FV and FVP Forum > Prioritized FV
Replying to: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749?currentPage=2#post1800590
Seraphim:
<< (1) Everyone is different, and everyone should absolutely feel free to do whatever works for them.
(2) But I'm guessing that the "star" and "double-star" approach is adding needless complexity and will be abandoned after a short time. >>
There's very little added complexity -- just a slight change to the rewriting procedure really.
I'm not creating enough chains and processing them fast enough yet, but I'm very happy with "Prioritized FV" so far. It's working much better for me than standard FV was. YMMV.
<< (3) SF and AF both had "compulsory" actions built into them which caused both of them to sputter and stall in different ways (SF: must work 2nd column; AF: must do 1 action per page or face dismissal of whole page). FV has only one small-impact compulsory action (you must act on Item #1 on the list). I'm guessing the stars will cause FV to sputter and stall and generate resistance to the list overall. >>
The compulsory nature of Column 2 is what made SuperFocus unworkable for me. I tried to use it and it was generating so much resistance and resentment against the system that I had to abandon it within a week or two. I worked with AutoFocus variants (and devised my own) until I finally saw FV a few weeks after it was released.
Prioritized FV still only has the same small-impact compulsory action as standard FV, it just juggles the ordering of the list to ensure that compulsory action is always taken on one of the highest-priority tasks.
<< (4) If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. See (1). :-) >>
Prioritized FV feels right for me. It may not be right for you.
<< (5) Yes, 1-4 cycles per day really is enough to generate enough exposure to the tasks to break down resistance and sort out what is really urgent and important and what is FAUX urgent and important.
(6) The task that you keep mentioning sounds like a FAUX urgent task. The fact that you keep avoiding it after repeated exposure is enough to show this. The descriptions that you've added really do confirm this. >>
I agree with this. It's a faux-urgent task, but I still want to prioritize it to give it more attention.
<< (7) Yes, you can dot those same items every time you do a chain. I have about 20 top projects right now (mostly work, many personal) and probably 80% of them get some action with each chain. However, FV allows me the freedom to choose which ones actually need action with each chain. I *see* all of them, and am reminded of all of them. But I am still in control of which ones I want to do with each chain.
(8) On the other hand, the stars approach forces you to act on each one every chain, rather than letting "the question" guide you. This reminds me of SF's second column, which for me created resistance to the overall list. >>
You evidently misunderstood my tweak (at least at the time you wrote that post), because this is not correct at all. Prioritized FV still follows the standard FV preselection algorithm, unchanged. All the starred tasks will be at the top of the list, but which ones you actually select for any given chain are still determined by The Question, exactly the same as standard FV. The point of the prioritization is to keep the high-priority tasks on the front burner, not to force you to action them in every cycle. As you say, that would be a killer.
Prioritized FV has just as much freedom as standard FV, and I would argue that it should generate LESS resistance than standard FV if you prioritize high-priority tasks, since the tasks at the top of the list get the maximum benefit of the laddering effect in the preselection process.
<< I hope these answers help, or at least provide food for thought. Again, do what works for you! And if that means stars, then stick with your stars! :-) >>
Stars, numbers, letters, whatever. It doesn't matter how you mark it, the point is to keep high-priority tasks at the top of the list, not to bury them at the end of the list when rewriting them.
Seraphim:
<< (1) Everyone is different, and everyone should absolutely feel free to do whatever works for them.
(2) But I'm guessing that the "star" and "double-star" approach is adding needless complexity and will be abandoned after a short time. >>
There's very little added complexity -- just a slight change to the rewriting procedure really.
I'm not creating enough chains and processing them fast enough yet, but I'm very happy with "Prioritized FV" so far. It's working much better for me than standard FV was. YMMV.
<< (3) SF and AF both had "compulsory" actions built into them which caused both of them to sputter and stall in different ways (SF: must work 2nd column; AF: must do 1 action per page or face dismissal of whole page). FV has only one small-impact compulsory action (you must act on Item #1 on the list). I'm guessing the stars will cause FV to sputter and stall and generate resistance to the list overall. >>
The compulsory nature of Column 2 is what made SuperFocus unworkable for me. I tried to use it and it was generating so much resistance and resentment against the system that I had to abandon it within a week or two. I worked with AutoFocus variants (and devised my own) until I finally saw FV a few weeks after it was released.
Prioritized FV still only has the same small-impact compulsory action as standard FV, it just juggles the ordering of the list to ensure that compulsory action is always taken on one of the highest-priority tasks.
<< (4) If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. See (1). :-) >>
Prioritized FV feels right for me. It may not be right for you.
<< (5) Yes, 1-4 cycles per day really is enough to generate enough exposure to the tasks to break down resistance and sort out what is really urgent and important and what is FAUX urgent and important.
(6) The task that you keep mentioning sounds like a FAUX urgent task. The fact that you keep avoiding it after repeated exposure is enough to show this. The descriptions that you've added really do confirm this. >>
I agree with this. It's a faux-urgent task, but I still want to prioritize it to give it more attention.
<< (7) Yes, you can dot those same items every time you do a chain. I have about 20 top projects right now (mostly work, many personal) and probably 80% of them get some action with each chain. However, FV allows me the freedom to choose which ones actually need action with each chain. I *see* all of them, and am reminded of all of them. But I am still in control of which ones I want to do with each chain.
(8) On the other hand, the stars approach forces you to act on each one every chain, rather than letting "the question" guide you. This reminds me of SF's second column, which for me created resistance to the overall list. >>
You evidently misunderstood my tweak (at least at the time you wrote that post), because this is not correct at all. Prioritized FV still follows the standard FV preselection algorithm, unchanged. All the starred tasks will be at the top of the list, but which ones you actually select for any given chain are still determined by The Question, exactly the same as standard FV. The point of the prioritization is to keep the high-priority tasks on the front burner, not to force you to action them in every cycle. As you say, that would be a killer.
Prioritized FV has just as much freedom as standard FV, and I would argue that it should generate LESS resistance than standard FV if you prioritize high-priority tasks, since the tasks at the top of the list get the maximum benefit of the laddering effect in the preselection process.
<< I hope these answers help, or at least provide food for thought. Again, do what works for you! And if that means stars, then stick with your stars! :-) >>
Stars, numbers, letters, whatever. It doesn't matter how you mark it, the point is to keep high-priority tasks at the top of the list, not to bury them at the end of the list when rewriting them.
April 27, 2012 at 21:54 |
Deven
Deven
Deven,
So far, I like my version of Prioritized FV. (Stars, with digital so easy re-sorting. Highlighter didn't work.) I only use two stars. 2 = must do today or tomorrow and 1 = want to do today or tomorrow. More stars than that is too complicated. If something really, really must be done today, the "common sense" rule applies.
Including tomorrow is just the right amount of forward planning.
Seraphim's 20 top projects that get action most chains would get 1 star.
With Pure FV, I spent too much time in the mid-list. Pure FV always chooses the first unactioned line (the magic slot) and the one you want to do before anything else. The rest, though, are a grab-bag.
4 3 2 1 5 9 8 7 6
-4 3 2 1 -5 -9 8 7 6
-3 2 1 -8 7 6
-2 1 -7 6
-1 -6
Order worked: 9,5,4,8,3,7,2,6,1
Result: 5,4,3 all get done before 7, and 5,4,3,2 all get done before 6.
Prioritized FV works on busy days (barely enough time to do the starred items) and non-busy days (keep moving on no-star), in a way that AF and daily ABC prioritizing doesn't. The only thing that keeps me from doing unstarred items is the awareness of time limits. With the starred items up front, I'm more aware of how much time I can spend on low-urgency projects.
Sometimes a job I can't do now gets stars. This happens with low-urgency projects I want to keep moving on, or things I really don't want to forget to star in a few days.
<<My guess is that you made great progress on those less-critical project because they flowed into the "magic slot", right?>>
Right! I liked that, in moderation. Now once a day I give the oldest unactioned item full stars, so I still get the benefit of the magic slot.
<<although I would take care to try to maintain the same sequence of tasks from the same date with the same number of stars>>
Within each star level, I sort by date last actioned. For new items, it's the date added or the first date it makes sense to start work. For recurring, it's the next sensible date to do it. Something that hasn't had attention in a long time will be at the top, immediately followed by the few things I might want to do before it.
So far, it works. There's more opportunity for procrastination with this system, but it also gives me a better sense of whether I'm balancing high- and low-urgency jobs appropriately for the day.
So far, I like my version of Prioritized FV. (Stars, with digital so easy re-sorting. Highlighter didn't work.) I only use two stars. 2 = must do today or tomorrow and 1 = want to do today or tomorrow. More stars than that is too complicated. If something really, really must be done today, the "common sense" rule applies.
Including tomorrow is just the right amount of forward planning.
Seraphim's 20 top projects that get action most chains would get 1 star.
With Pure FV, I spent too much time in the mid-list. Pure FV always chooses the first unactioned line (the magic slot) and the one you want to do before anything else. The rest, though, are a grab-bag.
4 3 2 1 5 9 8 7 6
-4 3 2 1 -5 -9 8 7 6
-3 2 1 -8 7 6
-2 1 -7 6
-1 -6
Order worked: 9,5,4,8,3,7,2,6,1
Result: 5,4,3 all get done before 7, and 5,4,3,2 all get done before 6.
Prioritized FV works on busy days (barely enough time to do the starred items) and non-busy days (keep moving on no-star), in a way that AF and daily ABC prioritizing doesn't. The only thing that keeps me from doing unstarred items is the awareness of time limits. With the starred items up front, I'm more aware of how much time I can spend on low-urgency projects.
Sometimes a job I can't do now gets stars. This happens with low-urgency projects I want to keep moving on, or things I really don't want to forget to star in a few days.
<<My guess is that you made great progress on those less-critical project because they flowed into the "magic slot", right?>>
Right! I liked that, in moderation. Now once a day I give the oldest unactioned item full stars, so I still get the benefit of the magic slot.
<<although I would take care to try to maintain the same sequence of tasks from the same date with the same number of stars>>
Within each star level, I sort by date last actioned. For new items, it's the date added or the first date it makes sense to start work. For recurring, it's the next sensible date to do it. Something that hasn't had attention in a long time will be at the top, immediately followed by the few things I might want to do before it.
So far, it works. There's more opportunity for procrastination with this system, but it also gives me a better sense of whether I'm balancing high- and low-urgency jobs appropriately for the day.
April 28, 2012 at 0:11 |
Cricket
Cricket
You know, using Mark's broad and inclusive definition of want to set A,B,C priorities might not be too bad. The usual complaint about ABC is the Cs never get done. However, there's nothing preventing us from promoting a C to a B, or even an A -- if we really want to work on it, we can!
Most ABC systems, though, require you to recopy the list every day, so the D's end up never written, and they lose information about how long since the project last got attention.
Most ABC systems, though, require you to recopy the list every day, so the D's end up never written, and they lose information about how long since the project last got attention.
April 28, 2012 at 0:18 |
Cricket
Cricket
Blech -- Friday night brain.
The only way an ABC system can possibly work is if you:
1. Use a very inclusive version of Want when prioritizing, not just urgency or importance or what the boss wants or what makes you feel least guilty.
2. Don't sub-sub-sub prioritize. Keep it simple within each main priority level.
3. Allow yourself to work on the Bs, and even the Cs and Ds before the As are done. This helps keep interest high and resistance low.
4. Keep the big picture in mind.
5. Think in terms of "take action on" rather than "do". Little and often.
6. Regularly give the oldest unactioned task -- regardless of priority or want or resistance or anything else -- some attention (even if that's dismiss or defer).
7. Probably a few more things.
10. Use everything else Mark has taught us about breaking resistance and keeping projects moving.
The only way an ABC system can possibly work is if you:
1. Use a very inclusive version of Want when prioritizing, not just urgency or importance or what the boss wants or what makes you feel least guilty.
2. Don't sub-sub-sub prioritize. Keep it simple within each main priority level.
3. Allow yourself to work on the Bs, and even the Cs and Ds before the As are done. This helps keep interest high and resistance low.
4. Keep the big picture in mind.
5. Think in terms of "take action on" rather than "do". Little and often.
6. Regularly give the oldest unactioned task -- regardless of priority or want or resistance or anything else -- some attention (even if that's dismiss or defer).
7. Probably a few more things.
10. Use everything else Mark has taught us about breaking resistance and keeping projects moving.
April 28, 2012 at 0:53 |
Cricket
Cricket
Deven:
I read your replies but I'm too lazy to continue. Not because I don't care but more so because I think I am the one who is just confused about your system and would add even more confusion by continuing from previous threads. I'll throw in the towel:)
But, from re-reading your clearer instructions: doesn't this force a high priority task to be a root task?
If that is the case, after creating the chain doesn't that mean you will have to do n number of tasks before the high priority root task? Hence do lower priority tasks before your high priority root?
If you can select your priorities with stars, and you want to do them, why not just select them in the chain to do them?
I read your replies but I'm too lazy to continue. Not because I don't care but more so because I think I am the one who is just confused about your system and would add even more confusion by continuing from previous threads. I'll throw in the towel:)
But, from re-reading your clearer instructions: doesn't this force a high priority task to be a root task?
If that is the case, after creating the chain doesn't that mean you will have to do n number of tasks before the high priority root task? Hence do lower priority tasks before your high priority root?
If you can select your priorities with stars, and you want to do them, why not just select them in the chain to do them?
April 28, 2012 at 1:45 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW >>If that is the case, after creating the chain doesn't that mean you will have to do n number of tasks before the high priority root task? Hence do lower priority tasks before your high priority root?<<
I was wondering the same thing, especially since on my own list, the top of the chain takes the longest to get to! I mean, I pick items 1, 10, 18 - get 18 worked on, start 10, get interrupted, go back to finish 10 since it wasn't a good place to stop, go to a meeting, work on the 'drop everything & do this now" tasks that pop up, go to another meeting, deal with a few more unexpected 'must do now" and it's time to go home. Task 10 got worked on enough to get crossed off & re-written to the bottom of the list (with a few other things that got added to the day). Task 1? Never started.
Tomorrow (well, Monday), since there was enough new things and project status changes, I need a new chain. So, item 1 stays dotted as the beginning of a new chain, then I dot 11, 20, 22, 23 and 24. And by the end of Monday, I might, or might not, get to item 1.
At home, the list is more evenly worked on - top, middle, end. Work tends to be more middle to bottom heavy on the list.
I was wondering the same thing, especially since on my own list, the top of the chain takes the longest to get to! I mean, I pick items 1, 10, 18 - get 18 worked on, start 10, get interrupted, go back to finish 10 since it wasn't a good place to stop, go to a meeting, work on the 'drop everything & do this now" tasks that pop up, go to another meeting, deal with a few more unexpected 'must do now" and it's time to go home. Task 10 got worked on enough to get crossed off & re-written to the bottom of the list (with a few other things that got added to the day). Task 1? Never started.
Tomorrow (well, Monday), since there was enough new things and project status changes, I need a new chain. So, item 1 stays dotted as the beginning of a new chain, then I dot 11, 20, 22, 23 and 24. And by the end of Monday, I might, or might not, get to item 1.
At home, the list is more evenly worked on - top, middle, end. Work tends to be more middle to bottom heavy on the list.
April 28, 2012 at 3:24 |
Lillian
Lillian
Deven - You are right, I misunderstood your rules, until I read the summary that you posted somewhere in the last thread. You are right, my comparison to SF's 2nd column is invalid. I'll think through this a bit more, maybe give it a try, though it makes me feel a bit dizzy thinking about it.
Hmm, come to think of it, why does it make me feel dizzy? I'll have to ponder that..
Hmm, come to think of it, why does it make me feel dizzy? I'll have to ponder that..
April 28, 2012 at 5:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
There is a kind of magic with FV on paper with a spiral paper notebook .
Adding no stars, no context in brief nothing else than the task itself lets your intuition deciding for you about what really must be done now. But when the list becomes huge and the day complicated with lot of urgencies it is difficult to trust the system. How can i now that i do the right thing now ?
Anyway i found two tips i give to
I always date each day
1. Is to keep your main objectives of the day in mind. So each day in the marge i just report the 3or 5 project i really want to do today. So looking at it at a glance always make me return to my purpous quickly. I never prioritize list
2. Is to mark the Very big tasks i really must do today
They mostly belongs to the projects of the day
3. I do an exception to the rules. At the very beginning of the day i real all projects and stared tasks. I try to do them first then i know that all the most important things are done and feel much comfortable to follow mf rules and my FV List
Adding no stars, no context in brief nothing else than the task itself lets your intuition deciding for you about what really must be done now. But when the list becomes huge and the day complicated with lot of urgencies it is difficult to trust the system. How can i now that i do the right thing now ?
Anyway i found two tips i give to
I always date each day
1. Is to keep your main objectives of the day in mind. So each day in the marge i just report the 3or 5 project i really want to do today. So looking at it at a glance always make me return to my purpous quickly. I never prioritize list
2. Is to mark the Very big tasks i really must do today
They mostly belongs to the projects of the day
3. I do an exception to the rules. At the very beginning of the day i real all projects and stared tasks. I try to do them first then i know that all the most important things are done and feel much comfortable to follow mf rules and my FV List
April 28, 2012 at 9:40 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
Deven:
<<Nobody would have problems with procrastination if "just do it" worked for them. That's not really helpful advice for a procrastinator. >>
I wasn't advocating just do it. I was advocating using the normal rules for FV and dotting things which you know are urgent. My standard advice for a procrastinator is:
1) Do things as soon as you can before resistance builds up, especially if they are urgent.
2) Do tasks little and often.
Both of these are build into FV. Your system appears to me to be artificially moving "urgent" tasks to a collection at the beginning of the list, where they will have to wait their turn to be first item on the list. That's procrastination in my book. Now you are including high priority tasks as well, so everything is waiting it's turn at the beginning of the list. As GMBW points out, the only tasks that will get done quickly are low-priority, low-urgency tasks. That is the very situation which FV is designed to avoid.
I suspect we are getting a bit of confusion here about the definition of high-resistance urgent items. I can't be bothered to go back to the beginning of the three threads on this subject to check, but I seem to recall that you are using your previous list instead of starting a new one. So I suspect that some of these "urgent" items of yours are ones which you have been resisting for some time (long before you started FV) and are only urgent because you haven't done anythng about them.
As Seraphim pointed out that's call pseudo-urgency or false urgency. A truly urgent task is one which is urgent when it arrives with you.
P.S. For the record my remark about A, B, C systems referred to Ilse's description of her system which seemed to have abandoned the FV component altogether. It was not intended to refer to yours.
<<Nobody would have problems with procrastination if "just do it" worked for them. That's not really helpful advice for a procrastinator. >>
I wasn't advocating just do it. I was advocating using the normal rules for FV and dotting things which you know are urgent. My standard advice for a procrastinator is:
1) Do things as soon as you can before resistance builds up, especially if they are urgent.
2) Do tasks little and often.
Both of these are build into FV. Your system appears to me to be artificially moving "urgent" tasks to a collection at the beginning of the list, where they will have to wait their turn to be first item on the list. That's procrastination in my book. Now you are including high priority tasks as well, so everything is waiting it's turn at the beginning of the list. As GMBW points out, the only tasks that will get done quickly are low-priority, low-urgency tasks. That is the very situation which FV is designed to avoid.
I suspect we are getting a bit of confusion here about the definition of high-resistance urgent items. I can't be bothered to go back to the beginning of the three threads on this subject to check, but I seem to recall that you are using your previous list instead of starting a new one. So I suspect that some of these "urgent" items of yours are ones which you have been resisting for some time (long before you started FV) and are only urgent because you haven't done anythng about them.
As Seraphim pointed out that's call pseudo-urgency or false urgency. A truly urgent task is one which is urgent when it arrives with you.
P.S. For the record my remark about A, B, C systems referred to Ilse's description of her system which seemed to have abandoned the FV component altogether. It was not intended to refer to yours.
April 28, 2012 at 12:35 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<< have a particular task in mind that is on my list and I would classify it as urgent -- yet it's a high-resistance task. Following the FV rules, a full week has gone by without this task getting preselected, because it's never been the answer to The Question, even though I know it SHOULD be done soon. >>
Have you done it yet?
<< have a particular task in mind that is on my list and I would classify it as urgent -- yet it's a high-resistance task. Following the FV rules, a full week has gone by without this task getting preselected, because it's never been the answer to The Question, even though I know it SHOULD be done soon. >>
Have you done it yet?
April 28, 2012 at 14:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Lillian:
That is usually also the case with me too. Even though I'm plowing through other items little and often and have shorter chains, sometimes the root task (task 1 in your case) takes time to get to. This I'm comfortable with and realize I have to balance my little and often more and preselect chains strategically within the time I have IF I want to get to task1 by a certain time.
It seems that in Devens system, priority ( important and/or urgent) items are exclusive to the root task (task1 in your case ). So like your example, it's up in the air whether you get to task 1 by Monday. Even worse, suppose you finally get to task 1 on monday and realize you can't do it at all for whatever valid reason. You'd have to place task 1 back in the starred category. (or magic slot again not sure). Either way it seems as if task 1 gets postponed quite a lot when it is high priority . And there must be a 'moment' when it gets to be worked on rather than just worked on when I want to. also, suppose task 1 had urgent features to it , by Monday it's grown in urgency and why? Because I was doing lower priorities (relative to the root). the only way to absolutely do the urgent task 1 now is to creat a one-task chain and do it. Which is not necessarily the best case.
That is usually also the case with me too. Even though I'm plowing through other items little and often and have shorter chains, sometimes the root task (task 1 in your case) takes time to get to. This I'm comfortable with and realize I have to balance my little and often more and preselect chains strategically within the time I have IF I want to get to task1 by a certain time.
It seems that in Devens system, priority ( important and/or urgent) items are exclusive to the root task (task1 in your case ). So like your example, it's up in the air whether you get to task 1 by Monday. Even worse, suppose you finally get to task 1 on monday and realize you can't do it at all for whatever valid reason. You'd have to place task 1 back in the starred category. (or magic slot again not sure). Either way it seems as if task 1 gets postponed quite a lot when it is high priority . And there must be a 'moment' when it gets to be worked on rather than just worked on when I want to. also, suppose task 1 had urgent features to it , by Monday it's grown in urgency and why? Because I was doing lower priorities (relative to the root). the only way to absolutely do the urgent task 1 now is to creat a one-task chain and do it. Which is not necessarily the best case.
April 28, 2012 at 16:01 |
GMBW
GMBW
Deven - Another question for you. I am wondering how many chains you did using the FV rules, before switching to "prioritized FV". (a few, a dozen, a hundred, more than I could possibly count, etc.) :-) Perhaps also it would be useful to see over how many days / weeks.
I'm also wondering how many chains you've completed with "prioritized FV". (a few, a dozen, a hundred, more than I could possibly count, etc.)
I'm also wondering how many chains you've completed with "prioritized FV". (a few, a dozen, a hundred, more than I could possibly count, etc.)
April 28, 2012 at 18:04 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Deven -
Also, I think Mark hit it right on the spot with his description -- I think that's exactly why I was feeling dizzy, when contemplating using your rules, but I just couldn't put my finger on it.
Normal FV tends to concentrate the really active and important and urgent stuff toward the end of the list. Starred FV does the opposite, concentrating all those things towards the beginning of the list. It seems to replace FV's normal mechanisms for dealing with urgency and importance with something entirely new. I would imagine that everything in the middle of the list would get neglected, or would simply be fuel for procrastination while you work your way through your preselection back to the urgent stuff with the stars. (BTW, you've also given yourself another way to procrastinate with the rule that adding or removing a star counts as "taking action".)
FV is the opposite. When I start a new chain, the #1 item is usually something like this:
- It's stale and should be deleted, and it's taken me a long time to realize this fact
- It's a back-burner, long-term project that just needs me to occasionally stir the pot
- It's some fun thing that I'd like to do but have never had time
- It's some nasty knot that I need to untie and wish it would go away - leaving it as a knot won't cause any disasters but I really don't feel I can delete it
Truly urgent things never make it to this spot. By the time an "urgent" task percolates through my list, it has either become clear that it was never really urgent or important, and was OK to delete or let sit. Or it became clear that it really was urgent, and needed urgent attention, and *received* it.
Generally different sections of my list have a different character. For example:
1. First there's a bunch of old stuff that still attracts my attention for some reason.
2. Then a long string of back-burner, long-term "nice to do" work projects.
3. Then a long string of odds and ends that need doing out in the yard.
4. Then more "nice to do" work stuff, maybe a little more urgent than the previous string.
5. Then finally I get to a good long string of 100-200 tasks of miscellaneous emails, random thoughts, requests from coworkers, my wife, or my children, action items from recent meetings -- all from the last few days or week.
6. Last of all are the recently re-entered hot projects, urgent tasks, and really new fresh items.
I've cycled through this list dozens of times, and have a pretty good feel for each "neighborhood" of tasks and what kinds of things are lurking there. I am afraid that if I put a "star" next to anything that seems important, it would completely upset the order of the list. I already know where most of the really important stuff is -- it's down in the last third of the list. If circumstances change and some older item suddenly becomes important, I also have a pretty good idea where to find those items. (And if I can't remember, OneNote has great search capabilities).
For each chain of tasks, I always feel that I am working on the most urgent and most important things FIRST, even if I am just taking small, "little and often" actions. They do get the most attention. As I work my way up the chain, I finally get to some older tasks. And then things get really interesting. Since I have just spent the last 1-2 hours working through urgent and important tasks, and am thinking about them, trying to balance them, etc., many of these older tasks really stand out in how irrelevant they are, when compared to what is REALLY active and important in my life. I end up deleting a whole bunch of them. Maybe a few stand out as fun or interesting or useful back-burner kinds of things -- a nice break from the whirlwind rush of all the really critical things. The key is that FV focuses my mind and attention on what really matters. It helps drive results on the things that really matter. And it forces everything else to be considered in that context.
The star approach completely changes all these dynamics, as far as I can tell.
Again, if you think I'm mistaken, let me know.
Also, I think Mark hit it right on the spot with his description -- I think that's exactly why I was feeling dizzy, when contemplating using your rules, but I just couldn't put my finger on it.
Normal FV tends to concentrate the really active and important and urgent stuff toward the end of the list. Starred FV does the opposite, concentrating all those things towards the beginning of the list. It seems to replace FV's normal mechanisms for dealing with urgency and importance with something entirely new. I would imagine that everything in the middle of the list would get neglected, or would simply be fuel for procrastination while you work your way through your preselection back to the urgent stuff with the stars. (BTW, you've also given yourself another way to procrastinate with the rule that adding or removing a star counts as "taking action".)
FV is the opposite. When I start a new chain, the #1 item is usually something like this:
- It's stale and should be deleted, and it's taken me a long time to realize this fact
- It's a back-burner, long-term project that just needs me to occasionally stir the pot
- It's some fun thing that I'd like to do but have never had time
- It's some nasty knot that I need to untie and wish it would go away - leaving it as a knot won't cause any disasters but I really don't feel I can delete it
Truly urgent things never make it to this spot. By the time an "urgent" task percolates through my list, it has either become clear that it was never really urgent or important, and was OK to delete or let sit. Or it became clear that it really was urgent, and needed urgent attention, and *received* it.
Generally different sections of my list have a different character. For example:
1. First there's a bunch of old stuff that still attracts my attention for some reason.
2. Then a long string of back-burner, long-term "nice to do" work projects.
3. Then a long string of odds and ends that need doing out in the yard.
4. Then more "nice to do" work stuff, maybe a little more urgent than the previous string.
5. Then finally I get to a good long string of 100-200 tasks of miscellaneous emails, random thoughts, requests from coworkers, my wife, or my children, action items from recent meetings -- all from the last few days or week.
6. Last of all are the recently re-entered hot projects, urgent tasks, and really new fresh items.
I've cycled through this list dozens of times, and have a pretty good feel for each "neighborhood" of tasks and what kinds of things are lurking there. I am afraid that if I put a "star" next to anything that seems important, it would completely upset the order of the list. I already know where most of the really important stuff is -- it's down in the last third of the list. If circumstances change and some older item suddenly becomes important, I also have a pretty good idea where to find those items. (And if I can't remember, OneNote has great search capabilities).
For each chain of tasks, I always feel that I am working on the most urgent and most important things FIRST, even if I am just taking small, "little and often" actions. They do get the most attention. As I work my way up the chain, I finally get to some older tasks. And then things get really interesting. Since I have just spent the last 1-2 hours working through urgent and important tasks, and am thinking about them, trying to balance them, etc., many of these older tasks really stand out in how irrelevant they are, when compared to what is REALLY active and important in my life. I end up deleting a whole bunch of them. Maybe a few stand out as fun or interesting or useful back-burner kinds of things -- a nice break from the whirlwind rush of all the really critical things. The key is that FV focuses my mind and attention on what really matters. It helps drive results on the things that really matter. And it forces everything else to be considered in that context.
The star approach completely changes all these dynamics, as far as I can tell.
Again, if you think I'm mistaken, let me know.
April 28, 2012 at 18:20 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
GMBW - I use a pretty open definition of Mark's "if the preselected list is no longer relevant" tip. At work, I may re-do a chain 3 or 4 times a day because of meetings/new requests/drop-everything-do-now tasks/etc. Item 1 (or any other item #) may become a "finish today even though the original due date is next Friday" task because of any number of reasons totally out of my control. Conversely, the "must do before noon" task I get assigned at 10am may turn into a "do sometime this week" by 11.30am. The fact that FV allows for a chain to be un-dotted and recreated at any time (in my view, both of those situations make the preselect list no longer relevant and subject to re-creation) helps me manage the changing urgencies. I do read through the list at least once a day before starting a chain.
April 28, 2012 at 18:35 |
Lillian
Lillian
Lillian:
<<The fact that FV allows for a chain to be un-dotted and recreated at any time (in my view, both of those situations make the preselect list no longer relevant and subject to re-creation) helps me manage the changing urgencies>>
I agree. Just to be clear I was only using your example to describe why I was hesitant with Devens system. Not saying that that is how you do things. In fact, the way you describe your course of action for approaching varying urgencies is pretty much the same way I would do it.
<< I use a pretty open definition of Mark's "if the preselected list is no longer relevant" tip.>>
Same here. I don't have any problem changing the chain. It take very low effort and I don't feel guilty if something suddenly interrupts my chain. I almost expect it to be that way unless I tell everyone 'no. Not now!' which I probably just won't do realistically.
<<The fact that FV allows for a chain to be un-dotted and recreated at any time (in my view, both of those situations make the preselect list no longer relevant and subject to re-creation) helps me manage the changing urgencies>>
I agree. Just to be clear I was only using your example to describe why I was hesitant with Devens system. Not saying that that is how you do things. In fact, the way you describe your course of action for approaching varying urgencies is pretty much the same way I would do it.
<< I use a pretty open definition of Mark's "if the preselected list is no longer relevant" tip.>>
Same here. I don't have any problem changing the chain. It take very low effort and I don't feel guilty if something suddenly interrupts my chain. I almost expect it to be that way unless I tell everyone 'no. Not now!' which I probably just won't do realistically.
April 28, 2012 at 19:00 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW wrote:
<< It take very low effort and I don't feel guilty if something suddenly interrupts my chain. >>
I'd go even further. I actually can't imagine why one would feel guilty about this. It's a great feature of FV. It is so EASY to just STOP IMMEDIATELY if needed. For example, I get a call and need to run out the door, or I need to run off to a meeting, or some new urgent task arrives in my In Box. I just stop, go to the meeting, deal with the urgent task (usually by adding it to the list and dotting it), or whatever.
And then I just pick up where I left off. But if I am feeling like too much has changed, there are too many things that have piled up in my in box, or whatever, I can do a reset, either partial or complete. It all just works. And it's so simple. :-)
It never even occurred to me that I should feel guilty if I don't complete my chain. :-) Usually it is really EASY to blast through those chains.
The hard part for me is all the stuff outside of FV, like all those interminable meetings! It's a constant battle to fight them off and keep enough free time on my calendar to actually get things done.
<< It take very low effort and I don't feel guilty if something suddenly interrupts my chain. >>
I'd go even further. I actually can't imagine why one would feel guilty about this. It's a great feature of FV. It is so EASY to just STOP IMMEDIATELY if needed. For example, I get a call and need to run out the door, or I need to run off to a meeting, or some new urgent task arrives in my In Box. I just stop, go to the meeting, deal with the urgent task (usually by adding it to the list and dotting it), or whatever.
And then I just pick up where I left off. But if I am feeling like too much has changed, there are too many things that have piled up in my in box, or whatever, I can do a reset, either partial or complete. It all just works. And it's so simple. :-)
It never even occurred to me that I should feel guilty if I don't complete my chain. :-) Usually it is really EASY to blast through those chains.
The hard part for me is all the stuff outside of FV, like all those interminable meetings! It's a constant battle to fight them off and keep enough free time on my calendar to actually get things done.
April 29, 2012 at 1:39 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< all those interminable meetings! >>
I learnt this one through observing one of my colleagues:
When you arrive at a meeting tell the Chair that you have to leave early (preferably after not more than 30 minutes) because of an important appointment (genuine or fictitious).
He or she will then not only excuse you but will often re-arrange the agenda so that any parts which affect you are done first.
When I tried it myself, it worked like a dream!
<< all those interminable meetings! >>
I learnt this one through observing one of my colleagues:
When you arrive at a meeting tell the Chair that you have to leave early (preferably after not more than 30 minutes) because of an important appointment (genuine or fictitious).
He or she will then not only excuse you but will often re-arrange the agenda so that any parts which affect you are done first.
When I tried it myself, it worked like a dream!
April 29, 2012 at 9:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
If you stop a chain and redo the selection part-way through, you don't get to the root item, at least on that chain. If you do it too often, the root never gets any attention.
Without prioritizing, I would work through my chain, then around mid-chain get caught up with something. The chain would take forever, and high-priority things waiting at the end of the list for the next chain wouldn't get done.
Some of my chains only have 2-star items. Most have a mix of stars.
Without prioritizing, I would work through my chain, then around mid-chain get caught up with something. The chain would take forever, and high-priority things waiting at the end of the list for the next chain wouldn't get done.
Some of my chains only have 2-star items. Most have a mix of stars.
April 29, 2012 at 22:45 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket >> I would work through my chain, then around mid-chain get caught up with something. The chain would take forever, and high-priority things waiting at the end of the list for the next chain wouldn't get done.<<
yeah, that happens to me too. When I make a chain and the root task is one that hasn't been touched because of the kind of thing you're talking about, the answer to the question of "what do I want to do before this task" is nothing else - so the task gets worked as a 1-task chain.
At work I tend to re-do chains 2 or 3 times a times a day. Every few days I end up with a 1-task chain like this.
yeah, that happens to me too. When I make a chain and the root task is one that hasn't been touched because of the kind of thing you're talking about, the answer to the question of "what do I want to do before this task" is nothing else - so the task gets worked as a 1-task chain.
At work I tend to re-do chains 2 or 3 times a times a day. Every few days I end up with a 1-task chain like this.
April 30, 2012 at 2:43 |
Lillian
Lillian
Mark:
<< Have you done it yet? >>
Not yet -- a cluster of truly urgent tasks hit me first thing Monday morning which have kept me busy most of the week -- I haven't even been using my FV list at all yet this week. In fact, I've only managed to complete one or two chains since switching to Prioritized FV, but I've made progress on the task in question each time, and it's moving along. With standard FV, I didn't even touch it, so it's all relative.
I'm going to experiment today with putting a time limit of about 15 minutes on each task just to see if I can increase the velocity of processing the list. I'm averaging 1-3 chains per week instead of per day, and that doesn't feel right. I'll report back.
<< Have you done it yet? >>
Not yet -- a cluster of truly urgent tasks hit me first thing Monday morning which have kept me busy most of the week -- I haven't even been using my FV list at all yet this week. In fact, I've only managed to complete one or two chains since switching to Prioritized FV, but I've made progress on the task in question each time, and it's moving along. With standard FV, I didn't even touch it, so it's all relative.
I'm going to experiment today with putting a time limit of about 15 minutes on each task just to see if I can increase the velocity of processing the list. I'm averaging 1-3 chains per week instead of per day, and that doesn't feel right. I'll report back.
May 4, 2012 at 15:21 |
Deven
Deven
Okay, I finished the chain that was in progress from last week, and made some additional progress on that task by doing so. I'm now in the middle of the first full chain for today. The task in question isn't the root task in this chain (another triple-starred task is), but I preselected it anyway, because I was making progress and interrupted it in the middle when my time ran out.
I'm on the "FV forum" task on my chain now; I'll post again when I hit this task in my next chain.
I'm on the "FV forum" task on my chain now; I'll post again when I hit this task in my next chain.
May 4, 2012 at 18:57 |
Deven
Deven
GMBW:
<< I read your replies but I'm too lazy to continue. Not because I don't care but more so because I think I am the one who is just confused about your system and would add even more confusion by continuing from previous threads. I'll throw in the towel:) >>
What do you remain confused about?
<< But, from re-reading your clearer instructions: doesn't this force a high priority task to be a root task? >>
Absolutely! That's by design, because the root task is the only task in the chain that is preselected automatically, by virtue of being in the "magic slot" at the top of the list. This guarantees that at least one high-priority task will be included in the chain.
<< If that is the case, after creating the chain doesn't that mean you will have to do n number of tasks before the high priority root task? Hence do lower priority tasks before your high priority root? >>
Sure, but N could be zero, if there isn't something else you want to do before that root task.
For high-priority tasks without resistance, you're more likely to keep the chain short and spend your time on those high-priority tasks, knowing they're important. For high-priority tasks with resistance, you'll easily find other tasks to do first, but you'll still have to work your way back up the chain to that root task and do something about it, but you get the benefit of the laddering effect this way, which you can't get by keeping the task at the end of the list, even if you DO select it for every chain.
<< If you can select your priorities with stars, and you want to do them, why not just select them in the chain to do them? >>
Because I'm trying to follow The Question rigorously. It's "What do I want to do before I do X?" , not "What do I want to do?" -- Mark has stressed the difference repeatedly, and I trust his insight on this. I don't want to mess with The Question.
<< I read your replies but I'm too lazy to continue. Not because I don't care but more so because I think I am the one who is just confused about your system and would add even more confusion by continuing from previous threads. I'll throw in the towel:) >>
What do you remain confused about?
<< But, from re-reading your clearer instructions: doesn't this force a high priority task to be a root task? >>
Absolutely! That's by design, because the root task is the only task in the chain that is preselected automatically, by virtue of being in the "magic slot" at the top of the list. This guarantees that at least one high-priority task will be included in the chain.
<< If that is the case, after creating the chain doesn't that mean you will have to do n number of tasks before the high priority root task? Hence do lower priority tasks before your high priority root? >>
Sure, but N could be zero, if there isn't something else you want to do before that root task.
For high-priority tasks without resistance, you're more likely to keep the chain short and spend your time on those high-priority tasks, knowing they're important. For high-priority tasks with resistance, you'll easily find other tasks to do first, but you'll still have to work your way back up the chain to that root task and do something about it, but you get the benefit of the laddering effect this way, which you can't get by keeping the task at the end of the list, even if you DO select it for every chain.
<< If you can select your priorities with stars, and you want to do them, why not just select them in the chain to do them? >>
Because I'm trying to follow The Question rigorously. It's "What do I want to do before I do X?" , not "What do I want to do?" -- Mark has stressed the difference repeatedly, and I trust his insight on this. I don't want to mess with The Question.
May 4, 2012 at 19:11 |
Deven
Deven
Mark:
<< I learnt this one through observing one of my colleagues:
When you arrive at a meeting tell the Chair that you have to leave early (preferably after not more than 30 minutes) because of an important appointment (genuine or fictitious).
He or she will then not only excuse you but will often re-arrange the agenda so that any parts which affect you are done first.
When I tried it myself, it worked like a dream! >>
That's brilliant! I don't know if it would always work, but I'm guessing it would work most times.
<< I learnt this one through observing one of my colleagues:
When you arrive at a meeting tell the Chair that you have to leave early (preferably after not more than 30 minutes) because of an important appointment (genuine or fictitious).
He or she will then not only excuse you but will often re-arrange the agenda so that any parts which affect you are done first.
When I tried it myself, it worked like a dream! >>
That's brilliant! I don't know if it would always work, but I'm guessing it would work most times.
May 4, 2012 at 19:13 |
Deven
Deven
Deven:
I'm no longer confused about the system. I tried it using an app called Clear to implement your pri-FV system, in which the colors would replace the stars etc. I understand how the high pri tasks are ensured to be placed in each chain and I did get a feeling that my attention was drawn consistently to the priorities. Overall, I thought " this is not as bad as I thought". Which I was surprised.
But , as I thought, I still had two problems.
1. Having to do N tasks before the high priority root. Even though N could be 0.
2. Fiddling, with the priorities due to personal indecision about what is more important than what.
In regards to 1: I understand that the question emphasizes before x. So, seeing N tasks stacked on top of my high priority task felt as if I was doing something wrong. It feels counter productive to me to deliberately set up a stack of N tasks before something that is high priority. And that sense of warming up to the root task is lost for me because I just want to wing through the N tasks.
In regards to 2: This is not so much a major issue but it does use up a lot of time since priorities change frequently for me. And I tend to overthink what is more important than this or is this truely urgent? I end up dragging and dropping (or starring and double starring) until things look just right. The faster priorities change the more fiddling I do. This is a personal issue not one with your system.
I'm no longer confused about the system. I tried it using an app called Clear to implement your pri-FV system, in which the colors would replace the stars etc. I understand how the high pri tasks are ensured to be placed in each chain and I did get a feeling that my attention was drawn consistently to the priorities. Overall, I thought " this is not as bad as I thought". Which I was surprised.
But , as I thought, I still had two problems.
1. Having to do N tasks before the high priority root. Even though N could be 0.
2. Fiddling, with the priorities due to personal indecision about what is more important than what.
In regards to 1: I understand that the question emphasizes before x. So, seeing N tasks stacked on top of my high priority task felt as if I was doing something wrong. It feels counter productive to me to deliberately set up a stack of N tasks before something that is high priority. And that sense of warming up to the root task is lost for me because I just want to wing through the N tasks.
In regards to 2: This is not so much a major issue but it does use up a lot of time since priorities change frequently for me. And I tend to overthink what is more important than this or is this truely urgent? I end up dragging and dropping (or starring and double starring) until things look just right. The faster priorities change the more fiddling I do. This is a personal issue not one with your system.
May 5, 2012 at 7:11 |
GMBW
GMBW
<<Sure, but N could be zero, if there isn't something else you want to do before that root task.
For high-priority tasks without resistance, you're more likely to keep the chain short and spend your time on those high-priority tasks, knowing they're important.>>
True.
<< For high-priority tasks with resistance, you'll easily find other tasks to do first, but you'll still have to work your way back up the chain to that root task and do something about it, but you get the benefit of the laddering effect this way, which you can't get by keeping the task at the end of the list, even if you DO select it for every chain.>>
Disagree. I still get the laddering effect regardless of where the task is. As long as there are tasks I want to do before it. This hi-pri resistance task is not necessarily at the end of the list, meaning it is not necessarily the very last item on my list.
For high-priority tasks without resistance, you're more likely to keep the chain short and spend your time on those high-priority tasks, knowing they're important.>>
True.
<< For high-priority tasks with resistance, you'll easily find other tasks to do first, but you'll still have to work your way back up the chain to that root task and do something about it, but you get the benefit of the laddering effect this way, which you can't get by keeping the task at the end of the list, even if you DO select it for every chain.>>
Disagree. I still get the laddering effect regardless of where the task is. As long as there are tasks I want to do before it. This hi-pri resistance task is not necessarily at the end of the list, meaning it is not necessarily the very last item on my list.
May 5, 2012 at 7:27 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW,
If your current benchmark is a high-priority project, then not pre-selecting any projects (N=0) further down the chain before doing it is a good thing. The high-priority project gets worked on first!
It's still possible to select lower-priority projects further down the list, if you want to do them before the high-priority one. This keeps the "building up to it" effect of FV.
Maybe you're happy with your progress on those project. Maybe you need a change of pace. At least you're comparing them to the most important thing.
I don't know what Deven does, but when I work on a high-priority project, I rewrite it at the end of the high-priority list, so the next-oldest high-priority project is in the magic slot and the old one will reach the magic slot again fairly soon. If there aren't enough to get some churn going, I promote some lower-priority tasks.
Agreed, fiddling with the priorities is a great way to procrastinate. If I resist all the high-priority tasks, then I know I'm stalling. Being aware that I'm stalling is half the battle.
If your current benchmark is a high-priority project, then not pre-selecting any projects (N=0) further down the chain before doing it is a good thing. The high-priority project gets worked on first!
It's still possible to select lower-priority projects further down the list, if you want to do them before the high-priority one. This keeps the "building up to it" effect of FV.
Maybe you're happy with your progress on those project. Maybe you need a change of pace. At least you're comparing them to the most important thing.
I don't know what Deven does, but when I work on a high-priority project, I rewrite it at the end of the high-priority list, so the next-oldest high-priority project is in the magic slot and the old one will reach the magic slot again fairly soon. If there aren't enough to get some churn going, I promote some lower-priority tasks.
Agreed, fiddling with the priorities is a great way to procrastinate. If I resist all the high-priority tasks, then I know I'm stalling. Being aware that I'm stalling is half the battle.
May 5, 2012 at 17:43 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
<< I don't know what Deven does, but when I work on a high-priority project, I rewrite it at the end of the high-priority list, so the next-oldest high-priority project is in the magic slot and the old one will reach the magic slot again fairly soon. >>
Yes, that's exactly what I do, but with the possibility of multiple priority levels. On my own list, I currently have up to 3 stars, but I'd rather be using fewer.
Here's what I wrote in the rules in the top post of this thread:
<< * Normal-priority (unstarred) tasks are rewritten at the end of the full list as in standard FV, but high-priority (starred) tasks are rewritten near the top of the list instead, at the end of the group of tasks at the same priority level. Tasks are always grouped from highest to lowest priority. >>
The idea is that all tasks at the current top priority level will cycle through the "magic slot" in turn, instead of everything on the list cycling through. However, once all the high-priority tasks are cleared, the remainder of the list will finally start cycling through. (When nothing is marked as a priority, Prioritized FV functions exactly the same as standard FV.)
<< If there aren't enough to get some churn going, I promote some lower-priority tasks. >>
I haven't done that -- if I have one top-priority task, it will be the root of every chain. I haven't prioritized anything just for the sake of having "enough" priority tasks, mostly because my goal is to use fewer stars if I can.
That being said, I have wondered about the similarities to the 3-Task system and what would happen if you always made sure you had at least 3 tasks marked as priorities? I think that's an interesting idea, but I suspect it would drain too much attention from the full list of normal-priority tasks, so I hesitate to do this. I think I'd rather let the stars expire naturally and fall back to standard FV until I feel the need to prioritize something again.
<< I don't know what Deven does, but when I work on a high-priority project, I rewrite it at the end of the high-priority list, so the next-oldest high-priority project is in the magic slot and the old one will reach the magic slot again fairly soon. >>
Yes, that's exactly what I do, but with the possibility of multiple priority levels. On my own list, I currently have up to 3 stars, but I'd rather be using fewer.
Here's what I wrote in the rules in the top post of this thread:
<< * Normal-priority (unstarred) tasks are rewritten at the end of the full list as in standard FV, but high-priority (starred) tasks are rewritten near the top of the list instead, at the end of the group of tasks at the same priority level. Tasks are always grouped from highest to lowest priority. >>
The idea is that all tasks at the current top priority level will cycle through the "magic slot" in turn, instead of everything on the list cycling through. However, once all the high-priority tasks are cleared, the remainder of the list will finally start cycling through. (When nothing is marked as a priority, Prioritized FV functions exactly the same as standard FV.)
<< If there aren't enough to get some churn going, I promote some lower-priority tasks. >>
I haven't done that -- if I have one top-priority task, it will be the root of every chain. I haven't prioritized anything just for the sake of having "enough" priority tasks, mostly because my goal is to use fewer stars if I can.
That being said, I have wondered about the similarities to the 3-Task system and what would happen if you always made sure you had at least 3 tasks marked as priorities? I think that's an interesting idea, but I suspect it would drain too much attention from the full list of normal-priority tasks, so I hesitate to do this. I think I'd rather let the stars expire naturally and fall back to standard FV until I feel the need to prioritize something again.
May 7, 2012 at 21:57 |
Deven
Deven
Regarding my progress on the task in question, I haven't been following my list today; I'll have to try again tomorrow to pick up where I left off, which was in the middle of the first new chain I started on Friday. *sigh*
May 7, 2012 at 21:58 |
Deven
Deven
I like having a bit of "churn", so my days vary. I get bored with doing the same thing in the same order every day. Now that I think about it, though, maybe promoting projects to develop churn is actually an excuse to procrastinate by playing with the stars. If nothing on the highest-priority page draws my attention, I should shout for joy and make progress on the next set, rather than promoting projects when I know full well that I'll demote them again in a few weeks.
I'm thinking of having a "magic slot" for each priority level, so the very old mid- and low-priority projects get some attention. That's not needed, though. I want to work on the old ones, so the usual FV rules will select them often enough. Today was appointment and errand day, not a list-working day (although the list helped me realize an errand day was needed).
I'm thinking of having a "magic slot" for each priority level, so the very old mid- and low-priority projects get some attention. That's not needed, though. I want to work on the old ones, so the usual FV rules will select them often enough. Today was appointment and errand day, not a list-working day (although the list helped me realize an errand day was needed).
May 7, 2012 at 22:31 |
Cricket
Cricket
I've barely used my FV list all week; I'm still on the chain I started last Friday. It's too easy to fall into interrupt-driven activities and stop following a list. This may take some practice; I've had the same problem with any system. *sigh*
I've concluded that starting the day in the middle of the chain does cause some resistance, because I've lost the momentum of the previous day. Has anyone else noticed this?
I've concluded that starting the day in the middle of the chain does cause some resistance, because I've lost the momentum of the previous day. Has anyone else noticed this?
May 10, 2012 at 19:48 |
Deven
Deven
Okay, making a quick dash across the tasks, I've finished the leftover chain from last Friday. I'm now starting the first new chain for today. The high-resistance task we've been discussing is not in this chain, but it was in the leftover chain from Friday, and I did make some progress on it in the 10 minutes I gave it. This new chain is very short, because the root task is a report due today, so it's becoming urgent now. The only task I wanted to do before it was another top-priority task (which is almost done), and this one ("FV forum"), since I want to post an update per chain until I finish the task we've been discussing.
I've been having trouble remembering to follow my list, but when I do, I'm still happy with how Prioritized FV is working. I currently have 5 triple-starred tasks, and the urgent report happens to be in the "magic slot" now, so it's the root of this chain, followed by another triple-starred task that's almost done. (If another top-priority task had been the root, I would have selected the urgent report for the chain anyhow, following The Question.)
The task we've been discussing is NOT in the current chain, but it may well be in the next one. If it isn't, it will be the root of the following chain.
The report I need to finish is likely to take the rest of the day, and I'm taking a vacation day tomorrow, so I might not post again until Monday, when I do expect to make more progress on the task in question if I manage to follow the system instead of getting distracted.
I've been having trouble remembering to follow my list, but when I do, I'm still happy with how Prioritized FV is working. I currently have 5 triple-starred tasks, and the urgent report happens to be in the "magic slot" now, so it's the root of this chain, followed by another triple-starred task that's almost done. (If another top-priority task had been the root, I would have selected the urgent report for the chain anyhow, following The Question.)
The task we've been discussing is NOT in the current chain, but it may well be in the next one. If it isn't, it will be the root of the following chain.
The report I need to finish is likely to take the rest of the day, and I'm taking a vacation day tomorrow, so I might not post again until Monday, when I do expect to make more progress on the task in question if I manage to follow the system instead of getting distracted.
May 10, 2012 at 20:24 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >>I've concluded that starting the day in the middle of the chain does cause some resistance, because I've lost the momentum of the previous day. Has anyone else noticed this? <<
Sure. When I notice that "stale" feeling, I undot the tasks and start over. It's within the rules (as I understand them) to un-dot and re-do a chain "if the preselected list is no longer relevant"
Sometimes I end up with the same tasks included in the new chain. Sometimes not.
and just curious - have you tried, or plan to try, Mark's alternate question - what am I resisting more than 'x' ? (not sure that's an exact quote of the question)
Sure. When I notice that "stale" feeling, I undot the tasks and start over. It's within the rules (as I understand them) to un-dot and re-do a chain "if the preselected list is no longer relevant"
Sometimes I end up with the same tasks included in the new chain. Sometimes not.
and just curious - have you tried, or plan to try, Mark's alternate question - what am I resisting more than 'x' ? (not sure that's an exact quote of the question)
May 10, 2012 at 20:53 |
Lillian
Lillian
Deven:
So have I got this right? On March 20th you told us about a "highly urgent" high resistance task that you couldn't get done through standard FV (introduced a week before) - so much so that you felt it necessary to invent a variation of FV to cope with it. Now getting on for 2 months later you still haven't done it.
So:
7 days of FV - result: task not done
53 days of Prioritized FV - result: task still not done
I don't know how long your list is but in 60 days of FV I would have got through my entire list at least ten times - enough to crack any project I'd have thought.
So have I got this right? On March 20th you told us about a "highly urgent" high resistance task that you couldn't get done through standard FV (introduced a week before) - so much so that you felt it necessary to invent a variation of FV to cope with it. Now getting on for 2 months later you still haven't done it.
So:
7 days of FV - result: task not done
53 days of Prioritized FV - result: task still not done
I don't know how long your list is but in 60 days of FV I would have got through my entire list at least ten times - enough to crack any project I'd have thought.
May 11, 2012 at 16:18 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<I've concluded that starting the day in the middle of the chain does cause some resistance, because I've lost the momentum of the previous day. Has anyone else noticed this?>>
I do feel resistance too. I definately need to warm up to the tasks with some tasks I'm comfortable approaching in the morning. like "coffee,email etc."
Have you considered selecting or limiting the length of a chain based on what you can handle in a block of time? This may help with interruptions and approaching the next day in the middle.
I first make my chain then remove a bunch ( by undotting) so that its limited to what I actually can put a crack in by a certain time. So if I know I have a meeting in 2 hours. I'll make my chain from beggining to end. Then remove the ones I simply can't do any relevant amount of progress on within the 2 hours of time.
I do feel resistance too. I definately need to warm up to the tasks with some tasks I'm comfortable approaching in the morning. like "coffee,email etc."
Have you considered selecting or limiting the length of a chain based on what you can handle in a block of time? This may help with interruptions and approaching the next day in the middle.
I first make my chain then remove a bunch ( by undotting) so that its limited to what I actually can put a crack in by a certain time. So if I know I have a meeting in 2 hours. I'll make my chain from beggining to end. Then remove the ones I simply can't do any relevant amount of progress on within the 2 hours of time.
May 11, 2012 at 17:36 |
GMBW
GMBW
Well I only have the energy to briefly scan the above trail today so please forgive me if I speak out of turn but my overiding feeling here is .as follows.
Mark has developed a really simple fluid system that works mainly because it recognises that you have a two sided brain that will help you know what needs to be done.
I have been using FV since 'launch' and gradually tuned into it in a busy multi-project work environment. I also started to tinker with relative priorities as I got caught up in this way of thinking (this is important , but that is more important, and this project has to be started etc). I also started using multiple stars and started to put things at top of list and then realised I was headed to back to the (imo bad) old way of doing things....STOP!!
My problem was long slow moving chains! I realised that if I had faster moving chains then i'd be reminded a few times a day of everything that is on the main list and can make those relative importance decisions a few times in a day in context of a regular onslaught of demands . Realisitically if I am actually acting on these tasks then I couldnt sensibly reprioritse more than a few times a day anyway !! Traditionally I would have only prioritised work at best, once a day!
As Mark has said before, tasks should be bite sized generally to ensure progress, and my problem was trying to do too much in one go. So, I invoked the old pomodoro timer to help draw a regular time line under things. .. chains speeded up and I am now naturally getting a better feel for the time to spend on each item to keep them chains moving.
If I have to take several 'bites' of a project in a day then I respawn the project item onto the end of the list once it's been "pom'd". I'm forced to re-evaluate all other items in the list but natuarally revisit the project bite quickly, as it is important to complete (today) after all! The trick is not to over analyse the list. Review quickly but properly (ie dont just skip items further up the list because you know you need to 'bite' the project again. Stop for 1-2 seconds on each item before moving on. the grey matter will tell you to 'dot' it or not. The context helps make the decision .. eg you know if you are nearing the end of the day, you know you have to take that next bite etc ... this helps inform you of where the current task fits into the world right now!)
I have had a few stale items that I try to keep avoiding .. and some that get skipped over too often on long lists but I am now fully aware of them and rephrase or drop them as appropriate after a few passes. Its amazing how many times I have looked at a task at the head of a rather long chain and thought "this item has caused a long chain - it cant be so important after all" - I then re-evaluate it and often kick it out! very liberating! ... and all part of a sensible review process.
I have now even taken to at least two FV-AV cycles a week if I can .. and am starting to see high resistance items crumbling away now... bit by bit. :-)
Personally I can see no need to start adjusting FV for prioritisation or anything else.
Its simplicity is its strength. If stuff isnt 'falling out' they way you expect it to then my suggestion is to work on speeding up your chain cycle time - your eyes n brain (subconcious brain a lot of the time) will do the rest.
In summary:
1) Use FV!
2) Try to kKeep chain cycle times short as possible (use a pomodoro timer if nec.)
3) Be sensitive to long chains .. they might indicate dropable tasks!
Simples!
Fyi:
A) on a normal day (several meetings) I normally complete 1-2 chains. On a no-meeting day I might get 2-4 chains processed
B) I use ToDo Paper for FV on my work PC and currently giving Clear a go on the iphone out of curiosity (seems to work quite well and looks great. I have been using Focuspad which does work well esp. when using tickler functionality)
Mark has developed a really simple fluid system that works mainly because it recognises that you have a two sided brain that will help you know what needs to be done.
I have been using FV since 'launch' and gradually tuned into it in a busy multi-project work environment. I also started to tinker with relative priorities as I got caught up in this way of thinking (this is important , but that is more important, and this project has to be started etc). I also started using multiple stars and started to put things at top of list and then realised I was headed to back to the (imo bad) old way of doing things....STOP!!
My problem was long slow moving chains! I realised that if I had faster moving chains then i'd be reminded a few times a day of everything that is on the main list and can make those relative importance decisions a few times in a day in context of a regular onslaught of demands . Realisitically if I am actually acting on these tasks then I couldnt sensibly reprioritse more than a few times a day anyway !! Traditionally I would have only prioritised work at best, once a day!
As Mark has said before, tasks should be bite sized generally to ensure progress, and my problem was trying to do too much in one go. So, I invoked the old pomodoro timer to help draw a regular time line under things. .. chains speeded up and I am now naturally getting a better feel for the time to spend on each item to keep them chains moving.
If I have to take several 'bites' of a project in a day then I respawn the project item onto the end of the list once it's been "pom'd". I'm forced to re-evaluate all other items in the list but natuarally revisit the project bite quickly, as it is important to complete (today) after all! The trick is not to over analyse the list. Review quickly but properly (ie dont just skip items further up the list because you know you need to 'bite' the project again. Stop for 1-2 seconds on each item before moving on. the grey matter will tell you to 'dot' it or not. The context helps make the decision .. eg you know if you are nearing the end of the day, you know you have to take that next bite etc ... this helps inform you of where the current task fits into the world right now!)
I have had a few stale items that I try to keep avoiding .. and some that get skipped over too often on long lists but I am now fully aware of them and rephrase or drop them as appropriate after a few passes. Its amazing how many times I have looked at a task at the head of a rather long chain and thought "this item has caused a long chain - it cant be so important after all" - I then re-evaluate it and often kick it out! very liberating! ... and all part of a sensible review process.
I have now even taken to at least two FV-AV cycles a week if I can .. and am starting to see high resistance items crumbling away now... bit by bit. :-)
Personally I can see no need to start adjusting FV for prioritisation or anything else.
Its simplicity is its strength. If stuff isnt 'falling out' they way you expect it to then my suggestion is to work on speeding up your chain cycle time - your eyes n brain (subconcious brain a lot of the time) will do the rest.
In summary:
1) Use FV!
2) Try to kKeep chain cycle times short as possible (use a pomodoro timer if nec.)
3) Be sensitive to long chains .. they might indicate dropable tasks!
Simples!
Fyi:
A) on a normal day (several meetings) I normally complete 1-2 chains. On a no-meeting day I might get 2-4 chains processed
B) I use ToDo Paper for FV on my work PC and currently giving Clear a go on the iphone out of curiosity (seems to work quite well and looks great. I have been using Focuspad which does work well esp. when using tickler functionality)
May 12, 2012 at 1:03 |
Grik
Grik
Grik:
Good observations that are very close to things I've mentioned before. You put them into context much better than I did as well.
I tend to have some idea of what the rest of my day may look like when I create a chain. So I have a sense of how much discretionary time I've got, and maybe whether something urgent is likely to pop up. Often there is a sense of some particular task, project, or mini project I want to work on. All those things affect the definition of "want" in The Question and also helps to keep chains at an appropriate length.
From reading posts, I get the feeling that the "before" part of The Question is often either ignored or misunderstood. It's important to use it in conjunction with however "want" is affecting things as I describe above.
What you said above is a great summary:
<The trick is not to over analyse the list. Review quickly but properly (i.e., don't just skip items further up the list because you know you need to 'bite' the project again. Stop for 1-2 seconds on each item before moving on. The grey matter will tell you to 'dot' it or not. The context helps make the decision .. e.g., you know if you are nearing the end of the day, you know you have to take that next bite etc ... this helps inform you of where the current task fits into the world right now!)>
Good observations that are very close to things I've mentioned before. You put them into context much better than I did as well.
I tend to have some idea of what the rest of my day may look like when I create a chain. So I have a sense of how much discretionary time I've got, and maybe whether something urgent is likely to pop up. Often there is a sense of some particular task, project, or mini project I want to work on. All those things affect the definition of "want" in The Question and also helps to keep chains at an appropriate length.
From reading posts, I get the feeling that the "before" part of The Question is often either ignored or misunderstood. It's important to use it in conjunction with however "want" is affecting things as I describe above.
What you said above is a great summary:
<The trick is not to over analyse the list. Review quickly but properly (i.e., don't just skip items further up the list because you know you need to 'bite' the project again. Stop for 1-2 seconds on each item before moving on. The grey matter will tell you to 'dot' it or not. The context helps make the decision .. e.g., you know if you are nearing the end of the day, you know you have to take that next bite etc ... this helps inform you of where the current task fits into the world right now!)>
May 12, 2012 at 13:55 |
MartyH
MartyH
Mark:
<< So have I got this right? On March 20th you told us about a "highly urgent" high resistance task that you couldn't get done through standard FV (introduced a week before) - so much so that you felt it necessary to invent a variation of FV to cope with it. Now getting on for 2 months later you still haven't done it.
So:
7 days of FV - result: task not done
53 days of Prioritized FV - result: task still not done
I don't know how long your list is but in 60 days of FV I would have got through my entire list at least ten times - enough to crack any project I'd have thought. >>
No, that's not accurate. (And I never referred to the task as "highly urgent" either.)
Here is a more accurate timeline:
* On March 20, the "High Resistance Urgent Tasks" thread was created by Jim Dandy, being one of several occasions where he raised the same issue in slightly different ways:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749
* On April 6, I visited the website for the first time in a number of weeks (having been quite busy at work recently), and discovered that FV had been released. I immediately signed up for the mailing list, and received a welcome email from the list, but not the FV instructions. I emailed you asking for the FV instructions, which you emailed to me later that day. (I also received an automated copy from the mailing list, hours after the welcome email.)
* On Saturday, April 7, I read the FV instructions for the first time. It sounded great, and quite simple, and I was excited to give it a try, but I wasn't trying to use it over the weekend -- I'm trying it at work first.
* On Monday, April 9, I was intending to start using standard FV, but ended up mostly distracted (interrupt-driven) by other things at work for several days. (This has been a general problem for me with any time-management system, and I'm still working on establishing the habit of using the system consistently.)
* By Thursday, April 12, I was less distracted and better focused on testing FV to see how well it would work for me. I think this is when I officially started processing my first chain. I identified the faux-urgent task in question as a good test case, because it was an old high-resistance task that wasn't truly urgent, but I wanted to make it a priority because I was getting hassled about completing the task and I did want it off my list, but I didn't want to DO the task. I was keeping an eye on that task, but not trying to influence the results -- I wanted to see how FV would handle a SHOULD task that I didn't WANT to do at all.
* Over the next several working days, I was pleased to make some significant progress on several old low-priority tasks that had been neglected far too long, but I was concerned that the faux-urgent task never ended up selected for any chain because it was never the answer to The Question. By Monday, April 16, I was already questioning whether this problem was significant enough to justify a tweak to the system, but I felt I need to give standard FV at least a full week of diligent practice before considering any tweaks.
* By Thursday, April 19, it was clear to me that I would NEVER end up with this high-resistance task in the chain until the "magic slot" forced it to be the root of the chain. Even though the task was only faux-urgent, I still wanted it to a priority, but that desire did NOT change my answer to The Question, because it was never a task that I wanted to do before another selected task. (The only way that might have happened is if I had an even higher-resistance task as the root task of a chain.)
* On Friday, April 20, after using standard FV for over a full week (and probably having completed 4-6 chains without ever selecting the task in question), I decided to test the tweak I had in mind, and I posted about my intentions in Jim Dandy's thread, making the mistake of discussing "urgent" tasks when I later realized that "priority" tasks made more sense:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749#post1796997
* On Wednesday, April 25, I finally completed the first chain I started with Prioritized FV on Friday, April 20. This chain started with the high-resistance faux-urgent task as the root, so I actually made some progress on it, even though it took several days to finish the first chain. Under standard FV, the task had never even been selected after several chains, much less worked on!
* On Friday, April 27, I created this thread, trying to explain Prioritized FV as clearly as possible, and link the three threads together. From Friday, April 20 through Friday, April 27, I spent an alarming amount of time on this forum, which had a definite impact on my efficiency in working on the rest of my list.
* On Saturday, April 28, you asked if I had completed the task yet, but I didn't even respond until Friday, May 4, because almost my entire week had been occupied by TRUE urgent tasks that kept me swamped with "firefighting" and unable to visit the forum or work my FV list at all. This would have happened whether I was using standard FV or Prioritized FV.
* On Friday, May 4, I resumed work on the partial chain that had been in progress on Friday, April 27. I believe this was my third chain using Prioritized FV, but it might have only been the second. (I'll assume it was the third.) At this point, I started trying to run a "dash" on the list, with the goal of limiting tasks to 15 minutes or so, in order to increase the velocity of processing the list. Despite the attempted time limit, it took several hours to finish the leftover chain and start the fourth chain, which I did NOT finish that day.
* From Monday, May 7 through Wednesday, May 9, I was interrupt-driven by distractions and not using my FV list at all.
* On Thursday, May 10, I resumed processing my FV list on the fourth chain that was leftover from Friday, May 4. I did a very rapid dash on the remaining tasks in the chain, finishing that chain in less than an hour and starting the fifth chain. Despite only giving the high-resistance faux-urgent task 10 minutes in this dash, I still made further progress on it when finishing the fourth chain.
* The fifth chain was very short because the root task was a report that was due the same day, so it was now urgent. (It had been on my list all week, but because I hadn't been working the list, it hadn't been worked yet.) The fifth chain was the first chain since starting Prioritized FV where the high-resistance faux-urgent task was NOT selected for the chain. I finished the chain by the end of the day, having to stay late to finish the report by the deadline.
* I was on vacation on Friday, May 11.
Here is a fair (apples-to-apples) comparison of my experiences with standard FV vs. Prioritized FV:
* Standard FV: Completed ~4-6 chains in 6 working days of actively processing the list, made good progress on long-neglected low-priority tasks, but never selected the high-resistance faux-urgent task at all.
* Prioritized FV: Completed 5 chains in 8 working days of actively processing the list, selected the prioritized high-resistance faux-urgent task in 4 of the 5 chains and made good progress on it.
So with both systems, I've completed a similar number of chains, with an enormous difference in the results. With standard FV, I never even touched the task, even though I considered a higher-than-normal priority. With Prioritized FV, it was selected repeatedly and I made good progress on it. As intended, Prioritized FV focused more attention on higher-priority tasks.
That's rather a different picture than the one you painted above, isn't it?
<< So have I got this right? On March 20th you told us about a "highly urgent" high resistance task that you couldn't get done through standard FV (introduced a week before) - so much so that you felt it necessary to invent a variation of FV to cope with it. Now getting on for 2 months later you still haven't done it.
So:
7 days of FV - result: task not done
53 days of Prioritized FV - result: task still not done
I don't know how long your list is but in 60 days of FV I would have got through my entire list at least ten times - enough to crack any project I'd have thought. >>
No, that's not accurate. (And I never referred to the task as "highly urgent" either.)
Here is a more accurate timeline:
* On March 20, the "High Resistance Urgent Tasks" thread was created by Jim Dandy, being one of several occasions where he raised the same issue in slightly different ways:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749
* On April 6, I visited the website for the first time in a number of weeks (having been quite busy at work recently), and discovered that FV had been released. I immediately signed up for the mailing list, and received a welcome email from the list, but not the FV instructions. I emailed you asking for the FV instructions, which you emailed to me later that day. (I also received an automated copy from the mailing list, hours after the welcome email.)
* On Saturday, April 7, I read the FV instructions for the first time. It sounded great, and quite simple, and I was excited to give it a try, but I wasn't trying to use it over the weekend -- I'm trying it at work first.
* On Monday, April 9, I was intending to start using standard FV, but ended up mostly distracted (interrupt-driven) by other things at work for several days. (This has been a general problem for me with any time-management system, and I'm still working on establishing the habit of using the system consistently.)
* By Thursday, April 12, I was less distracted and better focused on testing FV to see how well it would work for me. I think this is when I officially started processing my first chain. I identified the faux-urgent task in question as a good test case, because it was an old high-resistance task that wasn't truly urgent, but I wanted to make it a priority because I was getting hassled about completing the task and I did want it off my list, but I didn't want to DO the task. I was keeping an eye on that task, but not trying to influence the results -- I wanted to see how FV would handle a SHOULD task that I didn't WANT to do at all.
* Over the next several working days, I was pleased to make some significant progress on several old low-priority tasks that had been neglected far too long, but I was concerned that the faux-urgent task never ended up selected for any chain because it was never the answer to The Question. By Monday, April 16, I was already questioning whether this problem was significant enough to justify a tweak to the system, but I felt I need to give standard FV at least a full week of diligent practice before considering any tweaks.
* By Thursday, April 19, it was clear to me that I would NEVER end up with this high-resistance task in the chain until the "magic slot" forced it to be the root of the chain. Even though the task was only faux-urgent, I still wanted it to a priority, but that desire did NOT change my answer to The Question, because it was never a task that I wanted to do before another selected task. (The only way that might have happened is if I had an even higher-resistance task as the root task of a chain.)
* On Friday, April 20, after using standard FV for over a full week (and probably having completed 4-6 chains without ever selecting the task in question), I decided to test the tweak I had in mind, and I posted about my intentions in Jim Dandy's thread, making the mistake of discussing "urgent" tasks when I later realized that "priority" tasks made more sense:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749#post1796997
* On Wednesday, April 25, I finally completed the first chain I started with Prioritized FV on Friday, April 20. This chain started with the high-resistance faux-urgent task as the root, so I actually made some progress on it, even though it took several days to finish the first chain. Under standard FV, the task had never even been selected after several chains, much less worked on!
* On Friday, April 27, I created this thread, trying to explain Prioritized FV as clearly as possible, and link the three threads together. From Friday, April 20 through Friday, April 27, I spent an alarming amount of time on this forum, which had a definite impact on my efficiency in working on the rest of my list.
* On Saturday, April 28, you asked if I had completed the task yet, but I didn't even respond until Friday, May 4, because almost my entire week had been occupied by TRUE urgent tasks that kept me swamped with "firefighting" and unable to visit the forum or work my FV list at all. This would have happened whether I was using standard FV or Prioritized FV.
* On Friday, May 4, I resumed work on the partial chain that had been in progress on Friday, April 27. I believe this was my third chain using Prioritized FV, but it might have only been the second. (I'll assume it was the third.) At this point, I started trying to run a "dash" on the list, with the goal of limiting tasks to 15 minutes or so, in order to increase the velocity of processing the list. Despite the attempted time limit, it took several hours to finish the leftover chain and start the fourth chain, which I did NOT finish that day.
* From Monday, May 7 through Wednesday, May 9, I was interrupt-driven by distractions and not using my FV list at all.
* On Thursday, May 10, I resumed processing my FV list on the fourth chain that was leftover from Friday, May 4. I did a very rapid dash on the remaining tasks in the chain, finishing that chain in less than an hour and starting the fifth chain. Despite only giving the high-resistance faux-urgent task 10 minutes in this dash, I still made further progress on it when finishing the fourth chain.
* The fifth chain was very short because the root task was a report that was due the same day, so it was now urgent. (It had been on my list all week, but because I hadn't been working the list, it hadn't been worked yet.) The fifth chain was the first chain since starting Prioritized FV where the high-resistance faux-urgent task was NOT selected for the chain. I finished the chain by the end of the day, having to stay late to finish the report by the deadline.
* I was on vacation on Friday, May 11.
Here is a fair (apples-to-apples) comparison of my experiences with standard FV vs. Prioritized FV:
* Standard FV: Completed ~4-6 chains in 6 working days of actively processing the list, made good progress on long-neglected low-priority tasks, but never selected the high-resistance faux-urgent task at all.
* Prioritized FV: Completed 5 chains in 8 working days of actively processing the list, selected the prioritized high-resistance faux-urgent task in 4 of the 5 chains and made good progress on it.
So with both systems, I've completed a similar number of chains, with an enormous difference in the results. With standard FV, I never even touched the task, even though I considered a higher-than-normal priority. With Prioritized FV, it was selected repeatedly and I made good progress on it. As intended, Prioritized FV focused more attention on higher-priority tasks.
That's rather a different picture than the one you painted above, isn't it?
May 14, 2012 at 18:21 |
Deven
Deven
I am now in the sixth chain since starting on Prioritized FV. The task in question is in this chain, so I expect to make further progress on it today.
May 14, 2012 at 18:31 |
Deven
Deven
Deven:
<< No, that's not accurate. (And I never referred to the task as "highly urgent" either.) >>
You're right. You called it "really urgent" not "highly urgent". My mistake.
"Starting today, I am experimenting with a FV tweak to try to counter this. For urgent tasks, I am adding a star (*) in front of the task to mark it as urgent. For really urgent tasks (like the one I have in mind), I'm using two stars (**)."
And you're right about the date too. I didn't note the jump from March 20th to April 20th in the thread.
But apart from that you appear to be misunderstanding the question in FV. You picked a task as a test case and were then careful not to influence the result. But FV is all about influencing the results. You seem to be still treating it as if you have to WANT to do the task in itself, rather than want to do it BEFORE something else. The very fact that you've stuck priority stars in front of it shows you want to do it BEFORE other tasks.
<< No, that's not accurate. (And I never referred to the task as "highly urgent" either.) >>
You're right. You called it "really urgent" not "highly urgent". My mistake.
"Starting today, I am experimenting with a FV tweak to try to counter this. For urgent tasks, I am adding a star (*) in front of the task to mark it as urgent. For really urgent tasks (like the one I have in mind), I'm using two stars (**)."
And you're right about the date too. I didn't note the jump from March 20th to April 20th in the thread.
But apart from that you appear to be misunderstanding the question in FV. You picked a task as a test case and were then careful not to influence the result. But FV is all about influencing the results. You seem to be still treating it as if you have to WANT to do the task in itself, rather than want to do it BEFORE something else. The very fact that you've stuck priority stars in front of it shows you want to do it BEFORE other tasks.
May 14, 2012 at 19:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<< * Standard FV: Completed ~4-6 chains in 6 working days of actively processing the list, made good progress on long-neglected low-priority tasks, but never selected the high-resistance faux-urgent task at all.
<< * Prioritized FV: Completed 5 chains in 8 working days of actively processing the list, selected the prioritized high-resistance faux-urgent task in 4 of the 5 chains and made good progress on it.
If Prioritized FV works for you, then that's fine by me. But I do have to defend FV for the benefit of other people.
Giving something a priority means that you want to do it before something else. So standard FV is completely capable of dealing with your high-resistance urgent task(s) provided that you understand the question correctly. As I have said several times before, if you have a task to which you want to give priority (i.e. you want to do it before other tasks), then just put a dot in front of it when scanning the list. There's no need to put stars in front of it and move it to a different place.
Maybe you need to rephrase the question to something like "What do I think should be done before x?". That would be nearer the purpose of the standard question, than the misinterpretation you are putting on it.
<< * Standard FV: Completed ~4-6 chains in 6 working days of actively processing the list, made good progress on long-neglected low-priority tasks, but never selected the high-resistance faux-urgent task at all.
<< * Prioritized FV: Completed 5 chains in 8 working days of actively processing the list, selected the prioritized high-resistance faux-urgent task in 4 of the 5 chains and made good progress on it.
If Prioritized FV works for you, then that's fine by me. But I do have to defend FV for the benefit of other people.
Giving something a priority means that you want to do it before something else. So standard FV is completely capable of dealing with your high-resistance urgent task(s) provided that you understand the question correctly. As I have said several times before, if you have a task to which you want to give priority (i.e. you want to do it before other tasks), then just put a dot in front of it when scanning the list. There's no need to put stars in front of it and move it to a different place.
Maybe you need to rephrase the question to something like "What do I think should be done before x?". That would be nearer the purpose of the standard question, than the misinterpretation you are putting on it.
May 14, 2012 at 20:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<< I am now in the sixth chain since starting on Prioritized FV. The task in question is in this chain, so I expect to make further progress on it today. >>
I know it's not in the rules, but my recommendation which will appear in the FAQs is that you should aim at doing not less than three chains a day, preferably more.
<< I am now in the sixth chain since starting on Prioritized FV. The task in question is in this chain, so I expect to make further progress on it today. >>
I know it's not in the rules, but my recommendation which will appear in the FAQs is that you should aim at doing not less than three chains a day, preferably more.
May 14, 2012 at 20:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<< If Prioritized FV works for you, then that's fine by me. But I do have to defend FV for the benefit of other people. >>
I don't supposed you've tried it yourself?
<< Giving something a priority means that you want to do it before something else. So standard FV is completely capable of dealing with your high-resistance urgent task(s) provided that you understand the question correctly. As I have said several times before, if you have a task to which you want to give priority (i.e. you want to do it before other tasks), then just put a dot in front of it when scanning the list. There's no need to put stars in front of it and move it to a different place. >>
The problem is that doesn't scale. I have 21 tasks on my list with one or more stars to mark them as higher-priority. If I dot each of those in every chain, my chains would be even longer and slower to finish than they already are!
<< Maybe you need to rephrase the question to something like "What do I think should be done before x?". That would be nearer the purpose of the standard question, than the misinterpretation you are putting on it. >>
Where is the misinterpretation? I'm asking myself what I want to do before x, and this high-resistance task hasn't been the answer with respect to a given root task. But I want to prioritize it on the list because I want to do it BEFORE LONG -- not before X.
By the way, I'm in the seventh chain now, and that task is getting close to finished.
<< If Prioritized FV works for you, then that's fine by me. But I do have to defend FV for the benefit of other people. >>
I don't supposed you've tried it yourself?
<< Giving something a priority means that you want to do it before something else. So standard FV is completely capable of dealing with your high-resistance urgent task(s) provided that you understand the question correctly. As I have said several times before, if you have a task to which you want to give priority (i.e. you want to do it before other tasks), then just put a dot in front of it when scanning the list. There's no need to put stars in front of it and move it to a different place. >>
The problem is that doesn't scale. I have 21 tasks on my list with one or more stars to mark them as higher-priority. If I dot each of those in every chain, my chains would be even longer and slower to finish than they already are!
<< Maybe you need to rephrase the question to something like "What do I think should be done before x?". That would be nearer the purpose of the standard question, than the misinterpretation you are putting on it. >>
Where is the misinterpretation? I'm asking myself what I want to do before x, and this high-resistance task hasn't been the answer with respect to a given root task. But I want to prioritize it on the list because I want to do it BEFORE LONG -- not before X.
By the way, I'm in the seventh chain now, and that task is getting close to finished.
May 14, 2012 at 22:02 |
Deven
Deven
Mark:
<< I know it's not in the rules, but my recommendation which will appear in the FAQs is that you should aim at doing not less than three chains a day, preferably more. >>
I think that's good advice, and I'd like to get there. So far, I've found the chains move more slowly because once I get started on something, I don't necessarily move on to the next task if I'm making good progress. I'm not sure if this is good, bad or both.
<< I know it's not in the rules, but my recommendation which will appear in the FAQs is that you should aim at doing not less than three chains a day, preferably more. >>
I think that's good advice, and I'd like to get there. So far, I've found the chains move more slowly because once I get started on something, I don't necessarily move on to the next task if I'm making good progress. I'm not sure if this is good, bad or both.
May 14, 2012 at 22:03 |
Deven
Deven
Deven:
<< I don't supposed you've tried it yourself? >>
No, unfortunately I can't try everything.
<< Where is the misinterpretation? I'm asking myself what I want to do before x, and this high-resistance task hasn't been the answer with respect to a given root task. But I want to prioritize it on the list because I want to do it BEFORE LONG -- not before X. >>
So since you don't want to do it before x, you put one or more stars against it and move it to the beginning of the list so you can do it before x?
<< I don't supposed you've tried it yourself? >>
No, unfortunately I can't try everything.
<< Where is the misinterpretation? I'm asking myself what I want to do before x, and this high-resistance task hasn't been the answer with respect to a given root task. But I want to prioritize it on the list because I want to do it BEFORE LONG -- not before X. >>
So since you don't want to do it before x, you put one or more stars against it and move it to the beginning of the list so you can do it before x?
May 15, 2012 at 0:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven, it seems to me as though you are asking the question, "What will I enjoy working on, before I work on X?", while Mark's version is more, "What task do I wish were completed, before X is completed?"
He's made the point several times that "want" should be interpreted as, "want to be done with," not "enjoy working on". This is, I think, what he means by misinterpretation.
If my interpretation is correct, then priority and urgency are, as he states, already included in "want to be done with".
Things you enjoy working on may only see action when they eventually propagate to the top of the list, as long as they rank lower in the "I wish this were done" scale than other, more urgent and/or higher priority tasks.
He's made the point several times that "want" should be interpreted as, "want to be done with," not "enjoy working on". This is, I think, what he means by misinterpretation.
If my interpretation is correct, then priority and urgency are, as he states, already included in "want to be done with".
Things you enjoy working on may only see action when they eventually propagate to the top of the list, as long as they rank lower in the "I wish this were done" scale than other, more urgent and/or higher priority tasks.
May 15, 2012 at 1:15 |
WDave
WDave
WDave:
That's exactly it. If Deven wants to get this this task done enough to create a new version of FV in order to get it done, then he wants to get it done enough to get it done through the original version of FV. He doesn't have to enjoy it!
That's exactly it. If Deven wants to get this this task done enough to create a new version of FV in order to get it done, then he wants to get it done enough to get it done through the original version of FV. He doesn't have to enjoy it!
May 15, 2012 at 7:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<< The problem is that doesn't scale. I have 21 tasks on my list with one or more stars to mark them as higher-priority. If I dot each of those in every chain, my chains would be even longer and slower to finish than they already are! >>
Of course you don't put all 21 "priority" tasks into a chain all at once. You use the algorithm to select the tasks that you think need to be done first. That's what FV is all about.
<< The problem is that doesn't scale. I have 21 tasks on my list with one or more stars to mark them as higher-priority. If I dot each of those in every chain, my chains would be even longer and slower to finish than they already are! >>
Of course you don't put all 21 "priority" tasks into a chain all at once. You use the algorithm to select the tasks that you think need to be done first. That's what FV is all about.
May 15, 2012 at 8:00 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
To illustrate:
You have tasks in the following order of "want to get out of the way" (I don't advise actually marking tasks in this way btw). They are marked out of 10 with the ones that most need to get done having the highest mark. Deven's two-star priority task is 10. Note that resistance is not the reason it is a ten. It's 10 because it's important to get it done earlier rather than later.
5
4
6
3
8
2
10
9
7
5
1
For your chain you would select the starred ones thus:
5*
4
6*
3
8*
2
10*
9
7
5
1
Your list now looks like this (The only task I've re-entered is the 10 for simplicity):
4
3
2
9
7
5
1
10
And you construct a chain with the starred tasks thus:
4*
3
2
9*
7
5
1
10*
And so on.
Don't forget that the reason a task has a high mark has nothing to do with how much you are resisting or not resisting it. It refers to how much you feel that it needs to get done in the near future.
You have tasks in the following order of "want to get out of the way" (I don't advise actually marking tasks in this way btw). They are marked out of 10 with the ones that most need to get done having the highest mark. Deven's two-star priority task is 10. Note that resistance is not the reason it is a ten. It's 10 because it's important to get it done earlier rather than later.
5
4
6
3
8
2
10
9
7
5
1
For your chain you would select the starred ones thus:
5*
4
6*
3
8*
2
10*
9
7
5
1
Your list now looks like this (The only task I've re-entered is the 10 for simplicity):
4
3
2
9
7
5
1
10
And you construct a chain with the starred tasks thus:
4*
3
2
9*
7
5
1
10*
And so on.
Don't forget that the reason a task has a high mark has nothing to do with how much you are resisting or not resisting it. It refers to how much you feel that it needs to get done in the near future.
May 15, 2012 at 8:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven : can you give an example to illustrate prioritized FV using the list mark illustrated with? That is, given the list:
5
4
6
3
8
2
10
9
7
5
1
How would prioritized FV work this list?
I think this would clarify the differences.
5
4
6
3
8
2
10
9
7
5
1
How would prioritized FV work this list?
I think this would clarify the differences.
May 15, 2012 at 14:27 |
GMBW
GMBW
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749 (High Resistance Urgent Tasks)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1801713 (High Resistance Tasks - continued)
I have proposed a fairly simple tweak to standard FV, which I am calling "Prioritized FV" (unless Mark objects to this name). Prioritized FV does NOT touch the standard FV rules for preselection, nor does it change The Question ("What do I want to do before I do x?") either explicitly OR implicitly by dotting anything that doesn't answer The Question. Instead, what Prioritized FV does is to change the rewriting process to focus additional attention on high-priority tasks, with the goal of achieving a better balance of urgency and importance, especially for high-resistance tasks that benefit most from the laddering effect of FV's preselection algorithm. (Standard FV does a great job of moving long-neglected tasks toward completion, but it may do so at the expense of high-priority tasks.)
Here are the functional changes from standard FV which comprise Prioritized FV:
* Stars may be added to (or removed from) a task at any time to reflect its priority. Changing the number of stars on a task is sufficient to qualify as actioning that task, so it should be rewritten immediately unless it is preselected for the current chain.
* Normal-priority (unstarred) tasks are rewritten at the end of the full list as in standard FV, but high-priority (starred) tasks are rewritten near the top of the list instead, at the end of the group of tasks at the same priority level. Tasks are always grouped from highest to lowest priority.
* You may use any number of stars, and star any number of tasks, but fewer is better for the sake of simplicity. Whenever there are no high-priority tasks in the list, Prioritized FV operates exactly the same as standard FV.
* Tasks may be marked as higher (or lower) priority for any reason -- urgency, importance, resistance, looming deadlines, desire for completion, etc. As with the undefinition of "want" in standard FV, the word "priority" is intentionally undefined, as all reasons are valid.
My own personal implementation of Prioritized FV uses 3x5 index cards for a pen & paper inplementation, since I like index cards and I can easily resequence the cards as necessary. I never mix priority levels on a single card. Implementing this with loose-leaf notebooks could be done the same way. Bound notebooks are a bit more problematic, but probably doable with some extra effort. (Perhaps post-it notes would work if there aren't too many priority tasks.) Electronic implementations would be very straightforward.
We've had a fair amount of debate in the previous threads about whether this tweak is a good or bad thing, and I expect this debate will continue below. I originally proposed it as an urgency tweak, but I realized later that it was a general priority tweak, and urgency was just one possible reason for marking a task as high-priority.
The theory of operation behind this tweak is that rewriting high-priority tasks near the top of the list will cause those tasks to flow into the "magic slot" at the top of the list (the first unactioned task that must be the root of the next preselected chain) more quickly and often, providing more of the "little and often" effect to complete high-priority tasks in a more timely fashion, while retaining all the benefits of standard FV.
This system is NOT the same as a basic A/B/C priority system, because the FV preselection algorithm is still used unchanged, so tasks of any priority can (and should) end up selected in the chains.
For a detailed example of this system in action, see this post from the original thread:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749#post1797272
As a final note, I just want to thank Mark for FV and giving it so freely to people. His system is genius, and I'm trying to change it as little as possible. I sensed a need for a slight change to FV to meet my needs, but I still think that standard FV is awesome!