Discussion Forum > Count Me Out--Part 2
Moises:
Glad you are still with us!
I can only speak from my own experience, but I find that the system copes with emergencies just fine. Perhaps it's important to define what is meant by "copes with emergencies". After all, the emergency itself requires immediate action so requires no time management system to deal with it. What is at stake is how well the time management system deals with the *other* tasks that have been displaced because of the emergency.
Today was a fine example of that for me. My computer became unstable, which meant that my virus protection, my back-up, my internet connection and my email files all failed at the same time. It took me several hours to sort this, and I hadn't succeeded in doing this before I had to attend an important meeting in the afternoon. So by late afternoon I was hours behind where I expected to be with my work.
How did the system cope? Just fine. I simply trusted it and it lead me through what I really needed to be doing (like replying to you of course!) I also have a collection of items at the end of the list which will hopefully prevent a similar failure in the future.
Moving on to the recurrent actions you mention: my experience has been exactly the opposite of what you fear. I do the recurrent actions more reliably (and frequently more often) than before. Checking email for instance, or comments on my website. Like you I check my finances daily and that works just fine. I have never missed a day since I started on the system.
As I've said several time already on this forum, my experience is that my trust in the system grows the more I use it. Perhaps it's not surprising that on a day which threw some exceptional circumstances at you you had trouble with a time management system which you had no previous experience of.
Glad you are still with us!
I can only speak from my own experience, but I find that the system copes with emergencies just fine. Perhaps it's important to define what is meant by "copes with emergencies". After all, the emergency itself requires immediate action so requires no time management system to deal with it. What is at stake is how well the time management system deals with the *other* tasks that have been displaced because of the emergency.
Today was a fine example of that for me. My computer became unstable, which meant that my virus protection, my back-up, my internet connection and my email files all failed at the same time. It took me several hours to sort this, and I hadn't succeeded in doing this before I had to attend an important meeting in the afternoon. So by late afternoon I was hours behind where I expected to be with my work.
How did the system cope? Just fine. I simply trusted it and it lead me through what I really needed to be doing (like replying to you of course!) I also have a collection of items at the end of the list which will hopefully prevent a similar failure in the future.
Moving on to the recurrent actions you mention: my experience has been exactly the opposite of what you fear. I do the recurrent actions more reliably (and frequently more often) than before. Checking email for instance, or comments on my website. Like you I check my finances daily and that works just fine. I have never missed a day since I started on the system.
As I've said several time already on this forum, my experience is that my trust in the system grows the more I use it. Perhaps it's not surprising that on a day which threw some exceptional circumstances at you you had trouble with a time management system which you had no previous experience of.
January 7, 2009 at 18:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think there's a difference here between 'regular' and 'recurring' tasks (for want of better jargon). As a more trivial example, it would be silly putting 'get lunch' into AF if I really did want a lunch at a sensible time each day. On the other hand, I do have a task 'clear emails', which used to be a daily task under DIT, but now gets done 0,1, or 2 times daily, depending on the system (which is naturally a function of how much other, more pressing, work I have on, as well as the extent I feel it 'needs' doing at the time the relevant page comes up)
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
January 7, 2009 at 18:54 |
Ed C
Ed C
Ed:
Yes, as the instructions say, the system shouldn't be used for actions which need to take place at a specific time. I guess lunch falls into that definition!
Yes, as the instructions say, the system shouldn't be used for actions which need to take place at a specific time. I guess lunch falls into that definition!
January 7, 2009 at 19:00 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
moises hits the nail on the head for me. I'm using AF successfully, but the one thing that worries me is this.
"...but that item is on page 17 and I have open items on pages 3-16. It would be great if I started right now doing at least one thing on each un-dismissed page between 3 and 16, so that I can get to page 17 before the day ends"
On a day where I only get to a few high priority, time-consuming items the system would lead me to dismiss items that on a normal day would survive a dismissal. I'm not sure how I'll deal with that and am walking through the forum looking for ideas.
"...but that item is on page 17 and I have open items on pages 3-16. It would be great if I started right now doing at least one thing on each un-dismissed page between 3 and 16, so that I can get to page 17 before the day ends"
On a day where I only get to a few high priority, time-consuming items the system would lead me to dismiss items that on a normal day would survive a dismissal. I'm not sure how I'll deal with that and am walking through the forum looking for ideas.
January 7, 2009 at 19:50 |
Zane
Zane
Like moises I have ben considering how to manage recurrent tasks, buy my concerns are about weekly tasks. For example, I find it it helpful to spread out households chores so that something is done every weekday evening, leaving weekends relatively free. For example, Mon: change beds, Tue: make up shopping list, Wed: grocery shop etc.
This has become pretty much automatic now and I at first resisted putting these tasks into Autofocus for that reason. However, I have done so, encouraged by others' comments that it has worked for them. What I am finding, though, is that as I am scanning down my lists, when I get to one of these recurring tasks, I am having to remind myself that 'I want to do that on Monday; no, I need to do menu planning BEFORE grocery shopping etc.'. There's now an extra mental processing overhead for those tasks, trying to remember which day I normally do them.
I have two options, one of which is to just do the task when it stands out (e.g. we have no food left) but I miss the certainty that I got from scheduling those tasks so I didn't have to think of them. The other option is to go back to scheduling those ones which really make sense to do on the same day/time each week. I think taking exercise comes under that category otherwise I just wouldn't do it!
Where Autofocus WILL help, I think, is on the occasions where I'm unable to do a scheduled task at the planned time. I can simply add it to my list and either do it over the next few days when it 'stands out' or when it next is scheduled the following week.
Linda
This has become pretty much automatic now and I at first resisted putting these tasks into Autofocus for that reason. However, I have done so, encouraged by others' comments that it has worked for them. What I am finding, though, is that as I am scanning down my lists, when I get to one of these recurring tasks, I am having to remind myself that 'I want to do that on Monday; no, I need to do menu planning BEFORE grocery shopping etc.'. There's now an extra mental processing overhead for those tasks, trying to remember which day I normally do them.
I have two options, one of which is to just do the task when it stands out (e.g. we have no food left) but I miss the certainty that I got from scheduling those tasks so I didn't have to think of them. The other option is to go back to scheduling those ones which really make sense to do on the same day/time each week. I think taking exercise comes under that category otherwise I just wouldn't do it!
Where Autofocus WILL help, I think, is on the occasions where I'm unable to do a scheduled task at the planned time. I can simply add it to my list and either do it over the next few days when it 'stands out' or when it next is scheduled the following week.
Linda
January 7, 2009 at 19:59 |
Linda
Linda
Linda, I have set up Toodledo (http://www.toodledo.com , but you can use every system that allows you to set reminders, even a tickler-file or a calendar) for those non-daily recurring tasks:
I have an item on my list 'check toodledo', and there I lookwhich recurring (weekly, biweekly, monthly, bimonthly, once in three months, in half a year, in a year...) are scheduled for the next day (for the (bi)weeklies or the next week (for the less frequent tasks). I then add those tasks to my AF-list.
I have an item on my list 'check toodledo', and there I lookwhich recurring (weekly, biweekly, monthly, bimonthly, once in three months, in half a year, in a year...) are scheduled for the next day (for the (bi)weeklies or the next week (for the less frequent tasks). I then add those tasks to my AF-list.
January 7, 2009 at 20:23 |
AnneTanne
AnneTanne
AnneTanne
'I then add those tasks to my AF-list.' But when you add tasks that are scheduled for the next day, surely there is no guarantee that they will be done that day? After all, they are competing with everything else on the list. They may not stand out strongly, so if you really want to do them on a particular day, you need to make some extra effort to remember that, when scanning the list. For me, this seems to put some strain on the system.
That's why I'm drawn to schedule certain tasks at specific times. In his Do's and Don'ts, Mark says not to use the system for things which need to be done at certain times of the day e.g. preparing meals, music practice. I am wondering whether that can be taken fairly broadly, to include tasks that are most conveniently done at certain times of the day (or week).
'I then add those tasks to my AF-list.' But when you add tasks that are scheduled for the next day, surely there is no guarantee that they will be done that day? After all, they are competing with everything else on the list. They may not stand out strongly, so if you really want to do them on a particular day, you need to make some extra effort to remember that, when scanning the list. For me, this seems to put some strain on the system.
That's why I'm drawn to schedule certain tasks at specific times. In his Do's and Don'ts, Mark says not to use the system for things which need to be done at certain times of the day e.g. preparing meals, music practice. I am wondering whether that can be taken fairly broadly, to include tasks that are most conveniently done at certain times of the day (or week).
January 7, 2009 at 21:19 |
Linda
Linda
Linda:
You talk as if Autofocus made worse decisions than your rational mind would. But the fact is that it makes BETTER decisions because it keeps your rationality and your intuition in balance.
What I said was don't use the system for items that should be done at a specific time. This is because if they *must* be done at a specific time there is no need to use a system to decide when to do them - you just do them.
You talk as if Autofocus made worse decisions than your rational mind would. But the fact is that it makes BETTER decisions because it keeps your rationality and your intuition in balance.
What I said was don't use the system for items that should be done at a specific time. This is because if they *must* be done at a specific time there is no need to use a system to decide when to do them - you just do them.
January 7, 2009 at 21:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thanks again Mark.
For some who considers herself reasonably intelligent, I feel as though I'm making heavy weather of this! But I hope I'm getting closer to the aha moment. . . .
For some who considers herself reasonably intelligent, I feel as though I'm making heavy weather of this! But I hope I'm getting closer to the aha moment. . . .
January 7, 2009 at 21:38 |
Linda
Linda
My first attempt at AF was a resounding failure, in part because I did not understand it. I persisted with it for two days and then abandoned it. In an effort not to replicate my previous experience, I am going to analyze in painstaking detail my current understanding of AF. Like others have done on this forum, I hope that by laying out what I think AF is, others will correct me and give me some hints, if there is something that I got wrong. Thanks.
UNDERSTANDING AUTOFOCUS
1. Take a notebook with 25-35 lines and list all the open items you have. Don’t worry about completeness. Just put whatever comes to mind. There will be plenty of opportunities later on to add more. You now have an ordered LIST. If you have more than 25-35 items on this list, your list will consist of more than one PAGE.
2. Look at page 1. For the moment, we will call this the CURRENT PAGE. Quickly look at all the items on the current page. Once you’ve done that, slowly scan each one. No need to think very much. Just pick any item that grabs your attention and start working on it.
3. Work for as long as you feel comfortable. If you are ready to stop and there is more work to be done that is related to this item, write a new item on the next empty line at the end of your list. Then cross off the item that you just completed.
4. THE RULE IS THAT YOU DO NOT PROCEED TO THE NEXT PAGE UNTIL YOU HAVE DONE AT LEAST ONE ITEM ON THE CURRENT PAGE.
5. After you have done at least one item on the current page, you can look at the remaining uncompleted items on that page. If any of one of them grabs your attention, start doing it. If none of them do, since you have already satisfied the rule in point 4, above, you may proceed to the next page. This next page now becomes the current page.
6. Follow the directions in point 2, above, for starting with “For the moment . . .”
7. Continue cycling from points 2-6, above, until you reach the last page. Once you have done at least one item on the last page, go back to the earliest page that still has uncompleted tasks on it.
8. For any given page, if, after multiple passes through that page, no item grabs your attention, the rule in point 4, above, may be ignored. The page will be DISMISSED. Any uncompleted tasks will be marked with a highlighter.
9. Completed and dismissed pages are marked with a cross in the upper right corner.
10. Completed and dismissed pages which are preceded only by more completed and dismissed pages are marked with a cross inside a circle, in the upper right corner.
11. Time-specific tasks—like closing down at the end of the day, or eating lunch at mid-day—do not get entered in the list. You track them by other means.
12. Day-specific tasks are tasks that must get done on a specific day, but the time is not important, can be entered into AF. If they need to be done again the next, add them to the end of the list, after they are completed.
13. At all times use common sense, and if an item is truly urgent, do it immediately, outside of the list.
UNDERSTANDING AUTOFOCUS
1. Take a notebook with 25-35 lines and list all the open items you have. Don’t worry about completeness. Just put whatever comes to mind. There will be plenty of opportunities later on to add more. You now have an ordered LIST. If you have more than 25-35 items on this list, your list will consist of more than one PAGE.
2. Look at page 1. For the moment, we will call this the CURRENT PAGE. Quickly look at all the items on the current page. Once you’ve done that, slowly scan each one. No need to think very much. Just pick any item that grabs your attention and start working on it.
3. Work for as long as you feel comfortable. If you are ready to stop and there is more work to be done that is related to this item, write a new item on the next empty line at the end of your list. Then cross off the item that you just completed.
4. THE RULE IS THAT YOU DO NOT PROCEED TO THE NEXT PAGE UNTIL YOU HAVE DONE AT LEAST ONE ITEM ON THE CURRENT PAGE.
5. After you have done at least one item on the current page, you can look at the remaining uncompleted items on that page. If any of one of them grabs your attention, start doing it. If none of them do, since you have already satisfied the rule in point 4, above, you may proceed to the next page. This next page now becomes the current page.
6. Follow the directions in point 2, above, for starting with “For the moment . . .”
7. Continue cycling from points 2-6, above, until you reach the last page. Once you have done at least one item on the last page, go back to the earliest page that still has uncompleted tasks on it.
8. For any given page, if, after multiple passes through that page, no item grabs your attention, the rule in point 4, above, may be ignored. The page will be DISMISSED. Any uncompleted tasks will be marked with a highlighter.
9. Completed and dismissed pages are marked with a cross in the upper right corner.
10. Completed and dismissed pages which are preceded only by more completed and dismissed pages are marked with a cross inside a circle, in the upper right corner.
11. Time-specific tasks—like closing down at the end of the day, or eating lunch at mid-day—do not get entered in the list. You track them by other means.
12. Day-specific tasks are tasks that must get done on a specific day, but the time is not important, can be entered into AF. If they need to be done again the next, add them to the end of the list, after they are completed.
13. At all times use common sense, and if an item is truly urgent, do it immediately, outside of the list.
January 7, 2009 at 22:08 |
moises
moises
Hi Moises,
A couple of differences (or three) in the way we're understanding the system – hopefully Mark will advise.
(a) This is perhaps just a point about what seems to me the clearest way of formulating the rules (given part of your (8)), but I'd qualify (4) this way: The rule is that before moving onto the next page, you must either work on at least one item on the current page, or dismiss it (i.e., the current page). (You work on at least one item if one or more items stand out as you read through the page slowly; if none does, you dismiss it.)
(b) This is a more substantive difference in our respective readings of the instructions. As I've been understanding them, your (5) is not quite right. Here's an example to illustrate the issue: Suppose after the quick read of the current page, I start my slower scan, and item 7 is the first one that stands out. I work on item 7 until I don't feel like working on it any more, check it off, and re-enter it at the end of the list if appropriate. Then I continue with the slow scan of the current page, beginning with item 8. Suppose I reach the bottom of the page – item 35, say – and nothing else stands out (i.e., nothing from 8-35). Then by your (5), as I read it ("*remaining* uncompleted items"), I would move on to the next page. But as I read Mark's instructions, I wouldn't. Instead, I'd go back to the top of the current page and see if any of items 1-6 stand out. Only if none of •those* items stand out, either, do I move on to the next page. (Here I'm thinking of Mark's instruction 5, and in particular the phrases "continue going round" and "complete a pass").
This one seems like an important difference, so it would be good to get confirmation from Mark either way.
Note added later: Hang on! Perhaps by "remaining uncompleted items" you mean "all those items on the page which are still uncompleted after I've worked on the one in question". In that case, we're understanding things the same way. But when I first read your message, I took "remaining uncompleted items" to mean "all those uncompleted items I haven't done a slow scan of yet", in which case there's an important difference....
(c) Another substantive difference: your (8). As I read the instructions, multiple passes aren't required for dismissal. All that's required (provided the page in question isn't the *last* page) is that, on coming to a page, I complete both a quick and then a slower read-through of the page without anything standing out. If that happens (and it isn't the last page), and only if that happens, I dismiss the page – even if this was the *first* time I'd turned to the page in question (not counting all the times I'd turned to it add items to it when it was the last page, of course).
Again, this seems like a potentially important difference, so I'm hoping Mark will clear things up.
A couple of differences (or three) in the way we're understanding the system – hopefully Mark will advise.
(a) This is perhaps just a point about what seems to me the clearest way of formulating the rules (given part of your (8)), but I'd qualify (4) this way: The rule is that before moving onto the next page, you must either work on at least one item on the current page, or dismiss it (i.e., the current page). (You work on at least one item if one or more items stand out as you read through the page slowly; if none does, you dismiss it.)
(b) This is a more substantive difference in our respective readings of the instructions. As I've been understanding them, your (5) is not quite right. Here's an example to illustrate the issue: Suppose after the quick read of the current page, I start my slower scan, and item 7 is the first one that stands out. I work on item 7 until I don't feel like working on it any more, check it off, and re-enter it at the end of the list if appropriate. Then I continue with the slow scan of the current page, beginning with item 8. Suppose I reach the bottom of the page – item 35, say – and nothing else stands out (i.e., nothing from 8-35). Then by your (5), as I read it ("*remaining* uncompleted items"), I would move on to the next page. But as I read Mark's instructions, I wouldn't. Instead, I'd go back to the top of the current page and see if any of items 1-6 stand out. Only if none of •those* items stand out, either, do I move on to the next page. (Here I'm thinking of Mark's instruction 5, and in particular the phrases "continue going round" and "complete a pass").
This one seems like an important difference, so it would be good to get confirmation from Mark either way.
Note added later: Hang on! Perhaps by "remaining uncompleted items" you mean "all those items on the page which are still uncompleted after I've worked on the one in question". In that case, we're understanding things the same way. But when I first read your message, I took "remaining uncompleted items" to mean "all those uncompleted items I haven't done a slow scan of yet", in which case there's an important difference....
(c) Another substantive difference: your (8). As I read the instructions, multiple passes aren't required for dismissal. All that's required (provided the page in question isn't the *last* page) is that, on coming to a page, I complete both a quick and then a slower read-through of the page without anything standing out. If that happens (and it isn't the last page), and only if that happens, I dismiss the page – even if this was the *first* time I'd turned to the page in question (not counting all the times I'd turned to it add items to it when it was the last page, of course).
Again, this seems like a potentially important difference, so I'm hoping Mark will clear things up.
January 7, 2009 at 23:06 |
Martin
Martin
Zane:
I don't understand why you think you would dismiss more items on a day when you dealt with only a few high-priority items. You only have to do some work on one item per page in order to avoid items being dismissed. As I said in my Speed of Movement blog post, that means in theory that you can move through the whole list in a matter of minutes.
I don't understand why you think you would dismiss more items on a day when you dealt with only a few high-priority items. You only have to do some work on one item per page in order to avoid items being dismissed. As I said in my Speed of Movement blog post, that means in theory that you can move through the whole list in a matter of minutes.
January 8, 2009 at 0:07 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Moises and Martin:
Basically Martin's amendments to Moises' summary are correct. I think it's important to continue cycling through a page until you draw a blank on a complete pass. That's because within the page itself you are getting a "structured procrastination effect".
Martin is also correct about dismissing a page. It's theoretically possible (though unlikely) for a whole page to be dismissed on the first visit. When I entered my list of 57 books, most of them got dismissed en bloc on my second visit to the page.
Basically Martin's amendments to Moises' summary are correct. I think it's important to continue cycling through a page until you draw a blank on a complete pass. That's because within the page itself you are getting a "structured procrastination effect".
Martin is also correct about dismissing a page. It's theoretically possible (though unlikely) for a whole page to be dismissed on the first visit. When I entered my list of 57 books, most of them got dismissed en bloc on my second visit to the page.
January 8, 2009 at 0:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Martin and Mark,
I appreciate your taking the time to give this a close reading. I have found your comments very helpful. I now feel confident starting afresh tomorrow with AF. One of my tasks will be to rewrite this.
Thanks,
moises
I appreciate your taking the time to give this a close reading. I have found your comments very helpful. I now feel confident starting afresh tomorrow with AF. One of my tasks will be to rewrite this.
Thanks,
moises
January 8, 2009 at 1:24 |
moises
moises
Point 12 should be corrected to read:
12. Day-specific tasks are tasks that must get done on a specific day, but the time is not important, can be entered into AF. If they need to be done again the next DAY, add them to the end of the list, after they are completed.
12. Day-specific tasks are tasks that must get done on a specific day, but the time is not important, can be entered into AF. If they need to be done again the next DAY, add them to the end of the list, after they are completed.
January 8, 2009 at 1:31 |
moises
moises
Answer to Mark:
Here’s my concern. Let’s say on normal days I get through all my active pages two to three times and I get used to jotting down fairly urgent items at the end of the list knowing I’ll get to them well before the day is finished. One day I’m pulled into some unscheduled meetings and I only have an hour of work time. I get through the first few pages and knock off several items but then see that I’m running out of time with three pages left. As I examine the next two pages no items stand out because I feel pressured to get to the final page. The system tells me to dismiss those outstanding items although I believe if I had no time pressure some of them would stand out.
What I will probably do on a day like this is start at the last page and work toward the front, finding and doing items that need immediate attention. Then, with the time left, follow the system as usual.
Here’s my concern. Let’s say on normal days I get through all my active pages two to three times and I get used to jotting down fairly urgent items at the end of the list knowing I’ll get to them well before the day is finished. One day I’m pulled into some unscheduled meetings and I only have an hour of work time. I get through the first few pages and knock off several items but then see that I’m running out of time with three pages left. As I examine the next two pages no items stand out because I feel pressured to get to the final page. The system tells me to dismiss those outstanding items although I believe if I had no time pressure some of them would stand out.
What I will probably do on a day like this is start at the last page and work toward the front, finding and doing items that need immediate attention. Then, with the time left, follow the system as usual.
January 8, 2009 at 2:57 |
Zane
Zane
Zane:
I think basically there are always going to be some situations in which one has to use one's common sense and just do something if it needs doing there and then. The important thing is to ensure that this is the exception rather than the rule.
I think basically there are always going to be some situations in which one has to use one's common sense and just do something if it needs doing there and then. The important thing is to ensure that this is the exception rather than the rule.
January 8, 2009 at 14:39 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
With regards to Mark's last reply to Zane (above) I feel compelled to point out that based on my own experience and what I have been reading in this forum on others' experiences, Zane's approach is far more liley to be necessary when first starting the AF system, especially if like me you have a huge backlog of procrastibnated task s which are the tasks you fill your first few pages with, and you are also typically subject to short deadlines set by others either at work or home, which are entered as they come in and obviously on the last page, AND your schedule is such that you may not have a lot of time to work on your list because you have a lot of meetings or other activities dictated by other people. I had the same sort of panic as Zane and others about not getting to some of those critical tasks at the end of the list and ended up asterisking critical tasks throughout the list for immediate action ( most of which fell towards the end of the list) on the first day , and ended the day feeling like I or the system had failed because I did not manage to achieve more than those critical tasks. I think it might be worth acknowledging in the instructions, Mark, that this may happen in the first few days of starting up but that it will start to sort itself out and settle down if you stick with it. I know you have told people in your responses things like "stick with it" and "are you sure you are following the instructions?" and " use common sense" but I have felt this may have come across as telling people they are not properly follwoing the system by getting some of these critical jobs done (which I am sure had they not they could have got themselves into very hot water) rather than being reassuring that what they are experiencing is a consequence of their backlog and perhaps working environment, but, given time it will eventually sort itself out. From what I have read so far, too many people have had a similar experience to me for them to be rare "pilotees" of the system who are "doing it wrong"
And of course there is always the possibility that this system simply may not work for some people, and not because they are not doing it right. I thought that was the whole point of the beta test?
I will finish up by saying that at the end of day 4 it's working well enough for me that I want to continue with it for at least another week
And of course there is always the possibility that this system simply may not work for some people, and not because they are not doing it right. I thought that was the whole point of the beta test?
I will finish up by saying that at the end of day 4 it's working well enough for me that I want to continue with it for at least another week
January 8, 2009 at 20:48 |
Carole
Carole
<<And of course there is always the possibility that this system simply may not work for some people, and not because they are not doing it right. I thought that was the whole point of the beta test?>>
Yes, of course that is a possibility - and it would be most unlikely for it to work equally well for every single person - but it's also important to make sure that they have been doing it right before concluding that it doesn't work for them.
Yes, of course that is a possibility - and it would be most unlikely for it to work equally well for every single person - but it's also important to make sure that they have been doing it right before concluding that it doesn't work for them.
January 8, 2009 at 21:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The issues raised by Carole very much reflect my main concerns about the system. I've been using it quite consistently since Monday, and I certainly see its merits and will continue using it - for the time being at least. However, I do think there is a weakness in the system when it comes to things that have definitive and tight deadlines and jobs that *must* have got done by a certain day.
In fact, I'm more than a little tempted to introduce a mini daily to-do list again, which I would work on for the first hour of every day, and that would include items that I absolutely definitely *must* get done that day. After that hour I could then go back to autofocusing for the rest of the day, safe in the knowledge that those tasks are out of the danger zone... I know Mark has said that we shouldn't tinker with the system, but I really am paranoid of missing important deadlines or getting behind with urgent work because I'm carried away with tasks on page 1 of the list and forgetting that there's something burning on page 5. I do think that different rules apply in situations where deadlines are frequent and furious.
In fact, I'm more than a little tempted to introduce a mini daily to-do list again, which I would work on for the first hour of every day, and that would include items that I absolutely definitely *must* get done that day. After that hour I could then go back to autofocusing for the rest of the day, safe in the knowledge that those tasks are out of the danger zone... I know Mark has said that we shouldn't tinker with the system, but I really am paranoid of missing important deadlines or getting behind with urgent work because I'm carried away with tasks on page 1 of the list and forgetting that there's something burning on page 5. I do think that different rules apply in situations where deadlines are frequent and furious.
January 9, 2009 at 0:29 |
Betti
Betti
I think Carole is right in that a lot of us will be struggling with the tasks that have a significant volume of work required and tight deadlines, but that these should lessen as we operate the system longer term. There is a need to deal with those items and if they are significant enough that they are causing constant concern a solution needs to be found. Mark has pointed out that items will fall into this category and advocated the use of a schedule and the common sense approach for urgent items. As I see it the issue here is not just urgent (deadline) items but large deadline items (probably ones we have previoulsy procrastinated over, so come complete with accompanying fear and anxiety). The approach I took was to schedule a complete day next week to work on my "problem task" but to work on it at another location where I will have no other distractions. Having scheduled it and planned a large block of uninterrupted time for it, I have felt free to let AF work this week without that particular task causing more than a small amount of anxiety. I am confident I will make significant progress, and if needs be will schedule one or two more away days.
January 9, 2009 at 0:48 |
Christine B
Christine B
The problem with my work is that jobs often come in at very short notice, but have to be turned around very quickly with a relatively short deadline - even if they are high volume. So, once I've accepted the job I will have to work on it more or less solidly for the next day or few days - occasionally even couple of weeks. At the same time I must not lose sight of any other outstanding tasks that need to be done alongside, some of which may have their own, albeit less tight, deadlines attached.
In other words, it's always a bit of a juggle. My old system coped quite well with all this - but, admittedly, life often got very stressful. This last week has been very easy - there has been no massive volume of urgent work, just a backlog of necessary jobs, some domestic, some more strategic, some with easy deadlines, but nothing really major. So, obviously, using the autofocus system has not caused any major problems and the week has felt very relaxed.... I'm just not sure whether that was because the system is so stress-reducing, or whether it's just not been a very stressful week and I'm well-rested after the holidays and all that.
I can't help wondering whether it will hold up once things get really hectic - or whether it will actually cause me extra stress because I get myself in a terrible muddle with deadlines missed and not being on top of things at all.
... Oh dear, I've just realised, I've been on this forum for well over an hour now and it's 1am! I really need to call it a day!
In other words, it's always a bit of a juggle. My old system coped quite well with all this - but, admittedly, life often got very stressful. This last week has been very easy - there has been no massive volume of urgent work, just a backlog of necessary jobs, some domestic, some more strategic, some with easy deadlines, but nothing really major. So, obviously, using the autofocus system has not caused any major problems and the week has felt very relaxed.... I'm just not sure whether that was because the system is so stress-reducing, or whether it's just not been a very stressful week and I'm well-rested after the holidays and all that.
I can't help wondering whether it will hold up once things get really hectic - or whether it will actually cause me extra stress because I get myself in a terrible muddle with deadlines missed and not being on top of things at all.
... Oh dear, I've just realised, I've been on this forum for well over an hour now and it's 1am! I really need to call it a day!
January 9, 2009 at 1:06 |
Betti
Betti
Hi Betti
I know what you mean - my old system worked but like you I was frequently stressed - with AF I have actually enjoyed using it which in itself has reduced my stress levels and enabled me to do more. The fact that AF leaves the mind freer to concentrate more effectively and to actually think about what is important is a massive benefit.
Reading your post "jobs often come in at very short notice", "have to be turned around quickly", "high volume", and "once I've accepted the job" makes me wonder if AF is perhaps just highlighting areas in your work that need to be looked at. For example are the deadlines perhaps tighter than they need to be (I've previously said I'd complete something in a shorter timeframe that my clients require and put myself under innecessary stress), can you find a system to streamline some of the tasks, are you accepting the right number of jobs - or the right type of jobs, etc etc? If you just have too much work then no system on earth will work but from what I've seen so far AF will identify those factors very quickly.
Because it is intuitive rather than rational AF is such a departure from our normal work approach that it is not easy to let go of our rational desire to be in (conscious) control, and there is almost an inherent security and degree of comfort with our "normal" panic mode and stress levels.
I know what you mean - my old system worked but like you I was frequently stressed - with AF I have actually enjoyed using it which in itself has reduced my stress levels and enabled me to do more. The fact that AF leaves the mind freer to concentrate more effectively and to actually think about what is important is a massive benefit.
Reading your post "jobs often come in at very short notice", "have to be turned around quickly", "high volume", and "once I've accepted the job" makes me wonder if AF is perhaps just highlighting areas in your work that need to be looked at. For example are the deadlines perhaps tighter than they need to be (I've previously said I'd complete something in a shorter timeframe that my clients require and put myself under innecessary stress), can you find a system to streamline some of the tasks, are you accepting the right number of jobs - or the right type of jobs, etc etc? If you just have too much work then no system on earth will work but from what I've seen so far AF will identify those factors very quickly.
Because it is intuitive rather than rational AF is such a departure from our normal work approach that it is not easy to let go of our rational desire to be in (conscious) control, and there is almost an inherent security and degree of comfort with our "normal" panic mode and stress levels.
January 9, 2009 at 9:14 |
Christine B
Christine B
Hi Christine
Thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately it's just the nature of the business I'm in. So, other than changing professions there's not much I can do about it. I'm already privileged in that I have very good clients who give me reasonable deadlines (by comparison) and don't expect miracles. But a fast turnaround is still required as soon as a job comes in. It's just something I have to live with - and it means I have to have work systems in place that can accommodate this.
However, as I've just explained in another post elsewhere (it's under the "artists and similar creatures" thread), I suddenly had a brainwave earlier today (while doing the washing up - note!), and I think I know now how to fix the problem - namely by having a separate "work" (as in any fee-earning work) list and giving myself set working hours in which I can do *any* fee earning task for any of my regular clients. So I have a self-contained autofocus list, which only contains tasks that ensure I can pay the bills, and which by default has all the deadline-driven jobs on it, though I can still apply all the autofocus principles and thereby overcome procrastination and all that. I then have a separate list that contains everything else. It takes away the danger that, by getting bogged down in doing lots of really useful things that are all rather worthwhile and strategically important etc, I end up ruining my reputation for being reliable and organised - and without money in the bank! :-)
Thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately it's just the nature of the business I'm in. So, other than changing professions there's not much I can do about it. I'm already privileged in that I have very good clients who give me reasonable deadlines (by comparison) and don't expect miracles. But a fast turnaround is still required as soon as a job comes in. It's just something I have to live with - and it means I have to have work systems in place that can accommodate this.
However, as I've just explained in another post elsewhere (it's under the "artists and similar creatures" thread), I suddenly had a brainwave earlier today (while doing the washing up - note!), and I think I know now how to fix the problem - namely by having a separate "work" (as in any fee-earning work) list and giving myself set working hours in which I can do *any* fee earning task for any of my regular clients. So I have a self-contained autofocus list, which only contains tasks that ensure I can pay the bills, and which by default has all the deadline-driven jobs on it, though I can still apply all the autofocus principles and thereby overcome procrastination and all that. I then have a separate list that contains everything else. It takes away the danger that, by getting bogged down in doing lots of really useful things that are all rather worthwhile and strategically important etc, I end up ruining my reputation for being reliable and organised - and without money in the bank! :-)
January 9, 2009 at 23:00 |
Betti
Betti
Hi Betti
I can definitely relate to that - although I haven't been able to do fee earning work for a while due to family commitments the balance between creating those systems to manage the work commitments with doing the work was never easy to achieve. I can see how the idea of the two lists would work - seems to tie in with the dual location list recommendation.
Do keep us posted as to how that works for you .....
I can definitely relate to that - although I haven't been able to do fee earning work for a while due to family commitments the balance between creating those systems to manage the work commitments with doing the work was never easy to achieve. I can see how the idea of the two lists would work - seems to tie in with the dual location list recommendation.
Do keep us posted as to how that works for you .....
January 9, 2009 at 23:17 |
Christine B
Christine B
I found it enormously enlightening to read the two "Clarifications" that Mark posted to his blog. They gave me a new perspective on AF that I did not get from reading the Quick Start and the detailed instructions. They have convinced me that it is worth taking another shot at what will be for me a new version of AF.
As I do a postmortem of my 2-day trial of AF, a few experiences stand out:
1. Those two days had a LOT of immediates. That was a very difficult environment in which to learn the system. I wonder what others think, but my impression is that the system does not do well on days where I am spending a lot of time "putting out fires." The standard DIT reply to situations like that is to implement structures that decrease the likelihood of there being lots of fires. Presumably, AF would aid in accomplishing that. My day does not usually consist in fire-fighting, but the previous two days were exceptional.
2. I haven't seen others discuss their recurrent tasks. If I understand him correctly, Mark has written that AF absorbs recurrent tasks just fine. I know that they presented a problem to me. There is a strong element of "have to" or "must" with recurrent tasks. Maybe the point of AF is to tell myself, "What's the big deal if I don't check the business bank account for one day? After all, I don't HAVE TO do it." So, if the task called "check the bank balance" is near the end of the list, and it doesn't get done, my intuition told me there were better things to do. Or, maybe the better mindset is, "I want very much to see if I still have money in the bank account, but that item is on page 17 and I have open items on pages 3-16. It would be great if I started right now doing at least one thing on each un-dismissed page between 3 and 16, so that I can get to page 17 before the day ends." Or, maybe the best solution is to take these recurrent tasks out of the AF system and put them in my calendar/diary. So, every day the task "Check bank balance" pops up at 9:00 AM and I stop whatever it is I am doing and go on-line to see if the money's there. How are others handling recurrent tasks?