Daily planning methods that actually fit your real life

Updated April 2026.

Daily planning methods are structured approaches for organizing tasks and time within a single day. The five most-used methods (time blocking, the Ivy Lee method, the 1-3-5 rule, bullet journaling, and MIT + calendar) differ in three core ways: how much structure they impose, how they handle interruptions, and whether the planning step takes five minutes or twenty. The right method is the one matched to your actual schedule, not the one with the prettiest Instagram aesthetic.

You’ve already abandoned three planning systems

You bought a bullet journal, used it for 10 days, then left it on your nightstand for two weeks. You tried time blocking, liked it briefly, then threw your hands up when the second meeting of the day ran 30 minutes over. You switched back to a basic to-do app where everything lives in a vague “today” pile that somehow always includes 47 items.

The trap is not discipline. Gail Matthews at Dominican University tracked 267 people setting goals. Those who wrote specific plans and shared weekly progress achieved their goals at roughly twice the rate of those who only thought about them [1].

Planning works. The problem is matching the right method to the way your days actually unfold.

What you will learn

• Why daily planning methods fail and the three variables that predict success
• How five proven daily planning techniques compare on flexibility, speed, and when they break
• A 60-second filter for matching a method to your schedule type and energy patterns
• A 10-minute morning planning routine that works regardless of which method you choose
• What to do when your plan collapses before lunch

Key takeaways

• No single daily planning method works for everyone. Schedule predictability, energy patterns, and interruption frequency determine fit.
• Time blocking suits predictable calendars. The 1-3-5 rule handles chaotic days better by limiting ambition instead of time.
• The Planning Fit Filter, the diagnostic we developed at Goals and Progress, matches a daily planning method to your day type in under 60 seconds.
• Any daily schedule system works when the morning routine stays under 10 minutes and covers review, triage, and anchor placement.
• A broken plan needs a 2-minute reset, not a full replan. Sticking with one method for 30 days produces better results than switching every two weeks.

Daily planning failure: why most methods quit working within two weeks {#why-methods-fail}

Psychologist Peter Gollwitzer documented in his implementation intentions research that specifying when and where you will do something substantially increases follow-through [2]. The planning itself works. The breakdown happens when the method does not match your reality.

Did You Know? Researchers Mark, González, and Harris found that after a single interruption, it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully return to the original task [3]. This is why rigid daily plans collapse: they never account for the recovery time stolen by every disruption.

Three variables determine whether a day planning strategy survives contact with your real day.

Schedule predictability is how much of your day you control. If 70% of your calendar belongs to other people’s meetings, rigid time blocking collapses by 10:30 AM. If your day is yours to design, time blocking becomes powerful.

Energy consistency measures your focus stability across the day. Some people hit a wall at 2 PM. Others crash mid-morning. Planning methods that ignore energy patterns force high-priority tasks into windows when focus has already depleted.

Interruption frequency is how often your plan gets disrupted. Mark, González, and Harris observed knowledge workers in situ and found they switch tasks about every 11 minutes on average, with the same 23-minute recovery cost on each return to the original task [3]. The follow-up paper by Mark, Gudith, and Klocke ran a controlled lab study and found that workers compensate for interruptions by working faster, at a measurable cost in stress and frustration [4].

“Workers compensate for interruptions by working faster, but this comes at a cost: experiencing more stress, higher frustration, time pressure, and more effort.” Mark, Gudith, and Klocke, The Cost of Interrupted Work [4]

When a planning method assumes a predictable schedule, constant energy, and no interruptions, but you have a chaotic calendar, mid-day crashes, and Slack channels demanding attention, the method fails. Not because you lack discipline, but because the method was never designed for your actual life.

What competing articles miss: Most “daily planning methods” roundups list techniques side by side with no upstream diagnostic. They treat method choice as a matter of taste. The real upstream variable is method-day fit. Fix that, and the method choice becomes downstream and easy.

The best daily planning method is the one that assumes your day will not go as planned. When you score yourself on these three variables, you stop method-hopping.

Daily planning techniques: five methods and which one fits your day {#five-methods-compared}

These five methods span from rigid to flexible. When deciding between time blocking vs bullet journal or any other pairing, the table below shows how each method trades off on the dimensions that matter for daily workflow planning.

Table 1: Five daily planning methods compared on best fit, setup time, flexibility, key limitation, and chaos resilience.

Method	Best for	Setup time	Flexibility	Key limitation	Worst-Wednesday resilience
Time blocking	Predictable schedules with deep work needs	15-20 min	Low	Collapses when meetings shift	2/5
Ivy Lee method	Overwhelmed professionals needing simplicity	5 min	Medium	Ignores time estimates	4/5
1-3-5 rule	Chaotic schedules with frequent interruptions	5 min	High	No time allocation guidance	5/5
Bullet journaling	Creative thinkers who process by writing	10-15 min	High	Requires daily analog commitment	3/5
MIT + calendar	Knowledge workers balancing deep and shallow work	10 min	Medium-high	Needs two systems running in parallel	4/5

Ramon’s verdicts: Time blocking works best if you own 60% or more of your calendar. Ivy Lee is the best starting point for chronic over-planners.

The 1-3-5 rule suits parents and managers. Bullet journaling is underrated for ADHD brains. MIT + calendar is my go-to for most readers, because most knowledge workers score 7 to 10 on the Planning Fit Filter, which lands them in the MIT + calendar band by construction.

Time blocking: rigid structure for uninterrupted work

Time blocking is a daily planning method that assigns every hour to a specific task or category of work, creating a pre-committed schedule for the entire day.

Pro Tip: Block your calendar as “busy” the night before. Set two defined response windows each day (for example, 9-10 AM and 2-3 PM) so teammates know exactly when to expect replies without interrupting your focus work.

Cal Newport argues in Deep Work that protected, uninterrupted blocks produce disproportionate output relative to fragmented work, though Newport frames the case qualitatively rather than as a specific hour-for-hour ratio [5]. The method forces you to estimate how long tasks actually take, which is how you build realistic time sense.

Cross-domain analogy: time blocking is calendar-as-budget. Every hour is pre-allocated like a line item. Surprises hit the buffer column. Without a buffer, the whole budget breaks on the first overrun.

The tradeoff is brittleness. One meeting running over shifts everything downstream. For short and long term planning to work together, you need at least two uninterrupted blocks per day. If your calendar fills with other people’s priorities first, time blocking becomes frustrating quickly.

The Ivy Lee method: six priorities, ranked, done

The Ivy Lee method is a task prioritization method that limits each day to six tasks ranked by importance, completed sequentially from first to last without skipping ahead.

Write down six tasks. Rank them. Start with number one and do not move on until it is done. That is the entire method, dating back to 1918, still effective because it solves decision paralysis.

The Ivy Lee method eliminates the “what should I work on next” question by removing the choice. The downside is that no time estimates means you might commit to 12 hours of work in an 8-hour day.

Cross-domain analogy: Ivy Lee is batch processing in a restaurant kitchen. You prep the next dish only after the current one leaves the pass.

No parallel paths. No re-sequencing on the fly. The constraint is what makes the line move.

The Ivy Lee method works by replacing a 30-item task list with a single ranked sequence. Less ambition for less paralysis. That trade is why the method sticks.

The 1-3-5 rule: constraint creates clarity

The 1-3-5 rule is a daily planning method that caps each day at one big task, three medium tasks, and five small tasks, totalling nine items that impose built-in size tiers on your workload.

Plan one big task, three medium ones, five small ones. Nine items total. Enough to make progress, not enough to overwhelm. The Eisenhower Matrix (urgent vs. important) addresses a similar problem, but the 1-3-5 rule is faster to apply daily because size tiers replace the four-quadrant analysis.

Cross-domain analogy: the 1-3-5 rule is portfolio diversification. One concentrated bet, three medium positions, five small positions. The structure forces tier discipline so a single task does not eat the whole capacity.

The 1-3-5 rule handles interruptions well because small tasks fill gaps between meetings. Parents and managers find the 1-3-5 rule practical, because the structure does not assume unbroken focus, just that certain priorities will get done before the day ends.

Bullet journaling: writing as structured daily planning

Bullet journaling uses rapid symbols (a dot for a task, a dash for a note, an angle bracket for a migrated task, a circle for an event) to create a daily log. Designer Ryder Carroll built the system for people who struggle with traditional planning. Mueller and Oppenheimer’s 2014 research suggested handwriting activates stronger memory encoding than typing, though subsequent replication studies have produced mixed results [6].

A worked daily log for a Tuesday looks like this. Bullet point: draft client email. Bullet point: review Q2 dashboard.

Dash: brainstorm headline angles. Angle bracket: 1:1 prep (migrated from Monday). Circle: 11 AM meeting.

The symbol grammar is what makes the page scannable in seconds the next morning.

Cross-domain analogy: bullet journaling is a lab notebook. Writing is thinking made tangible. You return to yesterday’s entries the way a scientist returns to last week’s protocols, and the act of migrating an unfinished task is the same as carrying a failed hypothesis into a new experiment.

The cost is time, around 10 to 15 minutes daily for setup and migration. When comparing paper planners versus digital planners, the real question becomes whether that tactile engagement is worth the extra minutes. Bullet journaling is underrated for ADHD readers because the migration ritual itself acts as a re-engagement trigger every day.

MIT + calendar: the hybrid approach

Key Takeaway: One fixed priority, flexible everything else. The MIT + calendar hybrid works because it pairs a priority anchor with a scheduled reality check, which makes it the best starting method for unpredictable days.

MIT + calendar is a hybrid daily planning method that identifies three Most Important Tasks each morning, then blocks time for those tasks on the calendar around existing commitments.

Identify your three Most Important Tasks in the morning, then block time for them around existing commitments. Everything else goes on a secondary list. Leo Babauta popularized the MIT concept in Zen to Done [9], and combining MITs with calendar blocking merges Ivy Lee’s prioritization clarity with time blocking’s schedule awareness, without committing fully to either one.

Cross-domain analogy: MIT + calendar is anchor tenant plus retail mix in a shopping centre. The anchor tenant (your MIT) is the reason the day works. The smaller retail mix (everything else) flexes around it.

The MIT + calendar hybrid answers both questions that matter: “What must happen today?” and “When will I do it?” The hybrid adapts naturally to time management techniques you already use. The MIT + calendar hybrid is the structured daily planning method most likely to survive a real workday, because the hybrid plans priorities, not every minute.

Five methods, each with different strengths. The question is which one matches your actual day, not which one sounds best on paper.

Daily planning fit: 60 seconds to find your method {#planning-fit-filter}

The Planning Fit Filter is a three-variable diagnostic we developed at Goals and Progress to replace method-hopping with a numerical fit check. It matches daily planning methods to your real day by scoring schedule predictability, energy consistency, and planning patience on a 1-5 scale.

We developed this framing after watching readers try three to five planning methods in a year without landing on one that stuck. The pattern was always method-day mismatch, never willpower. The Filter is the smallest tool we could build that turns the mismatch into a number.

The four-step diagnostic

Step 1: Rate schedule predictability (1-5). How much of your day do you control?

Score	What this looks like
1	Back-to-back meetings I did not book; reactive to others all day
2	Mostly other people’s priorities, with one or two windows I own
3	Roughly half mine, half theirs
4	I own most blocks; meetings cluster in a known window
5	I design every block of the day

Step 2: Rate energy consistency (1-5). How stable is your focus throughout the day?

Score	What this looks like
1	Sharp peaks and crashes; one or two usable focus hours
2	Strong morning, big afternoon dip, brief evening recovery
3	Two reliable focus windows separated by a slump
4	Mostly steady with a single short low
5	Level energy across the working day

Step 3: Rate planning patience (1-5). How much time will you spend on the planning step itself?

Score	What this looks like
1	Under 5 minutes or I will skip it
2	5 to 8 minutes if the structure is obvious
3	10 minutes feels reasonable on a good day
4	15 minutes is fine when I see the payoff
5	20+ minutes feels worthwhile every morning

Step 4: Sum your three scores and match to a method.

Table 2: Planning Fit Filter score-to-method mapping.

Your score	Recommended method	Why it fits
3-6	1-3-5 rule or Ivy Lee method	Under 5 minutes of setup; handles chaos by capping ambition
7-10	MIT + calendar hybrid	Balances a priority anchor with a calendar reality check
11-15	Time blocking or bullet journaling	Leverages a predictable schedule and high planning patience

Worked examples

Maya, founder mid-stage, scores 3 / 3 / 3 = 9. Her calendar is half investor meetings she did not pick, half deep work she did. Her energy holds through the morning and dips after lunch. She is willing to spend 10 minutes on planning.

The Filter lands her in the MIT + calendar band. She names her three MITs, blocks 90-minute slots around the immovable meetings, and treats everything else as fill.

Daniel, parent of a 9-month-old, scores 1 / 2 / 1 = 4. His schedule is whatever the baby decides. His energy is steady-low. He has under 5 minutes for planning.

The Filter lands him in the 1-3-5 rule band. He picks one big thing he will do during the longest nap, three medium things he can do one-handed, and five small things he can pick up in 60-second windows.

Priya, independent consultant, scores 4 / 4 / 4 = 12. She owns most blocks, has stable energy, and considers planning an investment. The Filter lands her in the time blocking band. She blocks the calendar the night before, reserves two protected deep-work windows, and runs response-only windows at 9 AM and 2 PM.

Tom, mid-level manager, scores 2 / 3 / 3 = 8. Half his day is other people’s meetings, his energy is two-peaks-one-trough, his planning patience is moderate. He is in the MIT + calendar band on the higher edge. He runs MIT + calendar Tuesday through Thursday and downshifts to 1-3-5 on Monday and Friday, when meetings dominate.

The Filter vs the alternatives

Table 3: Planning Fit Filter compared with three common alternatives.

Approach	What it diagnoses	Setup time	Best stage	Key limitation
Planning Fit Filter	Method-day fit on three variables	60 seconds	Before any method choice	Requires honest self-rating
SMART criteria	Goal quality, not method fit	5 minutes per goal	Goal definition	Silent on which method to run a goal through
Gut-feel method choice	Mood-of-the-week	Zero	Never works long	Method-hops every two weeks
Default-to-Monday relaunch	Restarts the most recent method	Zero	Until next collapse	Re-runs the same mismatch

Someone scoring 4 on schedule predictability but 1 on planning patience does not need a 20-minute system. That person needs the Ivy Lee method. The Planning Fit Filter replaces months of trial-and-error with a 60-second diagnostic that matches planning complexity to actual daily constraints. The goal is finding the method you will still use in 30 days.

Want a printable scorecard? Download the Planning Fit Filter one-pager and run it on the next ten weekdays. (Hook to be added at publish.)

Daily planning morning routine: 10 minutes that work with any method {#morning-routine}

Regardless of which daily schedule system you choose, the morning routine follows the same structure. As Gollwitzer’s implementation intentions research demonstrates, the planning format matters less than specifying when and where a task happens [2].

Minutes 1-3: Review yesterday and triage today. Scan yesterday’s unfinished items and today’s calendar. Move anything undone to today or delete it. This kills “zombie tasks,” items floating around for weeks without being done or removed.

Minutes 4-7: Commit to your priorities. Using your chosen method, identify what must happen today and cap your commitment. Kahneman and Tversky documented in their foundational research on the planning fallacy that people systematically underestimate task duration, even when they have direct experience of past tasks taking much longer [7].

Plan 60 to 70 percent of your available time. The rest is buffer.

Kahneman and Tversky’s planning fallacy work argues, in paraphrase, that people remain overly optimistic about how long future tasks will take even when their own past tasks proved otherwise [7].

Minutes 8-10: Schedule the anchors. Place your highest-priority task in your peak energy window. If you do not know when your peak hits, schedule the task first thing before meetings fragment your focus. Block the time on your calendar to protect the slot.

The morning planning routine addresses the three forces that derail daily planning: unprocessed leftovers, over-committing, and failing to protect priority time. When connecting daily planning to monthly planning, the same logic scales up. Any productivity planning method becomes more reliable when the morning routine stays under 10 minutes and follows review, triage, then anchor placement.

Daily planning recovery: the 2-minute reset when plans break {#plan-recovery}

Your plan will break. The difference between people who stick with a method and people who abandon one comes down to recovery speed.

Step 1: Stop the old plan. Do not try to squeeze everything back in. Compressing remaining tasks into shrinking time increases stress and reduces focus on every task.

Step 2: Identify one anchor. Ask: “What one thing must happen before I close my laptop?” That becomes your new priority.

Step 3: Release the rest. Move everything else to tomorrow. You are not abandoning the day. You are adjusting the target.

If this happens frequently, read about what to do when plans fall apart.

A 2-minute plan reset preserves more productive time than spending 30 minutes trying to rescue a schedule that stopped reflecting reality. If your plans consistently break before noon, move down a band on the Planning Fit Filter to something more flexible.

Pomodoro, GTD, and where they fit alongside the five methods

Two systems show up in almost every daily-planning search but are not daily planning methods in the same sense. They are layers.

Pomodoro Technique is a focus-execution layer: 25 minutes of work, 5 minutes of break, repeat. It does not tell you what to work on. Pair it with one of the five methods above and use Pomodoro inside the blocks. The Pomodoro intervals also act as natural replanning checkpoints on chaotic days.

Getting Things Done (GTD) is a capture-and-organize system: collect every input, process it into projects and next actions, organize by context. GTD answers “where does this go?”, not “what will I do today?”. A reasonable hybrid is to run GTD as your input system and Ivy Lee or MIT + calendar as the daily layer that pulls from it.

Daily planning with ADHD or constantly-shifting schedules

Daily planning for ADHD works best in 90-minute blocks with replanning checkpoints, not full-day plans that assume sustained focus. Standard methods need two adaptations for attention that jumps or calendars that change hourly.

First, plan in 90-minute blocks instead of full days. Research on ultradian rhythms in sleep-waking cycles suggests focus naturally cycles in roughly 90-minute intervals [8], though this finding originates from sleep research and its direct applicability to waking performance remains debated. Your plan only needs to survive the next 90 minutes.

Here is what the 90-minute block approach looks like in practice. At 9 AM, your one priority is drafting the client email. At 10:30, your alarm triggers a 60-second replan: now the priority is reviewing the report. Each block is self-contained.

Second, use external triggers for replanning. Set a recurring alarm at 9 AM, noon, and 3 PM. Each alarm takes 60 seconds and answers one question: “What is my one priority for the next block?” ADHD planning strategies work better when the system assumes distraction is inevitable and builds re-engagement triggers into the day.

Daily planning for ADHD works better when the system builds replanning checkpoints throughout the day instead of assuming sustained focus. This approach stays connected to your structured weekly planning session so daily priorities keep feeding larger goals.

Ramon’s take

I spent years chasing the perfect planning system before realizing no single method works every day. Some days I have four uninterrupted hours; others I get 45 minutes of focus total. The method has to match the day, not the other way around.

Conclusion

Daily planning methods do not fail from lack of willpower. They fail when the method does not match the day. You have three tools: the Planning Fit Filter to find your method, the 10-minute routine to execute it, and the 2-minute reset for when it breaks. Pick, plan, adjust.

You do not need a better planning method. You need the one your worst Wednesday can survive.

In the next 10 minutes

• Run the Planning Fit Filter. Rate yourself 1-5 on schedule predictability, energy consistency, and planning patience. Pick the method that matches your score.
• Set up the app or notebook that supports your matched method (calendar app for time blocking or MIT + calendar, notebook for bullet journaling or Ivy Lee).
• Write tomorrow’s plan using the method you selected. Your first real test run starts in the morning.

This week

• Use your chosen method for five consecutive workdays without switching. Note which days it worked and which it did not. Patterns reveal whether to stick or adjust.
• If more than two days felt like a fight against the method, move down a band on the Planning Fit Filter and try a less structured option.
• At week’s end, run the morning routine once more, but plan next week’s anchor tasks so daily planning connects to your weekly rhythm.

There is more to explore

Go deeper with the Ivy Lee method guide, the planning apps and tools breakdown, or the psychology behind implementation intentions research. If your weekly cadence needs work, start with the weekly review and planning guide.

Related articles in this guide

• Cascade goals from vision to daily tasks
• Implementation intentions research
• Monthly planning process: a complete guide

Key terms

• Daily planning methods. Structured approaches for organizing tasks and time inside a single day.
• Planning Fit Filter. A three-variable diagnostic developed at Goals and Progress that scores schedule predictability, energy consistency, and planning patience to match a reader to a daily planning method.
• Time blocking. A daily planning method that assigns every hour to a specific task, creating a pre-committed schedule.
• Ivy Lee method. A task prioritization method that limits each day to six ranked tasks worked in sequence.
• 1-3-5 rule. A daily planning method that caps each day at one big task, three medium tasks, and five small tasks.
• MIT + calendar. A hybrid daily planning method that identifies three Most Important Tasks each morning, then blocks calendar time around existing commitments.
• Implementation intentions. “If-then” planning that specifies when, where, and how an action will be performed, shown by Gollwitzer to roughly double follow-through.
• Zombie tasks. Action items that float on a list for weeks without ever being done or deleted.

Frequently asked questions

Can I combine multiple daily planning methods?

Combining methods often works better than rigid single-method use. The MIT + calendar hybrid already blends two approaches. Another common combo: use the Ivy Lee method for task selection and time blocking for scheduling.

Keep the combined approach under 10 minutes of planning time. If it takes longer than that, it is too complex for daily workflow planning.

Which daily planning method works best for unpredictable schedules?

The 1-3-5 rule handles unpredictability best because it sets a task count rather than a time commitment. If half your day gets consumed by unexpected demands, your one big task and three medium tasks still provide clear direction. For extremely variable days (on-call work, parents of infants), planning in 90-minute blocks with replanning checkpoints at 9 AM, noon, and 3 PM provides more resilience than any full-day plan.

How detailed should daily plans be?

Detail level should match your interruption frequency. High-interruption environments benefit from sparse plans with 3 to 5 priorities and no time estimates. Quiet environments benefit from detailed time blocks with specific task descriptions.

Over-detailed plans in chaotic environments create false control. When they break, which they will, frustration follows.

What if my daily plan falls apart by noon?

Run the 2-minute reset: stop the old plan, identify the single most important remaining task, release everything else to tomorrow. Consistent plan failure before noon signals one of three things: over-commitment, underestimating task duration (the planning fallacy Kahneman and Tversky documented [7]), or using a method too rigid for your interruption level. Adjust the method rather than blaming yourself.

Which daily planning method requires the least setup time?

The Ivy Lee method and 1-3-5 rule both take under 5 minutes because they skip time estimation and calendar integration. Time blocking and bullet journaling take 15 to 20 minutes because they require those extra steps. If you have less than 5 minutes for planning, choose Ivy Lee or 1-3-5. Anything more complex will feel like work rather than help.

What is the best time to plan your day?

Morning planning lets you respond to overnight changes (time zone emails, family emergencies). Evening planning reduces morning decision load and gives your subconscious time to process priorities overnight. Try both for a week each and track which produces better mornings.

Most people find consistency matters more than timing. Picking one and sticking with it beats alternating.

References

[1] Matthews, G. “Goals Research Summary.” Dominican University of California, 2015. Conference presentation rather than peer-reviewed journal article; cited findings should be read as exploratory. Link

[2] Gollwitzer, P.M. “Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans.” American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503, 1999. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493

[3] Mark, G., González, V.M., and Harris, J. “No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2005), Portland, Oregon, 2005. DOI: 10.1145/1054972.1055017

[4] Mark, G., Gudith, D., and Klocke, U. “The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and Stress.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2008), Florence, Italy, 2008. DOI: 10.1145/1357054.1357072

[5] Newport, C. Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Grand Central Publishing, 2016. Publisher page

[6] Mueller, P.A. and Oppenheimer, D.M. “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking.” Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0956797614524581

[7] Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. “Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures.” TIMS Studies in Management Science, 12, 313-327, 1979. Scholar link

[8] Lavie, P. and Zomer, J. “Ultrashort Sleep-Waking Schedule. II. Relationship Between Ultradian Rhythms in Sleepability and the REM-Non-REM Cycles.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 57(1), 35-42, 1984. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(84)90006-390006-3)

[9] Babauta, L. Zen to Done: The Ultimate Simple Productivity System. 2008. Link