Some Aspects of NQ-FVP (Part 1)

I’ve said several times on this blog and in the comments that the system that I keep coming back to is NQ-FVP. The name NQ-FVP is derived from the Final Version (FV), through the Final Version Perfected (FVP), and finally  the NQ bit which stands for “No Question”.

NQ-FVP is a clumsy name for sure, but it does reflect how the system was developed, and anyway there are plenty of acronyms flying around which hardly anyone knows what they stand for, e.g. IKEA (Ingvar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd) or CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing Test to tell Computers and Humans Apart).

So NQ-FVP it’s going to remain. Click here for the rules.

So what are the distinguishing features which make me come back to this system time after time?  

• It’s relatively fast and relatively simple. There are faster and/or simpler systems, but they lack NQ-FVP’s other features.
• It’s a long list system which feeds a short list system and even sometimes a no-list system.
• It will sooner or later work through your whole list, even if you are constantly adding to it.
• It’s a low resistance system mainly driven by your intuition about when a task is ready to be done. 

Of course the obvious follow-up question is what are the distinguishing features which make me leave this system time after time?

I will answer that in the second part of this article.

Comments

[Margaret1]

HI Mark, thanks for this reminder of NQ-FVP. When I click the link for the rules, then click the link contained within that, it says Page Not Found. I had a look in the tab called TM Systems but couldn't find FVP there.

[Mark Forster]

Margaret1:

I'm not quite sure what's happened there. There should be no further link to click. The link in the blog post should take you straight there.

However you could try searching for "No Question FVP" in the search box in the right column.

[Alan Baljeu]

First Click works for me. Next click gives : /blog/2015/5/21/the-final-version-perfected-fvp.html cannot be found.

About acronyms, there is a difference: IKEA is the Swedish furniture IDEAS company. CAPTCHA is the bot catching (catch ya) system. These function as words. NQFVP doesn't function as a word. That said, I don't know if it wants a word as it's destined to be replaced by whatever answers the problem highlighted in part 2 of your article anyway.

[Mark Forster]

Alan:

<< These function as words. NQFVP doesn't function as a word. >>

I'm not sure that's the case. I certainly regard it as having a word function, just as much as I do BBC or UK or USA, all of which are pronounced as initials. And NQ-FVP is only two syllables longer than IKEA to pronounce, with a helpful hyphen to split it into two parts.

<< it's destined to be replaced by whatever answers the problem highlighted in part 2 of your article anyway. >>

Not necessarily.

[Mike Brown]

To be thoroughly pedantic about it, because if this isn't the forum for it, then why are we here:

http://www.grammarbook.com/blog/abbreviations/abbreviations-acronyms-and-initialisms-revisited/

NQ-FVP would be an initialism (pronounce each letter one at a time) vs SCUBA as an acronym (pronounced as a word).

[Mark Forster]

Mike Brown:

<< To be thoroughly pedantic about it >>

Pedantry is an admirable quality.

However...

The American Heritage Dictionary has the following to say on the subject:

acronym
ăk′rə-nĭm″
noun

1. A word formed by combining the initial letters of a multipart name, such as NATO from North Atlantic Treaty Organization or by combining the initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar from radio detecting and ranging.

2. An initialism.

3. An abbreviation formed by (usually initial) letters taken from a word or series of words, that is itself pronounced as a word, such as RAM, radar, or scuba; sometimes contrasted with initialism.

END OF QUOTE

There's obviously a fair amount of disagreement here among the grammarians. And to be pedantic myself, if you read my post carefully you will find I never said NQ-FVP was an acronym.

[Virix]

Well, the way you wrote your second paragraph strongly implied that you considered it an acronym... :p

I'm trying to reform from the ways of pedantry myself.

[Mark Forster]

Virix:

<< Well, the way you wrote your second paragraph strongly implied that you considered it an acronym... :p >>

Ah well, that's the point of pedantry isn't it? Make people think you are implying something and then appeal to some tiny point they missed.

[Cari]

Try this link:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2021/11/16/the-final-version-perfected-fvp-instructions-reposted.html

[Mark Forster]

Alan Baljeu:

<< It still misses because IKEA resembles a word, but what does one make of Enkyooeffveepee? >>

About the same as JCPOA http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/JCPOA-at-a-glance