FV and FVP Forum > When you want to do it AFTER
I've been working around this by:
1) keeping my chains short. 3-5 dots max.
2) adding the AFTER task to the end of the list, dotting it, and then continuing to work on the chain from where I was.
I then know the AFTER task is there, and I tend to work quickly through the rest of the current chain so I can get to it. Because it's already dotted, I know it will be the first one I do in the next chain.
-----
I'm really trying to avoid over-thinking and over-planning. The simplicity and the little and often principles are the gold here. I'm sensing the desire in many posts in the forum to build the optimum chain of all possible chains for that time period. That is not the goal, as I interpret FV and it's brilliant variation of Colley's Rule. It's to quickly get a high-quality chain, which is available quickly, finished quickly, and then quickly allows the building of the next one.
Life moves fast. Worrying about the odd off-sequence here and there is a rabbit hole I have gone down way too many times. I have found myself still planning when others have already moved on. In most cases I find that the good chain now will beat the perfect chain later, especially when in the middle of the flurry of the day. The times when my chain wasn't optimal have been more than offset by my dramatically increased speed and productivity.
1) keeping my chains short. 3-5 dots max.
2) adding the AFTER task to the end of the list, dotting it, and then continuing to work on the chain from where I was.
I then know the AFTER task is there, and I tend to work quickly through the rest of the current chain so I can get to it. Because it's already dotted, I know it will be the first one I do in the next chain.
-----
I'm really trying to avoid over-thinking and over-planning. The simplicity and the little and often principles are the gold here. I'm sensing the desire in many posts in the forum to build the optimum chain of all possible chains for that time period. That is not the goal, as I interpret FV and it's brilliant variation of Colley's Rule. It's to quickly get a high-quality chain, which is available quickly, finished quickly, and then quickly allows the building of the next one.
Life moves fast. Worrying about the odd off-sequence here and there is a rabbit hole I have gone down way too many times. I have found myself still planning when others have already moved on. In most cases I find that the good chain now will beat the perfect chain later, especially when in the middle of the flurry of the day. The times when my chain wasn't optimal have been more than offset by my dramatically increased speed and productivity.
March 20, 2012 at 16:25 |
scottmoehring
scottmoehring
Scott, very well put!
March 20, 2012 at 17:05 |
JMTee
JMTee
Scott, I hope excerpts of your post appear in the forthcoming book on FV.
March 21, 2012 at 1:54 |
Bernie
Bernie
[Hi - new poster, have been following both this and the regular forum for a few months, and working with FV since roughly the day after it was sent out, beginning by dumping an existing AF1 into it. Just going to jump in.]
But, Scott - you could get the same effect by not rewriting the AFTER or "target" task at the end of your list; when you finish one chain and make the next one, you just pre-select the original item and don't preselect anything later on the list, which will make it the first-actioned task of the new chain - precisely because there's nothing you want to do before that. Now, you could just stop scanning, or keep going - I think that's smarter, because what you MAY find, is that there is, after all, something you DO want to do before the "target" task. And if that's what you find, there's probably a good reason for it (probably related to urgency) - which is why I think that, on balance, it's better to leave the "target" item where it is. Notice also that if you make the "target" item the first-actioned task of the new chain, depending on how far up it was, you'll have a relatively short chain -- and that, in turn, leads to generating yet another chain sooner, which means you'll definitely be dealing with the very first open - and quite often "resistance-heavy" - item on the list as a whole.
So I'm actually agreeing with your general point; trying to optimize by tweaking (in this case, by rearranging the list) generally seems to dilute the rather subtle and complex effects created by working the rules *as written.* I don't want to claim that the algorithm has magical properties, or fits every aspect of one's work (for example, I'm writing a book and prefer to timebox daily work sessions as though they were show-up-or-die appointments than try to make them part of the "discretionary" system), but it really is remarkably elegant and powerful -- more so, I think, than most attempts to second-guess it.
I think a great deal may depend on how honest one is about answering "The Question." I have other thoughts on that, but this is already long - will save for another post.
But, Scott - you could get the same effect by not rewriting the AFTER or "target" task at the end of your list; when you finish one chain and make the next one, you just pre-select the original item and don't preselect anything later on the list, which will make it the first-actioned task of the new chain - precisely because there's nothing you want to do before that. Now, you could just stop scanning, or keep going - I think that's smarter, because what you MAY find, is that there is, after all, something you DO want to do before the "target" task. And if that's what you find, there's probably a good reason for it (probably related to urgency) - which is why I think that, on balance, it's better to leave the "target" item where it is. Notice also that if you make the "target" item the first-actioned task of the new chain, depending on how far up it was, you'll have a relatively short chain -- and that, in turn, leads to generating yet another chain sooner, which means you'll definitely be dealing with the very first open - and quite often "resistance-heavy" - item on the list as a whole.
So I'm actually agreeing with your general point; trying to optimize by tweaking (in this case, by rearranging the list) generally seems to dilute the rather subtle and complex effects created by working the rules *as written.* I don't want to claim that the algorithm has magical properties, or fits every aspect of one's work (for example, I'm writing a book and prefer to timebox daily work sessions as though they were show-up-or-die appointments than try to make them part of the "discretionary" system), but it really is remarkably elegant and powerful -- more so, I think, than most attempts to second-guess it.
I think a great deal may depend on how honest one is about answering "The Question." I have other thoughts on that, but this is already long - will save for another post.
March 21, 2012 at 3:59 |
Franklin
Franklin
Alan Baljeu:
<< It's a common thing. I want to go running AFTER i put the laundry in. I want to call Bob AFTER I have the report done. Here's my resolution: >>
I assume you mean "immediately after" because if you don't, there's no problem. Just select the later task in the next scan.
If you do mean "immediately after", then I wouldn't bother about fiddling around with list order. I'd just treat it as one task: "Put laundry in and go for a run", "Get report done and call Bob".
<< It's a common thing. I want to go running AFTER i put the laundry in. I want to call Bob AFTER I have the report done. Here's my resolution: >>
I assume you mean "immediately after" because if you don't, there's no problem. Just select the later task in the next scan.
If you do mean "immediately after", then I wouldn't bother about fiddling around with list order. I'd just treat it as one task: "Put laundry in and go for a run", "Get report done and call Bob".
March 21, 2012 at 7:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
All good answers, and I will concede they are better than my proposal. I will however debate one point:
<< I'm really trying to avoid over-thinking and over-planning. >>
Scott wrote this, and I claim the opposite. I'm trying to avoid under-thinking and under-planning. I am fresh off reading David Allen's article (cited in the General forum) which talked about the value of GTD for getting the stuff organized so you can properly think about your stuff.
There is far too much busywork in the modern world, where it feels like there is too much stuff to do, and so we rush about doing it. The counter to this is to slow down and think about your stuff. Does it need doing? Does it matter? Is this the best way to do it? Should other things be done?
The FV system works for getting stuff done, but if you come to something that isn't ready to be done, thinking is often a good idea. If thinking gets it off your list, or makes it ready to be done, this saves time more than it consumes time.
<< I'm really trying to avoid over-thinking and over-planning. >>
Scott wrote this, and I claim the opposite. I'm trying to avoid under-thinking and under-planning. I am fresh off reading David Allen's article (cited in the General forum) which talked about the value of GTD for getting the stuff organized so you can properly think about your stuff.
There is far too much busywork in the modern world, where it feels like there is too much stuff to do, and so we rush about doing it. The counter to this is to slow down and think about your stuff. Does it need doing? Does it matter? Is this the best way to do it? Should other things be done?
The FV system works for getting stuff done, but if you come to something that isn't ready to be done, thinking is often a good idea. If thinking gets it off your list, or makes it ready to be done, this saves time more than it consumes time.
March 21, 2012 at 14:29 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
There's a good tip!
< If you do mean "immediately after", then... just treat it as one task: "Put laundry in and go for a run", "Get report done and call Bob".>
Thanks Mark.
< If you do mean "immediately after", then... just treat it as one task: "Put laundry in and go for a run", "Get report done and call Bob".>
Thanks Mark.
March 21, 2012 at 17:46 |
Zane
Zane
Alan,
Great point, as always. I look at FV as the greatest list management system ever. Weekend plans, house remodeling, movies to watch, errands, project steps, and all the way up to a whole-life task list.
As to what goes on the list, I agree with you completely. The dirty little secret of knowledge work is that thinking is required. Not about the steps in the project, but about whether you should be doing them at all, or something else entirely. Busy does not mean productive or valuable.
Getting lots of stuff done feels really good in the moment, and for the short term. But I do agree that I don't want to just become a rabbit getting pellets for completing tasks. Making sure they are plugged into the bigger things that will bring value and joy years from now is the balance. Thanks for reminding me of that key part of life-management - perspective and a broader view.
Great point, as always. I look at FV as the greatest list management system ever. Weekend plans, house remodeling, movies to watch, errands, project steps, and all the way up to a whole-life task list.
As to what goes on the list, I agree with you completely. The dirty little secret of knowledge work is that thinking is required. Not about the steps in the project, but about whether you should be doing them at all, or something else entirely. Busy does not mean productive or valuable.
Getting lots of stuff done feels really good in the moment, and for the short term. But I do agree that I don't want to just become a rabbit getting pellets for completing tasks. Making sure they are plugged into the bigger things that will bring value and joy years from now is the balance. Thanks for reminding me of that key part of life-management - perspective and a broader view.
March 22, 2012 at 14:22 |
scottmoehring
scottmoehring
When FV selects a task you want to do BEFORE whatever was first, then you come across this AFTER task, I think there are times you should select the AFTER task. You can't actually DO it, but you can certainly PLAN to do it, which should count.
Planning might involve: Put it into a project; Tag the other task with a reminder; set an alarm