First I have to say I was quite happy to be back to pencil and paper.  I felt that this worked much better for me.  One of the things I've liked so much about AutoFocus is that it builds a sense of momentum, but I felt this was lacking somewhat using AutoFocus where there was really no notion of a page, and little sense of completion or progress.  It's a little like running on a treadmill compared to running outside.  I think an AutoFocus app could be built, but I don't think you can just take a GTD app and redeploy it as an AutoFocus application and get all the benefits of AutoFocus.

In many ways this experiment with the revised AutoFocus rules was something of a failure.  The major change here is the use of modes a reverse mode and a forward mode.  Forward mode is handled by entering a task on your list called "Switch to Forward mode" and then when that is the task that sticks out you switch to Forward mode.  Over the two weeks I've been doing this I only found myself switching into forward mode 3 times.  I found the tail end of my list far more compelling and important.  The beginning of my list that could only be reached using Forward mode really didn't have that many truly critical and important tasks so they tended to get dismissed each day (with a few exceptions).  Dismissing those tasks always seemed very reasonable and painless.  There were tasks that I dismissed that I wished I'd gotten around to doing, but none of them were a big deal.

Overall I have to say that I was pretty happy with the new revised rules because they do help you get back to the beginning of the list and I continue to like the new dismissal rules.

Let me share my stats for the past few weeks because I think they are fairly interesting.  I found them pretty interesting.

It's clear that I'm opening pages much faster than I'm closing them out, at least some are getting closed out.  If this trend continues though I'll end up with an untenable number of pages.  There seem to be only 3 possibilities for addressing this issue:

1) Dismiss items faster

2) Do a better job of taking small actions more frequently so that I can cover more pages.

3) Add fewer tasks

#1 is an option and I'm sure there are more tasks that could be dismissed faster  (AutoFocus 1 handled this a bit better.  #2 is an option, but already feel that there are times through the day when I'm shifting my attention too many times - often to things of lower importance.  #3 isn't in the spirit of AutoFocus where you can dump things in and filter them.  I think this is actually working pretty well because the things that aren't getting done in general are not that critical.  My worry is that I am still spending too much time on things less critical rather than spending more of my time on the truly important things in my life.

You'll see from the dates above that this experiment is a few weeks old now. I have done another variant involving prioritizing critical items. I'll post the results of that tomorrow.

Related posts

• OmniFocus for AutoFocus 2 Brief summary of a 15-day experiment using OmniFocus to implement...
• Uberfocus – My tweaks to AF4 Explanation of my issues with the AF4 system and a...
• Getting ready… question to ask for the new year as you contemplate...

When Mark Forster posted his updates on using AutoFocus I started a new notebook and began using it and loved it.  A  number of people were posting on his forums about successfully using OmniFocus and other electronic versions.  In my opinion this was only made possible with the use of Open Lists in AF2 vs. Closed Lists in AF.  I have purchased and have extensively tested both OmniFocus and Things as traditional GTD tools.  I have previously stated my preference for Things over OmniFocus, but OmniFocus does provide much better syncing with the iPhone and so I opted to go with OF for this test.

Implementing AutoFocus with OmniFocus is the simplest thing in the world.  I simply deleted all my previous contexts and deleted all my previous projects and created one new project called "AutoFocus".  Then I clicked on the Contexts button and all my tasks show up as "No Context" which is just fine.  Then I work from the bottom to the top.  I add tasks using Quick Entry and just type the name of the task and set the Project to AutoFocus.  With the Auto Complete this is very efficient.

Because I had only switched to using AutoFocus 2 a few weeks before this experiment I chose to not start over and not re-enter tasks either.  I did the unthinkable I used both.  I began entering all new tasks in OF and worked backwards and when I reached the top of the list I began working back in the notebook.  My thinking was that I would quickly clear the notebook and fully into the OF version.  This did not happen.  At the end of the 2 weeks I still have 4 open pages in the notebook.

Results

In the 15 days of this experiment I created 337 tasks and completed 234 of them.  This seems roughly 50% slower than the progress that I seemed to make with the notebook.  I like using the notebook better because although it can be slightly less efficient to enter the tasks (I definitely type faster than I write) and it's less convenient to carry a notebook around I do think there is something important about physically writing things.  Overall I think OmniFocus is perfectly fine at implementing the system as I defined it, the inability (perhaps my own) at simulating the physical notion of a page is missing.  There is something compelling about completing a page rather than just checking things off one long electronic list.

I found the OmniFocus syncing to the iPhone to work much better this time around.  Probably because I was using the tool in a much simpler way.  I also found that in the entire time I entered about 2 tasks on the iPhone and checked off about 3.  So overall having it was nice when I needed it, but even in those cases my notebook was just as accessible so the benefit was fairly marginal.

Next Steps

Now that Mark Forster has once again revised the system, reincorporating AutoFocus 1 as "Forward Mode" I am going to try that system out for 2 weeks and report the results back.  I am going to switch completely over to the notebook again and re-write my current task list over.  I'm not in love with the complexity of his new formulation (it feels like a classic coding hack when you know how to make something work, but aren't sure how to streamline it) but I'm going to try to give the system a fair shake.  If I can complete that before it changes again I'll also implement my own tweak to the system that I think may resolve my existing issues with AF2 and not being able to get back to the beginning of the list.

Related posts

• Experience with Revised AutoFocus 2 Results of a 2 week experiment using Mark Forster's Revised...
• Uberfocus – My tweaks to AF4 Explanation of my issues with the AF4 system and a...
• Getting ready… question to ask for the new year as you contemplate...

AutoFocus review

On June 27, Mark Forster released his AutoFocus 2 which is a followup to his AutoFocus time management system released earlier this year.

AutoFocus is described on Mark's site and I did an earlier comparison of it to David Allen's GTD here.   AF2 is designed to resolve some of the issues that have been observed about AF.  Mark describes these well on his site.  This quick article is my description of my experience with AF2 after the first 10 days.

Overall I'm very pleased with AF2.  It has really re-engaged my use of the system.  I found my use of AF flagging a little bit in the few weeks before AF2 came out.  I think this was partly due to having split my lists into a Home and Work list.  With AF2 I am back to a single list.  While I initially really liked the "closed list" idea of working on a single page until there were no items that were standing out, it became difficult to iterate through the list fast enough to deal with urgent issues.  In AF2 you work backwards through the list and after each task you jump to the end again so it allows very rapid progress as items come up.  I find that this makes it difficult to get back to items earlier in the list though.  So far I've solved this by making one linear pass through the list each day, where I start at the end and just keep working back.  Then I follow the normal rules the rest of the day.  This seems to work well and allows reasonable progress on all parts of the list, but also allows me to make quick progress on important items and things that are important that come up during the day.

The other thing I really like are the new rules for dismissing items.  It becomes pretty clear what items will get dismissed "tomorrow" and almost every day I have dismissed one task.  On one occassion it was a task I really should have done, but just didn't get to and it was reasonably urgent (but really dreaded doing).  In every other case, the dismissal has removed a task that really isn't that important, or something that is important, but not for a while.  These new dismissal rules are great and help get pages cleaned up much faster than before.

When I started AF2 I threw away my old list and started with a brand new notebook.  In 10 days I've got 12 pages, 2 of which are closed, and many of the pages have just a few items remaining.  My pages currently hold 26 tasks, compared to the 40 my prior notebook hold.  I find I like having a bit more room to write the tasks.  In comparing my current statistics to my earlier experience with AF after 5 weeks, it appears that I'm moving a bit faster and closing pages faster as well.

The best way to compare AF and AF2 is they both seem to build incredible momentum to getting tasks done, but with AF2 there is more fluidity and it feels easier to naturally follow through on important tasks whereas with AF it often felt as if I sometimes needed to do unimportant tasks in favor of things I knew intuitively were more important.  As stated earlier, I think the biggest problem now is how to really handle important things that aren't at the head of the list.  I do believe that the key to resolving all these issues is to really internalize and follow the notion that  your intuition is the guide and determines what "stands out".

If you are using AF2, what is your experience?

Related posts

• Experience with Revised AutoFocus 2 Results of a 2 week experiment using Mark Forster's Revised...
• OmniFocus for AutoFocus 2 Brief summary of a 15-day experiment using OmniFocus to implement...
• Uberfocus – My tweaks to AF4 Explanation of my issues with the AF4 system and a...

The Autofocus system is simple and you can read about it at the link above. I won't detail how the system works because you can read it there.  It is an alternative to GTD although I think they complement each other somewhat rather than being strictly mutually exclusive.

What I like about it is expressed by the following quote:
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"...Leonard da Vinci

First let me provide a bit of background...

I have used GTD for about 3 years.  My experience with it has been positive overall, but I never was able to get to the point where I really felt on top of everything in front of me.  The idea of Inbox Zero and collection were extremely effective for me.  The "2 Minute Rule" made sure I responded to many more emails quickly and properly filed the actions that I needed to come back to later.  I feel that fewer important things got dropped and I could always find emails and things that needed to be responded to.

My major challenges with GTD have been the following:

• Weekly Reviews seem essential and are very rewarding, but so hard to get around to and complete in a busy schedule. In discussing GTD with colleagues and reading what others struggle with online it seems to be a consistent issue.  I've heard David Allen say that the people who succeed with GTD are the ones who do the Weekly Review.
• People seem to constantly fall off the GTD bandwagon.  There are definitely things that are easy, like collection, but getting things organized into Projects, Tasks/Next Actions, Contexts, Tickler files, Someday/Maybe, etc., is a bit of work in itself.  If this unravels I think the system breaks down pretty quickly.
• Widget cranking is a bit overrated.  I understand the intellectual argument of separating planning and action and the psychological payoff of completing a task.
• When to do it...GTD seems to lack any specific guidance on when to do an action.  It seems to emphasize just cranking through the list based on context and prioritization is downplayed.  I haven't found that this works well and its too easy to start jumping around working on whats easy rather than what's important.  Maybe there are great solutions to this in GTD, but I haven't seen them.

Overall while I think GTD has been a big help to me, it seems like a tall horse that I and others seem to fall off of all the time.  If you are riding a horse to your destination, constantly falling off just hurts and doesn't get you there very fast.  GTD strikes a cord with so many people because it helps solve the overwhelm so many of us feel in our busy world, but I really wonder how many people are really getting things under control with it compared to those who feel they are more under control simply because they have a system.  Not that feeling under control is bad, but maybe there's a better way.

Enter AutoFocus

I have endlessly tinkered with my GTD system since I first started using it...I wonder if this is because I'm just a tinkerer (because I am) or because there is something missing in the system.  I'm pretty smart, hold an advanced degree in engineering, have read David's books multiple times, have listened to GTD interviews, read many many blog postings on GTD.  I've used many software versions of GTD: GTD Outlook Add-in on Windows and Kinkless GTD, Omnifocus, Things, and its still not quite working for me.  So when I read about AutoFocus I figured I'd give it a try.

I will explain the basic mechanics of how I use AutoFocus then try to explain what I like about AutoFocus as well as what I think isn't quite working yet.

So how do I use this?

Mark Forster describes the Autofocus system as being run from a spiral bound notebook.  So in order to implement the system closest to how it was described I started using a Moleskine notebook and doing everything manually.  I found that I REALLY liked doing it manually.  My initial concerns of course were that I would lose track of important emails and other digital information, web links I wanted to follow, etc.  (More on that later).

I started out with a single list and including everything on it.  This definitely had the effect of getting personal and professional items moved forward, but when I really had to focus on professional tasks, it made it too hard to find those tasks amongst the many personal tasks mixed in.  So for the past few weeks I have started using two contexts: Professional and Personal.  When I'm working on professional tasks I'm working the pages at the front - forward, and when I'm home, I'm working back through the pages.  This works very nicely.  I initially used both sides of the page, but now just use the right page for AF tasks, and the left page for notes.

I know there are many people trying to figure out how best to use AutoFocus on a computer.  Having been a GTD digital tool addict for 3 years I can't believe I'm saying this - I don't think you can beat pen and paper.  It's true I always have my iPhone clipped to me, but its still sluggish to open the app, wait for the app to load all my tasks (and it is slow if you have a lot of tasks), enter new tasks on the clunky keyboard, etc.  It's almost always just as easy to keep a notebook handy.  Its all in one place.

Getting Everything Done

I love AutoFocus because almost everything in my life is more or less under control now.  Very few aspects of my life are completely starved of attention.  I realize there is a time for imbalance, but I've been pretty imbalanced for the past 3 years with GTD by choosing to spend 98% of my time in the work contexts.

At this point, for example, projects around my house are moving forward quickly and I'm catching up on a long backlog.  Not every project is moving forward, but this aspect of my life is definitely going forward much better, as are most others.

I think there are a couple of reasons for this.  One is the intuitive way tasks are chosen.  If something really needs to get done or is easy to get done, it shows up as the next thing to be doing.  With GTD I found it easy to isolate these into contexts that I simply ignored.  So I would say that having fewer contexts is much better for me.

No Weekly Review

I don't feel an intense need for a Weekly Review like I used to with GTD.  I've heard David Allen say that the people who succeed with GTD are the ones who do their Weekly Review, but I also know very few GTDers who consistently do a Weekly Review.

Because I tend to circulate through the pages in my AF notebook almost once a day (when things are moving along well), I see all the items on a pretty regular basis.  I am regularly evaluating and thinking about how to move an item forward.  AF also has a nice system for dismissing items.  That is, if you go through a page without picking any of the actions then you mark them with a highlighter (I circle them) and mark the page as closed.  I only dismiss items if my pass through the page does not pick any items because they don't seem important.  If the tasks are waiting on something else or important, but I just can't get to at the moment, like "Fertilize the grass".  Well I can't fertilize until I've mowed the lawn then I wouldn't dismiss it.  If it were, "Read Leonardo da Vinci biography" then this is probably a great task and there is nothing stopping me from taking action on it, but nothing I'm going to get around to soon, so I will dismiss it.

The dismiss idea is a good technique to evaluate why something is on your list, but not getting any attention.  I enter an item in my notebook called, "Evaluate dismissed tasks".  Then whenever I have time I go back and evaluate those items and figure out why they were not moved forward.

In GTD the idea of renegotiating your commitments is discussed.  AF and dismissal provides a very clear way to know what you need to go back and re-negotiate.

Next Actions are Great, but is that all there is?

I've heard the example in GTD of a project being anything that takes multiple steps to complete.  So if I need to get new tires on my car, the Next Action would be "Get phone number of the tire store".  Then once I've done that I'd add "Call tire store and get prices", then I'd eventually decide whether or not to go to the tire store and ultimately I might enter "Take care to tire store".  Are we stupid?  With AF I feel free to write down "Get new tires on car".  When I get to that it's not too difficult to ask myself, what's the next step? If the answer is, "Call the tire store" then that's what I do.  When I complete that I might simply re-enter at the end of the list, "Get new tires on car."  I know perfectly well where I'm at on the project.

I guess I just don't believe that its really possible to separate the action and thinking parts and I don't think that's a good idea anyway.  AF lets you take some action on an item and then move on when that makes sense and just re-write it at the end of the list.  This is a superb technique for reducing procrastination and creates a rhythm and momentum that is hard to describe, but that I rarely experienced with GTD.

Engaging Intuition

My favorite thing about AutoFocus is that it provides explicit guidance on how to select items to be done next.  It really lets you engage your intuition or unconscious mind in the process of selecting the next task.  I think this is extremely powerful if one is willing to really trust the process.  Much more could be said about this, but when the conscious and unconscious portions of a person are aligned massive action can result.  In many cases I've found that when I trust the system I pick things to work on that surprise me consciously, but generally has worked out for the best.  With GTD I've often observed people having the desire to just get things checked off and so they are checking off actions with no real concern for the importance.  This creates a false sense that everything is equal.

Mark Forster has described AutoFocus as using Closed Lists.  This means that rather than roaming over the entire list of actions to find something to do you are limited to a single page.  You continue working on that page until you pass over the list and find nothing that stands out.  This seems like a minor point, but in my experience it's quite important and helps prevent one from just skimming pages looking for something easy to do.  It really helps move things along quickly.

The Closed List property of AutoFocus also gives rise to concerns that you can't get to urgent things because you just added to the list because you are stuck working through a few pages back.  My experience is that when intuition is guiding things you will usually get a sensation or signal that you need to be doing something else other than what is going on in the pages.  I use the AF system is used for work when there is nothing more urgent and important to be doing.  I always start my work with the question, "What do I need to be doing right now?"   If something critical comes to mind then I do that immediately and I repeat that until the only answer is something like:  "Just work through the lists."  Then I start my official AutoFocus work.  When I first started using AF, there was almost always something urgent I had to deal with.  Now its most common that I just work the lists and as I get things done proactively I find myself having fewer emergencies.
Statistics

I have closed out relatively few pages and over time I've realized recently that if something isn't getting attention you should dismiss it earlier and investigate the reasons its not progressing, either its not important or there is some obstacle (real or imagined) to taking action.  I have quite a few pages with 1 or 2 items remaining that probably should be dismissed.  Dismissing leads to insight and helps move things forward rapidly or gets rid of items that came up at some point and got on the list, but really aren't important to get done.  These numbers are a bit misleading because mid-stream I switched from one context to two which resulted in some items being moved from single list to a personal list even though no action was taken on them, but overall I think they are instructive.

Work List: 23 pages, 20 open, 3 closed (average page is about 80% complete)

Personal 7 pages, 0 closed (average page is about 70% complete)

Average page has 40 items on it.  Over 5 weeks this is about 1200 items entered, 800 of which are complete.

Lessons for GTDers

If you are interested in trying a new system I would recommend trying Autofocus.  If you aren't ready to try that consider a few ideas from AF in your GTD system:

• Reduce the number of contexts you are using
• Keep track of items that aren't getting done (by creation date) and figure out why
• Try using a physical system rather than a digital one

Summary

Overall I'm very pleased with AutoFocus and feel that I've been much more productive since I've started using it.  I love its simplicity and the drive it creates to move things forward and complete them.

Having built many complex systems as an engineer I can say without doubt that those that operating simple, easy to remember, easy to understand systems work by far the best.  I think the fact that there are 100s of applications to do GTD and GTDers seem to endlessly tinker with their systems and programs is evidence that its not really working for many people.  Fixing the tools won't solve the underlying issues.  Autofocus is simple, easy to apply, and seems to work.

Related posts

• Experience with Revised AutoFocus 2 Results of a 2 week experiment using Mark Forster's Revised...
• OmniFocus for AutoFocus 2 Brief summary of a 15-day experiment using OmniFocus to implement...