Just found this linked from the Sorted3 website, and thought it was quite relevant:

"Millionaires Don't Use To-Do Lists"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2015/07/10/to-do-lists-time-management/#54e613644413


Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I just want to know what app you turn to most often to management
your task list/projects.

But their employees do! haha

"Millionaires Don't Use To-Do Lists"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2015/07/10/to-do-lists-time-management/#54e613644413

This was amusing. Referred to several people who 'schedule everything' and the main takeaway was to set your calendar event default to 15 minutes and micro-schedule most minutes of your day.....

That's....that's a to-do list. With an emphasis on every task being assigned a time.

I'm not disagreeing with the article, though scheduling every minute of my day seems at least as burdensome as the most nerdy 'gtd system'. The implication of the title is that successful people just "do what's important" without wasting time micromanaging their task plans....and they achieve this by...micromanaging their task plans.

It should have been titled "If you aren't a disciplined person, system won't help"

nathanb wrote:

This was amusing. Referred to several people who 'schedule everything'
and the main takeaway was to set your calendar event default to 15
minutes and micro-schedule most minutes of your day.....

That's....that's a to-do list. With an emphasis on every task being
assigned a time.

It's the difference between generalized lists (that could be anywhere from pie-in-the-sky to imminent) and actionable tasks. You need both, but the calendar perhaps is the place for the latter.

I use Todoist and I find the regular lists to be mediocre - the subtasks need to be dragged around on the iPhone, and the Mac version does not utilize the command-keys available on the web version... and it doesn't look very good, especially compared to the competition. But it handles actionable tasks and language parsing extremely well, and I use it only for actionable tasks, where it automatically places dated/timed events onto my Google Calendar. I think that's the kind of thing the article is getting at.

But I use the other type of list *all the time* but just not with Todoist.

I think the article was successful though... in getting eyeballs onto the website, lol.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

"Millionaires Don't Use To-Do Lists"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2015/07/10/to-do-lists-time-management/#54e613644413

One problem with that article is that it suggests a causation or correlation where there may be none.

Rather than suggesting that these people (that constitute a miniscule proportion of the world's population that needs to manage their todos) have become super successful because they used a calendar instead of a todo list, an alternative explanation may be that these people had an extraordinary skill or resource (which they may have inherited or developed themselves through hard work) that made them so successful that in their daily lives they can delegate most of their menial todos to other people, which probably includes even the broad management of their calendars.

Having said that, modern calendar software have become very sophisticated and are interesting tools.

If you think about Google Calendar and its competitors, you are effectively dealing with a dynamic grid (that moves according to the passage of time), which you can populate with differently coloured cards of varying sizes, which can be freely repositioned and readjusted. It is a very powerful and pliable tool, with realistic constraints.

It is true that every time my given todo system collapses due to some unforeseen event, which then becomes the top priority as the one thing that needs to get done by a critical deadline, I always fall back onto the calendar, as the main space where everything is managed (as there is no more time for faffing about with a todo list at one point, given that all the other todos had become less important for the time being).

Nevertheless, when the crisis is over, I always need to get back to my WorkFlowy and Google Keep lists, Gantt charts, and ConnectedText projects, to regain an overview of my original priorities (as crises are usually imposed on me externally, not of my choosing).

Maybe this article is thinking of todo lists too dogmatically. For me a todo list is not a list of todos that must get done, but a space for thinking about them, organising them, working them out as problems, archiving them, and the vast majority of them will never get done, and that's fine, in fact the whole purpose of the system (prioritisation).

A few decades ago, all my time management systems fell apart with the growing complexity of my job, so I read up on various approaches. Putting everything in the calendar just didn't work for me, other than on a daily basis. For me, a separate task list, that allowed me to shuffle things around, and nest subtasks, was essential for me to stay on top of things. If it went in the calendar first, I lost track of the larger sweep of projects, or relative priority. And the sad truth was, if I missed a task on a particular day due to interruptions or new urgencies, it was a major pain to go back and recover everything.

But different strokes for different folks. And who knows, this truth about myself may be why I am NOT a millionaire.

Dr Andus wrote:

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>"Millionaires Don't Use To-Do Lists"
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2015/07/10/to-do-lists-time-management/#54e613644413

One problem with that article is that it suggests a causation or
correlation where there may be none.

Rather than suggesting that these people (that constitute a miniscule
proportion of the world's population that needs to manage their todos)
have become super successful because they used a calendar instead of a
todo list, an alternative explanation may be that these people had an
extraordinary skill or resource (which they may have inherited or
developed themselves through hard work) that made them so successful
that in their daily lives they can delegate most of their menial todos
to other people, which probably includes even the broad management of
their calendars.

Having said that, modern calendar software have become very
sophisticated and are interesting tools.

If you think about Google Calendar and its competitors, you are
effectively dealing with a dynamic grid (that moves according to the
passage of time), which you can populate with differently coloured cards
of varying sizes, which can be freely repositioned and readjusted. It is
a very powerful and pliable tool, with realistic constraints.

It is true that every time my given todo system collapses due to some
unforeseen event, which then becomes the top priority as the one thing
that needs to get done by a critical deadline, I always fall back onto
the calendar, as the main space where everything is managed (as there is
no more time for faffing about with a todo list at one point, given that
all the other todos had become less important for the time being).

Nevertheless, when the crisis is over, I always need to get back to my
WorkFlowy and Google Keep lists, Gantt charts, and ConnectedText
projects, to regain an overview of my original priorities (as crises are
usually imposed on me externally, not of my choosing).

Maybe this article is thinking of todo lists too dogmatically. For me a
todo list is not a list of todos that must get done, but a space for
thinking about them, organising them, working them out as problems,
archiving them, and the vast majority of them will never get done, and
that's fine, in fact the whole purpose of the system (prioritisation).

Inevitably, as this is Forbes, their criterium for success seems to be how much money one has. It's not mine.

In my experience almost all middle managers have fallen upwards, and seem to measure their success by how little time they have (which can only be a sign of a poor organisational system). Upper managers get their positions more due to their psychopathic traits and, as they don't have to micro-manage, they don't need the same tools as the rest of us do. Oh how we all wish we could go into a meeting, scatter gun orders and wishes, and leave again five minutes later!

I use a diary and lists. I'm not rich, but I would say I'm pretty successful, having achieved more than most people do (writing books, learning several human and computer languages, playing several musical instruments, international sport, own business, renown within my limited field blah blah blah) , and yet still having oceans of time every day to work on new projects, whilst others around me lose their heads in their panic. And being envied by those self same "successful" people for the level of efficiency I achieve, which tickles me every time I hear it.

Nope, I'm not special. Just efficient.

Not that Forbes would be interested ...



Yep, I know the above sounds horribly conceited, no need to tell me. I'm just trying to make a point ....

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Just found this linked from the Sorted3 website, and thought it was
quite relevant:

"Millionaires Don't Use To-Do Lists"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2015/07/10/to-do-lists-time-management/#54e613644413

I like that OmniFocus calls individual entries "actions" rather than "todos". "Action" covers more cases: to-do, must-do, better-do, wish-I-hadn't-done, wanna-do, etc.

I like to use calendars as a sort of "hardscape" view, ranging from possibilities to firm commitments. I have many calendars, but four that I usually use simultaneously: one for meetings and appointments, one for possible events (soft scheduling), one to record what actually happened (used for billing), and one shared with my wife for things that matter to both of us. I have a dozen or so other calendars that I turn on and off when I need them to visualize something.

Dr Andus wrote

For me a todo list is not a list of todos that must get done, but a space for thinking about them,

organising them, working them out as problems, archiving them, and the vast majority of
them will never get done, and that’s fine, in fact the whole purpose of the system (prioritisation).

Graham Rhind wrote:

and yet still having oceans of time every day to
work on new projects, whilst others around me lose their heads in their
panic. And being envied by those self same "successful" people for the
level of efficiency I achieve, which tickles me every time I hear it.

Nope, I'm not special. Just efficient.

Not that Forbes would be interested ...

You know I am curious. Tell us: How do you do it?
Seriously, I am not Forbes, I am interested.

Graham Rhind wrote:

Inevitably, as this is Forbes, their criterium for success seems to be
how much money one has. It's not mine.

No, this is the 'anyone can post anything' Forbes "Contributor Network" part of Forbes. It has nothing to do with the magazine. It's the Forbes online equivalent of The Huffington Post, and the site splits revenue with writers, which results in lots of clickbait articles, and a lot of bad analysis.

Franz Grieser wrote:

Graham Rhind wrote:
>and yet still having oceans of time every day to
>work on new projects, whilst others around me lose their heads in their
>panic. And being envied by those self same "successful" people for the
>level of efficiency I achieve, which tickles me every time I hear it.
>
>Nope, I'm not special. Just efficient.
>
>Not that Forbes would be interested ...

You know I am curious. Tell us: How do you do it?
Seriously, I am not Forbes, I am interested.

Ah, I wondered if anybody would ask that – it’s something I ask myself regularly. I wish I knew.

It might have something to do with my own psychology and being on the autism scale. When I worked in businesses, whilst everybody else was crowded around the coffee machine bemoaning how much work they had to do, I just did it.

A lot probably has to do with having been able to create my own working environment for the last twenty years. I work alone, so I don’t have a lot of wasted interaction with colleagues to mess up my days. I find meetings to be one of the most wasteful and inefficient parts of business, and they drive me up the wall. From experience, most participants in meetings actually get about 5 minutes of useful information or interaction from any meeting lasting 60 minutes – a really bad return on the time investment. When I e-mail a question to a customer, I get irritated when the response it to organise a conference call so that they can spend 30 minutes providing the answer that they could have provided in 3 minutes by answering the e-mail. I can bat away requests for meetings from junior staff, but when those high-flying “successful” staff demand one, I have to comply, but it messes up my days and really vacuums up the time – it explains a lot about how those people spend 12 hours per day working and achieve no more than I do.

I work on all my projects (work and personal) about 3 to 4 hours per day, but that’s every day – weekends, public holidays – they’re just days to me – and I don’t do holidays. I stop working when I want and work any time it suits me (which, admittedly, tends to be very regular, which is more efficient). Those 3 to 4 hours are pure work, and is probably more than my customers who spend 10 hours in the office but spend most of those being dragged from meeting to meeting, which may be why they are surprised at how much I get done.

My work is based on knowledge creation and dissemination, and a lot of the projects I create for myself have to do with knowledge acquisition, such as learning a language, so they have no end as such. For that reason I make sure that I dose the work into small pieces – there’s no point trying to learn everything at once. If there is a target date, I make sure that it’s far enough away that it creates no stress. At the moment, for example, I am learning Visual Basic so that I can implement squash tournament organisation software in Excel. As the end date is August I know that I can do this in small increments and still meet the deadline.

I do follow some simple rules. If a task (such as writing this response) won’t take long to complete (e.g. less than 15 minutes, just as a guideline, but it depends on my mood) then I do it immediately. I find it very unhelpful and inefficient to allow small tasks to build up in a backlog – that has a stultifying psychological effect too.

I actually spend far too much time staring out of the window and wondering what to do next than I should do, and I often think I must be wasting huge amounts of time until I enumerate what I have actually produced. I’m a horribly boring individual, but that’s just the way it goes!

As for my setup: my diary and dated tasks are on paper (Filofax Heritage A5, for those interested), using inserts that I design and print myself (so that they exactly suit my way of working – another added efficiency bonus). My undated and repeating tasks are in a highly underrated program called Sciral Consistency. The knowledge I collect and disseminate is in ConnectedText, and project-related knowledge is split between The Brain (because I can easily synchronise that with other computers) and notebooks (the paper variety). My archive knowledge is in OneNote. I carry around an A7 notebook for any ideas of tasks I need to do whilst on the move. I have a whole host of other software I’d like to use (Everdo, Hyperplan, Goalscape…), but I need to get them to work in my way instead of vice versa, so they’re on the reserve bench.

Ha, fascinating insights, Graham. I am currently adjusting my own way of working in very similar ways.

After much thought and some experimentation, I'm dumping all the subscription-based apps I was using to manage my time.

I've invested in a couple of notebooks to jot down ideas/must-do tasks (for later transfer to software if necessary - otherwise "just do it", as you say).

I've created my own task management system in Apple Numbers.

This has the huge advantage of being optimised to my own way of working, preferred methods of visualisation etc. It wouldn't have been possible until now, mind you, because of the new "grouping" feature in Numbers, which allows me to create fold-away sections for notes (and any other specific data, such as contact names, start dates and so on). Oh, to explain that, I should specify that each task is a micro-table (one of Numbers' most powerful features - the fact that tables are only a small part of what the software can do). So I have multiple types of micro-tables for different kinds of task or notes.

The system is slightly cumbersome, in that I have to keep my task templates in a separate tab so I can copy and paste them into the relevant "to do" tab (classic GTD setup for those, incidentally, but with timing bands added to the "TODAY" tab, so I can rough-schedule tasks into my day). Obviously copying and pasting takes a little time - but it also helps you to concentrate on exactly what you want to do with the task.

Reason for this radical revamp? I just couldn't cope with the vast lists of tasks that inevitably build up in all standard task managers, no matter how well designed they are. Those lists are so annoying! So many brain cells die as you scan down them over and over again.

The Numbers setup means I can highlight tasks any way I like; I can position them on the infinite canvas that is a given Numbers tab anywhere I like; I can modify the task layout spontaneously, or create new templates if I feel like it. I can include diagrams if I like. I can create notes anywhere I like (either in the task or elsewhere); which brings me to the one major limitation of Numbers - the lack of any option to link to tables/worksheets/other objects across a Numbers workbook. External links, yes, internal links, no. This is a big weakness, and I'm hoping they'll address it soon.

As for tagging - yes, I do that sometimes. No, Numbers doesn't display groups of tagged items like other task managers, but the search engine is so powerful you can zoom through items that have been assigned the same tag very quickly and easily. I keep a separate tab with tags on it, just for reference.

So it's all a bit "manual", and I could probably use a database (Ninox, Tap Forms) to do the same things. But that would be so much more complicated and so much less flexible.

And best of all? No more expensive subscriptions! I'm thinking of transferring all my journaling to Numbers as well... Apple Numbers is, after all, free.

Another wacky change of tack from Bill!

Thanks, Graham.
Sounds familiar. One of the great bonusses of working on my own and in my home office is: no more meetings. Almost no meetings. If I go to a meeting that's an opportunity to leave the office and socialize.
What I do not do: Work every single day. I learnt (the hard way) that I need 2-3 weeks off once a year and that I need a few days off per month (mostly weekends because my better half does not work during weekends).

Dr Andus wrote:

Maybe this article is thinking of todo lists too dogmatically. For me a
todo list is not a list of todos that must get done, but a space for
thinking about them, organising them, working them out as problems,
archiving them, and the vast majority of them will never get done, and
that's fine, in fact the whole purpose of the system (prioritisation).

Well said. I'll never get everything done that needs to get done as my lists seem to be "evergreen". But, I need to know what is urgent and needing immediate attention, and this process helps identify those items. And while I know some folks take joy in scheduling every minute of their day, it would kill me. I need as much flexibility in my day as possible, both to work with my natural productivity peaks and valleys when they hit, and to allow space for the unexpected. It is not for everyone, but it works for me.

--Ken

Ken wrote:

Dr Andus wrote:
>Maybe this article is thinking of todo lists too dogmatically. For me a
>todo list is not a list of todos that must get done, but a space for
>thinking about them, organising them, working them out as problems,
>archiving them, and the vast majority of them will never get done, and
>that's fine, in fact the whole purpose of the system (prioritisation).

Well said. I'll never get everything done that needs to get done as my
lists seem to be "evergreen". But, I need to know what is urgent and
needing immediate attention, and this process helps identify those
items. And while I know some folks take joy in scheduling every minute
of their day, it would kill me. I need as much flexibility in my day as
possible, both to work with my natural productivity peaks and valleys
when they hit, and to allow space for the unexpected. It is not for
everyone, but it works for me.

--Ken

Really good descriptions by Ken and Dr Andus. 90% of what I put into lists never gets done because a big reason the lists exist is to dump new 'maybes' in there to see where they rank. Most the time, the new shiny ideas don't look as shiny when stacked up against all the rest. My lists are constantly in motion where new things are dumped somewhere in the middle, the things rising towards the top are being scheduled and checked off, and the things sinking to the bottom being deleted or sent off to 'someday/maybe' purgatory.

In my colorful history of trying to keep a useful 'digital brain', I've made attempts to make a defined schedule where the day/week is scripted. I've found that if I want to guarantee that's what I WON'T do, it's by trying to schedule tasks anywhere past a relatively loose agenda for today only.

I'm starting to realize that there is a fundamental difference in mindset of those who view lists as "I'm definitely doing this, why else would I put it on a list?" and "hey this MIGHT be a good idea, lets see where it stacks up against my other intentions". One is black and white, you are committed to do it or not. The other is a spectrum, where every item's value is relative and constantly subject to re-ranking based on new info.

I won't get into which mindset is better. Both are valuable and necessary in any thriving organization. I'm a project engineer, my job is to change systems. Executive's jobs are to RUN existing systems. My focus is on expanding possibilities, their focus is on executing current reality. It absolutely makes sense that I think of lists as constantly fluid and tentative whereas others see them as hard maps of commitment. It's important to recognize that the majority of those that move up within companies are executives. Therefore, those of us who think of lists as fluid need to recognize this can be mis-interpreted as flaky and unreliable behavior by hard-listers.

Ha! Nice distinction there, @nathanb! I love the idea of soft and hard listers. I also love Paul's idea of "future as gestalt"...

MadaboutDana wrote:

@nathanb! I love the idea of soft and hard
listers. I also love Paul's idea of "future as gestalt"...

So does the gestalt therapeut in me :-)

I’ve used most of the popular apps in the last 10+ years and before that various paper planners.

I realised some time into using apps that my approach was flawed. I started using apps and in great CRIMPing joy threw my tasks in only to find it would all become overwhelming at some point and move onto something else. My conclusion was that I needed to work out how I wanted to manage my tasks. David Allen’s GTD never worked for me. I came across Michael Lindberger’s One Minute ToDo (1MTD) and his Manage Your Now (MYN). This works for me and I’m finding myself keeping on top of things. I’m also finding that I’m no longer looking for that perfect app, but one that will allow me to work the way I want to. Todoist is very powerful with it’s filters and I leverage those so all my tasks fit into three easy lists I can work from daily.

My problem with CRIMPing is that the more features an app has the more tinkering I do; ever tweaking it to perfection; and not actually completing tasks. In my case I steer away from complex apps such an Omnifocus.

I actually miss writing my tasks on paper. It just became to difficult to manage on paper. However, I’ve started experimenting with GoodNotes as I can use PDF templates to write my tasks with the Apple Pencil. The difference here is that handwritten tasks can be moved and rearranged with the selection tool. Further, if I have reminders open in the split screen I can actually drag handwritten text into reminders and it is instantly converted into text, this gives me an easy way to add reminders, but use handwritten lists for my tasks. I just think a whole lot better with a pen in my hand rather than a keyboard under my fingers.

Alright.

My favorite todo/task/gtd app is Things 3.

I don't even use it. I just love the way it looks and was designed.

Somedays when I'm frustrated with the primordial gonk/clutter that is evernote, I pause, open Things 3 and... cry.

Expand. Collapse. Expand. Collapse. Whoosh. Thumb-thingy-make-a-new-todoey. ZIp-tang.

Somedays, I even trick myself into using Things 3 as an outliner. Sooner or later though, reality catches up.

Imagine how wonderful it would be to have those guys make an outliner/writing app with folding a la things 3.

Crimping would be over.

I emailed the developers and told them about my thoughts.

They weren't receptive.

So I shall stay a dreamer.

Smithers wrote:

Somedays, I even trick myself into using Things 3 as an outliner.
Imagine how wonderful it would be to have those guys make an
outliner/writing app with folding a la things 3.
Crimping would be over.
So I shall stay a dreamer.

The UI and features of Things 3 to which you add the features of WorkFlowy.
Oh, yes!

Sweet dreams,

‑Alex

That would actually be amazingly cool.

>Somedays, I even trick myself into using Things 3 as an outliner.
>Imagine how wonderful it would be to have those guys make an
>outliner/writing app with folding a la things 3.

The UI and features of Things 3 to which you add the features of
WorkFlowy.
Oh, yes!

Sweet dreams,

I'd immediately buy such a tool.

Cultured Code are you listening?

Zenkit To Do is a new kid on the block of task managers, the latest addition to the Zenkit suite of tools which provide alternative perspectives of task items, including kanban board, tables and Gantt charts.

Zenkit To Do is promoted as a replacement for the soon-to-be-only-a-memory Wunderlist, and can be obtained as a stand alone service by those that don't need the full Zenkit experience.

More here:
https://zenkit.com/en/blog/meet-zenkit-to-do/