Prioritized FV - Part 2 - FV and FVP Forum

FV and FVP Forum > Prioritized FV - Part 2

This is a followup thread to the following threads:

http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749 (High Resistance Urgent Tasks)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1801713 (High Resistance Tasks - continued)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263 (Prioritized FV)

The first post in the "Prioritized FV" thread above describes the context of this this thread, and should be read first.

May 16, 2012 at 15:18 |

Deven

Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263#post1826386

GMBW:

<< 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. >>

Prioritized FV would put the prioritized tasks at the start of the list. For simplicity, I'll assume 10 is the only prioritized task:

*10 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1

This would cause 10 to be the root of the chain. The way Mark was illustrating the preselection, he was never selecting a lowered-numbered task. I'm not sure if this is realistic, but if you did it the same way with Prioritized FV and 10 as the only prioritized task, every chain would contain 10 as the only task until that task is done or no longer prioritized.

For a more realistic example of Prioritized FV in action, see this post in the original thread:

http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749#post1797272

May 16, 2012 at 15:51 |

Deven

The way I'm understanding these threads, I see the 10 items are worked on like this --
(from Mark's example in http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263#post1826385 where the * are the dotted items. Item 10 is high-priority)

Chain 1
FV question:
5* 4 6* 3 8* 2 10* 9 7 5 1

Prioritized FV
10* 5* 4 6* 3 8* 2 9 7 5 1

After Chain is done (item 10 is the only re-written item)
FV question
4 3 2 9 7 5 1 10

Prioritized FV
10 4 3 2 9 7 5 1

Chain 2
FV question
4* 3 2 9* 7 5 1 10*

Prioritized FV
10* 4* 3 2 9* 7 5 1

in both chains, the FV question order has item 10 worked on first since the last item of the chain is worked first. The Prioritized FV order has item 10 worked last since 8, 6, and 5 in the first choice, 9 and 4 in the 2nd choice, need to be worked on before getting to 10.

May 16, 2012 at 16:16 |

Lillian

Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263#post1825510

Mark:

<< You're right. You called it "really urgent" not "highly urgent". My mistake. >>

Sorry, I forgot that. I retract my objection; "really urgent" is essentially the same as "highly urgent". It was called to my attention thereafter that the task probably wasn't REALLY urgent but only faux-urgent because I had allowed it to age to the point where I was getting hassled about it -- and I agreed. My apologies, it's been a long thread and I lost track of this even in my review to construct that timeline.

<< And you're right about the date too. I didn't note the jump from March 20th to April 20th in the thread. >>

Entirely understandable. I revived a thread that had been little-noticed and probably long-forgotten, so it was easily mistaken for a new thread.

<< But apart from that you appear to be misunderstanding the question in FV. >>

I don't believe that I am misunderstanding the question, but I have to concede the possibility.

<< 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. >>

I observed the progress on the task because I was curious how FV would handle it. However, I did not want to influence the result as a result of observing it. (Schrödinger's cat comes to mind here.) I used this test case as an indicator, that's all. I wanted to understand how FV handles the list as a whole.

<< 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. >>

I wanted it DONE before other tasks, I didn't want to DO it before other tasks. That's the difference. It's like wanting to be at your ideal weight, but not wanting to diet to get there.

May 16, 2012 at 16:38 |

Deven

Lillian:

<< in both chains, the FV question order has item 10 worked on first since the last item of the chain is worked first. The Prioritized FV order has item 10 worked last since 8, 6, and 5 in the first choice, 9 and 4 in the 2nd choice, need to be worked on before getting to 10. >>

It's not that simple. Because the focus of The Question is what you want to do BEFORE the reference task, changing the order of the list (as Prioritized FV does) will change the results of the preselection process. If standard FV selects 10 as the last task in the chain, it's because you want to do it BEFORE all those other tasks in that chain. Therefore, when it becomes the root of the chain, you would NOT end up selecting the same tasks, because you wanted to do them AFTER task 10.

May 16, 2012 at 16:47 |

Deven

Deven, I'm sure you're right, but I used Mark's choices (from the other thread) for both the FV and Prioritized-FV because I didn't know how else Prioritized FV would choose. So, based on your answer, does this look like a better example?

Chain 1
FV question:
5* 4 6* 3 8* 2 10* 9 7 5 1

Prioritized FV
10* 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1

After Chain is done (item 10 is the only re-written item)
FV question
4 3 2 9 7 5 1 10
(10 rewritten to end of list per FV rules)

Prioritized FV
10 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1
(10 rewritten to start of list because it's high-priority item per Prioritized-FV rules)

Chain 2
FV question
4* 3 2 9* 7 5 1 10*

Prioritized FV
10* 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1

For both, Item 10 is worked first (FV because it's the last item on the list, and In Prioritized-FV it's the only item in the chain). But FV is now only 8 items long, and Prioritized-FV is still 10 items long.

May 16, 2012 at 17:10 |

Lillian

Lillian:

<< For both, Item 10 is worked first (FV because it's the last item on the list, and In Prioritized-FV it's the only item in the chain). But FV is now only 8 items long, and Prioritized-FV is still 10 items long. >>

Wording it that way makes it sounds as if standard FV is more effective because the list is shorter, but it ignores the fact that more time would have been spent on the priority task under Prioritized FV, therefore it would be closer to completion -- which is the goal.

May 16, 2012 at 18:00 |

Deven

Deven, You're not interpreting the question the way Mark intended. If you want A _done before_ B, then you should do it before B -- assuming there's no good reason (such as deadline or resources) that B should be done first.

Having said that, I still prefer prioritized when busy. I think it's because my big list includes what others call someday/maybe items. I'm not ready to dismiss them. Using FV lets me keep them on the list and deal with them (often deferring them) one a time -- one every chain. That works better for me than the line "review someday/maybe list".

After week of the original FV, my high-priority tasks weren't progressing. They were always listed after an even higher priority, so never chosen.

1* 2* 3* 4* 5* 10 9 8 7 6
10* 9 8 7 6
9* 8 7 6
8* 7 6
7* 6
7

Yes, 10 got attention first, but then 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 all got attention before 9.

I'd begin each day without a feel for how much I had to accomplish each day. Each chain was an equal mix of high (end-chain) and low (early in the chain) priority projects -- even when there were enough high-priority ones to fill the day.

The downside of the prioritized method is that when I finish my top priorities for the day, I feel like I'm done for the day.

I feel almost ready to go back to straight FV, but with the option to pull out the priorities and focus on them when I feel it necessary. Another option might be when I finish half the chain, rebuild it from the middle -- but only once per chain. That way the 2nd half (higher priority) would get twice the attention. Hard to say if that's more of an adjustment than prioritizing them.

May 16, 2012 at 18:41 |

Cricket

Cricket:

<>

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but note that Prioritized FV is identical to standard FV whenever there are no tasks marked with stars. It only behaves differently when you do choose to prioritize something.

May 16, 2012 at 19:22 |

Deven

Deven >it ignores the fact that more time would have been spent on the priority task under Prioritized FV, therefore it would be closer to completion -- which is the goal.

i didn't think time spent on an item was part of the examples? Item 10 could have been worked on for a total of 6 hours using FV or Prioritized-FV.

I'm not trying to prove which FV is 'better,' just trying to understand an apples-to-apples example using the 10 items Mark used on one of his posts yesterday. I just don't understand the prioritized-FV side.

The difference I see is that some items are re-written or moved to the top of the Prioritized FV list vs the end on the FV list. Based on my experience with FV, the top of the list takes the longest to get to, so intentionally putting a high-priority item there doesn't make sense to me. I can't figure out what part I'm not understanding that makes putting a high-priority item intentionally on the top of list makes that item faster to get worked on.

May 16, 2012 at 19:56 |

Lillian

Lillian,

I find if there's a high-priority task at the top, then nothing down gets dotted, and I get to that high-priority task quickly.

For the first chain, standard FV does the highest priority line first, but it also selects several lower priority lines early in the list. All those lower ones need to get attention before I can create another chain and pick more of the high-priority lines.

Using the given list, assume 9 and 10 are high priority, 1,2 and 3 are low.
Normal FV
5 4 6 3 8 2 10 9 7 5 1
5* 4 6* 3 8* 2 10* 9 7 5 1
4* 3 2 9* 7 5 1
3* 2 7* 5 1
2* 5* 1
1*
Which results in
10 8 6 5 / 9 4 / 7 3 / 5 2 / 1
8, 6 and 5 get attention before 9, 3 before 5. The only thing stopping me from spending hours 8,6,5 and never reaching 9 is a vague awareness that 9 exists.

I'm not worried about 4, 5, 6 before 7 because they're all mid-priority.

Using prioritized:
10 9 -- 5 4 6 8 7 5 -- 3 2 1
10* 9 -- 5 4 6 8 7 5 -- 3 2 1
9* -- 5 4 6 8 7 5 -- 3 2 1
5* 4 6* 8* 7 5 -- 3 2 1
4* 7* 5 -- 3 2 1
5* -- 3 2 1
3* 2 1
2* 1
1*
Which results in
10 / 9 / 8 6 5 / 7 4 / 5 / 3 / 2 / 1
10 and 9 get attention before anything else. 3,2,1 are left till the end.

Let's say that I'm just not in the mood to start my day with 10, even though it's important. I can continue looking down the list and realize 5 would be perfect with my morning tea, or even 1. On the other hand, if I see 9 and 10 right there at the top of the list, and they're long, urgent tasks, I know not to spend time on anything else.

May 17, 2012 at 1:06 |

Cricket

I would do it this way:

Before Pre-Selection:

5
4
6
3
8
2
10
9
7
5
1

During Pre-Selection:

5 •
4
6 •
3
8 •
2
—10-•— (I dot it, then later cross it out and re-write at the end of my list if I pre-select another task that I want to do after it.)
9 • (I dot this task realizing it must be done after my previous more urgent task.)
7
5
1
10 • (Re-written at the end of my list, dotted and begun.)

Or, one could do it this way:

During Pre-Selection:

5 •
4
6 •
3
8 •
2
10 •
—9— (Cross out, write at end of list, dot, and do after completing the first task in your chain.)
7
5
1
9 •

May 17, 2012 at 2:59 |

Michael B.

Also, there's no reason why I can't just dot the first task on my list and then immediately dot my two most urgent tasks passing over everything in between. And if the two most urgent tasks are out of order, I would simply cross out the most urgent task, re-write it at the end of my list, and dot and do.

Once I reach the last task in my ladder, my oldest task, I could do a little work on it and start a new ladder in the same manner as before, or I could decide that my two most urgent tasks have once again become urgent. In that case, I would simply dot them both and do some more work on them.

May 17, 2012 at 7:15 |

Michael B.

Lillian:

<>

With the two examples we were comparing, standard FV would spend time on items 5, 6, 8 and 9 that would be spent on item 10 instead under Prioritized FV. (This assumes item 10 is the only high-priority task AND one you want to do before everything else.)

<< I'm not trying to prove which FV is 'better,' just trying to understand an apples-to-apples example using the 10 items Mark used on one of his posts yesterday. I just don't understand the prioritized-FV side. >>

Only listing the items remaining on the list isn't an apples-to-apples comparison because item 10 would be further along with Prioritized FV.

<< The difference I see is that some items are re-written or moved to the top of the Prioritized FV list vs the end on the FV list. >>

Exactly. That's the entire purpose of Prioritized FV.

<< Based on my experience with FV, the top of the list takes the longest to get to, so intentionally putting a high-priority item there doesn't make sense to me. I can't figure out what part I'm not understanding that makes putting a high-priority item intentionally on the top of list makes that item faster to get worked on. >>

Because the first item on the list is in the "magic slot" that MUST be included as the root of the chain you create. Yes, you'll work it last in that chain, since you work the chain in reverse, but it will be included. That matters if it's a high-resistance task. If it's a low-resistance task, you're less likely to select anything else to be done before it, in which case the chain is likely to be shorter, and the root task might be the only task in the chain, in which case you'd work on it first. This would likely be the case if you know it to be urgent and you want it done right away.

May 17, 2012 at 16:02 |

Deven

Cricket >>Another option might be when I finish half the chain, rebuild it from the middle -- but only once per chain. That way the 2nd half (higher priority) would get twice the attention. Hard to say if that's more of an adjustment than prioritizing them. <>For the first chain, standard FV does the highest priority line first, but it also selects several lower priority lines early in the list. All those lower ones need to get attention before I can create another chain and pick more of the high-priority lines.

but you don't have to dot the lower priority items at all. Or you could do what Mark suggests in the FV tips section "If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way."

Or maybe I'm still really confused about Prioritized FV.

May 17, 2012 at 16:07 |

Lillian

Cricket:

<< Let's say that I'm just not in the mood to start my day with 10, even though it's important. I can continue looking down the list and realize 5 would be perfect with my morning tea, or even 1. On the other hand, if I see 9 and 10 right there at the top of the list, and they're long, urgent tasks, I know not to spend time on anything else. >>

Great example, thanks for posting it. The other point is if you didn't feel like starting with 10, the next high-priority task is right there, and you're more likely to select 9 for that first chain so you don't have to start with 10. More generally, for any high-priority tasks you're resisting, you'll select as many tasks as you need to (structured procrastination) but still ladder your way up to working on the high-priority task you're avoiding...

May 17, 2012 at 16:09 |

Deven

Lillian:

<>

I believe it was suggested for new urgent tasks.

<< but you don't have to dot the lower priority items at all. Or you could do what Mark suggests in the FV tips section "If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way." >>

That's why you might have shorter chains, because you're less likely to dot the lower-priority items unless you're avoiding the high-priority ones.

<< Or maybe I'm still really confused about Prioritized FV. >>

Why not just give it a try for a few days? Remember, Prioritized FV is identical to standard FV until you prioritize something. Try picking 2-3 tasks from your list that you have been resisting and mark them with a star and move them to the top of your list. (Maybe with a post-it note if you're using paper?) Then try working a few chains with it and see how it feels in practice?

May 17, 2012 at 16:21 |

Deven

Deven >> <> I believe it was suggested for new urgent tasks.<<

FWIW, I understood it as anytime when something's changed in the time since the chain was created.

>>That's why you might have shorter chains, because you're less likely to dot the lower-priority items unless you're avoiding the high-priority ones.<<

That's true. OTOH, if someone wants to avoid working on a task, it's *always* possible to find ~something~ to do instead :) :)

>> << Or maybe I'm still really confused about Prioritized FV. >> Why not just give it a try for a few days?>>

Mainly because my priority items are being handled well in FV, and I don't see the benefit -to my list- of switching to Prioritized FV. FWIW, that's also why I didn't try SuperFocus or DWM2.

May 17, 2012 at 17:40 |

Lillian

Deven:

Lillian to Deven: "I thought rebuilding a chain from the middle (or adding to a chain in progress) was one of the tips...in the...FV email?"

Deven to Lillian: "I believe it was suggested for new urgent tasks."

Lillian to Deven: "If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way."

... Lillian is correct. Any task on the list at any time can be crossed out, re-written at the end, dotted, and begun now or next as an urgent prioritized task. That is the "magic slot" — the end of your list.

May 17, 2012 at 18:31 |

Michael B.

Michael B - thank you :)

May 17, 2012 at 19:58 |

Lillian

Lillian:

<< FWIW, I understood it as anytime when something's changed in the time since the chain was created. >>

<< That's true. OTOH, if someone wants to avoid working on a task, it's *always* possible to find ~something~ to do instead :) :) >>

Indeed! I found that standard FV made it EASIER to procrastinate on the high-resistance task. The purpose of Prioritized FV was to balance that better.

<< Mainly because my priority items are being handled well in FV, and I don't see the benefit -to my list- of switching to Prioritized FV. FWIW, that's also why I didn't try SuperFocus or DWM2. >>

Even if there isn't a benefit, it might provide some insight to see how it changes the processing of the list. Is there nothing on your list that you're avoiding?

I tried to use SuperFocus before AutoFocus, and I found it completely unworkable for me because there was too much compulsion involved with the second column and I quickly found myself resisting the system itself. DWM2 was an approach that never really interested me. I used my own AF1/AF2/CAF derivative for a time, but I really liked FV when I read the instructions and wanted it to work for me. I really hoped I could use it without any tweaks, but I found that standard FV actually supported procrastination instead of fighting it.

May 17, 2012 at 20:03 |

Deven

Lillian:

<< FWIW, I understood it as anytime when something's changed in the time since the chain was created. >>

Sorry, forgot to reply to this part...

Here's what it says in the FV instructions: "If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant (e.g. if you have had a long break away from the list), then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet."

I believe Mark has advised only to scrap the preselection if it's been several days.

I hadn't noticed before about the suggestion to reselect from the last preselected task -- I've been wondering if I should routinely extend the current chain every morning. I've created a separate thread to discuss this idea:

http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1828991

The next paragraph continues: "If one or more very urgent things come up, write them at the end of the list and mark them with a dot so that they are done next. If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way."

This is the part I was referring to.

May 17, 2012 at 20:21 |

Deven

Michael B.:

<< Lillian to Deven: "I thought rebuilding a chain from the middle (or adding to a chain in progress) was one of the tips...in the...FV email?"

Deven to Lillian: "I believe it was suggested for new urgent tasks."

Lillian to Deven: "If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way."

... Lillian is correct. Any task on the list at any time can be crossed out, re-written at the end, dotted, and begun now or next as an urgent prioritized task. That is the "magic slot" — the end of your list. >>

Yes, the FV rules do allow urgent tasks to be added/rewritten at the end of the list and immediately dotted to work on them. However, this is just a way to keep within the system when working on urgent tasks that you want to drop everything and do immediately. If the FV rules didn't include this suggestion, everyone would use the "common-sense rule" and just set the FV list aside while dealing with the urgent task(s) immediately and then resume processing the list. Notice that the effect is the same -- you drop everything and work on the urgent task, then resume where you left off.

Basically, using this FV rule allows you to pretend that you're working on the urgent task because it's the next task to be worked in the chain, but the reality is that this is just a way to do what you're going to do regardless (work on the urgent task immediately) without looking like you're blowing off the FV system to do so. This FV rule is a nod to reality that when you want to drop everything to work on an urgent task immediately, you can and will do so.

Note that when something "urgent" comes in that you DON'T want to drop everything to do immediately, you'll just add it to your list and choose NOT to invoke this rule. Really, whether you drop everything to work on the urgent task depends on whether you WANT to drop everything to work on it or not, and that FV rule doesn't actually change the outcome here.

The end of the list is NOT the "magic slot" that Cricket and I have referred to. That "magic slot" is the FIRST item in the list, because it is automatically selected as the root task in the chain. It is the ONLY task in the list that is ever preselected automatically, regardless of what you want to do before what. Tasks you want to do are likely to be selected anyway, but the magic of that first slot is that you are more likely to make progress on things you've been neglecting or avoiding. It helps drive old tasks to completion, but it may do so at the expense of higher priorities. That's what Prioritized FV is designed to fix.

May 17, 2012 at 20:32 |

Deven

Deven >>Note that when something "urgent" comes in that you DON'T want to drop everything to do immediately, you'll just add it to your list and choose NOT to invoke this rule<<

um, but if it's not a 'drop everything & do now' task, is it really an urgent task? That may be just my world view where Urgent = 'drop everything & do now'. Anything else is high priority.

(unless it's a quick 'can be done in 2 minutes, so just do it now' type task, but I think of those tasks more as unavoidable interruptions rather than urgent tasks. And sometimes those little tasks get done later because of a 'do it now=urgent' task)

May 17, 2012 at 21:00 |

Lillian

Lillian:

<< um, but if it's not a 'drop everything & do now' task, is it really an urgent task? That may be just my world view where Urgent = 'drop everything & do now'. Anything else is high priority. >>

That's why I put "urgent" in quotes -- it's not really worth debating the semantics of urgent vs. high-priority, is it?

A task may come to you from someone who insists that it's "urgent" but you may decide it's not urgent to YOU and just treat it as a priority (or not). My point was that the FV rule about adding urgent tasks to the chain really just reflects the reality of what you'll do if something urgent comes in that you DO want to drop everything to work on immediately.

May 17, 2012 at 21:14 |

Deven

Deven:

"Yes, the FV rules do allow urgent tasks to be added/rewritten at the end of the list and immediately dotted to work on them."

... Immediately dotted yes, but not necessarily immediately worked on.

"However, this is just a way to keep within the system when working on urgent tasks that you want to drop everything and do immediately."

...Wrong. If you want to drop everything and do a task immediately, you do just that and ignore your list.

"If the FV rules didn't include this suggestion, everyone would use the "common-sense rule" and just set the FV list aside while dealing with the urgent task(s) immediately and then resume processing the list."

... Absolutely correct! That's *exactly* what should be done for "drop everything and do" urgent tasks. But we are not discussing those.

"Notice that the effect is the same -- you drop everything and work on the urgent task, then resume where you left off."

... Wrong. You don't drop everything and work on the urgent task. You cross it out, re-write it at the end of the list, dot it, and continue working on your current task and work on the newly dotted task next. You also have the *choice* of immediately stopping work on your current task and starting work on your more urgent task. Why? Because it's not a "drop everything and do" task. If any task is a "drop everything and do now" task it is a completely different level of urgent task than what is handled with FV. Notice that the effect is completely different.

"Basically, using this FV rule allows you to pretend that you're working on the urgent task because it's the next task to be worked in the chain..."

... Personally I never pretend I'm working on an urgent task. Seems kind of a silly notion. If it's next in the chain, I actually work on it.

"...but the reality is that this is just a way to do what you're going to do regardless (work on the urgent task immediately)..."

... Right and wrong. Right, in that the reality is this is a way to do what I'm going to do. And wrong, because the rules don't specify you must work on the urgent task immediately, dropping everything. That's the highest level of urgency and is not handled by FV. There are many levels of urgency. With regard to FV, urgency is the importance of a task translated into a time scale. And that time scale gets translated into a balanced sequence of easy and difficult tasks.

If a task becomes the most urgent task while working your current chain, or becomes the next most urgent task while working your chain, or becomes the most urgent task after you add an additional pre-selection when building your chain, it should be crossed out, re-written at the end, and dotted. One should then wrap up what you're working on and begin that task next if you're working a current chain.

FV is helping you *sequence* your tasks in a balanced manner. But it's no emergency. If that's the case, the level of urgency has outgrown FV and should be handled swiftly by dropping everything and attending to the urgent task. Then return to your list once the urgent matter has been handled.

"This FV rule is a nod to reality that when you want to drop everything to work on an urgent task immediately, you can and will do so."

... Wrong. That's for emergencies and those are never handled by FV. So if your refer to any rule within FV, it is never referring to "drop everything and do" emergency-level urgent tasks.

"Note that when something "urgent" comes in that you DON'T want to drop everything to do immediately, you'll just add it to your list and choose NOT to invoke this rule."

... Completely wrong. I note that when something "urgent" comes in that I don't want to drop everything to do immediately and instead add to my list at the end, it gets a dot and is started next. So that rule is indeed invoked.

"Really, whether you drop everything to work on the urgent task depends on whether you WANT to drop everything to work on it or not, and that FV rule doesn't actually change the outcome here."

... Wrong. Whether I drop everything to work on the urgent task depends on whether it's an emergency-level "drop everything and do" urgent task. By it's very nature, a task like that does not offer you a choice but rather a dilemma: act or suffer the consequences of not acting.

"The end of the list is NOT the "magic slot" that Cricket and I have referred to. That "magic slot" is the FIRST item in the list..."

... I was pointing out that everything you want out of that "magical" place can be found at the end of your list using FV.

"...the magic of that first slot is that you are more likely to make progress on things you've been neglecting or avoiding."

... Mark's Alternative FV does exactly what you describe here.

"It helps drive old tasks to completion [Deven is referring to the "magic slot" using standard FV — M.B.], but it may do so at the expense of higher priorities."

... Right and wrong. Right, in that the first task on your list, the oldest, is driven to completion using FV. Wrong, in that it may do so at the expense of higher priorities. If something is a higher priority it will be pre-selected after your first task, be done before your first task, and be re-written at the end of your list before your first pre-selected task is even started.

Then, when you pre-select your next chain, the first task on your list is selected followed by whatever tasks you pre-select in the middle of your list, or not, followed by your highest-priority tasks that were re-written at the end of your list. Your highest-priorities are now ready to be worked on first, once again, before any other lesser-priority tasks.

The magic you seek is in FV already. Using the *true* "magic slot" — the end of your list.

"That's what Prioritized FV is designed to fix."

... "Prioritized FV" is a redundant name. FV is designed to prioritize. The wheel isn't broken.

May 17, 2012 at 22:12 |

Michael B.

Lillian:

"...if it's not a 'drop everything & do now' task, is it really an urgent task?"

... It could be. If the task must be started soon then it's urgent. If it must be started next or now it's even more urgent. Soon, next, or now are all urgent tasks whose level of urgency will vary depending on factors like: the time of day, day of the week, or the date the task must be started. Baskin and Robbins sold at least 31 flavors of ice cream for many years. Urgency, I believe sells more flavors.

"...unless it's a quick 'can be done in 2 minutes, so just do it now' type task, but I think of those tasks more as unavoidable interruptions rather than urgent tasks."

... David Allen of GTD fame is a promoter of the "2 minute rule". I agree with you that it's an interruption, but I disagree that it's unavoidable.

May 17, 2012 at 22:33 |

Michael B.

Lillian,

Yes, FV has the option to rebuild the chain, either from the current last dot or the entire thing, any time the old chain is no longer valid. That feels like a slippery slope, ending with "Whenever I reach a task I don't want to do, erase all dots and start over." You'd never get more than half-way up the chain!

I'd forgotten we can move something to the end if it's important. I don't know how that would work in the long-run. Early on, there would be a lot of copying. You'd still get high-priority items in the shadow of higher-priority items, but not as often.

FV didn't handle my priority jobs for me. After a week or two they needed urgent attention. They were always in the shadow of higher-priority jobs. My previously-neglected maintenance jobs had good progress, but not the deadline tasks.

Michael,

When I refer to the magic slot, I mean the one that gets the first dot -- the one closest to the top of the page. In Prioritized FV, it's the oldest high priority one. The most-recent line only gets attention if it's more important than any other line in the list. That line has a magic of its own, though -- it's never in the shadow of another line.

++++

I think rewriting high-priority tasks at the end is worth trying.

I'll try regular FV for a week or so. However, I'm going to start each day by making a list of priorities. That list might even be written at the end of the FV list. The daily review of high-priority tasks will be the safety-net.

I'm still worried that as I near the end of a chain, I'll spend too much time on low-priority jobs. We'll see how it goes.

May 18, 2012 at 1:00 |

Cricket

cricket >>That feels like a slippery slope, ending with "Whenever I reach a task I don't want to do, erase all dots and start over." You'd never get more than half-way up the chain!<<

Not that I've noticed. The 'don't want' task is half-way through your list. There's 3 possibilities (or more, but these are the 3 I've done)

1 - It's the last dot of the chain (because it's next item to work on), and you decide to erase all dots and start over. The root task is the same. You could re-dot the same items (except for that "don't want to do" task) and a few more down the list. (1a - Or you end up dotting all different items.) Then you work up the new chain and finish/work on everything. You have a new root task for the next chain.

2 - Or you get to that "don't want" task and come up with a valid (or barely valid :) ) reason that it can't be worked on right now, cross it off and move it to the end of the list and continue your way up the chain.

3 - Or you get to that "don't want" task and decide to extend the chain. You work your way back up to the "don't want" task and this time it doesn't seem so bad so you do 5 minutes on it, cross it off and re-write at the end of the list (little & often), and continue your way up the chain.

As I understand FV, all 3 of these are following the "letter of the law" or at least, the "spirit of the law"

May 18, 2012 at 16:53 |

Lillian

Michael B.:

<< You don't drop everything and work on the urgent task. You cross it out, re-write it at the end of the list, dot it, and continue working on your current task and work on the newly dotted task next. >>

Okay, I'll give you this one. The FV instructions say: "If one or more very urgent things come up, write them at the end of the list and mark them with a dot so that they are done next. If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way."

When I first read this, I interpreted "next" as "next after moving it to the end and marking it with a dot", but your interpretation does make more sense, and gives this rule a more useful purpose than codifying "drop everything and do this now". My bad.

<< "Basically, using this FV rule allows you to pretend that you're working on the urgent task because it's the next task to be worked in the chain..."

... Personally I never pretend I'm working on an urgent task. Seems kind of a silly notion. If it's next in the chain, I actually work on it. >>

Did you really miss the "because" or are you just being sarcastic? I was talking about pretending that the REASON for working on the urgent task was because it's in the chain after dotting it, not pretending to work on it!

<< There are many levels of urgency. >>

I agree, but many people here seem to connect the word "urgent" with "drop everything" exclusively, which seems like black-and-white thinking to me. At any rate, this is why Prioritized FV allows unlimited levels of priorities, though I personally prefer to use fewer.

<< FV is helping you *sequence* your tasks in a balanced manner. >>

That's the problem -- I found that standard FV was sequencing my tasks in an unbalanced manner, and Prioritized FV is much more balanced. I would have loved to just use standard FV without tweaking it, but it wasn't balanced enough for me.

<< "This FV rule is a nod to reality that when you want to drop everything to work on an urgent task immediately, you can and will do so."

... Wrong. That's for emergencies and those are never handled by FV. So if your refer to any rule within FV, it is never referring to "drop everything and do" emergency-level urgent tasks. >>

I was mistaken. I concede your point, you can stop flogging the deceased equine now.

<< ... I was pointing out that everything you want out of that "magical" place can be found at the end of your list using FV. >>

Certainly not. I want the benefit of the laddering effect to work my way up to working on high-resistance high-priority tasks (urgent or not), and the end of the list does NOT provide that at all.

<< "...the magic of that first slot is that you are more likely to make progress on things you've been neglecting or avoiding."

... Mark's Alternative FV does exactly what you describe here. >>

Yes and no. It does put high-resistance tasks in the chain, but it exchanges the laddering effect for the "cycling downhill" effect, and requires maximum willpower to start on the highest-resistance task first. Anyone with that kind of willpower can probably do just fine with a basic to-do list anyhow.

From the FV instructions: "The most distinctive feature of FV is the way that its algorithm is *primarily* based on psychological readiness" -- where is the psychological readiness in Alternative FV? If anything, it seems to be the opposite.

<< "It helps drive old tasks to completion [Deven is referring to the "magic slot" using standard FV — M.B.], but it may do so at the expense of higher priorities."

... Right and wrong. Right, in that the first task on your list, the oldest, is driven to completion using FV. Wrong, in that it may do so at the expense of higher priorities. >>

If the oldest task is a low-priority task that you didn't want to be working on, it carries an opportunity cost. You could (and otherwise would) be working on a higher-priority task, but you're spending time working on this low-priority task instead because FV told you to. How can you say that's not at the expense of higher priorities?

With Prioritized FV, the root task may still be something that you wouldn't otherwise be working on, but at least it's the oldest task AT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY LEVEL which is being driven to completion, not some random low-priority task that just happens to be the oldest on the list. That matters.

<< If something is a higher priority it will be pre-selected after your first task, be done before your first task, and be re-written at the end of your list before your first pre-selected task is even started. >>

Just because a task is higher priority than the root task doesn't automatically mean that you'll want to do it before that task. It may not be the answer to The Question.

<< Then, when you pre-select your next chain, the first task on your list is selected followed by whatever tasks you pre-select in the middle of your list, or not, followed by your highest-priority tasks that were re-written at the end of your list. Your highest-priorities are now ready to be worked on first, once again, before any other lesser-priority tasks. >>

If you WANT to be working on the highest-priority tasks, under Prioritized FV, you'll tend to end up with short chains containing nothing but those highest-priority tasks, and you won't be diverted to working on low-priority tasks, chain after chain. That leaves more time to spend on the high-priority tasks, completing them sooner. Standard FV leads to longer chains with more lower-priority tasks.

If you DON'T want to be working on your highest priorities, standard FV probably won't select them, and even if you do, you don't get the laddering effect for items at the end of the list. If you have a high-resistance high-priority task at the top of the list, it will be driven to completion AND benefit from the laddering effect. This uses the psychological readiness feature of FV to its best potential instead of discarding it as Alternative FV does.

<< The magic you seek is in FV already. Using the *true* "magic slot" — the end of your list. >>

No, it's not. Cricket obviously gets it, but you don't. The last slot in the list does have its own magic, but it's VERY different from the "magic slot" at the TOP of the list.

<< "That's what Prioritized FV is designed to fix."

... "Prioritized FV" is a redundant name. FV is designed to prioritize. >>

It's not a redundant name. Prioritized FV adds an explicit prioritization process to FV, which has no explicit process of prioritization at all. It relies on The Question to implicitly prioritize tasks by psychological readiness, but that's different.

<< The wheel isn't broken. >>

I certainly wouldn't call standard FV "broken", but I do find that Prioritized FV provides a better balance of urgency and importance for me than standard FV does. YMMV.

I do find it curious that you deny the need for (and value of) Prioritized FV and then suggest using Alternative FV. If standard FV is so perfect, then why does Alternative FV even exist?

May 18, 2012 at 19:32 |

Deven

Lillian:

<< 2 - Or you get to that "don't want" task and come up with a valid (or barely valid :) ) reason that it can't be worked on right now, cross it off and move it to the end of the list and continue your way up the chain. >>

Extensive procrastination lies down that path. Better not to even start down that path...

<< 3 - Or you get to that "don't want" task and decide to extend the chain. You work your way back up to the "don't want" task and this time it doesn't seem so bad so you do 5 minutes on it, cross it off and re-write at the end of the list (little & often), and continue your way up the chain. >>

This is a much better option. Doing 5 minutes is much better than finding an excuse to do nothing, especially since standard FV won't force you to include it again until you've actioned everything else on the list first! (Prioritized FV cycles high-priority tasks more quickly, which is the entire point.)

May 18, 2012 at 19:46 |

Deven

Deven >>If the oldest task is a low-priority task that you didn't want to be working on, it carries an opportunity cost. You could (and otherwise would) be working on a higher-priority task, but you're spending time working on this low-priority task instead because FV told you to.<<

I don't understand this. If you don't want to be working on the low-priority task why was it dotted? If it's the root task so it has to be dotted the chain can be extended to include a higher-priority task (which means that work on the low-priority task is postponed until the higher-priority tasks is worked on), or the low-priority task can be 'little&often' processed which removes it from the chain.

>>many people here seem to connect the word "urgent" with "drop everything" exclusively, which seems like black-and-white thinking to me.<<

I'm one of those people :) and it's just the way it is with the items I deal with.

May 18, 2012 at 19:49 |

Lillian

<< I'll try regular FV for a week or so. However, I'm going to start each day by making a list of priorities. That list might even be written at the end of the FV list. The daily review of high-priority tasks will be the safety-net. >>

That might work, but consider that you aren't really following standard FV if you do this. You're following an extended version of FV of some sort. If you find it works, it may be due to this entended process you're creating here, and dropping that and returning to standard FV only might fail again.

But I'll be interested to hear how your extended FV process works out for you, and how it compares with Prioritized FV.

May 18, 2012 at 19:49 |

Deven

Lillian:

<< I don't understand this. If you don't want to be working on the low-priority task why was it dotted? If it's the root task so it has to be dotted the chain can be extended to include a higher-priority task (which means that work on the low-priority task is postponed until the higher-priority tasks is worked on), or the low-priority task can be 'little&often' processed which removes it from the chain. >>

Yes, because it's the root task -- or perhaps some other lower-priority task that you wanted to do before the root task.

Just because you can put a high-priority task in the chain and work it first, that doesn't change the fact that chain after chain, you're spending time on lower-priority tasks that may not be important enough to justify stealing that time away from the high-priority tasks. The opportunity cost remains.

Prioritized FV guarantees that the root task will always be a highest-priority task, and that high-priority tasks will cycle through the "magic slot" more frequently to become root tasks. The effect of this is to drive the high-priority tasks to completion more quickly than standard FV does.

<< I'm one of those people :) and it's just the way it is with the items I deal with. >>

Yes, I've noticed. :)

May 18, 2012 at 19:56 |

Deven

So far ... total failure -- but I wouldn't have looked at any other list in the last few hours, either, so I won't count that data point.

What I plan for next week is normal FV, sometimes with AV-FV, but with a priority list as a safety net. It's not worth a name of its own.

May 18, 2012 at 20:26 |

Cricket

For what it's worth, I've been using Prioritized FV more consistently this week (instead of being off-list) and the results have been very promising. I worked chain #6 and started chain #7 on May 14, then started chain #8 on May 15, finishing that early yesterday (May 17), worked chain #9 and started chain #10 yesterday as well, and finished chain #10 and chain #11 so far today. I'm currently working on chain #12.

In the process, I've finished at least 4 high-priority tasks this week, including the one that prompted me to tweak standard FV to make Prioritized FV. Another high-priority task is in this chain, and nearly finished.

So far so good. I'm quite certain I would not have made this kind of progress on these high-priority tasks using standard FV. (As for Alternative FV, I can't guess.)

May 18, 2012 at 20:32 |

Deven

Deven >>Just because you can put a high-priority task in the chain and work it first, that doesn't change the fact that chain after chain, you're spending time on lower-priority tasks <<

Those low-priority items are on the list whether you're using FV or Prioritized FV, right?

So, in either case, sooner or later, they're either going to get dotted and worked on, (probably sooner with FV since they'll eventually show up as a root task), moved to a tickler file to show up on a future date, dismissed, or handled with some other "I'm not doing it now" tactic. Either way, they have to be dealt with at some point, right?

>>high-priority tasks will cycle through the "magic slot" more frequently to become root tasks.<<

I guess I have a mental block on this because a high-priority task (at least how I define it) no matter where it is on the list, could be on most/all chains anyway. And if it's high-priority enough, it's off the list and worked on as non-discretionary (and therefore non-FV) time.

May 18, 2012 at 21:08 |

Lillian

One significant advantage of FV over P-FV is the way it handles the situation I describe here:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1828991#post1830218

If I were following P-FV, I would not have worked on my high priority tasks at all during the last week, because I never worked my way to the first items in the chain.

FV ensured that they were kept going, in an appropriate balance with all the new and high-urgency work that was being piled on me.

May 19, 2012 at 2:23 |

Seraphim

I posted the following on one of the previous sections of this discussion
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263#post1807417

I don't believe it ever received a response from Deven, so I am reposting it here.

==========
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 (effectively giving you a completely different system as soon as you introduce any stars).

Again, if you think I'm mistaken, let me know.

May 19, 2012 at 2:31 |

Seraphim

After actioning the current task while working an FV chain one has a choice:

1 begin working on the next dotted task in the chain or
2 ask the question "what do I want to do before x?" (where x is choice 1)

Both alternatives fall within the rules of FV.

"Chain Completion Mode"- Choice 1 is perhaps viewed as the normal way of proceeding
and emphasizes chain completion including "root tasks". Workflow: Just build a
chain and complete it. Repeat.

"Priority Mode"- Choice 2 is often invoked when time has passed and conditions have
changed. In this situation there have likely been more tasks added to the list
since your pre-selection that may now be considered more urgent or higher priority
than the task in choice 1. The chain is then extended by dotting one or more
additional tasks. Workflow: Build a chain and extend it when urgencies arise.
Alternate between working and extending the chain as needed. Eventually complete
the chain when urgencies subside.

Choice 2 can also be made routinely after actioning each and every task. There will
often be one or more tasks farther down the list that you want to do before x now
that you have actioned the current task. If so you may choose to extend the chain.
Workflow: Build a chain, complete a task, scan the list from the completed task to
the end of the list looking for tasks you want to do before x and dot those tasks. Eventually complete the chain. (You may recognize this as "the extended Colley's Rule".)

There are pros and cons to both choices:

Choice 1 when used consistently results in a more compact list as root tasks are
actioned by completing shorter chains more frequently. It offers a sense of
accomplishment after each completed chain. The down side is that you will be
actioning some lower priority tasks before some higher priority tasks. This
perceived shortcoming has been illustrated by Cricket and Deven and Deven has
advocated "Prioritized FV" as a solution.

Choice 2 results in actioning your complete list in precise order of priority based
on "what do I want to do before x?" No matter where a task is on your list if it is
the task you want to do before all others choice 2 will find it. By using choice 2
you do not have to worry about overlooking a very urgent task as you would when you're locked
in to the "chain completion mode" of choice 1. The down side of choice 2 is that it
can result in an extended FV list over many pages. You will not action the root task
until it is the task on the list that you want to do before all others. Michael B.
has illustrated various ways of invoking Choice 2 and argues that it mitigates any
need for tweaking FV as in Deven's "Prioritized FV".

These two modes of working an FV list will appeal to different people and the same
person on different occasions. I tend to use Chain Completion Mode (Choice 1) as a
consolidation strategy when the list is spread out over too many pages and I'm
getting lost in the woods. I use Priority Mode (Choice 2 - not to be confused with
Prioritized FV) when I have lots of incoming urgent tasks and when I need to ensure
that I'm doing the task I want to do before all others at any given time. [Seraphim
has just posted a commentary on how he uses Priority Mode in staying on top of heavy
incoming task volume.]

I want to emphasize once more that although Chain Completion Mode is considered the
standard FV methodology, Priority Mode is not a tweak or an alternative version.
The FV algorithm and rule set is very simple but it is also very flexible and
powerful in allowing multiple choices and modes of approach.

Lastly a head to head comparison using the priority sequence illustrated by Cricket
earlier in this thread:

"Normal FV" (what I call Chain Completion Mode) results in-
10 8 6 5 / 9 4 / 7 3 / 5 2 / 1

Using Deven's "prioritized FV" results in-
10 / 9 / 8 6 5 / 7 4 / 5 / 3 / 2 / 1

To this I add:
Using FV in what I call Priority Mode results in-
10 / 9 8 / 7 6 5 / 5 4 / 3 / 2 / 1

Pick your poison but get everything done!

May 19, 2012 at 5:24 |

Mike D

Lillian:

<< Those low-priority items are on the list whether you're using FV or Prioritized FV, right? >>

Yes, of course.

<< So, in either case, sooner or later, they're either going to get dotted and worked on, (probably sooner with FV since they'll eventually show up as a root task), moved to a tickler file to show up on a future date, dismissed, or handled with some other "I'm not doing it now" tactic. Either way, they have to be dealt with at some point, right? >>

Yes, but Prioritized FV won't force them onto the chains as root tasks until all the prioritized tasks are completed. Standard FV will do it regardless. Either will allow you to work on the low-priority tasks if that's what you want to do before the benchmark task.

<< >>high-priority tasks will cycle through the "magic slot" more frequently to become root tasks.<<

I guess I have a mental block on this because a high-priority task (at least how I define it) no matter where it is on the list, could be on most/all chains anyway. And if it's high-priority enough, it's off the list and worked on as non-discretionary (and therefore non-FV) time. >>

That works fine if you have one or three high-priority tasks that you want to be working on that are always on your mind. On the other hand, if you have dozens of higher-priority tasks that you can't focus on in the same way, and dozens more low-priority tasks that can definitely wait, then Prioritized FV will help you focus more on the higher-priority tasks first.

May 20, 2012 at 15:35 |

Deven

Seraphim:

<< One significant advantage of FV over P-FV is the way it handles the situation I describe here:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1828991#post1830218

If I were following P-FV, I would not have worked on my high priority tasks at all during the last week, because I never worked my way to the first items in the chain.

FV ensured that they were kept going, in an appropriate balance with all the new and high-urgency work that was being piled on me. >>

I disagree; this appears to be a case where standard FV failed you, so you had to go into an alternate processing mode of doing "partial reset" all the time and firefighting with the urgent tasks dotted at the end of your list, while completely ignoring the start of the list and the start of your chain that you extended for 2 weeks. I don't recall Mark discussing a "partial reset" but it does sound logical. Nevertheless, I doubt he intended for one chain to be repeatedly extended for weeks...

I would argue that you were should have been completing chains instead of spending two weeks on the same chain. Mark recommended at least 3 chains per day -- I haven't managed that many, but I know I've done better when I complete at least one chain every day instead of allowing a chain to span multiple days. However, if you did that with standard FV, it would have pulled your attention away from the high-priority tasks you were working on, in order to work on lower-priority tasks that happened to be the oldest on your list.

With Prioritized FV, when you went into firefighting mode, you could have simply put all those urgent top-priority tasks on the top of your list as the highest priority (adding a new higher priority level than anything else on your list), and worked the chains as usual, with chains that consisted probably entirely of high-priority tasks. That way, you could follow the system and be actually finishing chains and keeping on track while still focusing all your time and energy on high-priority tasks as you did anyway.

I wouldn't really call this an advantage of FV over Prioritized FV, given that you were repeatedly extending the same chain for 2 weeks instead of working the chains normally. If standard FV was so well-suited for such urgent firefighting situations, why did you have to change the processing algorithm so drastically?

May 20, 2012 at 15:49 |

Deven

Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263#post1807417

Seraphim:

Sorry for the delay; I've been intending to reply to this message and others, and hadn't gotten to it yet. I've been trying to space out my replies more to get other work done and to let other people get a word in edgewise. :)

<< 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. >>

That it does, but why does that strike you as a problem? The reason it puts the high-priority stuff at the top of the list is to ensure the root task of every chain is always a highest-priority task instead of the oldest task. The purpose is to remain focused on high-priority tasks as much as possible, rather than being pulled away from high-priority tasks to work on lower-priority tasks.

<< 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. >>

Yes, with Prioritized FV, the low-priority tasks will be more easily neglected in favor of the high-priority tasks, but that's a good thing. However, they're not automatically neglected -- any task could still be your answer to The Question, so if there's a low-priority task you want to do before a high-priority task, there's nothing to prevent you from selecting it. However, chains tend to be shorter and composed mostly of high-priority tasks (unless you're procrastinating on the high-priority tasks), because you're less likely to want to do any given low-priority task before any given high-priority task.

On the other hand, if you have a high-resistance high-priority task that you ARE procrastinating on, that's where Prioritized FV really shines, because it not only forces you to work more on the task you're avoiding (by cycling it through the "magic slot" at the top of the list more frequently to become the root task) AND it allows you to select one or more lower-priority tasks that you want to do before it, to provide that laddering effect to work your way up to working the task you're avoiding. If urgent tasks are at the end of the list, you can still select them, but you can't get the laddering effect when there's nothing later in the list to select!

<< (BTW, you've also given yourself another way to procrastinate with the rule that adding or removing a star counts as "taking action".) >>

For the system to work, tasks cannot be left in the wrong place in the list. The point is to keep the list in order by priority groups, from highest to lowest. The purpose of this rule is to allow you to rewrite any task at any time when you change the number of stars, while also allowing you to select a task, change the number of stars at that time, and wait until after actioning the task (while working the chain) to rewrite it.

If you're so determined to procrastinate on a task that you'll just keep changing the number of stars and call that "actioning" the task, you know you're playing games with yourself, and you would just as easily find some other excuse to decide you can't work on it when it comes up and rewrite it anyway. At least with Prioritized FV, if you do this repeatedly with a high-priority task, it will throw it back at you over and over again instead of letting you bury it at the bottom of the list and forget about it for many chains.

<< 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 >>

Yes, and this is why standard FV pulls your attention from high-priority tasks to deal with things like this. Prioritized FV is designed to pull your attention TO the high-priority tasks until they're dealt with, THEN focus on the old low-priority stuff. Remember, when there are no longer any prioritized tasks, and all remaining tasks are low-priority (or normal-priority, if you prefer to view unstarred tasks as such), then Prioritized FV behaves identically to standard FV. It only behaves differently when there are starred tasks in the list.

<< 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. >>

With Prioritized FV, you could give it as many stars as you want based on how urgent or important you perceive it to be, and remove them if you decide it can wait. Either way, it will call your attention to the prioritized tasks more than standard FV will.

<< 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). >>

With hundreds of items in your list, you could probably usefully have more than one or two priority levels. (It sounds like your "neighborhoods" are already representing several priority levels.) With Prioritized FV, I'd suggest having one star (maybe even two!) be "normal" priority that's the default one you use for everyday tasks, and have unstarred tasks be of the "maybe someday" sort. The "neighborhoods" might end up reversed on your list (with highest-priority stuff at the top of the list instead of at the end), but the FV algorithm will then focus more attention on the high-priority stuff instead of old low-priority stuff.

<< 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. >>

It changes the dynamics, but I think in a good way. Instead of being required by the FV algorithm to put aside high-priority tasks to work on a low-priority root task, you can choose when you want to take a break from the whirlwind rush and work on the lower-priority tasks. That puts you in control of when to focus on lower priorities instead of being arbitrarily told to focus on a low priority when you'd rather be working on a high priority.

As for deleting tasks that are no longer relevant, you can always do that during the preselection process while building your chains.

If you use Prioritized FV, you'll probably have shorter chains consisting mostly of higher-priority tasks most of the time, and work more chains as a result. But whenever you want a break from that type of work, you can choose to select low-priority tasks to do before the high-priority root task. Prioritized FV will focus more attention on high-priority tasks, but not lock you into doing those exclusively.

May 20, 2012 at 16:32 |

Deven

Mike D:

<< After actioning the current task while working an FV chain one has a choice:

1 begin working on the next dotted task in the chain or
2 ask the question "what do I want to do before x?" (where x is choice 1)

Both alternatives fall within the rules of FV. >>

Wrong. The FV instructions are quite clear: "Once you have taken action on all the preselected tasks, preselect another chain of tasks starting again from the first unactioned task on the list." Note that it says once you have taken action on ALL the preselected tasks, THEN you preselect another chain. It doesn't offer the option of returning to preselection mode after actioning every task -- you completely imagined that "choice". You're plainly violating the FV rules with "choice 2" here.

The FV instructions DO say this: "If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant (e.g. if you have had a long break away from the list), then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet." This rule is intended for occasional situations where you've been away from the list for days on end, or the preselected list has otherwise become irrelevant, requiring a fresh start.

Routinely returning to preselection after actioning every task in the chain isn't following FV. At that point, all you're doing is randomly cherry-picking things off your list to do whenever you feel like it. If that's what you want, you might as well abandon FV entirely and just use a simple unordered to-do list, because you aren't following FV anymore.

<< I want to emphasize once more that although Chain Completion Mode is considered the
standard FV methodology, Priority Mode is not a tweak or an alternative version.
The FV algorithm and rule set is very simple but it is also very flexible and
powerful in allowing multiple choices and modes of approach. >>

When I tweak the system, at least I state that's what I'm doing. And the ONLY thing that I changed with Prioritized FV is to tune WHERE the task is rewritten in the list THAT'S ALL. I didn't change The Question, the preselection process or the process of working the chains whatsoever. (That's why Prioritized FV is functionally identical to standard FV when nothing is prioritized.)

You make a major change to the FV algorithm, then have the audacity to claim it's not a tweak at all?? What you call "Chain Completion Mode" *IS* the FV algorithm. What you call "Priority Mode" is something entirely different, and NOT within the rules of FV at all.

I'd love to have Mark weigh in on this one, but I think he'd back me up on this one. Routinely returning to the preselection process after actioning each task in the chain is obviously NOT an intended "mode of approach" for FV, and definitely qualifies as tweaking the system.

May 20, 2012 at 17:02 |

Deven

Deven wrote:
<< If standard FV was so well-suited for such urgent firefighting situations, why did you have to change the processing algorithm so drastically? >>

I didn't change anything, I just followed the rules. "Partial reset" is in the rules, cf. the "shorter way":

"If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant (e.g. if you have had a long break away from the list), then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet."

This rule also applies to my situation:

"If one or more very urgent things come up, write them at the end of the list and mark them with a dot so that they are done next. If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way."

Main point: FV as written handled this admittedly extreme situation very well with no need to change any of the rules.

May 20, 2012 at 17:57 |

Seraphim

Deven ->>Routinely returning to preselection after actioning every task in the chain isn't following FV<<

The FV rules say "If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant (e.g. if you have had a long break away from the list), then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet."

I don't treat "a long break away from the list" as the only reason a preselect list (chain) is no longer relevant. If my chain is only left with low-prority items (because the high-priority items are in "wait for something from someone else" mode or oherwise undotted) and my boss gives me a bunch of new items that are higher priority, then for me, the chain is no longer relevant and I start over with creating a new chain. (which I consider to be Mike D's option 2)

>>This rule is intended for occasional situations where you've been away from the list for days on end, or the preselected list has otherwise become irrelevant, requiring a fresh start.

What's the definition of "otherwise become irrelevant" ?

May 20, 2012 at 18:07 |

Lillian

Deven wrote:
<< Yes, and this is why standard FV pulls your attention from high-priority tasks to deal with things like this. >>

Deven, you repeat this idea in several different ways in your post: the idea that FV draws your attention mostly to the root items. I think you really haven't got a feel for how FV works. Standard FV does NOT focus your attention on the root item, the first item in the list. It draws one's attention to the END of the list.

The way it works for me, the things down near the end of the list that receive dots are the things that are high importance and/or high urgency. They receive most of the attention. As I move through them, moving up the chain, taking action as needed, it moves faster and faster till I then arrive at the other, less pressing things closer to the top of the list. Often those things get DELETED because, having just focused my time and attention on truly important things, I clearly see that they are really not that important and I don't want to be committed to them.

Sometimes I end up deleting the root item itself, for the same reason. Usually, though, I just take some small action, "opening the file", taking a closer look, thinking for a few minutes what needs to be done, and why this item has been on the list for so long, etc.

My main point is the root item and other items near the top of the list do NOT get the bulk of the attention, which you repeatedly stated in your post. They get deleted, or get some small action that helps break the ice.

The idea of the root item in FV is not to draw your attention there, but to get you to make a decision about items that have been sitting in your list for a long time WITHOUT a decision. By the time it's reached the root position, you've had plenty of time to sift that item, little and often, consciously and unconsciously.

May 20, 2012 at 18:12 |

Seraphim

Seraphim:

<< I didn't change anything, I just followed the rules. "Partial reset" is in the rules, cf. the "shorter way":

"If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant (e.g. if you have had a long break away from the list), then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet." >>

If you're only doing this "partial reset" once per day, I agree that is arguably within the rules, although I don't know if it's wise. My other thread about "Losing Momentum Overnight" was aimed at the question of whether doing this routinely every morning is a good idea or not.

<< This rule also applies to my situation:

"If one or more very urgent things come up, write them at the end of the list and mark them with a dot so that they are done next. If something already on the list becomes very urgent, then move it to the end of the list and mark it with a dot in the same way." >>

Certainly, this rule can keep extending the current chain indefinitely if enough urgent tasks come in.

<< Main point: FV as written handled this admittedly extreme situation very well with no need to change any of the rules. >>

Note that you can apply both of the rules above with Prioritized FV as well. I still think you'd likely be better off working multiple chains under Prioritized FV instead of extending a single chain for weeks on end, but I agree for highly-urgent firefighting, the latter FV rule is sufficient. Prioritized FV is better at handling less-urgent priority items, especially high-resistance ones.

May 20, 2012 at 18:15 |

Deven

Ditto to Lillian. When things are moving very quickly, my list becomes irrelevant very quickly, as in, several times per day. When I have more discretionary time, like today, my list remains relevant for a good long chunk of time, and I can just keep working through the chain.

The beauty of FV is it handles both situations beautifully.

May 20, 2012 at 18:16 |

Seraphim

Lillian:

<< Deven ->>Routinely returning to preselection after actioning every task in the chain isn't following FV<<

The FV rules say "If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant (e.g. if you have had a long break away from the list), then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet." >>

Yes, and I quoted that too. That's not what Mike D is advocating.

<< I don't treat "a long break away from the list" as the only reason a preselect list (chain) is no longer relevant. If my chain is only left with low-prority items (because the high-priority items are in "wait for something from someone else" mode or oherwise undotted) and my boss gives me a bunch of new items that are higher priority, then for me, the chain is no longer relevant and I start over with creating a new chain. (which I consider to be Mike D's option 2) >>

The situation you describe, with your boss dumping a bunch of new priorities on you, I would agree falls within the FV rule where "your preselected list is no longer relevant" -- being away from the list for a long time was an example, and I would consider this situation another reasonable example.

<< What's the definition of "otherwise become irrelevant" ? >>

It's situation-dependent, obviously. Your example is a good one.

Mike D's approach, on the other hand, isn't to scrap the preselection when it becomes irrelevant. It's to routinely consider adding to the chain AFTER ACTIONING EVERY TASK. That's enormously different, and not at all what that rule was contemplating.

Mark, am I wrong about this?

May 20, 2012 at 18:21 |

Deven

Get Everything Done

FV and FVP Forum > Prioritized FV - Part 2

This thread has been locked.