Get Everything Done

AF vs GTD

I believe that AF is an excellent idea, beautiful out-of-the-box thinking, a great system.

However, I also believe that it is not universal. It fits a situation very well, Mark Forster’s situation, which happens to be mine too: Semi-retired, no real stress, very limited number of tasks and commitments, nothing to prove to anyone, basically a very leisurely life.

But as soon as the pressure mounts, as the number of tasks increases, commitments pile up, AF will produce in your brain what in the early days of software development we jokingly used to call “stack overflow”.

“Mind like water” is a very clever slogan used for GTD. Mind like water can never be achieved by GTD, however well you apply it, but the slogan points in the right direction.

The very strength of AF, which is relying on the power of the brain to autofocus, is it’s nemesis, as soon as the complexity of the problem exceeds what our brain is able to routinely deal with. Like most of us need to use pen and paper to calculate, once the numbers involved exceed a certain size, we need a system and a workflow beyond a simple list, when the number of objects to juggle gets too big.

The number of tasks, commitments, pending decisions a busy entrepreneur has to juggle continuously will bring AF to it’s knees within hours, if it ever gets started at all.

That said, let me repeat, AF is a beautiful system, but it is not universal.

Just my humble opinion.

Chris

Chris said: "It fits a situation very well, Mark Forster’s situation, which happens to be mine too" but then you go on to say it doesn't work for other, more stressing situations. How do you know, if you can't be in that situation? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I think the only one who could give a fair evaluation of AF for "a busy entrepreneur" would be "a busy entrepreneur"...

I can only speak for myself (not a busy entrepreneur, but very far from focused...) and AF does work, but the main challenge for me is to actually pick my Moleskine and use the lists, which unfortunately is the only thing that can't really be put on the list ;)

Chris: Mark did battle test this system by overloading it and personally, I have found it to break down barriers to thinking, rather than overload it. I am on Page 7 of my list with 27 tasks per page, and using it electronically on my favourite program. (MLO).

There are days when I have done 3-4 passes by mid morning and some (like today), I have just got through the 1st pass at the end of my working day. But I have found myself working with deliberate attention to those things that stand out (that can mean anything: urgent, important, something I have resisted for a while and I have now broken down the barriers).

Those big Projects written as "Work on Project X" actually get worked on, either by drilling down the steps further (more planning) or getting on with it my putting the first task that comes to mind to the end of the list. That's complexity reduced.

You are right about systems and workflows - they may be required to manage what I think is essentially the pillars of any big project. But what AF does is to be the manager-of-managers, encouraging you to develop, maintain, extend and plan with the external systems you may have created by constantly "touching" it via the numerous passes through it. In and of itself, AF may not bring your job to completion. But AF does push you towards a constant review of those systems.

Just a comment, maybe a little abstract, of how I have been experiencing it.

Chris,

As far as I can see, AF actually helps to prevent 'stack overflow' by limiting the number of items to be worked on to a 'closed list'. To continue the computing analogy, it enables us to 'page-in' a manageable amount of work, secure in the knowledge that the rest of our commitments are paged-out to a trusted system. And Common Sense and calendar items provide us with a 'paging interrupt' when conditions dictate.

In my experience, introducing added systems and workflow can be dangerous because there is a tendency to spend more time on 'meta-activity' - working on the system - than on the work itself.

One of the really positive aspects of AF, for me, is the ability to minimise the system overhead...

Regards

Dave

Hm, well, speaking of busy entrepreneurs, Richard Branson seems to use a similar system:

http://www.moleskinerie.com/2006/05/_richard_branso.html

I have my own business, a lot of family commitments and I'm studying a Master's degree at uni. I can't help but have too much on my plate, but what I like about AF is that it lets you keep a lot of projects moving along and I'm not feeling so stressed that projects I care about are slipping through the cracks.

I think even where a particular job might not be suited to AF (eg a very time scheduled job with repetitive and/or reactive tasks eg working in a call centre), there's still your personal life and projects where AF can really help.

Like Mark, I too wish I had found this system earlier!

Well, who knows what system Sir. Richard Branson uses. All he says is "keep a notebook in your pocket and write everything in it.". I would like to see a good autobiography wherein he spends time describing what works for him and why. He has got to be one of the all time great business people. And he seems to do it with loads of common sense and good will.

Well, I'm a consultant actuary with a silly workload, completely unrealistic client-set deadlines and a pretty busy home life. It's working great for me so far, and about the only thing that's so far been this successful at keeping me relatively free of 'overwhelm'. (Still early days of course, IMHO).

Chris (top of thread) I got the same feeling you did when I first read AF rules. Didn't I already "knew" Mark, I probably would have dropped the idea of AF.

But the more' I felt reluctant (rationale), the more I guessed there should be some treasure at hand (intuition). So, against logic, I decided to try.

Only at fourth day, I foresee I am going down to two or three active pages only, and that I am fine tuning my criteria, and decide faster what and how to write and what to do.

Many ideas promoted with GTD still apply with AF :
* Exceptions alike time buckets within hard landscape.
* Dissmiss alike ticklered items or Someday/Maybe items
* GTD 2minutes rule is AF common sense
* In AF you may very well have a separate S/M (long) list fired by this item in AF : "Review SM list" (that's what I'm doing since yesterday.

And with AF you have so less work than with GTD : you may start with a loose system, you may write items as a Next action or leave them as a vague first thought. You do as much on more things, keeping your pleasure in focusas well as your productivity, and not feeling culprit in front of others.

You can tune AF to your needs playing with these variables :

- How many exceptions do I allow me ( -> hard landscape)
- Specific routines I schedule in datebook
- How many items a page ( I am considering going down to 15 or even 12) -> faster on important, earlier dissmissals
- How big let I grow my dismissals (academic : not yet a problem for me),
- What I differ (tickler) or let out dormant (SM list), or trash.

I do think AF can accomodate any context and be benefic better than previous. But you have to set how you play the rules for yourself.

Even the page concept, reading items in their creating order - that may look artificial (especially if you play digital) - brings added value : more intuition and larger scope covered.

Like for poetry : prosody rules led to memorable poems !

I spent practically 6 hours every day with my clients, in meetings, workshops, and brainstorming sessions. Obviously, use AF under such a race is not easy.

But, coming back to office/home, I check my notes and prepare entries to AF lists. After that, it is a pleasure to go to the first active page and start my work from there. The system is working perfectly for me after a tried before EVERYTHING.

I started with AF last Januray 4th. Today (Jan 16th) my notebook has 24 inactive pages and just 3 active.

So, I can not agree with the idea that AF is for non-busy people.

Thanks again, MARK

Totally agree that AF works in a mix of all types of situations. For me, although currently in a home environment , I still have various segments of my life to deal with and AF is keeping me focused on what is important and when. I too wish I had had AF earlier - one of the major impacts has been the way it works for short periods of time, time which would otherwise have been wasted. I used to have numerous meetings in a day, multiple telephone interruptions/staff interruptions etc, travelled a lot and ended up with lots of bits of time that were never fully productive. The coffee shop approach in the US worked well for giving my creativity a bit of an airing, as I could brainstorm between meetings but what to do with the notepaper (or serviettes) that I scribbled on? Oh to have had an AF list!

I'm balancing a high-pressure full-time job in the high-tech industry; a small farm; political activism; a part-time side business; active church life; and six children ages 1 to 13, one of whom is chronically ill; and AF is handling it far better than any other system I've ever used.

Florence, please go into more detail. I'm so bogged down by a full time job where I get home at 6pm, chatting to my other half over a coffee, playing with the cat and sorting out her dinner, sorting out our dinner and washing up, watching Coronation Street, then, and only then, switching on our pc and having some AF time. I'm trying to fill in surveys in the evenings to earn some extra money. How on earth do you manage all the things that you do and how does AF fit in? I'm full of admiration.

Sandy - just a quick tip for you

Add some of your routines and "want to's" to your list .e.g. make coffee, chat with other half, play with cat, watch TV etc. The very act of ticking those items off enables you to have a sense of achievement. I would venture to suggest that, even while you know those items you mention are necessary and/or that you want to do them, you feel a sense of anxiety in that "there are so many other things I ought to be doing" but let's face it they are all things that need doing (including leisure time such as watching Coronation Street!) By putting them into the system it frees up your mind from that constant vague anxiety that "I should .....", "I ought ........" etc and you will find that your focus, and ability to concentrate on those other areas really will improve. You may feel prompted to look at alternatives to the survey program or increased focus at work may lead you to look at other options there but one thing I would almost guarantee is that, by AF'ing those routines, your mind will start focusing on more creative things, rather than just being constantly aware of that vague cloud of anxiety.

Let's, as the title of this thread suggests, compare AF and GTD. Here's my idiosyncratic take on this.

Contrary to what many might believe, there is a fundamental similarity between AF and GTD. In fact, almost every time-management, personal productivity program has some version of the principle of analysis which tells us that procrastination is best overcome, and motivation is best enhanced by breaking huge, intimidating goals into small, bite-sized, easy-to-digest, pieces. AF encourages analyzing large goals into tiny tasks when it urges us to abide by the slogan "little and often." GTD encourages analysis by having us create what it calls "next actions", or the next physically describable behavior that needs to be done to move the project forward.

There is another fundamental similarity between AF and GTD: both are all-encompassing, whole-life, systems. In AF, the system only works if you put everything into it (I am not talking about initializing the system when a large backlog might exist). With the sole exception of immediate tasks--which, by their very nature, defy systematization--everything has a place in either the AF list or the calendar or the urgent list. In GTD, likewise, the system only works if you "get everything out of your head," which means writing down in your list all your ideas about things you are committed to doing.

But, in at least one significant way, AF is actually more totalizing, more all-encompassing, and more complete than GTD. When I am working my AF list, if I want a break, I will write my desired activity at the end of the list. There is no place in GTD to do that. So, in fact, the GTD list excludes by its very nature, much of what I will do today and everyday. When I do GTD, I know that I will take breaks and engage in diversions. These are neither regulated nor documented in GTD. But, when I do AF, _everything_ is in my list, including those breaks and diversions. The great irony is that because AF includes the breaks, diversions, and procrastinations, I end up breaking, diverting, and procrastinating much less with it. While GTD, which has no real place for these displacement activities, leads me to engage in many more of them.

Both AF and GTD urge us to review our systems. But here is where the divergence between them becomes obvious. GTD mandates weekly reviews, but is agnostic about reviewing one's list at more frequent intervals. AF is all about reviewing the list incessantly. In a typical day, one would be reviewing the list many, many, times. This fact is of great significance because, in many circumstances and in many respects, the GTD list can easily become separated from my moment-to-moment experience of doing work. AF is much more intimately bound with how I am experiencing myself doing what I am doing at this moment.

Lastly, both AF and GTD are about making lists. Both of them would have us include all our currently actionable items on the list. But there the similarity ends. In a typical GTD scenario, I find myself at work. My GTD list of actionable work items spans several pages. In GTD theory, I could intuitively pick any item and immediately do the next action, which tells me precisely what kind of physical action I need to do. In GTD actuality, I feel huge resistance when I look at my overwhelming list of items. I see that many of the next actions are attached to monstrous projects, the very thought of which sends shivers down my spine. The problem with GTD--the problem that AF solves--is that my choices are too vast (see some of the writings of Barry Schwartz on the downside of choice). Where AF differs is that it chunks my vast list down into units called pages. I can't do anything until I do some item on the current page. There is still resistance with AF, but it is much more manageable. I feel less pressure to think about the project in all its imposing complexity. I just think about doing one simple action and then leaving that project behind for something else. As Christine said earlier in this thread, AF is great for getting me moving in some very small way on a big project when I have little bits of free time--like 5 minutes or so.

GTD is superior to AF, if one is concerned with having nice, logically organized, documentation of the projects that one is both doing and planning on doing. But most of us would rather be getting things done than getting things we want to be done written down in beautifully constructed lists. In order to get things done, most of us need a system that understands how to manipulate our psyches to maintain a high level of motivation. GTD does not do this; AF does. AF has rules that one must follow before one can do an item on the list. GTD has none. It is these rules that fundamentally differentiate AF from GTD. Because GTD is about creating lists, it has no rules about how to do the items on the lists. Because AF is about acting, its core is the rules that one must follow as one does the items on the lists.

Hi moises,

This was the best post I have seen to date on this forum on the beauty and power of AF! Thanks for your insights.

Mark, this is one that I would highlight on your home page as a testimonial!

-David

Absolutely seconded - fantastic post moises!

Sandy - I'd suggest using a notebook, not the PC. And try using it for everything. Works great always having it handy. And just because I'm trying to do all those things, doesn't mean I'm doing it successfully or well. AF is helping me get there. :-)

I am a busy person who works in a high paced office and I find AF work very well. Like GTD is captures in a more simple way your projects task and committments. What I like is it lists them at the most basic level which is the actual activity. What I find AF does better than GTD is present a simple intuitive way to actually work through the items and complete them. I am working on the way things are written in the notebook to ensure I am reviewing notes and files which have many of the key issues of my work to ensure that the list is complete and effective. This inter-play has been what I have always struggles with when using GTD, DIT or my own system. AF so far has been the simpliest way to do it for me.

I also think that even computer types will find that using paper is preferable and wish they would try it.

Gerry

Hi Moises,

In your comparison of GTD with AF, I see things just slightly differently.

Yes, they are both list based but AF asks you to put EVERYTHING on the list and then dropp off the "someday/maybe" items when it becomes clear that they are. GtD asks you to identify them in your "review" and then not process them in the upcoming period ... IOW, they do NOT go on your list of Next Actions.

Yes, they both ask you to "review", but in AF you are reviewing the list of all items that are potentially actionable while in GtD you are reviewing your PROJECT LIST to find those which you are really going to work on this period, and identify NEXT ACTIONS and put those Next Actions on your context lists (which are analogous to AF's master list). So those are very different kinds of reviews, IMO. In GtD you are reviewing what you are going to do, in AF you are reviewing what you are going to do NOW.

As to them being all encompassing, I see that differently as well. AF is silent on the subject of planning. And that is fine, no system can do everything for you. But it is worth realizing that if you DO plan, you still need to plan in whatever method you are currently using.

If I were to come up with one crucial difference between AF and GtD, it would be that AF is less structured in how tasks are organized but more structured in how they are executed. IOW, the process is more structured, not the material processed.

What makes it powerful is that it is "robotic" in that you know what to do next and only need do it, but it also allows breaking out of the system when it makes sense.