Get Everything Done

I'm wondering what the impact is of using different numbers of lines on a page. I seem to remember the recommendation is between 25 and 35. I'm asking because I started out with 20 tasks per A5 page, but after one week today I switched to a new A4 notebook (mostly because of the longer line width) giving me 32 tasks per page.

What is the reasoning behind the optimum size, and how do smaller or larger numbers influence the efficiency of the system?

I also wonder about that. Last week, Mark strongly recommended that I abandon my 25-line pad for something with more lines. Saturday morning I found a very nice 34-line-per-page pad with the spiral wire on top. I like this because I am a lefty, and the "normal" spiral-bound notebooks are a trouble to write in for me.

I am liking it better. I am not sure if it's because of the increase in lines or not. I do hope someone can shed some light on this.

If you use a regular notebook (not one with the spine/binding on top), you might as well (IMHO) use a two-page spread instead of a single page to increase the number of items.
Everything that lies flat and doesn't have stubborn binder rings in the middle should be fine.

If it's spiral bound, you can even fold pages completely to the back, and have the same experience from left and right pages. I bought an Atoma A5 (like Circa/Rollabind) notebook for this, for it allows to remove or replace sheets. I don't think it makes a difference to the 'closed list' principle if you use the notebook in this way.

However, some people could mind ink bleeding through from the back side, and prefer to only use one side of every sheet.

In addition to my workplace Atoma A5, I have a pocket size Moleskine Volant for my personal stuff (not yet in use), where it's even more important to increase the number of lines.

I'll have to try how this works, though. Today was only my first day, and I used AF only at work.

I remember there was a bit of discussion about this at http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/624280

With my experience of Autofocus so far, I'm not sure there is a clear black and white answer to this question of items per page, just plenty of shades of grey.

I'm tending to believe that "too few" lines can quickly build up internal resistance to items on the page because there are not enough "easy" tasks to get you "warmed up" to the the page, or to give you enough excuses initially to leave the page as quickly as possible. <grin>

With "too many" items on the page, I suspect you are probably getting into open list territory (i.e. GTD), so you don't get a feeling of progress as much as with fewer items.

With my experience of the system so far, there are certainly some pages I am quite happy to spend time on and some that I can't wait to move on from. But the nice thing about Autofocus is that you cannot hide from those resistant-feeling pages forever - and eventually the system forces you to make decisions about those items that you may be putting off.

I'm guessing that what is "too few" items and what is "too many" is probably different for each person.

That's a great summary of too many and too few. My 1st page now has only 5 items left - and I am actually looking forward to moving them - they are not even the worst items!

That's a great summary of too many and too few. My 1st page now has only 5 items left - and I am actually looking forward to moving them - they are not even the worst items!

Er ..... how did that happen?

I believe Christine has demonstrated the concept of "too many" duplicated postings per page. <wink>

You're so right Frank. It is clearly an intuitive feature of AF - I experienced it, I know it happened, but ....... I have no idea how to explain it! Do you think you should start another post? :-)

Frank, that was a highly interesting post.

It might even have (finally, but unwillingly?) torn down the wall between the 'closed list' approach and GTD's 'context lists'. At least for paper-based systems.

One can easily see how every GTD context could be turned into a number of closed lists according to AF. When I was experimenting with GTD, the ever-growing open lists were driving me mad. But since Mark recommends a separate list for every location, it's only a small step to 'context' lists à la GTD.

Personally, I'm not going to try GTD again any time soon, but maybe somebody else might want to.

Not sure about all the other GTD overhead (like project lists, up-front labor of sorting out 'next actions' etc.) though.

Alex,

I guess *in theory* it does also open up a pathway for an established GTD-er to give AF a try without a complete overhaul of their existing time management system.

So then GTD becomes more of an workflow/organizational system and one uses AF applied to Next Action context lists to *really* get things done.

I've not thought through the implications of trying to mesh the two approaches...it's getting late and my brain has alreeady switched to standby.

Christine,

I'm getting the intuitive feeling that I should perhaps just leave it to you to start multiple duplicated threads of duplicated postings. I'll just quietly hide in this underground bunker while forum participants throw large virtual rocks. <grin>

Then wouldn't the size of the notebook that is best be depend on the person.

For example if someone has lots of small tasks then a bigger notebook is better, if they have less, a smaller one?

I prefer smaller pads, so i am going to start with an A5 with 21 lines, I have an A4 ready as well to try with.

Alex, I like your comment about GTD

"Not sure about all the other GTD overhead (like project lists, up-front labor of sorting out 'next actions' etc.) though."

That is exactly what put me off GTD and why I love AF

It is simple, it "does exactly what it says on the tin" and it "works straight out of the box"

Frank

Ho ho ho!

Re: GtD.

It is not really as complicated as some people make it. There are lots of things to do to set things up, but those are entirely outside of what AF addresses: clearing long ignored inboxes, filing, etc. Then the project "lists" are basically planning ... and they to are not addressed in AF. I would plan (when necessary) no matter what system of execution I use.

In the execution phase, AF and GtD are not that dissimilar. The whole business of Next Actions is just one of those things that people get hung up on ... much like "how do I know which task to do" in the AF system. It really becomes simple in practice. And the one thing I really found objectionable in GtD (context lists) is matched in AF by the idea of using multiple notebooks. I won't do that either ;-) What does not work for me does not work for me no matter who suggests it or what they call it. ;-)

So what I'm suggesting is that comparing GtD and AF is about like comparing a Car with a Transmission. GtD covers more of the process than AF. And that is OK. I already have a planning system. I already know how to file papers. I don't need a new system for that. (And, BTW, I found some of the GtD rules in these areas to be a bit OCD ;-)

What AF offers that GtD does not is an automatic task selection and followup method that is independent of "context". IOW, in GtD you first select your context then pick a Next Action from the actions on that context list. This leads to the problem of not seeing things that are not in that context while you are there. David Allen would argue that it does not matter since you can only do actions on that context list because it is only then that you have the resources to do them. i would argue that it is quite possible that you should not find yourself in that context if you have something more important to do in some other context. I.E. you should not be washing the dishes if your car is on fire! It does not seem sensible to wash the dishes because you are in the house and wait until you happen to be in the car to put that fire out. Yet there it is.

So GtD cries out for some kind of priority system, but that is against its rules ... so began the tweaks. AF has a built in prioritization system, but it is transparent. You rely on a subconscious motivation to pick the right thing to work on within a page. It has a similar problem in that the next BEST thing to work on might be on a different page. There are two answers to that: 1) you'll get to the next page fairly quickly if you are working the system, and 2) use common sense. Which is what some of us were doing with GtD.

Where AF really shines is in handling the flood of incoming tasks that we all have. In GtD they went into the "inbox". Then they just sit there until your routine tells you to empty the inbox and if they take longer than 2 minutes to do, they get filed or processed as a project, etc. That is WAY too much overhead and delays things too much. With AF, they just go to the end of the list and come up in turn. I particularly like that it does not mater if it is an "action" or a "project" that is on the list. It has always seemed kind of obvious which was which and I knew what action to do next if it was a project.

Liked your post Mike. Not having used GTD I know I would have overcomplicated it by my very nature (I just love system!s!!). Liked the analogy of washing the dishes vs putting out the car fire. I guess I was always so busy putting out the fire that the dishes never got washed! Now with AF I know I can do both - yippee!

Christine,

ROTFL ... oh, yeah, we've been there ;-) ;-)

I love systems as well (can you spell INTP ;-) My problem is that AF is getting dangerously close to a system that works too well in its simple rules that I won't be able to tweak it. ;-)

Got It In One!

But you can tweak your remaining OneNote sections ........... :-)

Mike

Completely agree with your comparison to GTD.

I loved GTD - it was the first system that recognised that daily to do lists and ABC prioritisation were no longer working due to the volume of new inputs.

I like AF better for the following reason.

GTD, at its core, has a 5 stage workflow. Collect->Process->Organise->Review ->Do.

Unfortunately this can introduce resistance - so many people get hung up on the Process and Organise - this manifests itself in people constantly changing their systems. Getting Things Done is about exactly that and not about having a 100% squeaky clean perfect system - I am sure that David Allen himself must be frustrated with how people "live in the system" rather than doing the work.

AF overcomes this - essentially you Collect->Review->Do. The Process and Organise stages are not required and hence the resistance disappears.

One thing common to both systems is that you use your intuition to decide what to do and how long to do it and do not attempt to continually prioritise your work.

Consistent with my own mantra of time management "doing the right thing at the right time".

Regards,
Andy

Also, the review stage is meant to be relatively automatic and not rationally pondered over, making it very fast. So if collect is fast, and review is fast, that means that nearly all the time goes on do.

Agree completely about GTD. Lots of nice ideas but top heavy in terms or process and organise time.

Dm

Yes good point. That must be the reason why people (myself included) appear to be doing more with AF. The system is so quick that the vast majority of our time is on doing - and let's face it, this is exactly what we want from a good time management system - "DOing the right thing at the right time" ;-)

Rgrds,
Andy

Actually, the "Process" step does not appear, at least for me: What have in my in inboxes (email, paper) needs to be processed ("Process Email-Inbox" as an item in AF) and handling the items during this process in like described in GTD (apart from the projet stuff).

It can be a question of semantics as well. If you look at this kind of work flow naturally, it always comes down to:

- Something comes in
- It is immediately done or deferred or discarded
- If deferred, it is somehow queued or scheduled until we are ready
- Our plans, goals, and to dos are reviewed along with new items coming in
- It is done
- It is filed or discarded

Both GtD and AF must allow for this to happen. It is more a question that GtD addresses each step and AF leaves some of them to be handled outside of the system. No system is entirely inclusive. AF just focuses more on the execution phase and GtD tries to cover all bases. Of course GtD does not cover everything either.

The net result is that with AF you wind up focusing on DOING. So this system will appeal to those who already have planning under control or who don't plan at all.

Hi Marc,

I pretty much agree with Smarky.
Having started AF the very first day I just completed my second page today!
And I've only got about 22 lines on one page.

That is because I don't put everything into the system. E.g. no work, no "routine", etc
For me many things are already routine so I simply don't have to write them down. Like you don't have to write it down if you don't want to forget brushing your teeth in the morning ;-)
So a day might consist of three items only.

Using more lines might just make it too slow for me.

One thing happened though - I missed a task that was still open and closed a page by accident. So now, when I cross an item out I make the line go a few centimeters further to the left than the text. Like that its easy to spot the tasks left.