Get Everything Done

Hi Mark,

Thanks for sharing the system - in return I think I should give you my initial observations. It's too early to tell for sure, but in two days so far, the system is working wonderfully.

1. INSTRUCTIONS
Great way to start it. I read them on the train on the way into work, and that's all I needed - except for the added clarification on the forum for dispatching tasks.

2. HANDLING COMPLEXITY
This is where the system has surprised me. I had concerns over managing a multitude of projects and tasks and keeping track of actions. Including the backlog, I've added a smidgen over 300 tasks (work and home) using a pocket notebook front and back. Of these i've knocked out some 70 or so, which has made serious inroads into the backlog. This is across a number of projects, but moving through the tasks so quickly and frequently keeps them really fresh in the mind, that it's quite easy to see how they fit into the projects. One of the best things is the ease of adding another task: as a thought pops into the head, add it to the end of the list and carry on. So the system works largely in the background, and is really low maintenance. That said, the system is not (and was never intended to be) a subsitute for thinking and planning. So some projects are planned in other notebooks or software - and then relevant actions added here. I think sticking to your rules without modification has really helped here.

3. EFFORTLESS
This is one of its strengths. Think of something, and write it on the list - that's a one second job. Then leave it up to the system to process. And there is no maintenance of next actions, contexts etc.

4. PROCRASTINATION BUSTING
I've tried versions of structured procrastination before, so was a bit skeptical to start. The major weakness of structured procrastination for me is that your most important tasks are the ones you end up not doing. Here however, as I discovered today, is that there is a built in clean up for this. I got through page one for all but one task that I was avoiding. When I come back to page 1 the next time, I now have a choice of doing the task, or dismissing it (since there is only one task left) - it's too important to dismiss since it's for my boss, so I just do it and close the page. These are the kind of things you can't (or perhaps just I can't) work out from a read through: you have to try it to experience it.

5. WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE SYSTEM
There are a number of good attributes - that I've liked about other systems that are built into this.
a) like DIT - a buffer between receiving a task and doing it, beating the interrruption trap. It goes on the end of the list, but I know I will get to it as appropriate.
b) like DIT - little and often.
Interestingly, the closed list element was less important for me than those two.
c) like GTD - getting it all out of my head and onto paper
d) like Covey's 7 habits - put the big rocks on the list (important, but not urgent) and they get done instead of being ignored
e) Most Important Tasks also get done
f) It has the simplicity of a straightforward to-do list

In addition, it corrects the weaknesses of many of these:
a) DIT - a good system, but little and often can take several days, and may defer some important tasks to tomorrow. Here, if necessary, it all gets done quickly if necessary without breaking any rules
b) GTD - has the advantage of being all encompassing, but is high maintenance. Requires a lot of work just to keep it up. Is unnecessarily complex for simple(ish) tasks - after all i only really have two contexts, work and home: and I can do the work bit at either.
c) Covey - good concepts, but doesn't help with the bottom up stuff
d) Ordinary to-do lists - enough said.

6. WEAKNESSES OF THE SYSTEM
2 days in - none are yet evident. I will keep you posted.

7. OTHER COMMENTS
a) I love the paper version of this very tactile, but equally gives a good feel for tasks - or perhaps i'm just showing my age
b) A pocket notebook with 20 lines per page works brilliantly, so you may want to relax your page length recommendations
c) It is a great way to see how important a task is in the context of others around it, rather than a priority that i place on it.
d) I didn't move through the pages as quickly as you recommended intially - interestingly that was because i placed a number of fairly important tasks on page one (they were top of my mind) - once i got through those, the pace reverted to moving through pages a few times a day.

I hope the feedback is useful - thanks again for sharing
S

Excellent analysis. I share Simon C's assessment of AF, although I haven't thrown anything like 300 tasks into it.

AF seems particularly useful for people who, like me, resist having any closely ordered structure placed on their lives. It seems to me that most systems deliver you tasks off a production line, and you have to chug through them or face a complete snarl-up further back in the works. That works well for people like my wife, who like things orderly and linear. AF is more like art, where you can complete bits and pieces of a composition as it appeals to you, to eventually make a whole. I respond much better to the AF approach, although I'm not an artist in an form.

I can understand that someone juggling a lot of projects with task deadlines would baulk at AF. I'm in that boat, as it happens, but so far, the system has worked well without the security blanket of software alarms and reminders. My brain is proving surprisingly effective at selecting what needs to be done, when. Time will tell whether this experience is sustained, or whether I have to make more use of my diary.

The pièce de résistance for me is the simple paper-and-pen approach. This is what I have always naturally gravitated to, in between bouts of gadget lust, and I'm finding that working with a fountain pen and 21x13 cm Moleskine cahier has intrinsic pleasures of its own.

In short, excellent. This is a shatteringly simple concept, given the millions of words and dollars built around time and task management, but I think it really works.

Just wanted to add my comment to this, even though it's early days for me. My experiences have been fairly similar to Simon's so far, including the fact that initially the first page took longer to clear because I put all my big, looming back-log task on it, and the system quite rightly lead to me wanting to make a start on pretty much all of them. ('Making a start' on some of them was as simple as spawning 5-10 smaller tasks from the initial project-like task, but even then this felt good!)

At the end of day 1, I ended up with 6 'active' pages, having written down a total of 179 tasks (I'm counting the 'repeated/uncompleted' tasks I re-wrote later), and having crossed-off 49 tasks. (I'm not going to keep count of this as it'll start to get more difficult to count!).

But basically, the fact that I would rarely get that number of 'tasks' completed on even a good day with DIT indicates too things I think:
1 - I'm perhaps being more productive than usual, but probably slightly more to the point:
2 - A significant proportion of the tasks I'm writing down are 'smaller' than would be written down in DIT
So, basically, I'm writing down a lot more stuff before doing it: the lack of any filtering before writing down tasks means that I'm much more likely to write everything I'm going to do down, and so I'm being much less reactive.

I know this was recommended practice before, but somehow it comes more naturally using this system.

I have another task to write down some more detailed (and considered) feedback once it's 'bedded-in' more. Seems only fair to you Mark for the priviledge of letting us loose on your system!