FV and FVP Forum > AutoFocus 2: The Final Version
Did you describe your approach here? I'm not seeing it. Anyway, the problem with AF2 was that it neglected the older tasks and thus got too hung up by urgency. AF3 solved this but it neglected the middle tasks and didn't have the fluidity of AF2. So AF4 was invented, and it didn't neglect any tasks but it lacked the push to finish. SF3 solved that but was a bit too complicated/slow/pushy.
FV doesn't have any of the above problems, but for some the list grows too unwieldy, and I guess for you and nuntym it doesn't push enough to finish things. Me, I don't quite see it. If you keep the list under control, it's easy enough to have any given task executed every 5th item, or given the freedom to reselect something, every second item.
FV doesn't have any of the above problems, but for some the list grows too unwieldy, and I guess for you and nuntym it doesn't push enough to finish things. Me, I don't quite see it. If you keep the list under control, it's easy enough to have any given task executed every 5th item, or given the freedom to reselect something, every second item.
August 1, 2012 at 14:29 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
@Alan - great summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the AF series.
August 1, 2012 at 16:42 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
+JMJ+
@Michael B.:
Autofocus 2: Final Version? Oh my, but I am not THAT presumptuous :wink:
<<During my system tests I noticed qualities of SuperFocus in Final Version but am still looking for the most effective way to add the "push to finish" mechanism of SuperFocus to a hybrid of Final Version and AutoFocus 2. I've tried re-writing unfinished tasks at the end of the list with a circle and adding those to every chain in a couple of ways but would like to hear how others might approach adding a "push to finish" mechanism to FV, FV/A2, or A2/FV.>>
Have you tried what I posted here? --- http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142#item1908208
@Alan: <<Anyway, the problem with AF2 was that it neglected the older tasks and thus got too hung up by urgency.>>
It does not anymore ;)
<<FV doesn't have any of the above problems, but for some the list grows too unwieldy,>>
AF2 now solves that too.
<<and I guess for you and nuntym it doesn't push enough to finish things.>>
Actually the problem for me in FV is that the tasks in the chains very quickly become irrelevant over time.
<<Me, I don't quite see it.>>
Me too. If the tasks in the chains do not become irrelevant then the chains can actually help to push tasks to the finish.
<<Given the freedom to reselect something, every second item.>>
That actually ruins the whole chain making process for me: I can understand doing this once in a while, but reselecting a new item for almost each chain and in such a fashion that it gets harder and harder to finish a chain? That makes me question the purpose of chain-making.
@Michael B.:
Autofocus 2: Final Version? Oh my, but I am not THAT presumptuous :wink:
<<During my system tests I noticed qualities of SuperFocus in Final Version but am still looking for the most effective way to add the "push to finish" mechanism of SuperFocus to a hybrid of Final Version and AutoFocus 2. I've tried re-writing unfinished tasks at the end of the list with a circle and adding those to every chain in a couple of ways but would like to hear how others might approach adding a "push to finish" mechanism to FV, FV/A2, or A2/FV.>>
Have you tried what I posted here? --- http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142#item1908208
@Alan: <<Anyway, the problem with AF2 was that it neglected the older tasks and thus got too hung up by urgency.>>
It does not anymore ;)
<<FV doesn't have any of the above problems, but for some the list grows too unwieldy,>>
AF2 now solves that too.
<<and I guess for you and nuntym it doesn't push enough to finish things.>>
Actually the problem for me in FV is that the tasks in the chains very quickly become irrelevant over time.
<<Me, I don't quite see it.>>
Me too. If the tasks in the chains do not become irrelevant then the chains can actually help to push tasks to the finish.
<<Given the freedom to reselect something, every second item.>>
That actually ruins the whole chain making process for me: I can understand doing this once in a while, but reselecting a new item for almost each chain and in such a fashion that it gets harder and harder to finish a chain? That makes me question the purpose of chain-making.
August 2, 2012 at 16:33 |
nuntym
nuntym
"for some the list grows too unwieldy,"
"AF2 now solves that too."
How?
"AF2 now solves that too."
How?
August 2, 2012 at 20:39 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
+JMJ+
@Alan: <<How? >>
Sorry for not being clearer. Not FV per se, but AF2 as how I am using it. It is because of
<<3. Delete the oldest task and re-write it at the end of the list (unless that oldest task is already irrelevant, upon which delete it and go to the next oldest task).>>
As I explained in http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#item1908103
<< The tweak of re-writing the oldest, still-relevant items to the end of the list everytime I choose tasks solved this issue. Not only did it bring to fore the oldest and most neglected items in the list, it also helps in trimming down the list. Please note that, from the instructions above, if the oldest task is already irrelevant, it is deleted and then you go to the next oldest task to determine its worthiness to be re-written; that next oldest task can still be deleted, and so on with th rest. If I had done twenty tasks today, then I had rewritten twenty old tasks to the fore, but I could also have deleted some or many tasks too.>>
<<I started almost a week ago with this form of AF2 with a list of 80+ tasks, which is the list I have been using for the past couple of months using various other time management systems I tried. Now, that same list has 36 tasks. I think that should speak by itself. >>
Now it's 39.
@Alan: <<How? >>
Sorry for not being clearer. Not FV per se, but AF2 as how I am using it. It is because of
<<3. Delete the oldest task and re-write it at the end of the list (unless that oldest task is already irrelevant, upon which delete it and go to the next oldest task).>>
As I explained in http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#item1908103
<< The tweak of re-writing the oldest, still-relevant items to the end of the list everytime I choose tasks solved this issue. Not only did it bring to fore the oldest and most neglected items in the list, it also helps in trimming down the list. Please note that, from the instructions above, if the oldest task is already irrelevant, it is deleted and then you go to the next oldest task to determine its worthiness to be re-written; that next oldest task can still be deleted, and so on with th rest. If I had done twenty tasks today, then I had rewritten twenty old tasks to the fore, but I could also have deleted some or many tasks too.>>
<<I started almost a week ago with this form of AF2 with a list of 80+ tasks, which is the list I have been using for the past couple of months using various other time management systems I tried. Now, that same list has 36 tasks. I think that should speak by itself. >>
Now it's 39.
August 3, 2012 at 2:21 |
nuntym
nuntym
@nuntym - it may speak for the ability of the system to self-regulate, or it may speak to a natural equilibrium that you have personally established. I don't see how the system itself would push you toward an equilibrium if (for example) you added 25 tasks every day and deleted 15. The list would just grow longer and longer until it became unworkable. The only sign the system would give you, that something was awry, would be that it would feel more and more unworkable, without a clear indication of WHY. I don't see how moving the oldest task forward wouldn't make much difference.
In contrast, a system like DWM throws away a good sized chunk of unactioned items every day. As a direct result of this mechanism, the list eventually achieves an equilibrium. The total list size stays more-or-less constant, no matter how many new tasks you throw at it.
In contrast, a system like DWM throws away a good sized chunk of unactioned items every day. As a direct result of this mechanism, the list eventually achieves an equilibrium. The total list size stays more-or-less constant, no matter how many new tasks you throw at it.
August 3, 2012 at 5:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
+JMJ+
What makes the difference is that you are re-writing only the oldest /relevant/ items. Because of that requirement, you'd have to individually evaluate the oldest items, which (at least in my experience) really helps in cutting down the size of the list.
The dismissal process of DWM and DWM2, on the other hand, is too artificial, too blunt, and takes too long. It also fosters an ignorance of what the oldest tasks are because of both the evental length of the list and the less drive to work on those older tasks until they are almost a month old. I say that as someone who had used DWM2 for months.
What makes the difference is that you are re-writing only the oldest /relevant/ items. Because of that requirement, you'd have to individually evaluate the oldest items, which (at least in my experience) really helps in cutting down the size of the list.
The dismissal process of DWM and DWM2, on the other hand, is too artificial, too blunt, and takes too long. It also fosters an ignorance of what the oldest tasks are because of both the evental length of the list and the less drive to work on those older tasks until they are almost a month old. I say that as someone who had used DWM2 for months.
August 3, 2012 at 14:47 |
nuntym
nuntym
I wasn't trying to advocate for DWM overall - I agree with the shortcomings you've identified.
I was only pointing out that it DOES have an algorithmic method for regulating the total list size. None of the AF systems have that, and I still don't think your AF2 variant has that, either. It may be able to handle a high volume of tasks quite well! but that's not the same thing as having a built-in mechanism for establishing an equilibrium.
I was only pointing out that it DOES have an algorithmic method for regulating the total list size. None of the AF systems have that, and I still don't think your AF2 variant has that, either. It may be able to handle a high volume of tasks quite well! but that's not the same thing as having a built-in mechanism for establishing an equilibrium.
August 3, 2012 at 22:16 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan:
"Did you describe your approach here?"
... Yes.
"Did you describe your approach here?"
... Yes.
August 6, 2012 at 9:25 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
" I'm not seeing it. "
Michael, I still don't understand what you're doing.
Michael, I still don't understand what you're doing.
August 6, 2012 at 16:37 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
I tried a number of methods:
FV/Reverse A2:
1. Preselect using the question "What makes sense to do before X?".
2. After actioning each item, quickly scan down to the end of the list dotting anything along the way that needs doing before the item ahead of it in the chain.
3. Continue actioning your chain in reverse starting from the last dotted item.
FV with Today Loops:
Standard FV or FV/A2 but each morning adding a small circle in front of any task that "must be done today" and only making chains out of circled items until they are all done, filling in the circle to dot the task and treating the oldest looped task as the root.
FV/A1 with Today Fence (Heads-Up Display of must do today tasks):
1. At the start of each day draw a line at the end of your list.
2. Starting from the beginning of your list, cross out any tasks that must be done today — or else serious consequences will occur — and re-write them below the line.
3. Go through your reminder or calendar system writing down anything that *must* be done today on your list.
4. Finally, write down anything else you can think of that must be done today, skip a few page lines, and draw a line at the end of your list.
5. Preselect as normal.
6. Before actioning your chain you must work on at least one fenced-off today task first. Choose the one that feels most ready to do, leave it unmarked, and do a little work on it.
7. If a fenced-off task is unfinished, leave it unmarked. If a task is completed cross it out.
8. Continue circulating through the "today yard" working on any tasks that feel ready to be done.
9. When no more fenced-off tasks feel ready to be done, begin actioning your chain.
10. When you are done working on your chain return to rule 5.
No fenced-off items leave the yard unless you have determined they are no longer critical for today or they are complete, in which case they are crossed-out and re-written at the end of your list or left to your reminder system until next time.
FV with SF push-to-completion:
1. Preselect as normal.
2. After actioning an item, if unfinished, cross-out and re-write at the end of your list with a small circle in front of it.
3. Continue actioning your chain.
4. If any urgent items come in, add them to the end of your list, dot them, and do them next or now. If any unfinished tasks become urgent, fill in the circle so as to dot it and do it next or now.
5. When you are done working your chain, return to rule 1, and when you come upon any tasks with small circles in front, you must fill in the circles to dot the tasks, and work your chain in reverse order starting from the last dotted task when done preselecting.
I tried a number of methods:
FV/Reverse A2:
1. Preselect using the question "What makes sense to do before X?".
2. After actioning each item, quickly scan down to the end of the list dotting anything along the way that needs doing before the item ahead of it in the chain.
3. Continue actioning your chain in reverse starting from the last dotted item.
FV with Today Loops:
Standard FV or FV/A2 but each morning adding a small circle in front of any task that "must be done today" and only making chains out of circled items until they are all done, filling in the circle to dot the task and treating the oldest looped task as the root.
FV/A1 with Today Fence (Heads-Up Display of must do today tasks):
1. At the start of each day draw a line at the end of your list.
2. Starting from the beginning of your list, cross out any tasks that must be done today — or else serious consequences will occur — and re-write them below the line.
3. Go through your reminder or calendar system writing down anything that *must* be done today on your list.
4. Finally, write down anything else you can think of that must be done today, skip a few page lines, and draw a line at the end of your list.
5. Preselect as normal.
6. Before actioning your chain you must work on at least one fenced-off today task first. Choose the one that feels most ready to do, leave it unmarked, and do a little work on it.
7. If a fenced-off task is unfinished, leave it unmarked. If a task is completed cross it out.
8. Continue circulating through the "today yard" working on any tasks that feel ready to be done.
9. When no more fenced-off tasks feel ready to be done, begin actioning your chain.
10. When you are done working on your chain return to rule 5.
No fenced-off items leave the yard unless you have determined they are no longer critical for today or they are complete, in which case they are crossed-out and re-written at the end of your list or left to your reminder system until next time.
FV with SF push-to-completion:
1. Preselect as normal.
2. After actioning an item, if unfinished, cross-out and re-write at the end of your list with a small circle in front of it.
3. Continue actioning your chain.
4. If any urgent items come in, add them to the end of your list, dot them, and do them next or now. If any unfinished tasks become urgent, fill in the circle so as to dot it and do it next or now.
5. When you are done working your chain, return to rule 1, and when you come upon any tasks with small circles in front, you must fill in the circles to dot the tasks, and work your chain in reverse order starting from the last dotted task when done preselecting.
August 11, 2012 at 8:38 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Which worked?
August 12, 2012 at 4:10 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I too would be interested in knowing Michael which system you ended up using.
August 16, 2012 at 21:00 |
Peter D.
Peter D.
Alan and Peter:
I'm testing new ideas, but out of the above, I would try the "today box" idea as it was the most consistently useful. I'm considering the following ideas I'd like to see in one system:
• Roles-based (ala RPM/OPA/Covey: builder, actor, bookkeeper, friend) but non-contextual (ala GTD: phone, computer, work etc.)
• Outcome-focused (ala RPM/OPA) — not task and activity focused
• Time-based dismissal (ala AutoFocus 2/DWM)
• "Must do today or else tasks" grouped daily (Today Box)
• Urgent tasks grouped as they happen (SuperFocus)
• A "push-to-finish" rule (SuperFocus)
• A display of the top 10% of tasks that provide 90% of the benefit to your life and a rule that pushes you to do those tasks in balance with your urgent ones. (Pareto's Principle tightened-up)
• Very limited use of symbols on the list
• Timer-guided (ala the 40-minute "Results Curve")
• No rapid task-switching or multitasking
• Easily paper-based
• One list
• Quick and easy to do under stress
I've been using SuperFocus and a pocket Moleskine and am now going to test AutoFocus 4 armed with some new lessons learned. SuperFocus is a system I can count on going forward if I get lost, much as some return to AutoFocus.
I'm testing new ideas, but out of the above, I would try the "today box" idea as it was the most consistently useful. I'm considering the following ideas I'd like to see in one system:
• Roles-based (ala RPM/OPA/Covey: builder, actor, bookkeeper, friend) but non-contextual (ala GTD: phone, computer, work etc.)
• Outcome-focused (ala RPM/OPA) — not task and activity focused
• Time-based dismissal (ala AutoFocus 2/DWM)
• "Must do today or else tasks" grouped daily (Today Box)
• Urgent tasks grouped as they happen (SuperFocus)
• A "push-to-finish" rule (SuperFocus)
• A display of the top 10% of tasks that provide 90% of the benefit to your life and a rule that pushes you to do those tasks in balance with your urgent ones. (Pareto's Principle tightened-up)
• Very limited use of symbols on the list
• Timer-guided (ala the 40-minute "Results Curve")
• No rapid task-switching or multitasking
• Easily paper-based
• One list
• Quick and easy to do under stress
I've been using SuperFocus and a pocket Moleskine and am now going to test AutoFocus 4 armed with some new lessons learned. SuperFocus is a system I can count on going forward if I get lost, much as some return to AutoFocus.
August 18, 2012 at 6:19 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
There are so many types of people for a system to please:
Those who want a scheduled day on a calendar.
Those who want a system with maximum flexibility, little structure, and no push to do anything.
Those who want some structure but no push to do anything.
Those who want more structure with a slight push to do something which they can override.
Those who want maximum structure and a solid push to do something which they can't override.
Those who want maximum structure, a solid push to do something which they can't override, and a push to complete that which they have started.
Those who want a scheduled day on a calendar.
Those who want a system with maximum flexibility, little structure, and no push to do anything.
Those who want some structure but no push to do anything.
Those who want more structure with a slight push to do something which they can override.
Those who want maximum structure and a solid push to do something which they can't override.
Those who want maximum structure, a solid push to do something which they can't override, and a push to complete that which they have started.
August 18, 2012 at 6:41 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
+JMJ+
What was wrong with SuperFocus that you had to abandon it, if it was working for you so well?
What was wrong with SuperFocus that you had to abandon it, if it was working for you so well?
August 18, 2012 at 11:25 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
"What was wrong with SuperFocus that you had to abandon it, if it was working for you so well?"
... I'm experimenting. I was learning how it would handle a project-heavy couple of weeks and am now learning new lessons from other systems before creating a unique patchwork.
I want a focus on roles and outcomes so I know why I'm doing what I'm doing and can see that I'm moving forward in a balanced and measurable way and yet not let any maintenance tasks fall through the cracks.
"What was wrong with SuperFocus that you had to abandon it, if it was working for you so well?"
... I'm experimenting. I was learning how it would handle a project-heavy couple of weeks and am now learning new lessons from other systems before creating a unique patchwork.
I want a focus on roles and outcomes so I know why I'm doing what I'm doing and can see that I'm moving forward in a balanced and measurable way and yet not let any maintenance tasks fall through the cracks.
August 18, 2012 at 15:21 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
AF4R Areas:
One experiment has been to combine Autofocus 4 Revised with the various hats one wears in life. If you're after more life balance and some visual feedback from your lists, segmented lists act as a form of bar chart showing the activity in each area of your life. Instead of using three pages, new and old tasks on one, recurring on another, and unfinished on a third, you dedicate a page to each major hat you wear in life and rename the recurring page to "general recurring" for all your general maintenance tasks without a specific area of life they belong under.
FV Areas:
1. Write down the major hats you wear in life at the end of your list along with a tiny circle in front of each.
2. To preselect a list of things to do, first dot the oldest unactioned "hat" on your list (if you *can't* dot it because of conditions, simply dot the next oldest unactioned "hat") and prefix the standard FV question as follows: "As a (builder/writer/friend/etc.) what do I want to do before X?", ignoring any task not addressed by the question. This skimming process will be very quick.
3. Action your ladder as per FV instructions, ignoring the dotted "hat".
4. When your ladder has been actioned completely, cross out the "hat" you wore and rewrite it at the end of your list with a tiny circle.
5. Return to rule 2.
One experiment has been to combine Autofocus 4 Revised with the various hats one wears in life. If you're after more life balance and some visual feedback from your lists, segmented lists act as a form of bar chart showing the activity in each area of your life. Instead of using three pages, new and old tasks on one, recurring on another, and unfinished on a third, you dedicate a page to each major hat you wear in life and rename the recurring page to "general recurring" for all your general maintenance tasks without a specific area of life they belong under.
FV Areas:
1. Write down the major hats you wear in life at the end of your list along with a tiny circle in front of each.
2. To preselect a list of things to do, first dot the oldest unactioned "hat" on your list (if you *can't* dot it because of conditions, simply dot the next oldest unactioned "hat") and prefix the standard FV question as follows: "As a (builder/writer/friend/etc.) what do I want to do before X?", ignoring any task not addressed by the question. This skimming process will be very quick.
3. Action your ladder as per FV instructions, ignoring the dotted "hat".
4. When your ladder has been actioned completely, cross out the "hat" you wore and rewrite it at the end of your list with a tiny circle.
5. Return to rule 2.
August 21, 2012 at 18:56 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B.
I'm actually using your version of Must Do, Should Do, Could Do that you posted on the thread with that name. Please note, that in the following method, it would be helpful to mark all unfinished tasks with a small circle in the margin - though it is not expressly necessary to do so.
1. Begin the FV preselect list as usual, dotting the root task.
2. Consider the root task's level of "Urgency" as one of the following:
Could Begin - Untouched Tasks that can wait until later if needed
Ought to Finish - Unfinished Tasks that you don't want to fizzle and die
Shouldn't Drop - Anything (finished or unfinished, reoccuring or not) that you don't want to lag behind
Must Handle - Anything that must be actioned today, and / or finished in short order
3. To build the preselect list from there, scan down the list and dot the next task that "makes sense to do before x" that has a higher degree of urgency (using the above groups) than the previous task.
4. By this method I preselect, at most, 1 Task from each level of urgency with the exception of Must Handle - I allow myself to preselect up to 2 of those tasks per chain. This way I deal with the most urgent more frequently, and thereby driving myself to finish them sooner. I also generally consider a task to have been actioned when I have completed the next action to move that task forward. But but with the Must Handle tasks, I consider the next two actions to be the bare minimum. This last part is more of a mental discipline than a systemic rule.
5. I combine this with AndreasE's proposed dismissal process for FV in his post "Reintroducing Dismissing Into FV" (Instead of dotting the first open task as your root, dot the fist item that stands out AF1 style on the first page. If you pass over a whole page without dotting a root, dismiss the whole page, and look for the root on the next page. Review dismissed pages AF1 style, with a reoccuring "Review Dismissed" task)
I find that the above method pushes me to finish what I started (by giving some degree of priority to unfinished), even more so if what I started is also urgent in some way. Additionally, it keeps my preselect lists short (max of 5 tasks in a single chain), and the dismissal helps keep my list itself short. This shorter overall list and shorter preselect list ensures easier, and more frequent preselections overall, allowing me to be much more flexible.
I like your hat wearing idea, and I may incorporate it into the above method.
I'm actually using your version of Must Do, Should Do, Could Do that you posted on the thread with that name. Please note, that in the following method, it would be helpful to mark all unfinished tasks with a small circle in the margin - though it is not expressly necessary to do so.
1. Begin the FV preselect list as usual, dotting the root task.
2. Consider the root task's level of "Urgency" as one of the following:
Could Begin - Untouched Tasks that can wait until later if needed
Ought to Finish - Unfinished Tasks that you don't want to fizzle and die
Shouldn't Drop - Anything (finished or unfinished, reoccuring or not) that you don't want to lag behind
Must Handle - Anything that must be actioned today, and / or finished in short order
3. To build the preselect list from there, scan down the list and dot the next task that "makes sense to do before x" that has a higher degree of urgency (using the above groups) than the previous task.
4. By this method I preselect, at most, 1 Task from each level of urgency with the exception of Must Handle - I allow myself to preselect up to 2 of those tasks per chain. This way I deal with the most urgent more frequently, and thereby driving myself to finish them sooner. I also generally consider a task to have been actioned when I have completed the next action to move that task forward. But but with the Must Handle tasks, I consider the next two actions to be the bare minimum. This last part is more of a mental discipline than a systemic rule.
5. I combine this with AndreasE's proposed dismissal process for FV in his post "Reintroducing Dismissing Into FV" (Instead of dotting the first open task as your root, dot the fist item that stands out AF1 style on the first page. If you pass over a whole page without dotting a root, dismiss the whole page, and look for the root on the next page. Review dismissed pages AF1 style, with a reoccuring "Review Dismissed" task)
I find that the above method pushes me to finish what I started (by giving some degree of priority to unfinished), even more so if what I started is also urgent in some way. Additionally, it keeps my preselect lists short (max of 5 tasks in a single chain), and the dismissal helps keep my list itself short. This shorter overall list and shorter preselect list ensures easier, and more frequent preselections overall, allowing me to be much more flexible.
I like your hat wearing idea, and I may incorporate it into the above method.
October 19, 2012 at 12:21 |
Miracle
Miracle
My adaptation is reversed in approach, in that I start with a base of FV and add A2 features (FV/A2) whereas nuntym's starts with an A2 base and adds FV features (A2/FV) like FV's non-dismissal and focus on oldest un-actioned tasks. It sounds very promising and I'll be trying it as my main system today. Here's nuntym's A2 adaptation:
1. Make a list of tasks.
2. Write any new task at the end of the list.
3. Delete the oldest task and re-write it at the end of the list (unless that oldest task is already irrelevant, upon which delete it and go to the next oldest task).
4. Starting from the end of the list, choose the task that "stands out" then do it.
5. Upon doing what needs to be done on the item, delete it. If needed, re-write at the end
6. Go back to number 2.
Further details here: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142
After I made the following post: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1882977 asking what systems forum members would use (aside from A1 and FV) I set about testing all of Mark's systems and some hybrids, along with various FV questions in a grid against a known set of tasks to see what strengths each had and which one created the best sequence of actioned tasks.
The winners were:
#1 FV with a quasi-A2 metronome effect starting from the next chain item to be actioned and heading backwards to the end of the list dotting items that need doing before it and if none are selected swinging back up to continue actioning the chain; asking "What makes sense to do before X? (courtesy of Cricket); adding a small circle in front of any task in the morning that "must be done today" and then only making chains out of circled items until they are all done, filling in the circle to dot the task and treating the oldest "circled" task as the root (Mark has mentioned before that "must be done today" tasks should be actioned after "drop everything and do now" tasks and before "everything else" tasks.); and finally, limiting the time frame of a chain.
#2 FV (asking "What makes sense to do before X?)
#3 A2
I found I liked using A2 the best and that FV was the most balanced of Mark's systems (a balance between urgency, importance, easiness, difficulty, and resistance) but lacks a push to finish unfinished tasks, a visual cue and push to complete of "must be done today" tasks, the ability to spot tasks that are suddenly urgent but are not new while working a chain, the increasing irrelevancy of a chain as time passes, and the inability to easily adjust sequence without re-writes.
Mark described AutoFocus 2 as "...one of the less successful methods, and I don’t think many people use it now." After trying it, seeing its high scores during my tests, and experiencing how simple, fun and effective it is to use I couldn't believe more people weren't using it. It's a beautiful little system.
SuperFocus was the first system of Mark's I tried and is the best system for pushing you to finish tasks and showing you a heads-up display of your urgent tasks. It is the drill-sergeant of time management systems and was revolutionary for me. I'd love to see a SuperFocus 4, perhaps a page-less version.
During my system tests I noticed qualities of SuperFocus in Final Version but am still looking for the most effective way to add the "push to finish" mechanism of SuperFocus to a hybrid of Final Version and AutoFocus 2. I've tried re-writing unfinished tasks at the end of the list with a circle and adding those to every chain in a couple of ways but would like to hear how others might approach adding a "push to finish" mechanism to FV, FV/A2, or A2/FV.