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)
<<Did you encounter some weakness with the second column approach that makes it incompatible in the newer systems? >>
My opinion, not necessarily Mark's, is that the SF second column was a failed experiment. It had the effect of making the system slow because you were required to act on everything in that column before turning the page. This idea of obligation is something Mark recently has been writing against himself. Instead now, he advocates a system that leaves you completely free, with the driving idea that the point of a system is NOT to get everything done, but to enable you to effectively and efficiently choose what gets done. SF contradicts that by requiring you to get things get done. At the same time, it made progress through the system very slow, and while you did accomplish some things very quickly by cycling through, other things you never even get to in reasonable time.
The system also had a problematic complexity. It made you think very deliberately about what "done" meant, making decisions about setting aside a task much harder than they should be. So rather than having a very smooth flow to the system, it felt very cumbersome to use effectively. I believe an effective operational system needs to be extremely smooth and not require thinking about how to operate. SF did not achieve that for me.
None of this means you can't use a second column effectively, if you have different rules in mind. And of course, there were many people who disagree with me and found the system effective.
A very good summary and very much in line with my thinking on the subject.
1. A feeling towards "attraction" or "approval" means I am ready to do it: I stop scanning down and do the dotted task.
2. A feeling towards "ambivalence" or "uncertainty" means I am not ready to do it: I keep on scanning down.
3. A feeling towards "repulsion" means I do not want to do it: I delete the dotted task and (if needed, explanation below) rewrite at the end.
It is the listening to this feeling of "repulsion" that made this system a game changer for me, since it seemed to unleash, as it were, my intuition to help me keep both my list and my chain of dotted tasks fresh and relevant. Not only does this remove old, irrelevant, and already done tasks from my list, but this also handles what I called in a post above the "spoilage of dotted tasks."
<<"spoilage of dotted tasks": 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.>>
There is a question I always wanted to ask you: You seem to not mind switching tasks every 5 minutes or so.
From my understanding, that would be a way to train our brain to require frequent changing (so we become more distracted), and there are switching costs between tasks where we need at least 20 minutes for the brain to fully focus on one task. Some people like Peter Drucker go as far as to argue that we should focus on one thing for at least 2 hours to reap the most benefits.
So, why are you still such a huge fan of switching between many tasks every day? Is it because you find that pushing through resistance will backfire over time, so better ride the wave than not? Well, what if by sticking to longer periods of time, you can train your brain to be comfortable with focusing on one thing for 1 hour or more, so a unit of 1 hour becomes as comfortable as a unit of 5-10 minutes, but we never find out because we haven't trained our brains for higher focus since we switch contexts frequently?
Another question that might or might not be related: on my life, there are some tasks that I have to do but they're not the most enjoyable for me, and some other tasks that are enjoyable but are not urgent or even critical. For example, I might have a task of writing follow up emails which I have to do but do not particularly enjoy, and a task of reading a novel which I am looking forward to do and I am excited about. So, following scanning systems where I do what I feel like doing, I'll be doing A LOT more of the "fun" tasks and those more important less enjoyable tasks will take much much longer to do (for example, a task that would require 8 hours of work might end up done after 16 days instead of 2 days). Any advice on this?
There seems to be a clash between what needs to be done and what I want to be done.
An advice by Mark Forster to me might help here: clarify what you <really> want. Do you want to have fun or do work? That is the thing with Mark's systems, in that you have to be in touch with who you really want to be to be able to choose what you really want.
Our intuition is not magic: it needs data from the outside world and instructions from us to know what to choose for us. Just be more consistent with your wants and it will serve you well.
Also, I have noticed that if I listen closely to my intuition I notice a deeper want to live better below the shallower, noisier want to have fun. It just takes practice to listen to that more silent wanting.
On the other hand, Mark Forster has said before that using the "little and often" rule excessively, i.e. splintering up a task too much, actually does make productivity suffer. I do not think however he offered a way to know when is it too much, but I am willing to bet if he does it would be "whatever your intuition tells you."
But for this you really have to let your intuition run freely. And I have to thank you ProductivityLover for giving me inspiration on a possible way on how to do that even more with FFVP.
<< There is a question I always wanted to ask you: You seem to not mind switching tasks every 5 minutes or so. >>
You're right. I don't.
But I don't say that you should always do that. What I actually say is that you should work on a task for as long as you want to. When I'm writing a book, that may be several hours at a stretch. At the other extreme a few seconds spent tidying what's on my desk can prevent it from ever getting untidy.
<< From my understanding, that would be a way to train our brain to require frequent changing (so we become more distracted), and there are switching costs between tasks where we need at least 20 minutes for the brain to fully focus on one task. >>
I don't know whether it's ever occurred to the people who say this that you can just as easily train your brain not to require any time at all to switch focus.
<< Some people like Peter Drucker go as far as to argue that we should focus on one thing for at least 2 hours to reap the most benefits. >>
Does Peter Drucker wait till his desk has got untidy enough to take two hours to tidy? Of course he doesn't.
Two hours is the sort of time period that is needed for a major bit of writing, planning or practice. But most of the things we do every day don't fall into those categories.
<< So, why are you still such a huge fan of switching between many tasks every day? >>
Because there are a huge number of tasks to get through every day. Most people don't have enough time to do all the stuff they have committed themselves to.
<< Is it because you find that pushing through resistance will backfire over time, so better ride the wave than not? >>
Yes, and if you ride the wave it will eventually take in all the stuff you thought you were resisting.
<< Well, what if by sticking to longer periods of time, you can train your brain to be comfortable with focusing on one thing for 1 hour or more, so a unit of 1 hour becomes as comfortable as a unit of 5-10 minutes, but we never find out because we haven't trained our brains for higher focus since we switch contexts frequently? >>
What if you can train your brain to do both? That's what I'm recommending.
<< Another question that might or might not be related: on my life, there are some tasks that I have to do but they're not the most enjoyable for me, and some other tasks that are enjoyable but are not urgent or even critical. For example, I might have a task of writing follow up emails which I have to do but do not particularly enjoy, and a task of reading a novel which I am looking forward to do and I am excited about. So, following scanning systems where I do what I feel like doing, I'll be doing A LOT more of the "fun" tasks and those more important less enjoyable tasks will take much much longer to do (for example, a task that would require 8 hours of work might end up done after 16 days instead of 2 days). Any advice on this? >>
It's a lot more enjoyable to do an important time-critical task when it should be done than to experience the consequences of not doing it.
<< There seems to be a clash between what needs to be done and what I want to be done. >>
So you have a task of writing follow-up emails which you don't particularly enjoy? You think that rather than split the task down to small chunks it would be better to spent a solid hour banging away at these emails?
How about if you also split the novel down into small chunks and kept switching between one and the other?
That way you would both get the emails answered and the novel read.
In other words you would enjoy yourself doing both. That's instead of hating doing the emails, or feeling guilt because you're reading the novel instead of doing them.
<< On the other hand, Mark Forster has said before that using the "little and often" rule excessively, i.e. splintering up a task too much, actually does make productivity suffer. >>
Do you happen to have a link or reference to where I said that?
I mark the beginning of each day, yes, though I don't usually bother to date them.
I'm not talking about 'do it straight away', but about "dotting tasks that you intend to do" rather than "come to a task which you want to do more".
This is huge. You're replacing the "want more than" with "want", which makes the system much easier to execute, because the thinking is much simpler. (It's so different, it makes me want to confirm: Is this the intended way of reading of this rule?)
You also don't have to deal with the problem of "Do i want to do this task that doesn't much attract me, more than that first task which i totally don't want to do", which is a rather fruitless question and leads to dotting an initial series of tasks you really don't intend to do. I guess change all ties in with the new philosophy of "you should not do everything" in that the new rules no longer push you to do things.
You do lose the natural ordering of tasks this way, in that you are just picking a bunch of tasks to do, and not establishing a logic order of doing them. Though I suppose the answer to this is, anything that isn't ready to do now won't be selected until it becomes ready.
"Do not attempt to optimize within the noise" -E. Goldratt
"Goldratt contends that any system can be optimized only to the level of the natural noise within the system, and trying to optimize beyond that level actually damages the system." -Schragenheim & Dettmer
<< You do lose the natural ordering of tasks this way >>
That may be theoretically true, but as Seraphim has pointed out there's a certain level of prioritizing which it's pointless to go beyond. Also priorities are constantly changing - however one defines them - and the new rules react better to that. In the original FVP it could take a long time to work from one end of the list to the other and low priorities one marked up yesterday could easily now no longer be in the right place in the queue.
I also missed this change and I agree, this is huge. This seems to be quite a different system than FVP.
If this is correct, I'm now a bit confused about rule 6: "You then can either work on the previous dotted task or carrying on dotting further tasks"
With this approach, it seems the previous dotted task has no particular relevance any more apart from that you might want to do it at some point soon.
Shouldn't rule 6 be instead: "You then can either work on ANY previous dotted task or carry on dotting further tasks"?
<< Shouldn't rule 6 be instead: "You then can either work on ANY previous dotted task or carry on dotting further tasks"? >>
You certainly could do it that way, yes. And it would be interesting to find out how well it works. You might like to give it a try and report back.
But it would not be the same system as Fast FVP.
There are two ways of thinking about Fast FVP:
1) As FVP with an option that you don't have to scan back to the end of the list when you don't want to.
2) As FV with an option that you can scan back to the end of the list when you do want to.
The important thing to note about both these definitions is that Fast FVP maintains the inevitability of the progression back to the root task. You won't get that with your proposed amendment.
I can actually report back now since I've been using something like this on and off for the past few years :-)
Even though I give in to temptation and try out other systems from time, I keep coming back to this one so I guess there must be something to it.
The rules are as for this version of Fast FVP - you "dot" any task that you feel like you want to do now. So you quickly end up with a candidate list of dotted tasks.
You then treat this candidate list as an AF1 page i.e. you keep circulating around the pseudo-page (of dotted tasks) until you no longer want to work on any of the tasks any more.
If an urgent task comes in while you are circulating around the pseudo-AF1 page, you immediately add it to the end of the main task list, dot the task and include it in the pseudo-page circulation.
Then, when you've exhausted all enthusiasm for that batch of tasks, that entire pseudo-AF1 page is "dismissed" i.e. you move (or rewrite) all the tasks that formed that pseudo-AF1 page to the end of your current task list, effectively removing all the dots.
If, at any time, you feel the pseudo-AF1 page has become stale (e.g. after some time has elapsed, or your physical context has changed), you move (or rewrite) all the tasks to the end of your current task list and do a fresh reselection i.e. again dotting the tasks you want to do right now.
I do all of this electronically so it's easy for me to see the pseudo-AF1 page (of dotted tasks) as a separate list, and those tasks automatically get moved to the end of the main task list since I sort it by "Modified Date" order. (I "star" the tasks in my software which has the useful side-effect of automatically altering the "Modified Date")
The net result of this approach is that the end of the list contains tasks I've shown some enthusiasm/interest in recently while the beginning of the list consists of tasks that are prime candidates for being weeded out.
Hope that's clear.
Thanks for a clear description of your system.
Apart from urgent tasks, do you allow yourself to add additional tasks to your pseudo-AF1 page? Or does it remain the same until you have finished with it?
Presumably if you finish a task completely you remove it?
If a task came in that I felt strongly that I wanted to do as soon as possible (an internal pushing rather than an "urgent" external pushing), I would add it to the pseudo-AF1 page - that still comes under the "urgent" category for me. But otherwise that "page" is closed. New tasks are added to the main task list but left undotted so they are not part of the pseudo-AF1 page..
As time goes on, the pseudo-AF1 page diminishes in size because tasks that I've worked on, and no longer feel any enthusiasm for working on any more at that time, are moved (rewritten) to the end of the main task list (in an AF1 kind of way), and therefore become un-dotted.
Because I'm looking at a filtered view of dotted tasks in my electronic system, I'm seeing this pseudo page as a separate actual page - a peaceful oasis away from the master task list length and chaos :-) - and I see it getting smaller and smaller which gives me a sensation of accomplishment.
And because these are all tasks I felt some enthusiasm for initially (the no-more-enthusiasm tasks are gradually "undotted" by being moved/rewritten to the end of the main task list), I find the enthusiasm for doing stuff stays fresh all day i.e. I don't resist my main task list because I'm rarely bullying myself into doing things off it.
If a task is finished then, yes, it is removed from the pseudo-AF1 page.
Great. It sounds a very good system. I must try it sometime!
No, you only dot stuff you feel like doing at that time.
The start of the list ends up being a bunch of "stale" tasks that you might want to dismiss, delete or move to a Someday/Maybe type of list. Or you can have a "Weed List" task and just clean out the start of the list every so often.
The question I find works quite well for task selection (inspired by Mark's Next Hour approach) is: "What do I feel like doing in the next hour?" - and then I dot all those tasks (even though, in reality, it may take less than an hour, or considerably more than an hour to extract all the "enthusiasm" from the bunch of selected tasks).
For some reason, that question seems to let my mind be freer and more intuitive than "What I do feel like doing right now?"
Like with Fast FVP, if you come across a task you really want to do while dotting, just do it (or do as much as you feel like you want to do).
You can then continue with the dotting of the rest of the list and start extracting the enthusiasm juice from the dotted batch of tasks as normal.
Also, just for clarification, if it's clear that a dotted task no longer carries any enthusiasm for me, I just remove the dot immediately (or rewrite it at the end of the list, if you are paper-based) to keep the unnecessary clutter out of the way of the pseudo-AF1 page.
I was thinking I ought to name this system to avoid confusion with Mark's current methods, even though it is somewhat inspired by them.
So, because it gives me an oasis of peace and focus away from the "noise" of the main task list, I thought I would call it "The Oasis System" :-)
"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."
I was working the system as if the rule was "Adding further dots after the last dotted task on the list".
With Fast FVP as written, there's a little more compulsion in the system.
If a dotted task is one that I'm resisting, then my method allowed me to keep on working the list below it forever (and so blocking all the tasks above it in the list). With Fast FVP as written, the list of things that you can choose instead of the task you're resisting keeps getting shorter.
On the other hand, Fast FVP as written needs you to keep your finger in the notebook on the last worked task while you scan back for the last dotted task. Not very inconvenient, except at the end of a day.
I handle this by picking tomorrow's first task at the end of each day. That is, I re-enter the last task if necessary, delete it, then look at the previous dotted task and ask "What do I want to do first tomorrow?" If it's not the last dotted task, I dot tasks until I've dotted one I do want to do first thing tomorrow, then close the notebook and go home.
After using several days i can say only, that it works for me better than any other systems. But i have a question ;-) I tried to read all the comments to find the answer but my english is pretty bad and i could lose something.
For example, i dotted a few tasks (let's call them A,B,C,D).
When i have made last task (D), the next should be C, or scanning further. But (and this happens quite often) what if the task B become urgent? F.e. i have to go (or sleep) and have few minutes to accomplish the most importent task for the moment (or the day). And it is B. And i don;t have time/energy for task C. Should i remove the dot at C or cross it out and replace in the and of the list, or can i cheat somehow?:-)
The rule is that if you need to re-prioritize something you can cross it out and re-enter it at the end of the list. That way it is immediately available.
I'm really liking this system, thank you. My current list is quite small, which is good. When I get to the end of the list, according to rule 7.2 I must work on the last dotted task on the list. However, often the last dotted task happens to be the first dotted task on the list (which always must be dotted).
Procrastination aside, I may not be ready to take action on this task for whatever reason, so I would propose an amendment to the rule to allow a scan down the list past the first dotted item to see if there are other tasks which stand out and which would therefore be dotted on this scan. This makes a lot more sense to me, rather than forcing myself to work on the first task. Or do you disagree because there is a risk that the first task may become forgotten about hence why it is dotted?
Curious as to the reason why the first task is always dotted? Is it simply so you can easily spot where it is or because it is important to take some form of action on it, however small?
<< When I get to the end of the list, according to rule 7.2 I must work on the last dotted task on the list. However, often the last dotted task happens to be the first dotted task on the list (which always must be dotted). >>
If you are doing this correctly, if the only dotted task is the first task on the list you will already have done every task which you wanted to do before it.
<< Procrastination aside, I may not be ready to take action on this task for whatever reason, so I would propose an amendment to the rule to allow a scan down the list past the first dotted item to see if there are other tasks which stand out and which would therefore be dotted on this scan. >>
That rule would be pointless since you should already have identified and done every task you want to do before the first task.
<< Curious as to the reason why the first task is always dotted?
Fast FVP as the name implies is simply a fast way of doing FVP.
FVP is based on an algorithm the purpose of which is to do every task on your list in the right order.
The first task on the list will be somewhere in that order, so to start off with you dot that task and identify every task you want to do before it. What's more the algorithm identifies the order in which they should be done.
Therefore if you are doing it right, when the algorithm identifies the first task on the list as the next task to be done you should by definition already have done every task which you want to do before it.
I suggest you read the original instructions for FVP carefully:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/5/21/the-final-version-perfected-fvp.html
<<That rule would be pointless since you should already have identified and done every task you want to do before the first task.>>
Not necessarily. If your task list has been going for several days, then the priority of tasks may well change (as I think you've already touched on), so there may be tasks further down the list which can be dotted that you'd want to do before the first dotted task (i.e. which weren't dotted in previous scans). So I still believe that if you're taken back to the first dotted item on the list following completion of the last dotted item, then scanning and dotting items (where required) following the first dotted item is a good idea, rather than automatically working on the first dotted item as I think the current rule suggests.
I found that I really resisted FFVP's flipping back to find the previous dot, and I do not tend to get back up to the top of the list very often. My sessions are pretty short, since I now use the list only at home, and at work my team uses an entirely different kanban-based system. Well... I do bring the list to work, because I tend to have a reminder or two on its last page, like a personal phone call to make during business hours. So when I get home, the list is always open to the last page due to that reminder, and anything on those last two pages seems much more relevant than whatever I dotted yesterday or the day before, higher up the list.
I do keep an eye out for the oldest item on the list as I come around the top of it, and I tend to give it some special consideration, either to push it along or delete it. So I guess that's a second enhancement but just a rule of thumb, a habit ingrained by FFVP.
This has also been a source of resistance for me. I have posted about it in the FV/FVP forum in the post "Switching from FVP-Q to FFVP". I have also actually been thinking about switching back to my old system, which is FVP-Q instead of Simple Scanning.
Another source of resistance I have is always asking myself "Am I ready for this?" It produces more mental overhead compared to FVP-Q where you just dot what stands out going to the end of the list and do the last dotted task.
I've completely stopped using any sort of question for the same reason, another reason Simple Scanning suits me better. Without the question, FVP's sorting algorithm is not invoked. And I was never able to get the sorting to happen with a nonverbal "standing out" approach--not that it was a big problem, but it negated the point of having those previously-dotted items lurking around. All those wonderful dynamics Mark listed about Simple Scanning are still working great for me, and it's even nicer to know I can always start right at the most relevant spot, on that 2nd-to-last page.
I think it was this post that described the dynamics I'm referring to:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
Have you seen this?
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/10/dotting-power.html
a) Work on the (new) last dotted item
b) Write new items at the end of the list, dot some, and carry on as usual.
This seems to be in keeping with the theme that, once you have scanned to the very end of the list, the system has helped you find out what to do _now_ (the last dotted item).
Is that about right?
--V
First scan down from the task you have just completed to the end of the list, dotting according to the usual rules.
As you dot them, either do them or carry on dotting until you get to the bottom of the list. When you get to the bottom of the list, do the bottom dotted task.
Repeat.
That doesn't really answer my question. I understand the rules in general, it's the special case at the very end of the list that I'm trying to figure out.
Do you mean the task at the bottom of the list (the last entered) or the one at the top (the last to be executed)?
You got it right. You can do either.
"Draw a line across the page at the beginning of each day. This helps to remind you whether you’ve done a daily task that day and enables you to see how long any task has been on the list."
Are you doing this with FFVP currently? I've been wondering what to do with completed tasks.
<< I've been wondering what to do with completed tasks. >>
I'm not sure what you mean by this. A fully completed task, or one you don't expect recur for several days, is deleted.
A task which is completed for the time being, but which you expect to recur again within a couple of days or less, is re-entered at the end of the list.
A task which is unfinished and which you are taking a break from while you do some other tasks is also re-entered at the end of the list.
Once query I have is do you keep one note book ( for both Work and Personal tasks / goals ) or you keep multiple ( say 1 for Work and other for Personal Tasks ).
I use one for work and other for Personal. I observed that most of my work time is in office and so I tend to ignore the ones in my Personal. On the other hand, if I put all the task in one, it becomes to clumsy to follow up.
Any generic solution to handle this would help. I am using FFVP as of now.
People's circumstances differ so much that it is very difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule. Generally my advice is to keep separate books for each location. But you need to adapt that to your own particular situation.