Discussion Forum > Comparison of Autofocus with the TRO system
Jonathan,
Good find. And smart to set up a Google Alert regarding Autofocus.
Let's use this thread to dissect the article! I'll start:
<<No Focus on Next Actions. David Allen (GTD) focuses on the “single next action” for each project. Mark’s “Autofocus” lacks this, though it could be added by writing your tasks in “Project – Next step” format. You need this to overcome resistance to larger projects.>>
It seems to me that the fact AF encourages "little and often" through the mechanism that *any* action on an item is enough to cross off the item and re-enter it at the end of the list is exactly the same as GTD's "next actions".
But, instead of having to think through what the next action is and enter it into a list, AF lets you decide what the next action is when you are doing something with the item. This solves the perennial problem that GTD'ers try to solve --> how do they link their next actions to their projects? In AF, instead of spending resources in figuring out all the next actions before you do them, you figure out the next action when you *are* doing.
The idea that next actions are useful in tackling a large project has merit. But once you internalize that, whenever you see a large project you think to yourself "what is the next action?" and do it. After all, isn't that what you do when you write down the next action in GTD (except that you might defer doing the next action until later)?
--Joseph
Good find. And smart to set up a Google Alert regarding Autofocus.
Let's use this thread to dissect the article! I'll start:
<<No Focus on Next Actions. David Allen (GTD) focuses on the “single next action” for each project. Mark’s “Autofocus” lacks this, though it could be added by writing your tasks in “Project – Next step” format. You need this to overcome resistance to larger projects.>>
It seems to me that the fact AF encourages "little and often" through the mechanism that *any* action on an item is enough to cross off the item and re-enter it at the end of the list is exactly the same as GTD's "next actions".
But, instead of having to think through what the next action is and enter it into a list, AF lets you decide what the next action is when you are doing something with the item. This solves the perennial problem that GTD'ers try to solve --> how do they link their next actions to their projects? In AF, instead of spending resources in figuring out all the next actions before you do them, you figure out the next action when you *are* doing.
The idea that next actions are useful in tackling a large project has merit. But once you internalize that, whenever you see a large project you think to yourself "what is the next action?" and do it. After all, isn't that what you do when you write down the next action in GTD (except that you might defer doing the next action until later)?
--Joseph
August 24, 2009 at 14:41 |
Joseph
Joseph
It's hard to take this review seriously when they're pushing their own software & time management system.
I never understood the "mind like water" nonsense that GTD'ers throw around particularly when discuss "next actions". Perhaps I'm just lucky. But when I walk into the kitchen, my brain does a decent job of deciding what to do next. I've yet to experience a scenario like this:
Step a: feel hungry
Step b: walk into kitchen
Step c: stand in kitchen, ponder next action to curb hunger
Step d: still standing
Step e: still hungry
Step f: remove my pants and relieve myself on the floor of my kitchen
Step g: remind myself to place a "next action" next to Project: Eat to avoid soiling my floor
I never understood the "mind like water" nonsense that GTD'ers throw around particularly when discuss "next actions". Perhaps I'm just lucky. But when I walk into the kitchen, my brain does a decent job of deciding what to do next. I've yet to experience a scenario like this:
Step a: feel hungry
Step b: walk into kitchen
Step c: stand in kitchen, ponder next action to curb hunger
Step d: still standing
Step e: still hungry
Step f: remove my pants and relieve myself on the floor of my kitchen
Step g: remind myself to place a "next action" next to Project: Eat to avoid soiling my floor
August 24, 2009 at 16:09 |
Avrum
Avrum
Thanks for drawing my attention to this, Jonathan. What they reviewed was the first version of Autofocus, so I have commented on their site to draw their attention (and their readers') to Revised Autofocus.
August 25, 2009 at 13:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark. thanks for your comment/reply on our blog. That article was released two weeks late for technical reasons, so I'm taking a look at Revised Autofocus. I'll not reply to the revisions yet because I don't want to do a superficial assessment. I gained some good insights from you in the past and I don't want to miss anything! :-)
I agree with Avrum to a point. "Mind like water" is easily taken too far. I can't be "intuitive" staring at a list of 200 unordered items (basic GTD). We solve that by adding the right kind of dates to tasks. It totally solves the focus problem. The dates are based on two questions: "when do I think I'd like to get this done?" and "when does this HAVE to be started to avoid grief, if any?" Then, since the lists are self-ordered based on those answers, stress disappears and focus is totally automatic. Why? 1) You know that you WILL be notified at the right time if something is slipping too far. 2) In the meantime, the most essential tasks (not just urgent) are always at the top of the lists; everything else isn't as critical. You work automatically--and more--on what matters most.
Those task dates are based in part on Michael Linenberger's "priority date" concept.
Jonathan, "little and often" does partly address the next action question for me, but there's a catch or two. If you don't know the next action, you can't answer the "when" questions accurately (see my last paragraph), so you lose that dimension of stress relief--you won't absolutely know that you will be notified, at the right time, that something is slipping too far and needs to be addressed. Also, people do tend to avoid large projects for which the next action is uncertain. Thinking for 5 minutes about the next action breaks that logjam. After you've done that for a few days, it becomes second nature. Autofocus-ers could "decide the next step" on those big projects to get past that, but they'd better write them down in the list that way if they do, lest they face that same hurdle the next time around.
I agree with Avrum to a point. "Mind like water" is easily taken too far. I can't be "intuitive" staring at a list of 200 unordered items (basic GTD). We solve that by adding the right kind of dates to tasks. It totally solves the focus problem. The dates are based on two questions: "when do I think I'd like to get this done?" and "when does this HAVE to be started to avoid grief, if any?" Then, since the lists are self-ordered based on those answers, stress disappears and focus is totally automatic. Why? 1) You know that you WILL be notified at the right time if something is slipping too far. 2) In the meantime, the most essential tasks (not just urgent) are always at the top of the lists; everything else isn't as critical. You work automatically--and more--on what matters most.
Those task dates are based in part on Michael Linenberger's "priority date" concept.
Jonathan, "little and often" does partly address the next action question for me, but there's a catch or two. If you don't know the next action, you can't answer the "when" questions accurately (see my last paragraph), so you lose that dimension of stress relief--you won't absolutely know that you will be notified, at the right time, that something is slipping too far and needs to be addressed. Also, people do tend to avoid large projects for which the next action is uncertain. Thinking for 5 minutes about the next action breaks that logjam. After you've done that for a few days, it becomes second nature. Autofocus-ers could "decide the next step" on those big projects to get past that, but they'd better write them down in the list that way if they do, lest they face that same hurdle the next time around.
August 26, 2009 at 5:53 |
Kevin Crenshaw
Kevin Crenshaw
>> I can't be "intuitive" staring at a list of 200 unordered items
Huh? The only question one has to answer vis-a-vis intuition is: What do I feel like doing now? Though it was ingenious of Mr. Forster to formalize, what is already occurring anyway, into a system.
>> "when do I think I'd like to get this done?"
For most of my tasks, the answer is.. “at some point” or “sooner rather than later”. So dating my tasks don’t help.
>> "when does this HAVE to be started to avoid grief, if any?"
Again, placing date dependent tasks into my calendar solves this problem.
>> stress disappears and focus is totally automatic.
Can someone... ANYONE... show me evidence that stress disappears - hell, is lowered - by using a productivity system?
>> If you don't know the next action, you can't answer the "when" questions accurately
How is it possible that 99% of the world is getting along just fine without employing systems to decide upon “next actions”? How do they do it? One would think that, besides those in the know, everyone else is in a state of paralysis, with spittle dripping down their chin.
Kevin, I apologize for the sarcasm. However I had to wade through these discussions on GTD boards back in 2002. There were times where it felt like an group therapy clinic for folks struggling with OCD.
Huh? The only question one has to answer vis-a-vis intuition is: What do I feel like doing now? Though it was ingenious of Mr. Forster to formalize, what is already occurring anyway, into a system.
>> "when do I think I'd like to get this done?"
For most of my tasks, the answer is.. “at some point” or “sooner rather than later”. So dating my tasks don’t help.
>> "when does this HAVE to be started to avoid grief, if any?"
Again, placing date dependent tasks into my calendar solves this problem.
>> stress disappears and focus is totally automatic.
Can someone... ANYONE... show me evidence that stress disappears - hell, is lowered - by using a productivity system?
>> If you don't know the next action, you can't answer the "when" questions accurately
How is it possible that 99% of the world is getting along just fine without employing systems to decide upon “next actions”? How do they do it? One would think that, besides those in the know, everyone else is in a state of paralysis, with spittle dripping down their chin.
Kevin, I apologize for the sarcasm. However I had to wade through these discussions on GTD boards back in 2002. There were times where it felt like an group therapy clinic for folks struggling with OCD.
August 26, 2009 at 6:22 |
Avrum
Avrum
I have to agree with Avrum on this one. It seems intuitive that stress will be lowered if one gets one's time and commitments under control. But that is only if time management is what is causing the stress.
I also can relate to the OCD comment. GtD does seem to attract that personality. The whole idea of contexts and next actions and an empty in-box, etc. really does sound a lot like compulsive hand washing ;-)
I strongly disagree with the comment about next actions being necessary, or even helpful. One needs to plan a next action ONLY if one feels stuck not knowing what to do next. Mostly the human mind is designed to work well at popping the next action into consciousness when we need to know what it is.
As to the estimated dates ... yeah, that is massive overkill. Most of what is on my list is either "someday/maybe" or "as soon as possible". Those things associated with a date need to be on the calendar. If, in addition to all else, I had to estimate a date for everything, I'd just shoot myself! ;-)
I also can relate to the OCD comment. GtD does seem to attract that personality. The whole idea of contexts and next actions and an empty in-box, etc. really does sound a lot like compulsive hand washing ;-)
I strongly disagree with the comment about next actions being necessary, or even helpful. One needs to plan a next action ONLY if one feels stuck not knowing what to do next. Mostly the human mind is designed to work well at popping the next action into consciousness when we need to know what it is.
As to the estimated dates ... yeah, that is massive overkill. Most of what is on my list is either "someday/maybe" or "as soon as possible". Those things associated with a date need to be on the calendar. If, in addition to all else, I had to estimate a date for everything, I'd just shoot myself! ;-)
August 26, 2009 at 8:36 |
Mike
Mike
Mike wrote:
'I strongly disagree with the comment about next actions being necessary, or even helpful. One needs to plan a next action ONLY if one feels stuck not knowing what to do next.'
So you never procrastinate on anything? :-)
'I strongly disagree with the comment about next actions being necessary, or even helpful. One needs to plan a next action ONLY if one feels stuck not knowing what to do next.'
So you never procrastinate on anything? :-)
August 26, 2009 at 9:58 |
smileypete
smileypete
>>> 'I strongly disagree with the comment about next actions being necessary, or even helpful. One needs to plan a next action ONLY if one feels stuck not knowing what to do next.'
So you never procrastinate on anything? :-) <<<
One can only procrastinate if one DOES know the next action but does not want to do it. Otherwise, it is "confusion", not "procrastination".
So you never procrastinate on anything? :-) <<<
One can only procrastinate if one DOES know the next action but does not want to do it. Otherwise, it is "confusion", not "procrastination".
August 26, 2009 at 10:25 |
Mike
Mike
I had to smile while reading the TRO statements.
Reading that article reminded me in a joyful way what I like about RAF (and actually like more every day.
One of it is that thanks to RAF, I got finally *rid* of all these "systems". That RAF finally boiled all self-organization overhead down to a minimum, to almost nothing. A cheap notebook, a pencil, and I'm done.
>>> "when do I think I'd like to get this done?"
For most of my tasks, the answer is.. “at some point” or “sooner rather than later”. So dating my tasks don’t help.<
Absolutely. Dating of tasks has been proven rather useless half a century ago.
The point is: As soon you want to SELL something, that something must not be easy. For that reason, all "time-management systems" HAVE to be complicated.
Reading that article reminded me in a joyful way what I like about RAF (and actually like more every day.
One of it is that thanks to RAF, I got finally *rid* of all these "systems". That RAF finally boiled all self-organization overhead down to a minimum, to almost nothing. A cheap notebook, a pencil, and I'm done.
>>> "when do I think I'd like to get this done?"
For most of my tasks, the answer is.. “at some point” or “sooner rather than later”. So dating my tasks don’t help.<
Absolutely. Dating of tasks has been proven rather useless half a century ago.
The point is: As soon you want to SELL something, that something must not be easy. For that reason, all "time-management systems" HAVE to be complicated.
August 26, 2009 at 10:54 |
AndreasE
AndreasE
AndreasE:
<< As soon you want to SELL something, that something must not be easy. >>
Good point. I had a sort of epiphany the other day that the reason that I wasn't doing more to popularise AF was that 1) I felt that I needed to make money out of it somehow, but 2) making money involved a lot more work than I was prepared to put in (bearing in mind that I am supposed to be retired!)
I suddenly realised that the way to popularise AF was to give up any idea of making money from it, and to make everything to do with it completely free of charge. That way it would become a interesting and enjoyable retirement project, rather than a huge burden.
And I would be able to keep it simple!
<< As soon you want to SELL something, that something must not be easy. >>
Good point. I had a sort of epiphany the other day that the reason that I wasn't doing more to popularise AF was that 1) I felt that I needed to make money out of it somehow, but 2) making money involved a lot more work than I was prepared to put in (bearing in mind that I am supposed to be retired!)
I suddenly realised that the way to popularise AF was to give up any idea of making money from it, and to make everything to do with it completely free of charge. That way it would become a interesting and enjoyable retirement project, rather than a huge burden.
And I would be able to keep it simple!
August 26, 2009 at 12:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Wow. That's really a vision.
Yes, please! Keep it simple!
Yes, please! Keep it simple!
August 26, 2009 at 14:56 |
AndreasE
AndreasE
"The point is: As soon you want to SELL something, that something must not be easy. For that reason, all "time-management systems" HAVE to be complicated"
So, so true. And this can be attested for by all of the products and services being offered at Kevin's site. IMHO, it's a complete regression from AF.
So, so true. And this can be attested for by all of the products and services being offered at Kevin's site. IMHO, it's a complete regression from AF.
August 26, 2009 at 16:47 |
Avrum
Avrum
Am I the only one to find it faintly amusing that the superior TRO system delivered an article 2 weeks late?
(Sorry, Kevin: I guess sometimes bad things just happen anyway. I know it was always my TQM slides which had the typos.)
(Sorry, Kevin: I guess sometimes bad things just happen anyway. I know it was always my TQM slides which had the typos.)
August 27, 2009 at 8:04 |
Will
Will
I posted this reply to the blog twice however it fails to actually show up on the website.
Interesting!
I must comment that I find the revised autofocus system the most
intuitive of all the systems I have tried, and I have tried most.
Afew advantages that no other system combines into one package: it's
free! There's no bloated overhead in entering tasks to hinder taking
action.
YOU are the person in charge of the decision to do or delay the task
not the system. No system can make moment to moment decisions about
when the best time is to do something. But autofocus facilitates
personal choice which is critical in curing procrastination. There's
no dependence on electronic aids. And it doesn't need Outlook.
Cheers
Jay
However it fails to actually show up on the website.
Interesting!
Interesting!
I must comment that I find the revised autofocus system the most
intuitive of all the systems I have tried, and I have tried most.
Afew advantages that no other system combines into one package: it's
free! There's no bloated overhead in entering tasks to hinder taking
action.
YOU are the person in charge of the decision to do or delay the task
not the system. No system can make moment to moment decisions about
when the best time is to do something. But autofocus facilitates
personal choice which is critical in curing procrastination. There's
no dependence on electronic aids. And it doesn't need Outlook.
Cheers
Jay
However it fails to actually show up on the website.
Interesting!
August 28, 2009 at 22:11 |
Jay
Jay
Jay:
How long ago did you post it? They moderate the comments so for one reason or another they may just not have got round to it yet.
Thanks for the positive review!
How long ago did you post it? They moderate the comments so for one reason or another they may just not have got round to it yet.
Thanks for the positive review!
August 28, 2009 at 22:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I posted yesterday afternoon and 10 minutes back.
So I would imagine that would be time enough.
I'm just curious why they had to pick on Autofocus for comparison-maybe because it is th "gold standard" now!
Mark, I am the one who should be thanking you for giving us Autofocus!!!
Jay
So I would imagine that would be time enough.
I'm just curious why they had to pick on Autofocus for comparison-maybe because it is th "gold standard" now!
Mark, I am the one who should be thanking you for giving us Autofocus!!!
Jay
August 28, 2009 at 22:42 |
Jay
Jay
Jay:
Well I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt - they probably haven't had the time to get round to it yet.
Well I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt - they probably haven't had the time to get round to it yet.
August 28, 2009 at 23:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
"Can someone... ANYONE... show me evidence that stress disappears - hell, is lowered - by using a productivity system? "
Well, if my general "happiness level" is any indication - that would be me - as in stress disappearing. Once with a modified Brian Tracy method about 12 years ago for work and once with Autofocus for personal projects.
And Mike, that's because procrastination DID cause the stress.
And I'd wager that others using AF would say the same.
OTOH, estimating dates has always caused me stress, not alleviated it - as I usually fail to live up to my expectations.
Well, if my general "happiness level" is any indication - that would be me - as in stress disappearing. Once with a modified Brian Tracy method about 12 years ago for work and once with Autofocus for personal projects.
And Mike, that's because procrastination DID cause the stress.
And I'd wager that others using AF would say the same.
OTOH, estimating dates has always caused me stress, not alleviated it - as I usually fail to live up to my expectations.
August 29, 2009 at 2:17 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Wow. A LOT of comments. I'll reply in "Reverse Mode" :-)
Jay: (Comments not appearing quickly on Priacta blog) Sorry, your comments were flagged as Spam by our vigilant(e) spam filter along with 37 actual spams. We approved your first one, the second was almost identical. (I recommend not posting the same text twice. Bayesian filters get trigger-happy.)
Will: (Taking 2 weeks to post our AF/TRO review) Your TQM slides had typos? I love it! (LOL!) Hopefully they didn't show up on failblog.org... Yeah, we have a love/hate relationship with WordPress and its plugins.
Mark: (Why we reviewed AF instead of RAF) The hyperlink on your home page currently points to AF, not RAF. Have you considered making it point to the latest-and-greatest version? You posted the RAF article 7/28/09, we began the review 8/4/09 by following the AF link on the home page, not seeing any links to RAF.
Avrum: ('If you SELL it it must be hard, everything on Kevin's site is a complete regression from RAF') Keep in mind we're a TRAINING company. We "sell" training and software, and we use principles we find that work best (we identify the source while being careful of trademarks). That's why we started watching AF--it's sincere flattery to mimic, and we may adopt/adapt RAF or principles. TRO combines best practices we've found from many systems, so it changes as methods evolve, like RAF.
An example: Our Trog Bar software lets users choose their system--it's not just for TRO. RAF isn't in the list yet, but I'm intrigued by that possibility (RAF doesn't REQUIRE paper, and simple software for it might be helpful for some folks). We may add it.
QUESTION: What does everyone think about offering software that facilitates RAF? (Trog Bar, for example.) Reverse mode in the morning, forward mode when ready, etc. Mark could benefit financially just by mentioning it, no further work on his part...
Jay: (Comments not appearing quickly on Priacta blog) Sorry, your comments were flagged as Spam by our vigilant(e) spam filter along with 37 actual spams. We approved your first one, the second was almost identical. (I recommend not posting the same text twice. Bayesian filters get trigger-happy.)
Will: (Taking 2 weeks to post our AF/TRO review) Your TQM slides had typos? I love it! (LOL!) Hopefully they didn't show up on failblog.org... Yeah, we have a love/hate relationship with WordPress and its plugins.
Mark: (Why we reviewed AF instead of RAF) The hyperlink on your home page currently points to AF, not RAF. Have you considered making it point to the latest-and-greatest version? You posted the RAF article 7/28/09, we began the review 8/4/09 by following the AF link on the home page, not seeing any links to RAF.
Avrum: ('If you SELL it it must be hard, everything on Kevin's site is a complete regression from RAF') Keep in mind we're a TRAINING company. We "sell" training and software, and we use principles we find that work best (we identify the source while being careful of trademarks). That's why we started watching AF--it's sincere flattery to mimic, and we may adopt/adapt RAF or principles. TRO combines best practices we've found from many systems, so it changes as methods evolve, like RAF.
An example: Our Trog Bar software lets users choose their system--it's not just for TRO. RAF isn't in the list yet, but I'm intrigued by that possibility (RAF doesn't REQUIRE paper, and simple software for it might be helpful for some folks). We may add it.
QUESTION: What does everyone think about offering software that facilitates RAF? (Trog Bar, for example.) Reverse mode in the morning, forward mode when ready, etc. Mark could benefit financially just by mentioning it, no further work on his part...
August 29, 2009 at 3:44 |
Kevin Crenshaw
Kevin Crenshaw
More replies...
Mark ('wanting to make money on AF, deciding to make it open and free'): By making (R)AF open, keeping it simple, letting others discuss and add to it, I think you ensure its success because the world is intensely virtual-social now--I think it's the survival skill for the information flood because group decisions are right 92% of the time. That means that great ideas + a little uncertainty (which comes partly from simplicity) + openness = participation, which spreads the word ("viral"). If it becomes too proprietary or too precise, it ceases to spread by word of mouth, which hurts monetization.
Avrum, AndreasE: ('All time management systems have to be complicated to make money on them') Based on my last statement, I feel time management systems do not have to be complex, and they spread better if they aren't. However, too much simplicity can leave folks uncertain how to actually implement in THEIR situation (for example, GTD and Covey), and that hurts productivity. TRO isn't complex, but we use concepts that require new thinking, like priority dates (see below), and we explain the step-by-step for specific tools, and we show them how to organize their offices systems and deal with interruptions and IM and etc...., so training is valuable in organizing the whole person.
Mark, AndreasE: ('Wanting to sell something means it's hard') Hmmm. I just think it means they want to eat. Pet Rocks were easy, but someone sold them.... The "5 Steps to Making Money Off of Twitter" program was easy, but someone sold it successfully.
AndreasE, Mike, Avrum: ('Dating tasks has been proven useless, massive overkill,' "sooner rather than later") TRADITIONAL task dating is a waste, but TRO doesn't do that. Instead, TRO uses dates as a prioritization trick, not an actual date.
This isn't obvious, so read closely. Asking yourself "When do I think I MIGHT LIKE to get this done?" creates a "loose goal" date that weighs the Covey urgency and importance dimensions--without having to think about it. These dates are NOT estimated dates, so you don't need to shoot yourself, Mike. It's as easy as the AF "what do I feel like doing now?" BUT you only ask it once per task (3 seconds). "Sooner rather than later" is "maybe next week," so you choose that. You also don't update those dates later. When your lists are ordered by those first guess dates, they become astonishingly stressless. No scanning. Focus at the top of the list all the time.
Also, "At Some Point" or "Someday" is a date. You can easily keep those tasks out of your face until the right time without losing touch with them.
Mark ('wanting to make money on AF, deciding to make it open and free'): By making (R)AF open, keeping it simple, letting others discuss and add to it, I think you ensure its success because the world is intensely virtual-social now--I think it's the survival skill for the information flood because group decisions are right 92% of the time. That means that great ideas + a little uncertainty (which comes partly from simplicity) + openness = participation, which spreads the word ("viral"). If it becomes too proprietary or too precise, it ceases to spread by word of mouth, which hurts monetization.
Avrum, AndreasE: ('All time management systems have to be complicated to make money on them') Based on my last statement, I feel time management systems do not have to be complex, and they spread better if they aren't. However, too much simplicity can leave folks uncertain how to actually implement in THEIR situation (for example, GTD and Covey), and that hurts productivity. TRO isn't complex, but we use concepts that require new thinking, like priority dates (see below), and we explain the step-by-step for specific tools, and we show them how to organize their offices systems and deal with interruptions and IM and etc...., so training is valuable in organizing the whole person.
Mark, AndreasE: ('Wanting to sell something means it's hard') Hmmm. I just think it means they want to eat. Pet Rocks were easy, but someone sold them.... The "5 Steps to Making Money Off of Twitter" program was easy, but someone sold it successfully.
AndreasE, Mike, Avrum: ('Dating tasks has been proven useless, massive overkill,' "sooner rather than later") TRADITIONAL task dating is a waste, but TRO doesn't do that. Instead, TRO uses dates as a prioritization trick, not an actual date.
This isn't obvious, so read closely. Asking yourself "When do I think I MIGHT LIKE to get this done?" creates a "loose goal" date that weighs the Covey urgency and importance dimensions--without having to think about it. These dates are NOT estimated dates, so you don't need to shoot yourself, Mike. It's as easy as the AF "what do I feel like doing now?" BUT you only ask it once per task (3 seconds). "Sooner rather than later" is "maybe next week," so you choose that. You also don't update those dates later. When your lists are ordered by those first guess dates, they become astonishingly stressless. No scanning. Focus at the top of the list all the time.
Also, "At Some Point" or "Someday" is a date. You can easily keep those tasks out of your face until the right time without losing touch with them.
August 29, 2009 at 3:52 |
Kevin Crenshaw
Kevin Crenshaw
Still more replies (great discussion!)...
Avrum: ('Next actions not needed') When a person procrastinates on a project, if they ask "why?" the answer is enlightening. We put it off because: 1) the time is wrong (this ISN'T procrastination, it's smart, and RAF addresses that nicely), 2) we aren't sure what to do next or have the wrong next step in mind, and in the case of the really big next steps 3) we don't have enough time allocated for that action. If you have a big thing and a little thing in front of you and you're pressed for time, which one will you do? For these cases, identifying the (small) next step may help, whether you use RAF or TRO or something else.
Mike: ("stress will be lowered [by time management] ... only if time management is what is causing the stress.") You can do SOMETHING about almost any stressor. The worst pain is suspense. If you 1) ask yourself what you CAN do about the stressor, 2) decide what that next step is towards that end, and 3) schedule that step in a way that 4) you know you actually will do it, and 5) you know that you will keep doing the next and the next steps, the stress drops off immediately, because you know relief is coming. Any approach that satisfies 1-5 would reduce the stress, as TRO does.
Avrum: ("The only question one has to answer vis-a-vis intuition is: What do I feel like doing now?") I believe different personalities respond to different methods. "Maximizers" want to know they're doing the MOST effective thing right now, so they can't be intuitive scanning a big list. They freeze up, worrying if there is something more important somewhere in the list. I'm not sure RAF can address that fear for them.
Avrum: ("placing date dependent tasks into my calendar solves this problem") If you can easily put all your date-dependent tasks in your calendar, you probably don't have a lot of them. Your task list can be an extension of your calendar in an intuitive way.
Avrum: ("Can someone... ANYONE... show me evidence that stress .. is lowered - by using a productivity system?")
Yes. These are live, average real-time statistics from ALL TRO trainees in the aggregate:
http://www.priacta.com/Training/stats.php
Avrum: ('Next actions not needed') When a person procrastinates on a project, if they ask "why?" the answer is enlightening. We put it off because: 1) the time is wrong (this ISN'T procrastination, it's smart, and RAF addresses that nicely), 2) we aren't sure what to do next or have the wrong next step in mind, and in the case of the really big next steps 3) we don't have enough time allocated for that action. If you have a big thing and a little thing in front of you and you're pressed for time, which one will you do? For these cases, identifying the (small) next step may help, whether you use RAF or TRO or something else.
Mike: ("stress will be lowered [by time management] ... only if time management is what is causing the stress.") You can do SOMETHING about almost any stressor. The worst pain is suspense. If you 1) ask yourself what you CAN do about the stressor, 2) decide what that next step is towards that end, and 3) schedule that step in a way that 4) you know you actually will do it, and 5) you know that you will keep doing the next and the next steps, the stress drops off immediately, because you know relief is coming. Any approach that satisfies 1-5 would reduce the stress, as TRO does.
Avrum: ("The only question one has to answer vis-a-vis intuition is: What do I feel like doing now?") I believe different personalities respond to different methods. "Maximizers" want to know they're doing the MOST effective thing right now, so they can't be intuitive scanning a big list. They freeze up, worrying if there is something more important somewhere in the list. I'm not sure RAF can address that fear for them.
Avrum: ("placing date dependent tasks into my calendar solves this problem") If you can easily put all your date-dependent tasks in your calendar, you probably don't have a lot of them. Your task list can be an extension of your calendar in an intuitive way.
Avrum: ("Can someone... ANYONE... show me evidence that stress .. is lowered - by using a productivity system?")
Yes. These are live, average real-time statistics from ALL TRO trainees in the aggregate:
http://www.priacta.com/Training/stats.php
August 29, 2009 at 3:57 |
Kevin Crenshaw
Kevin Crenshaw
Kevin
It appears you've been sold on RAF !lol!
(QUESTION: What does everyone think about offering software that facilitates RAF? (Trog Bar, for example.) Reverse mode in the morning, forward mode when ready, etc. Mark could benefit financially just by mentioning it, no further work on his part...)
If you're making a business proposition you need to ask Mark first(he owns the rights).
Personally speaking I wouldn't buy,sorry.For the reasons already stated in my post.
Jay
It appears you've been sold on RAF !lol!
(QUESTION: What does everyone think about offering software that facilitates RAF? (Trog Bar, for example.) Reverse mode in the morning, forward mode when ready, etc. Mark could benefit financially just by mentioning it, no further work on his part...)
If you're making a business proposition you need to ask Mark first(he owns the rights).
Personally speaking I wouldn't buy,sorry.For the reasons already stated in my post.
Jay
August 29, 2009 at 6:51 |
Jay
Jay
Kevin:
Thanks for the comprehensive answers. I suspect you have thrown fuel onto a blazing fire! :-)
<< The hyperlink on your home page currently points to AF, not RAF. Have you considered making it point to the latest-and-greatest version? >>
I'm really going to throw the cat among the pigeons now, but the reason is that I'm not quite as happy with Revised Autofocus as I thought I would be. I'm finding certain problems with it, which I think other people are finding too.
Don't get me wrong - I think it's better than any other system developed so far (of course I haven't tried yours yet!) - but it's not as perfect as I'd like it to be. That unfortunately means that I've got to keep developing.
The good news is that I'm working on a further development at the moment which so far has had no problems at all (I'm only on Day 3 though!)
On the stress question, I can only speak from my own personal experience but what I have found is that most time management or productivity systems reduce stress initially, but then any drawbacks of the system will sooner or later build up enough countervailing stress to overwhelm the system. My quest has always been for a system which doesn't do that.
Thanks for the comprehensive answers. I suspect you have thrown fuel onto a blazing fire! :-)
<< The hyperlink on your home page currently points to AF, not RAF. Have you considered making it point to the latest-and-greatest version? >>
I'm really going to throw the cat among the pigeons now, but the reason is that I'm not quite as happy with Revised Autofocus as I thought I would be. I'm finding certain problems with it, which I think other people are finding too.
Don't get me wrong - I think it's better than any other system developed so far (of course I haven't tried yours yet!) - but it's not as perfect as I'd like it to be. That unfortunately means that I've got to keep developing.
The good news is that I'm working on a further development at the moment which so far has had no problems at all (I'm only on Day 3 though!)
On the stress question, I can only speak from my own personal experience but what I have found is that most time management or productivity systems reduce stress initially, but then any drawbacks of the system will sooner or later build up enough countervailing stress to overwhelm the system. My quest has always been for a system which doesn't do that.
August 29, 2009 at 8:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<< I'm really going to throw the cat among the pigeons now, but the reason is that I'm not quite as happy with Revised Autofocus as I thought I would be. >>
D'oh!
Everytime I'm nearing completion with a software implementation. ;-)
D'oh!
Everytime I'm nearing completion with a software implementation. ;-)
August 29, 2009 at 8:59 |
Andreas Hofmann
Andreas Hofmann
Andreas:
<< Everytime I'm nearing completion with a software implementation. ;-) >>
It's a good learning experience!
<< Everytime I'm nearing completion with a software implementation. ;-) >>
It's a good learning experience!
August 29, 2009 at 9:02 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Kevin,
I'm curious to find out how your system handles these soft 'might like to get done' dates!
You say these dates don't have to be changed. So how does your system prioritise tasks using these dates? Do you simply sort by these dates? That would make tasks that you don't do go to the top of the list after a while which might not be what you want. Is the date of task entry used to determine priority as well?
Or is this top-secret and should I go buy the training? ;-)
I'm curious to find out how your system handles these soft 'might like to get done' dates!
You say these dates don't have to be changed. So how does your system prioritise tasks using these dates? Do you simply sort by these dates? That would make tasks that you don't do go to the top of the list after a while which might not be what you want. Is the date of task entry used to determine priority as well?
Or is this top-secret and should I go buy the training? ;-)
August 29, 2009 at 10:27 |
Cruisader
Cruisader
Cruisader: (lol) Not top secret. We're considering open forums to discuss enhancements, etc., and even a full outline of the TRO process that can be downloaded free. The online training does a whole lot more than that.
About soft dates and stale tasks: With TRO you essentially end up with three lists: Must Do, May Do, and Someday/Maybe. Tasks automatically separate out into those lists, you don't have to think about it. You look at Must Do daily. You look at May Do at least weekly. You look at Someday/Maybe at least monthly. The May Do list has the soft-date-only (loose goal date) tasks.
When using Trog Bar, it sorts them partly by the soft date, entry date, last-changed date, etc. for the reasons you mention. Stale tasks move down that May Do list over time automatically.
However, if you sort by soft dates only (Outlook or paper system, for example), you're right, the old, undone tasks remain at the top. So, weekly, you look at the top, cross off anything no longer applicable or move to Someday (5 min. max). Not hard.
Note that soft (loose goal) dates can be grouped roughly: this week, next week, this month, next month. That eliminates entering "dates" that can freak people out. In that case, in your 5 min weekly scan you make a second pass to see if anything should be bumped up to the next group.
This is where we're especially scrutinizing AF/RAF right now, to see where Mark's methods might automatically remove stale tasks (or elevate others) in paper May Do lists. With Trog Bar it's a cinch, but with paper it needs human effort. A 5 min weekly review isn't a burden and is actually rejuvenating, but the simpler the better.
About soft dates and stale tasks: With TRO you essentially end up with three lists: Must Do, May Do, and Someday/Maybe. Tasks automatically separate out into those lists, you don't have to think about it. You look at Must Do daily. You look at May Do at least weekly. You look at Someday/Maybe at least monthly. The May Do list has the soft-date-only (loose goal date) tasks.
When using Trog Bar, it sorts them partly by the soft date, entry date, last-changed date, etc. for the reasons you mention. Stale tasks move down that May Do list over time automatically.
However, if you sort by soft dates only (Outlook or paper system, for example), you're right, the old, undone tasks remain at the top. So, weekly, you look at the top, cross off anything no longer applicable or move to Someday (5 min. max). Not hard.
Note that soft (loose goal) dates can be grouped roughly: this week, next week, this month, next month. That eliminates entering "dates" that can freak people out. In that case, in your 5 min weekly scan you make a second pass to see if anything should be bumped up to the next group.
This is where we're especially scrutinizing AF/RAF right now, to see where Mark's methods might automatically remove stale tasks (or elevate others) in paper May Do lists. With Trog Bar it's a cinch, but with paper it needs human effort. A 5 min weekly review isn't a burden and is actually rejuvenating, but the simpler the better.
August 29, 2009 at 18:05 |
Kevin Crenshaw
Kevin Crenshaw
I've found that the more I process a task before I actually do it (prioritise,tag,set deadline,set urgency,urgent vs important etc) the more I am likely to resist doing it!
That's because I am a born procrastinator-until I started using autofocus.
With AF there is a natural "on the fly" moment to moment prioritisaton that takes into account so many myriad factors that removes resistance for me.
I am somewhat skeptical that any software can make those judgements better than your brain can-to do that one would have to spent overhead time inputting factors like energy,time available motivation at the moment of decision plusi think that would probably be beyond most currently available productivity software
AF keeps things simple for me
Jay
That's because I am a born procrastinator-until I started using autofocus.
With AF there is a natural "on the fly" moment to moment prioritisaton that takes into account so many myriad factors that removes resistance for me.
I am somewhat skeptical that any software can make those judgements better than your brain can-to do that one would have to spent overhead time inputting factors like energy,time available motivation at the moment of decision plusi think that would probably be beyond most currently available productivity software
AF keeps things simple for me
Jay
August 29, 2009 at 19:04 |
Jay
Jay
Kevin, many thanks for coming here and contributing so positively to the discussion. It's raising some good ideas and I'd certainly encourage you to try RAF within your company, even while Mark continues development. The concepts of bringing in Forward and Review mode occasionally are very powerful, keeping the all-in-one-place strength of AF but not forcing tasks to be deleted, rather waiting in Review mode for occasional revisiting.
Jonathan
Jonathan
August 29, 2009 at 19:45 |
Jonathan
Jonathan
It's a short review of Autofocus by Kevin Crenshaw, Priacta Head Coach and co-author of The TRO Field Guide. TRO appears to be this company's online TRO time management training ("Total, Relaxed Organization"), which uses elements from GTD and Mark's systems.
They list of some advantages and disadvantages from their perspective, drawing a conclusion that it's easy to learn and most appropriate for those with few and non-critical tasks (is that anybody?!). They then unsurprisingly suggest trying their own system instead....
I think they've scanned the instructions and come to their conclusions without trying it themselves. The extensive feedback on this forum shows that RAF can support the needs to a wide variety of people and handle heavy and time-sensitive workloads.
Best regards,
Jonathan