GTD and Autofocus

[Longstreet]

I am intrigued by the new system by Mark Forster called "Autofocus". I have visited his website and have noticed on occasion someone stating that they had been avid users of GTD but now they have left and are using Autofocus.

I am not at all supporting someone leaving GTD, but I am curious about two things:

(1) Is there anyone here who did leave GTD and embraced Autfocus, but now have come back to GTD?
(2) What are the thoughts of people here about Autofocus? I realize there was a thread some time ago about this, but I am wondering what people think now?

Like I said...I am just curious...

-Longstreet

[mcogilvie]

(2) What are the thoughts of people here about Autofocus? I realize there was a thread some time ago about this, but I am wondering what people think now?


Hi Longstreet,

Because of your earlier post, I looked at it, and figured out how to implement a variant in both Omnifocus and Toodledo. Autofocus seems to me to be a technique for processing lists using a block FIFO algorithm, i.e, first in first out in page-size chunks, with a dash of structured procrastination. Reading about it caused me to start using start dates in Toodledo, which has been very useful. I set Toodledo so that new items start today by default, and I don't have to think about it. This has been helpful for both next actions and projects in terms of motivation and planning. I have found some other benefits. When I am done with a project for the day, I can set the next action start date to tomorrow, and get on with other tasks. This is how I often prefer to work on research projects. Also, use of a start date gives me an effective tickler system. In summary, I'm not using it, but found something that is working very well for me.

[TesTeq]

Autofocus seems to me to be a technique for processing lists using a block FIFO algorithm, i.e, first in first out in page-size chunks, with a dash of structured procrastination.

I agree. It can be used as one of the GTD implementation techniques on the Runway. Autofocus lacks the "thinking" phase - you just put unprocessed stuff on your list. On the other hand it can be useful for managing clarified Next Actions.

[gtderik]

Although I have gleaned MANY fantastic ideas from Mark, I still always come back to GTD. For example, I used to put my projects in a Task Diary (Do It Tomorrow) which was good at batching, but didnt give me the proper filtering in the DO action category.

In the same way Autofocus seems like it would benefit people with very little to organize, and very few contexts. What GTD provides, and what AF and DIT lack, in my experience, are the quick shortcuts to action. With GTD, all of the thinking has been done for you, and you have quick contexts from which to narrow down to. I have a hard time believing, although entirely possible for some, that if you were waiting for a meeting you would be able to pull all of the phone calls from your AutoFocus pages quickly and efficiently.

It seems to me, that it would be MORE work to put items on one AF list like this. There are also elements to the GTD model that I love: The natural planning and the horizon models that are of value to me.

[ludlow]

Autofocus doesn't lack a thinking phase; it just folds the thinking phase into the texture of the day, instead of doing it all upfront. Likewise, GTD doesn't do any thinking for you - it just groups a larger proportion of the thinking into one chunk that you do all at once (during review, or whatever).

I think the key difference between the kinds of people who will benefit from one system or the other is not how much stuff they have to organize in their lives. It's how interruption-based their lives are, and how much discretionary time they have. If you're always grabbing five minutes here and there between meetings, GTD is probably preferable. If you're sitting at home at a desk, writing for long stretches of time, Autofocus will far better address the key problem you're likely to face, which is not the smallness of your time window, but psychological resistance. For me - in the latter category - there's little value in doing all that next-action thinking upfront because, it turns out, just having clarity about the next action is NOT sufficient to overcome resistance.

[abhay]

Autofocus doesn't lack a thinking phase; it just folds the thinking phase into the texture of the day, instead of doing it all upfront. Likewise, GTD doesn't do any thinking for you - it just groups a larger proportion of the thinking into one chunk that you do all at once (during review, or whatever).

I think the key difference between the kinds of people who will benefit from one system or the other is not how much stuff they have to organize in their lives. It's how interruption-based their lives are, and how much discretionary time they have. If you're always grabbing five minutes here and there between meetings, GTD is probably preferable. If you're sitting at home at a desk, writing for long stretches of time, Autofocus will far better address the key problem you're likely to face, which is not the smallness of your time window, but psychological resistance. For me - in the latter category - there's little value in doing all that next-action thinking upfront because, it turns out, just having clarity about the next action is NOT sufficient to overcome resistance.

My work is of the latter type that you refer to (though I work in an office and not entirely interrupt free), and in my experience, resistance is best attacked directly. Two things that have really helped me attacking resistance are (1) outcome focusing (page 67-69 of the GTD book, the "Making Change Stick" audio on GTDconnect) and (2) freedom from perfectionism: permission to myself not being perfect, starting lousy, and stopping when things are good enough for their purpose.

In my experience, processing stuff up to the next actions level is not only for using those tiny windows of time. The decision making that goes into the processing takes a lot of energy, or at least a different kind of mindset, and most of the "doing time" can be spent on medium-energy-widget-cranking activity. Many times while working, I leave the points where I get stuck-up as notes to myself since I know that I am going to come back to them soon. This is yet another aspect of attacking resistance.

Regards,
Abhay

[abhay]

On a second thought, it's not about energy; it's about the kind of mindset. When doing, one would like to be focused on the single thing that is being done (aka next action). If while modifying section X of a document one realizes that section Y needs to be changed accordingly, that's a bit of defocus from section X, although needed. If all one does is writes a note regarding Y and continues working on X, then the distraction is minimal and has done its job. If one follows the rabbit trail, then the possibilities are likely to explode soon, and the distraction is really dangerous.

To summarize, I would like to say that completing next actions is vertical mindset, and processing is horizontal. Mixing the two mindsets can create chaos, and not everybody can handle that, at least not me:) This is why I can never think of switching away from GTD!

Regards,
Abhay

[TesTeq]

For me - in the latter category - there's little value in doing all that next-action thinking upfront because, it turns out, just having clarity about the next action is NOT sufficient to overcome resistance.

From my experience: People who use traditional to-do lists and AutoFocus do not think enough about their stuff so the unclarified stuff goes to their lists. And this creates resistance.

[Shoshana]

From my experience: People who use traditional to-do lists and AutoFocus do not think enough about their stuff so the unclarified stuff goes to their lists. And this creates resistance.

I heard about this thread and thought I'd post my observation on using GTD vs Autofocus.

I went from 0 systems to Covey, and stayed with Covey, until '02. I adopted GTD in '02 and used a hybrid Covey/GTD until this year. I spent so much time tweaking GTD (contexts never worked for me), that my system evolved into something else entirely. And now I use Autofocus. The system, on almost every level, is brilliant... FOR ME. The #1 advantage of Autofocus - over every other system - is the recognition that intuition is crucial to doing quality things. All the other aspects of Autofocus are helpful, but the intuition element is key.

Finally, the OCD'ish elements of GTD were a tad disconcerting. I appreciate that this has more to do with the memers than the system, but the minutiae of GTD seemed to encourage this behavior.

[mcogilvie]

All the other aspects of Autofocus are helpful, but the intuition element is key.

Finally, the OCD'ish elements of GTD were a tad disconcerting. I appreciate that this has more to do with the memers than the system, but the minutiae of GTD seemed to encourage this behavior.

GTD may seem like OCD, but it's not. While OCD may manifest as compulsive tidiness, it also appears as a compulsion to buy, and to hoard. I recently realized that I needed to get much better about maintaining pristine systems so that I have the time and energy to support people I care about, including my parents. One of their big issues is their house, which is literally filled with stuff. Some of it has not been dealt with for decades, and it has a big impact on their quality of life. So I am particularly aware now of the aspects of GTD that Autofocus does not address.

[Shoshana]

GTD may seem like OCD, but it's not.

No tool is DSM enabling in and of itself. But some tools are more suited to (or attract) certain types of personalities. I have found that GTD, with all of it's rules and tools can be used as compensation factor.

Regardless, it didn't work for me. Wishing you the best with whatever system provides a semblance of control and motivation.

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

"Mind Like Root Beer Float" I love it ;-)



Autofocus seems to me to be a technique for processing lists using a block FIFO algorithm, i.e, first in first out in page-size chunks,

Not so much, really. It is "first in", but not "first out". You start at the beginning of the first page but only need do one task on that page before moving on to the next page. (So unless you view "processing" as the viewing of the items on the list before picking one, most often you will skip over a number of items before "processing" an item.) After you get to the last page, you start over. So in that respect it is more like a "circular linked list". Some people have tweaked the original list processing rules and work the list in reverse order, start at the last page every day, do all kinds of things that work for them. It does divide the list into page sized chunks, but it also divides the page into item sized chunks, if you want to go down further with the analogy. ;-)



... with a dash of structured procrastination.

I'm not sure why you say that. There is nothing in the rules regarding procrastination. The main processing rule is that you scan the page looking for an item that "stands out" as "being ready" to be worked on. That "standing out" can be for any reason, and "being ready" also does not imply procrastination. It may be that you did not have the resources you needed so did not do it before". But that said, many who love the system love it because it does help them with their so called "resistance" to doing the hard things.

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

From my experience: People who use traditional to-do lists and AutoFocus do not think enough about their stuff so the unclarified stuff goes to their lists. And this creates resistance.

Not true at all. Speaking for myself, I spend a lot of time planning what I'm going to do. In one respect, my AF list is much like what is called in GtD parlance a universal capture device. Everything first goes onto my AF list. Then I "process" the list ... I follow the rules to process each item. When I get to an item the "processing" might be any of the following:

- DO the item
- Analyze the item and perhaps generate other items I need to do first
- Decide that I will never do the item
- Come back to the item later and review it again

As to "unclarified", it is just exactly as unclarified as what is on those little slips of paper that DA advises followers of the GtD system to dump into their in boxes for later processing.

Perhaps you mean that some of the items left on the list might not be broken down into minuscule detail. Yes, that is quite true. AF takes whatever you throw at it. I will variously put small chunk items like "Buy 2x4s" on the list, or projects such as "build deck". One of the powerful things about AF is that it does not require you to think in any way specified by someone else. For some things I need to break it down ... for others I know very well what needs to be done next on a project so all I need to be reminded of is that I need to work on the project.

Someone mentioned OCD in this context. I don't see planning as symptomatic of OCD ... unless one has to plan what one does not really need to plan. So when I am ready to go out and work on the deck, I grab my drill gun and head on out. I'm confident that I can manage it without a line item for every screw ;-)

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

I heard about this thread and thought I'd post my observation on using GTD vs Autofocus.

I went from 0 systems to Covey, and stayed with Covey, until '02. I adopted GTD in '02 and used a hybrid Covey/GTD until this year. I spent so much time tweaking GTD (contexts never worked for me), that my system evolved into something else entirely. And now I use Autofocus. The system, on almost every level, is brilliant... FOR ME. The #1 advantage of Autofocus - over every other system - is the recognition that intuition is crucial to doing quality things. All the other aspects of Autofocus are helpful, but the intuition element is key.

Finally, the OCD'ish elements of GTD were a tad disconcerting. I appreciate that this has more to do with the memers than the system, but the minutiae of GTD seemed to encourage this behavior.

I have a similar background in this regard. I started some (oh 30 odd years ago) with just a calendar in my pocket. It was a small ring punch book called a "Seven Star Diary", IIRC. It had all kinds of neat pages for different kinds of things, but basically it was a "page a day" calendar with pages for a TO DO list and reference material.

Later, I went into the computer industry and the "in thing" was to have rubber bands on your wrists and Hollerith cards in your shirt pocket ... Oh, and colored pens ... lots and lots of colored pens) So I put a simple TO DO list on a Hollerith cards and marked priority with a colored pen ... or sometimes used colored cards ... Red for high priority, etc.

My first attempt at a really structured system was "How to Get More Control of Your Time and Your Life" by Alan Lakein. I highly recommend that book.

Basically the system was to do a massive goal planning session then break those goals into actionable tasks that could be done in the next "period" then review your progress. (Much like the GtD review, with some serious life planning attached.) The actionable tasks were prioritized with an A,B,C 1,2,3 system.

Some years later, I ran across Stephen Covey and picked up his Quadrant system (actually boosted from Eisenhower). I dropped the use of that because it was the beginning of making time management systems into huge OCD centric fiddly projects. I did keep the general notion of those quadrants because it made tons of sense, but it was a lousy way to prioritize in practice. (So now I intuitively note if something is Q2 and if so, I bump up the priority.)

I read many other books and got many other great ideas (a "grass catcher" list; a bi-weekly agenda; 43-files tickler system; keeping a chron file; etc.) All very good ideas which found their places.

I came across "Getting Things Done" a couple of years ago and was blown away by some VERY good ideas. The best were:

- Have a trusted system
- Keep a someday/maybe file
- Group tasks by context

Off I went to implement. The problem was that I spent more time managing the system than I did managing my life! The trusted system idea survived as it can be implemented in any way. The someday/maybe idea will always be around ... it is brilliant! But contexts ... what a friggen' nightmare. How many contexts? What is a context? What if the same thing is in multiple contexts? Do contexts overlap? OY! I went from one context to dozens and back down to one. My context is my life! That is it! :twisted:

I heard about Mark Forester but had not gotten around to reading his books when he "published" AutoFocus on the web. In two minutes I could see that it was the answer for me. Whereas "context" was one of those things that seemed logical but would never in a million years actually work for me, the simplicity of AF shined like a beacon. How utterly simple. Keep one list, put things on it, start at the beginning, work on one item, cross if off (and add it back if not completed), throw out items you don't get around to doing ... lather, rinse, repeat. No OCD :mrgreen:

Of course, being a computer guy I had to tweak and fuss with it. In the end, I have backed out almost all of the tweaks I tried because the basic idea that your intuition knows what you should be doing next, is sound.

The things I do outside of the list itself are:

- Keep project planning files
- Keep a calendar
- Keep a tickler list
- Keep a shopping list
- Keep a list of things to talk over with my wife
- Make ad hoc lists for transient things (like an upcoming vacation)

My list is PAPER and I am quite sure that it will always be so. Paper does not crash. Paper does not "boot". Paper does not run out of battery. :) As with the OCDish nature of some of these systems, I find that looking endlessly for the best computer implementation, of what is basically a TO DO list, is counter productive, time wasting, and feeds both the urge for procrastination and the inclination for OCD behavior.

So that was my journey and it exposed me to many ways of doing things. In the end, every one is just a TO DO list with lipstick! :mrgreen:

[Rainer Burmeister]

Or, in brief:
When you use Autofocus you are allowed to not only have actions or next actions on one list, but also tasks, mini-projects, sub-projects, projects, goals, and questions on that same one lists. You decide what to do, think, or feel for each item when you read its reminder.

For some people this is a big relief, for some it's a big confusion.

Choose what suits you. :)

[sdann]

I'm continuously working on that which I intuitively know I should. It comes from the trusted system, my someday/maybes, my horizons of focus, my active projects and my other items on my NA lists. Can one diagnose this intuition as OCD? That would be a very farfetched concept. Or is OCD the result of knowing yourself, your commitments, your dreams very well? I believe that is inaccurate as well.

The OCD you say is in GTD can appear in many other systems. If you overfiddle with one system, what makes you say you won't overfiddle with another. Some like to play around with different systems and varying setups. Not everyone finds what works well right away; most people's lives also change regularly. Why should one stick with one thing? My technology/non-technology setup has barely changed, but the other aspects of my setup have recently as I've been changing my focus/foci. I've added a context and removed another, I've added a role and removed another, all to fit my changing responsibilities. If I wanted to, I could have one context only (which one could define as "no context") as well.

I think labeling OCD to a situation where a person is trying to align their life to their aspirations or even to just meet their obligations, is really incorrect. After all, that is something even non-GTDers do when voraciously reading and trying every productivity concept out there. Even pursuing that interest cannot be labeled OCD.

[TesTeq]

Not true at all.

I wrote: "From my experience: People who use traditional to-do lists and AutoFocus do not think enough about their stuff so the unclarified stuff goes to their lists. And this creates resistance."

Do you really question my experience? I agree that my experience may be unusual but I hope it is real and true. Otherwise I live in Matrix...


Perhaps you mean that some of the items left on the list might not be broken down into minuscule detail. Yes, that is quite true. AF takes whatever you throw at it. I will variously put small chunk items like "Buy 2x4s" on the list, or projects such as "build deck".

For me that's the main weakness of AutoFocus - one list contains everything - clarified actions, projects and unclarified stuff. You cannot "crank the widgets" using such list. Instead of doing you are processing and doing at the same time.


One of the powerful things about AF is that it does not require you to think in any way specified by someone else.

Really? I think that AutoFocus forces you to think like Mark Forster (creator of AutoFocus). I prefer to think like David Allen.

[Rainer Burmeister]

Of course GTD is not OCD. But the way some people use GTD sometimes resembles OCD.

[Rainer Burmeister]

I think that AutoFocus forces you to think like Mark Forster (creator of AutoFocus). I prefer to think like David Allen.
That's a great point you are raising here, TesTeq.

Do I prefer to think like somebody else? No, not at all.
But I can learn from someone else's experience and take what is useful for me.

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

I'm continuously working on that which I intuitively know I should. It comes from the trusted system, my someday/maybes, my horizons of focus, my active projects and my other items on my NA lists. Can one diagnose this intuition as OCD? That would be a very farfetched concept. Or is OCD the result of knowing yourself, your commitments, your dreams very well? I believe that is inaccurate as well.

I agree. OCD has a particular meaning and it can be applied to such things as a person fiddling with a time management system in only the very loosest (is that a word?) way. It is used here more as an analogy and an observation about the pitfalls of some things.


The OCD you say is in GTD can appear in many other systems. If you overfiddle with one system, what makes you say you won't overfiddle with another.

Absolutely. I almost immediately fell into trying to "tweak" the AF system, as I mentioned. I guess my point might have been better expressed had I said something like: Systems that have too many moving parts tend to set a snare for those of us who have attributes of personality which can lead us to the deep pit of endless procrastination. ;-) You are right, though. It is about the person, not the system. OTOH, if I have an allergy to bees, I'd be well advised to stay out of the garden in Spring.

[Rainer Burmeister]

Autofocus might be an alternative for people who have problems with GTD's contexts.

Simply prune your GTD projects list and your contexts lists down to what is your current work, and put your clippings on a someday list. Then take all items that are left on your GTD projects list and your contexts lists and put them all into one list. Then apply the Autofocus instructions.

Just give it a try.

[moises]

In his "GTD Fast" audio program DA would say that he only thinks once a week (when he's doing his Weekly Review). He would colorfully describe his work as "cranking widgets" or working off his "punch list," reinforcing the implication that thought was required to enter the NA into the trusted system, but not when doing.

My personal experience has been that I cannot work from my trusted system by cranking widgets.

First, I have found that how I define a NA--how I define the very next physical action--is highly variable. If there is a project that I am resisting mightily, I might define the NA very narrowly: "take the PDQ report out of the folder." If I am feeling on top of the world, I might define it quite broadly: "forecast UVW requirements for next 6 months." Note that this last NA is not, strictly speaking, a well-formed NA; it doesn't define a physical action. But it's perfectly OK if I have forecasted such requirements many times before and I know exactly what that means.

So, my trusted system was never a punch list. The instructions that I give to myself vary depending on the very factors that David outlines: my energy level, the amount of time available, etc.

Second, I have found that the "NA as bookmark" metaphor much more useful. On this model, we do not treat our trusted system as a collection of every action that we are going to do. No project plan includes every action either.

Most projects do not require detailed project plans. And those projects that do require such plans, tend to have subprojects as milestones, not physical actions.

The bookmark paradigm states that the NA is a written statement of what we can do to get started. But it does not tell us when to finish. When I use a real bookmark in a real book, the bookmark tells me, "Start reading on page 46." The GTD NA tells me "Start by creating a UVW requirements spreadsheet."

When I first heard DA talk about cranking widgets I was thrilled. But over the next months, I got frustrated, since I never was able to achieve that thinking-once-a-week state of mind-like-water nirvana.

Then I realized, I am not a punch card reader. A single action can be described in infinite ways. The same person can describe the same action many different ways, depending on her mental state, which fluctuates constantly. So there can be no complete list of all the actions I will do in the next 7 days. There can be a list of bookmarks, but how I interpret them when I choose to act on them will differ from how I interpreted them when I wrote them. And, quite frequently, I continue working on these bookmarked items long after the action bookmarked is completed.

Once I realized that GTD was not about cranking widgets, I was able to gain some peace. I abandoned the goal of not thinking, and embraced the feeling of flow I get when I am making it up as I go along.

[mcogilvie]

I'm not sure why you say that [Autofocus involves structured procrastination]. There is nothing in the rules regarding procrastination. The main processing rule is that you scan the page looking for an item that "stands out" as "being ready" to be worked on. That "standing out" can be for any reason, and "being ready" also does not imply procrastination. It may be that you did not have the resources you needed so did not do it before". But that said, many who love the system love it because it does help them with their so called "resistance" to doing the hard things.

See http://www.structuredprocrastination.com for an essay written by John Perry, a professor of philosophy at Stanford. What you describe is very similar to structured procrastination, where tasks get done because you would rather do them than attack another, less appealing task. Autofocus says "I have to do at least one of these tasks (or drop the page). Which one would I rather do?" You may be assuming that procrastination is bad, but Perry argues that it can be used productively.

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

I wrote: "From my experience: People who use traditional to-do lists and AutoFocus do not think enough about their stuff so the unclarified stuff goes to their lists. And this creates resistance."

Do you really question my experience? I agree that my experience may be unusual but I hope it is real and true. Otherwise I live in Matrix...

In this case I do. You have generalized to everyone using TO DO lists in general and AutoFocus in particular. Even more, you would really need to get inside everyone's head to know that the way that THEY use a TO DO list is that they don't think enough and that things are not clarified enough FOR THEM and creates resistance FOR THEM. I don't see how anyone can have that level information about everyone who uses any version of a TO DO list.

I don't think you live in the Matrix. I respect your experience, but I don't agree that your conclusions apply to everyone like that.


For me that's the main weakness of AutoFocus - one list contains everything - clarified actions, projects and unclarified stuff. You cannot "crank the widgets" using such list. Instead of doing you are processing and doing at the same time.

We disagree on that point, I guess. I don't "crank the widgets" so I'm not sure if an AF list can help or hinder that enterprise. As to your second point, I see doing as processing so yes, they happen at the same time. At least in the AF system. It is simple enough so that "processing" comes down to reading an item on the list to see that it has to be done. One of my problems with GTD was all of the other things that had to be done to "process" before I could actually DO anything. Of course, that is my problem and others might thrive in a system where there is so much processing in advance of doing things. It is just a question of what works best for each person.


Really? I think that AutoFocus forces you to think like Mark Forster (creator of AutoFocus). I prefer to think like David Allen.

Actually, I differ with Mark on an number of issues. I also agree with DA on a number of things. I don't think this is so much about who comes up with ideas as the ideas themselves. I pick and choose among ideas and pick what works for me. I suppose you do as well ... yes?

My goal here is just to clarify and give one perspective ... my own ... the only one I really can give with any accuracy.

[kewms]

For me that's the main weakness of AutoFocus - one list contains everything - clarified actions, projects and unclarified stuff. You cannot "crank the widgets" using such list. Instead of doing you are processing and doing at the same time.

I think the people who use AutoFocus would say that is a strength, not a weakness.

With much of my work, it's very difficult to define "crankable widgets." "Begin writing policy section of Chapter 3" is about as granular as it gets, but that's not really crankable at all. In my experiments with AutoFocus (still ongoing, post coming soon), it's major strength has been in dealing with exactly these kinds of tasks.

Katherine

[sdann]

I agree. OCD has a particular meaning and it can be applied to such things as a person fiddling with a time management system in only the very loosest (is that a word?) way. It is used here more as an analogy and an observation about the pitfalls of some things.



Absolutely. I almost immediately fell into trying to "tweak" the AF system, as I mentioned. I guess my point might have been better expressed had I said something like: Systems that have too many moving parts tend to set a snare for those of us who have attributes of personality which can lead us to the deep pit of endless procrastination. ;-) You are right, though. It is about the person, not the system. OTOH, if I have an allergy to bees, I'd be well advised to stay out of the garden in Spring.


It seems a bit hard to believe that you used OCD as an analogy. It comes accross as too aggressive and is applied too generally to be considered an analogy.

[rossw]

It wasn't Mike who brought up the question of a tendency towards OCD like behaviour. And yes, it is more of a simile than an analogy.

Peace and Love,

Will

[Yoshimi]

I have used AT as part of my GTD system, but it was not a permanent list of everything for me. The way I processed it was as follows;

Everything, every thought action project waiting for etc went on the list

When I came to an item, if I decide it's @waiting for, Prioject, s/m to be diarised etc, I move it to that list (that for me is processing it off the AF list) if it's a genuine next action I process it as usual. Essentially it's my NA and capture method rolled into one.

I also maintain agendas for specific people, but at the moment I don't have that many calls to make, and those I do have to be made from in front of my pc (in fact everything is done in this one location).

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

It wasn't Mike who brought up the question of a tendency towards OCD like behaviour. And yes, it is more of a simile than an analogy.

Hi Will,

Entirely off topic ... why would you consider it more of a simile than an analogy? Just wondering. Perhaps my usage is not as crisp as it ought to be. I suppose I ought to do my own homework on this, but if you have a moment, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[moises]

I have taken the position, for a number of months, that a modus vivendi between GTD and AF is possible and desirable. One can do both.

There is one significant change. My NA list is replaced by my AF list. In my case, I have 2 AF lists: home and work.

My project list, which I created many years back when I started GTD, remains fundamentally unchanged. The calendar, tickler, and inbox likewise are unscathed. I still do a weekly review.

My view is that AF does not alter GTD very much. What AF does is give me rules for doing. So AF has a lot of detail in an area (rules for doing) where GTD did not.

My experience has been that the integration of the AF rules into GTD makes work into a game. This game-like aspect of GTD has increased my motivation manyfold.

GTD got me very organized. I like being organized. Being organized is good. AF got me accomplishing a lot more and procrastinating a lot less. I like getting more done. Accomplishing things is good.

[rossw]

I suspect that this is one of those distinctions that seems blindingly obvious at stupid o'clock and seems a bit fuzzier in the cold light of day. The train of thought was something like:

1. Shoshanna brought up the subject as "the OCD'ish elements of GTD".

2. I read "OCD'ish" as "like OCD"

3. "like" suggests a simile, throwing light on an aspect of a subject by raising similarities with another, vivid and generally understood concept.

An analogy is more than just a figure of speech: it's a form of argument implying that if two things are alike in one way, they are alike in others as well.

Possibly rather a nice point.

In any case, this was clearly a throwaway comment that got argued into something larger than originally intended. I'm sure you would not choose it as either a simile or an analogy, as it is loaded in a number of ways:

1. some of us may struggle with this disorder in our personal lives: you probably don't want to use a serious personal affliction to make a point in a friendly argument

2. most of us on this forum are intensely, personally committed to GTD as a keystone of our lives. Linking this to a serious medical disorder is less than tactful. And it's unlikely to open our minds to a rational and genuine attempt to understand your argument. However much we may dress up our naked screams of protest in the respectable garments of thoughtful debate!

Peace and love,

Will

[gator]

I've combined all my next actions ( @ calls, @ W/F, @ desk ) on one list in my Levenger Circa notebook. I labeled the top with a weekly date range like 5-11-09 / 5-15-09 and scan the list each day and work on what I can. I highlight the completed items in yellow. At the end of the week I do my review then start a new weekly range and rewrite the uncompleted items from last week (which usually isn't many ) and begin a neew list. This keeps me from constantly flipping "context" pages (GTD), but it also keeps me from having too many pages to go flipping through ( Autofocus ) as well.
I keep day specific items on my Blackberry & Outlook Calendar. My "Errands" list is in my "Task Master" program on my Blackberry. Seems to work ok for me!

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

I suspect that this is one of those distinctions that seems blindingly obvious at stupid o'clock and seems a bit fuzzier in the cold light of day.

"Stupid o'clock". I've got to remember that one. I've written things then as well!



The train of thought was something like:

1. Shoshanna brought up the subject as "the OCD'ish elements of GTD".

2. I read "OCD'ish" as "like OCD"

3. "like" suggests a simile, throwing light on an aspect of a subject by raising similarities with another, vivid and generally understood concept.

An analogy is more than just a figure of speech: it's a form of argument implying that if two things are alike in one way, they are alike in others as well.

Possibly rather a nice point.

Yeah, that was where I got stuck. I understand how you differentiate simile and analogy. I just wonder if, after I read more about the distinctions, I will reach the same way of looking at it. In fact, I seldom use the term "simile" and most often use "metaphor" or "analogy". I guess I do see both analogy and metaphor as tools of argument while I think of simile as more a linguistic "device" ... more a tool of art than argument.



In any case, this was clearly a throwaway comment that got argued into something larger than originally intended. I'm sure you would not choose it as either a simile or an analogy, as it is loaded in a number of ways:

1. some of us may struggle with this disorder in our personal lives: you probably don't want to use a serious personal affliction to make a point in a friendly argument

I see your point. I think that some of these psychological terms have devolved from being somewhat scientific to being now pop-psychology and so are used to describe behavior which is only very mildly related to that intended by the original usage. You see this with "dyslexia", which I claim to have because I more than occasionally reverse numbers and letters. However, I would not come near meeting the clinical standard of "dyslexic". Likewise, I have always had behavior and processing "glitches" which are loosely associated with ADD or ADHD. I often use those terms to refer to myself but I am much more highly functioning than those who are clinically diagnosed.

We use the term "depressed" very loosely, as well. There are many such examples. I suppose one could drop that kind of usage and instead list all of the behaviors one is thinking of ... but that would be a bit tedious.

But to clarify again, I don't believe that one has to have OCD in order to use GTD, or even to want to use GTD. I also don't thing GTD causes OCD. I do think that excessive fussing with any system instead of doing what needs to be done is procrastinating and that is a symptom of any number of things ... mostly lack of motivation for the task at hand as well as possibly some attention defect and problems with focus. Those last two are almost part of our culture today!



2. most of us on this forum are intensely, personally committed to GTD as a keystone of our lives. Linking this to a serious medical disorder is less than tactful. And it's unlikely to open our minds to a rational and genuine attempt to understand your argument. However much we may dress up our naked screams of protest in the respectable garments of thoughtful debate

Point taken. My initial reason for responding had to do with something that has been annoying me for some time. It takes the form of:

"I read over some of the description of AutoFocus. (But I could not be bothered to read carefully or completely.) Having done that, I decided not to try it because with that limited information I have decided that it cannot possibly work, for anyone anywhere at anytime. And, not having experience with it nor understanding what it is, I feel in a position to state my expert opinion to all within ear shot."

Now I hope you realize that deliberate hyperbole is intended both to inject some levity and also to point out the effect of some of the comments I've seen (and in no way is a quotation of anyone here or elsewhere). I mean, how exasperating would it feel if someone said:

"GTD? Oh, that is where you make up a bunch of TO DO lists for phone calls and stuff and try to keep an empty inbox. Good grief, I'm having enough trouble with one list, I'd sink if I had a dozen."

OMG, those who really work with the GTD system would have a cow! It is a complete misrepresentation and no one could possibly evaluate if they might benefit from using GTD if that was what they thought GTD was.

I have no argument with anyone saying that any system works or does not work for them. (I have argued in the past that no system works for everyone ... these systems (time management systems) tend to work best for those who think much like the person's who developed them. That is to say, David Allen is probably a very detailed and methodical planner. Those who plan and are detailed and methodical will probably find joy in GTD. Mark Forster describes himself as being more intuitive. So those who are a bit more "loosey goosey" and intuitive will probably find eternal bliss using AF. Then there are those like me for whom no explanation works. ;-)

That said, I feel that if any system is to be discussed (be it GTD, or Covey, or DIT, or AutoFocus, or Lakein, or ...) the system should be described accurately. That is really all I was attempting to accomplish. The title of the thread is "GTD and AutoFocus" and I thought that the description of AutoFocus fell short of providing an accurate basis to compare and contrast it with GTD. AF is a TO DO list, but it is not JUST a TO DO list. That is so because of the rules used to process the items on it. They are not processed sequentially until completed. If one follows the rules of AF, the simple TO DO list works differently than it used to. Without that understanding one is evaluating a straw man. I'm all for criticizing any system ... and I have criticized them all ... I just think that one gains something when one criticizes the actual system, rather than a misunderstood version of it. I think it is good that people who love GTD are evaluating what AF might have to offer. If it offers something great, if not, that is great too. It just might be hard to make that determination if the actual system is not presented.

I might also add that I don't see any point in arguing that someone happy with one system is wrong and needs to switch to a different system. Any system is better than no system, and a system which meshes with your way of thinking is better than one which does not.

[mcogilvie]

Getting back to autofocus... I remembered a post on 43 folders, actually more of a link to
http://www.murtworld.com/2005/04/revolving-workflow-strategies.php ,
with a summary of strategies for daily workflow:

alternate projects
big chunks of time on certain projects
complete as many small items as possible
oldest first
newest first
squeaky wheel
goal driven

Autofocus corresponds to the 4th strategy, roughly. I find I often like having my action lists sorted by start date (oldest on top), but I think all of these strategies have their place and time. Do you avid AF'ers get value from using a strict workflow algorithm?

[ludlow]

Hmm, what makes you think Autofocus is an "oldest first" strategy? As I see it, it is a "what feels right now" strategy but, crucially, with some built-in constraints to ensure that this can never mean abandoning or neglecting truly important projects just because you don't feel like doing them.

I know Mark F. says it a lot on the Autofocus forum, but I can't stress strongly enough the importance of *trying AF out*. This is true for all kinds of systems of course, but seems especially so in the case of Autofocus, because the ways that its very few simple rules percolate through one's own unique life circumstances can't be properly predicted, or described, in any kind of one-size-fits-all way.

[mcogilvie]

Hmm, what makes you think Autofocus is an "oldest first" strategy?

Because you scan the oldest page of tasks first, and must either do one of those tasks, or cross off the page. That was my question, in a sense: do people who "use Autofocus" adhere to that formula, or deviate from it. I understand that, for a given page, there may be conscious or unconscious strategies involved.



I know Mark F. says it a lot on the Autofocus forum, but I can't stress strongly enough the importance of *trying AF out*.

I got something out of learning about it, I thought about how to implement it, and I came up with a related little technique, using start dates, that works well for me. So I'm happy. :)

[ludlow]

Interesting. I might be doing it wrong, but I don't scan from the oldest page first. I scan from wherever I last stopped scanning. If I have 8 pages and I get to page six by the time I finish work, I'll begin again at page six. Then seven, then eight, then back to the beginning. Of course in practice I do all sorts of random things to deviate from this, but none of them really lead to an oldest-first focus, I don't think.

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

Because you scan the oldest page of tasks first, and must either do one of those tasks, or cross off the page. That was my question, in a sense: do people who "use Autofocus" adhere to that formula, or deviate from it. I understand that, for a given page, there may be conscious or unconscious strategies involved.

It is confusing because of the shifting focus of discussion.

- You start the list initially at the first line of the first page
- You work toward the newest items in sequence (by page)
- When you resume after a break, you start where you left off, not at the beginning. (That is probably the major difference with a traditional TO DO list.)

Now there are all kinds of tweaks people do. One is when they fear they are letting urgent things slip ... then they start with the last page, or the last page but one, or the last page but two, whatever. That way, they work on the most current things first thing every day then go back to the oldest to catch those up.


I got something out of learning about it, I thought about how to implement it, and I came up with a related little technique, using start dates, that works well for me. So I'm happy. :)

Then my work here is done ;-) No, seriously, it is just a tool and if it even suggested something that helps you, it has done what any tool should do.

[rossw]

Mike, Mike, Mike he said ever so many times, graciously waving his tail, (oops, missed one... Mike),

You AFers keep telling us to try AF out before commenting. That's all very well, but for how long? We know all too well that it takes a couple of years to really master a new system, though you can get a good feel for it in a few months if you're diligent.

But what would happen to our GTD setup if we left it for months? Doesn't bear thinking about.

[ludlow]

rossw, try it for one week! That should be sufficient to grasp most of the basic strengths.

(Is your last line in jest, by the way? Because if you really can't step away from your GTD system without disaster ensuing, I'd say that's a sign of a problem with GTD.)

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

Mike, Mike, Mike he said ever so many times, graciously waving his tail, (oops, missed one... Mike),

ROTFLMAO ;-) I have a few cats so that picture is great. (BTW, that silly "name" is because you have to make up crap to get onto this website and I just did not feel like jumping through hoops of trying various combinations of things. Just made sense to put down four of them ;-) In fact, I have had to get up to six in some places which should tell some of these daft web designers SOMETHING!


You AFers keep telling us to try AF out before commenting. That's all very well, but for how long? We know all too well that it takes a couple of years to really master a new system, though you can get a good feel for it in a few months if you're diligent.

But what would happen to our GTD setup if we left it for months? Doesn't bear thinking about.

Well, a couple of thoughts. I found that AF is unlike other things I've run across in that how it works can't be easily surmised from reading the instructions. It turns out that in following the rules strange things start to happen to your brain. (Insert Twilight Zone music here)

Reading the items over and over, moving the uncompleted ones to the end and then seeing them in a different context, and various other things one does cause perceptions, motivation, oh, all kinds of things to change. Honestly, it is not one of those childish things like "How do you know if drugs are bad if you don't get high?" It is that we have all been more than a little surprised at the result of actually DOING AF. Reading it over, it seemed a bit overblown for a TO DO list, but once through the list, it was obvious that things were happening that we had not expected.

Moreover, your exact implementation will change the effect. Mark advises a list with about 30 or so lines, IIRC. He has experimented and found that was optimum ... for him at least. I have also experimented. I work out of my pocket so my book has only 15 lines. I found that I was getting a somewhat different feeling than those with 30 lines. (Thinking about it, I can see that with more lines you see items more times before you have to dismiss them. You are also likely to have a better mix of things on a page.) It really is a case of it either works for you or it does not and you can only find that out by trying for a short while.

How long? Just long enough to see how it affects you ... or not. Maybe a few days or so? And you don't have to abandon any other system. Just run AF in parallel. And you don't have to dump your life into it. Just put a half dozen of the first things that pop into your mind into an old grungy book and then add things as you go. You can keep running GTD as usual. Just run AF in parallel and then a few times a day flip back to your major GTD system to see that the world won't end. I mean, you'll see "Call Joe" on your AF list and if you look at your "@Call" context list you'll find it there also. Nothing bad will happen.

And when you dismiss items, you are really just moving them to your "someday/maybe" list, no? I mean, Mark highlights them but I move them to the same place I kept them before AF ... in the days of GTD. And you will still use your calendar. And some of us still use a tickler list. I personally have a few special lists, some of which COULD be called "context lists" if you really need to call them that.

AND, finally, if GTD is working for you, why change? I don't get a commission from Mark if I get you to switch. Hell, Mark does not even charge for it ... the ideas and his help are all free! You don't need a reason to NOT try something new ... you need a reason to try it. Absent a reason, stick with what you have if it serves you well. If you would just do me the very small favor of knowing what it is that you have decided NOT to try so if anyone asks they will get the straight scoop, I'd be thrilled ;-)

The two year comment does concern me. I had not actually heard that until I quit using GTD. I have never before, in my life, heard of such a thing. The very DAY I started using my first TO DO list I knew it improved my life. It takes only about 21 - 30 days or so for something to become a habit. It takes a bit longer for systems to get the bugs worked out. But TWO YEARS? I don't get that. If I had read that before I tried GTD I never would have even started with it. I have to believe that quote is somewhat out of context. DA could not have intended people to think it takes two years.

[rossw]

Two years is a period I have heard quoted from a number of people as the time it takes for all the key habits to really bed themselves in to the point where you don't think about them any more. I guess this would be "black belt" standard.

A lot of people in the fora a couple of years ago, when I was last looking, were prepared to state that they were working through the "green belt" level. I think you can get to that level in a couple of months.

At this point, I think we need some guidance from a black belt. I cannot really speak with any authority, as I never managed to get my weekly review down to a couple of hours every week. And, as a wise man once said, "if you're not doing a weekly review, you're not doing GTD".

[Rainer Burmeister]

Well, a couple of thoughts. I found that AF is unlike other things I've run across in that how it works can't be easily surmised from reading the instructions. It turns out that in following the rules strange things start to happen to your brain. (Insert Twilight Zone music here)
C'mon, Mike. There's nothing strange about Autofocus. It's simple psychology.
While GTD wants you to use your self-discipline when you work and eventually use your "intuition", Autofocus tells you to use your self-regulation and use your self-discipline only for same-day urgent work or appointments (there the need for tweaks shows up).

The usage of Autofocus thus costs less mental and emotional energy than the usage of GTD. So AF is more sustainable than GTD. The results are better for the one who uses AF, but that doesn't mean the results are always better from your boss's or your customer's point of view.

Adding an AF list to an implemantion of GTD or using a combination of GTD and AF might be useful for some people.

[Brent]

The usage of Autofocus thus costs less mental and emotional energy than the usage of GTD.

Well, what are you saving that mental and emotional energy for? A rainy day? ;-)

I'd rather invest it in today's work, personally, to make it that much better. I don't want to give up my ability to make wise decisions about today's work.

I may be completely missing the point, but to me this is like slacking off on martial arts katas, because that's easier. No, I want to make it hard on myself, as that's the only way I'll make the right choices when I'm facing five nasty opponents.

That said, I don't think the Autofocus method of reviewing lists is evil -- it's just a different way to review a list. Forster doesn't mention contexts on his quick-start page (http://www.markforster.net/autofocus-system/), which I think would make it even more efficient.

To me, there's great value to the discipline of maintaining a specific wall between Projects that you've committed to and Someday/Maybe ideas that you haven't. Autofocus doesn't seem to have any inherent limitation keeping you from starting all those neat ideas you've ever had...and never finishing them. While GTD doesn't completely prevent that, of course, the clear division between Projects and Someday/Maybe highlights those situations a little more clearly than in Autofocus.

[Rainer Burmeister]

To me, there's great value to the discipline of maintaining a specific wall between Projects that you've committed to and Someday/Maybe ideas that you haven't. Autofocus doesn't seem to have any inherent limitation keeping you from starting all those neat ideas you've ever had...and never finishing them. While GTD doesn't completely prevent that, of course, the clear division between Projects and Someday/Maybe highlights those situations a little more clearly than in Autofocus.
Brent, what used to be my @work context list is now my AF list for my work location (aka office).
The AF list gets reviewed weekly like the former @work list did.

Currently I have two tweaks for my AF usage:

1) A closed list of next actions (not projects or tasks!), finished and written anew every day, with a workload of maximum 2 hours per day (http://litemind.com/will-do-lists/). This list is for work I have promised to do on that certain day.

2) A Someday list where most of my "dismissed" items go to, reviewed regularly. This list serves the purpose to keep everything that is not current (= this fortnight) off the AF list.

Appointments are written in the calendar, not the AF list, of course.

[MikeMikeMikeMike]

Well, what are you saving that mental and emotional energy for? A rainy day? ;-)

The same thing that DA is saving his "psychic ram" for? LOL ;-)

[rossw]

Cats? Rams? This is all getting a bit zoological...

Are we heading down a rabbit trail?

[TesTeq]

Cats? Rams? This is all getting a bit zoological... Are we heading down a rabbit trail?

I am afraid we are. These rams are psychic :!:

[Oogiem]

These rams are psychic

Not psychic but psycho, at least my rams are. 42 testosterone filled boys with big horns is a bit much. :-) 20 of them have a date with the freezer, as soon as we get approval for our sausage recipe. ;-)

Oh you meant computer ram....

Now you have me trying to draw a computer ram with horns and wool.

Funny I was just having a conversation about how AI can mean totally different things depending on whether you are in the computer or agriculture business. And if you are both it's even more confusing.

Thanks for the giggle early this am.

[Rainer Burmeister]

Funny I was just having a conversation about how AI can mean totally different things depending on whether you are in the computer or agriculture business. And if you are both it's even more confusing.
In both cases one could say: "It's better to have AI than to have no I at all"!
:)

[ratz]

At this point, I think we need some guidance from a black belt. I cannot really speak with any authority, as I never managed to get my weekly review down to a couple of hours every week. And, as a wise man once said, "if you're not doing a weekly review, you're not doing GTD".

At the risk of de-cloaking; this blackbelt will raise his hand and share a couple mundane thoughts on this most interesting subject.

First a tiny framework for my GTD background. I have been a GTD devote since about 2001-2002; coming from the franklin world before that. I'm guessing a handful of people here who read these observations can or will blame me for their introduction to GTD, I have bent more than a few electronic system into a form that supported GTD and then selfishly shared those ideas with others so I could build on the insights of other to improve my system.

About three ago years I started not participating in the forums (I read, but don't write often any longer); you are all very interesting; but my system just hit a zen state and the sharing rewards diminished and frankly it takes time to not sound like a moron with bad grammar; and I do bad grammar really well, as this disorganized 4 am mess will prove.

During those 8-9 years I have used the GTD philosophy in IT Systems (specifically the unpredictable world of infrastructure support) as a trench grunt; a dept manager, an executive director, and currently small business owner, homemaker, homeschooler, athlete and at times single father of 2, and now a husband to be..(again)...

Any how to the point.....

The GTD system has served me well and I owe my sanity at least in part to David's writings... As others have noted in this thread. Collect, Process, Organize, Do IT, Review IT. Is simply transformational. But it's not a walled garden, never has been. For over 6 years now I have done my Action Lists in a manner similar to AutoFocus. I just learned about Mark's writings on autofocus about 1 month ago, very much a "huh, someone else thinks that a good way to do things moment." In my case, it is just how I'm wired; I actually memorize information via a very similar technique (read item 1, read item 1 and 2, read items 1-3, read items 1-4, repeat until end of items). So I guess it was a logical extension. I have enjoyed reading Mark's writing on the topic and I've added to my system the things I hadn't thought of. But more on that in a bit.

Over that 9 year period, my list of contexts was always in flux as my roles and responsibilities changed. The nature of my responsibilities has never stayed solid for more than 1-2 years; and the contexts ebbed and flowed in reaction over time just like they should.

Sometimes my contexts where physical; sometimes they were a combination of physical and virtual. And now over the last few years the barriers between my contexts has gotten much softer; and I have less contexts today because there are very few places I cannot do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING.

Contexts today are much more about separating my obligations during hours of the day than about where I am. Blame the cellphone, the laptop, the bloody iphone; ubiquitous wifi even on airplanes, they all contribute to Context consolidation.

Context Lists use to be: @Office, @Calls, @ComputerWork, @ComputerHome, @Days Off, @Evenings, @ErrandsWork , @ErrandsHome, @Home, @Outside, @WaitingFor, @Agendas ...... (at one time I had 15-20).....

Context Lists thanks to technology are now: @Work, @Home, @Errands, @Waiting

Why is that important?

I postulate that the nature of your current contexts and the mobility of your person as you DO your job will dictate the success of your then current GTD Implementation. Tweaking happens when your contexts morph or your mobility requirements shift. If you fail to notice the change and adapt; then you fall off the wagon via: tweak-itis; system distrust; system inflexibility etc etc.

So how does AF apply. to all of this?

(Here's the take home paragraph if you are drifting off)

Simple apply most if not all of the techniques of AF to EACH of your context lists separately; read what Mark has to say; take the parts that you are comfortable with and apply them to your context lists. Try as much of the entire technique as you can stomach, the more the better. Just embed it right in your GTD system. Really it fits nicely in the system if you are good at GTD; you don't have to give up you GTD habits. Oh and nobody but you will know, really we wont' tell on you.

(End of take home paragraph. Missed it? backup and re-read it)

Do that for 10-20 days, and you will find out the following:

1) It's a wonderful way to make sure you are actually working your lists.

2) You know that some "crap" gets on the lists no matter what you do, As david says with great humor; "sometimes projects just go weird". The weekly review ferrets them out when that happens. However, Autofocusing each context list during the week keeps most of the crap out or gets the crap done before it even hits the review. Try it you will see.

3) David's always said you still have to be mature enough to go do you lists. But he also admits that sometimes you ain't so smart and you ain't so motivated. The AF techniques will carry you through those periods when you simply don't have "it".

4) It is very very hard to fall off the GTD wagon if you use AF Techniques to DO your context Lists. Because even when you fall of the wagon you'll still be capturing and doing; and when you get your Mojo back you can process and organize yourself back into shape. If your world morphs you'll find you are less likely to have a complete system failure.

That's it I'm not gonna beat the dead horse. This has worked well for me when I had a ton of contexts and it still works for me now with just a few.

But before I go, since someone always asks how I do it:

Your miles will very:

Tools:

1) I use a calendar
2) I use reference filing
3) I use a tickler.
4) I do a weekly review every Sunday evening.
5) I have an physical inbox and I use it when it's appropriate
6) I manage my actions lists in an AF manner
7) I will use action lists to collect stuff on the fly when the fires are ragging and my hair is ablaze.
8 ) I have separate a personal system and a work system because it makes sense for me currently;
9) I have a had single systems in the past. Both single and separate work; pick the one that fits your current reality.


During the day:

A) I'm computer bound for my daily work these days;
B) I'm at the computer 8-12 hours a day working from home.
C) I get interrupted by: the phone, the email, the support chat line, the help desk tickets, random thoughts, project requests, and the kids. All and all about 10-20 thought interruptions PER HOUR during core working hours. I'm always at someone's 1 moment whim and I have structure and routine work/projects that also have to get done.


Work System:

1) Action items are in a program called Task Paper; but could be anything that can capture a list, and filter it. My software of choice has changed numerous time based on what my job was. I process AI's via AF

2) I tag my items with @Waiting; @Errands, and @Agendas as I go; but they are mixed together. Best of both worlds thanks to filtering; I can narrow list if the situation dictates it; mostly I work unfiltered; again nature of the job.

3) All other GTD stuff applies; my email inbox in my case is empty every 30-60 minutes and items are filed, deleted, forwarded/delegated and add to the action list on the fly.

4) When I had a very mobile on the go executive job my work system looked just like the following Personal System, because it was reliable and it looked good in the boardroom.

Personal System:

a) I use a Journal approach
b) I have nice fake leather journal 5x7 for @Home;
c) I tag the stuff I write in the Journal with @Agenda; @Waiting, @Errand as I write items in.
d) When I kill a page ala AF; I move incomplete @Agenda, @Waiting @Errands to the BACK of the journal as needed. Each Context has 5 pages reserved in the back of the journal.
e) I work the back pages BACKWARDS in page order and the context pagers are tagged with "post-it" flags.
f) When the journal is full I get a new one; they cost $2.90


Separation of work and home.

When I'm working I don't look at my personal stuff; but I will add things to it if I think of them. Open Journal write it down close it. Home Journal moves with me everywhere I go.

I tend not to think of work stuff when I'm not working; I believe it's either because work is in control; or I'm not that bright after a full day of work. On the rare occasions I think of something; I send myself an email from my iphone. and Let GTD take if from there in the morning.

[Rainer Burmeister]

Ratz,

thanks for this great post. Very helpful.

Rainer

[ScottL]

Agreed. Thanks for your time Ratz. Very helpful.

[petdr]

ratz,
Thanks for taking the time to weigh in. You described the complementary fusing of AF and GTD very well. Enjoyed your past detailed posts re: Life Balance and GTD; good to read your stuff again.

[moises]

ratz,

Five posts in six years. I like people who, if they don't have anything important to say, don't say anything at all.

What I "take home" from your post this year is that GTD can be compatible with AF. If it weren't, I wouldn't bother posting here any more.

As far as contexts go, I got real excited by contexts when I first started GTD. Very quickly I realized that all I needed was Work, Home, and Errands.

With AF I have a work list, a home list (the electronic free autofocus.cc web version), and I make errands lists in an ad hoc manner.

[ratz]

ratz,

Five posts in six years. I like people who, if they don't have anything important to say, don't say anything at all.



:GRIN: That was just humorous enough and startling that we'll have to make that 6 in 6; and you actually got me off the back porch to a real keyboard.

It's amazing the stats that the internet can track and how time flies.

I remember the early days of posting on slow days 20-30 messages on the PalmGTD yahoogroup and various other forums. But eventually those promotions dug into the time available for such things. And lately building a business from scratch for the last 4.5 years, I can a test, really digs into your time. It's a very interesting and obvious effect that as soon as you work for yourself and every penny either goes into your hand or doesn't get earned; you quickly don't find the time to post to the internet anymore; it was much easier to do on someone else's nickel. :) Or maybe it's just GTD keeping me on target; or is it covey keeping me on important things, or.... well you get the point.

That said, I thank everyone that continues to post ideas and tips; I still cherry pick from everyone as I go; and I don't think more than 2 weeks go by before someone emails me asking for a copy of those old Life Balance templates or asks a question about the MLO templates; thankfully the Datebk5 questions have stopped. It continues to be gratifying.... But I do grin a little; as it's odd that people find methods from 8 years ago brand new and sparkly, so I guess these techniques are here to stay for a while yet.

Oddly I for one continue my evolution over time, closer and closer to the paper, I'm going kicking and screaming the there. Apparently though, it served me well in college when computers didn't fit in you pocket; maybe I should just give in....

ok well... nope.


See ya' all next year ;)

[tjisolutions]

One of the powerful things about AF is that it does not require you to think in any way specified by someone else.

I would argue that this is not "One of the powerful things" its the most "powerful thing"