BOOKS

Mark Forster is a former life coach, now retired, specialising in time

management and personal organisation. His two books "Get Everything Done and Still Have
Time to Play" and "Do It Tomorrow" take an unconventional view of
time management. For the last two years he has been working on a new time
management system called Autofocus, which has been a collaborative project
on his web site discussion forum.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/autofocus-system/

The Autofocus Productivity Method: Stop

Maintaining To-Do Lists and Start Getting Stuff
Done
Mark Forster

What's Autofocus and What's New?

Ed. note: The interview above offers a great hands on look and some insights into the
Autofocus system. If you'd prefer to go straight to seeing how Autofocus works in practice,
jump down to Autofocus in Application: Step by Step.
When I introduced the first version of Autofocus nearly two years ago, it was an attempt on
my part to revolutionize the way in which unscheduled time was managed.
First and foremost it was a reaction against the dominant advice in time management circles
to prioritize by importance. I did not believe this to be a good principlein fact it can lead
people badly astray. So I ensured that Autofocus cast aside all attempts to prioritize. Instead it
was organized in such a way that every task put on the list either got done in a timely fashion
or got weeded out in the process of working the system.
Secondly I was keen on the idea of using one all-purpose master list in which every task
indeed almost every passing thoughtcould be captured and processed. I wanted a processing
system which would ensure that the right tasks were done at the right time without needing an
intellectual consideration of what "right" consisted of. My idea was that this would emerge
intuitively, and that one would discover what "right" was by working the list.
Thirdly, I wanted something which had the minimum of overhead. In other words the
minimum of time should be spent on the system itself, and the maximum on doing the tasks.

The essence of the first version of Autofocus consisted of two things: a sequence of closed
lists (a list to which nothing can be added) and a process for weeding out tasks that weren't
going anywhere. Each page of the list was treated as a separate closed list, and this
continually presented a small sub-set of the tasks from the full list on which to focus at any
one time. Gradually the noose was tightened as each list grew smaller and smaller so that the
more difficult tasks got done. When the user was no longer willing to work on a particular
page at all, then any remaining tasks on that page were dismissed.
Autofocus didn't quite work in the way I intended it to, but it did have one unexpected result. I
and many others found that working the list resulted in an almost meditative state in which
resistance and procrastination seemed to melt away and the task of the moment became for
that moment the focus of one's universe. I have never found any other system which
approaches this effectnot even subsequent versions of Autofocus.
The main problem with Autofocus was that it didn't really achieve the automatic focusing its
title implied. Although it was possible to achieve a vast amount of work while using it, my
hopes that focus would emerge intuitively were only partially realized. I therefore started
looking at ways in which it could be improved.
The basic Autofocus platform, the single master list, was something I wanted to keep if
possible. I liked being able to write ideas straight into the list, and I liked being able to use the
list to take notes at meetings as tasks. So this concept of the Master List remained unchanged
throughout a series of mutations of the system, to which a very enthusiastic bunch of
members of my discussion forum contributed. Their feedback and ideas were invaluable.
One thing that became clear through the experiments with Autofocus is that on this Master
List there are four types of tasks:
New - tasks entering the system for the first time.
Recurring - tasks which are done regularly (this may be several times a day, once a day, or
less).
Unfinished - tasks on which more work is needed.
Old - tasks which are not new and which have not yet been worked on.
This is a valuable way to classify tasks because it enables us to identify quickly where we are
getting stuck and why.

An excessive number of recurring tasks will tend to take up a lot of time and bog the
system down. If these tasks are grouped together it is easy to audit them and reduce their
number.
An excessive number of unfinished tasks may indicate that too much high level work has
been taken on. Again, grouping them together makes it easy to audit them and look at ways of
reducing them.
An excessive number of old tasks may indicate that there are many which are going
nowhere. Grouping them allows us to use a dismissal process to weed these out.
Since identifying these advantages of grouping tasks, I have been working on the problem of
how to maintain a single master list and at the same time grouping the tasks under these
categories. I wanted something which would be visually simple and would have the minimum
overhead. My solution would have to consist of a method of identifying which of these four
categories a particular task belongs to, and then working systematically on each category
according to a predetermined cycle. The cycle I chose was the obvious one: we start by
dealing with new tasks, move on to recurring tasks, then spend some concentrated time on the
unfinished tasks, before finally working on clearing old tasks. Then the cycle is repeated.
I reckoned that this could be done by putting the tasks onto three pages of a notebook. All new
tasks would go onto Page 1. Once they had been worked on then they would either be crossed
out altogether or re-entered onto one of the other two pages. Page 2 would be for recurring
tasks, and Page 3 for unfinished tasks.
What about old tasks? Well, that was easy: I could use one of the alternative Autofocus
methods which we had developed. This comprised a closed list (one to which nothing could
be added) and an open list (which was open to new tasks being added). The closed list
comprised the "old tasks", and the open list the "new tasks".
Autofocus in Application: Step by Step

How does this look in application? Grab a notebook to start building your lists as we work
through the steps in Autofocus.
It's best to use a lined notebook. The size of the page and the number of lines doesn't matter
too much. (I'm assuming in these instructions that you will be using paper and pen, but it's
easy to duplicate electronically.)
Start by heading three successive pages of your notebook "New", "Recurring" and
"Unfinished" respectively.
Then write down about 10-20 tasks that you need to do, and draw a line under them. These
are your initial "Old Tasks". As you think of other tasks or they arise in the course of your
work, add them below the line. These are your "New Tasks".
Go through all the "Old Tasks" in order. Whenever a tasks feels ready to be done, work on it.
If you finish the task completely, cross it off the list. If it's a recurring task, re-enter it on the
"Recurring" page. If you haven't finished the task, re-enter it on the "Unfinished" page.
At this stage you only work on the Old Tasks, ignoring the others. Continue circulating
through the Old Tasks until no more of them feel ready to be done for the moment. Now start
working on the New Tasks (which are the ones below the line, remember).
When you've done as much work as you want to do on New Tasks for the time being, deal
with the "Recurring" page and then the "Unfinished" page in the same wayexcept that there
is no line dividing these pages. Once you have done all the tasks you want to do on the
Unfinished page, return to the Old Tasks. You must do at least one task (hopefully more),
otherwise all remaining Old Tasks are dismissed. Please note that only Old Tasks are liable to
be dismissed. New Tasks and the tasks in Columns 2 and 3 are not dismissed.
Once all the Old Tasks have been done or dismissed, a new line is drawn and the existing
New Tasks are re-designated as Old Tasks.
Any time you fill a page with tasks, continue the same heading onto a new page. Then when
you are working on a particular type of task circulate through all the pages with that heading.
How effective is this? After you've been working the system for one cycle all the tasks you
entered at the beginning have either been crossed off the list or have automatically been
classified as Recurring, Unfinished or Old. The focus is put on each of these in turn to ensure
that every task gets either actioned or sifted out. My experience has been that the grouping of
tasks in this way makes the progress of your work much clearer and more definite.
One important concept that came out of our discussions on my website was that of completing
work. There is a tendency in life generally for a lot of stuff to get started and not very much
finished. This is very wasteful both of energy and time. The page for Unfinished Tasks is a
means for overcoming this by concentrating for a period on bringing these tasks to
completion. As a minor example of this, I have been using this page to keep working on this
article until it is finished.
One of the surprising discoveries from using this method is how small a proportion of new
work there is in most of our lives. Most of our work is repetitious. Once the recurring tasks
and the unfinished tasks are removed to their own pages, only a relatively small amount of
new tasks appear in the main list. If this is the case, then it is much easier to see how we can
prune the repetitious tasks so that we can truly keep fully on top of our work.
lifehacker.com

Autofocus is a Single, Paper-Based List

Organization System
Autofocus, an organization system designed by personal organization author Mark Forster, is
available for all. If you're looking for a linear, list-based system to help you get things done,
Autofocus stresses simplicity and speed.
The Autofocus system is oriented around dealing with work in a consistent and frequent way,
to help workers quickly knock down mountains of work. The entire system can be used with
nothing more than a pencil and a notebook filled with lined paper.
From the quick start guide on Mark's site:
The system consists of one long list of everything that you have to do, written in a ruled
notebook (25-35 lines to a page ideal). As you think of new items, add them to the end of the
list. You work through the list one page at a time in the following manner:
1. Read quickly through all the items on the page without taking action on any of them.
2. Go through the page more slowly looking at the items in order until one stands out for you.
3. Work on that item for as long as you feel like doing so
4. Cross the item off the list, and re-enter it at the end of the list if you haven't finished it
5. Continue going round the same page in the same way. Don't move onto the next page until
you complete a pass of the page without any item standing out
6. Move onto the next page and repeat the process
7. If you go to a page and no item stands out for you on your first pass through it, then all the
outstanding items on that page are dismissed without re-entering them. (N.B. This does not
apply to the final page, on which you are still writing items). Use a highlighter to mark
dismissed items.
8. Once you've finished with the final page, re-start at the first page that is still active.
There are additional instructions for the various steps fleshed out more thoroughly on the
main Autofocus page, but that stands as the meat of ita large list that you manually renew
each day.
If it can be likened to another system, it might be similar to a simplified weekly review from
the Getting Things Done system, only on a daily basis. Perusing the user forum for Autofocus
you'll find many people sharing the sentiment that Autofocus has helped them get things done
for the very reason some have decried it: it's extremely simple, linear, and tangible. For more
information about the system, check out the full write up at the link below.
blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Day/Week/Month Time Management System

Mark Forster, creator of the popular AutoFocus time management system, has come up with a
new version which he is currently calling the Day/Week/Month (or DWM) time
management system. (Until now, he had been calling it DIT2/AF5, which stood for Do It
Tomorrow 2/AutoFocus 5.)
DWM is a deceptively simple yet extremely powerful method for managing your time. To get
started, if you prefer a paper-based implementation, a one-page-per-day diary format seems to
work best. If however you prefer an electronic implementation, at minimum a way to sort list
items works best (for example, Microsoft Office Excel or Microsoft Office Outlook Tasks).
Heres how it works:

1. For each new incoming task, set the tasks due date to be one calendar month
from todays date. For example, if today is February 11th, make the task due
on March 11th.

2. Work on undone tasks, in any order you wish. When you finish working on a
task, draw a line through it.

3. If you start working on a task and dont finish it, change the tasks due date to
one calendar week from today. For example, if today is February 11th, make
the task due on February 18th.

4. All tasks which are due earlier than todays date are expired. Draw a line
through these tasks. They are dead and gone.

5. For a task with a firm due date, set the tasks due date to that date.

6. If youre on vacation or otherwise unable to work on tasks, when you return,

push out the tasks due dates the number of days that you were gone. For
example, if you are unable to work on tasks during February 13th 14th, push
out all of your tasks due dates by two days.

7. For paper-based implementations, write in the date at the top of each page. To
move a task, just re-write it on the new page and cross off the old task. If you
have to push out some tasks due dates due to absences, just cross off the old
due dates and write in the new due dates at the tops of the affected pages.

8. For electronic implementations, in Excel you could use a column for due dates
and sort them that way, or for Outlook you could use the Due Date field and
sort them that way.
filsalustri.wordpress.com

FocusTodo: AutoFocus for the iPhone

Posted by Fil Salustri

FocusTodo is for those who dislike GTD.

AutoFocus is a minimalist time management system by Mark Forster. It certainly has its
merits, especially if you find that time management systems like Getting Things Done (GTD)
are too complicated. While theres all kinds of GTD apps for the iPhone, only recently have
apps based on AutoFocus started to appear. A very interesting AutoFocus app is FocusTodo
(n.b. the website seems nearly entirely in Japanese) by Syncreticworks.
Im going to do a short review of FocusTodo and suggest some possible improvements. Its a
pretty cool app anyways, and I think that AutoFocus purists in particular will really appreciate
it.
Time management systems are methods for organizing yourself so that you can increase your
productivity, be effective and efficient, and at least in my own case free up more time to
be with my family. They usually involve writing down to-do lists in one way or another.
Some people think GTD is a rich and multi-layered system can cover improve every aspect of
your life. Other people think GTD is arcane, obtuse, and overly complicated. AutoFocus
(AF) is pretty much the opposite of GTD, so it appeals to those other people.
AF (in any of its variants) is designed to be extremely simple, and leverages as much as
possible the natural capacity of the human brain to make quick, reliable choices in the
moment. Its quite simple to learn much easier than GTD and is based on using a simple
paper notebook (so its great for people disinterested in spending hundreds of dollars on fancy
binders, booklets, specially printed pages, and thick manuals). AF is very well-described at
its website, so Im not going to get into it here.

Figure 1: Notebooks in FocusTodo

FocusTodo (version 1.2 as of this writing) is a pretty faithful implementation of the original
AF system, although it can be used for any of its variants too.
In FocusTodo, you create notebooks, into which you put your tasks. You can assign colours
to your notebooks and order them as you like. Since it strictly follows the analogy of a paper
notebook, you can define how many pages are in a given notebook, and how many lines are
on each page. The default number of lines per page, 8, is good because 8 items just fit on the
screen without scrolling. However, once assigned, you cannot change the page size or
number of pages in a notebook.
When a notebook is full, you can delete it or archive it. (The archive of old notebooks is
accessible via the tray icon shown at the lower right of Figure 1 and can be useful if you
need a record of when you did things.)
Once youre in a notebook, you get a page layout like a lined notebook. (See Figure 2.) You
add one task per line, by tapping the + icon (top right). You can add multiple tasks at once.
Each item is stored with the date and time it was created. The asterisk to the right of each
item lets you edit or delete the item.
By default, tapping a task will mark it done. You have three choices here: cancel the
operation (always good to have that option), mark the item done, or mark it done and add it
again at the end of the list (this is in keeping with the standard AF method). The date and
time of completion is also added to the item.
Alternatively, you can highlight items easily in yellow, by selecting the highlighter tool from
the tool-bar (see Figure 2). The tool-bar is accessed by tapping whatever symbol is at the
centre of the bottom of the screen. By default, the selected tool is the red-pen used to cross
out a completed task. The tool-bar shown in Figure 2 is normally hidden.

Figure 2: Inside a FocusTodo notebook.

The space in the left margin is for icons meant to distinguish certain tasks with icons. These
icons are also accessed through the tool-bar. Theres no specific meaning for the icons, nor
are they part of typical AF systems, but its easy to imagine what one might use them for.
The first and last buttons at the bottom of the screen let you get to the first and last pages
of your notebook. This is an important feature derived from how AF works. You also move
from page to page with finger swipes.
If you want to undo having marked a task done, just tap it again. Tasks are never deleted
automatically though you can do it yourself very quickly because you keep your old
notebooks for your records (in AF).
FocusTodo is a relatively small app, so its very fast, which is nice.
I find FocusTodo to have a very natural interface it took me less than 10 minutes to figure
out all of its features. (Granted, I already know about AF though. Users unacquainted with
AF may find it longer to get used to, but the built-in help is simple and complete). Its also
very clean: buttons are fairly large and well-spaced, and very few taps are needed for most
operations. A lot is done with translucent popups (like the tool-bar at the bottom of Figure 2).
I like this because it keeps the main page visible as a cognitive anchor when navigating
through other screens and their actions.
I think FocusTodo is a very promising app, and already quite useful, but its main drawback is
that it is too fixed on maintaining the analogy to a paper notebook. Heres what I mean:
No annotations. I think its important that an app allow you to add notes to a task. Lets say
you complete a task, but as a result, a number of new tasks arise. When that happens you
might be in the middle of a meeting or have to proceed immediately onto some other task, and
you may not have the time to sit, think through, and add all the new tasks properly. Ive
found it useful, then, to leave myself a note in the task I just completed: just enough of a
memory cue to get me back on track later. Once Ive found some time later in the day, I can
go back, check the memory cues, and then update the new tasks. All you need is the ability to
add notes to tasks.
No deadlines. Adding deadlines for tasks would be a huge benefit. As it stands, you would
need a separate app just for your tasks that have hard deadlines. Thats ridiculous. On paper,
one can always add deadlines say, in the margin but in FocusTodo there just isnt any
sensible way to even capture the deadline. The only place to add it is as the first thing in a
task description, but that just cuts into the number of characters of task description that you
have available. The deadlines could be controlled by a Settings option, so that AF purists can
just turn it off.
No task reordering. AF is built to accommodate a task list that is not ordered because its
based on pen and paper. But FocusTodo is an app. The underlying goal of AF is to be as
lightweight for users as possible. If FocusTodo aimed for the same goal, I think it must
support task ordering, because thats something a computer can do extremely well, even if
reordering is not part of AF. This need for reordering impacts FocusTodo in several ways.
1. Completed tasks really should be moved out of the way. I suggest having an
option to move them either to the very start or the very end of a task list
(depending on which variant of AF you prefer); or even possibly just make
them invisible (present but not rendered). I hate having to wade through
pages of tasks containing only one or two unfinished tasks. True, this might
seem to run contrary to AF, but remember that AF is optimized for use with
pen and paper. No way will something optimized for situation A work well in
some significantly different situation Z.
2. Deferring tasks (i.e. deciding youve done enough but not all of a task) in AF
means marking the task done, but also adding it again to the end of the list.
FocusTodo mimics this exactly. A deferred task appears as a crossed out task,
and as a new task at the end of the list. Again, this just clutters the list with
things-marked-done. I say: at least provide an option whereby deferred tasks
are just moved to, not duplicated at, the end of the list.
 3. It is supremely painful to reorder tasks in a list, if that list is on a sheet of
paper. However, its trivial on a computer. So why not allow items to be
manually grouped? This would help keep similar or related tasks together
which could be very useful for some people. It even approximates GTDs
projects, without any of the extra interaction needed to support them.
4. Only one line of text is displayed for the task. Having the text truncated can
be very confusing. (It certainly is for me.) I would suggest that at least two
lines worth of text should be display per task.
5. If deadlines are supported, then it should be possible to sort tasks by
deadline. I mean, why would I want to scan through many pages just looking
for the one task that must be done today? I would suggest having only dated
tasks due today appear in a special location. All others would just be in
whatever order the user would have put them.
Doesnt remember state. When you start FocusTodo, it always takes you to the notebook
view (per Figure 1), and the red marker is always the selected tool. This is, I think, annoying.
It makes far more sense for the app to pick up wherever you last left off with it. Many iPhone
apps act this way it cant be that hard to program. When restarting the app, you should be
taken to the list that was last active, and whatever tool youd selected should be the selected
tool again.
The verdict: FocusTodo is a really useful app thats a little short of being wonderful. Its
developers have stuck too closely to the pen and paper metaphor and, in so doing, have
lobotomized their app.
AutoFocus purists should love this app. Others, like me, hope that the developers will
enhance it while keeping the very clean interface intact.
simpleproductivityblog.com

Productivity Tool Overview: Autofocus

LJ Earnest
Mondays are productivity days at SimpleProductivity blog.

I have long believed that true productivity requires a variety of methods. Some days you need
to may need to focus on a specific task and power through. Some days you may need to sprint
through a bunch of tasks. Some days you may need to focus on your energy. All of these
strategies will help you get things done, but work best under the right circumstances.
This June I will be looking at my go-to tools the ones in my productivity toolbox. I will look
at how to use them, what they are best at, and when I use them. Today we begin with Mark
Forsters AutoFocus.
Intro to Autofocus
Mark Forster has invented many task management systems over the years, but my favorite for
really getting through a lot of tasks without feeling overwhelmed is Autofocus.
Instructions for Autofocus can be found here.
Autofocus has you make a task list and break it into pages. You work through the first page
with undone tasks, and select one to do. Then you repeat until there is nothing more on page 1
that grabs you. Then you move onto page 2 and do the same thing. If you dont want to do
anything on the page during the first pass, you must discard everything on that page and move
on.
What It Is Really Good At
Autofocus is good at four things: breaking the task list into manageable chunks, eliminating
the stress of what you need to do next, and getting stalled projects going. It also allows your
subconscious to decide if something really needs to get done.
Manageable Lists
By breaking the list into manageable chunks, I find that I am not overwhelmed with
everything I have that needs attention. The big list is always overwhelming and usually results
in my deciding not to do anything. The smaller lists of Autofocus seem possible, and that
gives me a reason to do them.
Eliminates Stress
Autofocus eliminates the stress of deciding what to do, while still allowing you to finish large
amounts of tasks. I only have to decide what to do on the current page. I can do the task, and
when I have done as much as I want, I move on.
There is no pressure to finish the taskif it isnt done, I just write it again at the bottom of the
list.
Getting To Stalled Projects
I find that Autofocus also allows me to get to the tasks that have been on the list the longest.
Often these tasks get shoved to the background by other things that have come up in the
meantime. So I find the big projects like working on the novel are more likely to be done
because they arent overshadowed by more recent tasks.
Subconscious Decision Making
When you scan over a page and nothing jumps out at you, it is because you know deep down
that the task really doesnt need to be done. You are aware as you go through the list that if
you dont do something on the page, it will all get deleted. Sometimes that will spur you to
take action on something you have been putting off. And sometimes it is fine, because you
know those things really dont have to be done.
When I Use It
I use Autofocus after I have completed the big three for the day (each morning I set three
tasks that I want to do before all others). I then pull out the Autofocus list.
So my after-paid tme ends, I work on the three tasks.These tasks are the ones, that if I
complete, I will feel that the day was productive. They may include things that are part of my
daily maintenance list, or they might be things that relate to projects that I want to do.
After that I kick into Autofocus. I divide my task list up into pages based on the date they
were entered, and start working through them. I find that taking this approach makes me much
more likely to get these things done. I generally complete 50 to 60% more tasks on the nights
when I am applying Autofocus, because I know I can re-enter tasks, and yet the tasks seem to
complete!
Conclusion
Autofocus is a great system if you want to have manageable lists, reduce your stress over
what you are doing, and restart stalled projects.
filsalustri.wordpress.com

Getting Things Done vs AutoFocus: A Preliminary

Comparison
Posted by Fil Salustri

tempus fugit
Getting Things Done (GTD) is David Allens blockbuster time management approach.
AutoFocus (AF) is Mark Forsters method for staying organized, which is gaining popularity
quite quickly. Though they have they same goal, Ive not seen two more dissimilar ways of
achieving it. As I try to keep myself organized and (no surprise) doubtless end up designing
my own time management system researching whats available is an important part of the
process. And while this is neither an exhaustive nor an authoritative comparison, it has been
beneficial in my own thinking. So I thought Id share.
GTD
GTD is a large and complex way of keeping yourself organized. It is reasonably summarized
in Wikipedia. It has six levels of focus, a workflow of five major stages, a five step planning
model, a method of four criteria for deciding on the fly what task one should do next, and a
variety of other methods. There are many software applications that implement GTD in
whole or in part.
GTD is meant to cover ones entire life. Though Ive never heard it described as a personal
re-programming technique, that is what it is. The idea is that by following GTD you can
completely turn your life around.
Because of its complexity and scope, its not the sort of thing one can learn on ones own,
over a free weekend. There are naturally all kinds of workshops and seminars about GTD,
and lots and lots of books.
This is where I start to wonder about it. Of course, I have absolutely no evidence of any
unethical behaviour by David Allen or any of his employees or representatives, but one has to
wonder about the fairly obvious conflict of interest. The more complex GTD is, the more
likely it is that money can be made by teaching it. In the professions (e.g. engineering,
medicine, social work, law, etc) there are mechanisms in place to ensure that such potentially
unethical situations are mitigated. In Allens area, there are no such mechanisms. And while
there are thousands of totally satisfied customers who have apparently benefited tremendously
from GTD, there are also those for whom it just doesnt work. (This is obvious from the
number of people who have chosen to use other time management systems.) All Im saying is
that its difficult to know exactly how complex GTD needs to be because theres not yet been
a serious evaluation (that Im aware of) of the method by experts (e.g. psychologists).
There also seems to be a particular interest in the GTD workflow; that is, people have adopted
the workflow without necessary also adopting the planning method, the levels or focus, or the
other aspects of GTD. And it is the workflow that has been implemented widely in software.
Because of its relative popularity, it merits a little special attention here.
As with any good method, GTDs workflow partitions task management into five distinct
stages, each of which is very different cognitively from the others. This kind of partitioning
almost always works, because the human mind is no good at juggling disjoint thoughts, ideas,
or information. In the case of the GTD workflow, the stages also split tasks based on the
amount of time you can likely spare on each one presently. By assigning the more difficult
tasks as ones that can be done at ones convenience, the workflow becomes less intrusive, and
so can improve both efficiency and effectiveness.
The five workflow steps are:
Collect. This is just data gathering. Whenever a task comes up, just write it down or note it
somewhere. It doesnt matter if its on a sheet of notepaper, or in a PDA, or on a paper
napkin. The point here is to get it out of your mind so that you can remain focused on
whatever youre doing at the moment. Its not about arranging things so that you wont forget
about something, but rather than you can and should forget about it now, and can still come
back to it later. The place(s) in which you collect tasks is often called your inbox.
Process. This is when you clear out your inbox(es), and should be done at least once a day.
The inbox must be empty at the end of the processing stage. If it takes you two minutes or
less to do an item, then you should do it on the spot. Processing is a rather coarse-cut activity,
meant to weed out things that are best left for someday versus things you really need to do,
versus things best left to others, or even things you can just toss entirely.
Organize. This is the fine-cut, follow-up stage to processing. Here you decide if an item is a
project or just a task, the context in which it should be done, whether it is a next action,
assigning priorities, and so on. Organizing can be done regularly and separately from
processing. Any task that has more than one step to completing it should be defined as a
project.
Review. In this step, usually done weekly, you go through all your tasks and projects, and
make sure everything is still in order. This is when you make sure tasks are properly
organized, revise task orderings, etc.
Do. The preceding stages are all for the sake of simplifying this one: actually getting things
done. This is where the Four Criteria Model comes in for deciding exactly what to do next.
By now, youve got a list of candidate next actions, but you need to decide which one you will
do. You leave this decision to the last minute because the rationale for choosing a thing
depends on factors you dont know till that moment. The four criteria are, in order, context,
time, energy, and priority; explaining them goes beyond my intentions here.
In my opinion, the greatest problem with GTD is its complexity: it tries to externalize as much
about task management as possible, on the premise (I assume) that externalizing stuff will
help you reflect on it. Even if just considering the workflow, I find that it just doesnt match
up well with how I manage my tasks and how I process information about what I have to do.
For instance, the two-minute rule for processing items just doesnt work for me. What if the
item Im considering is really more of a project? The rational thing to do is to enumerate the
basic tasks for that project at once to get them out of my head which could take much
longer than two minutes. Contexts dont work for me either, because I often worry about
home things during work hours and vice versa (e.g. I have to call the plumber, which is a
home task, but I have to call him during business hours, which is work time).
The problem with stripping out of GTD the parts I dont need isnt easy, because they do all
interrelate with respect to the overall goals. So, for instance, if I decide to ignore contexts, I
must be wary of any GTD techniques that involve contexts some of them will become
pointless, others will change a little or a lot.
AutoFocus
If GTD is the complex way of managing tasks, AF (in all its forms) is the opposite. While
GTD tries to systematize every aspect of task management on the premise that it will help you
reflect on it all, AF assumes you know yourself best, and all you need is a little mild
prompting to get on with things. AF is newer than GTD, so were only now starting to see
software apps for AF.
All four (currently) variations of AF are based on keeping a single long list of items. Imagine
having a paper notebook in which you just list every task in whatever order you thought of
them. The original AF system can be summarized as follows:
1. Starting with the first page with unfinished tasks, choose one that stands out
and work on it for a while. If you finish it, scratch it off the list; otherwise add
it again to the end of the very last page of the list.
2. Find another item on that first page and repeat step 1. Do not go on to step 3
until you find nothing more worth doing on that page.
3. Go on to the next page of items and return to step 1.
4. If you find a page containing unfinished tasks none of which catch your eye,
mark all remaining items on the list deferred till some future time (e.g. with a
highlighter).
5. Once you get to the last page of the list, go back to the first page and return
to step 1.
AF in all its variations is ludicrously simple. The principle behind its operation is that your
brain just needs a little organized prompting to decide what to do next, and not a massive,
highly systematized system. AF tends also to not force you to do only things you have to do,
so it tends to inject more diversity and even fun into things.
The variations of AF are meant to address some shortcomings that some people have
identified. This further strengthens the notion that one size does not fit all, and that no one
should expect a single time management method to just work for them without some
tweaking. One of the nice things about AF is that its so simple, nearly anyone can tweak it.
The problem with AF is that none of its variants really deal with the natural grouping of
tasks. In GTD, this is done with projects. One can then easily decide whether to do one next
action from each of a number of different projects, or a whole bunch of actions in a single
project. With AF, distinction between projects is difficult (unless you actually note the project
before each task), so you cant control whether you will focus on one project, or just do
random bits. Presumably, your subconscious mind will glom to those things you really want
to do whether in a single project or not and youll just handle it.
Its one thing to not know (or care) if youre working on a single project, but its quite another
to not have that information available to you at all. Since AF is based on the notion that your
brain, presented with a simple list, will do the work of figuring out what to do next nearly
automatically, then were assuming the information it needs to do this well must be present on
the page. But it isnt (necessarily).
Furthermore, I dont have the ethical reservations with AF that I do with GTD. This is
because there is much more free information about AF, and because AF is so simple it really
doesnt need all those seminars and courses that Allens company offers for GTD.
GTD or AF?
So how do they compare? Well, in large part the winner depends on the judge: you. GTD is
systematic and all about externalizing as much information about tasks as possible.
Systematization is something that doesnt appeal to everyone; ditto with externalization. AF,
on the other hand, is very unsystematic and depends on your inner sense of what you should
be doing.
Also, because of GTDs scope and breadth, its rather inevitable that there would exist a
nearly infinite variety of dialects and subtypes. On the other hand, because of its inherent
simplicity, its not surprising that there are virtually no variations of AF. This means that if
youre leaning towards GTD, you may have to invest time either developing your own
variation, or looking for an existent variant that fits your specific needs.
Externalization is a way to think about what youre thinking about; its great at helping you
reflect on your own thinking because it forces you to put whats in your head entirely in some
external form that you can then re-absorb as if it had been provided by someone else.
Externalization is a technique I use extensively in my research, such as when Im developing
courseware, when I need to validate and possibly revise how I think about something or how I
organize my thoughts. If you think you need that kind of reflection to develop a good time
management system, then youll likely prefer GTD or one of its many variants.
Youll also like GTD if youre particularly systematic about doing things. If you tend to
naturally be an organizer (e.g. if your MBTI or jungian personality type is **TJ) then youll
probably prefer a variant of GTD to AF.
Obviously, if you like neither externalization nor systematization, then youll probably prefer
AF. Ive noticed that some people have just gotten used to their own thinking styles so well,
that they dont really need a systematic way of staying organized. Indeed, they might appear
highly disorganized to me, yet they are always on task and on track. These people are lucky.
Im in my late 40s and only now starting to figure out how my brain works. Systematization
would only slow such people down and mire them in what they would probably see as
pointless administrivia. The free-flowing, hyper-simple AF methods would obviously be
more attractive to such people.
Similarly, there are people who do not want or do not need to externalize their time
management. There might be other things they externalize so that they can reflect upon them,
but their time management isnt one of them. Whatever way they have of dealing with their
tasks is working fine for them and they dont need to reflect and think on how they can do
things better. These people just need something quick and simple, a memory aid more than a
full-blown organizer, a gentle poke rather than boot to the head.
One thing that I find wrong with both GTD and AF is that theyre both targeted to manage
tasks that have no hard deadlines. But for me, task management is incomplete if it doesnt
cover appointments, task with deadlines, and tasks without deadlines. Theyre like the three
sides of a triangle; you cant get rid of one and still have a triangle. But both Allan and
Forster have been very clear: get something else to handle appointments and deadlines. So at
least in this one regard, GTD and AF are both equally flawed (from my point of view).
So what about me, you ask? Which do I prefer?
Well, Im somewhere in the middle not unlike many other people, I think because the
types of people I described above are at the extremes of a continuous scale. Most of us live in
the grey area in between the extremes. Neither heavily for nor against either externalization or
systematization, were in a real pickle because theres no clear-cut factor pushing us toward
either GTD or AF.
Of course, your mileage will vary. But I can tell you about my own predicament. I came
upon GTD as I tried to find a good to-do app for my iPhone. But I also noticed that I kept
looking for simpler and simpler apps, and couldnt understand why so many of them were so
jammed with features that seemed mostly like administrivia to me. Still, it was all I knew, so
off I went. Slowly, I learnt how to tune down many of the features of many of the apps I tried
(some of that will appear in a future post). Some of the issues I have with GTD generally are:
Priorities are not that important; I use them just to identify the most important
from the least important things. Ive written about that elsewhere.
Contexts dont work for me, because the context Im in only affects the
context of a task about half the time.
Status settings seem irrelevant to me, especially if theres, like, a dozen of
them as there are in some iPhone GTD-esque apps that Ive tried. And any
status settings that really matter can be simulated with other task
characteristics that serve multiple purposes. For instance, deferring an item
can be handled by setting its start date way in the future, and the all-
important next action can be simulated by just manually re-ordering tasks in
a project. The top of the stack is the natural next action.
Starred items are useless to me. Starred items are in some way especially
important. But if youve got some top-level priority like urgent or
essential then what could possibly beat that and require a star too? Stars
dont seem to be written about much on either the official GTD or AF websites.
Tags are a nice generic tool, but also useless if you have other things. You can
replace status settings, contexts, and projects with just tags, so long as you
can filter by tag sets. Depending on whether you prefer the elegance of
having a single mechanism for all these features, or whether youd rather keep
each feature separate, you might prefer tags or not. But to implement those
features and tags on top of it all seems a bit much to me.
Im sure there are some others too that Ive not even noticed.
see what I mean about stripping GTD down to its basics?
Then I found Mark Forsters site, and discovered AF, which seemed so screamingly beautiful
in its simplicity, I couldnt believe I hadnt found out about it before. I immediately started to
think of how Id convert to it from the lightweight GTD dialect Id been using. And it didnt
take long to start noticing problems there too.
Annoyingly, the problem I have with AF is precisely of the opposite nature of my problems
with GTD: AF seems to simple for me, just as GTD seems too complex. The one problem I
have with AF is that it doesnt support projects. I think projects are great ways to bundle
sequences of tasks together. I can review each project separately, which keeps me focused in
specific goals (per project). If all my tasks were mixed together essentially at random, I dont
know how Id manage to keep them all straight.
This is a big deal for me, because I find it very natural to think in terms of projects that are
composed of tasks. Projects cluster tasks into sensible chunks. Mark Forster has suggested
on his site that tasks do tend to chunk together naturally, but quite frankly thats not good
enough. The last thing I need is for one (important) task to get separated from related tasks.
So, the answer is that if GTD and AF are at opposite ends of the scale, Im definitely on the
AF side of centre. I like simplicity, and I personally dont need the externalization and
systematization that GTD has to offer. But some organizational tricks namely projects and
the ability to flag some tasks as significantly more important than others (some sort of
prioritization) mean a lot to me.
With respect to priorities, I think in terms of two features importance and effort that define
what priority means to me. Ive already written about that. Basically, if a task will either
have particularly important effects on completion (like, say, applying for a grant) or will
require a particularly significant effort (like preparing courseware for a new course), then I
think of it as a priority item. Those that both are important and require substantial effort are
the highest priority.
I know that Mark Forster has argued eloquently against the importance of task priority,
primarily because ones priorities can change dramatically over time. But thats why I chose
importance and effort to define priority; these characteristics, I find, do not change over time.
So there you have it. As usual, I can provide no easy answers. But thats the nature of this
beast, because everyone will have their own particular needs and likes, and I can only tell you
what works for me.