Discussion Forum > Revisiting AF4R
So far, it has been working pretty well. It has the same diagnostic power that the old AF4R had, and I've begun to see connections to the same patterns I saw in Serial No-List, as well as connections to the Theory of Constraints Change Matrix.
The Change Matrix has four quadrants:
(1) the Positives of No Change
(2) the Negatives of No Change
(3) the Positives of Change, and
(4) the Negatives of Change
These four quadrants can be associated with time management phenomena such as
(1) Inertia/Momentum,
(2) Cost of Delay / "what am I resisting not doing"
(3) Purpose, Goals, Aspirations
(4) Resistance to Change / procrastination
These are related to the Serial No-List page groupings that tend to appear naturally over time, which I described in an old post at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2745088 :
(1) Recurring tasks that you re-enter onto the next day's page -- like the DIT "will do" list
(2) Current systems aren't able to keep up with demand -- recurring tasks that aren't getting completed
(3) Engagement and adventure -- the unfinished tasks currently getting focus and initiative
(4) Chaos and fear -- the older tasks that are hanging around and generating problems
These are related to the AF4R page types:
(1) Recurring tasks -- your current status quo systems and processes
(2) Recurring tasks that are falling behind -- inboxes overflowing, etc.
(3) Unfinished tasks -- the project work that is currently getting attention
(4) Old tasks, Dismissed Tasks, and large accumulations of New tasks
When something is going wrong with one of the page types, these patterns help with diagnosing the problem and finding a solution.
The Change Matrix has four quadrants:
(1) the Positives of No Change
(2) the Negatives of No Change
(3) the Positives of Change, and
(4) the Negatives of Change
These four quadrants can be associated with time management phenomena such as
(1) Inertia/Momentum,
(2) Cost of Delay / "what am I resisting not doing"
(3) Purpose, Goals, Aspirations
(4) Resistance to Change / procrastination
These are related to the Serial No-List page groupings that tend to appear naturally over time, which I described in an old post at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2745088 :
(1) Recurring tasks that you re-enter onto the next day's page -- like the DIT "will do" list
(2) Current systems aren't able to keep up with demand -- recurring tasks that aren't getting completed
(3) Engagement and adventure -- the unfinished tasks currently getting focus and initiative
(4) Chaos and fear -- the older tasks that are hanging around and generating problems
These are related to the AF4R page types:
(1) Recurring tasks -- your current status quo systems and processes
(2) Recurring tasks that are falling behind -- inboxes overflowing, etc.
(3) Unfinished tasks -- the project work that is currently getting attention
(4) Old tasks, Dismissed Tasks, and large accumulations of New tasks
When something is going wrong with one of the page types, these patterns help with diagnosing the problem and finding a solution.
January 20, 2022 at 7:17 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
First of all - welcome back! Sorry to hear about your health issues.
I have to say that I had entirely forgotten about the existence of AF4R. Without trying it, I think you are probably right about the order to take the different pages in.
I'm too involved with other ideas at the moment to revisit it, but if they all collapse in failure (a common occurrence) then I will definitely do so.
First of all - welcome back! Sorry to hear about your health issues.
I have to say that I had entirely forgotten about the existence of AF4R. Without trying it, I think you are probably right about the order to take the different pages in.
I'm too involved with other ideas at the moment to revisit it, but if they all collapse in failure (a common occurrence) then I will definitely do so.
January 20, 2022 at 13:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I have almost completed my 160-page notebook, and I might try this with a new notebook.
I find that with a notebook, when one reaches the 100th page and beyond, if it is one long list, that the process begins to bog down. Either there are pages that are completely done that need to be passed over, or old tasks that don't get done that get reviewed repeatedly.
So I wonder if when the list gets long there is a drive to begin to consolidate and organize the items into groups.
I find that with a notebook, when one reaches the 100th page and beyond, if it is one long list, that the process begins to bog down. Either there are pages that are completely done that need to be passed over, or old tasks that don't get done that get reviewed repeatedly.
So I wonder if when the list gets long there is a drive to begin to consolidate and organize the items into groups.
January 20, 2022 at 20:21 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H. wrote:
<< So I wonder if when the list gets long there is a drive to begin to consolidate and organize the items into groups. >>
Sometimes it's helpful to categorize and organize our tasks as you suggest, but I think the motivation here is different. The groupings in AF4R are rather a recognition that there are different kinds of tasks -- a difference at some kind of fundamental level -- and that it's helpful to group tasks along these lines, both for the execution of the tasks, and also for the diagnosis of the problems that arise when managing these tasks.
I'm not sure how Mark landed on the initial four categories -- New, Old, Recurring, Unfinished -- but I think he did discover something important at a fundamental level. These categories are not an arbitrary order imposed from above, but more like the discovery of an intrinsic order that exists objectively. The fact that these categories align so well with the Change Matrix, and that the dynamics of the different lists have such strong diagnostic power, seems to reinforce this idea.
<< So I wonder if when the list gets long there is a drive to begin to consolidate and organize the items into groups. >>
Sometimes it's helpful to categorize and organize our tasks as you suggest, but I think the motivation here is different. The groupings in AF4R are rather a recognition that there are different kinds of tasks -- a difference at some kind of fundamental level -- and that it's helpful to group tasks along these lines, both for the execution of the tasks, and also for the diagnosis of the problems that arise when managing these tasks.
I'm not sure how Mark landed on the initial four categories -- New, Old, Recurring, Unfinished -- but I think he did discover something important at a fundamental level. These categories are not an arbitrary order imposed from above, but more like the discovery of an intrinsic order that exists objectively. The fact that these categories align so well with the Change Matrix, and that the dynamics of the different lists have such strong diagnostic power, seems to reinforce this idea.
January 20, 2022 at 23:01 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hi Seraphim,
Good to hear from you again, hope you get better soon!
I might give this a shot. Here it seems like Old items are being treated differently from the original dismissal implementation, is there still a mechanism where New items eventually become Old items?
Good to hear from you again, hope you get better soon!
I might give this a shot. Here it seems like Old items are being treated differently from the original dismissal implementation, is there still a mechanism where New items eventually become Old items?
January 21, 2022 at 14:10 |
Virix
Virix
Seraphim:
<< I have landed on a different order: 1-- Unfinished 2-- New 3-- Recurring 4-- Old >>
Do you see one pass of this as one day's work? Or do you continue to cycle throught the sequence until finishing time?
If you continue to cycle through the sequence, do you always start the next day with Unfinished? Or do you start with wherever you got to with the sequence the previous day?
<< I have landed on a different order: 1-- Unfinished 2-- New 3-- Recurring 4-- Old >>
Do you see one pass of this as one day's work? Or do you continue to cycle throught the sequence until finishing time?
If you continue to cycle through the sequence, do you always start the next day with Unfinished? Or do you start with wherever you got to with the sequence the previous day?
January 21, 2022 at 21:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Virix --
<< is there still a mechanism where New items eventually become Old items? >>
I use the same rule as in AF4R -- whenever I make a complete pass through the Old list without taking action on anything, then I dismiss those items, and my New list becomes the Old list, and I start a new New list. It feels a bit different than with standard AF4R, because I don't work these two lists in order, but it still works just fine.
<< is there still a mechanism where New items eventually become Old items? >>
I use the same rule as in AF4R -- whenever I make a complete pass through the Old list without taking action on anything, then I dismiss those items, and my New list becomes the Old list, and I start a new New list. It feels a bit different than with standard AF4R, because I don't work these two lists in order, but it still works just fine.
January 21, 2022 at 21:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster --
<< Do you see one pass of this as one day's work? Or do you continue to cycle through the sequence until finishing time? >>
I continue cycling through the sequence till finishing time.
Regarding "one day's work", it seems the main thing is to have completed all the Recurring items. If I do that, together with a good mixture of New, Old, and Unfinished, I feel like I had a full day's work with a sense of closure or completeness (reminiscent of DIT). To make this easier to monitor, I always draw a line under the last Recurring item at the beginning of a new day. The line does not figure into the rules of the system -- it just shows me clearly whether I got all the Recurring items above the line completed by end of day.
<< If you continue to cycle through the sequence, do you always start the next day with Unfinished? >>
Yes, I always start the next day with Unfinished.
To be more precise, I start the day with my getting-up routine / mental checklist. But when I sit down to get to work for the day, I start my list with Unfinished.
I also start with Unfinished after any extended break from the list.
In practice, it seems to work like this -- I spend the first half of the day or so, maybe more, making my first pass through all sections of the list. So it tends to happen that I start going through my Old items sometime in the early or mid afternoon, after I've already completed most of the main work of the day. This seems to work very well -- I'm in a more relaxed, reflective mood, and I am more open to engaging with the Old items -- either to get them started, or to delete them.
<< Do you see one pass of this as one day's work? Or do you continue to cycle through the sequence until finishing time? >>
I continue cycling through the sequence till finishing time.
Regarding "one day's work", it seems the main thing is to have completed all the Recurring items. If I do that, together with a good mixture of New, Old, and Unfinished, I feel like I had a full day's work with a sense of closure or completeness (reminiscent of DIT). To make this easier to monitor, I always draw a line under the last Recurring item at the beginning of a new day. The line does not figure into the rules of the system -- it just shows me clearly whether I got all the Recurring items above the line completed by end of day.
<< If you continue to cycle through the sequence, do you always start the next day with Unfinished? >>
Yes, I always start the next day with Unfinished.
To be more precise, I start the day with my getting-up routine / mental checklist. But when I sit down to get to work for the day, I start my list with Unfinished.
I also start with Unfinished after any extended break from the list.
In practice, it seems to work like this -- I spend the first half of the day or so, maybe more, making my first pass through all sections of the list. So it tends to happen that I start going through my Old items sometime in the early or mid afternoon, after I've already completed most of the main work of the day. This seems to work very well -- I'm in a more relaxed, reflective mood, and I am more open to engaging with the Old items -- either to get them started, or to delete them.
January 21, 2022 at 21:43 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< I spend the first half of the day or so, maybe more, making my first pass through all sections of the list. So it tends to happen that I start going through my Old items sometime in the early or mid afternoon, after I've already completed most of the main work of the day. >>
Whereas my original conception was that one would circulate through the four sections several times during the day. I've been sufficiently interested in this discussion to start AF4R again - initially with my original order. I want to see which order suits me best.
So far I've been using my old order (Old, New, Recurring, Unfinished) for most of the afternoon and evening, and have 71 old tasks, 7 new tasks, 32 recurring tasks, and 1 unfinished task. This will undoubtedly shake out a lot more in the next day or so.
<< I spend the first half of the day or so, maybe more, making my first pass through all sections of the list. So it tends to happen that I start going through my Old items sometime in the early or mid afternoon, after I've already completed most of the main work of the day. >>
Whereas my original conception was that one would circulate through the four sections several times during the day. I've been sufficiently interested in this discussion to start AF4R again - initially with my original order. I want to see which order suits me best.
So far I've been using my old order (Old, New, Recurring, Unfinished) for most of the afternoon and evening, and have 71 old tasks, 7 new tasks, 32 recurring tasks, and 1 unfinished task. This will undoubtedly shake out a lot more in the next day or so.
January 22, 2022 at 0:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark --
<< Whereas my original conception was that one would circulate through the four sections several times during the day. >>
My first pass through the list on any given day does tend to take several hours. But after that, each successive cycle gets faster and faster. So far I have been cycling through the whole list probably 5-7 times per day.
<< I've been sufficiently interested in this discussion to start AF4R again - initially with my original order. I want to see which order suits me best. >>
I'm looking forward to your insights!
<< So far I've been using my old order (Old, New, Recurring, Unfinished) for most of the afternoon and evening, and have 71 old tasks, 7 new tasks, 32 recurring tasks, and 1 unfinished task. >>
Sounds like you've done quite a lot for just a single afternoon / evening!
I've been going for about two weeks now, and have 13 old tasks, 52 new tasks, 22 recurring tasks, and 21 unfinished tasks. Perhaps the different proportions are the result of the different ordering, in addition to different personal modes of working.
Today I noticed that a large percentage of my unfinished tasks are "follow up" / "waiting for" kinds of things. My only action here is to follow up with other people -- waiting for a response of some kind. I decided to start tracking these separately on their own special unfinished/"waiting for" page. So far, this seems to give a bit more focus to the unfinished things that I can actually move forward on my own.
Looking forward to hearing how it turns out for you!
<< Whereas my original conception was that one would circulate through the four sections several times during the day. >>
My first pass through the list on any given day does tend to take several hours. But after that, each successive cycle gets faster and faster. So far I have been cycling through the whole list probably 5-7 times per day.
<< I've been sufficiently interested in this discussion to start AF4R again - initially with my original order. I want to see which order suits me best. >>
I'm looking forward to your insights!
<< So far I've been using my old order (Old, New, Recurring, Unfinished) for most of the afternoon and evening, and have 71 old tasks, 7 new tasks, 32 recurring tasks, and 1 unfinished task. >>
Sounds like you've done quite a lot for just a single afternoon / evening!
I've been going for about two weeks now, and have 13 old tasks, 52 new tasks, 22 recurring tasks, and 21 unfinished tasks. Perhaps the different proportions are the result of the different ordering, in addition to different personal modes of working.
Today I noticed that a large percentage of my unfinished tasks are "follow up" / "waiting for" kinds of things. My only action here is to follow up with other people -- waiting for a response of some kind. I decided to start tracking these separately on their own special unfinished/"waiting for" page. So far, this seems to give a bit more focus to the unfinished things that I can actually move forward on my own.
Looking forward to hearing how it turns out for you!
January 22, 2022 at 3:43 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< Looking forward to hearing how it turns out for you! >>
Not well, I'm afraid. I found being confined to one section at a time too constricting for me these days. Though I don't remember that being a problem when I first wrote the system.
<< Looking forward to hearing how it turns out for you! >>
Not well, I'm afraid. I found being confined to one section at a time too constricting for me these days. Though I don't remember that being a problem when I first wrote the system.
January 22, 2022 at 17:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hm, that's too bad. Could you say more about it? I never seem to have any trouble moving between sections.
The only rule that interrupts the free movement between sections is the Old Tasks dismissal rule. Maybe it's easier for me because I always scan the Old Tasks last.
The only rule that interrupts the free movement between sections is the Old Tasks dismissal rule. Maybe it's easier for me because I always scan the Old Tasks last.
January 22, 2022 at 22:23 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< I never seem to have any trouble moving between sections. >>
The problem is that I don't seem to be able to find the middle ground between doing hardly anything (or nothing at all) in each section and carrying on in a section untill I've done every possible task. If one is going to skip over sections then one might just as well not have bothered setting up the sections, but on the other hand if one's going to do every possible task in a section then work in the other sections isn't moving for a considerable period of time.
As I say, I don't remember this being a problem when I originally designed the system, so I'm not sure what I was doing differently then.
<< I never seem to have any trouble moving between sections. >>
The problem is that I don't seem to be able to find the middle ground between doing hardly anything (or nothing at all) in each section and carrying on in a section untill I've done every possible task. If one is going to skip over sections then one might just as well not have bothered setting up the sections, but on the other hand if one's going to do every possible task in a section then work in the other sections isn't moving for a considerable period of time.
As I say, I don't remember this being a problem when I originally designed the system, so I'm not sure what I was doing differently then.
January 23, 2022 at 15:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<< The problem is that I don't seem to be able to find the middle ground between doing hardly anything (or nothing at all) in each section and carrying on in a section until I've done every possible task. >>
Actually I see this as a feature, not a bug, especially at the beginning of the day. But maybe this is a result of my reordering of the categories. My daily routine goes something like this:
1-- Wake up and get ready for the day (mental checklist, off-list)
2-- Start the list with Unfinished -- immediately get momentum FINISHING THINGS. Spend 30-60 minutes here or more. Feels great getting things FINISHED, really gives a sense of accomplishment and momentum. There really is a sense of momentum and wanting to get the whole section completed if possible.
3-- Switch to New -- to scan for anything urgent for the day. (If I already know there are several pressing urgent items, I will come here after only 5-10 minutes in Unfinished.) I usually spend 15-30 minutes here on this first scan. I am usually just looking for urgent things, so there isn't the same drive to get it all done.
4-- Switch to Recurring -- bang it all out if I can in one go. This is like DIT's daily Will Do list. If I get this all done, I am feeling on top of my day. I usually get it all done in the first pass, or close to it (except for a few tasks that can't be done till evening.) This happens naturally -- there is a natural momentum that builds and makes me want to stay in that section. Occasionally I might get bored and want to move on, so I only get through part of it, but that isn't usually the case. When I am on top of things, I can get this all done in 30-60 minutes or less. When I have fallen behind, it can take longer (and I start to get bored and annoyed and tend to move on to other things).
5-- Switch to Old -- By this time, I am usually feeling like I have made solid progress for the day and can take a bit of a break. Usually on this first pass, I am just re-familiarizing myself with the Old tasks. I start scanning, expecting that I will dismiss all of them. But I almost always find one or two that stand out and are easily completed. I usually then move back to the Unfinished list, but sometimes I might find myself getting momentum with these Old tasks and could stay there for a good long while.
6-- The subsequent cycles through the list are usually more focused -- by now I generally have some specific idea in mind of what I want to do with the rest of the day, and steer towards that, while finishing off any remaining Unfinished and Recurring items. The focus tends to be on the Unfinished and New pages, with a few related items on the Old pages (which happen to prevent the Old list from getting dismissed).
7-- Eventually, as the day starts to wind down, I seem to steer more toward the Recurring list and making sure it is all completed. And then I tend to revisit some of the more reflective Recurring items (such as visiting this forum). If I happen to reach the Old list again, this seems to be the time when it gets dismissed. The dismissal of the old list always seems to happen for me in the evenings.
All of this happens within the context of the usual interruptions and meetings, which have been lighter than usual recently. I am wondering how this flow would change if I were buried with meetings and interruptions and general chaos, as is more typical for me.
Anyway, how does that compare to your usual routine?
<< As I say, I don't remember this being a problem when I originally designed the system, so I'm not sure what I was doing differently then. >>
Based on the forum discussions, it doesn't seem like you stuck with AF4R for very long -- it seemed like a short interlude between SuperFocus variants.
Actually I see this as a feature, not a bug, especially at the beginning of the day. But maybe this is a result of my reordering of the categories. My daily routine goes something like this:
1-- Wake up and get ready for the day (mental checklist, off-list)
2-- Start the list with Unfinished -- immediately get momentum FINISHING THINGS. Spend 30-60 minutes here or more. Feels great getting things FINISHED, really gives a sense of accomplishment and momentum. There really is a sense of momentum and wanting to get the whole section completed if possible.
3-- Switch to New -- to scan for anything urgent for the day. (If I already know there are several pressing urgent items, I will come here after only 5-10 minutes in Unfinished.) I usually spend 15-30 minutes here on this first scan. I am usually just looking for urgent things, so there isn't the same drive to get it all done.
4-- Switch to Recurring -- bang it all out if I can in one go. This is like DIT's daily Will Do list. If I get this all done, I am feeling on top of my day. I usually get it all done in the first pass, or close to it (except for a few tasks that can't be done till evening.) This happens naturally -- there is a natural momentum that builds and makes me want to stay in that section. Occasionally I might get bored and want to move on, so I only get through part of it, but that isn't usually the case. When I am on top of things, I can get this all done in 30-60 minutes or less. When I have fallen behind, it can take longer (and I start to get bored and annoyed and tend to move on to other things).
5-- Switch to Old -- By this time, I am usually feeling like I have made solid progress for the day and can take a bit of a break. Usually on this first pass, I am just re-familiarizing myself with the Old tasks. I start scanning, expecting that I will dismiss all of them. But I almost always find one or two that stand out and are easily completed. I usually then move back to the Unfinished list, but sometimes I might find myself getting momentum with these Old tasks and could stay there for a good long while.
6-- The subsequent cycles through the list are usually more focused -- by now I generally have some specific idea in mind of what I want to do with the rest of the day, and steer towards that, while finishing off any remaining Unfinished and Recurring items. The focus tends to be on the Unfinished and New pages, with a few related items on the Old pages (which happen to prevent the Old list from getting dismissed).
7-- Eventually, as the day starts to wind down, I seem to steer more toward the Recurring list and making sure it is all completed. And then I tend to revisit some of the more reflective Recurring items (such as visiting this forum). If I happen to reach the Old list again, this seems to be the time when it gets dismissed. The dismissal of the old list always seems to happen for me in the evenings.
All of this happens within the context of the usual interruptions and meetings, which have been lighter than usual recently. I am wondering how this flow would change if I were buried with meetings and interruptions and general chaos, as is more typical for me.
Anyway, how does that compare to your usual routine?
<< As I say, I don't remember this being a problem when I originally designed the system, so I'm not sure what I was doing differently then. >>
Based on the forum discussions, it doesn't seem like you stuck with AF4R for very long -- it seemed like a short interlude between SuperFocus variants.
January 23, 2022 at 19:48 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
This AF4R experiment is working out pretty well so far.
Starting with Unfinished continues to make a big difference for me, creating focus and momentum on getting stuff FINISHED. This is a contrast to how most other long list systems have worked for me, where I feel I am "rewarded" for getting stuff STARTED. That always tends to generate lots more WIP, many more loose threads to close, and a list that eventually grows too large to maintain.
Starting with Unfinished also gives me a sense of my overall committed workload, and this tempers my personal tendency to start lots of new things. I find myself a lot more willing to let these new ideas and potential projects just wait, till I have cleared out space for them on my Unfinished list. So I am a lot more selective in what new projects and ideas I decide to activate.
All this seems to help keep the size of the list relatively small, making the whole system much more sustainable.
I also made a few changes to the rules to address a couple of persistent problems.
One problem was the flow of large tasks. I found myself either ignoring these tasks and focusing on administrivia and distractions (because those smaller items flow better, even if they aren't high value) -- or I would go to the other extreme, and binge-focus on the large task while neglecting everything else. Either way, the flow of the system would be disrupted and I felt unhappy.
My solution is simply to timebox these tasks. As soon as I start to feel that a large task is getting stuck, I set a timer for 15-30 minutes and focus on that task. When the timer is done, I stop and move on to something else. This has been very effective at getting these large tasks moving while maintaining the overall flow of the system.
Another problem was the Dismissal rule that is triggered when no action is taken on the Old pages. This rule was the sole element in the system that obstructed free movement through all the sections of the list. This would cause problems sometimes.
So I experimented did some experimenting and have come up with this: I have three page categories -- Unfinished, New, Recurring. I have a new rule: if I read through any New page without taking action, I consider dismissing that page. I am not forced to do it -- I just need to ask the question, "Hm, maybe I should dismiss all these remaining items?" Sometimes it just doesn't seem like the right time, but sometimes it does. I also have a recurring item that gets activated every day or so, to review the dismissed items.
So in practice, I give the following a lot of attention during the day:
-- my focus list (the Unfinished pages)
-- my list of urgent things and new ideas and projects (the New pages)
-- my systems to maintain order (Recurring pages)
And I give the Dismissed pages (my parking lot of new ideas and potential projects) less attention, but still frequent enough that I am never afraid of losing these things.
This has a completely different feel from my previous wastelands of Dismissed tasks that almost never got any attention but also FOMO preventing me from deleting. It seems a lot easier to delete stuff from the Dismissed pages now, and to get more clear in my mind what I want to do with the rest of it.
I think the difference is related to the focus on Unfinished explained above. I spend most of my attention getting things finished -- this creates a deep sense of satisfaction and focus that seems to eliminate the FOMO that I used to feel from the New items on my list.
Anyway I think I will keep going with this for awhile and see how it develops. I am liking it so far.
Starting with Unfinished continues to make a big difference for me, creating focus and momentum on getting stuff FINISHED. This is a contrast to how most other long list systems have worked for me, where I feel I am "rewarded" for getting stuff STARTED. That always tends to generate lots more WIP, many more loose threads to close, and a list that eventually grows too large to maintain.
Starting with Unfinished also gives me a sense of my overall committed workload, and this tempers my personal tendency to start lots of new things. I find myself a lot more willing to let these new ideas and potential projects just wait, till I have cleared out space for them on my Unfinished list. So I am a lot more selective in what new projects and ideas I decide to activate.
All this seems to help keep the size of the list relatively small, making the whole system much more sustainable.
I also made a few changes to the rules to address a couple of persistent problems.
One problem was the flow of large tasks. I found myself either ignoring these tasks and focusing on administrivia and distractions (because those smaller items flow better, even if they aren't high value) -- or I would go to the other extreme, and binge-focus on the large task while neglecting everything else. Either way, the flow of the system would be disrupted and I felt unhappy.
My solution is simply to timebox these tasks. As soon as I start to feel that a large task is getting stuck, I set a timer for 15-30 minutes and focus on that task. When the timer is done, I stop and move on to something else. This has been very effective at getting these large tasks moving while maintaining the overall flow of the system.
Another problem was the Dismissal rule that is triggered when no action is taken on the Old pages. This rule was the sole element in the system that obstructed free movement through all the sections of the list. This would cause problems sometimes.
So I experimented did some experimenting and have come up with this: I have three page categories -- Unfinished, New, Recurring. I have a new rule: if I read through any New page without taking action, I consider dismissing that page. I am not forced to do it -- I just need to ask the question, "Hm, maybe I should dismiss all these remaining items?" Sometimes it just doesn't seem like the right time, but sometimes it does. I also have a recurring item that gets activated every day or so, to review the dismissed items.
So in practice, I give the following a lot of attention during the day:
-- my focus list (the Unfinished pages)
-- my list of urgent things and new ideas and projects (the New pages)
-- my systems to maintain order (Recurring pages)
And I give the Dismissed pages (my parking lot of new ideas and potential projects) less attention, but still frequent enough that I am never afraid of losing these things.
This has a completely different feel from my previous wastelands of Dismissed tasks that almost never got any attention but also FOMO preventing me from deleting. It seems a lot easier to delete stuff from the Dismissed pages now, and to get more clear in my mind what I want to do with the rest of it.
I think the difference is related to the focus on Unfinished explained above. I spend most of my attention getting things finished -- this creates a deep sense of satisfaction and focus that seems to eliminate the FOMO that I used to feel from the New items on my list.
Anyway I think I will keep going with this for awhile and see how it develops. I am liking it so far.
February 1, 2022 at 6:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
The thing that immediately struck me on reading what you've written above is that it ties in with my DIT rule about projects: "Do the least urgent thing first".
That's given me some ideas. As they are not in the least bit urgent, I shall get to work on them directly.
The thing that immediately struck me on reading what you've written above is that it ties in with my DIT rule about projects: "Do the least urgent thing first".
That's given me some ideas. As they are not in the least bit urgent, I shall get to work on them directly.
February 1, 2022 at 8:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<<I think the difference is related to the focus on Unfinished explained above. I spend most of my attention getting things finished -- this creates a deep sense of satisfaction and focus that seems to eliminate the FOMO that I used to feel from the New items on my list.>>
I am using a different system, but I think this component is important for me, too. I've found the finishing component to be extremely powerful on a number of other things, including FOMO. For me, I suspect my mind thinks something like this: if I know that I'm completing things, then I can have confidence that I will get to other things in due time, whereas if things aren't really finishing, then I can't afford to wait for them to be finished in order to start on the other stuff, which makes me suffer from FOMO.
<<I think the difference is related to the focus on Unfinished explained above. I spend most of my attention getting things finished -- this creates a deep sense of satisfaction and focus that seems to eliminate the FOMO that I used to feel from the New items on my list.>>
I am using a different system, but I think this component is important for me, too. I've found the finishing component to be extremely powerful on a number of other things, including FOMO. For me, I suspect my mind thinks something like this: if I know that I'm completing things, then I can have confidence that I will get to other things in due time, whereas if things aren't really finishing, then I can't afford to wait for them to be finished in order to start on the other stuff, which makes me suffer from FOMO.
February 1, 2022 at 22:42 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu:
<< For me, I suspect my mind thinks something like this >>
Yes, it works something like that for me, too.
For my use of AF4R, I'm wondering if the key factor is that I review the unfinished tasks first, or if it's simply that they are set aside on their own list. I think I will do an experiment, changing up the order of cycling the page categories, and see if it makes any difference.
<< For me, I suspect my mind thinks something like this >>
Yes, it works something like that for me, too.
For my use of AF4R, I'm wondering if the key factor is that I review the unfinished tasks first, or if it's simply that they are set aside on their own list. I think I will do an experiment, changing up the order of cycling the page categories, and see if it makes any difference.
February 2, 2022 at 4:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
I wonder if it's less about the unfinished tasks inherently and more about the system's ability to give you a sense of progress and completion. I suspect that a system that didn't have you reviewing unfinished tasks separately, but somehow did highlight when tasks were completed, and those tasks were the ones that mattered/were big, might be as effective. Unfinished tasks seem to be correlated, to me, with larger and more meaningful but more challenging projects, which means that constant progress on and review of those might also spur on that sense of accomplishment.
I wonder if it's less about the unfinished tasks inherently and more about the system's ability to give you a sense of progress and completion. I suspect that a system that didn't have you reviewing unfinished tasks separately, but somehow did highlight when tasks were completed, and those tasks were the ones that mattered/were big, might be as effective. Unfinished tasks seem to be correlated, to me, with larger and more meaningful but more challenging projects, which means that constant progress on and review of those might also spur on that sense of accomplishment.
February 2, 2022 at 6:25 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Quick update -- I am still getting along with AF4R, but I keep running into a conflict: how to handle spinoff tasks?
What do I mean by "spinoff tasks"? Let's say I complete a task, but it spawns several follow-on tasks --
-- a new task that represents the next logical step in the larger project or initiative
-- a new idea inspired by what I learned from finishing the first task
-- a task that arises during the course of doing my recurring tasks
It's not always so easy to decide if these spinoff tasks should be treated as "New" or "Unfinished".
Going by the strict interpretation of the AF4R rules, I would treat these spin-off tasks as "New". But this breaks my momentum with that overall thread of work. I may complete the original task, but the larger outcome towards which that original task was directed is still not realized, and I lose momentum toward that larger outcome.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem right to treat the spinoff tasks as "unfinished". Some of the spinoff tasks are really new ideas -- a new approach to realize the larger target outcome. If I collect too many of this kind of spinoff task, it tends to clutter the Unfinished list.
Either way, I end up losing my sense of momentum and focus -- which is exactly the opposite of what the Unfinished list is supposed to achieve.
The basic problem seems to be the fact that the system processes *tasks*, but what really matters to me are the *outcomes* generated by those tasks. I almost feel that I need to be tracking my *larger commitments* on my New, Unfinished, and Recurring lists, rather than tracking my tasks that way. But then, where would I keep track of the actual tasks?
For now, I am just continuing to muddle through without any real changes, but pondering how to find an effective resolution to this problem.
What do I mean by "spinoff tasks"? Let's say I complete a task, but it spawns several follow-on tasks --
-- a new task that represents the next logical step in the larger project or initiative
-- a new idea inspired by what I learned from finishing the first task
-- a task that arises during the course of doing my recurring tasks
It's not always so easy to decide if these spinoff tasks should be treated as "New" or "Unfinished".
Going by the strict interpretation of the AF4R rules, I would treat these spin-off tasks as "New". But this breaks my momentum with that overall thread of work. I may complete the original task, but the larger outcome towards which that original task was directed is still not realized, and I lose momentum toward that larger outcome.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem right to treat the spinoff tasks as "unfinished". Some of the spinoff tasks are really new ideas -- a new approach to realize the larger target outcome. If I collect too many of this kind of spinoff task, it tends to clutter the Unfinished list.
Either way, I end up losing my sense of momentum and focus -- which is exactly the opposite of what the Unfinished list is supposed to achieve.
The basic problem seems to be the fact that the system processes *tasks*, but what really matters to me are the *outcomes* generated by those tasks. I almost feel that I need to be tracking my *larger commitments* on my New, Unfinished, and Recurring lists, rather than tracking my tasks that way. But then, where would I keep track of the actual tasks?
For now, I am just continuing to muddle through without any real changes, but pondering how to find an effective resolution to this problem.
March 22, 2022 at 21:46 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim, could you just have a checklist for each of the larger commitments, with each checklist holding the tasks associated with a particular commitment?
I guess you also could create a New and Unfinished sub-list for each larger commitment, but that could get messy. But it also could allow you to have the main New/Unfinished/Recurring lists set up to maintain momentum at the big picture level while keeping track of work in progress at the task level as well.
I guess you also could create a New and Unfinished sub-list for each larger commitment, but that could get messy. But it also could allow you to have the main New/Unfinished/Recurring lists set up to maintain momentum at the big picture level while keeping track of work in progress at the task level as well.
March 23, 2022 at 6:26 |
Bernard
Bernard
I would put this project as Unfinished, and under that project define these three tasks you described. On average one of these tasks would be added to AF4R. When it’s done, pull out something else.
March 23, 2022 at 14:54 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Almost sounds like you need a new list for "Inbox" or "Think About" for those thoughts that haven't ripened to tasks. "Unfinished" could serve as a default longlist but seems to warp the idea of this as a task management system.
March 23, 2022 at 17:31 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
I know this isn't strictly AF4R, but maybe you could add another page type. So you'd have: 1-Unfinished, 2-Spinoff, 3-New, 4-Recurring, 5-Old. When you work on something on the Spinoff list it is then moved to Unfinished.
March 23, 2022 at 20:10 |
Lisa F
Lisa F
I was dealing with something similar recently. I never implemented this, but my thoughts go like this at the moment: the new ideas are new tasks, the tasks that spinoff from recurring tasks are new tasks as well, but the tasks that spinoff of work on an existing project are still part of that project. The problem is how we think about these tasks vs. outcomes as you point out. This is exactly the reason GTD puts next actions on separate lists from projects/outcome lists.
I think that in a MF long list system, you can actually keep them together. So, for a given project, you specfically define the project outcome, and that is what goes into your list. It's done when you have reached that outcome. However, the thing about such tasks is that when you work on them, you only define new actionable tasks off of that project. In other words, "doing" the project/outcome is just a matter of clarifying what you need to do and putting those tasks into the list.
These new tasks that are spinoffs of the outcomes can go into new and be processed and possibly live in unfinished if they take a little longer. The project outcome will live in Unfinished until you've reached the outcome. So, when a spinoff task based on an outcome comes in, then it goes into New and it's ready for work, but your Project stays in unfinished for the life of the project.
I think this has two effects: one, it allows you to keep outcomes and actions live in the list at the same time; two, if you end up taking on too many projects the unfinished list will get too long, encouraging you to not take on too many projects. I don't know how this will affect the rest of the AF4R system, as this is just something I've been thinking about in the context of all of Mark's long list systems.
I think that in a MF long list system, you can actually keep them together. So, for a given project, you specfically define the project outcome, and that is what goes into your list. It's done when you have reached that outcome. However, the thing about such tasks is that when you work on them, you only define new actionable tasks off of that project. In other words, "doing" the project/outcome is just a matter of clarifying what you need to do and putting those tasks into the list.
These new tasks that are spinoffs of the outcomes can go into new and be processed and possibly live in unfinished if they take a little longer. The project outcome will live in Unfinished until you've reached the outcome. So, when a spinoff task based on an outcome comes in, then it goes into New and it's ready for work, but your Project stays in unfinished for the life of the project.
I think this has two effects: one, it allows you to keep outcomes and actions live in the list at the same time; two, if you end up taking on too many projects the unfinished list will get too long, encouraging you to not take on too many projects. I don't know how this will affect the rest of the AF4R system, as this is just something I've been thinking about in the context of all of Mark's long list systems.
March 23, 2022 at 23:48 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
I tried AF4R for a day or two this year, and gave up on it quickly. I was using a notebook, with a page for each category, but after pages got used up, the pages got mixed up, and it got hard to keep track. Also the process of assign a category to a task actually impeded the flow of activity.
I am back to keeping notes and short lists and long lists in a notebook.
Does the category apply to the task or subproject or project? The Project could be "Unfinished", but the task "new" or "old" or "recurring". When the project is current and underway and moving quickly, it can be best to work on the project separately at a separate time, and keep track of the project separately also on its own list. It is easier to see what is moving and what is not. It can be easier to keep the momentum going if the project is assigned a block of time.
In DIT, there was the advice to work on projects - current projects, and projects with a deadline in order. As I remember, at that time, some were working DIT at the project level, working project by project. Perhaps the Autofocus systems work better at the task level.
At some point one has to deal with a project and its subprojects and tasks and tracking the progress, and perhaps project management is inherently messy, and maybe no system can eliminate the mess entirely. If one is timeblocking a project, one can keep it in the mind's short term memory, and if the motivation to complete is strong, and the flow is strong, it isn't always necessary to write or plan. Or the writing and planning are taking place during the doing. Doing takes over. Is the writing necessary to the completion of the task/project, or is it merely a substitute for the brain, to be dispensed with like scaffolding when no longer needed?
I am back to keeping notes and short lists and long lists in a notebook.
Does the category apply to the task or subproject or project? The Project could be "Unfinished", but the task "new" or "old" or "recurring". When the project is current and underway and moving quickly, it can be best to work on the project separately at a separate time, and keep track of the project separately also on its own list. It is easier to see what is moving and what is not. It can be easier to keep the momentum going if the project is assigned a block of time.
In DIT, there was the advice to work on projects - current projects, and projects with a deadline in order. As I remember, at that time, some were working DIT at the project level, working project by project. Perhaps the Autofocus systems work better at the task level.
At some point one has to deal with a project and its subprojects and tasks and tracking the progress, and perhaps project management is inherently messy, and maybe no system can eliminate the mess entirely. If one is timeblocking a project, one can keep it in the mind's short term memory, and if the motivation to complete is strong, and the flow is strong, it isn't always necessary to write or plan. Or the writing and planning are taking place during the doing. Doing takes over. Is the writing necessary to the completion of the task/project, or is it merely a substitute for the brain, to be dispensed with like scaffolding when no longer needed?
March 24, 2022 at 4:44 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Writing is not a substitute for the brain. It’s an assistant for your thinking. You can think more complex thoughts by putting some of them on paper. Having done this and reached your conclusion, maybe you don’t need those particular thoughts and you can discard them -the paper that is. Or, as is the case with a long list of tasks, it may be useful to look at what you wrote to remind you of particular thoughts or tasks. Keep noted what is useful in this way.
March 24, 2022 at 16:10 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Bernard wrote:
<< I guess you also could create a New and Unfinished sub-list for each larger commitment, but that could get messy >>
Yes, I thought about doing something like that, but it seemed like it could become very complicated very quickly. So I am still pondering...
<< I guess you also could create a New and Unfinished sub-list for each larger commitment, but that could get messy >>
Yes, I thought about doing something like that, but it seemed like it could become very complicated very quickly. So I am still pondering...
March 26, 2022 at 6:04 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<< I would put this project as Unfinished, and under that project define these three tasks you described. >>
I am trying something similar -- just writing the project objective on the Unfinished list. Re-enter it as needed, with slight edits as the objective becomes clearer. Then treat each task strictly according to the rules.
<< I would put this project as Unfinished, and under that project define these three tasks you described. >>
I am trying something similar -- just writing the project objective on the Unfinished list. Re-enter it as needed, with slight edits as the objective becomes clearer. Then treat each task strictly according to the rules.
March 26, 2022 at 6:08 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mike Brown wrote:
<< Almost sounds like you need a new list for "Inbox" or "Think About" for those thoughts that haven't ripened to tasks >>
Yes, I have been considering whether I have mapped the four quadrants of the Change Matrix correctly to the AF4R page types. I think I may have got it wrong earlier in this thread when I wrote that the four change matrix quadrants map to the page types like this:
Change Matrix Quadrants:
(1) Inertia/Momentum (positives of no change)
(2) Cost of Delay / "what am I resisting not doing" (negatives of no change)
(3) Purpose, Goals, Aspirations (positives of change)
(4) Resistance to Change / procrastination (negatives of change)
Corresponding AF4R Page Types:
(1) Recurring tasks -- my current status quo systems and processes
(2) Recurring tasks that are falling behind -- inboxes overflowing, etc.
(3) Unfinished tasks -- the project work that is currently getting attention
(4) Old tasks, Dismissed Tasks, and large accumulations of New tasks
Also Lisa F wrote:
<< maybe you could add another page type. So you'd have: 1-Unfinished, 2-Spinoff, 3-New, 4-Recurring, 5-Old >>
Mike and Lisa F's comments, have started me wondering... Maybe I should be thinking more about the Change Matrix aspect of "Focus" vs "Exploration". Focus and Execution belong in the "No Change" quadrants, while Exploration and Emergence belong in the "Change" quadrants.
For example, the Closed List is great for focus and execution -- but it's a CLOSED LIST -- it does not change. Whereas the Open List is great for emergence and discovery -- this is one of the values of seedbed systems like AF1 or Simple Scanning -- you throw lots of things at the system, and see what gets traction.
Following this line of thinking, the AF4R page types map differently to the four Change Matrix quadrants:
(1) Recurring and Unfinished -- the tasks that need to be executed -- your commitments
(2) Recurring and Unfinished Dismissed -- stuff that is getting stuck -- it's committed work, but you just can't bring yourself to do it
(3) New -- exploratory -- ideas -- diversions
(4) New Dismissed
But the AF4R page types don't really map cleanly to these categories, nor do the rules really support this approach. I'm wondering if I need to try an experiment with a whole new system that uses page types based on the Change Matrix instead of New/Unfinished/Recurring.
<< Almost sounds like you need a new list for "Inbox" or "Think About" for those thoughts that haven't ripened to tasks >>
Yes, I have been considering whether I have mapped the four quadrants of the Change Matrix correctly to the AF4R page types. I think I may have got it wrong earlier in this thread when I wrote that the four change matrix quadrants map to the page types like this:
Change Matrix Quadrants:
(1) Inertia/Momentum (positives of no change)
(2) Cost of Delay / "what am I resisting not doing" (negatives of no change)
(3) Purpose, Goals, Aspirations (positives of change)
(4) Resistance to Change / procrastination (negatives of change)
Corresponding AF4R Page Types:
(1) Recurring tasks -- my current status quo systems and processes
(2) Recurring tasks that are falling behind -- inboxes overflowing, etc.
(3) Unfinished tasks -- the project work that is currently getting attention
(4) Old tasks, Dismissed Tasks, and large accumulations of New tasks
Also Lisa F wrote:
<< maybe you could add another page type. So you'd have: 1-Unfinished, 2-Spinoff, 3-New, 4-Recurring, 5-Old >>
Mike and Lisa F's comments, have started me wondering... Maybe I should be thinking more about the Change Matrix aspect of "Focus" vs "Exploration". Focus and Execution belong in the "No Change" quadrants, while Exploration and Emergence belong in the "Change" quadrants.
For example, the Closed List is great for focus and execution -- but it's a CLOSED LIST -- it does not change. Whereas the Open List is great for emergence and discovery -- this is one of the values of seedbed systems like AF1 or Simple Scanning -- you throw lots of things at the system, and see what gets traction.
Following this line of thinking, the AF4R page types map differently to the four Change Matrix quadrants:
(1) Recurring and Unfinished -- the tasks that need to be executed -- your commitments
(2) Recurring and Unfinished Dismissed -- stuff that is getting stuck -- it's committed work, but you just can't bring yourself to do it
(3) New -- exploratory -- ideas -- diversions
(4) New Dismissed
But the AF4R page types don't really map cleanly to these categories, nor do the rules really support this approach. I'm wondering if I need to try an experiment with a whole new system that uses page types based on the Change Matrix instead of New/Unfinished/Recurring.
March 26, 2022 at 6:21 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Aaron Hsu wrote:
<< The problem is how we think about these tasks vs. outcomes >>
<< This is exactly the reason GTD puts next actions on separate lists from projects/outcome lists >>
<< in a MF long list system, you can actually keep them together >>
Etc.
I've started doing something along these lines. When I notice a grouping of tasks that have all been spun off from some common thread, I have been trying to follow "OKR" practice and :
(1) Define the problem statement
(2) Define the objective that will make good progress against the problem
(3) Define a key result that shows evidence I am realizing my objective
"Project X OKR" then goes on my Execute list (which is how I am reconceptualizing my Unfinished list). Any specific actions required for Project X also go on the Execute list. Other ideas that are more exploratory that are intended to move Project X forward -- these go on the New list; or if they become too many, I start a separate project page for them and put them there.
I like this separation of the execute vs explore. The Execute list is very similar to GTD's "next action" list -- you just bang through it. The Exploration is done separately -- it is more meditative, investigative, creative.
I am not sure where this will lead, or how to nail down the process so it's as clean as simple as one of Mark's rule-based systems, but it's giving me some new approaches.
<< The problem is how we think about these tasks vs. outcomes >>
<< This is exactly the reason GTD puts next actions on separate lists from projects/outcome lists >>
<< in a MF long list system, you can actually keep them together >>
Etc.
I've started doing something along these lines. When I notice a grouping of tasks that have all been spun off from some common thread, I have been trying to follow "OKR" practice and :
(1) Define the problem statement
(2) Define the objective that will make good progress against the problem
(3) Define a key result that shows evidence I am realizing my objective
"Project X OKR" then goes on my Execute list (which is how I am reconceptualizing my Unfinished list). Any specific actions required for Project X also go on the Execute list. Other ideas that are more exploratory that are intended to move Project X forward -- these go on the New list; or if they become too many, I start a separate project page for them and put them there.
I like this separation of the execute vs explore. The Execute list is very similar to GTD's "next action" list -- you just bang through it. The Exploration is done separately -- it is more meditative, investigative, creative.
I am not sure where this will lead, or how to nail down the process so it's as clean as simple as one of Mark's rule-based systems, but it's giving me some new approaches.
March 26, 2022 at 6:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Was a three-category version of AF4R ever tried? How about: New, Recurring, and Unfinished (with no dismissal)? Basically, a three-category Simple Scanning. That seems like yet another good long-list system. Not the most exciting, perhaps, but it seems that this would be flexible and would keep everything organized.
Another variant (for those who want added pressure) would be: three categories (New, Recurring, Unfinished) and you must action one Unfinished task on every pass. This would be less flexible than the first variant.
Another variant (for those who want added pressure) would be: three categories (New, Recurring, Unfinished) and you must action one Unfinished task on every pass. This would be less flexible than the first variant.
October 27, 2022 at 23:05 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
In March 2022, I went on an excursion away from this model (as described at the top of this thread) to try something based on "exploration" and "execution".
The excursion led me down several ratholes till I realized that "exploration" and "execution" are actually kind of recursive.
(1) Start with exploring my overall scope of life and work to figure out what to execute
(2) OK now I know the broad areas and commitments on which I need to execute -- start executing!
(3) However, while executing on these things, I run into complexities and obstacles, so I need to explore the tighter problem space within each area or commitment, and figure out exactly what to do (back to explore mode!)
(4) OK now I can execute on that. But even now, sometimes I need to do more exploration...
and so it goes.
So this did not turn out to be a good model for time management. It became a lot more complicated than the AF4r variant that I was doing.
So I started tinkering and experimenting again.
A couple months ago I decided to give SkedPal a good solid try ( http://skedpal.com/ ). The idea behind it had always intrigued me, and this was a useful experiment. It highlighted again the dominance of recurring tasks and how those tasks form the structure of the day, together with a calendar/schedule.
Eventually it occurred to me I could get nearly everything I was getting out of SkedPal with just a simple AF4r model, which would be much simpler and allow me to disconnect from the computer. (I hate being dependent on specialized apps, even good ones like SkedPal.)
So this brought me full circle back to my AF4r variant described in this thread.
I've made some minor modifications to the process I was following earlier (as described at the top of this thread), and also found some solutions to the problems I was having (such as described above http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2787870#post2788761 )
I'll try to post a more complete update soon.
The excursion led me down several ratholes till I realized that "exploration" and "execution" are actually kind of recursive.
(1) Start with exploring my overall scope of life and work to figure out what to execute
(2) OK now I know the broad areas and commitments on which I need to execute -- start executing!
(3) However, while executing on these things, I run into complexities and obstacles, so I need to explore the tighter problem space within each area or commitment, and figure out exactly what to do (back to explore mode!)
(4) OK now I can execute on that. But even now, sometimes I need to do more exploration...
and so it goes.
So this did not turn out to be a good model for time management. It became a lot more complicated than the AF4r variant that I was doing.
So I started tinkering and experimenting again.
A couple months ago I decided to give SkedPal a good solid try ( http://skedpal.com/ ). The idea behind it had always intrigued me, and this was a useful experiment. It highlighted again the dominance of recurring tasks and how those tasks form the structure of the day, together with a calendar/schedule.
Eventually it occurred to me I could get nearly everything I was getting out of SkedPal with just a simple AF4r model, which would be much simpler and allow me to disconnect from the computer. (I hate being dependent on specialized apps, even good ones like SkedPal.)
So this brought me full circle back to my AF4r variant described in this thread.
I've made some minor modifications to the process I was following earlier (as described at the top of this thread), and also found some solutions to the problems I was having (such as described above http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2787870#post2788761 )
I'll try to post a more complete update soon.
September 12, 2023 at 21:59 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Here is a summary of the changes I have made to AF4R. It creates much more natural motivation to get stuff FINISHED. It also solves a key problem I was having with standard AF4R -- losing the sense of context when new tasks are spun off of an original task.
#1 - Reduce to three lists (New, Recurring, Unfinished) (removing the Old list). This minimizes the juggling of multiple lists.
#2 - Use Simple Scanning on the New and Recurring lists. There is no dismissal of items or need for an Old list.
#3 - Each Unfinished task goes onto its own page. Yes -- a whole page for each unfinished task. This addresses the problem of context loss, as all relevant details are collected in one place. This converts "unfinished tasks" into "mini-projects".
#4 - The oldest Unfinished Tasks remain in their original order. You do not move them to the end of the Unfinished list whenever they get some action, as you do with standard AF4R. Keeping them in the original order gives them a very strong boost from the "Attenuation Effect". It creates a natural pull towards resolving the oldest unfinished tasks.
#5 - This way of managing the Unfinished Tasks generates a very strong sense of the overall current load of WIP (work in process). In turn, this informs better decisions about activating new mini-projects. New Tasks that can be finished in one go are no problem -- little pesky urgent things get done just fine. But New Tasks that will require significant effort over time just happily wait in the New List till I have the mental and physical capacity to add them to my WIP.
#6 - The Old List interfered with this effect, creating artificial pressure to get New Tasks started. So I just got rid of it. Now there is natural and intrinsic pressure to get stuff FINISHED, and to start new things only when I feel I can actually get them done in a timely way.
#1 - Reduce to three lists (New, Recurring, Unfinished) (removing the Old list). This minimizes the juggling of multiple lists.
#2 - Use Simple Scanning on the New and Recurring lists. There is no dismissal of items or need for an Old list.
#3 - Each Unfinished task goes onto its own page. Yes -- a whole page for each unfinished task. This addresses the problem of context loss, as all relevant details are collected in one place. This converts "unfinished tasks" into "mini-projects".
#4 - The oldest Unfinished Tasks remain in their original order. You do not move them to the end of the Unfinished list whenever they get some action, as you do with standard AF4R. Keeping them in the original order gives them a very strong boost from the "Attenuation Effect". It creates a natural pull towards resolving the oldest unfinished tasks.
#5 - This way of managing the Unfinished Tasks generates a very strong sense of the overall current load of WIP (work in process). In turn, this informs better decisions about activating new mini-projects. New Tasks that can be finished in one go are no problem -- little pesky urgent things get done just fine. But New Tasks that will require significant effort over time just happily wait in the New List till I have the mental and physical capacity to add them to my WIP.
#6 - The Old List interfered with this effect, creating artificial pressure to get New Tasks started. So I just got rid of it. Now there is natural and intrinsic pressure to get stuff FINISHED, and to start new things only when I feel I can actually get them done in a timely way.
September 15, 2023 at 2:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
#3 - Each Unfinished task goes onto its own page. Yes -- a whole page for each unfinished task. This addresses the problem of context loss, as all relevant details are collected in one place. This converts "unfinished tasks" into "mini-projects".
Love this! (aside: provided they are virtual pages as I'd hate 2-part tasks to fill up a paper notebook.) I will think on how this context-history-building might fit my process too.
Love this! (aside: provided they are virtual pages as I'd hate 2-part tasks to fill up a paper notebook.) I will think on how this context-history-building might fit my process too.
September 15, 2023 at 22:30 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim—I am finding your modified AF4R very useful. It lays out work in progress nicely, and corrals my endless thoughts about things I should be doing into a couple of lists. Thank you for posting. Kathleen
November 10, 2023 at 19:12 |
Kathleen
Kathleen
Kathleen - Great, glad to hear it! The ideas have been developed further -- please check out the posts on Results That Matter!
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2795362
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2795362
November 16, 2023 at 21:43 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Lately I've been doing a variation of AF4R. You can see the standard rules here:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1325521
I used AF4R for a while when it first came out 11 years ago, but found the list would keep growing till it got to a point where it took too long to cycle through the pages, and I started to resist the system itself. The experience did provide some useful insights -- especially that recurring tasks tend to fill up a lot of our day. And the different page types (New, Old, Unfinished, Recurring) led to some interesting diagnostic insights.
In the original rules, you cycle through the different page types in this order:
1-- Old
2-- New
3-- Recurring
4-- Unfinished
I have landed on a different order:
1-- Unfinished
2-- New
3-- Recurring
4-- Old
Here is my rationale for the new ordering:
1-- I want the system to help me complete the Unfinished work. It seems to help a lot to look at these items first.
2-- I want the system to respond quickly to urgent tasks, and they tend to congregate on the New pages. So I look at these pages next.
3-- Then I want to make sure I stay on top of my basic systems and processes -- this is the Recurring stuff.
4-- Finally I review the Old tasks, and then any remaining Dismissed tasks. This is similar to my Serial No-List method -- you scan the most recent tasks first. The tasks tend to "fade away" naturally, rather than being removed by an artificial forced culling.