No Question FVP
Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:49 Here’s the system I’m using at the moment, which I’m finding works very well so far.
As the name suggests, it’s basically FVP without the questions.
As in FVP the first task on the list is always dotted.
You scan the list by dotting what stands out. As in FVP you then move backwards through the list to action the tasks.
When you have taken action on a task, you scan from that task to the end of the list without bothering to look at the preceding dotted task. When no tasks stand out you then go back to the preceding dotted task and do that.
In other words the basic algorithm is exactly the same as in FVP - but without asking any questions.
The great advantage over FVP is that the system itself requires hardly any mental effort. This makes it much faster and easier. And since the basis for selection is “standing out” there is little or no resistence to the tasks themselves.
Reader Comments (30)
By all means try that option to see how it works for you, but I find it doesn't work as well for me. I'm not sure why!
1\ you feel resistance to the last dotted item, or
2\ you have the feeling that in the last part of the list something is becoming urgent...
My apologies if I'm being 'outstandingly' thick here...
<< The idea is to work in pure FV mode but allowing a scan of the tail of the list whether: 1\ you feel resistance to the last dotted item, or 2\ you have the feeling that in the last part of the list something is becoming urgent... >>
Yes, that's a perfectly viable option and one which I tried out, but I didn't find it worked for me as well as the one I'm proposing.
The way I'm doing it - and which works for me - is not to attempt to impose any sort of conscious order but to let the "standing out" procedure do the work for me.
I think it's the reduction in mental effort involved - rather than the logic of the algorithm - that makes it so much faster (for me) than the alternative that nick61 suggests.
I restarted this method today (April 30) with a fresh list after experimenting with something else yesterday. During the day I entered or re-entered 176 tasks, of which I worked on 112, leaving 64 active tasks on the list at the end of the day.
I think that is the fastest I have ever succeeded in moving through a list in one day.
«not to attempt to impose any sort of conscious order but to let the "standing out" procedure do the work for me»
OK, then I'll try it out that way. I'm just a little concerned that when the selected 'standing out' list grows beyond a day's work, the lack of prioritization will start to become a problem.
Are you currently using this system with a short ( <1day) or long ( >1day) list?
Are you carrying unactioned but dotted tasks over from one day to the next?
<< Are you currently using this system with a short ( <1day) or long ( >1day) list? >>
Long. I try to have all current work on it, but I let it build up as I go along, rather than try and write everything down in one go - another instance of reducing mental effort wherever possible.
Dotted tasks are carried over.
I would be interested in what sort of tasks go on the list.
e.g. If you had 20 items of post arrive that day, would you list them all, or would those 20 items count as 1 task called "post".
Keen to know what granular level should be used for the task list.
Thanks
Definitely one task called Post.
Use the level of granularity that you find suits the work. It will vary from project to project.
I suggest you read http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/9/follow-up-to-the-productive-day-challenge.html and http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/7/the-productive-day-challenge.html
I am assuming this is the same kind of mix of tasks as you have had in the past?
Yes, except that at the moment I'm not capable of going for long walks and runs so I have a bit more time available at the "coal face".
That is, does
Work on report
Work on plan
Work on report
count as 2 tasks or three?
I am counting each line on my list as one. So your example would be three.
Sorry, the answer I wrote earlier seems to have disappeared.
The method I am using is the one described in the article to which this is the comment thread.
Nevertheless the stats are still good.
Total of tasks on list at end of Day 3 is 368, of which 292 have been actioned, leaving 76 on the list.
It does appear to be identical with Mark's first mention of "FVP with no question at all" on June 3, 2015:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2508019#post2509454
It was also called:
AutoFocus Perfected
No-Question FVP
Questionless FVP
FVP-Q (as in "FVP minus the question")
Subsequent discussion posts go into a lot of depth experimenting with this and comparing to "questioned" FVP.
For example, see Mark's blog post "Dotting Power":
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/10/dotting-power.html
I used this method myself for quite a while, though I somehow remembered an additional step after completing a task. This extra step was "look at the last dotted task", which sets a kind of baseline, before scanning forward from the last completed item to find other things that stand out.
You're right. I'd forgotten that. I don't think I ever followed through on it.
I found that the additional step you mention slows it down considerably and increases the mental effort required. It wasn't until I got rid of that step that it really started to move.
<< I found that the additional step you mention slows it down considerably and increases the mental effort required. It wasn't until I got rid of that step that it really started to move. >>
Yes, I think this is the key difference between the previous incarnations of No-Question FVP, and your current system. It's amazing how such a small change can make such a big difference -- but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen that happen!
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2563635
So far it looks both faster and more focused.
" whenever a task is dotted which I am ready to do right now I stop scanning and do it."
As far as I can see, that would be consistent with the NQ-FVP method as you've described it.
Chris
No, I'm not using that rule. The scan is done to the end of the list each time.
See my exchange with Seraphim a few comments back on this thread.
I have a question, if there's a goal I work on everyday (a repeatable task basically), should I put it all the way at the top of the list all the time? Or at the bottom?
By all means try that option to see how it works for you, but I find it doesn't work as well for me. I'm not sure why! >>>
I think this is because after working on a task our inner world has changed, so the question is not only wether I have resistance to the next task in the chain, but also wether I want to do something else even more, now that I have that other task out of the way.
I think I prefer the algorithm of FVP over FV.