Some Aspects of NQ-FVP (Part 2)
Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:46 Yesterday in the first part of this article I wrote about why I keep coming back to NQ-FVP, and promised that in part 2 I would answer the question of why I keep leaving NQ-FVP in the first place.
It’s a question which I haven’t seriously asked of myself until now. So the answers I come up with will be just as interesting to me as to anyone else, and possibly more so.
The easy short answer is that I am always looking for the perfect system and, although I feel that NQ-FVP isn’t the perfect system, it’s the best I have.
That raises a lot of questions which are much more difficult to answer:
- Is it actually possible to have a perfect system?
- What would the perfect system look like?
- Am I right in thinking that NQ-FVP isn’t the perfect system?
- Are there changes I could make so that NQ-FVP becomes the perfect system?
Is it actually possible to have a perfect system?
I think the answer must be “no” and for the same reason that there’s no perfect car, perfect house, perfect phone or anything else. The most one can say is “That’s my perfect car/house/phone”, meaning that it perfectly suits your personality and your present needs and circumstances. My perfect car wouldn’t be your perfect car, and so on.
So I’m forced to the conclusion that, no, I can’t come up with a universally perfect time management system. But you can have my perfect time management system and if we’re lucky it will suit you too.
What would my perfect system look like?
That’s easy to answer. It would have to be a system into which I could feed everything I have to do, want to do, or should do. Everything would then come out in exactly the right order, allowing for importance, urgency, and desirability. It would respond immediately to changes in circumstances. It would deal equally well with things I want to do, and things I need to do but don’t want to do. It would reduce resistance to a minimum, and have minimum overhead. It would provide both motivation and momentum.
Am I right in thinking that NQ-FVP isn’t my perfect system?
Let’s mark it out of 10 for each of the above qualities (bearing in mind that these are my answers for my perfect system and your answers might well be different)
- Everything I have to do, want to do, or should do. 10
- Exactly the right order, allowing for importance, urgency, and desirability. 6
- Respond immediately to changes in circumstances. 8
- Things I want to do 10
- Things I need to do but don’t want to do. 4
- Reduce resistance to a minimum. 8
- Minimum overhead 7
- Motivation 8
- Momentum 8
That’s 69 points out of 90 or 77%, which isn’t a bad score, but still a fair distance from being perfect.
Are there changes I could make so that NQ-FVP becomes my perfect system?
I don’t know that I can get it to 100% perfect - is anything? But I can certainly think up some pointers to increase the score. These are all about how I use the system, rather than changes to the system itself.
- Don’t overload it with tasks
Even the most perfect car won’t take too many passengers or too much weight, and it wouldn’t be the perfect car I want if it did (my car’s a two-seater and that’s the way I want it). It’s exactly the same with a time management system. NQ-FVP will grind to a halt if I put too many tasks in it. The system can enable me to get stuff done more efficiently and effectively, but what it can’t do is get me to do more than I am physically or mentally capable of doing. So I must either avoid putting too much into the system in the first place, or aggressively weed tasks so that my work becomes more and more concentrated and targetted. - Don’t overload it with dots
Dotting too many tasks at a time slows the whole system down and makes it inflexible. I aim to never have more than five dotted tasks at a time. That’s what I’ve got dotted at the moment on my current list of 66 tasks, and includes the one I’m working on at the moment. - Scan quickly
Scanning time is the main overhead in this system. If I scan slowly, weighing every task, it takes an unacceptably long time. But even worse, it encourages me to dot too many tasks. And even worse than that, it takes a long time to correct if I miss a task that I should have dotted. Fewer dots gives much more flexibilty without any penalty.
Conclusion
I think it would be very difficult to improve the actual system of NQ-FVP. Most attempts to do so are trying to cure problems caused by incorrect handling. The quickest way to kill it is to have a huge ponderous list of unweeded tasks, covered in a multitude of dots caused by long exhaustive (and exhausting) scans. Keep the list well-weeded, scan quickly and aim at a maximum of 3-5 dots in the whole list.
Next…
In Part 3 I shall be dealing with how NQ-FVP can be used as a long list, a short list and a no-list system all at the same time.
Reader Comments (25)
Perhaps my questions will be answered in your next post, but I will bring it up now:
You state that you have 66 items, and that you dot 5 items. If there are about 30 lines on a page, that would be the equivalent of a little more than 2 pages. My long list tends to have many more items, and more pages. Maybe that is why none of the FVP have worked for me. I do use it on a short list, with usually no more than 20 items, usually even less, around 10.
My long list usually starts from my capture list, as in David Allen, or a mind dump. In GTD the capture list goes through the processing stage. If you have 66 items, how do you select what items go on the list? What defines the list? Do you have a capture list and select them from that list?
As I understand the Autofocus list is also the capture list, so eventually that list gets weeded. I find if my long list is my capture list, then I have to have some method of reviewing the pages regularly, and some method of keeping it to a manageable length.
How long does it take you to finish the 66 items? Is there a time period on the items?
<< You state that you have 66 items, and that you dot 5 items. If there are about 30 lines on a page, that would be the equivalent of a little more than 2 pages. >>
At this precise moment I have 68 items and two dotted items (of which this current comment is one). The 68 items are spread over five pages of 33 lines each. I only started this list yesterday evening so it's not fully developed yet. Normally I level off at about 80 or 90 tasks.
<< If you have 66 items, how do you select what items go on the list? What defines the list? Do you have a capture list and select them from that list? >>
I never use a capture list no matter what system I'm using. My 68 items have just been dumped straight into the list as I think of them or as they come up in the normal course of working. I don't put anything on the list which I am not prepared to do now (even if I don't particularly want to). Even so, I keep it well weeded.
My method of weeding is to keep "Weed List" as a permanent task on my list, and when it gets selected I just go through the list crossing out anything which I no longer think is relevant or desirable. Weeding the list is not an admission of defeat. It's part of the process.
<< How long does it take you to finish the 66 items? >>
I've already done 91 tasks since I started the list about 24 hours ago, so not long. But remember I believe in "little and often" as a working method - so I haven't necessarily finished them in the sense of having no more work to do on them.
<< Is there a time period on the items? >>
Not in this system, no. Though if a task hangs around for too long, I would want to query why I haven't done it, and whether it's still relevant. It becomes pretty obvious when a task is lagging, because it gets surrounded by deleted tasks.
<<I don't put anything on the list which I am not prepared to do now....>>
I think before you've mentioned something along the lines of a "2 day rule" or the like in which things generally don't get on your list if you don't think that you reasonably might be prepared to do them in the next few days.
What do you do with more speculative things that you want to consider, but aren't quite ready to do just yet? Maybe it's a tension between Project A and Project B, and you don't want to forget about Project B, but it's also not clear when the perfect time might be to start Project B, when you want to do Project A; but you know that Project A won't be finished for a long time, so you can't reasonably delay Project B until Project A is fully finished, you'll need to start at some point, and probably before Project A is done. But that point isn't quite clear. What do you do with Project B? Put it on a monthly tickler in your calendar? Put it on your list and let it languish for a while?
That's a compelling answer to "Is it actually possible to have a perfect system?"
I admit I haven't settled on what system is best for me, but I think I will get there. This process would take less time if you had invented fewer systems! But, seriously, I feel so grateful that we have many strong options to choose from.
Your inclusion of "present needs and circumstances" in the "perfect" system description also stood out to me. It seems plausible that one might switch from a previously ideal system because of a job change, etc. Though it's also nice to think of one system adapting to life's changes.
I know you've spoken before about not keeping a someday/maybe list, and just having a single long list, but I wonder where these things go that aren't immediately being actioned but that are waiting to be brought into action?
<< I think before you've mentioned something along the lines of a "2 day rule" or the like in which things generally don't get on your list if you don't think that you reasonably might be prepared to do them in the next few days. >>
I don't remember specifying a period, though you may be right. But it's certainly sensible for my systems.
As far as your query about "Project B" is concerned, I'd put it on some form of reminder/tickler for consideration at an appropriate time.
<< I can't help but feel like there's a disconnect between "putting anything you want to do on the list" and "don't overload it with tasks." >>
The answer is actually given in the Pointers to increase the Score:
"So I must either avoid putting too much into the system in the first place, OR aggressively weed tasks so that my work becomes more and more concentrated and targetted."
<< I know you've spoken before about not keeping a someday/maybe list, and just having a single long list, but I wonder where these things go that aren't immediately being actioned but that are waiting to be brought into action? >>
A someday/maybe list is quite different from a place where things go that are waiting to be brought into action. The first is a dump for pipe-dreams. The second is for things that you are seriously intending to do, but for which the time is not quite ripe. These should be put into some sort of B/F system so that they can be reviewed regularly.
It's so similar to NQ-FVP that I figured I'd share it. The differences are:
-It's important to use a paper list to avoid dealing with device user interfaces and for reasons below.
-I only dot items that I will take action on immediately. It doesn't matter if it's a task, a project, something fun, whatever. If I feel like getting started, it gets a dot.
-I don't worry if I lose my place in the list or I forget what I was doing. If so, I simply start scanning from whatever page my list is on. This does mean that there could be more than one dotted item on the list (because I forgot about or overlooked a dot elsewhere), and that's fine as I'll start working on the next task I see or dot.
-This is the big difference: I use a paper notebook because I want it to be finite. When the notebook fills up completely, I start a brand new, empty notebook. Then, I transfer ONLY 1 item from each page of the old notebook to the new notebook, starting from the most recent page. I only do this until I fill just one page of then new notebook, leaving me with a concentrated, relevant list to start with. I pretty much ignore the old notebook at this time. If I end up worrying about something on an old notebook, I'll just add a task like "put three items from old notebook here" or something like that, but I've found I've hardly ever needed to.
-Basically, dotting items that I am going to do immediately as well as being forced to keep only essential items when a notebook is full has kind of allowed me to "have my cake and eat it too". I feel like my resistance is low, while at the same time I don't worry about doing things that are unimportant, because I know the system will eventually cut the fluff.
Thanks for describing your system, and congratulations for finding something that works well for you. But I'm not quite following how it's like NQ-FVP if you are immediately taking action when you've dotted a task. That sounds more like Simple Scanning. Or am I missing something?
With FVP (NQ or not) I find my feelings about previously dotted items have often changed quite a bit by the time I get to them in the chain (i.e. I don't feel like doing them anymore!). In that regard I'm not sure it's better than doing what stands out immediately.
I guess it is like Simple Scanning as well? I always thought Simple Scanning was a lot more loose, although I could be wrong. With my system I still use this part of the FVP rules:
"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 (one I forgotten that I've dotted or the first, original dotted item) and do that."
I also have my rules for concentrating the list when I transfer items to a new notebook.
But if that's how Simple Scanning works, that's fine! I just know that your posts on FVP have been more inspirational to me!
I thought instead that Grizzly meant "I only dot items that I WOULD ACT on immediately", so that when the FVP rules later permit action on that dot, it then tends to get enacted with no resistance.
Systemic Grizzly: when you dot a task, do you take action on it immediately, or do you keep scanning? Now I have to know!
Since I use a paper notebook, I only see one or two pages of the list at a time. Sometimes more dots end up elsewhere on the list before or after the one I'm working on.
I didn't mean to hijack this thread by the way! I guess I just originally wanted to echo Mark's words that I found a system that was as "perfect" as it could be for me, but searching for anything that is truly perfect is impossible and has wasted a lot of time in my life.
I don't view your contribution as a hijack. I'm always happy to hear about methods that have worked long-term!
SS will just go through the list in order and do the ones selected when picked, and move them (if unfinished) to the end where they may be picked again later..
Grizzly would go through in order, and then in reverse order repeat looking at the ones started on the forward pass.
I started writing a reply, but it went off in an unexpected direction, so I posted it in the forum instead:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2789386