Discussion Forum > What system if you don't need flexibility?
One reason I'm interested in this is that I think Autofocus apparently has a reputation for doing this well, and it seems like a lot of the work after Autofocus was focused on Flexibility. It seems that a lot of the discussions for a lot of people focuses more on flexibility than the other two, and so a lot of the talked about systems are optimized to provide enhanced flexibility. No-lists, for instance, are fast and offer lots of flexibility. FVP is extremely flexible. Likewise, Simple Scanning is also quite flexible as well. I'm curious what local optimum might be arrived at if we discarded the need for flexibility (you still need some, but just not that much).
I did find that GIRKIR was not "flexible enough" in that I couldn't add things fast enough to the list, but too slow in that I didn't feel that it was easy to work through the list and action items quickly, whereas Autofocus seems like it might make this a bit easier, as Mark mentions in a recent discussion about dismissal and Autofocus' effect on this.
I did find that GIRKIR was not "flexible enough" in that I couldn't add things fast enough to the list, but too slow in that I didn't feel that it was easy to work through the list and action items quickly, whereas Autofocus seems like it might make this a bit easier, as Mark mentions in a recent discussion about dismissal and Autofocus' effect on this.
May 23, 2021 at 19:08 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu:
<< That is, if you have a life in which Fast (on the right things) is the most important thing, Systematic is the next most important thing, with "Flexbile" or "Adaptive to Urgent" being well below those other two in importance, what might you recommend? >>
Systems are more adaptive than perhaps you are allowing for.
You can mentally set "standing out" to "select a lot" or "select a few". That obviously affects the speed at which you travel through the list.
That will affect both the "little" and the "often".
So take one of the easiest systems, Simple Scanning. You have at one extreme a slow plod through the list in which most things get worked on or even finished. That is more likely to suit someone who has a stable working environment which is not greatly focused on dealing with urgent matters.
At the other extreme you can have a very fast sprint in which only a few tasks get worked on during each pass. This will suit someone better who has to deal with many different degrees of urgency.
And the best thing is that you are not stuck with one speed. You can vary it to suit your current circumstances.
In the long run both probably deal with much the same level of work.
<< That is, if you have a life in which Fast (on the right things) is the most important thing, Systematic is the next most important thing, with "Flexbile" or "Adaptive to Urgent" being well below those other two in importance, what might you recommend? >>
Systems are more adaptive than perhaps you are allowing for.
You can mentally set "standing out" to "select a lot" or "select a few". That obviously affects the speed at which you travel through the list.
That will affect both the "little" and the "often".
So take one of the easiest systems, Simple Scanning. You have at one extreme a slow plod through the list in which most things get worked on or even finished. That is more likely to suit someone who has a stable working environment which is not greatly focused on dealing with urgent matters.
At the other extreme you can have a very fast sprint in which only a few tasks get worked on during each pass. This will suit someone better who has to deal with many different degrees of urgency.
And the best thing is that you are not stuck with one speed. You can vary it to suit your current circumstances.
In the long run both probably deal with much the same level of work.
May 23, 2021 at 19:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aaron:
If you want another system to try: off the top of my head, you might consider FV. I haven't used it in years. But it's a nice creation of Mark's and is a bit underrated, I think.
The task chains limit flexibility somewhat, but if that isn't concerning to you... I remember the system being good at moving through work in a businesslike fashion. The list usually stays pretty short.
If you want another system to try: off the top of my head, you might consider FV. I haven't used it in years. But it's a nice creation of Mark's and is a bit underrated, I think.
The task chains limit flexibility somewhat, but if that isn't concerning to you... I remember the system being good at moving through work in a businesslike fashion. The list usually stays pretty short.
May 24, 2021 at 2:07 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Perhaps also... the Randomizer.
May 24, 2021 at 2:25 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Belacqua:
<< Perhaps also... the Randomizer. >>
Almost everyone who has used the Randomizer (including me) has reported that it is extremely effective against procrastination. On the other hand it is completely indifferent to your priorities. So it tends to break down if you use it with too long a list. The key to using it successfully is to keep the list short enough so that the maximum time for any task to remain on the list is 48 hours or so. You can vary that to suit your work.
Also remember that it is a characteristic of random numbers to clump. You may get a wonderful run at a project which seems to be progressing at amazing speed, and then it will just get left high and dry all of a sudden.
<< Perhaps also... the Randomizer. >>
Almost everyone who has used the Randomizer (including me) has reported that it is extremely effective against procrastination. On the other hand it is completely indifferent to your priorities. So it tends to break down if you use it with too long a list. The key to using it successfully is to keep the list short enough so that the maximum time for any task to remain on the list is 48 hours or so. You can vary that to suit your work.
Also remember that it is a characteristic of random numbers to clump. You may get a wonderful run at a project which seems to be progressing at amazing speed, and then it will just get left high and dry all of a sudden.
May 24, 2021 at 9:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
An example of how random numbers clump.
I'm going to use the Random App to throw the numbers 1-5. I will stop when I've thrown all five numbers:
244235333241
These numbers can't possibly be random. I've thrown four 3s (three of them in a row) and only one 1 and one 5. The Random app obviously isn't random at all. Let's try again.
51345551142
This is unbelievable. I've thrown four 5s (three of them in a row) and only one 2 and one 3. What is going on?
In fact if I add up the numbers in both sequences I've thrown four 1s, four 2s, five 3s, five 4s and five 5s. A far more believable set of numbers. In fact almost too regular. Another set would probably irregularize them again. Or perhaps not.
The moral is that truly random numbers are always full of surprises.
I'm going to use the Random App to throw the numbers 1-5. I will stop when I've thrown all five numbers:
244235333241
These numbers can't possibly be random. I've thrown four 3s (three of them in a row) and only one 1 and one 5. The Random app obviously isn't random at all. Let's try again.
51345551142
This is unbelievable. I've thrown four 5s (three of them in a row) and only one 2 and one 3. What is going on?
In fact if I add up the numbers in both sequences I've thrown four 1s, four 2s, five 3s, five 4s and five 5s. A far more believable set of numbers. In fact almost too regular. Another set would probably irregularize them again. Or perhaps not.
The moral is that truly random numbers are always full of surprises.
May 24, 2021 at 9:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Belacqua:
<< you might consider FV. I haven't used it in years. But it's a nice creation of Mark's and is a bit underrated, >>
The main problem with FV, as I recall, was that people found that after using it for a bit they began to resist the earlier tasks in the task chain, particulary the first task on the list. That's why I developed FVP - to give a more flexible build up.
<< you might consider FV. I haven't used it in years. But it's a nice creation of Mark's and is a bit underrated, >>
The main problem with FV, as I recall, was that people found that after using it for a bit they began to resist the earlier tasks in the task chain, particulary the first task on the list. That's why I developed FVP - to give a more flexible build up.
May 24, 2021 at 12:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster:
< The main problem with FV, as I recall, was that people found that after using it for a bit they began to resist the earlier tasks in the task chain, particularly the first task on the list. >
Yeah, I think this happened to me as well.
Perhaps the system also isn't well-suited to the "large seedbed of possibilities" approach, since it forces action on early tasks, even if you'd rather leave them alone as mere possibilities for now.
I still say FV is somewhat underrated due to the advent of FVP. In a way, it might have been nice to give FVP a different name, because FV and FVP are completely different systems, IMO.
Whatever its shortcomings, I'd say FV is one of the most aesthetically pleasing and simple of your systems. "What do I want to do before X ?" is arguably even easier to grasp than standing out.
< The main problem with FV, as I recall, was that people found that after using it for a bit they began to resist the earlier tasks in the task chain, particularly the first task on the list. >
Yeah, I think this happened to me as well.
Perhaps the system also isn't well-suited to the "large seedbed of possibilities" approach, since it forces action on early tasks, even if you'd rather leave them alone as mere possibilities for now.
I still say FV is somewhat underrated due to the advent of FVP. In a way, it might have been nice to give FVP a different name, because FV and FVP are completely different systems, IMO.
Whatever its shortcomings, I'd say FV is one of the most aesthetically pleasing and simple of your systems. "What do I want to do before X ?" is arguably even easier to grasp than standing out.
May 24, 2021 at 15:59 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Belacqua:
<< FV and FVP are completely different systems, IMO >>
FVP was intended to be a logical progression from FV, in that it gives a much fuller answer to "What do I want to do before x?", but I agree with you that its results are very different.
When I use FVP I prefer the No Question version (NQ-FVP) in which one relies on standing out rather than asking a question.
<< FV and FVP are completely different systems, IMO >>
FVP was intended to be a logical progression from FV, in that it gives a much fuller answer to "What do I want to do before x?", but I agree with you that its results are very different.
When I use FVP I prefer the No Question version (NQ-FVP) in which one relies on standing out rather than asking a question.
May 24, 2021 at 16:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I second everything that Belacqua said, except for FV and FVP being completely different systems. I still can see the relation: one long list, undivided, and you act upon a chain of dotted tasks. Same structure.
Everything else Belacqua said: yes! In fact I came here to post basically the same things.
Everything else Belacqua said: yes! In fact I came here to post basically the same things.
May 24, 2021 at 16:38 |
Christopher
Christopher
In exploring my own needs, I'm beginning to come to a conclusion that I don't need a flexible system. That is, I've designed a lot of my routines and habits already in such a way that my environment rarely if ever presents me with something in between "urgent, do right now" and "you can get to it on the list in good time." In other words, I don't have to change course in my day very rapidly or very often.
This means that what is more important is a system that is very fast, and as comprehensive as I can make it, so that everything gets done that I want to get done, in a timely fashion, as efficiently as possible, even at the expense of being able to change course in the middle of the day, potentially. The "if it needs doing now, do it now" rule is probably sufficient for me to handle almost all the urgent stuff that comes up, and anything else I'm not worried about the "urgency" issue, just the throughput issue of high quality items.
This has made me give Autofocus (v1) a closer look as it is very simple, is specifically highlighted by Mark as being Fast and Systematic, and the closed list elements will likely cut down on the "in the moment" decision fatigue of processing a long list.
I've just started this experiment (after playing around with some alternatives to get a feel for things), but I'm wondering if anyone has any other systems that might be categorized in this class? That is, if you have a life in which Fast (on the right things) is the most important thing, Systematic is the next most important thing, with "Flexbile" or "Adaptive to Urgent" being well below those other two in importance, what might you recommend? The key is producing very high amounts of high quality output systematically and reliably and sustainably when the environment is already configured and set up to not introduce lots of "urgent" distractions.