FV and FVP Forum > Two-task chains
I'll bet Mark's already tried it... :-)
April 20, 2012 at 21:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
My list is top-heavy with low-priority chores from old lists. (They all lead towards my Future Reality, so they're important, but not urgent.) With 2-item chains, half the chores I did would be the old, low-priority ones. Yes, I might do only minimal work on them before rewriting, but most only take 30 minutes and are best done in one pass. I'd end up with a slug of them at the end of the list, which would eventually become the top of the list, and the problem would repeat. Also, I'd spend most of my time doing a 2nd link. Part of FV's power is we do 3rd and 4th links -- things we really want to do when we really want to do them.
April 20, 2012 at 22:22 |
Cricket
Cricket
I like the idea of a deliberately short chain, but I think I'll work better with 3-4. I'm going to focus on scanning quickly and trying to just do more short chains.
April 20, 2012 at 22:40 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
I'm sensing that "little and often" and following the rules results in a list that is constantly reordering itself. That in turn affects how future chains are created since the order is different.
I don't know what the result is, but it feels like it helps keep the list fresh and helps me feel like I'm doing the right things, a little at a time. This is an overall feeling over many days, not something that pops out after looking at the last few ladders and the current list.
If I was to attempt to keep my ladder to a particular length, I don't think this churning would work right. So you won't find me artificially trying to keep the list short, long or some other particular size.
I don't know what the result is, but it feels like it helps keep the list fresh and helps me feel like I'm doing the right things, a little at a time. This is an overall feeling over many days, not something that pops out after looking at the last few ladders and the current list.
If I was to attempt to keep my ladder to a particular length, I don't think this churning would work right. So you won't find me artificially trying to keep the list short, long or some other particular size.
April 21, 2012 at 6:54 |
MartyH
MartyH
I am with MartyH here: depending on the day, my "mood" etc. the length of the preselected lists varies.
I do not intend to ( artificially ) change that.
I do not intend to ( artificially ) change that.
April 21, 2012 at 9:34 |
Stefano F. Rausch
Stefano F. Rausch
ubi:
It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me.
Seraphim:
Yes, I have - and quite a few variations of it too.
It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me.
Seraphim:
Yes, I have - and quite a few variations of it too.
April 21, 2012 at 9:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'm interested to see the results of your testing. I too initially considered this but I don't think the number of chains or the number of items per chain really makes a difference to your productivity.
In my opinion, A set of Two-task chains can produce the same output as a single hundred-task chain. The reason is because the little and often technique creates different fractions of completed work.
I think the main focus is to take a sample (preselection) of your total amount of tasks and work on them 'a little here and a little there'. That alone prevents things like urgency and resistance from creeping in to your list. On top of that, you should sample (preselect) from your list often just so that you have a good idea of what's going on in your list/update your self on commitments you have thought of.
In the end, productivity is simply output over input. (p=o/i) So whatever chain size chosen should increase total output (work done) somehow or limit total input (time, effort etc. ) somehow. A two task chain can do this as good as a hundred-task chain depending on how you work. that said, for short chains I ensure I do a decent quantity of work and move on. For long task chains I ensure I take advantage of the l&o.
I think what would be more effective overall is to keep the total list short, just so that you can scan easier, much more frequently, 'naturally' limit the maximum preselection chains, cycle all commitments frequently and mentally have an understanding of what's to be done.
In my opinion, A set of Two-task chains can produce the same output as a single hundred-task chain. The reason is because the little and often technique creates different fractions of completed work.
I think the main focus is to take a sample (preselection) of your total amount of tasks and work on them 'a little here and a little there'. That alone prevents things like urgency and resistance from creeping in to your list. On top of that, you should sample (preselect) from your list often just so that you have a good idea of what's going on in your list/update your self on commitments you have thought of.
In the end, productivity is simply output over input. (p=o/i) So whatever chain size chosen should increase total output (work done) somehow or limit total input (time, effort etc. ) somehow. A two task chain can do this as good as a hundred-task chain depending on how you work. that said, for short chains I ensure I do a decent quantity of work and move on. For long task chains I ensure I take advantage of the l&o.
I think what would be more effective overall is to keep the total list short, just so that you can scan easier, much more frequently, 'naturally' limit the maximum preselection chains, cycle all commitments frequently and mentally have an understanding of what's to be done.
April 21, 2012 at 15:08 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW:
There's an important factor to take into account here. Having a two task chain radically changes the composition of the chain.
What you would have is one compulsory task and one discretionary task in each chain. Basically what would happen is that you would do the tasks in the order in which you wrote them, but inserting one other task each time.
The problem with this is that if you were to start the day with, say, five easy but urgent tasks, you couldn't complete them until you had done five relatively difficult non-urgent tasks as well.
With the standard FV rules this situation poses no problem at all. As I said above, I'm not at all clear what problem ubi's solution is designed to solve.
There's an important factor to take into account here. Having a two task chain radically changes the composition of the chain.
What you would have is one compulsory task and one discretionary task in each chain. Basically what would happen is that you would do the tasks in the order in which you wrote them, but inserting one other task each time.
The problem with this is that if you were to start the day with, say, five easy but urgent tasks, you couldn't complete them until you had done five relatively difficult non-urgent tasks as well.
With the standard FV rules this situation poses no problem at all. As I said above, I'm not at all clear what problem ubi's solution is designed to solve.
April 21, 2012 at 22:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think ubi is trying to get through more chains per day.
But, it's not clear to me what value this adds, or why exactly you'd want that as a goal.
But, it's not clear to me what value this adds, or why exactly you'd want that as a goal.
April 21, 2012 at 23:03 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Yes, the idea is just a rather extreme attempt at getting through more chains each day. Whether that's a useful objective is another question. So Mark is right that this idea is a solution in search of a problem. The 'problem' I have found is that, since for me the real payoff of using FV (vs Mark's earlier systems) is the forcing function on the root task, by doing only a small number of chains each day (sometimes only 1 or 2), I only get that payoff sporadically. There are other ways to do more chains per day, e.g. using a timer to limit the time on each task/chain ("little and often").
I've already found that, while it seems fine to *preselect* a 2-task chain, urgencies will require extending the chain while working. But I have found that I've had to extend much longer chains with urgent things that arise anyway. So I'll continue the experiment for a while longer. . .
I've already found that, while it seems fine to *preselect* a 2-task chain, urgencies will require extending the chain while working. But I have found that I've had to extend much longer chains with urgent things that arise anyway. So I'll continue the experiment for a while longer. . .
April 22, 2012 at 4:30 |
ubi
ubi
I've come up another method for 2-task chain selection. After dotting the root task 'X':
4. Scan backward from the end of the list for the first thing you want to do before doing X.
This makes a bit of sense in that a longer chain will often have an urgent low-resistance task at the end, that is fairly near the end of the whole list. So Method 4 might often result in the same task pair as Methods 2 and 3. The danger with this shortcut is that you're not scanning the whole list, so urgent/important stuff in the middle might get neglected for a while.
4. Scan backward from the end of the list for the first thing you want to do before doing X.
This makes a bit of sense in that a longer chain will often have an urgent low-resistance task at the end, that is fairly near the end of the whole list. So Method 4 might often result in the same task pair as Methods 2 and 3. The danger with this shortcut is that you're not scanning the whole list, so urgent/important stuff in the middle might get neglected for a while.
April 22, 2012 at 4:41 |
ubi
ubi
Mark:
That's a very interesting part I overlooked. I think having long chains are good because at the very end of the long chain you have the opportunity to work on tasks you really want to work on the most. On the other hand, making them too long becomes very difficult to work through because it feels as if you are constantly plowing your way to the end while resistance builds (depending on how want is defined)
There's a trade off. I can see ubi's third method as an attempt to get the best of both sides of the trade off, but as you pointed out it may not work out too well.
I wish there was a clearer way to define or get a clear feel for a chains optimal size but I guess that comes through practice and is subjective. I still haven't gotten a sense of it yet.
So far I've been creating chains but bearing in mind the realistic scope of what I can handle in a block of time.
That's a very interesting part I overlooked. I think having long chains are good because at the very end of the long chain you have the opportunity to work on tasks you really want to work on the most. On the other hand, making them too long becomes very difficult to work through because it feels as if you are constantly plowing your way to the end while resistance builds (depending on how want is defined)
There's a trade off. I can see ubi's third method as an attempt to get the best of both sides of the trade off, but as you pointed out it may not work out too well.
I wish there was a clearer way to define or get a clear feel for a chains optimal size but I guess that comes through practice and is subjective. I still haven't gotten a sense of it yet.
So far I've been creating chains but bearing in mind the realistic scope of what I can handle in a block of time.
April 22, 2012 at 6:29 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW:
ubi seems to be assuming that short chains are a good thing in themselves. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that he thinks that doing as many chains as possible is a good thing in itself. But I can't see why that should be so.
The extreme case would be to have chains of only one task. In other words to do tasks in the order in which they are written on the list. But the disadvantages of this are so obvious that I don't have to spell them out.
ubi seems to be assuming that short chains are a good thing in themselves. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that he thinks that doing as many chains as possible is a good thing in itself. But I can't see why that should be so.
The extreme case would be to have chains of only one task. In other words to do tasks in the order in which they are written on the list. But the disadvantages of this are so obvious that I don't have to spell them out.
April 22, 2012 at 15:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
At first my chains were too long. They were more "should do today" than "want to do before".
Then they were too short. When importing old lists, I kept the original "date task added". The top of my list is now filled with low-urgency tasks that are important in the long run. I'm excited about getting them done, so there's not much I want to do before them. At the extreme, my chains were very short, and I spent too much time on those low-urgency, high excitement tasks -- and not enough time on the boring daily things.
Then they were too short. When importing old lists, I kept the original "date task added". The top of my list is now filled with low-urgency tasks that are important in the long run. I'm excited about getting them done, so there's not much I want to do before them. At the extreme, my chains were very short, and I spent too much time on those low-urgency, high excitement tasks -- and not enough time on the boring daily things.
April 22, 2012 at 20:18 |
Cricket
Cricket
<< When importing old lists, I kept the original "date task added". The top of my list is now filled with low-urgency tasks that are important in the long run. I'm excited about getting them done, so there's not much I want to do before them. >>
So isn't it better to add these old list tasks to the end of FV list? Instead of maintaining its "date task added" and having the pre-selected chains too short? I've been transferring about 10 or so to end of FV list when doing "Get old tasks" about every other day.
So isn't it better to add these old list tasks to the end of FV list? Instead of maintaining its "date task added" and having the pre-selected chains too short? I've been transferring about 10 or so to end of FV list when doing "Get old tasks" about every other day.
April 23, 2012 at 4:16 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
I tend to consider the amount of time I have available when building my ladders knowing that I do better if I can complete it before being away from the list for too long. The result is some long lists and some short ones. It helps with churning the order as I mentioned before.
When I've been away from my list for a while (maybe a meeting, evening, or weekend), I either am ready to start a new ladder or I have a very short one to complete. The incentive to get through the short list is that I get to make a newer, more relevant one when I'm done. Since the items left on it are obviously older ones, they have been considered many times which sets them up for actual work in my mind.
The variety seems to really help for so many reasons I can't grasp and I really don't care why it works. It just does.
When I've been away from my list for a while (maybe a meeting, evening, or weekend), I either am ready to start a new ladder or I have a very short one to complete. The incentive to get through the short list is that I get to make a newer, more relevant one when I'm done. Since the items left on it are obviously older ones, they have been considered many times which sets them up for actual work in my mind.
The variety seems to really help for so many reasons I can't grasp and I really don't care why it works. It just does.
April 23, 2012 at 14:14 |
MartyH
MartyH
Sabre23t, I think you're right. I'm still reacting to the days when I recopied tasks a gazillion times and made very little progress on them. The next time I import items, I'm going to try putting them at the end of the list, and include a "first entered" date. Importing only a few at a time is also good, to break up the batch. If I'm on a roll with clearing an old list, I might fudge the "date added" so some are added today, some tomorrow, etc. It's a balance -- taken too far, that becomes just putting them off again.
April 23, 2012 at 15:00 |
Cricket
Cricket
I can't speak for ubi, but my goal in doing shorter chains is to be less lost in the list ("what was I doing again?" happens to me a lot) and to be more engaged in the process of working the list instead of wandering away from it in the middle. With a shorter chain I'll be better able to put my treat activities and fun distractions into the chain but I'm still officially on the list so I don't linger over them. I also want several chains in a work session instead of one because I hope it will make it easier for me to hit little and often. With a longer list I'm not getting to the point of doing something often, so I am reluctant to do only a little. Then my expectations of how much I should do increase my resistance and I'm prone to wander off and do something that isn't in the chain.
I think I've been having a bit of the same trouble Cricket is having - I'm not sticking properly to the question. I suspect if I tighten that up and skim the list a little less carefully my chains will shorten themselves.
I think I've been having a bit of the same trouble Cricket is having - I'm not sticking properly to the question. I suspect if I tighten that up and skim the list a little less carefully my chains will shorten themselves.
April 23, 2012 at 15:19 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
1. Just stop when you find the first 'want-before' task while scanning. Classic Colley's Rule.
2. Rephrase the Question to: "What's the one best thing on my list that I want to do before I do X?"
3. Preselect as per instructions, then un-dot everything except the root and the last task.
Methods 2 and 3 would likely result in the same two-task chain, but Method 3 is probably faster.
I think I'll try this for a few days and see how it goes. Anyone else game?