Change to Fast FVP
Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 16:17 As the system I was testing didn’t work out the way I was hoping, I’ve changed to Fast FVP which is proving to be everything I’ve been looking for. A bit of loosening up of the rules has made it much more flexible and seems to have overcome most of the problems I have found with it before and with such systems as Simple Scanning and FVP.
Basically what I’ve done is to stick to what I said in the first paragraph of the Fast FVP article without adding the further complications in that article.
“Whenever a task is dotted which I am ready to do right now I stop scanning and do it. That’s all there is to it - it’s as simple as that, but the effect on the speed of the system is enormous.”
However that’s not going to make much sense to anyone who reads this without being already acquainted with FVP and FV. So here’s a complete set of rules. As always, I’ve written the rules for paper and pen, but it’s easy to implement them electronically if you so wish:
- Fast FVP is intended to be used with a “catch-all” list, i.e. a full list of everything you have to do.
- It is better to start off with a few tasks and build the list up gradually rather than attempt to write everything out to begin with. That way the list will build up naturally and you will be more aware of what is on it.
- Dot the first task on the list. You can do it straight away if you want to, but if you don’t want to you carry on scanning through the list dotting tasks that you intend to do.
- At any stage you can either work on the task you have just dotted or carry on down the list dotting further tasks.
- When you have worked on a task you cross it out and re-enter it at the end of the list if further work is needed on it.
- You then can either work on the previous dotted task or carrying on dotting further tasks.
- That’s basically it, but there are two rules dealing with the beginning and end of the list:
- Whenever you delete the first task on the list the new first task must be dotted
- Whenever you reach the end of the list you must work on the last dotted task on the list.
To sum up, except where rules 7.1 and 7.2 apply you always have a choice of:
- Working on the last dotted task on the list OR
- Adding further dots after the task you have just done.
Mark Forster
Afternote:
Fast FVP acts like a mixture of FV, FVP and Simple Scanning. In fact you can simulate FV and FVP within the rules of Fast FVP, and you can also simulate Simple Scanning with the one change that you have to do the first task on the list on each pass. You can also switch between them at any stage.
I’m not suggesting that you should consciously think about this while doing Fast FVP. I’m just pointing out how very flexible the system is.
Reader Comments (92)
I deliberately didn't specify, preferring to leave it as flexible as possible, but that would be the way I'd do it, yes.
Can I check what happens after 7.2? Does that mean you must do all the tasks previously dotted in a strict LIFO basis?
Or can you choose in which order you would like to do the previously dotted tasks?
Can you un-dot a task - i.e. Defer it?
<<Can I check what happens after 7.2? >>
7.2 is a special case rule because rule 6 can't apply when you have reached the end of the list. The reason is that here are no further tasks you can dot.
<< Does that mean you must do all the tasks previously dotted in a strict LIFO basis? >>
Rule 6 will then apply as normal. i.e. you can do the previous dotted task or carry on dottng more tasks
<< Can you un-dot a task - i.e. Defer it? >>
I don't see why not, though this system is much faster at getting dotted tasks done than FVP so the need shouldn't arise too often. If you want to remove it from the list altogether that's fine too.
<< after a certain amount of time the dotted tasks that were not acted on would lose relevance while some of the undotted tasks above them would gain relevance. >>
See my reply to MrBacklog.
What I recommended for FVP is that if you want to change the priorities of certain items you cross them out and put them at the end of the list. It's much neater than trying to scribble out dots in situ. The same would work for Fast FVP.
However you move much faster up and down the list with Fast FVP than you do with FVP so the situation shouldn't arise too often.
Once I dot a task or go back to a dotted task I linger for less than a second, instructing my intuition to choose between three options: "ready", "not yet", or "no". "Ready" means that I am ready to do the dotted task and do not need to scan any further. "Not yet" means scan down until another task "stands out," upon which I use this procedure again. "No" means that the dotted task has become irrelevant and should be deleted, if needed rewritten at the end, then go to the previous dotted task and repeat the procedure again.
This is working remarkably well right now: it is really fast, has not met any resistance yet, and is very intuitive.
<< instructing my intuition to choose between three options: "ready", "not yet", or "no".>>
I don't use the "no" option because it's only really needed if you've been away from the list some time, but if it works fine for you stick to it.
You'll probably find after you've done it for a bit that you don't need to think about the options any longer.
Pob lwc!
However as time passes and eventually everything gets on the list, for some people it is going to be a very long list. That is certainly the case for me.
I would expect some problems to arise. In particular, when a task is partly done near the start of the list and then needs to be re-entered at end of the list. In the normal course of working through the list it might take quite a long time to ever get to that task again, maybe a few weeks in my case. If it has some deadline on it, then it could be missed?
I suppose all our tasks will have some sort of rough due date before they become a problem if not done, but this system does not seem to have a way of catering for that?
Any thoughts on a solution?
With real auto focus, the deferral bit to a calender seemed to solve that, so it pops back into focus at the right time.
The higher that is, the harder it is to ensure important tasks are done at the right time.
The systems needs to control that.
<< In particular, when a task is partly done near the start of the list and then needs to be re-entered at end of the list. In the normal course of working through the list it might take quite a long time to ever get to that task again, maybe a few weeks in my case. >>
I don't see the problem. If a task is at or near the end of the list, it's immediately available to be worked on again.
If it's taking you a week to work through the list, then you're doing it wrong - whatever the length of your list. The whole point of this method is that you can be working on any part of the list at any time.
I think if you have things that might need to be worked on at the end of the list, you should find them quickly while scanning. If I were you I would dot things based on knowing the rules that you would work on the last dotted item if you reach the end of the list. Basically if you are concerned about prioritization then steer your decisions more towards a FVP style.
I think a dot would basically mean "I think I will work on this unless I find something even better."
You know how the random method removes all resistance to the selected task? It's because we decide to do whatever comes up regardless of the order. But if you want to order your tasks you probably need to resist them more (the tasks you are working on in FFVP) long enough to get to the end of the list to make sure you're hitting all your timelines.
I used to have a lot of problems with ever making it through the lists. I don't have that problem with FVP. That's why I think a more FVP style might help.
OK that makes sense. I interpreted the rules as meaning that when you make a whole pass through the list and get to the end, you can only work backwards via the last dotted task, which seems quite restrictive.
Should instruction line 4 read:-
At any stage you can either work on ANY task you have just dotted or carry on down the list dotting further tasks.
<<If it's taking you a week to work through the list, then you're doing it wrong>>
I think this is a work in progress issue. If no new tasks came in, it might take me 2-3 weeks to clear all the ones left. I wonder if that is typical for a lot of people? I don't expect there are many who have a 1-2 day work in progress/turnaround in all their work?
Anyway, I not sure if I'm doing anything wrong. It is more a case of the higher the work in progress the harder it is to manage to ensure I don't miss deadlines.
It seems a constant dilemma of which tasks to tackle as I lose track of when everything is due.
I suppose there are a lot of backlogs in the world. e.g. The NHS has a massive backlog, but they just have to carry on in a crisis.
And it was totally fine - in fact, it was the best possible result, I think.
At one point, I took a breather, and looked back at the older pages:
- There were many dotted items that had become totally irrelevant.
- There were many undotted items that had been entered and actioned later through the normal course of things (i.e., they came back by themselves without any prompting from the list).
- There were a few things that seemed like they had been neglected and were still important - so I re-entered them at the end of the list. But many of those things that felt important at the time, still never got done, even after I re-entered them. So it turns out they really weren't that important.
I eventually got into the habit of just ignoring all those early pages I hadn't seen in a long time -- and it was fine. Sometimes I would just delete a bunch of them without reviewing them -- and it was fine.
Later, doing no-list, I came to have a deeper appreciation for why this all worked out OK: The really important stuff has a tendency to come back by itself. Cycling back to the top item on the list gives one a sense of closure and completeness, which is really nice, but learning to live without the psychological need for the closure and completeness is perhaps even better. At least sometimes. :-)
Thanks for that.
I suppose a simple solution to help with priority is to star for the more urgent and dot for the tasks that can wait a bit longer?
That should do it?
Yes that is interesting.
What I have actually been doing recently each day is working part on the most recent tasks and part on the oldest as that certainly works for me.
That seems to be the only sensible way to keep a long list working fine so old deadlines don't slip and keeping on top of all the new important stuff coming in. The not so important tasks (but need to be done at some point) automatically filter to the middle of the list.
I thank myself quite regularly for always looking at the oldest stuff when I see what could happen if neglected!
Any more thoughts on how to handle that are welcome!
NB I don't actually keep lists but I'm referring to say 100 emails in my inbox which I suppose is the same concept as a handwritten list of things to do.
<< But if you want to order your tasks you probably need to resist them more (the tasks you are working on in FFVP) long enough to get to the end of the list to make sure you're hitting all your timelines. >>
I don't understand what you mean by that. If you want to do a task at the end of the list, you just dot it and do it.
<< OK that makes sense. I interpreted the rules as meaning that when you make a whole pass through the list and get to the end, you can only work backwards via the last dotted task, which seems quite restrictive. >>
I'm getting a bit lost here as to what you think the rules mean. Basically the rules are exactly the same as FVP except that when you dot a task you can do it immediately without having to scan back to the end of the list each time.
<< Should instruction line 4 read:- At any stage you can either work on ANY task you have just dotted or carry on down the list dotting further tasks. >>
No.
<< I think this [taking a week to work through the list] is a work in progress issue. If no new tasks came in, it might take me 2-3 weeks to clear all the ones left. >>
That's quite possible but it got nothing to do with what you originally said:
"In the normal course of working through the list it might take quite a long time to ever get to that [unfinished] task again, maybe a few weeks in my case."
When you work on a task without finishing it, it's re-entered at the end of the list where it's immediately accessible again.
<< I don't expect there are many who have a 1-2 day work in progress/turnaround in all their work? >>
The principle is to work little and often. You're not aiming to finish all your work in 1-2 days. You're aiming do some work on all your current work in 1-2 days.
<< Anyway, I not sure if I'm doing anything wrong. It is more a case of the higher the work in progress the harder it is to manage to ensure I don't miss deadlines. It seems a constant dilemma of which tasks to tackle as I lose track of when everything is due. >>
I don't understand what is so difficult about this. Don't you write deadlines down in your diary/schedule?
The key thing to do with almost any project is to get future dates for meetings, reviews, and stages agreed with your boss or client as far forward as possible.
<< I suppose a simple solution to help with priority is to star for the more urgent and dot for the tasks that can wait a bit longer? >>
No, this would be completely contrary to the way Fast FVP is supposed to work.
Fast FVP is much better for working with the whole list compared with FVP.
<< I don't actually keep lists but I'm referring to say 100 emails in my inbox which I suppose is the same concept as a handwritten list of things to do. >>
I'm not surprised you have a problem then. You can't manage tasks from an email in-box. The reason is simple. You can't see exactly what the task is from looking at the email headings. Email should be handled on a zero inbox basis.
Ok I will try and explain.
Say you have only 10 tasks in the list.
I start scanning and dot all the odd tasks as I intend to do them. All the even tasks are not ready to be done.
When I get to the end, the rules above (as they are written) at the moment say I must do task 9, then 7, then 5, then 3 and finally 1.
What happens if I want to do no. 1 first or any of the other odd ones first?
Or have I lost the plot?
I beg to differ:-
I don't even need to know what the task is. Having reached a zero procrastination mindset, I simply read the email, do as much as possible on it and move on to the next one. It has great speed benefits!
I have got it!
Ignore my earlier questions....
<< What happens if I want to do no. 1 first or any of the other odd ones first? >>
You just dot no. 1 and do it without dotting the other ones first.
<< I don't even need to know what the task is. Having reached a zero procrastination mindset, I simply read the email, do as much as possible on it and move on to the next one. It has great speed benefits! >>
Ok, I will amend my remark as follows:
"In Fast FVP (which is what this thread is supposed to be about) you can't manage tasks from an email in-box."
<< I put the deadline in brackets after the item. For example, "Submit abstract for FM2018 (d/l: 8/1/18)". >>
Yes, I sometimes do it that way too, particularly if the deadline is within a few days.
I have always wondered about that. Why not use an email inbox as a task list?
Advantages:
You can always email yourself a task.
You can forward an email task to yourself again which has the effect of writing it out again at the end of the list.
You can dot a task by starring it or adding a category.
You can defer tasks by dropping emails into a future folder and back into the inbox at the right time.
You can forward the email to yourself and change the header if required.
You can easily search any emails and sort them by date in, subject or person.
Disadvantage:-
I can't think of any.
<< Why not use an email inbox as a task list? >>
There's nothing to stop you doing it that way if you want to. I said in the instructions that Fast FVP can be implemented electronically.
But I thought you wanted to stay with your No Procrastination method?
If you do go ahead with it, do let us know how it goes.
I think Mark's point about eMail subject lines (a personal bugbear) is a real issue. Also, you need to find a way to "dot" then that carries across to all devices (unless you only ever do tasks sitting at a computer).
One option for office 365 users is to drag or right drag mails requiring action to tasks, and use Microsoft to-do. Where the subject is unclear, you can quickly type in the actual action.
Then use the "My day" list to hold the dotted actions (a quick swipe from the to-do list).
I've been using a pocket Moleskine, but I might give this a go.
I suppose 2 quick solutions to those email issues to think about: -
1. Turn on the email preview. It then automatically shows the text in the email so you can quickly scan what it is about without having to actually open the email. I prefer the preview box to be to the right, rather than underneath.
2. Flag the emails which can be the equivalent of a dot.
Or as you say, dragging it into tasks also works.
You are dotting too many tasks. The people who liked the original FV had short chains. It's a comparison method. You only dot things that are greater than the previous thing, _not_ all the things you could or should do. (More want, more stand-out, more valuable -- we tried several questions, all are comparing to the previous dotted line.)
+++
Email
I manage many of my tasks through an email inbox.
We need to define Email Inbox.
Most programs define Inbox as "where it stays until you move it."
If we define it as "marked as Unread", then I agree, we should not work directly from it. We need to open new mail, scan it, and decide what to do with it. We also need to look for fires, and get an idea of what work is waiting for us. GTD suggests only 30 seconds per item. Processing the inbox is very fast!
Once I decide what to do about an email, I'm happy to save a few clicks and leave it in what Gmail calls my Inbox, marked "read". I only move them to a different list if there's a good reason. One good reason is collecting things for a project. Another good reason is getting less urgent tasks, such as reading newsletters, off the screen, so the rest stand out better, in which case I create a "read December's newsletters" project.
Most things arriving through email are @desk tasks, so what Gmail calls Inbox-read is actually part of my @desk list.
I find the subject line and sender are usually enough to remind me of what the email is about. In the rare cases it isn't, I use labels or just deal with it immediately.
Yes I agree, I think it is best just to dot a few, deal with them and then move on to the next lot for review.
Actually what really happens in the end is that I allocate about 2-3 hours each day for email and I just blast through the oldest ones and then the newest ones. I can't get them all done, but that process keeps them all moving.
I defer any that can't be done into a future folder or blind copy myself in for any that need a response. I chase non-responders about 3-4 weeks later. It is easy just to forward the first email. Surprising how many don't respond!
I don't really bother with scanning or dotting/flagging. Seems simple enough just to get on with it all.
I guess we all find something in the end that works well for our particular circumstances.
If you want to talk about these things then please use or open relevant threads on the General Forum.
1. just do it, then go back to where you were
2. write it again and when you have finished the current bit of work, dot it in the usual way
3. follow the usual process until you get back to the base: if you are doing several passes a day, this shouldn't take long.
In fact, the fact that this is seen as a potential problem may indicate that the process is not yet flowing.
<< please do delete the inappropriate stuff >>
I'll only be deleting off-topic posts which appear after my warning. I deleted one last night and I hope and trust that will be the last.
I don't normally bother about keeping threads on-topic on the forums. But blog posts are a different matter.
<< I think MrB asked what to do if your thinking changes after you have set up a chain of dotted tasks, so that the low priority task at the base of the chain is now calling for your attention. >>
I think I've answered that already somewhere. Anyway what I said was that the neatest way to re-prioritize is to cross out the tasks you want to get done and re-enter them at the end of the list.
This happens far less often in Fast FVP than in FVP because you can move around the list much more quickly.
<< Sorry I got carried away. Thanks for catching it! >>
:-)
- Some tasks say "YES!" -- dot those and do them immediately
- Some tasks say "YES, but..." -- these are the ones where the task stands out, but I feel I need to check what else is on the list before diving into it. Dot and keep scanning.
- Some tasks say "NO! Delete me!" -- old, irrelevant, or already-completed tasks. Gone.
- Some tasks don't say anything. Leave them for now.
Mark, is that basically how it's supposed to work?
<< is that basically how it's supposed to work? >>
If that's how the tasks are speaking to you, then it should work, yes.
I move back to the task dotted (C) which is before the one I finished.
The fourth rule says: You then can either work on the previous dotted task or carrying on dotting further tasks".
Does this mean I can go back to the previous dotted task (C) and instead of doing that one I can further dot more tasks after this particular task (C).
Or it does it mean I need to do that task (C) and then move forward dotting tasks.
Or does "carrying on dotting task further" refer to those tasks after task (D).
It sounds as if I need to work on task (C) before moving forward dotting tasks. But, if I work on this task (C) then the rules seem to imply I then move farther back to task (B)
A very intriguing system, but I would very much like to see a demonstration of FFVP in action.
<< Question: I have several tasks dotted. I finish a task (D) (which is not the last dotted task on the list. >>
If you look at Rules 4 and 6 you will see that this is impossible. The task you work on is always the last dotted task on the list.
When you have done the last dotted task you have a choice:
1) Do the previous dotted task (which is now the last dotted task) OR
2) Dot one or more tasks further down the list and do the new last task.
Remember:
The task you do is always the LAST dotted task on the list.
I am finding that not only does my intention does this on undotted tasks but also on dotted tasks too, as a result of continuing to use the dotting procedure I noted above.
I have read almost all your systems since AF in the last few days. I was very attracted to the 2-column approach of SF. But I noticed you abandoned this in subsequent systems like FV, and FVP. Fast FVP seems great, and I am trying it, but why not include the second column?
It seems to add a layer of both flexibility and organization / categorization and quicker scanning to the system. The second column could be used as a tickler column, re-written each page. Or an urgent column. Or an important column. It seems like it could be a nice way to highlight some particular category of tasks. And the dot method could be applied to it like column 1.
Did you encounter some weakness with the second column approach that makes it incompatible in the newer systems?
If you explained this in a previous post, I didn't find it, but happy to read if it's easier to point me there. Thank you! - David
You can always be the first one to make a thread about it!