Get Everything Done

In various posts in the forum, people try to link GTD concepts (such as Someday/Maybe or the Next Action) into AF.

I'd like to offer one, possibly solitary vote for not succumbing to the widespread tendency to treat GTD as some kind of time management gold standard against which all other systems must be measured.

Let's face it - if GTD were effective, we wouldn't be here. It isn't, and we are. Roll on AF.

I think the issue is that it is very difficult for any system to track all of the issues of ones life. While I agree that GTD is not a panacea for all, there are in fact some very useful concepts in there. While someday/maybe may not sound like an AF concept, it is sort of in there with the idea you dismiss things. The reality is that they do not go anywhere and are still in the notebook and can be re-entered at some point in the future. Additionally, an AF list has lots of next actions on it. I like the simplicity of AF

Sorry the post was incomplete.

I was saying I like the simplicity of AF, but can still struggle with the integration of projects. I still have a hard time tracking the outcomes I must achieve on all of my projects since many are not actions but outcomes. This causes me to be writing review project plan for ABC building frequently. So AF still works but it is like the hub of spokes of wheels with project plans the spokes. I may need to just up the number of pages and throw everything at AF and see how it goes and abandon project plans and see if AF can sort it all. I think I will try this for a week and see how it goes.

Gerry

Hi Gerry

I am finding that AF is enabling me to handle projects far better than any other system I have used in the past, but curiously am finding that the way it is managing them is changing as I continue to use the system.

I find that there are two distinct ways to treat projects. A number of people have stated that they block out specific blocks of time for projects. I have tried that but personally I found it to be counter-intuitive. However, by putting that project on my list and then spending as long "as I feel" then I am still using a time block, just at the intuitively "right" time. For such projects I will have my associated task list outside of AF within my project management system. That list may be treated as a separate AF list within the said project time, or just used as a standard next step list.

The second method is by adding the next step tasks themselves into AF. I find that this will be a more appropriate method for some projects than others. I do not have a hard and fast rule on that - just what seems appropriate for the project at the time.

However I am actually finding that the biggest change is to my overall project management. I have always been careful to maintain some sort of overall project management system (which in my opinion is essential if you handling multiple projects with the need to both plan and to keep track of progress at any given point in time). What I am finding is that the majority of my project tasks are leaving my lists to be replaced by a task to review projects. The fact that they had been on my lists has been a tool for identifying and collecting together all of my various projects, and redefining them within one structured system. That system enables me to define each project, identify requirements, produce the requisite action steps and monitor progress in a structured and clearly identifiable way. As I am producing that system, I am naturally developing an instinctive overview of all of my projects and those that need current attention make their way back onto my lists, either in the entirety (suitable for time blocks) or as the individual next steps. My "new" Project Management system is still a work in progress, but everything within it is being regularly reviewed, updated and actioned through AF - with absolutely no feelings of panic or concern that things will be missed.

There are also a number of posts regarding projects under the FAQ's, link below

http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/645945

I hope that may be of some help Gerry.

Tommy,

currently I see two reasons why many GTD fans are attracted to Autofocus:

1.) AF brigdes the gap between the collection step and the deciding step (socalled "processing") in GTD without turning every item of your paper in-tray into a project.

2.) The AF lists for home and workplace may be used as good replacements for GTD's context-driven next-actions-lists.

@Tommy - I totally agree!!

GTD (though I understood it in theory) never worked for me. I'm just starting my second week of AF and at first I just a did a 'brain dump" and threw everything at the list. Now I'm seeing a few projects emerge. I'll probably make a project folder to keep everything pulled together (think "kitchen decorating folder" with paint chip samples, etc. or in my work AF list "XXX software project" with the programming specs and database diagrams print outs - or even better a reference to the computer folder containing these items.)

I've been handling Someday/Maybe by putting them on the list prefacing with "Think about ...." If it's worth throwing at the list, it's worth taking time to consider.

The GTD concept of 'Projects' (i.e 2 or more Next Actions) - whilst having the benefit of clarifying an outcome - does in my view create an extra layer of resistance and procrastination. When I started thinking about something as another Project to do I tended to believe it was bigger than it really was. In addition I don't feel that identifying a clear 'next action' is always useful either. A task may be approached from many different angles and this is one of the features I like in AF

Hi Leon

Not being totally familiar with all of the working of GTD I was taken aback to say the least that GTD defines a project as 2 or more next actions. That would certainly create resistance for me by making me feel it was bigger than it was too! For me a project can be anything that is either non-routine (e.g. backlogs), large enough that I want to define actions (not necessarily next actions) in order to keep track (e.g. Family Tree), something that has resistance and needs to be broken down (e.g. clearing out a storage unit) or just something that I want to approach in a more structured way (e.g. writing a book, planning a trip, etc).

Hmmmm ....... Unstacking the Dishwasher (1) Open Door (2) Remove Items (3) Close Door (4) Put items away ............ Project: Dishwasher? I don't think so! :-)

Hi Christine

To be fair to GTD, it is simply making the distinction between one off tasks (send a birthday card to X) and other tasks that require more than one step in order for them to be completed. In AF we rewrite that task at the end of the list if it is not completed and that is the reminder that there is more to be done. There are plenty of other ways to record reminders (item in a tickler file, entry in a diary, medicine bottle on the breakfast table, umbrella beside the front door so I don't forget it on a wet day...)

GDT simply says that even small undertakings require reminders unless they are clearly automatic or habitual. The word Project seems to be a useful term to make the distinction between the two types of actions. (Sometimes we need to make a project out of the most seemingly inane things if we are not to lose sight of them e.g flossing teeth).

Hi Jim

GTD clearly is a system that has made great impact on productivity, and it is absolutely correct that "even small undertakings require reminders unless they are clearly automatic or habitual". I think one of the issues in any system, whether that be GTD, DIT or AF is semantics - the thought associations we already attach to words is what actually influences. Project is a word that evokes strong associations, as does the word dismiss. It is always fascinating when you look at the distinction between perception and fact. Our life decisions are often far more likely to be based on perception rather than fact. Ok if they are one and the same but if not .........?

Thank you for the clarification on GDT - as I say I am not totally familiar with the system so am commenting from perception rather than experience - not always a good thing :-)

@Christine B

> GTD clearly is a system that has made great impact on productivity...

I actually don't believe that. It certainly has generated a lot of sound and fury about productivity. But from what I see, the evidence supports the theory that GTD is to productivity what "Eat Less and Exercise More" is to weight control. Neither are "wrong", but nor do they really get to the heart of their respective matters.

One clue is the vast amount of discussion over exactly how to do GTD - discussions about projects, and next items, and contexts, and so on. If the system was so great, people would just get on with it.

One attraction of AF is its apparent simplicity (granted, this from the guy who felt the need to prepare a flowchart! :-) ). But if it works (jury's still out for me), its simplicity will be one reason why. (And I'd expect this discussion forum to settle down to a quiet, occasional hum, once AF has taken over the time management world.)

Hi Tommy

I like the point you make - I really can't comment from experience on GTD, only that a lot of people seem to think it works for them. Personally I had two very different reactions to the system. The first was that it was great to have a system that I could spend a lot of time on strategy - how to do things, what to do, when to do them, where to do them etc. That really appealed to my love of systems. The second reaction was that I would never be able to keep it up (I do know myself that well at least!). In retrospect I think I am fortunate that the second reaction won, but do feel that my comments have less legitimacy than if I had at least tried the system.

GTD is one of those things that seems like it should work great. The concepts and principles make a lot of sense and I'm sure the system works well for a lot of people. But there's the rub. For every one person who can really get the hang of GTD, there seem to be dozens who can't. But because the system seems so great, and seems like the ultimate solution to all of their time management problems, they end up spending a lot of time and energy trying to find the secret that will finally make GTD work for them.

I've tried GTD, in many different forms. And I ended up spending more time trying to decide how to do stuff than actually doing it. A TM system is supposed to help you feel less overwhelmed. But, with GTD, I felt *more* overwhelmed, and less productive, than before. So it obviously wasn't the right system for me or the way I think and work.

I've tried GTD twice. I went at it gung ho the first time, taking about three days to follow DA's advice across my working life and then trying it out for while until I realized one day I wasn't doing it any more. Second time, about a year later, I gave it another try, just in case I'd "done it wrong".

Obviously I'm only a single data point. And I do believe that it could help already-organized people be a bit more organized. But for the majority of the disorganized planet, I think the following is true: the extent to which you need what GTD promises is the extent to which you won't be able to benefit from it.

Increasingly I get the feeling that there is only one central tenet of effectiveness: love of (or at least extreme interest in) what you do. On my most focused, "in flow" days, you could hit me with a mallet and throw umpteen tasty distractions at me and not knock me off course. And on my worst days, you could feed me GTD/AF/DIT/whatever intravenously, and I'd still end up sitting with my internal motivator in fibrillation, staring unmoving at my increasingly unread inbox.

I'm another person who started off trying GTD, then got overwhelmed with really long lists, and started looking towards DIT and eventually AF.

Nevertheless GTD has some good concepts (Someday/Maybe, next action, context lists etc) . But to my mind the most groundbreaking aspect of GTD (which also carries through to DIT and AF in my opinion) is that it supports a "bottom up" approach, rather than forcing one to work through goals/vision etc all the way to individual tasks. Any time management system that does not help to deal with the multitude of low level tasks we all have is not going to cut it these days.

I tried to use GTD for a couple of years - some weeks it went quite well, I even did the weekly review weekly - but then I fell off the waggon, and a couple of weeks later I started again, some weeks it went quite well ....

One of the reasons of GTD not working in my case was that - even if the system supports a bottom-up approach - it requires some decisions to put things into the system. You have to decide: Is it actionable - if not, should it go to someday / maybe, it it is actionable: Is it more than one action (i.e. a project), then define the outcome, identify the next action, put it to the right context, .... Often taking this decision which is necessary to just put something into the system is really work, and somehow this work happens outside of the work within the system.

In AF, this all happens more or less automatically within the system. You put "look at X" on the list, and then each time you feel like "looking at X" you get clearer on what it is and what should be done. This works much smoother, and it does not create any resistance to put things into the system. And I think that was my problem with GTD - many things didn't make it into the system because of the entry barriers.

Wolfgang

For me, GTD just had too much overhead. Some weeks I'd only have a few hours of discretionary time. Following GTD, I could easily burn up that time just with my "Weekly Review", and not actually get any real work done. A few weeks like that, and I'd be so far behind, that it would take a huge effort to get back into the swing of the system.

With AF, I've also had a few days or weeks like that. But with AF, after some time away from the system, I just spend 15-20 minutes reviewing my whole list, start back up wherever I left off, and I'm back in the driver's seat. Easy!

And like someone else already said, there was a huge startup penalty with GTD -- I read the book in the late summer, but it wasn't till Thanksgiving (late November) that I was finally able to set aside the time required to pile up all my loose ends into my "In Box" and start processing. It burned up a complete 4-day weekend. As others have found, starting up with AF was as hard as finding a notebook and a pen, and begin to write things down. Immediate effectiveness.

I really don't know how people can tolerate GTD's overhead, or keep themselves motivated with a system like that. GTD probably works great if you're a machine, but for most people it's just too hard.

As Dave Allen himself said in a 43 folders podcast, it takes 2 years (or more) to really "get it", to really start rolling with GTD. TWO YEARS!!

That said, GTD does have some useful tidbits here and there, and I don't have any trouble using them if they are helpful. With AF, whenever I come across ANY useful tidbit, from ANY system, I can just add it to my AF list: "Consider the idea of the 20,000-foot view". "Consider the idea of a someday/maybe list". Maybe it'll add value, maybe it will just get dismissed.

On the subject of actions ... to be fair, an action depends on the person thinking about it. It also depends on motivation.

For a person building a deck for the first time, it is a large complex project with many actions and dependencies. For a professional deck builder: "Build Deck" is sufficient to tell him everything that has to be done.

For a person who is motivated, "Call Joe for info" is sufficient. To someone dreading the task, it pays to break it down to small, non threatening tasks:

- Find phone book
- Look up Joe's number
- Find phone
- Dial phone
- Wait for ring
- etc ;-)

On the subject of overhead in GtD. OMG. It was a nightmare. Yes, it is one of those sytems that really seemed as if it would work ... but good grief.

OTOH, the things that AF does not deal with are handled well in GtD to a great degree. The getting organized phase is good. Project folders and files are a good idea. But the lack of planning and those idiot context lists are really bad ideas.

By contrast, AF was a snap to implement. I've spent some time fussing with page length and such, but the basic idea worked out of the gate. The fussing has been to make it work better for me.

I am not sure why everyone here thinks that GTD has such a huge overhead. I do not think it is that bad at all. I still do weekly reviews -- what a wonderful concept! Take out an hour or so every week, turn off your phone, put a do not disturb sign on your door, and review where you are on everything -- up from the runway all the way to your principles and look where you need to go. As far as contexts, they make perfect sense for those that travel or have different locations where they work.

Keep in mind that GTD is a system used by untold millions world-wide and has an incredible following. I have several colleagues that use GTD and are very good at it. I see no reason to tear down a very successful system here. If we wish to talk about AF and its great attributes, then fine -- but let's keep it to that. I have looked at several fora on GTD and I do not see people there -- avid GTD'ers -- tearing down how terrible AF is.

Let's be a little more nice here...my two cents worth.

-David

<I am not sure why everyone here thinks that GTD has such a huge overhead. >

I think people think that on the basis of their own experiences. I certainly found GTD overhead heavy; too many things to complete with new tasks; too much process. AF is much lighter all round.

I assume that people who are happy with GTD are still using it and not looking round at other systems. There seem to be some posters here who have tried (or still use) GTD but are looking at AF, but have an idea of what they need to do which is fairly heavy; they may never be happy with AF. It seems to me that everyone comments (mostly from their own experience) of what they find good or ill in different systems they have tried. No malice, just trying to get things clear; I would have thought comments from people who have tried both can only be helpful to people who have used GTD but are looking at other systems.

Dm

PS Contexts can be useful for people who have a number of them - but they can also be time consuming to implement. If you have a biggish number of contexts (eg in a given week I am likely to be working from 4+ offices with different things possible at each); that means that each task can be done, for instance, at contexts 1, 3, 5 and 6 (there's also out and about and home) - it gets time consuming to note them all. Having seen the 'sense' in the idea, I tried it; having tried it, I quickly found that the time taken in doing it was far greater than the value of having items pre-sorted.

David, I don't think anyone is trying to tear down GTD. We're just describing what our personal experiences with it have been. And GTD didn't work for me. That doesn't mean I don't think there's some useful stuff in the system. But it's just not for everyone, something David Allen himself has said more than once.

Okay --but when comments are made that GTD "was a nightmare" and there seemed to be almost joy from many pointing out "bad things" about it -- I see that as being a little over the top. Trust me -- any system -- including AF -- could be ridiculed and have derisive comments about how it does not work.

-David

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your gracious comments. As you know, I practiced GTD for quite some time and still use some of its practices as I find they are valuable -- the weekly review and keeping a list of projects still works well for me. I still like Autofocus a lot and by no means was meaning to imply that it is not a fantastic system.

Best wishes,
-David

I vote +1 for Timmy's original post. As a GTD refugee, I can say AF strikes a chord with me. I've got a GTD flowchart under my desk blotter, a labeler for folders, A tickler file, and lot of colored folders. Barely use 'em. I was never able to internalize it.

There is nothing wrong with GTD or any other planner system but for me, >>simplicity leads to doing<<. And doing is what I'm after. Hmm I should use my labeler and stick on the cover of my Moleskine:

"This is your list. Open it. Pick one. Do something."

...and I pretty much have all the instructions I need :->

David,

I too am a longtime GTDer and have gotten much benefit from GTD. As I have written elsewhere on this forum, GTD is more about getting organized, while AF is more of a system to increase one's motivation to get things done.

From GTD I learned, as you point out, how important it is to create project plans. For simple projects, I use AF only. But for more complicated projects, I create project plans because--as Catherine CS, Christine B, and others have pointed out--it is very helpful to see all of the milestones for a given project in one place.

When I first started GTD I had a lot of someday/maybes. Now, I keep very few. But I do find it useful, again, to see them all in one place. The idea of flipping through tens of AF pages to review dismissed items does not appeal to me. Once I dismiss something in AF, it's pretty much dismissed for good.

I find it's all to easy to cross an item for an ongoing project off AF (actually, I now only use the vertical line method in the left margin) and forget to add a new item for the same project to the end of the list. I know that if I executed AF perfectly, I would never forget. But it's nice to have a project list outside of AF.

One could argue that such a list is redundant and inefficient. I can only reply that that has not been my experience.

I also still do a weekly review of my project list. This takes less than 15 minutes. I find that it's worth every second.

Everyone comes to a time-management system with their own history. Some have tried Lakein, others Covey, GTD, DIT, or GED. Over the last six years, I developed some very useful habits from GTD. Now that I'm doing AF--and loving it--I am going to retain the best of those habits.

Hi moises,

Thanks for your usual very well-written comments and insights. I am glad to see someone else retain so many of the good things about GTD and incorporate those into a personalized system -- using AF -- but also the weekly review, someday/maybe, etc.

I am going to continue my quest on AF and use many aspects of GTD as well. I guess I was just a bit on the edge when others here wanted to say nothing but bad things about GTD.

-David