GTD and Autofocus

Longstreet

Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
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

Registered
Longstreet;66690 said:
(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

Registered
GTD implementation technique on the Runway.

mcogilvie;66694 said:
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

Registered
Used, back to GTD

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

Registered
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

Registered
ludlow;66715 said:
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

Registered
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

Registered
Unclarified stuff creates resistance.

ludlow;66715 said:
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

Registered
TesTeq;66728 said:
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

Registered
Shoshana;66731 said:
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

Registered
mcogilvie;66733 said:
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.
 
"Mind Like Root Beer Float" I love it ;-)

mcogilvie;66694 said:
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. ;-)

mcogilvie;66694 said:
... 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.
 
TesTeq;66728 said:
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 ;-)
 
Shoshana;66731 said:
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:
 
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

Registered
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

Registered
Living in Matrix...

MikeMikeMikeMike;66760 said:
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...

MikeMikeMikeMike;66760 said:
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.

MikeMikeMikeMike;66760 said:
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.
 
TesTeq;66770 said:
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.
 
sdann;66768 said:
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.

sdann;66768 said:
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.
 
Top