at any time
It must keep the whole list under review.
Scanning must be short and easy
There must be no compulsion to do any task at any time
There must be no question(s): it should work on "standing out" only
It must be lightning fast
You shouldn't have to scan the same part of the list more than once before choosing the next task
As far as I can see that set of requirements rules out every single one of my systems (and everyone else's too)!
It must be a long-list system so everything is covered
It must be capable of being run with a single sheet of paper and pen only
The system must be able to access any part of the list at any time
It must keep the whole list under review.
Scanning must be short and easy
There must be no compulsion to do any task at any time
There must be no question(s): it should work on "standing out" only
It must be lightning fast
You shouldn't have to scan the same part of the list more than once before choosing the next task
As far as I can see that set of requirements rules out every single one of my systems (and everyone else's too)!
April 7, 2021 at 10:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The "perfect" system for my temperament and programming has nothing to do with pens, software or workflow rules. It has taken me many years of experimentation and dead ends to appreciate the following: My ability to get things done is related to two things:
1. A relationship
2. Hard landscape appointments/deadlines
1. I have a full private practice with a waitlist. The hard landscape i.e. booked therapy appointments and costs of not showing up (ouch) gets s**t done.
2. My podcast - Pop Parenting - is almost a year old. We're currently ranked #21 on the most listened to Jewish podcasts of 2020-2021. The key variable: my relationship with my co-producer. We have fun... and fun translates into hours of research and commitment to producing one show per week. No lists. No rules. No special paper or software.
3. My books were a combination of hard landscape (contract with publisher) and relationship (co-author with wife (book #2) and my late therapist (book #3)
etc
etc
All this to say, I agree with Snell. It's a good place to be in.
1. A relationship
2. Hard landscape appointments/deadlines
1. I have a full private practice with a waitlist. The hard landscape i.e. booked therapy appointments and costs of not showing up (ouch) gets s**t done.
2. My podcast - Pop Parenting - is almost a year old. We're currently ranked #21 on the most listened to Jewish podcasts of 2020-2021. The key variable: my relationship with my co-producer. We have fun... and fun translates into hours of research and commitment to producing one show per week. No lists. No rules. No special paper or software.
3. My books were a combination of hard landscape (contract with publisher) and relationship (co-author with wife (book #2) and my late therapist (book #3)
etc
etc
All this to say, I agree with Snell. It's a good place to be in.
April 7, 2021 at 15:32 |
avrum
avrum
Mark's criteria seem overly prescriptive to my mind. I hereby amend, item for item, as I see it:
It must capture everything that needs doing
It must be capable of being run simply
The system must always give you quick access to any task.
It must keep the whole workload under review.
Scanning must be short and easy
There must be no compulsion to do any task at any time
The process should not inhibit the flow of thought by difficult rules or selection criteria.
** It must direct your action efficiently to tasks that matter now.
<Does any system force you to scan the same list multiple times without doing a thing?>
I made these amendments because I didn't find your list agreed with my ideal, and I didn't see any reason why your ideal should be excluded from possibly being an ideal system.
I think there are existing systems that may fit these criteria, though it's particular to the individual whether a given system succeeds. In particular, the ** criterion will have the same system succeed or fail for different people who have different patterns of working. (The system I'm operating now seems close to meeting these for me, and especially **, but it doesn't aim for Mark's feature list.)
Avrum: That's a very interesting approach. Instead of a mechanical system, an interpersonal system for ensuring things get done.
It must capture everything that needs doing
It must be capable of being run simply
The system must always give you quick access to any task.
It must keep the whole workload under review.
Scanning must be short and easy
There must be no compulsion to do any task at any time
The process should not inhibit the flow of thought by difficult rules or selection criteria.
** It must direct your action efficiently to tasks that matter now.
<Does any system force you to scan the same list multiple times without doing a thing?>
I made these amendments because I didn't find your list agreed with my ideal, and I didn't see any reason why your ideal should be excluded from possibly being an ideal system.
I think there are existing systems that may fit these criteria, though it's particular to the individual whether a given system succeeds. In particular, the ** criterion will have the same system succeed or fail for different people who have different patterns of working. (The system I'm operating now seems close to meeting these for me, and especially **, but it doesn't aim for Mark's feature list.)
Avrum: That's a very interesting approach. Instead of a mechanical system, an interpersonal system for ensuring things get done.
April 7, 2021 at 15:56 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark,
Simple Scanning certainly seems to come very close to fulfilling your criteria of a perfect system above. To me, those criteria almost read like a description of Simple Scanning! Indeed, up until now, I've considered it the best task management system. Though I continue to try new things.
While those are compelling criteria, Alan has a point about them being somewhat prescriptive. (Alan's amendments are interesting.) Perhaps it would be good if ALL systems had a chance in the running for "perfect system"--including "no list" systems, etc.? Saying that "it must be a long-list system" seems to narrow the range of possibilities.
Simple Scanning certainly seems to come very close to fulfilling your criteria of a perfect system above. To me, those criteria almost read like a description of Simple Scanning! Indeed, up until now, I've considered it the best task management system. Though I continue to try new things.
While those are compelling criteria, Alan has a point about them being somewhat prescriptive. (Alan's amendments are interesting.) Perhaps it would be good if ALL systems had a chance in the running for "perfect system"--including "no list" systems, etc.? Saying that "it must be a long-list system" seems to narrow the range of possibilities.
April 7, 2021 at 16:28 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Very interesting discussion. It has triggered many thoughts on what I want from my time management. It boils down to this:
(A) I always have a clear idea of what I need to be doing and am able to do it easily. If I need to make a decision what to do, the decision is clear, fast, and easy.
(B) I am more and more satisfied with the results I am getting.
(C) When I encounter obstacles or deficiencies with either A or B, I identify the situation quickly and have a straightforward, reliable process to create a new A and B.
Maybe A represents Flow, B represents Throughput or generation of value, and C represents Improvement.
Now that I think about it, I suppose this is what I want from *any* system -- it works without any fuss, it generates the value for which it is intended, and when something goes wrong, that fact becomes clear right away, and there is a clear direction for resolving the situation.
(A) I always have a clear idea of what I need to be doing and am able to do it easily. If I need to make a decision what to do, the decision is clear, fast, and easy.
(B) I am more and more satisfied with the results I am getting.
(C) When I encounter obstacles or deficiencies with either A or B, I identify the situation quickly and have a straightforward, reliable process to create a new A and B.
Maybe A represents Flow, B represents Throughput or generation of value, and C represents Improvement.
Now that I think about it, I suppose this is what I want from *any* system -- it works without any fuss, it generates the value for which it is intended, and when something goes wrong, that fact becomes clear right away, and there is a clear direction for resolving the situation.
April 8, 2021 at 18:09 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Belacqua:
<< Perhaps it would be good if ALL systems had a chance in the running for "perfect system" >>
I emphasize that it is a list of what *I* would like to see in a perfect system, and my conclusion is that there is no existing system which meet all my criteria, and probably never could be.
As you say Simple Scanning meets many of the criteria, but I don't find it lightning fast, and my ideal system has to have that quality.
So the real problem is that my definition is actually self-contradictory.
<< Perhaps it would be good if ALL systems had a chance in the running for "perfect system" >>
I emphasize that it is a list of what *I* would like to see in a perfect system, and my conclusion is that there is no existing system which meet all my criteria, and probably never could be.
As you say Simple Scanning meets many of the criteria, but I don't find it lightning fast, and my ideal system has to have that quality.
So the real problem is that my definition is actually self-contradictory.
April 9, 2021 at 9:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< it works without any fuss, it generates the value for which it is intended, and when something goes wrong, that fact becomes clear right away, and there is a clear direction for resolving the situation. >>
Yes, those are all good points in what we are looking for in the "perfect" system. But they don't get any closer to describing what the ideal system actually looks like, though no doubt you have something in mind!
<< it works without any fuss, it generates the value for which it is intended, and when something goes wrong, that fact becomes clear right away, and there is a clear direction for resolving the situation. >>
Yes, those are all good points in what we are looking for in the "perfect" system. But they don't get any closer to describing what the ideal system actually looks like, though no doubt you have something in mind!
April 9, 2021 at 10:07 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan Baljeu:
<< Does any system force you to scan the same list multiple times without doing a thing? >>
I was referring to the multiple scans back to the end of the list that take place when doing tasks near the beginning of the list in some versions of FVP.
<< Does any system force you to scan the same list multiple times without doing a thing? >>
I was referring to the multiple scans back to the end of the list that take place when doing tasks near the beginning of the list in some versions of FVP.
April 9, 2021 at 10:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Well, I've proved myself wrong by coming up with a system which covers every one of the "perfect system" requirements which I put in my comment, plus Alan Baljeu's revised version, plus I hope Seraphim's as well.
So all that remains is to test it out, and then I will reveal it to the world. Unless of course I decide to keep it to myself so that I have no competition when I become world dictator... mwahahaha.
So all that remains is to test it out, and then I will reveal it to the world. Unless of course I decide to keep it to myself so that I have no competition when I become world dictator... mwahahaha.
April 9, 2021 at 14:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark,
<<Simple Scanning meets many of the criteria, but I don't find it lightning fast, and my ideal system has to have that quality. >>
Interesting. For me, Simple Scanning is lightning fast. But then, I tend to keep my list pretty short.
On the perennial topic of the best system, I recently read Mark's 2016 blog series on "what type of system... would win the evolutionary stakes." http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/25/types-of-lists-i-the-catch-all-list.html
Fascinating reading (even if it's a few years old). I was struck by the fact that even "using no list at all" came in for consideration as a contender. It takes humility and open-mindedness to entertain that possibility when you've spent years creating list-based systems! The positive verdict on "no-list" systems in the 2016 series was one thing that convinced me to give them a (belated) try. Though I haven't gotten around to doing an extended trial yet.
<<Simple Scanning meets many of the criteria, but I don't find it lightning fast, and my ideal system has to have that quality. >>
Interesting. For me, Simple Scanning is lightning fast. But then, I tend to keep my list pretty short.
On the perennial topic of the best system, I recently read Mark's 2016 blog series on "what type of system... would win the evolutionary stakes." http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/25/types-of-lists-i-the-catch-all-list.html
Fascinating reading (even if it's a few years old). I was struck by the fact that even "using no list at all" came in for consideration as a contender. It takes humility and open-mindedness to entertain that possibility when you've spent years creating list-based systems! The positive verdict on "no-list" systems in the 2016 series was one thing that convinced me to give them a (belated) try. Though I haven't gotten around to doing an extended trial yet.
April 9, 2021 at 16:12 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
P.S.
On the criteria of an ideal system: I suppose one possible addition would be "fun to use." (Granted, that's going to be subjective.)
Indeed, even a less-than-perfect system can probably produce good results if one enjoys using it and sticks to it. Previously, Mark has written persuasively on the virtues of sticking to one system. Which can be tough to do given the abundance of exciting ideas on this website!
As an example of what I mean: AF1 was a great system but perhaps it wasn't perfect. Yet I have fond memories of using it some years ago. And I used it for a good stretch of time. How much one enjoys a system is important in my experience.
On the criteria of an ideal system: I suppose one possible addition would be "fun to use." (Granted, that's going to be subjective.)
Indeed, even a less-than-perfect system can probably produce good results if one enjoys using it and sticks to it. Previously, Mark has written persuasively on the virtues of sticking to one system. Which can be tough to do given the abundance of exciting ideas on this website!
As an example of what I mean: AF1 was a great system but perhaps it wasn't perfect. Yet I have fond memories of using it some years ago. And I used it for a good stretch of time. How much one enjoys a system is important in my experience.
April 9, 2021 at 17:14 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
I don't know "fun" is the right term. I do believe an ideal system must not be a chore to use. If the process makes you feel like quitting, or not picking it up again the next time, that's not a good process. So maybe an ideal process entices you to use it and feels rewarding when you do. AF4 was a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list was motivating.
April 9, 2021 at 18:29 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
<< AF4 was a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list was motivating. >>
I think what you mean is "AF4 is a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list is motivating".
<< AF4 was a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list was motivating. >>
I think what you mean is "AF4 is a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list is motivating".
April 9, 2021 at 20:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<< Well, I've proved myself wrong by coming up with a system which covers every one of the "perfect system" requirements which I put in my comment, plus Alan Baljeu's revised version, plus I hope Seraphim's as well. >>
Looking forward to hearing more about it! Or to the coming New World Order, if you decide to take that route. :-)
Looking forward to hearing more about it! Or to the coming New World Order, if you decide to take that route. :-)
April 9, 2021 at 22:14 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Belacqua - << How much one enjoys a system is important in my experience >>
I agree with that -- the system should have intrinsic motivation -- a good kind of inertia, that pulls you to keep going with it. If you must keep forcing yourself to use it, then eventually you will stop.
I agree with that -- the system should have intrinsic motivation -- a good kind of inertia, that pulls you to keep going with it. If you must keep forcing yourself to use it, then eventually you will stop.
April 9, 2021 at 22:22 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Belacqua:
<< It takes humility and open-mindedness >>
I may be open-minded but no one's ever accused me of being humble before!
<< It takes humility and open-mindedness >>
I may be open-minded but no one's ever accused me of being humble before!
April 9, 2021 at 23:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< Looking forward to hearing more about it! Or to the coming New World Order, if you decide to take that route. >>
I think you're going to get the coming New World Order regardless.
But my new system is coming along nicely. It's very simple and is a case of re-arranging some of the "bricks" already established in older systems.
<< Looking forward to hearing more about it! Or to the coming New World Order, if you decide to take that route. >>
I think you're going to get the coming New World Order regardless.
But my new system is coming along nicely. It's very simple and is a case of re-arranging some of the "bricks" already established in older systems.
April 10, 2021 at 0:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan,
What you say makes sense to me. An ideal system should draw you in.
Alan Baljeu:
<< AF4 was a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list was motivating. >>
Mark Forster:
<<I think what you mean is "AF4 is a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list is motivating". >>
I too was guilty of using past tense to describe the older systems. For sure, AF1 and AF4 are still great systems!
What you say makes sense to me. An ideal system should draw you in.
Alan Baljeu:
<< AF4 was a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list was motivating. >>
Mark Forster:
<<I think what you mean is "AF4 is a good example of that at times. The feeling of progress on that Old list is motivating". >>
I too was guilty of using past tense to describe the older systems. For sure, AF1 and AF4 are still great systems!
April 10, 2021 at 0:05 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Mark Forster:
<<I may be open-minded but no one's ever accused me of being humble before!>>
Happy to be the first, I guess.
<<I may be open-minded but no one's ever accused me of being humble before!>>
Happy to be the first, I guess.
April 10, 2021 at 0:22 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Oh! I meant *your* New World Order!
April 10, 2021 at 3:10 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
FV comes closest to Mark‘s list of requirements.
April 10, 2021 at 20:43 |
Christopher
Christopher
Christopher:
<< FV comes closest to Mark‘s list of requirements. >>
Apart from the fact that once you have chosen your tasks you have to do them in order and you are confined to those tasks - which breaks two of my requirements.
<< FV comes closest to Mark‘s list of requirements. >>
Apart from the fact that once you have chosen your tasks you have to do them in order and you are confined to those tasks - which breaks two of my requirements.
April 11, 2021 at 10:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I just thought of another set of criteria for the perfect system -- my children must be able to use it:
-- Easy for me to teach to them
-- Easy for them to adopt and use
-- Easy for them to sustain and get value from it
-- Easy for me to teach to them
-- Easy for them to adopt and use
-- Easy for them to sustain and get value from it
April 12, 2021 at 0:43 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< my children must be able to use it >>
Good point.
Only in my case it's grandchildren. My children all seem quite capable of running their lives successfully without my help!
<< my children must be able to use it >>
Good point.
Only in my case it's grandchildren. My children all seem quite capable of running their lives successfully without my help!
April 12, 2021 at 9:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I agree with Snell's last thought: "Hopefully you get more out of whatever system you use than what you put into it. That’s the most important measure."
I've tried Todoist and Things and a few other systems, and honestly -- while Evernote is great for some to-doing -- I always come back to pen and paper and the system is one of Mark's, with simple rules and outsized results for the investment I put in.
Posts:
The perfect to-do system is a mirage – Six Colors
http://sixcolors.com/link/2021/04/the-perfect-to-do-system-is-a-mirage/
inessential: The Perfect To-Do System Is Not Just Around the Corner
http://inessential.com/2021/04/06/the_perfect_to_do_system_is_not_just_around_the_corner