FV and FVP Forum > How to handle not-clearly-formed tasks
Seraphim:
<<<< It is a "universal capture" system into which you can put all your ideas for action without prior editing. >>>>
I have taken this literally and DO use Everynote inbox (my default notebook) to capture/gather everything. What I lose during the scan i.e. stress from poorly defined items, I gain from knowing everything is one place and needs:
1. clarifying
2. processing
3. doing
<<<< It is a "universal capture" system into which you can put all your ideas for action without prior editing. >>>>
I have taken this literally and DO use Everynote inbox (my default notebook) to capture/gather everything. What I lose during the scan i.e. stress from poorly defined items, I gain from knowing everything is one place and needs:
1. clarifying
2. processing
3. doing
April 2, 2012 at 18:28 |
avrum
avrum
I was too impatient and added this to the old thread, but now you've started this one. Sorry for the duplicate entry . . .
As I understand it, you capture a lot of "stuff" on your list, much of which needs attention soon, and a fair portion of which is not well described when initially captured. It seems to me that you can stick with FV, and that it will not be a problem at all *if* you process the ladders fast enough. The genius of FV, in my opinion, is the root-task forcing function. In your situation, you need to process a lot of short ladders quickly so that a lot of your tasks become the root; this implies a lot of 1-, 2-, or 3-rung ladders. When each root task is actioned, you finally must face up to the vagueness with which it was worded, figure out "What is this?" and "What's the next action?" and either do it or rewrite it at the end of the list in a clear way so it has a chance to get chosen as a non-root task soon.
Does this make sense? Will it allow you to keep working in FV mode?
As I understand it, you capture a lot of "stuff" on your list, much of which needs attention soon, and a fair portion of which is not well described when initially captured. It seems to me that you can stick with FV, and that it will not be a problem at all *if* you process the ladders fast enough. The genius of FV, in my opinion, is the root-task forcing function. In your situation, you need to process a lot of short ladders quickly so that a lot of your tasks become the root; this implies a lot of 1-, 2-, or 3-rung ladders. When each root task is actioned, you finally must face up to the vagueness with which it was worded, figure out "What is this?" and "What's the next action?" and either do it or rewrite it at the end of the list in a clear way so it has a chance to get chosen as a non-root task soon.
Does this make sense? Will it allow you to keep working in FV mode?
April 2, 2012 at 18:35 |
ubi
ubi
avrum - It sounds like you are working in EN pretty much the same way I work in OneNote: everything goes to the end of the list, clearly defined or not.
I agree with you, the stress of not having them clearly defined, is more than balanced by keeping everything on the same list.
How do you overcome that stress? In the end, how do you find that the poorly defined items actually get processed and actioned?
For me, they tend to get ignored until I notice there are a lot of them and they really start to stress out the system. At this point they all clamor to be "done before X" and get dotted, and the only action I take is to rewrite their title a bit. This approach, overall, hasn't been very satisfying, and has been leading to resistance of the system overall.
I agree with you, the stress of not having them clearly defined, is more than balanced by keeping everything on the same list.
How do you overcome that stress? In the end, how do you find that the poorly defined items actually get processed and actioned?
For me, they tend to get ignored until I notice there are a lot of them and they really start to stress out the system. At this point they all clamor to be "done before X" and get dotted, and the only action I take is to rewrite their title a bit. This approach, overall, hasn't been very satisfying, and has been leading to resistance of the system overall.
April 2, 2012 at 21:59 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
ubi - Thanks for the idea. I have thought about this before, and wondered whether I should start with a brand-new list, and see if this would help. As it stands now, I started FV with my old AF list, with several hundred items. So, it takes quite some time for new items to percolate all the way to that #1 spot. Most of these new items need action long before then.
So, maybe I'll reconsider starting from zero, and see if it deals with these poorly-defined items quickly enough.
So, maybe I'll reconsider starting from zero, and see if it deals with these poorly-defined items quickly enough.
April 2, 2012 at 22:03 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
What's been working for me is continually asking "What do I want to do before X?" If task's vagueness does not allow me to clearly answer that question, I will renter it at the end of the list as a note to myself: "You want to figure out how to x...". When I take action, I place any tasks resulting from my brainstorming on my list. I trust that the system will tell me when to do them.
April 3, 2012 at 4:33 |
Stew
Stew
>>>>But from time to time, I tend to really notice the unformed items, and they scream to me, "define me! what is the task??" So they get the dot, and get processed.<<<<
I think this is exactly what you should do. Don't ignore them. Dot them, process them, add tasks to top of the list.
I think this is exactly what you should do. Don't ignore them. Dot them, process them, add tasks to top of the list.
April 3, 2012 at 4:55 |
Zack Allen
Zack Allen
I've been struggling a bit with this too, as I've also started FV with a quite long AF-list. What I do now is to mark tasks that are somewhat urgent (as in "need to be done within a few days") within the FV-list. I've switched to EverNote a few days ago, where tagging is easy, but when I was using paper I used these little colored transparant sticky markers. Then, before creating a new ladder, I quickly look at these urgent tasks, so I'm primed to them when creating the ladder. I'm not sure if this is tweaking the system too much, but so far it's been working quite well. At least it helps me stay aware of the urgent stuff that's not urgent enough to do it right away.
April 3, 2012 at 10:29 |
Nicole
Nicole
This problem shows that there is more difference between a pencil-and-paper implementation and an electronic implementation than there might appear. Your electronic implementation may have exactly the same form and structure as a paper-and-pencil version, and may follow exactly the same rules, but there are some extra things that a pencil-and-paper forces you to do. For one thing, it makes you boil your task description down to a handful of words. Whether these words have verbs, or nouns, or are phrased in the present or the past, or active or passive, is less important than the sheer shortness of the description.
I would say that someone who is following an electronic implementation is not actually following the system as *tested* by MF. He may have said that it can be implemented electronically, but (as far as I know) he himself tested it using paper. This is particularly the case if you are using a system that allows you to grab a whole web page and turn it into a task. Such a system makes it "too easy" to create a task. The physical act of writing the task into a notebook runs it through the brain in the way that drag-and-drop with a mouse does not.
My suggestion: try pencil and paper for a week, starting from an empty list. My prediction: it will be a different experience from using an electronic version.
I would say that someone who is following an electronic implementation is not actually following the system as *tested* by MF. He may have said that it can be implemented electronically, but (as far as I know) he himself tested it using paper. This is particularly the case if you are using a system that allows you to grab a whole web page and turn it into a task. Such a system makes it "too easy" to create a task. The physical act of writing the task into a notebook runs it through the brain in the way that drag-and-drop with a mouse does not.
My suggestion: try pencil and paper for a week, starting from an empty list. My prediction: it will be a different experience from using an electronic version.
April 3, 2012 at 14:48 |
Andrew W
Andrew W
@Andrew
>>>>but there are some extra things that a pencil-and-paper forces you to do. For one thing, it makes you boil your task description down to a handful of words...This is particularly the case if you are using a system that allows you to grab a whole web page and turn it into a task. Such a system makes it "too easy" to create a task.<<<<
I agree this is the case with something like Evernote, but my owns implementation (using Clear) presents no such freedom. It is intentionally minimalistic so as to maintain the pen-and-paper "feel."
>>>>but there are some extra things that a pencil-and-paper forces you to do. For one thing, it makes you boil your task description down to a handful of words...This is particularly the case if you are using a system that allows you to grab a whole web page and turn it into a task. Such a system makes it "too easy" to create a task.<<<<
I agree this is the case with something like Evernote, but my owns implementation (using Clear) presents no such freedom. It is intentionally minimalistic so as to maintain the pen-and-paper "feel."
April 3, 2012 at 14:55 |
Zack Allen
Zack Allen
Seraphim wrote:
<< struggling with unformed things on their list? >>
I notice I do have quite a bit unformed things on my EN Windows FV list. However, this unformed things are very obvious to me, because they don't have Tags. I use about 7 general project tags, each tags may include multiple projects.
Now that I thought of it, I've just rearranged the columns in EN Windows main list view to make it even more obvious when things don't have tags. Now I have the columns like so ...
> Created | Updated | Tags | Title | Notebook | Size | Sync
I do give a bit more emphasis on these unformed things while scanning to form preselect chains.
Andrew W wrote:
<< [other things] is less important than the sheer shortness of the description ... [Mark] himself tested it using paper >>
I agree shortness of the task description is key for FV preselect scanning. I've been rewriting my descriptions to be more concise each time I execute them, sometimes that's the only thing I do with it. Also to get key word in the first three words of the description. ;-)
Andrew, you do realise that Mark have been using EN Windows for FV for quite a while. Almost as soon as Avrum created the video in http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1765213 "NEW! Screencast: Evernote & FV (better quality, better workflow (courtesy of Mr. Forster)" on 21 March 2012. I believe Mark didn't have much problem with EN Windows for FV.
<< struggling with unformed things on their list? >>
I notice I do have quite a bit unformed things on my EN Windows FV list. However, this unformed things are very obvious to me, because they don't have Tags. I use about 7 general project tags, each tags may include multiple projects.
Now that I thought of it, I've just rearranged the columns in EN Windows main list view to make it even more obvious when things don't have tags. Now I have the columns like so ...
> Created | Updated | Tags | Title | Notebook | Size | Sync
I do give a bit more emphasis on these unformed things while scanning to form preselect chains.
Andrew W wrote:
<< [other things] is less important than the sheer shortness of the description ... [Mark] himself tested it using paper >>
I agree shortness of the task description is key for FV preselect scanning. I've been rewriting my descriptions to be more concise each time I execute them, sometimes that's the only thing I do with it. Also to get key word in the first three words of the description. ;-)
Andrew, you do realise that Mark have been using EN Windows for FV for quite a while. Almost as soon as Avrum created the video in http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1765213 "NEW! Screencast: Evernote & FV (better quality, better workflow (courtesy of Mr. Forster)" on 21 March 2012. I believe Mark didn't have much problem with EN Windows for FV.
April 3, 2012 at 15:54 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
I use my FV list as an "Inbox" for everything as well. Even undefined things. As Seraphim does, I too let the FV algorithm work and I don't bother defining a task (beyond the nominal phrase needed to identify the task) until I feel that I "want to" define it "before" other things. At that point, when my action is to define a task, I use somewhat of a combination of Mark Forster's "How to Make Your Dreams Come True" and "Gerry's" Desired Outcomes Implementation Technique (DOIT).
To define a task I think about the desired outcome of the task, the current state of the task, and the Gap between. Having considered the Gap between present and desired outcome, I define it in terms of 3 kinds of missing resources: missing capital (the portion of the desired outcome that is currently missing in present reality - ie: the true Gap), missing competence (the ability and understanding necessary to acquire the capital), and missing collaboration (the help of others in obtaining missing competence and capital).
Having defined the missing resources, I consider that there is always only one action: "Acquire the missing resources."
Very rarely to I feel that I need to write any of this down in an "official" project plan as GTD would have you do. I generally treat it as a purely mental exercise designed to identify the actions I need to take on an otherwise nebulous task. Usually it results in my revising the wording of the task and occasionally breaking it out into several tasks - each covering the acquisition of a single missing resource.
To define a task I think about the desired outcome of the task, the current state of the task, and the Gap between. Having considered the Gap between present and desired outcome, I define it in terms of 3 kinds of missing resources: missing capital (the portion of the desired outcome that is currently missing in present reality - ie: the true Gap), missing competence (the ability and understanding necessary to acquire the capital), and missing collaboration (the help of others in obtaining missing competence and capital).
Having defined the missing resources, I consider that there is always only one action: "Acquire the missing resources."
Very rarely to I feel that I need to write any of this down in an "official" project plan as GTD would have you do. I generally treat it as a purely mental exercise designed to identify the actions I need to take on an otherwise nebulous task. Usually it results in my revising the wording of the task and occasionally breaking it out into several tasks - each covering the acquisition of a single missing resource.
April 3, 2012 at 16:51 |
Miracle
Miracle
As an addendum to my previous post. A more practically accessable method for applying the concepts in said post simply involves the following:
Whether the task is poorly defined or well defined, the action you ALWAYS need to take is "Define and acquire the missing resources." Considering that missing resources are defined in terms of the three C's: Missing Capital, Competence and Collaboration.
Where Capital is the actual Gap between Desired Outcome and Present Reality; Competence is the ability and understanding needed to acquire missing Capital; and Competence is the aid of others in acquiring any of the missing resources.
EG: You come back from the bathroom to see a stickie note on your desk. It reads, "TPS Report due @ 2pm. V/R Bossman" You're new to your job and you don't know what a TPS report even is. The action you must take is "Define and acquire the missing resources." To define them, you sit and think about the task and come up with: "Completed TPS Report" (Missing Capital), "Understanding of what a TPS report is and how to create it" (Missing Competence), "Bossman's help with understanding TPS reports and creating them" (Missing Collaboration). Your action is "Define and acquire the missing resources," and you've just defined the missing resources. So the next thing to do is acquire them. Next stop: Bossman.
As you work through the task the Present Reality will change and you'll learn more about what resources you are still missing. For example, in your discussion with Bossman, you may learn that you need some financial data and since you're new, your account hasn't been granted the appropriate privalages yet to access that data. Now you're missing "Appropriate account premissions" (Missing Capital) and "Help of Tech Support in granting you the appropriate permissions." (Missing Collaboration). You may then realize that you don't know how to contact Tech Support (Missing Competence) but you DO know where the company directory is (already acquired Competence) and the task expands further and further.
As long as you keep doing "Define and acquire the missing resources" you will eventually reach a point where you have no more Missing Capital (ie: you have a completed TPS report) at which point you may have one or two final actions to mop up the task (ie: turn in your completed TPS report to Bossman - hopefully on time...)
Whether the task is poorly defined or well defined, the action you ALWAYS need to take is "Define and acquire the missing resources." Considering that missing resources are defined in terms of the three C's: Missing Capital, Competence and Collaboration.
Where Capital is the actual Gap between Desired Outcome and Present Reality; Competence is the ability and understanding needed to acquire missing Capital; and Competence is the aid of others in acquiring any of the missing resources.
EG: You come back from the bathroom to see a stickie note on your desk. It reads, "TPS Report due @ 2pm. V/R Bossman" You're new to your job and you don't know what a TPS report even is. The action you must take is "Define and acquire the missing resources." To define them, you sit and think about the task and come up with: "Completed TPS Report" (Missing Capital), "Understanding of what a TPS report is and how to create it" (Missing Competence), "Bossman's help with understanding TPS reports and creating them" (Missing Collaboration). Your action is "Define and acquire the missing resources," and you've just defined the missing resources. So the next thing to do is acquire them. Next stop: Bossman.
As you work through the task the Present Reality will change and you'll learn more about what resources you are still missing. For example, in your discussion with Bossman, you may learn that you need some financial data and since you're new, your account hasn't been granted the appropriate privalages yet to access that data. Now you're missing "Appropriate account premissions" (Missing Capital) and "Help of Tech Support in granting you the appropriate permissions." (Missing Collaboration). You may then realize that you don't know how to contact Tech Support (Missing Competence) but you DO know where the company directory is (already acquired Competence) and the task expands further and further.
As long as you keep doing "Define and acquire the missing resources" you will eventually reach a point where you have no more Missing Capital (ie: you have a completed TPS report) at which point you may have one or two final actions to mop up the task (ie: turn in your completed TPS report to Bossman - hopefully on time...)
April 3, 2012 at 18:22 |
Miracle
Miracle
+JMJ+
I think the problem could be solved by using a small notebook or narrow columns; that is, you must be forced to use concise descriptions. This would force you into two things: either it would force you to define your tasks more concisely, or it would make you apathetic about how defined the task description is as long as you have an idea of what the task is. I use a 3"x5" tickler notebook for my task management and I never had to worry about the description of my tasks, mainly because I couldn't afford to make the tasks more precise with more words.
I think the problem could be solved by using a small notebook or narrow columns; that is, you must be forced to use concise descriptions. This would force you into two things: either it would force you to define your tasks more concisely, or it would make you apathetic about how defined the task description is as long as you have an idea of what the task is. I use a 3"x5" tickler notebook for my task management and I never had to worry about the description of my tasks, mainly because I couldn't afford to make the tasks more precise with more words.
April 3, 2012 at 18:33 |
nuntym
nuntym
Aaaaaaand one more post and I'm done, I promise.
To tie my answer back to Seraphim's ACTUAL QUESTION: (*duh*)
The above method is to me, a purely mental exercise, triggered by a task IN MY FV LIST. Whenever the task comes up in my FV list, I "Define and acquire the missing resources" for whatever the task is, no matter how well or ill formed. That's my version of "working on the task for as long as I feel like it" per FV rules. After "Defining and acquiring the missing resources" I cross the task out from my FV list and re-enter it (sometimes revised wording) per FV rules. On rare occasion I may re-enter the task as several sub-tasks, each for the acquisition of a seperate resource. But generally I try to keep it all as one task in my FV list.
Now I'm done. Honest.
To tie my answer back to Seraphim's ACTUAL QUESTION: (*duh*)
The above method is to me, a purely mental exercise, triggered by a task IN MY FV LIST. Whenever the task comes up in my FV list, I "Define and acquire the missing resources" for whatever the task is, no matter how well or ill formed. That's my version of "working on the task for as long as I feel like it" per FV rules. After "Defining and acquiring the missing resources" I cross the task out from my FV list and re-enter it (sometimes revised wording) per FV rules. On rare occasion I may re-enter the task as several sub-tasks, each for the acquisition of a seperate resource. But generally I try to keep it all as one task in my FV list.
Now I'm done. Honest.
April 3, 2012 at 18:35 |
Miracle
Miracle
Miracle,
Your approach sounds fascinating, but I'm stumbling over the terminology, especially Resources and Capital. Perhaps it's because I'm an engineer. I think of Resources as unprocessed raw materials (or data), of little value without Analysis etc. And I think of Capital as money or equipment. Is there another way of describing this, that still has a universal approach to each task?
Also, did you invent this approach, or does it come from some book? Reference? Link?
Your approach sounds fascinating, but I'm stumbling over the terminology, especially Resources and Capital. Perhaps it's because I'm an engineer. I think of Resources as unprocessed raw materials (or data), of little value without Analysis etc. And I think of Capital as money or equipment. Is there another way of describing this, that still has a universal approach to each task?
Also, did you invent this approach, or does it come from some book? Reference? Link?
April 3, 2012 at 19:39 |
ubi
ubi
ubi,
As for the terminology, I have no snappy synonyms at hand, those are the terms I use in my own (non-engineer) brain. I used to think of Capital the same as you: money and equipment. I stuck with the term Capital and just got used to thinking of it differently (I've been using this method for nearly a year now and it hasn't let me down yet) because I liked the "3 C's" mnemonic for Capital, Competence and Collaboration. Collaboration is actually called "Contacts" in the DOIT method - which I did NOT come up with on my own. I hope I didn't come across as taking credit for someone else's work.
DOIT (Desired Outcomes Implementation Technology) is a pdf - I don't recall if its free or if I purchased it. It was written by someone who posted here on Mark's website a while back under the handle "Gerry." I wish I could credit him better, but I don't have the pdf here with me and I currently cannot access the website.
This is only my personal adaptation and derivation of the DOIT method. And it does not vary much from the original at all. The original DOIT method is one person's practical response to the book "The Secret" which proposed that wanting something badly enough would bring it to you. The author suggests (and I agree) that ACTING toward something will bring it to you, not merely wanting.
For more info of course, check out www.simple-time-management.com and look for the Desired Outcomes Implementation Technology pdf. He also has the Ultra Simple Guide to Time Management which has only one rule: Write everything in one place. I tried it for a while, but my notebook got too cluttered and thus unmanageable. I gave up on it and went back to Mark's systems (gave DWM2 a try and kept it up solid until FV came out.)
As for the terminology, I have no snappy synonyms at hand, those are the terms I use in my own (non-engineer) brain. I used to think of Capital the same as you: money and equipment. I stuck with the term Capital and just got used to thinking of it differently (I've been using this method for nearly a year now and it hasn't let me down yet) because I liked the "3 C's" mnemonic for Capital, Competence and Collaboration. Collaboration is actually called "Contacts" in the DOIT method - which I did NOT come up with on my own. I hope I didn't come across as taking credit for someone else's work.
DOIT (Desired Outcomes Implementation Technology) is a pdf - I don't recall if its free or if I purchased it. It was written by someone who posted here on Mark's website a while back under the handle "Gerry." I wish I could credit him better, but I don't have the pdf here with me and I currently cannot access the website.
This is only my personal adaptation and derivation of the DOIT method. And it does not vary much from the original at all. The original DOIT method is one person's practical response to the book "The Secret" which proposed that wanting something badly enough would bring it to you. The author suggests (and I agree) that ACTING toward something will bring it to you, not merely wanting.
For more info of course, check out www.simple-time-management.com and look for the Desired Outcomes Implementation Technology pdf. He also has the Ultra Simple Guide to Time Management which has only one rule: Write everything in one place. I tried it for a while, but my notebook got too cluttered and thus unmanageable. I gave up on it and went back to Mark's systems (gave DWM2 a try and kept it up solid until FV came out.)
April 3, 2012 at 20:12 |
Miracle
Miracle
Miracle - I do something similar, but not with such a rigorous conceptual system behind it all. My tasks change shape, split, and merge as needed, often at every iteration.
April 4, 2012 at 0:28 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Andrew W - Very good observations. I've also thought that changing to paper might change how this works, and actually tried it about three times. :-) It felt like it was slowing me down tremendously. I have become so accustomed to objects (such as emails, web clippings, screen shots, paper scans, etc.) themselves being the task, and being able to add them to my list quickly, and reorganize them quickly. I'm not sure it's worth the slowdown to switch back to paper. I'm afraid it would slow me down, more than the unformed tasks do. I'll think about it on the drive home tonight.
I suppose Mark Forster's Evernote implementation works so well because he's already trained himself on the system using paper. But also, he's only about 10 days into it, I think. It will be interesting to hear his conclusions after that initial honeymoon period wears off.
I suppose Mark Forster's Evernote implementation works so well because he's already trained himself on the system using paper. But also, he's only about 10 days into it, I think. It will be interesting to hear his conclusions after that initial honeymoon period wears off.
April 4, 2012 at 0:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
This is one of those discussions which is so not a problem for me that I find it hard to even understand the difficulty other people have with it. In saying that, I'm not trying to dismiss their concerns because it obviously is a real problem for them.
The best I can do is to tell you what I do with the loads of ideas and unformed concepts that I have. What I do with them is simply write them into FV (or whatever system I'm using) with a question mark after them, e.g.
Farm in Queensland?
How support A's fund?
Fund Raising ideas?
What's happened to Bill P?
Parrot with yellow head and red underbelly?
Random timer?
Voip?
Monte Cristo sequels?
Universal capture?
600th Meeting?
Deadline for magazine?
Blog subjects?
Priority actions as VP?
With Evernote it's easy to add links to supporting documentation if necessary, but normally I rely on the very rapid search facilities of modern computers to find it when I need it. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?
The best I can do is to tell you what I do with the loads of ideas and unformed concepts that I have. What I do with them is simply write them into FV (or whatever system I'm using) with a question mark after them, e.g.
Farm in Queensland?
How support A's fund?
Fund Raising ideas?
What's happened to Bill P?
Parrot with yellow head and red underbelly?
Random timer?
Voip?
Monte Cristo sequels?
Universal capture?
600th Meeting?
Deadline for magazine?
Blog subjects?
Priority actions as VP?
With Evernote it's easy to add links to supporting documentation if necessary, but normally I rely on the very rapid search facilities of modern computers to find it when I need it. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?
April 4, 2012 at 10:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark,
Thanks. Actually, your examples look like my "well defined" ones. :-) And this is helping me to clarify my particular problem. I'm convinced it's because of the way I am using OneNote. I don't have problems with anything I enter as text, even the unformed ideas. They look like the same kinds of things that Mark listed, and FV handles them just fine. The stuff I have problems with look like this:
- Screen clipping taken: 4/4/2012 10:00 AM (the screen clipping itself is shown in the detail pane)
- RE: FrameMaker 10 (an email subject, but it doesn't really tell much; I have to look at the details to see what action is needed)
- Coordinators! (a clip from a Facebook page - again, the details are in the detail pane)
- Untitled (obvious why this would be a problem!)
These were never a problem with AF -- even "untitled" :-) The "take a moment to consider and sense whether it stands out" was perfect -- I'd just glance at the detail pane, and it would instantly "stand out" or not. (At least, most of the time...) Sometimes, the only action I would take would be to rewrite the title.
In FV, even that small pause to rewrite the title, during the scanning phase, is enough to derail the scanning process.
Anyway, I'm continuing for now with ignoring these until they scream at me to stop and "take care of this before X!" And it's working OK.
Thanks. Actually, your examples look like my "well defined" ones. :-) And this is helping me to clarify my particular problem. I'm convinced it's because of the way I am using OneNote. I don't have problems with anything I enter as text, even the unformed ideas. They look like the same kinds of things that Mark listed, and FV handles them just fine. The stuff I have problems with look like this:
- Screen clipping taken: 4/4/2012 10:00 AM (the screen clipping itself is shown in the detail pane)
- RE: FrameMaker 10 (an email subject, but it doesn't really tell much; I have to look at the details to see what action is needed)
- Coordinators! (a clip from a Facebook page - again, the details are in the detail pane)
- Untitled (obvious why this would be a problem!)
These were never a problem with AF -- even "untitled" :-) The "take a moment to consider and sense whether it stands out" was perfect -- I'd just glance at the detail pane, and it would instantly "stand out" or not. (At least, most of the time...) Sometimes, the only action I would take would be to rewrite the title.
In FV, even that small pause to rewrite the title, during the scanning phase, is enough to derail the scanning process.
Anyway, I'm continuing for now with ignoring these until they scream at me to stop and "take care of this before X!" And it's working OK.
April 4, 2012 at 18:13 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hm, i think your capture process is too abbreviated. If I were you I'd have a proper titel every time a page is created. "Proper" in the loosest possible terms, but if the title is "I need to talk to you" from an email message, that obviously should be retitled.
April 4, 2012 at 19:43 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
@ubi
You asked me earlier in this thread if there are simpler terms than "Resources" and Capital etc. for the DOIT method I use when "Defining and acquiring the missing resources." At the time I had nothing. If you haven't seen it already, may I direct your attention to GMBW's comment on the following post?
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1777070
GMBW sums up my whole mental exercise and method of task phrasing in one word: "GET." It's brilliant!
You asked me earlier in this thread if there are simpler terms than "Resources" and Capital etc. for the DOIT method I use when "Defining and acquiring the missing resources." At the time I had nothing. If you haven't seen it already, may I direct your attention to GMBW's comment on the following post?
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1777070
GMBW sums up my whole mental exercise and method of task phrasing in one word: "GET." It's brilliant!
April 4, 2012 at 22:02 |
Miracle
Miracle
Alan - Yes, you are right. :-)
April 4, 2012 at 22:11 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim - two other possibilities I thought of, besides Alan's ideas -
- Have a recurring task to 'update/clarify unformed tasks' that you can dot as needed
- do a pre-ladder review of the list and update the unformed tasks headings. THEN do the ladder dotting.
- Have a recurring task to 'update/clarify unformed tasks' that you can dot as needed
- do a pre-ladder review of the list and update the unformed tasks headings. THEN do the ladder dotting.
April 4, 2012 at 23:26 |
UnaV
UnaV
Seraphim:
I agree that your problem is probably the way you are using OneNote. I tried using a similar method in Evernote and it simply didn't work - I abandoned it almost immediately.
I write all tasks into Evernote as tasks, and put documentation into Evernote as documents. If I want to I can link them but i usually don't as Evernote makes it easy enough to find documents without tagging or linking.
Although it sounds as if this would be slower than your method, it's actually much faster because I'm not trying to do two things at once (always a source of mental overhead).
I agree that your problem is probably the way you are using OneNote. I tried using a similar method in Evernote and it simply didn't work - I abandoned it almost immediately.
I write all tasks into Evernote as tasks, and put documentation into Evernote as documents. If I want to I can link them but i usually don't as Evernote makes it easy enough to find documents without tagging or linking.
Although it sounds as if this would be slower than your method, it's actually much faster because I'm not trying to do two things at once (always a source of mental overhead).
April 4, 2012 at 23:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So Seraphim, are you handling it like this?
<< Anyway, I'm continuing for now with ignoring these until they scream at me to stop and "take care of this before X!" And it's working OK. >>
Do you include Alan's recommendation?
<< If I were you I'd have a proper titel every time a page [task?] is created. >>
Or write all tasks title from scratch, as Mark recommends?
<< I write all tasks into Evernote as tasks, and put documentation into Evernote as documents >>
I do agree that in FV, even a small pause to rewrite tasks title during preselecting scanning phase, does derail the preselecting process.
Hence, I've just added an additional "FV list tidy?" step before starting my Preselecting task.
<< Anyway, I'm continuing for now with ignoring these until they scream at me to stop and "take care of this before X!" And it's working OK. >>
Do you include Alan's recommendation?
<< If I were you I'd have a proper titel every time a page [task?] is created. >>
Or write all tasks title from scratch, as Mark recommends?
<< I write all tasks into Evernote as tasks, and put documentation into Evernote as documents >>
I do agree that in FV, even a small pause to rewrite tasks title during preselecting scanning phase, does derail the preselecting process.
Hence, I've just added an additional "FV list tidy?" step before starting my Preselecting task.
April 7, 2012 at 6:45 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
I just throw unformed and ill-defined tasks onto the list with everything else. When I come to them, defining them more clearly counts as "doing" them.
For instance, I started filling my list with tasks from Project A and Project B, which I'm really crunching on right now. While doing this, I remembered Project C and Project D, which are important, but keep getting pushed out of my mind by A and B. So I just threw "Project C" and "Project D" onto the list as tasks.
When I came to "Project C" in my list -- well, clearly, "Project C" isn't a well defined task. But I stopped, paused in my rush of Project A&B tasks, and figured out what the next few specific tasks I needed to do for "Project C" were. I added these tasks to the end of my list, and checked off "Project C" as "done".
Clearly, the project itself wasn't completed, but I consider that anything too large or vague to be a task implicitly has "figure out what needs to be done for" prepended to it. Adding better thought out tasks to the end of the lists counts as getting to check it off.
It's working well for me so far; we'll see how it goes :)
For instance, I started filling my list with tasks from Project A and Project B, which I'm really crunching on right now. While doing this, I remembered Project C and Project D, which are important, but keep getting pushed out of my mind by A and B. So I just threw "Project C" and "Project D" onto the list as tasks.
When I came to "Project C" in my list -- well, clearly, "Project C" isn't a well defined task. But I stopped, paused in my rush of Project A&B tasks, and figured out what the next few specific tasks I needed to do for "Project C" were. I added these tasks to the end of my list, and checked off "Project C" as "done".
Clearly, the project itself wasn't completed, but I consider that anything too large or vague to be a task implicitly has "figure out what needs to be done for" prepended to it. Adding better thought out tasks to the end of the lists counts as getting to check it off.
It's working well for me so far; we'll see how it goes :)
April 7, 2012 at 15:38 |
LindaJeanne
LindaJeanne
sabre23t -
<< Do you include Alan's recommendation? Or write all tasks title from scratch, as Mark recommends? >>
I usually just leave them as they are. While processing the list, most of the time I just skip over them. But sooner or later, they all start demanding attention, because the lack of clarity starts to bother me. So they get a dot. Usually this happens in batches -- as soon as one of them gets a dot, they all get dots in the same preselection.
Sometimes the only action is to rewrite the title. Sometimes it's easier just to get the thing done, whatever it is.
For me, there were a couple key things to solving this dilemma.
One was Mark's suggestion to "wham down the list until I found something that was mentally flashing a red stop light at me", rather than asking the "what do I want to do before X?" more precisely. ( http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1759452#post1764231 )
And this led to the second thing that really helped. I was taking the "do before?" question much too literally and precisely at first. I felt like I had to take the time to look at the details of these items before I could even answer the question. So now, I just go with my first impression, and if the item doesn't really grab me and say "Yes, do me before X!", I just pass over it. Thus, with the unformed items, I don't worry about whether I am really sure I want to do "Untitled" before I do "Screen clipping taken: 4/7/2012 10:28 AM" or "RE: Coordinate?". If all three of these are on my list, and the first one bothers me and gets a dot, then the rest just naturally get dots too.
<< Do you include Alan's recommendation? Or write all tasks title from scratch, as Mark recommends? >>
I usually just leave them as they are. While processing the list, most of the time I just skip over them. But sooner or later, they all start demanding attention, because the lack of clarity starts to bother me. So they get a dot. Usually this happens in batches -- as soon as one of them gets a dot, they all get dots in the same preselection.
Sometimes the only action is to rewrite the title. Sometimes it's easier just to get the thing done, whatever it is.
For me, there were a couple key things to solving this dilemma.
One was Mark's suggestion to "wham down the list until I found something that was mentally flashing a red stop light at me", rather than asking the "what do I want to do before X?" more precisely. ( http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1759452#post1764231 )
And this led to the second thing that really helped. I was taking the "do before?" question much too literally and precisely at first. I felt like I had to take the time to look at the details of these items before I could even answer the question. So now, I just go with my first impression, and if the item doesn't really grab me and say "Yes, do me before X!", I just pass over it. Thus, with the unformed items, I don't worry about whether I am really sure I want to do "Untitled" before I do "Screen clipping taken: 4/7/2012 10:28 AM" or "RE: Coordinate?". If all three of these are on my list, and the first one bothers me and gets a dot, then the rest just naturally get dots too.
April 7, 2012 at 18:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
If seen that phrased as, "If it's not 'Hell yeah!, then it's no."
April 7, 2012 at 23:39 |
danno
danno
<< It is a "universal capture" system into which you can put all your ideas for action without prior editing. >>
However, the system seems to work best when each item is clearly formulated as a task or project, as discussed in this thread: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1774589
I am wondering a few things about this.
(1) Is anybody else struggling with unformed things on their list? My list contains lots of ideas and notes that do involve real tasks, but the tasks are implicit and not clearly written as such. AF handled these really well. Does anyone else struggle with this in FV?
(2) Has anyone come up with a good way of handling these things IN THE FV LIST? There have been suggestions to keep such items "off list" in an In Box or an "Idea Box" or something like that, to be processed separately. But my experience with such off-list approaches is that they are "out of sight, out of mind" and don't get the regular, frequent processing required to really deal with them. I am looking for a way to handle them using FV directly.
The only thing that has worked for me, at least to some degree, is this: I ignore these items most of the time as I scan my list, looking for "what do I want to do before X?" But from time to time, I tend to really notice the unformed items, and they scream to me, "define me! what is the task??" So they get the dot, and get processed.
That sorta works, but maybe someone has a better idea?
Thanks!