GTD and Autofocus

[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]

Crank the widgets

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]

GTD with AF

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.)