Get Everything Done

Having worked DWM since the beginning I thought it was time to give my thoughts, as requested by MF. I started with high hopes that this was the culmination and integration of Mark's time management principles. I've concluded that it isn't the answer but may well be part of the answer (for me).

I really liked:
- the simplicity
- it accepted everything that was thrown at it
- the 30 day expiry

I had a problem with:
- difficult tasks getting tickled along minimally every week
- a lack of overview of what was currently important
- the long list giving a sense of overwhelm

Where does that leave me? I've gone right back to the beginning with the cycling round a list approach in MF's first book GED. The twist is that one of the items on the cycling list is DWM. My list is:

Must do today
In-Boxes
Proj A
Proj B
Proj C
Proj D
DWM

I'm amending this list quite frequently as I get stuff done or my priorities change. I'm working in blocks of 30 mins on each item on the list and then I move on. When clearing the in-boxes I either deal immediately, move to a project list, move to the DWM or (heracy!) leave the item for a future cycle of the in-box. It is forcing me to work on projects that are high pay off but which I don't want to do. Bottom line DWM was letting me fritter my time on more trivial tasks. I'll report in the future whether the hybrid GED/DWM works - I'm sure we can all guess the answer!

I'm with you Man. Your complaints mirror my own: emphasis on the wrong tasks.

My guess is the hybrid won't work as written, but something similar likely can work. I've got my own approach to getting the balance right, which I won't share because I'm sure the details are wrong, but in essence it seems workable.

<<- difficult tasks getting tickled along minimally every week
- a lack of overview of what was currently important>>

I've been monitoring - via time tracking - my work. My results echo the above observation. So I'm rereading parts of DIT - to apply focus to important tasks and daily routines - and hoping to combine with with DWM - whereby setting due dates & dismissal keeps things moving.

Man,

Each to their own, but personally I haven't really expereinced the negatives you have from my use of DWM. Maybe setting out why this is true for me might help others who have the same experiences as you:

<< 'Difficult tasks getting tickled along minimally every week': >>
I think this is a symptom of how you're using the system. Personally, I don't really focus on the tasks which will be dropped by expiry. The tasks are done if they 'stand out', and having a task due for dismissal doesn't necessarily make it 'stand out' for me. It sounds to me that these tasks you refer to are exactly the ones that should probably have been dropped by now - 'rescuing' tasks from the threat of dismissal for no better reason than that they are about to be dismissed is never a good idea.

Let them go, and see what happens. If you want you can think about why they are being dismissed. Dismissal may be more automatic in this system than AF, but I think you still need to accept that a lot of tasks will be dropped.

<< 'a lack of overview of what was currently important': >>
I'm not sure how to answer this one. The trite answer is that if you need a time management system to tell you what's important in your job, I'm not sure how you function! (Or if the list is your life, as it were, then the answer might be meditation, mind-mapping, journalling, whatever, but not a time management system). The more prosaic answer to your question is that I find the important tasks are all on either the two entry point pages or the two pages before each entry point, which represent (in 'date' order):
1) what I worked on yesterday
2) what I'm working on today
3) what entered my 'in-tray' yesterday
4) what's entered my 'in-tray' today

I also find that, because browsing through the list without actually doing anything is technically 'within the rules', I tend to do it more than in AF (of course, I could have done this with AF, but there was a slight resistance caused by the fact that I'd have to make a conscious choice as to whether I was merely 'browsing', or properly 'working the system'

<< 'the long list giving a sense of overwhelm': >>
Yes, it's true that the list is 31 pages long (or 28 in my case!), but there shouldn't be 31 full pages of tasks on your list. I suppose, on the assumption that changing systems hasn't changed your workload, if you only ever had ca. 10 full pages in AF (and you shouldn't really have had more in my experience) then on average you should have most pages around 1/3rd full in DWM. (I'm not sure it quite works like that, but you get the drift).

I find an opposite effect really - I often turn to a page where only 5 or 6 tasks have been added. I find this much less overwhelming than constantly looking at a full page of tasks - it adds some degree of visual variety as well, which helps in remembering what's on the list (as do the more frequent read-throughs mentioned above)

As I guess is clear from the above, I'm finding this a great system. I haven't found one that had such an effect, and which I used without tweaks for this long, since the original AF. None of this changes the fact that I still need to get through the work, that I still have 'off days', etc. But DWM coped admirably with a particularly busy period of work for me, so I know that I can trust it in the heat of battle so to speak.

"I find the important tasks are all on either the two entry point pages or the two pages before each entry point"

I suppose that's true. Do you give yourself permission to jump straight to those pages? I found two things bugging me with DWM: tasks I hadn't finished and didn't want to return to for a couple weeks would just get kicked out. And too often I was busy with something else so I'd go a whole day only doing 1 thing. I was satisfied with how I spent that day, but the system "punished" me for " losing" time.

This task progression just doesn't fit me.

I don't necessarily jump straight to one of those pages (unless I know for a fact that I'm going to do one of the tasks on them next, and that nothing in the intervening pages will stand out - but that approach's not really recommended).

But you can flick through pages pretty quickly. Especially if you have a good overview of what's on them (and I guess that requires sometimes to read through them more slowly). I sometimes go through almost the entire list just flicking my eyes down each page. I'd say less than a second a page, so maybe 20 seconds for the whole list.

On some days, you can't really help but spend the whole day on one 'big' task. But you're bound to break off at some points, even if only for a minute. In those situations I can go through the list quickly, and satisfy myself that I'm happy with everything else *not* being worked on that day, then get on with the task at hand. I think that's the big advantage of this method - in AF I'd be worried about stopping as I might not get back to that task for a while.

When I awoke this morning I realized that I had finally made a decision on DWM ... for me, it has to go. So long Charlie. Via con Dios. ;-) Why?

Firstly, I did see the psychological shift of looking forward rather than backward. I'll miss that effect. But it did not give me enough return on my investment. The investment?

Arrrrg, the overhead of flipping around pages, having multiple places to enter tasks, having FOUR bookmarks to manage, not knowing where critical items might be ... OMG. Way too confusing to me. But then I'm easily confused ;-)

So I'm with Man of Kent. After reading GED and seeing the origin and evolution of Mark's thinking, I'm going back to where Mark started as well ... with the revolving list ... and one thing on that revolving list is my grass catcher (A.K.A. my AF list). So I'll work on certain standing items for bursts (in turn) until they are done for the day, then I'll work on my AF list for a burst, then I'll work on projects for a timed period, etc.

For my AF system I think I'll return to AF4. It seemed to be the easiest to use and had a good balance to it. I'm sure AF1 or AF2 would also work, but I kind of like the single long list approach. I also learned that a Composition Book works the best for me. It is too large for a pocket but it is small enough to carry and large enough to write in and has no overhead other than a rubber band and a couple of bookmarks (where I'm working and where I'm entering items). Easy peasy ... simple ... neat ... nice. ;-)

As to dismissal. Yeah, that has always been both the strength of these systems and the bugaboo. Answering my own question to Norman, DWM added the feature of a gestation period to the system. IOW, you had 30 days to decide to get moving on something ... no more. And you had to keep at it at least once a week to move it along. I liked that idea very much. I just don't see a way to implement it that does not swamp the system with overhead. The previous systems relied on dismissal being an arbitrary function of a task being the last one standing on a page, or a section, or whatever.

The question arises: just how much of a problem is that, really? Mark did not share his thinking about why AF4 needed a revision FOR HIM. That would have been interesting to hear ... though it does not matter in any real way to me. The way I look at it is that if I get down to the last task(s) standing and have to dismiss, I can deal with it by some questioning about why they did not get done yet ... and I have to do that in any case. I'm not sure the timed dismissal feature does me any real service. For me, 30 days is as arbitrary as "last task standing".

So my dismissal will reflect what I have learned from GtD and one other poster's tweak. I'll just highlight them (AF4) and leave them in the book as a "someday/maybe" for later review. If they go back on the list (being rescued, as that poster called it) I'll do as he suggested and put a bang (!) in front of it to emphasize: "here we go again".

I'm almost giddy with excitement to get back to my simple book that requires no more shuffling of pages and markers and dates and times ;-)

Oh, and just before DWM I had made one other small tweak to my system that showed promise. I was rarely using the full line length in my composition book for tasks so I drew a vertical line down the page and used the right hand side of each page for a diary of sorts. A list of tasks I had worked on, calls made, outcomes, observations, agreements, etc. (This gets back to how I was doing things in a computer project environment ... though there I needed a whole book for that alone.) I also noted the date I entered the first task of the day. That gave me some timing information which provided the kind of thing that DWM tried to automate ... i.e. how long has this stupid task been rattling around my poor brain ;-)

Lastly, I want to echo Norman's acknowledgment of Mark's generosity in thinking these systems up and putting them out there for all to use. That really is exceptional, in my experience. And even though I found DWM to be a dud for me, I've learned more about how I process things by the experience. So all of that page flipping turned out to be for the best ;-)

Mike wrote: "Arrrrg, the overhead of flipping around pages, having multiple places to enter tasks, having FOUR bookmarks to manage, not knowing where critical items might be ... OMG. Way too confusing to me. But then I'm easily confused ;-)"

I am sorry to see you go.

I am staying with DWM, however. I, too, found it burdensome to flip through all the pages and maintain all those bookmarks. But there was one thing that kept me going. DWM really could handle my recurrent tasks in a way that the other systems did not.

I want a system that is lightning-fast and responsive to changing contingencies. The random-access component of DWM made it very responsive, but the constant page turning made it less than lightning-fast.

Doing it electronically (in my case, Walter's Excel app) gave me the speed I craved.

AF2 was also lightning-fast and responsive, because it was also random-access. What makes DWM superior to AF2, I think, is that DWM's system for dismissal. DWM, in the great tradition of DIT, insures that tasks in cannot systematically exceed tasks out. DWM puts me on a task diet. If I start to gain task weight, DWM forces me to slim down.

To conclude, I agree with the DWM problems that you discuss. I found that a well-constructed digital DWM adequately resolves those problems.

I am also very happy with DWM, and I am also doing it electronically, using my own Excel sheet.

And like Moises I find it very responsive, but at the same time contemplative, as I find myself asking questions like "Why did I wait 25 days before starting this task?"

I should note that, aside from doing it electronically, I believed I followed the DWM rules as specified by Mark perfectly since the beginning until about a week ago. Since then I made the change of adding a due date for the tasks that really are due on date x, and sorting them alongside the Expiry date. I do not have many tasks like this, but I am enjoying having my tasks sorted this way, and it is easy enough for me to go back to sorting solely by expiry date if/when needed.

I agree that doing it electronically is best. For me, it would be necessary, but I really do like paper. Though I use electronic for tickers and other date based functions. Paper is just not as good at giving alarms.

I too have found much to learn from DMW dismissal. Under AF1, I could hardly bear to dismiss any task, and fought hard to save ones under threat. This was less true under AF4. But under DMW, about two thirds of my tasks get dismissed. In practice, of course, that was happening before, in the sense that lots was not getting done, but I had not recognised it.

Mark F has spoken frequently about restaurant menus. You don't try to eat every meal offered. I now see this as closer to the position than I had appreciated, in the sense that one should not be dismissing the odd task here and there, but shooting a majority of them..

Now that my expectations for dismissal have been recalibrated, I expect that I could use AF1 or AF4 more effectively if I chose to revert to them. Not that I plan to.

Mike @ Mar 26, 8.52
>>having FOUR bookmarks to manage,

I'm only using 2 to mark the 2 input pages. What's the other 2?

Today and the current scanning point (where you might resume looking for tasks tomorrow).

As I mentioned elsewhere, I get by with two folded-down corners for entry pages and a bookmark for the current scanning point. And even then the bookmark only gets used when I'm shutting the book, not for actually using the system. You don't need a bookmark for today really, as everything's crossed-off before that (although I sometimes snip off the page corners to make it easier).

>>> You don't need a bookmark for today really, as everything's crossed-off before that <<<

??? How do you figure???

>> ??? How do you figure??? <<

Well, everything before today's date is dismissed - so in my case it has a big cross through it and it takes no time at all to flick to the first page without a big cross through it.

Ed C

Interesting.

I leave it open so I can in theory trawl anything that was still alive when it went over the waterfall, if you see what I mean.

Having a bookmark takes out a tiny distraction and gives you a nice feeling of where you are in the loop at any point. But I wouldn't spend time worrying about it.

Will - you could add a 'review expired tasks' to your list instead of keeping all the pages indefinitely. I do the corner-turn-down for pages before today, so today is the first page without a turned corner. I don't mark the item/page I'm working on, so I only have 2 markers to keep track of, and that's just moving them once a day when I open the book the first time (and turn down yesterday's corner)

Alan (3/23 @ 15.27)
>>tasks I hadn't finished and didn't want to return to for a couple weeks would just get kicked out
maybe I've just got a high tolerance for duplicates in DWM (I had no tolerance for duplicates in the AF# - in fact I'd go through the list JUST to find/remove duplicates) but I have the same task listed on several pages. I don't do it intentionally (meaning I don't add it to the list every day as a daily task), but whenever I think of doing "task A" when I can't do it, I just add it to the today+30 page. "Task A" may expire on today's page, but it's still on the list and I'll see if tomorrow because it's on an active page. When I read through the list, I notice that "task A" is listed a few times, but I don't usually remove the duplicates unless it's been done.

Lillian,

I can and I do have a "review expired tasks" on my list. A wodge of them overran me a few days ago. This is where it helps not to have dismissed them.

New word!

wodge (n) - U.K. large lump: a large lump or chunk of something ( informal )

Hope you're okay :-)