Discussion Forum > SF3TFVP
vegheadjones:
I think this actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't tried it out yet but my impression from reading it is that it would ensure that both the important and the urgent tasks get done.
I've got two reservations about it which I can only check out by actually doing it - which I'm not quite in a position to start yet:
1) You don't have the entire list available for choice. But this may not be a problem since you do have the urgent and important ones available.
2) I'm concerned that the need to get all the current initiatives worked on before you can move on a page may result in resistance building up - but this is very hard to judge without actually doing it.
How's it going for you so far?
I think this actually makes a lot of sense. I haven't tried it out yet but my impression from reading it is that it would ensure that both the important and the urgent tasks get done.
I've got two reservations about it which I can only check out by actually doing it - which I'm not quite in a position to start yet:
1) You don't have the entire list available for choice. But this may not be a problem since you do have the urgent and important ones available.
2) I'm concerned that the need to get all the current initiatives worked on before you can move on a page may result in resistance building up - but this is very hard to judge without actually doing it.
How's it going for you so far?
January 11, 2016 at 14:03 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Yes, I think you are nuts. But don't let that discourage you. ;-]
January 11, 2016 at 23:32 |
ubi
ubi
Thanks Mark and thanks Ubi ;). I've been using this system for another week and I really like it. It has everything I like about Autofocus--the best part of that system for me is that it forces me to really consider every task on the list, whereas in FVP I could glance and move on and Superfocus-- Items that are urgent or in progress get worked on more regularly until completion; and FVP, which for me is what makes it work. Following the FVP algorithm on a 2 page spread addresses, I think, your #2 question Mark. All my CIs are on column 2, so in a FVP selection I am likely dotting one or more of them and doing those first,, but after I do some or all of one or more of them, the others usually don't yet stand out, so I fall back to column 1 and address some lingering items there that I dotted earlier. Addressing your question 1,Mark, most days this week I only went through one or two pages in my book, but since my urgent and important items are there in column 2 I wasn't worried about what lie beyond the page and got both my important work done and addressed some lingering things in each page column 1.
So for anyone who liked Autofocus/Superfocus I recommend this system. Go nuts and try it Ubi ;)
So for anyone who liked Autofocus/Superfocus I recommend this system. Go nuts and try it Ubi ;)
January 17, 2016 at 19:03 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
I must have a go at this sometime, but I'm currently working on something else.
January 18, 2016 at 8:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Vegheadjones:
Rule 5 needs clarifying.
Rule 5 needs clarifying.
January 18, 2016 at 10:19 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Hi Michael,
OK I will try. Follow the FVP algorithm as you normally would but limit it to column (or page, traditional AF3 uses columns but with my messy handwriting I realize pages work best) 1 and 2 only. When all of 2 has been actioned and you have actioned all other items you've selected back up to the top of #1, you can move to the next page.
Hope this helps.
OK I will try. Follow the FVP algorithm as you normally would but limit it to column (or page, traditional AF3 uses columns but with my messy handwriting I realize pages work best) 1 and 2 only. When all of 2 has been actioned and you have actioned all other items you've selected back up to the top of #1, you can move to the next page.
Hope this helps.
January 18, 2016 at 18:23 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
Veg:
Thanks for the clarification. I think I'll use the one page, two column approach as I did with Superfocus.
Thanks for the clarification. I think I'll use the one page, two column approach as I did with Superfocus.
January 19, 2016 at 3:13 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Veg:
Starting this now. Thanks for sharing it!
Starting this now. Thanks for sharing it!
January 19, 2016 at 3:15 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Good luck Michael, let me know how it works for you. I am very happy with this system
January 19, 2016 at 17:32 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones:
What are you going to do when you fill up column 2 (or the page on the right) before column 1 is completed? Currently I have a full column 2 on the first page of my list. I suppose one could simply use the next page with a column 2 available and ignore its column 1 items for now, treating it as part of your partially filled page.
Or, I could use the Superfocus 3 rule that says when any column 2 is filled up before column 1, all column 1 tasks on that page need to be actioned or dismissed.
My column 2s get filled fast because of "urgent" tasks (urgent in the loosest sense, as in, "I want to do this now", which really needs to be changed to, "This actually needs doing now").
I've also discovered that five current initiatives or projects is too many for column 2. Three projects or current initiatives might even be too many, but I'll find out as that's how many I'm adding there each morning.
What are you going to do when you fill up column 2 (or the page on the right) before column 1 is completed? Currently I have a full column 2 on the first page of my list. I suppose one could simply use the next page with a column 2 available and ignore its column 1 items for now, treating it as part of your partially filled page.
Or, I could use the Superfocus 3 rule that says when any column 2 is filled up before column 1, all column 1 tasks on that page need to be actioned or dismissed.
My column 2s get filled fast because of "urgent" tasks (urgent in the loosest sense, as in, "I want to do this now", which really needs to be changed to, "This actually needs doing now").
I've also discovered that five current initiatives or projects is too many for column 2. Three projects or current initiatives might even be too many, but I'll find out as that's how many I'm adding there each morning.
January 20, 2016 at 10:24 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B:
<< I've also discovered that five current initiatives or projects is too many for column 2. Three projects or current initiatives might even be too many, but I'll find out as that's how many I'm adding there each morning. >>
“If you have more than three priorities, then you don’t have any.” — Jim Collins
<< I've also discovered that five current initiatives or projects is too many for column 2. Three projects or current initiatives might even be too many, but I'll find out as that's how many I'm adding there each morning. >>
“If you have more than three priorities, then you don’t have any.” — Jim Collins
January 20, 2016 at 11:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Michael,
I have yet to fill up a C2, I have 31 lines in my notebook and tend to use about 1/3-1/2 half of those on one pass. I would put it on the next c2 page and continue doing FVP on the current C1-C2 spread (which now has only C1 items) and use as the question, "Do I want to do X before turning the page?" If nothing = x then turn the page.
I have yet to fill up a C2, I have 31 lines in my notebook and tend to use about 1/3-1/2 half of those on one pass. I would put it on the next c2 page and continue doing FVP on the current C1-C2 spread (which now has only C1 items) and use as the question, "Do I want to do X before turning the page?" If nothing = x then turn the page.
January 20, 2016 at 16:47 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
Mark:
" 'If you have more than three priorities, then you don’t have any.' — Jim Collins "
I'd probably take Jim's idea a step further. If you have more than *a* priority, you have no priority. A thing is either a priority or not, right? Anything ahead of it in terms of urgency naturally takes its place as your priority—the thing that must come before anything else. I'm just riffing on this idea. It reminded me of an article I'd read some time ago about the word "priority" morphing into the modern "priorities".
In terms of a group of tasks that must come before all others, 3-4 tasks is easiest to manage and remember. Memory researchers recently unseated previous research claiming that humans can easily remember 5-9 things. The latest research says 3-4 max.
Another thing to consider is whether your priorities are based on importance or urgency. If urgency, your three priorities will consist of the very next things you will do before all else. If importance, they might be tasks you will do "later", after some small but necessary tasks are done first. So which tasks are truly your priorities?
" 'If you have more than three priorities, then you don’t have any.' — Jim Collins "
I'd probably take Jim's idea a step further. If you have more than *a* priority, you have no priority. A thing is either a priority or not, right? Anything ahead of it in terms of urgency naturally takes its place as your priority—the thing that must come before anything else. I'm just riffing on this idea. It reminded me of an article I'd read some time ago about the word "priority" morphing into the modern "priorities".
In terms of a group of tasks that must come before all others, 3-4 tasks is easiest to manage and remember. Memory researchers recently unseated previous research claiming that humans can easily remember 5-9 things. The latest research says 3-4 max.
Another thing to consider is whether your priorities are based on importance or urgency. If urgency, your three priorities will consist of the very next things you will do before all else. If importance, they might be tasks you will do "later", after some small but necessary tasks are done first. So which tasks are truly your priorities?
January 21, 2016 at 2:08 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B.
I wrote a chapter on priorities in my book "Secrets of Productive People". The chapter was called "The Three Rules of Prioritizing".
The three rules are:
1. If everything is top priority, then nothing is top priority.
2. Whenever you increase the priority of one thing, you decrease the priority of everything else.
3. The real question is not how important something is, it's whether you should be doing it at all.
In the chapter I disagree with the whole concept of importance v. urgency.
For example you might regard dealing with your email as urgent because you have a rule that email must be dealt with within 24-hours. And why do you have this rule? Because you regard it as important that email should be dealt with within 24-hours. Urgency and importance are in fact the same thing.
The whole chapter is well worth reading (as is the rest of the book!)
Actually this thread isn't about "priorities". It's about "current initiatives" which is a term misappropriated from one of my other books "Do It Tomorrow":
The correct definition of a current initiate is given in Ch.10 as "what you do first every day", or as it's then summarized :
1. Do
2. First
3. Every day.
From this you can see that you can only have one current initiative at a time.
The strap line at the head of the chapter is:
"It's surprisingly easy to forget that the way to get things done is to do them."
I wrote a chapter on priorities in my book "Secrets of Productive People". The chapter was called "The Three Rules of Prioritizing".
The three rules are:
1. If everything is top priority, then nothing is top priority.
2. Whenever you increase the priority of one thing, you decrease the priority of everything else.
3. The real question is not how important something is, it's whether you should be doing it at all.
In the chapter I disagree with the whole concept of importance v. urgency.
For example you might regard dealing with your email as urgent because you have a rule that email must be dealt with within 24-hours. And why do you have this rule? Because you regard it as important that email should be dealt with within 24-hours. Urgency and importance are in fact the same thing.
The whole chapter is well worth reading (as is the rest of the book!)
Actually this thread isn't about "priorities". It's about "current initiatives" which is a term misappropriated from one of my other books "Do It Tomorrow":
The correct definition of a current initiate is given in Ch.10 as "what you do first every day", or as it's then summarized :
1. Do
2. First
3. Every day.
From this you can see that you can only have one current initiative at a time.
The strap line at the head of the chapter is:
"It's surprisingly easy to forget that the way to get things done is to do them."
January 21, 2016 at 9:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Your priority is the task you are doing now. You have made it your priority by doing it now. If this thing you are doing now is not the most important or urgent thing you could be doing, you've got your priorities all wrong.
Forget priorities and prioritizing, and just do what is most important to you now, unless there is something urgent that must take precedence.
I find that the Current Initiative approach works best because you are making it more important than anything else.
Of course, making something important introduces a whole range of other problems, not least increasing resistance to it.
Forget priorities and prioritizing, and just do what is most important to you now, unless there is something urgent that must take precedence.
I find that the Current Initiative approach works best because you are making it more important than anything else.
Of course, making something important introduces a whole range of other problems, not least increasing resistance to it.
January 21, 2016 at 9:58 |
Wooba
Wooba
Wooba:
This is correct.
But I would point out that something is only urgent because it's important to you that it's dealt with urgently. You cannot divorce urgency from importance.
This is correct.
But I would point out that something is only urgent because it's important to you that it's dealt with urgently. You cannot divorce urgency from importance.
January 21, 2016 at 10:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thankyou, Mark. Yes, that second paragraph didn't need "unless there is something urgent that must take precedence".
January 21, 2016 at 10:08 |
Wooba
Wooba
My last comment got swallowed up by a 403, lets hope this one makes it.
I have been trying out this method since yesterday, and so far it is working, but I have added a hack of my own.
I have combined it with Reverse FVP, basically, use the last item on the right page as the root, and work upwards to build the chain. Once you hit the top of the left column, continue from the bottom of the right column until you get back to the root. (I mark it with a line instead of a dot).
So far, it works very well!
I have been trying out this method since yesterday, and so far it is working, but I have added a hack of my own.
I have combined it with Reverse FVP, basically, use the last item on the right page as the root, and work upwards to build the chain. Once you hit the top of the left column, continue from the bottom of the right column until you get back to the root. (I mark it with a line instead of a dot).
So far, it works very well!
January 21, 2016 at 13:25 |
Nenad Ristic
Nenad Ristic
Mark:
"I wrote a chapter on priorities..."
My comment is really more about the modern plural use of the word "priority". It originally had a singular meaning. Now it's used (or misused) in all sorts of ways, "You need to get your priorities straight", "Put them in order of priority", "Prioritize!", "My next priority is...", "My top priorities are", "These are my main priorities". I find the vagueness of its modern usage annoying and prefer the classical meaning somewhere along the lines of, "The single most important/urgent thing to do now."
The modern usage of the word appears to be like a layer cake made up of important tasks relabeled as "priorities" with the cherry on top as the "top priority". To me, this seems odd. The cherry is your only priority. The layers of the cake are simply tasks with dynamic degrees of urgency, none of which are a priority yet. Nothing else should be called a priority until the cherry ceases to be so/is eaten!
"Actually this thread isn't about "priorities". It's about "current initiatives" which is a term misappropriated from one of my other books "Do It Tomorrow"
In the description Vegheadjones wrote for this system, the phrase "current initiatives" was used to describe the 3-5 items added every morning to column 2. I used the phrase here in keeping with that, and believed Vegheadjones meant "one's most important current projects" or "most important tasks".
"The correct definition of a current initiative is given in Ch.10 as "what you do first every day", or as it's then summarized :
1. Do
2. First
3. Every day.
From this you can see that you can only have one current initiative at a time."
Thanks for correcting that. That fits the definition of a priority perfectly. It's important to understand the point of a current initiative being singular (and first) is to bring laser focus and consistent action to it until it's completed.
For the more literal among us, remember, a current initiative is what you do "first" every day—after necessary daily routines and prep are out of the way. Otherwise "take a shower" and "get dressed" could be one's current initiative every day! (For some, it may be!)
"I wrote a chapter on priorities..."
My comment is really more about the modern plural use of the word "priority". It originally had a singular meaning. Now it's used (or misused) in all sorts of ways, "You need to get your priorities straight", "Put them in order of priority", "Prioritize!", "My next priority is...", "My top priorities are", "These are my main priorities". I find the vagueness of its modern usage annoying and prefer the classical meaning somewhere along the lines of, "The single most important/urgent thing to do now."
The modern usage of the word appears to be like a layer cake made up of important tasks relabeled as "priorities" with the cherry on top as the "top priority". To me, this seems odd. The cherry is your only priority. The layers of the cake are simply tasks with dynamic degrees of urgency, none of which are a priority yet. Nothing else should be called a priority until the cherry ceases to be so/is eaten!
"Actually this thread isn't about "priorities". It's about "current initiatives" which is a term misappropriated from one of my other books "Do It Tomorrow"
In the description Vegheadjones wrote for this system, the phrase "current initiatives" was used to describe the 3-5 items added every morning to column 2. I used the phrase here in keeping with that, and believed Vegheadjones meant "one's most important current projects" or "most important tasks".
"The correct definition of a current initiative is given in Ch.10 as "what you do first every day", or as it's then summarized :
1. Do
2. First
3. Every day.
From this you can see that you can only have one current initiative at a time."
Thanks for correcting that. That fits the definition of a priority perfectly. It's important to understand the point of a current initiative being singular (and first) is to bring laser focus and consistent action to it until it's completed.
For the more literal among us, remember, a current initiative is what you do "first" every day—after necessary daily routines and prep are out of the way. Otherwise "take a shower" and "get dressed" could be one's current initiative every day! (For some, it may be!)
January 22, 2016 at 4:33 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B.
<< I find the vagueness of its modern usage annoying and prefer the classical meaning somewhere along the lines of, "The single most important/urgent thing to do now." >>
I don't think it helps to be too pedantic about the meaning of the word "priority". It comes originally from "prior" and therefore means "that which comes first". It is often used in the sense of coming first in precedence, honour or importance.
As I say in my book, I learned long ago that when a boss says, "They need to learn how to prioritize their work better", what the boss means is "They need to get more work done". In other words they need to increase the priority of everything - which obviously falls foul of the first law of prioritizing.
"Current initiative" is a technical term from "Do It Tomorrow" and the term needs to be used in the light of what is written in the book.
<< I find the vagueness of its modern usage annoying and prefer the classical meaning somewhere along the lines of, "The single most important/urgent thing to do now." >>
I don't think it helps to be too pedantic about the meaning of the word "priority". It comes originally from "prior" and therefore means "that which comes first". It is often used in the sense of coming first in precedence, honour or importance.
As I say in my book, I learned long ago that when a boss says, "They need to learn how to prioritize their work better", what the boss means is "They need to get more work done". In other words they need to increase the priority of everything - which obviously falls foul of the first law of prioritizing.
"Current initiative" is a technical term from "Do It Tomorrow" and the term needs to be used in the light of what is written in the book.
January 22, 2016 at 8:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi,
I did misappropriate the current initiative term, sorry. As I say in the top of the thread, one new approach I have been doing is to add 3-5 tasks, similar to the 5T start to column 2. That is different than CI and I see I lumped the two parts together.
Still very happy with my approach.
I did misappropriate the current initiative term, sorry. As I say in the top of the thread, one new approach I have been doing is to add 3-5 tasks, similar to the 5T start to column 2. That is different than CI and I see I lumped the two parts together.
Still very happy with my approach.
January 22, 2016 at 10:45 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
Though I have been very happy with FVP, and even happier with Seraphim's CI concept, I wanted to try something new at the start of the year. SO I created a Frankenstein monster from my favorite parts of Mark's systems. It goes like this.
1. Using a notebook label the first two page spread with today's date. The right hand page is similar to column 2 in SF3, urgent items go there. I start the day listing my current initiatives there, 3-5 items off the top of my head ala the 5T system. As work progresses, urgent items are added here, all other items go on the left-hand page. If the left-hand page fills up, start a new left hand page.
2. Look at the two page spread and only the two page spread and do a questionless FVP run, starting at the first left-hand item. Since your CIs and urgent stuff are on the right-hand page, if you are dotting them, they will be worked on first.
3. If you work on a right-hand task but do not complete it, cross it out and copy it on the next available right hand page (you do not start a new right hand page but like SF3 you go back to the next available right hand page.
4. If you work on a left hand task and do not complete it put it on the last left-hand page (or start a new one if needed, a la AF. Noe if you feel like you are on a roll or it has become urgent put it on the next available right-hand page.
5. After you do an item, follow the FVP rules *on that page only* until 1) all right-hand items have been acted on and 2) Nothing on the left hand is standing out.
6. Go to the next open page and repeat steps 1-5.
Make sense? Any questions? Anyone want to try it? Anyone think I am nuts?