Get Everything Done

I mentioned that I tend to pick the most plesant tasks from the list and it's very hard to prioritize when in doing mode. I think I would try Alan B's approach and make a focus list where I would put my number 1 project that I would approach first thing I touch my list. What do you think, does it worth to test that?

I think it's worth experimenting.

I'm not sure exactly how I will handle this. I know it starts with the AutoFocus list because that captures everything. From there I need to identify Important and Urgent things so I can focus on those. Beyond this I'm still thinking about the approach.

Alan, It's obvious that to filter out the most important and the most urgent stuff you should read through the whole list of commitments, tasks, wishes, needs first.

Second is to choose. And that's difficult because you just have read through 100 lines and supposed to remember all them to make the right choice :)

Any ideas?

Eugene:
You remind me so much of myself when I started with AF1 a year ago... I had exactly the same questions and issues!

So, just stick with it. You'll find your solution, as I found mine. After a while, going back to whatever system is out of the question. I tried it once - going back to the system I basically was using for more than 20 years! - and it felt like having to go to school again, in short trousers... ;-) Outdated. Over. Trying to revive something I'm grown out of.

Interesting experience, BTW.

I'm back to GTD again. 1 day passed. Feeling in control :)

>>Second is to choose. And that's difficult because you just have read through 100 lines and supposed to remember all them to make the right choice :)

Eugene, I'm curious how you "choose" in GTD. I understand that you've narrowed your list down to possible Next Actions, but surely you must still have to choose at some point?

"Alan, It's obvious that to filter out the most important and the most urgent stuff you should read through the whole list of commitments, tasks, wishes, needs first."

It might seem obvious, but it isn't true. Following the the little and often principle, I choose an important thing when I see one. If I see another I pull that out. Later as I'm processing the short list, if something seems less important, I put it back.

Ds, there's no difference between GTD and AF when it comes to choosing. In both cases you could have more then 30 items to choose from. In both cases it's up to your gut what to do.

Alan, to come to the most important you first have to read through all of the items on your list otherwise you would end up doing unimportant stuff. Even if you apply little&often approach while reading :)

I don't assume there is only one Important thing. I find one, do a bit, find another. It won't take an hour to find all the good things, and I don't need to do this twice.

sure, but to find you have to phisicaly read through all of the items anyway :)

Or you can assume that there is something REALLY important further down and whiz through your list until something jumps out and grabs you by the throat. Then go on to the next screamer and so on until you get to the end of the list. Then you should have a measure of calibration for the next pass. If nothing grabs you on the first pass, go through the list again list again and let yourself pick the first thing that feels ready.

If, having done a few of these, you're not going to get through your list quickly enough, you can be a bit pickier for the next choice.

I haven't mastered this yet, but it feels like my best approach.

Priorities, shmiorities!

One of the most liberating things I learned from David Allen was that the constant focus on Importance (e.g. Franklin-Covey), and thus the constant need to prioritize, is usually a waste of time. It's hard to consciously assign priority levels to tasks, and many undone tasks change priority frequently. I really like Mark's intuitive idea of browsing through your list to find what "feels ready" to be done. I think that as long as we continue to go through our lists, the Urgent and Important things naturally come to us.

That said, I enjoy crossing off the easy and fun tasks as much as the next guy. So I do augment my Week-Month (i.e. DWM without the D, see http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1026432) system with a daily list of the "Big Three" tasks I need to make progress on to feel successful. Usually, at least one of these Big Three is also something fun, or at least not too daunting to begin or continue. The Big Three items are also in my WM system, but they're transferred to an index card that I get to tear up at the end of the day, adding additional satisfaction to the crossing off within the notebook.

With DWM, when I know I should be doing something, but don't really want to be doing anything on my list, I go back to the earliest active page with an open task and work on that. When nothing is jumping out because it interests me or because of an outside deadline, keeping it out of auto-dismissal is often just enough to get me going on something, and that makes the next thing easier.

When the problem is that too much is standing out, I will put little post-it flags next to one or two (my version of the "next pass markup") for the next pass. This often happens at night when I'm prepping my system for the next day and I see the one or two things that I really need to do at work the next day.

It seems to me that both of those methods are forms of prioritization.

Which is a good thing. If something truly is more important, it's good to do it first. And preparing to do something the next day is a good idea too.

When using AF only easy tasks jumped out at me :) DWM probably a little bit more tough because you have to do your tasks at some point. So you HAVE to make the decision at some point even for easy tasks. I like that :) But I moved to GTD because it gives me an overview of everything I have from higher level in one place. And now I want a method like DWM to make choices on my GTD lists. I use Windows Mobile so the method MUST be very easy to implement.

Do you know how it would look like in ideal case for me? :)

Eugene,

DWM is completely consistent with GTD, although I don't choose to do it that way.

With formal GTD, you have a list of Next Actions. This is your DWM list. Separate from this, you have files containing project plans.

Now, using GTD language, you use your "intuition" and start working your NA list. Using AF lingo, you go through your DWM list and work on whatever "stands out."

GTD doesn't say anything about expiration dates. So what? You have expiration dates on your DWM list. You can use your intuition as you work your DWM list. Sometimes items on the DWM list will just expire because your intuition never got you to work on them.

Please explain to me if you see any real difference between GTD and DWM. Thanks.

You also must do tasks in AF! You know the rule: if you do nothing all tasks are marked for review and dismissed. And the complementary rule: if you do a task on the closed list it moves to the open list. Which means you either do every task or you dismiss them.

So yes you may start with easy stuff. But a closed list of 30 items will be cleared in 30 passes of the list, or less.

<<It seems to me that both of those methods are forms of prioritization. >>

When you have lots of things that need to be/could be done, and want to do either several or none of them, some decision about what will be done needs to be made. Mark's systems encourage you to figure out how to assign priorities on the fly, while GTD and similar systems encourage you to assign a priority at some time before you do the task and stick to that priority, or else have to revise everything in a review session.

I like not having to stick to a pre-assigned priority, but that does mean that I need to be able to ask myself several different questions when going through the list of tasks. If I only ask "what do I want to do", I will only do fun tasks. If I only ask "what needs to be done right now or else suffer consequences" I will only do tasks with some degree of urgency. Other questions, like "what can I do to get ahead" or "what can I do in the next 10 min" or "what can I do while running errands" will change what I consider to be top priority at any given time.

So I try to go through my list with different mindsets at different times, so that my priorities won't be lopsided.

Hi Jessica -- I like your approach to this. Thanks for sharing!

Jessica,

I too like your approach.

I think that you mischaracterized GTD. ubi rightly pointed out that GTD is explicitly opposed to setting priorities. That's why GTD makes such a bid deal about using "intuition."

The good ideas you had are really independent of your analysis of GTD, in my opinion. In fact, I think that they are consistent with GTD.

I'm not sure this is accurate moises. I prioritized when I did GTD and I did it by following the original book. Re-read Chapter 3 of GTD or Chapter 9 of "Making It All Work." Specifically pp. 189-191, the section on "The Priority Challenge".

>>I think that you mischaracterized GTD. ubi rightly pointed out that GTD is explicitly opposed to setting priorities. That's why GTD makes such a big deal about using "intuition."<<

From the latter book: "your mind's ability to do that (prioritize) is greatly enhanced when the prioritizing factors (stuff like goals, your vision of your ideal life, yada yada) that can be identified and supported in a systematic way, have been."

Regardless of system I think it's good to choose one to three big 'A's each day if there are any, and flow the other stuff around these.

The other stuff includes 'pending A's like health, home, finances, these must be covered adequately.

Jacqueline,

Thanks for the references. I will have to review them. And, until I do, my apologies to Jessica.

moises wrote <<ubi rightly pointed out that GTD is explicitly opposed to setting priorities. That's why GTD makes such a bid deal about using "intuition.">>

Actually, the GTD book isn't completely opposed to priority setting, especially during the "vertical" planning review periods. As far as choosing the Next Action (tm), Allen suggests a four-criteria model: (1) context, (2) time available, (3) energy available, and (4) priority. So he definitely thinks choosing an action based on priority is the last criterion to consider. And he does write "This is where you need to access your intuition and begin to rely on your judgment call in the moment," which implies that any priority you set now will probably be different later. This advice is in tune with Forster, I think.

The main idea is that if you have everything you need or want to do organized in some system (list(s) + calendar + tickler + project files + reference files), your brain is free to work on things, and you don't need to be stressed out about the things you're not doing at present. I know when I'm working on something fun or easy, I'm quite aware of the more important things I could be doing. It's the uncaptured or possibly forgotten important tasks that cause stress. Both Forster and Allen encourage us to get everything out of our heads and into our (paper | electronic) system. Forster's approach is just a little more freewheeling and simple.

I think I did mis-characterize GTD--it's been awhile since I read the books.

I should have said "Covey's system and those influenced by Covey", which is of course entirely different from GTD, and is probably the system most diametrically opposed to Mark's systems.

I don't care for Covey's system at all, but I do like his ideas on thinking about priorities and what's important. I think it's very helpful to have a general mindset of what you want to accomplish in life, or this year. Given a clear vision of what you want, many tasks on your list will fade away because they don't fit what you want. That's all the prioritizing you need, and forget about A, B, C.

Alan, I'd cut it down further and go less than a year. It's very hard to focus on a year's worth of goals at one time.

My way of prioritizing in GTD pretty much came down to very heavy use of putting outstanding projects and goals into the someday/maybe category (incubating) or later calendared start dates during the weekly review.

Like anything, you can use the principles of A, B, C without going whole hog and driving yourself nuts labeling every task that way. And it sure cuts down on the size of the list.