FV and FVP Forum > Prioritized FV - Part 3
Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694?currentPage=2#post1831409
Seraphim:
<< Deven, my main issue with P-FV is that by introducing even a single star, you completely change the dynamics of the system. >>
Absolutely! I've never disputed that. It's a VERY simple change to the mechanics of the system, but a substantial change to the dynamics of the system. Small changes can have a large effect.
<< If you like the new dynamics, great, go for it! >>
Yes, I do like the new dynamics. I find them to be a significant improvement over standard FV for me. You might not like them, but it's hard to really know if you haven't actually tried it.
<< But it is not accurate to state, as you often have, that this is only a very minor change to the rules that puts more emphasis on what's important. >>
Yes, it IS a minor change to the rules (the mechanics) -- but the effect IS large (the dynamics). If the effect of the change were as minor as the mechanics of it, it wouldn't be worth bothering.
The design of the change was intended to place more emphasis on high-priority tasks, and my experience using it has shown that's exactly what it does, at least for me. YMMV.
Question: Has anyone given Prioritized FV a fair shot (using it for at least 5-10 chains over a week or more) and concluded that it made the system WORSE than standard FV? It's not clear to me that it will help everyone, but who has found the change to be detrimental in actual practice, not just in theory?
<< With a single star, your attention is drawn to the root item, the one with the star. >>
Yes, and that's the goal. If you have one task that is a priority over everything else, then drawing your attention to that item is a good thing.
In fact, if you use Prioritized FV and only star exactly ONE task, you get the variation that Elynn invented (http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1829960#post1829960): "Another variation I've been using - for those real bug-a-bear items that actually make it to the top of the list spot, I leave them at the top of the list til they are well and truly DONE. I only have to take some small action to end the chain, but then the same general project stays at the top of the list. That way I keep chipping away at it on every chain. Everything else I work on gets bumped to the bottom of the list after I take some action on it."
<< Your attention is thus drawn to the beginning of the list, where the most stale items tend to sit, rather than the end of the list, which is where the freshest and newest and highest urgency and high priority items would naturally flow. >>
Your attention isn't supposed to be on part of the list -- the preselection process is supposed to involve scanning the ENTIRE list every time. Therefore, this shouldn't matter -- when you're in the "neighborhood" of stale items, you can scan quickly through it until you get to the more interesting ones. With Prioritized FV, you learn quickly that the most interesting tasks are at the top of the list as well as at the end of the list, and you skim across the middle.
Seraphim:
<< Deven, my main issue with P-FV is that by introducing even a single star, you completely change the dynamics of the system. >>
Absolutely! I've never disputed that. It's a VERY simple change to the mechanics of the system, but a substantial change to the dynamics of the system. Small changes can have a large effect.
<< If you like the new dynamics, great, go for it! >>
Yes, I do like the new dynamics. I find them to be a significant improvement over standard FV for me. You might not like them, but it's hard to really know if you haven't actually tried it.
<< But it is not accurate to state, as you often have, that this is only a very minor change to the rules that puts more emphasis on what's important. >>
Yes, it IS a minor change to the rules (the mechanics) -- but the effect IS large (the dynamics). If the effect of the change were as minor as the mechanics of it, it wouldn't be worth bothering.
The design of the change was intended to place more emphasis on high-priority tasks, and my experience using it has shown that's exactly what it does, at least for me. YMMV.
Question: Has anyone given Prioritized FV a fair shot (using it for at least 5-10 chains over a week or more) and concluded that it made the system WORSE than standard FV? It's not clear to me that it will help everyone, but who has found the change to be detrimental in actual practice, not just in theory?
<< With a single star, your attention is drawn to the root item, the one with the star. >>
Yes, and that's the goal. If you have one task that is a priority over everything else, then drawing your attention to that item is a good thing.
In fact, if you use Prioritized FV and only star exactly ONE task, you get the variation that Elynn invented (http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1829960#post1829960): "Another variation I've been using - for those real bug-a-bear items that actually make it to the top of the list spot, I leave them at the top of the list til they are well and truly DONE. I only have to take some small action to end the chain, but then the same general project stays at the top of the list. That way I keep chipping away at it on every chain. Everything else I work on gets bumped to the bottom of the list after I take some action on it."
<< Your attention is thus drawn to the beginning of the list, where the most stale items tend to sit, rather than the end of the list, which is where the freshest and newest and highest urgency and high priority items would naturally flow. >>
Your attention isn't supposed to be on part of the list -- the preselection process is supposed to involve scanning the ENTIRE list every time. Therefore, this shouldn't matter -- when you're in the "neighborhood" of stale items, you can scan quickly through it until you get to the more interesting ones. With Prioritized FV, you learn quickly that the most interesting tasks are at the top of the list as well as at the end of the list, and you skim across the middle.
May 21, 2012 at 19:23 |
Deven
Deven
[I have a number of posts to respond to; I'm not following any particular order at the moment.]
Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694?currentPage=2#post1831419
Seraphim:
<< Personally I don't see it as a problem if it takes a long time to get through chains, as long as my work is getting done. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. >>
To a certain degree, I am in agreement with you on this. However, I've also found that tasks can stall if I allow a chain to span several days, causing "faux urgency" if you will. That seems less likely to occur if I can complete several chains per day.
<< If you find that it helps you, great! >>
I haven't achieved that goal yet, so it's hard to compare. But I'm mindful of Mark's recommendation to try to complete at least 3 chains/day, and I'm sure this recommendation has a good basis.
<< OK, great! If it works for you, I am not opposing that. I am opposing what I see as misunderstandings of the dynamics of FV. :-) >>
I don't believe I'm misunderstaning the dynamics of FV; I'm trying to change them, as you rightly point out. The dynamics of Prioritized FV are substantially different than standard FV, but I believe they are better balanced. Obviously, not everyone agrees, but I've yet to see anyone who has actually TRIED it and hated it.
Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694?currentPage=2#post1831419
Seraphim:
<< Personally I don't see it as a problem if it takes a long time to get through chains, as long as my work is getting done. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. >>
To a certain degree, I am in agreement with you on this. However, I've also found that tasks can stall if I allow a chain to span several days, causing "faux urgency" if you will. That seems less likely to occur if I can complete several chains per day.
<< If you find that it helps you, great! >>
I haven't achieved that goal yet, so it's hard to compare. But I'm mindful of Mark's recommendation to try to complete at least 3 chains/day, and I'm sure this recommendation has a good basis.
<< OK, great! If it works for you, I am not opposing that. I am opposing what I see as misunderstandings of the dynamics of FV. :-) >>
I don't believe I'm misunderstaning the dynamics of FV; I'm trying to change them, as you rightly point out. The dynamics of Prioritized FV are substantially different than standard FV, but I believe they are better balanced. Obviously, not everyone agrees, but I've yet to see anyone who has actually TRIED it and hated it.
May 21, 2012 at 19:32 |
Deven
Deven
Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694?currentPage=2#post1831410
Seraphim:
<< We will have to agree to disagree. Yes, the first item is always included in the chain. This does not necessarily mean that the first item gets the bulk of your attention. >>
I can't agree to disagree when you're misunderstanding what I said.
I never suggested that the first item gets the BULK of your attention. I said that the FV algorithm draws attention to the first item, and standard FV indiscriminantly uses the oldest unactioned task, while Prioritized FV draw attention to the oldest unactioned task at the highest priority level.
You can still "get out the folder" and do as little as possible on the root task, but even if you do, that root task is still getting SOME attention that could have gone elsewhere. Prioritized FV never draws your attention away from high-priority tasks to work on a low-priority root task. Obviously, if you minimize the amount of work you do on that low-priority task, the impact is mitigated, but it's still a distraction.
Seraphim:
<< We will have to agree to disagree. Yes, the first item is always included in the chain. This does not necessarily mean that the first item gets the bulk of your attention. >>
I can't agree to disagree when you're misunderstanding what I said.
I never suggested that the first item gets the BULK of your attention. I said that the FV algorithm draws attention to the first item, and standard FV indiscriminantly uses the oldest unactioned task, while Prioritized FV draw attention to the oldest unactioned task at the highest priority level.
You can still "get out the folder" and do as little as possible on the root task, but even if you do, that root task is still getting SOME attention that could have gone elsewhere. Prioritized FV never draws your attention away from high-priority tasks to work on a low-priority root task. Obviously, if you minimize the amount of work you do on that low-priority task, the impact is mitigated, but it's still a distraction.
May 21, 2012 at 19:40 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >>that root task is still getting SOME attention that could have gone elsewhere.<<
If I'm understanding the post correctly, the root task you're talking about is a low(-er) priority item. And if it's the next item to be worked on, then by defintion, when using FV rules, the high(-er) priority items have already been worked on during the chain that's almost done (I say almost done because you're about to work on the root task).
If the root task is such a low priority that 'getting SOME attention' is a distraction to the rest of the priority items, why is that item even on the list? Move it to a tickler for next week (or never) or delete it.
Maybe when using Priority-FV, that task never gets dotted because it's a low priority, but isn't it still a distraction just to keep finding it during the selection process and have to consider (even for a couple of seconds) the relative priority and if it should be dotted or not?
If I'm understanding the post correctly, the root task you're talking about is a low(-er) priority item. And if it's the next item to be worked on, then by defintion, when using FV rules, the high(-er) priority items have already been worked on during the chain that's almost done (I say almost done because you're about to work on the root task).
If the root task is such a low priority that 'getting SOME attention' is a distraction to the rest of the priority items, why is that item even on the list? Move it to a tickler for next week (or never) or delete it.
Maybe when using Priority-FV, that task never gets dotted because it's a low priority, but isn't it still a distraction just to keep finding it during the selection process and have to consider (even for a couple of seconds) the relative priority and if it should be dotted or not?
May 21, 2012 at 21:33 |
Lillian
Lillian
No, I haven't tried P-FV, and can't see how it would address my current situation of frequently changing conflicting priorities with varying levels of urgency, which standard FV is handling quite well. So I won't be trying it any time soon. I may give it a try at some point when this current spike activity dips back down.
Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point.
Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point.
May 21, 2012 at 23:17 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< No, I haven't tried P-FV, and can't see how it would address my current situation of frequently changing conflicting priorities with varying levels of urgency, which standard FV is handling quite well. So I won't be trying it any time soon. I may give it a try at some point when this current spike activity dips back down. >>
Given that Prioritized FV is intended to handle conflicting priorities with varying levels of urgency, I suspect it might work better than you expect, but I certainly understand not wanting to experiment with a substantial change in dynamics when what you're doing is working well!
<< Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point. >>
I hope that doesn't mean you're going to stop participating in the thread, because I do value your input, especially since you give FV such a workout already. I would love to know what would happen for you in practice if you ever did experiment with Prioritized FV, but I know it's too much to ask of you to take the risk of changing.
<< No, I haven't tried P-FV, and can't see how it would address my current situation of frequently changing conflicting priorities with varying levels of urgency, which standard FV is handling quite well. So I won't be trying it any time soon. I may give it a try at some point when this current spike activity dips back down. >>
Given that Prioritized FV is intended to handle conflicting priorities with varying levels of urgency, I suspect it might work better than you expect, but I certainly understand not wanting to experiment with a substantial change in dynamics when what you're doing is working well!
<< Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point. >>
I hope that doesn't mean you're going to stop participating in the thread, because I do value your input, especially since you give FV such a workout already. I would love to know what would happen for you in practice if you ever did experiment with Prioritized FV, but I know it's too much to ask of you to take the risk of changing.
May 22, 2012 at 1:39 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< If I'm understanding the post correctly, the root task you're talking about is a low(-er) priority item. >>
With standard FV, it's likely to be, yes.
<< And if it's the next item to be worked on, then by defintion, when using FV rules, the high(-er) priority items have already been worked on during the chain that's almost done (I say almost done because you're about to work on the root task). >>
Yes, if you're about to work on the root task, it means you're almost finished with the chain. That doesn't tell you anything about how many of the tasks in the chain were high or low priority, of course, but you're correct that you would be at the end of working the chain when you get to the root task.
<< If the root task is such a low priority that 'getting SOME attention' is a distraction to the rest of the priority items, why is that item even on the list? Move it to a tickler for next week (or never) or delete it. >>
I don't think the solution is to excise the low-priority tasks from the list, although I suppose you could do that. Prioritized FV is intended to focus more on high-priority tasks WITHOUT eliminating the possibility of working on low-priority tasks. There's nothing to stop you from selecting low-priority tasks for your chains -- Prioritized FV only guarantees that the root task in the chain will be high-priority if anything is prioritized.
<< Maybe when using Priority-FV, that task never gets dotted because it's a low priority, but isn't it still a distraction just to keep finding it during the selection process and have to consider (even for a couple of seconds) the relative priority and if it should be dotted or not? >>
Not really, because you're just scanning your list looking for the answer to The Question -- "What do I want to do before I do x?" It's no more of a distraction than it already is during the preselection process in standard FV.
Having a low-priority task in the actual chain is more of a distraction because you're supposed to stop and actually focus on that task and at LEAST "get out the folder" if you can, or preferably do something more useful. You're supposed to take action on the task, and if it's something you easily CAN take action on, you're more likely to do so. You might even get wrapped up dealing with it because you're happy to be making some progress on an old task. Nothing wrong with that, but it remains a distraction from the higher priorities.
<< If I'm understanding the post correctly, the root task you're talking about is a low(-er) priority item. >>
With standard FV, it's likely to be, yes.
<< And if it's the next item to be worked on, then by defintion, when using FV rules, the high(-er) priority items have already been worked on during the chain that's almost done (I say almost done because you're about to work on the root task). >>
Yes, if you're about to work on the root task, it means you're almost finished with the chain. That doesn't tell you anything about how many of the tasks in the chain were high or low priority, of course, but you're correct that you would be at the end of working the chain when you get to the root task.
<< If the root task is such a low priority that 'getting SOME attention' is a distraction to the rest of the priority items, why is that item even on the list? Move it to a tickler for next week (or never) or delete it. >>
I don't think the solution is to excise the low-priority tasks from the list, although I suppose you could do that. Prioritized FV is intended to focus more on high-priority tasks WITHOUT eliminating the possibility of working on low-priority tasks. There's nothing to stop you from selecting low-priority tasks for your chains -- Prioritized FV only guarantees that the root task in the chain will be high-priority if anything is prioritized.
<< Maybe when using Priority-FV, that task never gets dotted because it's a low priority, but isn't it still a distraction just to keep finding it during the selection process and have to consider (even for a couple of seconds) the relative priority and if it should be dotted or not? >>
Not really, because you're just scanning your list looking for the answer to The Question -- "What do I want to do before I do x?" It's no more of a distraction than it already is during the preselection process in standard FV.
Having a low-priority task in the actual chain is more of a distraction because you're supposed to stop and actually focus on that task and at LEAST "get out the folder" if you can, or preferably do something more useful. You're supposed to take action on the task, and if it's something you easily CAN take action on, you're more likely to do so. You might even get wrapped up dealing with it because you're happy to be making some progress on an old task. Nothing wrong with that, but it remains a distraction from the higher priorities.
May 22, 2012 at 1:49 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >>Having a low-priority task in the actual chain is more of a distraction because you're supposed to stop and actually focus on that task and at LEAST "get out the folder" if you can, or preferably do something more useful. You're supposed to take action on the task, and if it's something you easily CAN take action on, you're more likely to do so. You might even get wrapped up dealing with it because you're happy to be making some progress on an old task. Nothing wrong with that, but it remains a distraction from the higher priorities. <<
but that's my point...if a task is such a low-priority that any action is a distraction, why is it on the list? The 'do something more useful' action may be moving it to a future-tickler or the delete bin.
but that's my point...if a task is such a low-priority that any action is a distraction, why is it on the list? The 'do something more useful' action may be moving it to a future-tickler or the delete bin.
May 22, 2012 at 2:46 |
Lillian
Lillian
Give that man ( Deven ) a Bells!
Hat off to you Deven, for your persistence in defending your Prioritized FV. You have shared your thoughts and it works well for you - that should be everything of interest for you.
Why do you bother so much that others are not on the same wavelength? They have been your sparring partners in evaluating your addition to FV, it went back and forth and now it seems that the discussion has run out of steam.
Great thread to read, very interesting and educational!
Hat off to you Deven, for your persistence in defending your Prioritized FV. You have shared your thoughts and it works well for you - that should be everything of interest for you.
Why do you bother so much that others are not on the same wavelength? They have been your sparring partners in evaluating your addition to FV, it went back and forth and now it seems that the discussion has run out of steam.
Great thread to read, very interesting and educational!
May 22, 2012 at 7:06 |
Stefano F. Rausch
Stefano F. Rausch
Deven:
Lillian to Deven:
"...if it's the next item to be worked on, then by defintion, when using FV rules, the high(-er) priority items have already been worked on during the chain that's almost done (I say almost done because you're about to work on the root task)."
Deven to Lillian:
"Yes, if you're about to work on the root task, it means you're almost finished with the chain. That doesn't tell you anything about how many of the tasks in the chain were high or low priority, of course..."
... Lillian is correct. The fact that you're almost finished with the chain and the root is yet to be actioned tells you that everything in the chain was high-priority/urgent when you built the chain.
As you're aware, when building a chain, with the exception of the root task, everything in the chain is prioritized by urgency and the urgency of the task is based on the importance of the task to you (how long you're willing to put up with it not being done or it has a deadline and must be started soon) translated into a time scale. To quote Mark, "Urgency is importance translated into a time scale that is appropriate for the task." And the urgency/high-priority level of a given task changes dynamically based on the time of day, preconditions being met, and the weather, among others.
The reason you do the root task "regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor" as Mark states, is because the system automatically puts tasks there that you may be resisting or putting off. The system is designed to get you to make a decision on that task after enough time passes and this is a balance in the system.
Your chain is always made of high-priority/urgent tasks. Your root task is a balance to that.
To quote Mark, "...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list."
When faced with a root task you deem to be low-priority you *need* to take action on it, as you say "at the expense of higher-priorities" to balance the system. Your chain is made of 100% highest-priority tasks when you build it. When Mark said, "No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world" he was saying that eating breakfast was the highest-priority task on the entire list when the chain was built.
Some quotes from Mark:
"...what "Prioritizing by Urgency” should mean is that we do things according to the degree of urgency they possess. The degree of urgency may fall anywhere between Must be Done This Second to Not at All Urgent. Where a task falls on this continuum is the deciding factor. This is a sensible method of prioritizing."
"It may seem odd to you that both the degree of importance and the degree of urgency should be expressed in terms of time for prioritizing purposes. But that is what prioritizing is all about: the order in which tasks are done."
"We can’t just say “Task X is more important than Task Y: therefore I’ll do Task X first”. That is where prioritizing by importance falls down. No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world."
"The root tasks have been done in strict list order, regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor. Some of them are relatively easy...and some are relatively difficult...or you are reluctant to do them....
Each of the root tasks is preceded by a short ladder of tasks which are in the order in which you want to do them. The number and difficulty of the tasks in the ladder tend to reflect the difficulty of the root tasks.
...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list."
Deven said:
"Having a low-priority task in the actual chain is more of a distraction because you're supposed to stop and actually focus on that task... You're supposed to take action on the task, and if it's something you easily CAN take action on, you're more likely to do so. You might even get wrapped up dealing with it...happy to be making...progress on an old task. Nothing wrong with that, but it remains a distraction from the higher priorities."
... And your higher priorities can be immediately added to any chain, at any time, to do before the root, as they occur to you or by doing as Mike D. and having a look over your list to see if anything has become urgent. You can do all of this before working on this possibly low-priority root task but bear in mind the following:
Higher priorities = urgent tasks.
And those urgent tasks should be done in order of their urgency, as in "...before I do X?", and that urgency is determined by their importance to you as in "What do I want to do...". The portion of the FV question "What do I want to do..." gets you to determine the importance level a task holds for you and the "...before I do X" puts that task on a time scale. FV is designed to do a number of things, and one of them is to balance the need to focus on the higher priorities/urgent tasks with the need to handle important, but possibly low-urgency, resistant, procrastinated on, old, backlogged, distracting, or back-burner tasks.
Remember:
• If it's on your list, it's important.
• And if it's on your list you've committed to completing the task.
• And if you've committed to completing the task, it must be done.
• And if it must be done you must add it to a chain.
• And if you don't add it to a chain the system will find out, call you on it, and choose the task for you as the last task of your chain. Mark carefully thought out how this would work using structured procrastination.
• At this point you have a decision to make regarding your root task — consider whether it can be done now, do a little work on it, re-phrase it, move it off your list, or delete it.
Lillian to Deven:
"...if it's the next item to be worked on, then by defintion, when using FV rules, the high(-er) priority items have already been worked on during the chain that's almost done (I say almost done because you're about to work on the root task)."
Deven to Lillian:
"Yes, if you're about to work on the root task, it means you're almost finished with the chain. That doesn't tell you anything about how many of the tasks in the chain were high or low priority, of course..."
... Lillian is correct. The fact that you're almost finished with the chain and the root is yet to be actioned tells you that everything in the chain was high-priority/urgent when you built the chain.
As you're aware, when building a chain, with the exception of the root task, everything in the chain is prioritized by urgency and the urgency of the task is based on the importance of the task to you (how long you're willing to put up with it not being done or it has a deadline and must be started soon) translated into a time scale. To quote Mark, "Urgency is importance translated into a time scale that is appropriate for the task." And the urgency/high-priority level of a given task changes dynamically based on the time of day, preconditions being met, and the weather, among others.
The reason you do the root task "regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor" as Mark states, is because the system automatically puts tasks there that you may be resisting or putting off. The system is designed to get you to make a decision on that task after enough time passes and this is a balance in the system.
Your chain is always made of high-priority/urgent tasks. Your root task is a balance to that.
To quote Mark, "...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list."
When faced with a root task you deem to be low-priority you *need* to take action on it, as you say "at the expense of higher-priorities" to balance the system. Your chain is made of 100% highest-priority tasks when you build it. When Mark said, "No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world" he was saying that eating breakfast was the highest-priority task on the entire list when the chain was built.
Some quotes from Mark:
"...what "Prioritizing by Urgency” should mean is that we do things according to the degree of urgency they possess. The degree of urgency may fall anywhere between Must be Done This Second to Not at All Urgent. Where a task falls on this continuum is the deciding factor. This is a sensible method of prioritizing."
"It may seem odd to you that both the degree of importance and the degree of urgency should be expressed in terms of time for prioritizing purposes. But that is what prioritizing is all about: the order in which tasks are done."
"We can’t just say “Task X is more important than Task Y: therefore I’ll do Task X first”. That is where prioritizing by importance falls down. No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world."
"The root tasks have been done in strict list order, regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor. Some of them are relatively easy...and some are relatively difficult...or you are reluctant to do them....
Each of the root tasks is preceded by a short ladder of tasks which are in the order in which you want to do them. The number and difficulty of the tasks in the ladder tend to reflect the difficulty of the root tasks.
...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list."
Deven said:
"Having a low-priority task in the actual chain is more of a distraction because you're supposed to stop and actually focus on that task... You're supposed to take action on the task, and if it's something you easily CAN take action on, you're more likely to do so. You might even get wrapped up dealing with it...happy to be making...progress on an old task. Nothing wrong with that, but it remains a distraction from the higher priorities."
... And your higher priorities can be immediately added to any chain, at any time, to do before the root, as they occur to you or by doing as Mike D. and having a look over your list to see if anything has become urgent. You can do all of this before working on this possibly low-priority root task but bear in mind the following:
Higher priorities = urgent tasks.
And those urgent tasks should be done in order of their urgency, as in "...before I do X?", and that urgency is determined by their importance to you as in "What do I want to do...". The portion of the FV question "What do I want to do..." gets you to determine the importance level a task holds for you and the "...before I do X" puts that task on a time scale. FV is designed to do a number of things, and one of them is to balance the need to focus on the higher priorities/urgent tasks with the need to handle important, but possibly low-urgency, resistant, procrastinated on, old, backlogged, distracting, or back-burner tasks.
Remember:
• If it's on your list, it's important.
• And if it's on your list you've committed to completing the task.
• And if you've committed to completing the task, it must be done.
• And if it must be done you must add it to a chain.
• And if you don't add it to a chain the system will find out, call you on it, and choose the task for you as the last task of your chain. Mark carefully thought out how this would work using structured procrastination.
• At this point you have a decision to make regarding your root task — consider whether it can be done now, do a little work on it, re-phrase it, move it off your list, or delete it.
May 22, 2012 at 10:28 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Lillian:
<< but that's my point...if a task is such a low-priority that any action is a distraction, why is it on the list? The 'do something more useful' action may be moving it to a future-tickler or the delete bin. >>
Because it's something that I do want to get done, sooner or later. I'm happy to delete items that are no longer worth doing. Many things are worthwhile but not urgent. I don't want to delete them and they'll be forgotten if I move them to a tickler file, but I don't want them to distract me from higher priorities either.
I have to wonder why the FV instructions encourage starting a new list from scratch. If you can throw anything you want on the end of the list at random as you think of it, why is it a problem to start with an existing list? Perhaps because the algorithm works more efficiently on smaller lists?
<< but that's my point...if a task is such a low-priority that any action is a distraction, why is it on the list? The 'do something more useful' action may be moving it to a future-tickler or the delete bin. >>
Because it's something that I do want to get done, sooner or later. I'm happy to delete items that are no longer worth doing. Many things are worthwhile but not urgent. I don't want to delete them and they'll be forgotten if I move them to a tickler file, but I don't want them to distract me from higher priorities either.
I have to wonder why the FV instructions encourage starting a new list from scratch. If you can throw anything you want on the end of the list at random as you think of it, why is it a problem to start with an existing list? Perhaps because the algorithm works more efficiently on smaller lists?
May 22, 2012 at 14:05 |
Deven
Deven
Stefano F. Rausch:
<< Give that man ( Deven ) a Bells!
Hat off to you Deven, for your persistence in defending your Prioritized FV. You have shared your thoughts and it works well for you - that should be everything of interest for you.
Why do you bother so much that others are not on the same wavelength? They have been your sparring partners in evaluating your addition to FV, it went back and forth and now it seems that the discussion has run out of steam.
Great thread to read, very interesting and educational! >>
It doesn't bother me if people don't agree with my approach, but I am interested in using the best possible system, which means sharing my ideas and soliciting input to dissect it. I had more doubts about Prioritized FV when I first suggested the tweak, but it seemed promising in my mind, so I thought it was worth a try. And I've found it to be much more effective (for me) than standard FV in practice. I'm interested to see if others find the same (and it seems that it does work for Cricket), but also interested to see when and how it might fail -- that might offer some insight into how to further improve it.
I don't know that I'll stick with Prioritized FV in the end, but I'm liking it so far. But I'm also fascinated by the idea of trying to combine BOTH questions (standard FV and Alternative FV) into one solution, and I'm wondering how that would work too.
I'm quite sure that some people won't find any benefit from Prioritized FV, because standard FV works great for them. Many people seem unable to visualize a possible benefit, but their situations sound to me like ones where they might indeed benefit. I've yet to hear anyone who tried Prioritized FV and found it made the system LESS effective, and that's a surprise in itself.
<< Give that man ( Deven ) a Bells!
Hat off to you Deven, for your persistence in defending your Prioritized FV. You have shared your thoughts and it works well for you - that should be everything of interest for you.
Why do you bother so much that others are not on the same wavelength? They have been your sparring partners in evaluating your addition to FV, it went back and forth and now it seems that the discussion has run out of steam.
Great thread to read, very interesting and educational! >>
It doesn't bother me if people don't agree with my approach, but I am interested in using the best possible system, which means sharing my ideas and soliciting input to dissect it. I had more doubts about Prioritized FV when I first suggested the tweak, but it seemed promising in my mind, so I thought it was worth a try. And I've found it to be much more effective (for me) than standard FV in practice. I'm interested to see if others find the same (and it seems that it does work for Cricket), but also interested to see when and how it might fail -- that might offer some insight into how to further improve it.
I don't know that I'll stick with Prioritized FV in the end, but I'm liking it so far. But I'm also fascinated by the idea of trying to combine BOTH questions (standard FV and Alternative FV) into one solution, and I'm wondering how that would work too.
I'm quite sure that some people won't find any benefit from Prioritized FV, because standard FV works great for them. Many people seem unable to visualize a possible benefit, but their situations sound to me like ones where they might indeed benefit. I've yet to hear anyone who tried Prioritized FV and found it made the system LESS effective, and that's a surprise in itself.
May 22, 2012 at 14:11 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >>I have to wonder why the FV instructions encourage starting a new list from scratch.<<
I'm pretty sure that Mark suggested starting a new list in the instructions for all or most of his systems, it's not FV-specific. And in AF (I think) he also suggested that if the list got too overwhelming, to dismiss the entire list and start over.
I'm pretty sure that Mark suggested starting a new list in the instructions for all or most of his systems, it's not FV-specific. And in AF (I think) he also suggested that if the list got too overwhelming, to dismiss the entire list and start over.
May 22, 2012 at 14:32 |
Lillian
Lillian
Michael B.:
<< ... Lillian is correct. The fact that you're almost finished with the chain and the root is yet to be actioned tells you that everything in the chain was high-priority/urgent when you built the chain. >>
How are you drawing that conclusion? That doesn't follow.
<< As you're aware, when building a chain, with the exception of the root task, everything in the chain is prioritized by urgency and the urgency of the task is based on the importance of the task to you (how long you're willing to put up with it not being done or it has a deadline and must be started soon) translated into a time scale. To quote Mark, "Urgency is importance translated into a time scale that is appropriate for the task." And the urgency/high-priority level of a given task changes dynamically based on the time of day, preconditions being met, and the weather, among others. >>
No, the chain is NOT prioritized by urgency. Mark has specifically addressed this point -- http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1770903#post1772756 -- << No, it's not just about urgency. In fact at one stage the question I was working with was "What is more urgent than x?" or "Is this more urgent than x?" It didn't work very well. I also tried "What needs to be done before x?" That was better, but still not as good as I wanted. >>
You can't assume everything but the root task is high-priority.
<< The reason you do the root task "regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor" as Mark states, is because the system automatically puts tasks there that you may be resisting or putting off. The system is designed to get you to make a decision on that task after enough time passes and this is a balance in the system. >>
Yes, the system does force you to pay attention to a task eventually, and so does Prioritized FV. The difference is that Prioritized FV waits until you have a break (no high-priority tasks left) before forcing you to pay attention to low-priority tasks.
This does beg the question of whether those low-priority tasks EVER get to be the root task in practice -- and it's a concern I have about Prioritized FV. I don't know yet, but it could be a problem that needs to be solved. I see the risk of tasks remaining unactioned indefinitely, but I don't see an obvious solution other than discarding the tweak that Prioritized FV makes, and I'm not sure that's worth the trade.
<< Your chain is always made of high-priority/urgent tasks. Your root task is a balance to that. >>
No, it's not. It's made of tasks you want to do before the previous tasks in the chain. Those tasks MAY be high-priority or urgent tasks. Or they may not be. You're making an unwarranted assumption that's directly contradicted by Mark's post quoted above.
<< To quote Mark, "...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list." >>
I believe he's referring to the fact that the preselection process scans the entire list every time, with every task available to be selected.
<< When faced with a root task you deem to be low-priority you *need* to take action on it, as you say "at the expense of higher-priorities" to balance the system. Your chain is made of 100% highest-priority tasks when you build it. When Mark said, "No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world" he was saying that eating breakfast was the highest-priority task on the entire list when the chain was built. >>
I suppose you could call it a priority task, but in FV terms, it's just the task that you want to do before going out to save the world. Standard FV doesn't explicitly prioritize anything.
<< Some quotes from Mark:
"...what "Prioritizing by Urgency” should mean is that we do things according to the degree of urgency they possess. The degree of urgency may fall anywhere between Must be Done This Second to Not at All Urgent. Where a task falls on this continuum is the deciding factor. This is a sensible method of prioritizing." >>
Yes, it is a sensible method of prioritizing. Feel free to use the degree of urgency to decide the number of stars to give each task in Prioritized FV. :)
<< "It may seem odd to you that both the degree of importance and the degree of urgency should be expressed in terms of time for prioritizing purposes. But that is what prioritizing is all about: the order in which tasks are done." >>
Yes, and Prioritized FV is intended to focus on the high-priority tasks BEFORE focusing on the low-priority tasks. Since the only tool that the FV algorithm uses to direct your focus is the root task, that's what Prioritized FV tunes by rewriting high-priority tasks at the top of the list where they will become the root task sooner and more often, effecting a change in focus vs. standard FV.
<< "We can’t just say “Task X is more important than Task Y: therefore I’ll do Task X first”. That is where prioritizing by importance falls down. No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world." >>
Prioritized FV doesn't attempt to do this. It only ensures that the root task is a high-priority task, if there are any. Your answers to The Question allow other things to be done first, such as eating breakfast.
<< "The root tasks have been done in strict list order, regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor. Some of them are relatively easy...and some are relatively difficult...or you are reluctant to do them.... >>
This is exactly what Prioritized FV is tuning -- the ordering of the root tasks.
<< Each of the root tasks is preceded by a short ladder of tasks which are in the order in which you want to do them. The number and difficulty of the tasks in the ladder tend to reflect the difficulty of the root tasks. >>
Prioritized FV retains this feature.
<< ...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list." >>
I responded to this above, but isn't it interesting how many people seem to focus all their attention on the END of the list and treat the start of the list as unimportant?
<< ... And your higher priorities can be immediately added to any chain, at any time, to do before the root, as they occur to you or by doing as Mike D. and having a look over your list to see if anything has become urgent. >>
You're allowed to add an urgent task to the chain, but you're not supposed to be routinely extending a chain as Mike D. is doing.
<< You can do all of this before working on this possibly low-priority root task but bear in mind the following:
Higher priorities = urgent tasks. >>
Not necessarily. If you have a major project due in 6 months that will take 3 months of effort, then working on it today is NOT urgent, but it can still be a high priority.
<< And those urgent tasks should be done in order of their urgency, as in "...before I do X?", and that urgency is determined by their importance to you as in "What do I want to do...". The portion of the FV question "What do I want to do..." gets you to determine the importance level a task holds for you and the "...before I do X" puts that task on a time scale. FV is designed to do a number of things, and one of them is to balance the need to focus on the higher priorities/urgent tasks with the need to handle important, but possibly low-urgency, resistant, procrastinated on, old, backlogged, distracting, or back-burner tasks. >>
Prioritized FV is attempting to achieve a better balance, and particularly to drive high-resistance high-priority tasks to completion faster. Standard FV makes it EASIER to procrastinate on high-resistance tasks by allowing you to ignore the task as long as possible, only dealing with it on the infrequent occasions it becomes the root task. With Prioritized FV, procrastination on high-resistance high-priority tasks is reduced because they become the root task more frequently.
<< Remember:
• If it's on your list, it's important.
• And if it's on your list you've committed to completing the task.
• And if you've committed to completing the task, it must be done. >>
This is why I'm not inclined to follow Lillian's suggestions to get the low-priority tasks off my main list.
<< • And if it must be done you must add it to a chain. >>
Eventually.
<< • And if you don't add it to a chain the system will find out, call you on it, and choose the task for you as the last task of your chain. Mark carefully thought out how this would work using structured procrastination. >>
If you read the "structured procrastination" essay, it specifically talks about accomplishing things as a way of procrastinating on something MORE IMPORTANT. Prioritized FV actually fits this model better than standard FV, since that root task is always one of the more important ones.
<< • At this point you have a decision to make regarding your root task — consider whether it can be done now, do a little work on it, re-phrase it, move it off your list, or delete it. >>
As I said, there is a legitimate concern about Prioritized FV's ability to prune the old tasks this way, because it ultimately depends on finishing (or de-prioritizing) all the high-priority tasks so low-priority tasks can cycle through the "magic slot" at the top of the list. The jury's still out on this one.
<< ... Lillian is correct. The fact that you're almost finished with the chain and the root is yet to be actioned tells you that everything in the chain was high-priority/urgent when you built the chain. >>
How are you drawing that conclusion? That doesn't follow.
<< As you're aware, when building a chain, with the exception of the root task, everything in the chain is prioritized by urgency and the urgency of the task is based on the importance of the task to you (how long you're willing to put up with it not being done or it has a deadline and must be started soon) translated into a time scale. To quote Mark, "Urgency is importance translated into a time scale that is appropriate for the task." And the urgency/high-priority level of a given task changes dynamically based on the time of day, preconditions being met, and the weather, among others. >>
No, the chain is NOT prioritized by urgency. Mark has specifically addressed this point -- http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1770903#post1772756 -- << No, it's not just about urgency. In fact at one stage the question I was working with was "What is more urgent than x?" or "Is this more urgent than x?" It didn't work very well. I also tried "What needs to be done before x?" That was better, but still not as good as I wanted. >>
You can't assume everything but the root task is high-priority.
<< The reason you do the root task "regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor" as Mark states, is because the system automatically puts tasks there that you may be resisting or putting off. The system is designed to get you to make a decision on that task after enough time passes and this is a balance in the system. >>
Yes, the system does force you to pay attention to a task eventually, and so does Prioritized FV. The difference is that Prioritized FV waits until you have a break (no high-priority tasks left) before forcing you to pay attention to low-priority tasks.
This does beg the question of whether those low-priority tasks EVER get to be the root task in practice -- and it's a concern I have about Prioritized FV. I don't know yet, but it could be a problem that needs to be solved. I see the risk of tasks remaining unactioned indefinitely, but I don't see an obvious solution other than discarding the tweak that Prioritized FV makes, and I'm not sure that's worth the trade.
<< Your chain is always made of high-priority/urgent tasks. Your root task is a balance to that. >>
No, it's not. It's made of tasks you want to do before the previous tasks in the chain. Those tasks MAY be high-priority or urgent tasks. Or they may not be. You're making an unwarranted assumption that's directly contradicted by Mark's post quoted above.
<< To quote Mark, "...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list." >>
I believe he's referring to the fact that the preselection process scans the entire list every time, with every task available to be selected.
<< When faced with a root task you deem to be low-priority you *need* to take action on it, as you say "at the expense of higher-priorities" to balance the system. Your chain is made of 100% highest-priority tasks when you build it. When Mark said, "No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world" he was saying that eating breakfast was the highest-priority task on the entire list when the chain was built. >>
I suppose you could call it a priority task, but in FV terms, it's just the task that you want to do before going out to save the world. Standard FV doesn't explicitly prioritize anything.
<< Some quotes from Mark:
"...what "Prioritizing by Urgency” should mean is that we do things according to the degree of urgency they possess. The degree of urgency may fall anywhere between Must be Done This Second to Not at All Urgent. Where a task falls on this continuum is the deciding factor. This is a sensible method of prioritizing." >>
Yes, it is a sensible method of prioritizing. Feel free to use the degree of urgency to decide the number of stars to give each task in Prioritized FV. :)
<< "It may seem odd to you that both the degree of importance and the degree of urgency should be expressed in terms of time for prioritizing purposes. But that is what prioritizing is all about: the order in which tasks are done." >>
Yes, and Prioritized FV is intended to focus on the high-priority tasks BEFORE focusing on the low-priority tasks. Since the only tool that the FV algorithm uses to direct your focus is the root task, that's what Prioritized FV tunes by rewriting high-priority tasks at the top of the list where they will become the root task sooner and more often, effecting a change in focus vs. standard FV.
<< "We can’t just say “Task X is more important than Task Y: therefore I’ll do Task X first”. That is where prioritizing by importance falls down. No doubt saving the world is more important than eating breakfast, but it still makes sense to eat breakfast before we set out on our work for saving the world." >>
Prioritized FV doesn't attempt to do this. It only ensures that the root task is a high-priority task, if there are any. Your answers to The Question allow other things to be done first, such as eating breakfast.
<< "The root tasks have been done in strict list order, regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor. Some of them are relatively easy...and some are relatively difficult...or you are reluctant to do them.... >>
This is exactly what Prioritized FV is tuning -- the ordering of the root tasks.
<< Each of the root tasks is preceded by a short ladder of tasks which are in the order in which you want to do them. The number and difficulty of the tasks in the ladder tend to reflect the difficulty of the root tasks. >>
Prioritized FV retains this feature.
<< ...the FV preselection process ensures that tasks towards the beginning of the list are given as much attention as tasks towards the end of the list." >>
I responded to this above, but isn't it interesting how many people seem to focus all their attention on the END of the list and treat the start of the list as unimportant?
<< ... And your higher priorities can be immediately added to any chain, at any time, to do before the root, as they occur to you or by doing as Mike D. and having a look over your list to see if anything has become urgent. >>
You're allowed to add an urgent task to the chain, but you're not supposed to be routinely extending a chain as Mike D. is doing.
<< You can do all of this before working on this possibly low-priority root task but bear in mind the following:
Higher priorities = urgent tasks. >>
Not necessarily. If you have a major project due in 6 months that will take 3 months of effort, then working on it today is NOT urgent, but it can still be a high priority.
<< And those urgent tasks should be done in order of their urgency, as in "...before I do X?", and that urgency is determined by their importance to you as in "What do I want to do...". The portion of the FV question "What do I want to do..." gets you to determine the importance level a task holds for you and the "...before I do X" puts that task on a time scale. FV is designed to do a number of things, and one of them is to balance the need to focus on the higher priorities/urgent tasks with the need to handle important, but possibly low-urgency, resistant, procrastinated on, old, backlogged, distracting, or back-burner tasks. >>
Prioritized FV is attempting to achieve a better balance, and particularly to drive high-resistance high-priority tasks to completion faster. Standard FV makes it EASIER to procrastinate on high-resistance tasks by allowing you to ignore the task as long as possible, only dealing with it on the infrequent occasions it becomes the root task. With Prioritized FV, procrastination on high-resistance high-priority tasks is reduced because they become the root task more frequently.
<< Remember:
• If it's on your list, it's important.
• And if it's on your list you've committed to completing the task.
• And if you've committed to completing the task, it must be done. >>
This is why I'm not inclined to follow Lillian's suggestions to get the low-priority tasks off my main list.
<< • And if it must be done you must add it to a chain. >>
Eventually.
<< • And if you don't add it to a chain the system will find out, call you on it, and choose the task for you as the last task of your chain. Mark carefully thought out how this would work using structured procrastination. >>
If you read the "structured procrastination" essay, it specifically talks about accomplishing things as a way of procrastinating on something MORE IMPORTANT. Prioritized FV actually fits this model better than standard FV, since that root task is always one of the more important ones.
<< • At this point you have a decision to make regarding your root task — consider whether it can be done now, do a little work on it, re-phrase it, move it off your list, or delete it. >>
As I said, there is a legitimate concern about Prioritized FV's ability to prune the old tasks this way, because it ultimately depends on finishing (or de-prioritizing) all the high-priority tasks so low-priority tasks can cycle through the "magic slot" at the top of the list. The jury's still out on this one.
May 22, 2012 at 15:00 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< I'm pretty sure that Mark suggested starting a new list in the instructions for all or most of his systems, it's not FV-specific. And in AF (I think) he also suggested that if the list got too overwhelming, to dismiss the entire list and start over. >>
Actually, I just noticed that Mark also said: "i wrote that more for people who weren't familiar with the AF/SF concepts. I agree that if you have plenty of experience with them, then using the same list shouldn't be a problem."
-- http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1755862#post1757011
<< I'm pretty sure that Mark suggested starting a new list in the instructions for all or most of his systems, it's not FV-specific. And in AF (I think) he also suggested that if the list got too overwhelming, to dismiss the entire list and start over. >>
Actually, I just noticed that Mark also said: "i wrote that more for people who weren't familiar with the AF/SF concepts. I agree that if you have plenty of experience with them, then using the same list shouldn't be a problem."
-- http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1755862#post1757011
May 22, 2012 at 15:12 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >>You're allowed to add an urgent task to the chain, but you're not supposed to be routinely extending a chain as Mike D. is doing.<<
'not supposed to' according to what? Mark says it's ok to re-do the chain, or add to the chain, when the chain is irrelevant. His example is when there's a long break. But I don't think that one example is the only reason that makes a chain irrelevant, and I'm guessing Mike D doesn't either.
>>• And if you've committed to completing the task, it must be done. >>
This is why I'm not inclined to follow Lillian's suggestions to get the low-priority tasks off my main list.<<
So you want to do the task, but actually working on the task is a distraction from other tasks?
'not supposed to' according to what? Mark says it's ok to re-do the chain, or add to the chain, when the chain is irrelevant. His example is when there's a long break. But I don't think that one example is the only reason that makes a chain irrelevant, and I'm guessing Mike D doesn't either.
>>• And if you've committed to completing the task, it must be done. >>
This is why I'm not inclined to follow Lillian's suggestions to get the low-priority tasks off my main list.<<
So you want to do the task, but actually working on the task is a distraction from other tasks?
May 22, 2012 at 15:34 |
Lillian
Lillian
Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694?currentPage=2#post1831395
Seraphim:
<< The rules don't say "no more than once per day". They say "when your preselected list is no longer relevant". >>
Fair enough. That's correct. Still, if you're finding that your preselected list is frequently becoming irrelevant, isn't that a red flag?
<< When several major priorities are in the midst of thrash, my priorities can change several times during the course of a day. It happens sometimes. FV handles it very well, and this rule works. When the thrashing stops, this rule doesn't need to be applied, and I can return to simply working through my chain. FV works perfectly fine in both situations. >>
Perhaps the time it takes you to construct a full chain (20-30 minutes, you said elsewhere) may have something to do with the frequency of irrelevance? If you could create short chains quickly (in a minute or three) and work several chains a day, would you find yourself in this situation as often? (Obviously, that's easier said than done with 900 items on your list!)
<< Whether a reset should be done every morning or not depends on whether your situation changes substantially overnight. >>
I certainly wouldn't do a full reset every day, but routinely extending a partial chain to fill in the lower rungs on the ladder might be beneficial? (But this is a topic for the other thread.)
<< The only way I know for sure is to check my emails, check my voicemails, check my meetings for the day, etc. So, the first task I do every day is my "reset": check emails, check voicemails, check calendar, check tickler, add those new tasks to my list. Then I just start working my list as dotted from yesterday. If I find my mind being drawn to all the new stuff I just added, instead of focusing on my chain, then I do the reset. >>
I see. I tend to allow such interrupts without placing them on the list or putting them in a chain. I basically go off-list temporarily to deal with the interrupts and then return to processing the list. Perhaps I should try your approach instead, I'm not sure. Normally, I put "email" on the list if I fall behind and have a backlog to catch up on. I do try to keep my inbox empty.
<< For other people who don't have so much new incoming stuff all the time, maybe a morning reset isn't needed at all. They can just keep working through their existing chain. >>
I agree on the need to check email and voice mail regularly. If you're not going off-list to do so, you could treat it like an urgent task, although they're not really urgent per se. What's the best solution?
<< FV handles both situations perfectly. >>
Note that Prioritized FV doesn't change anything here. You can use the same rules and follow the same practices.
Seraphim:
<< The rules don't say "no more than once per day". They say "when your preselected list is no longer relevant". >>
Fair enough. That's correct. Still, if you're finding that your preselected list is frequently becoming irrelevant, isn't that a red flag?
<< When several major priorities are in the midst of thrash, my priorities can change several times during the course of a day. It happens sometimes. FV handles it very well, and this rule works. When the thrashing stops, this rule doesn't need to be applied, and I can return to simply working through my chain. FV works perfectly fine in both situations. >>
Perhaps the time it takes you to construct a full chain (20-30 minutes, you said elsewhere) may have something to do with the frequency of irrelevance? If you could create short chains quickly (in a minute or three) and work several chains a day, would you find yourself in this situation as often? (Obviously, that's easier said than done with 900 items on your list!)
<< Whether a reset should be done every morning or not depends on whether your situation changes substantially overnight. >>
I certainly wouldn't do a full reset every day, but routinely extending a partial chain to fill in the lower rungs on the ladder might be beneficial? (But this is a topic for the other thread.)
<< The only way I know for sure is to check my emails, check my voicemails, check my meetings for the day, etc. So, the first task I do every day is my "reset": check emails, check voicemails, check calendar, check tickler, add those new tasks to my list. Then I just start working my list as dotted from yesterday. If I find my mind being drawn to all the new stuff I just added, instead of focusing on my chain, then I do the reset. >>
I see. I tend to allow such interrupts without placing them on the list or putting them in a chain. I basically go off-list temporarily to deal with the interrupts and then return to processing the list. Perhaps I should try your approach instead, I'm not sure. Normally, I put "email" on the list if I fall behind and have a backlog to catch up on. I do try to keep my inbox empty.
<< For other people who don't have so much new incoming stuff all the time, maybe a morning reset isn't needed at all. They can just keep working through their existing chain. >>
I agree on the need to check email and voice mail regularly. If you're not going off-list to do so, you could treat it like an urgent task, although they're not really urgent per se. What's the best solution?
<< FV handles both situations perfectly. >>
Note that Prioritized FV doesn't change anything here. You can use the same rules and follow the same practices.
May 22, 2012 at 15:34 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< 'not supposed to' according to what? >>
According to the FV instructions. "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." [Emphasis added.]
<< Mark says it's ok to re-do the chain, or add to the chain, when the chain is irrelevant. His example is when there's a long break. But I don't think that one example is the only reason that makes a chain irrelevant, and I'm guessing Mike D doesn't either. >>
I already agreed with you about this -- a long break was just an example. You offered another good example.
However, what Mike D is doing is something entirely different. He didn't assert a need to invoke that rule because his preselected list had become irrelevant. He simply decided that FV offers a "Priority Mode" where you can routinely extend the preselected list after EVERY TASK, whether the list remains relevant or not. At best, this is a gross abuse of that rule, which was plainly never intended to be used at every possible opportunity like that. His "mode of approach" is clearly a violation of standard FV rules, or at least a gross distortion of them.
<< So you want to do the task, but actually working on the task is a distraction from other tasks? >>
I want to do the task eventually. I don't want to have it displace more important tasks.
<< 'not supposed to' according to what? >>
According to the FV instructions. "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." [Emphasis added.]
<< Mark says it's ok to re-do the chain, or add to the chain, when the chain is irrelevant. His example is when there's a long break. But I don't think that one example is the only reason that makes a chain irrelevant, and I'm guessing Mike D doesn't either. >>
I already agreed with you about this -- a long break was just an example. You offered another good example.
However, what Mike D is doing is something entirely different. He didn't assert a need to invoke that rule because his preselected list had become irrelevant. He simply decided that FV offers a "Priority Mode" where you can routinely extend the preselected list after EVERY TASK, whether the list remains relevant or not. At best, this is a gross abuse of that rule, which was plainly never intended to be used at every possible opportunity like that. His "mode of approach" is clearly a violation of standard FV rules, or at least a gross distortion of them.
<< So you want to do the task, but actually working on the task is a distraction from other tasks? >>
I want to do the task eventually. I don't want to have it displace more important tasks.
May 22, 2012 at 15:42 |
Deven
Deven
Deven, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing about what Mike calls option 2.(I thought we were, but maybe not)
I'm not sure how do link to a specific reply, but I was referring to Mike's post May 19, 2012 at 5:24 in the 'Prioritized FV part 2' thread. Mike's option 2 is Mark's tip for the partial reset (2nd paragraph after listing the 2 options). I get the impression you're thinking of something else.
And to quote Seraphim >Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point<
I'm feeling the same way.
I'm not sure how do link to a specific reply, but I was referring to Mike's post May 19, 2012 at 5:24 in the 'Prioritized FV part 2' thread. Mike's option 2 is Mark's tip for the partial reset (2nd paragraph after listing the 2 options). I get the impression you're thinking of something else.
And to quote Seraphim >Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point<
I'm feeling the same way.
May 22, 2012 at 15:55 |
Lillian
Lillian
I tried something like this for a span of 3 or 5 days (well less than a week). The difference is that I chose only one "priority" task at a time, seperated it from my list, and considered it to be the root task for all my task ladders. I did this in attempt to maintain constant focus on the most "important" task on my list. I found two problems:
First, my list began to sprawl over more pages because I was not "eating up" the oldest page. By selecting the same task as my root task again and again, I did not progress through the oldest page, even as my newest page grew. I like to keep my (paper implementation) pages compact.
Second, and most important, I lost a degree of trust in the system. A good chunk of my trust comes from the fact that I know that I will eventually touch EVERY task on my list because of the forced selection of the root task. By reselecting the same root task everytime, even though it was the most important task, I stopped the forced cycling through all the tasks on the list. And so I began to loose faith that I would evenually get to all the other tasks. And I simply cannot abide by this loss in faith in the system.
Instead, I adopted Mark's "Current Initiative" from DIT. I choose the single most important task on my list and mark it with an *. Then, processing the list per normal FV rules, I ensured that every task ladder I created had the marked Current Initiative on it somewhere. I have used this CI method on and off since then. I generally only use it if one task simply sears my brain with urgency and need of completion.
First, my list began to sprawl over more pages because I was not "eating up" the oldest page. By selecting the same task as my root task again and again, I did not progress through the oldest page, even as my newest page grew. I like to keep my (paper implementation) pages compact.
Second, and most important, I lost a degree of trust in the system. A good chunk of my trust comes from the fact that I know that I will eventually touch EVERY task on my list because of the forced selection of the root task. By reselecting the same root task everytime, even though it was the most important task, I stopped the forced cycling through all the tasks on the list. And so I began to loose faith that I would evenually get to all the other tasks. And I simply cannot abide by this loss in faith in the system.
Instead, I adopted Mark's "Current Initiative" from DIT. I choose the single most important task on my list and mark it with an *. Then, processing the list per normal FV rules, I ensured that every task ladder I created had the marked Current Initiative on it somewhere. I have used this CI method on and off since then. I generally only use it if one task simply sears my brain with urgency and need of completion.
May 22, 2012 at 16:00 |
Miracle
Miracle
Lillian:
<< Deven, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing about what Mike calls option 2.(I thought we were, but maybe not) >>
I'm not sure either. :)
<< I'm not sure how do link to a specific reply, but I was referring to Mike's post May 19, 2012 at 5:24 in the 'Prioritized FV part 2' thread. >>
Here is the link you want:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694#post1830346
The only way I've figured out how to make the link to a specific post is to "View Source" on the page and look for the comment (e.g. search for the time posted or some text) and look above the text for the post number, then append it (with a #) to the URL by hand. Perhaps someone else knows a better way?
<< Mike's option 2 is Mark's tip for the partial reset (2nd paragraph after listing the 2 options). I get the impression you're thinking of something else. >>
The "partial reset" option only applies when your preselected list has become irrelevant. As you and Seraphim have both mentioned, there are reasons other than a long break that might make your list irrelevant. Mike D has twisted this into an imagined "Priority Mode" that isn't in the FV rules at all, even reading between the lines, then turns around and claims this isn't even a tweak to the system! It's a much larger tweak than the one I made.
<< And to quote Seraphim >Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point<
I'm feeling the same way. >>
I'm sorry to hear that, because I've also valued your input, and I was hoping we could get on the same page -- if not in agreement, then at least understanding each other's positions and why we disagree on them. I feel like I'm failing to communicate something to you, and I'm sorry for that. If there's anything I can do to communicate more clearly, please let me know.
<< Deven, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing about what Mike calls option 2.(I thought we were, but maybe not) >>
I'm not sure either. :)
<< I'm not sure how do link to a specific reply, but I was referring to Mike's post May 19, 2012 at 5:24 in the 'Prioritized FV part 2' thread. >>
Here is the link you want:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694#post1830346
The only way I've figured out how to make the link to a specific post is to "View Source" on the page and look for the comment (e.g. search for the time posted or some text) and look above the text for the post number, then append it (with a #) to the URL by hand. Perhaps someone else knows a better way?
<< Mike's option 2 is Mark's tip for the partial reset (2nd paragraph after listing the 2 options). I get the impression you're thinking of something else. >>
The "partial reset" option only applies when your preselected list has become irrelevant. As you and Seraphim have both mentioned, there are reasons other than a long break that might make your list irrelevant. Mike D has twisted this into an imagined "Priority Mode" that isn't in the FV rules at all, even reading between the lines, then turns around and claims this isn't even a tweak to the system! It's a much larger tweak than the one I made.
<< And to quote Seraphim >Beyond that, I don't think I would add anything to the discussion by repeating what I've already said before, and that's really all I would be doing at this point<
I'm feeling the same way. >>
I'm sorry to hear that, because I've also valued your input, and I was hoping we could get on the same page -- if not in agreement, then at least understanding each other's positions and why we disagree on them. I feel like I'm failing to communicate something to you, and I'm sorry for that. If there's anything I can do to communicate more clearly, please let me know.
May 22, 2012 at 16:10 |
Deven
Deven
Miracle:
<< I tried something like this for a span of 3 or 5 days (well less than a week). The difference is that I chose only one "priority" task at a time, seperated it from my list, and considered it to be the root task for all my task ladders. I did this in attempt to maintain constant focus on the most "important" task on my list. >>
That's functionally identical to using Prioritized FV with just one prioritized task, and equivalent to what Elynn mentioned as well.
<< I found two problems:
First, my list began to sprawl over more pages because I was not "eating up" the oldest page. By selecting the same task as my root task again and again, I did not progress through the oldest page, even as my newest page grew. I like to keep my (paper implementation) pages compact. >>
I've experienced a similar problem, though I'm using index cards and can tear them up when I finish all tasks on a card. Still, I have a number of cards that are mostly (but not entirely) crossed out.
<< Second, and most important, I lost a degree of trust in the system. A good chunk of my trust comes from the fact that I know that I will eventually touch EVERY task on my list because of the forced selection of the root task. By reselecting the same root task everytime, even though it was the most important task, I stopped the forced cycling through all the tasks on the list. And so I began to loose faith that I would evenually get to all the other tasks. And I simply cannot abide by this loss in faith in the system. >>
This is a concern to me as well, but I'm reserving judgment for now, until I see how it plays out for a while longer.
<< Instead, I adopted Mark's "Current Initiative" from DIT. I choose the single most important task on my list and mark it with an *. Then, processing the list per normal FV rules, I ensured that every task ladder I created had the marked Current Initiative on it somewhere. I have used this CI method on and off since then. I generally only use it if one task simply sears my brain with urgency and need of completion. >>
So you're basically following standard FV rules, but hinting to yourself (with the star) that you want to do this task so you'll preselect it every time. This isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't have much to do with the "before" part of The Question. Nevertheless, it's another way to ensure that you chip away at your top priority.
I created Prioritized FV to solve a specific problem -- that I had a high-resistance high-priority task that standard FV wasn't driving to completion. It did seem to solve that problem, but I'm still watching for unintended consequences.
The debate with Seraphim and Lillian notwithstanding, I am NOT overly concerned about spending some time on low priorities, as long as the high priorities are not neglected in the process. However, that's what was happening with the high-resistance high-priority task using standard FV.
One idea that crossed my mind was to always have a "top 3" (a la 3-Task) of top priorities at all times, but I quickly rejected that idea because it would guarantee that the low-priority tasks would never start cycling through the "magic slot" at the top of the list.
I'm finding a better balance of urgency and importance with Prioritized FV, but it does seem to sacrifice much of the "automatic cleanup" nature of standard FV, which is a downside. I'm not sure how to solve that, other than being reluctant to prioritize anything.
One thought that comes to mind would be that you could automatically preselect the oldest high-priority task AND the oldest low-priority task in every chain? That would add to the distraction factor, but restore the cleanup functionality and perhaps trust in the system. I may experiment with this, but I'm having trouble visualizing the effect of such a change.
Thoughts?
<< I tried something like this for a span of 3 or 5 days (well less than a week). The difference is that I chose only one "priority" task at a time, seperated it from my list, and considered it to be the root task for all my task ladders. I did this in attempt to maintain constant focus on the most "important" task on my list. >>
That's functionally identical to using Prioritized FV with just one prioritized task, and equivalent to what Elynn mentioned as well.
<< I found two problems:
First, my list began to sprawl over more pages because I was not "eating up" the oldest page. By selecting the same task as my root task again and again, I did not progress through the oldest page, even as my newest page grew. I like to keep my (paper implementation) pages compact. >>
I've experienced a similar problem, though I'm using index cards and can tear them up when I finish all tasks on a card. Still, I have a number of cards that are mostly (but not entirely) crossed out.
<< Second, and most important, I lost a degree of trust in the system. A good chunk of my trust comes from the fact that I know that I will eventually touch EVERY task on my list because of the forced selection of the root task. By reselecting the same root task everytime, even though it was the most important task, I stopped the forced cycling through all the tasks on the list. And so I began to loose faith that I would evenually get to all the other tasks. And I simply cannot abide by this loss in faith in the system. >>
This is a concern to me as well, but I'm reserving judgment for now, until I see how it plays out for a while longer.
<< Instead, I adopted Mark's "Current Initiative" from DIT. I choose the single most important task on my list and mark it with an *. Then, processing the list per normal FV rules, I ensured that every task ladder I created had the marked Current Initiative on it somewhere. I have used this CI method on and off since then. I generally only use it if one task simply sears my brain with urgency and need of completion. >>
So you're basically following standard FV rules, but hinting to yourself (with the star) that you want to do this task so you'll preselect it every time. This isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't have much to do with the "before" part of The Question. Nevertheless, it's another way to ensure that you chip away at your top priority.
I created Prioritized FV to solve a specific problem -- that I had a high-resistance high-priority task that standard FV wasn't driving to completion. It did seem to solve that problem, but I'm still watching for unintended consequences.
The debate with Seraphim and Lillian notwithstanding, I am NOT overly concerned about spending some time on low priorities, as long as the high priorities are not neglected in the process. However, that's what was happening with the high-resistance high-priority task using standard FV.
One idea that crossed my mind was to always have a "top 3" (a la 3-Task) of top priorities at all times, but I quickly rejected that idea because it would guarantee that the low-priority tasks would never start cycling through the "magic slot" at the top of the list.
I'm finding a better balance of urgency and importance with Prioritized FV, but it does seem to sacrifice much of the "automatic cleanup" nature of standard FV, which is a downside. I'm not sure how to solve that, other than being reluctant to prioritize anything.
One thought that comes to mind would be that you could automatically preselect the oldest high-priority task AND the oldest low-priority task in every chain? That would add to the distraction factor, but restore the cleanup functionality and perhaps trust in the system. I may experiment with this, but I'm having trouble visualizing the effect of such a change.
Thoughts?
May 22, 2012 at 16:48 |
Deven
Deven
The solution that first springs to mind for me would be to alternate a chain of P-FV with a chain of regular FV in some way. Every other chain is FV, or one a day, or when you're tired and need a break. Something like that.
I can see two ways to treat the FV passes. A chain could totally ignore the starred items at the top and work on the stuff below it. Or you could build a chain by treating the oldest low-priority items as the root of the chain but pretend the starred items were at the end of the list and answer the question about them as well. Like so:
*10 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1 is the list with 10 having a P-FV star. The plain FV pass could be either
(10 ignored) *5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1
or
*5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1 *10 (pretending the priority section was at the end since they've been recently actioned.)
That way if you have broken your resistance and want to continue working on 10, you can. Although if the resistance is broken, I'm not sure you need P-FV anymore. How are you dealing with that, Deven? I suspect that trying to add/remove things as resistance changes would make stuff unnecessarily complicated. Is P-FV something that you're sticking to even when/if you stop feeling high resistance because the priority hasn't changed? Are all the starred items retaining their resistance or losing it?
BTW - My second idea for the FV list seems like it could be weird and complicated, but I over-think things and would probably try it if I were doing P-FV.
I can see two ways to treat the FV passes. A chain could totally ignore the starred items at the top and work on the stuff below it. Or you could build a chain by treating the oldest low-priority items as the root of the chain but pretend the starred items were at the end of the list and answer the question about them as well. Like so:
*10 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1 is the list with 10 having a P-FV star. The plain FV pass could be either
(10 ignored) *5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1
or
*5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1 *10 (pretending the priority section was at the end since they've been recently actioned.)
That way if you have broken your resistance and want to continue working on 10, you can. Although if the resistance is broken, I'm not sure you need P-FV anymore. How are you dealing with that, Deven? I suspect that trying to add/remove things as resistance changes would make stuff unnecessarily complicated. Is P-FV something that you're sticking to even when/if you stop feeling high resistance because the priority hasn't changed? Are all the starred items retaining their resistance or losing it?
BTW - My second idea for the FV list seems like it could be weird and complicated, but I over-think things and would probably try it if I were doing P-FV.
May 22, 2012 at 18:13 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
R. M. Koske:
<< The solution that first springs to mind for me would be to alternate a chain of P-FV with a chain of regular FV in some way. Every other chain is FV, or one a day, or when you're tired and need a break. Something like that. >>
That reminds me of the idea of alternating between the standard FV question and the Alternative FV question, which seems like a good approach too.
Alternating between processing modes is a feasible solution, but it feels a little complicated and harder to keep track of. It would certainly be easier if you do the same thing in each pass, wouldn't it? Is there a good way to meet all the goals in one pass? I'm not sure.
But I agree that switching modes between passes may be viable. I'm just hoping for something more straightforward.
<< I can see two ways to treat the FV passes. A chain could totally ignore the starred items at the top and work on the stuff below it. Or you could build a chain by treating the oldest low-priority items as the root of the chain but pretend the starred items were at the end of the list and answer the question about them as well. Like so:
*10 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1 is the list with 10 having a P-FV star. The plain FV pass could be either
(10 ignored) *5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1
or
*5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1 *10 (pretending the priority section was at the end since they've been recently actioned.) >>
Reordering the list seems logistically awkward (especially on paper) and ignoring sections of it seems undesirable...
<< That way if you have broken your resistance and want to continue working on 10, you can. Although if the resistance is broken, I'm not sure you need P-FV anymore. How are you dealing with that, Deven? I suspect that trying to add/remove things as resistance changes would make stuff unnecessarily complicated. Is P-FV something that you're sticking to even when/if you stop feeling high resistance because the priority hasn't changed? Are all the starred items retaining their resistance or losing it? >>
Yes, I've been sticking with it because it helps me monitor the priorities and progress on them, even without resistance. I seem to end up with shorter chains with a higher proportion of high-priority tasks as compared with standard FV. I still think Prioritized FV is working well overall, but I miss the automatic cleanup of standard FV already.
<< BTW - My second idea for the FV list seems like it could be weird and complicated, but I over-think things and would probably try it if I were doing P-FV. >>
Let's hear it! I'm always interested in good ideas.
I'd rather not make things more complicated than necessary, but sometimes the complexity is worth it, if you get enough benefit.
Another idea that I just thought of. What about tweaking Prioritized FV to integrate the automatic cleanup by requiring the oldest low-priority task to be selected in every chain, but perhaps moving it to the end of the top-priority list in the process? Just a random thought...
<< The solution that first springs to mind for me would be to alternate a chain of P-FV with a chain of regular FV in some way. Every other chain is FV, or one a day, or when you're tired and need a break. Something like that. >>
That reminds me of the idea of alternating between the standard FV question and the Alternative FV question, which seems like a good approach too.
Alternating between processing modes is a feasible solution, but it feels a little complicated and harder to keep track of. It would certainly be easier if you do the same thing in each pass, wouldn't it? Is there a good way to meet all the goals in one pass? I'm not sure.
But I agree that switching modes between passes may be viable. I'm just hoping for something more straightforward.
<< I can see two ways to treat the FV passes. A chain could totally ignore the starred items at the top and work on the stuff below it. Or you could build a chain by treating the oldest low-priority items as the root of the chain but pretend the starred items were at the end of the list and answer the question about them as well. Like so:
*10 5 4 6 3 8 2 9 7 5 1 is the list with 10 having a P-FV star. The plain FV pass could be either
(10 ignored) *5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1
or
*5 4 *6 3 *8 2 *9 7 5 1 *10 (pretending the priority section was at the end since they've been recently actioned.) >>
Reordering the list seems logistically awkward (especially on paper) and ignoring sections of it seems undesirable...
<< That way if you have broken your resistance and want to continue working on 10, you can. Although if the resistance is broken, I'm not sure you need P-FV anymore. How are you dealing with that, Deven? I suspect that trying to add/remove things as resistance changes would make stuff unnecessarily complicated. Is P-FV something that you're sticking to even when/if you stop feeling high resistance because the priority hasn't changed? Are all the starred items retaining their resistance or losing it? >>
Yes, I've been sticking with it because it helps me monitor the priorities and progress on them, even without resistance. I seem to end up with shorter chains with a higher proportion of high-priority tasks as compared with standard FV. I still think Prioritized FV is working well overall, but I miss the automatic cleanup of standard FV already.
<< BTW - My second idea for the FV list seems like it could be weird and complicated, but I over-think things and would probably try it if I were doing P-FV. >>
Let's hear it! I'm always interested in good ideas.
I'd rather not make things more complicated than necessary, but sometimes the complexity is worth it, if you get enough benefit.
Another idea that I just thought of. What about tweaking Prioritized FV to integrate the automatic cleanup by requiring the oldest low-priority task to be selected in every chain, but perhaps moving it to the end of the top-priority list in the process? Just a random thought...
May 22, 2012 at 18:34 |
Deven
Deven
Agreed on all points, Deven. Ignoring parts of the list seems risky, pretending to rearrange the list is awkward, and it would be better to have a way to do it that was consistent all the time.
When I said "my second idea", I was referring to the second way of doing regular FV that I had in the post - pretending it was at the end of the list. I don't have anything weird hanging out unspoken, sorry. :)
It did occur to me that if your priority tasks are on an index card all together and separate from the rest of the list, you could just put it on the bottom of the pile of cards and voila, the P-FV tasks are at the end. But that only works for an index card system.
When I said "my second idea", I was referring to the second way of doing regular FV that I had in the post - pretending it was at the end of the list. I don't have anything weird hanging out unspoken, sorry. :)
It did occur to me that if your priority tasks are on an index card all together and separate from the rest of the list, you could just put it on the bottom of the pile of cards and voila, the P-FV tasks are at the end. But that only works for an index card system.
May 22, 2012 at 18:43 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
R. M. Koske:
<< Agreed on all points, Deven. Ignoring parts of the list seems risky, pretending to rearrange the list is awkward, and it would be better to have a way to do it that was consistent all the time. >>
Gee, I'm not so used to easy agreement in this thread. :)
<< When I said "my second idea", I was referring to the second way of doing regular FV that I had in the post - pretending it was at the end of the list. I don't have anything weird hanging out unspoken, sorry. :) >>
Aww, I was hoping you had another clever idea that you had hesitated to present because it was too complex!
<< It did occur to me that if your priority tasks are on an index card all together and separate from the rest of the list, you could just put it on the bottom of the pile of cards and voila, the P-FV tasks are at the end. But that only works for an index card system. >>
That's a good point, but most people don't use index cards. Still, I might consider such ideas for my own use at least -- I utilized the easily rearrangement of index cards for my previous AF1/AF2/CAF variant that I was using before FV, so I'm not opposed to the idea!
But I'd still like a solution that works in all forms, ideally. (Prioritized FV is already a bit problematic for bound paper notebooks...)
<< Agreed on all points, Deven. Ignoring parts of the list seems risky, pretending to rearrange the list is awkward, and it would be better to have a way to do it that was consistent all the time. >>
Gee, I'm not so used to easy agreement in this thread. :)
<< When I said "my second idea", I was referring to the second way of doing regular FV that I had in the post - pretending it was at the end of the list. I don't have anything weird hanging out unspoken, sorry. :) >>
Aww, I was hoping you had another clever idea that you had hesitated to present because it was too complex!
<< It did occur to me that if your priority tasks are on an index card all together and separate from the rest of the list, you could just put it on the bottom of the pile of cards and voila, the P-FV tasks are at the end. But that only works for an index card system. >>
That's a good point, but most people don't use index cards. Still, I might consider such ideas for my own use at least -- I utilized the easily rearrangement of index cards for my previous AF1/AF2/CAF variant that I was using before FV, so I'm not opposed to the idea!
But I'd still like a solution that works in all forms, ideally. (Prioritized FV is already a bit problematic for bound paper notebooks...)
May 22, 2012 at 19:01 |
Deven
Deven
Deven said: << One thought that comes to mind would be that you could automatically preselect the oldest high-priority task AND the oldest low-priority task in every chain? >>
<< requiring the oldest low-priority task to be selected in every chain, but perhaps moving it to the end of the top-priority list in the process? >>
I tried two methods. The first was like your first. Every chain, select the oldest line in the book -- which by definition is the thing I was resisting longest and usually considered either unimportant or a guilty pleasure or starting one more project when I have too many on the go already. What did I want to do before that? Well, knowing that the important work for the day was already dotted, nothing.
Yep, you guessed it -- I'd do anything rather than that one, and the rest of the chain, priority or not, waited. Yes, I could have written it at the end of the list and moved on, but I've said before that I don't like that slippery road, and first thing in the morning isn't the right time to ask me to take a risk like that.
Having to dot the oldest line in regular FV is genius. By the time I work my way up the chain, I've made good progress on the priorities. Brain and muscles moving. All priorities under control (or not -- but at least my info is current). Good progress on the priorities, time for a bit of pleasure. None of that exists if it's first on the list.
The other method was once a day (only for days I worked the list), the oldest line got full stars. Being oldest, my spreadsheet sorted it to the top of the list -- and I'd climb up to it. That worked well. By the time I reached it, I felt competent (having just made good progress on my priorities), and was willing to either work on it or defer it.
+++
Koske, The stars are by priority (which may be affected by urgency -- today's report is more urgent next month's), not resistance. It's a way of ensuring that the priorities are met. Keeping momentum is important.
Today's experiment with FV? A disaster. I haven't even opened the list. I don't have faith that it will suggest the projects I already know need attention. It's a catch-22, since in order to have faith in it, I need to work it.
<< requiring the oldest low-priority task to be selected in every chain, but perhaps moving it to the end of the top-priority list in the process? >>
I tried two methods. The first was like your first. Every chain, select the oldest line in the book -- which by definition is the thing I was resisting longest and usually considered either unimportant or a guilty pleasure or starting one more project when I have too many on the go already. What did I want to do before that? Well, knowing that the important work for the day was already dotted, nothing.
Yep, you guessed it -- I'd do anything rather than that one, and the rest of the chain, priority or not, waited. Yes, I could have written it at the end of the list and moved on, but I've said before that I don't like that slippery road, and first thing in the morning isn't the right time to ask me to take a risk like that.
Having to dot the oldest line in regular FV is genius. By the time I work my way up the chain, I've made good progress on the priorities. Brain and muscles moving. All priorities under control (or not -- but at least my info is current). Good progress on the priorities, time for a bit of pleasure. None of that exists if it's first on the list.
The other method was once a day (only for days I worked the list), the oldest line got full stars. Being oldest, my spreadsheet sorted it to the top of the list -- and I'd climb up to it. That worked well. By the time I reached it, I felt competent (having just made good progress on my priorities), and was willing to either work on it or defer it.
+++
Koske, The stars are by priority (which may be affected by urgency -- today's report is more urgent next month's), not resistance. It's a way of ensuring that the priorities are met. Keeping momentum is important.
Today's experiment with FV? A disaster. I haven't even opened the list. I don't have faith that it will suggest the projects I already know need attention. It's a catch-22, since in order to have faith in it, I need to work it.
May 22, 2012 at 19:18 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket:
<< I tried two methods. The first was like your first. Every chain, select the oldest line in the book -- which by definition is the thing I was resisting longest and usually considered either unimportant or a guilty pleasure or starting one more project when I have too many on the go already. What did I want to do before that? Well, knowing that the important work for the day was already dotted, nothing.
Yep, you guessed it -- I'd do anything rather than that one, and the rest of the chain, priority or not, waited. Yes, I could have written it at the end of the list and moved on, but I've said before that I don't like that slippery road, and first thing in the morning isn't the right time to ask me to take a risk like that. >>
I definitely feel like high-resistance tasks (whether high-priority or low-priority) NEED to be root tasks to break the resistance, to provide the laddering effect. If it's at the end of the list, you don't get the laddering effect, so you have a problem even if you DO select it. (And it's so much easier not to even select it!)
<< Having to dot the oldest line in regular FV is genius. By the time I work my way up the chain, I've made good progress on the priorities. Brain and muscles moving. All priorities under control (or not -- but at least my info is current). Good progress on the priorities, time for a bit of pleasure. None of that exists if it's first on the list. >>
Agreed.
<< The other method was once a day (only for days I worked the list), the oldest line got full stars. Being oldest, my spreadsheet sorted it to the top of the list -- and I'd climb up to it. That worked well. By the time I reached it, I felt competent (having just made good progress on my priorities), and was willing to either work on it or defer it. >>
Once a day seems a little arbitrary to me. Is there a better way to make this self-regulating? Maybe keep one low-priority item with the top-priority group, let it cycle normally, and only promote another low-priority task when it gets actioned normally?
<< Koske, The stars are by priority (which may be affected by urgency -- today's report is more urgent next month's), not resistance. It's a way of ensuring that the priorities are met. Keeping momentum is important. >>
True, but adding stars ONLY for resistance instead of priority would be an interesting twist. That would rely more on FV's normal mechanisms for prioritization instead and focus the "magic slot" on breaking down resistance. Would that work well or not?
<< Today's experiment with FV? A disaster. I haven't even opened the list. I don't have faith that it will suggest the projects I already know need attention. It's a catch-22, since in order to have faith in it, I need to work it. >>
Sounds like your return to standard FV isn't going well so far, but it's too early to judge. Keep us posted!
<< I tried two methods. The first was like your first. Every chain, select the oldest line in the book -- which by definition is the thing I was resisting longest and usually considered either unimportant or a guilty pleasure or starting one more project when I have too many on the go already. What did I want to do before that? Well, knowing that the important work for the day was already dotted, nothing.
Yep, you guessed it -- I'd do anything rather than that one, and the rest of the chain, priority or not, waited. Yes, I could have written it at the end of the list and moved on, but I've said before that I don't like that slippery road, and first thing in the morning isn't the right time to ask me to take a risk like that. >>
I definitely feel like high-resistance tasks (whether high-priority or low-priority) NEED to be root tasks to break the resistance, to provide the laddering effect. If it's at the end of the list, you don't get the laddering effect, so you have a problem even if you DO select it. (And it's so much easier not to even select it!)
<< Having to dot the oldest line in regular FV is genius. By the time I work my way up the chain, I've made good progress on the priorities. Brain and muscles moving. All priorities under control (or not -- but at least my info is current). Good progress on the priorities, time for a bit of pleasure. None of that exists if it's first on the list. >>
Agreed.
<< The other method was once a day (only for days I worked the list), the oldest line got full stars. Being oldest, my spreadsheet sorted it to the top of the list -- and I'd climb up to it. That worked well. By the time I reached it, I felt competent (having just made good progress on my priorities), and was willing to either work on it or defer it. >>
Once a day seems a little arbitrary to me. Is there a better way to make this self-regulating? Maybe keep one low-priority item with the top-priority group, let it cycle normally, and only promote another low-priority task when it gets actioned normally?
<< Koske, The stars are by priority (which may be affected by urgency -- today's report is more urgent next month's), not resistance. It's a way of ensuring that the priorities are met. Keeping momentum is important. >>
True, but adding stars ONLY for resistance instead of priority would be an interesting twist. That would rely more on FV's normal mechanisms for prioritization instead and focus the "magic slot" on breaking down resistance. Would that work well or not?
<< Today's experiment with FV? A disaster. I haven't even opened the list. I don't have faith that it will suggest the projects I already know need attention. It's a catch-22, since in order to have faith in it, I need to work it. >>
Sounds like your return to standard FV isn't going well so far, but it's too early to judge. Keep us posted!
May 22, 2012 at 19:39 |
Deven
Deven
Cricket >>Today's experiment with FV? A disaster. I haven't even opened the list. I don't have faith that it will suggest the projects I already know need attention. <<
So what did you end up doing today? Working those projects even though they're not dotted (since you haven't opened the list) or wander around doing whatever catches your eye?
I don't think there's anything wrong with working those projects 'offlist' and once you're done as much as you need to, go back to the list and continue there. If any of the projects got done, I'd update the list so there isn't 'stale' info, but otherwise I'd just pick up the list and start a new chain (or continue the existing chain).
i wouldn't say working offlist today counts as a disaster. (at least I hope not, because I've been working offlist at home for about 2 weeks and I don't think of it as a disaster)
So what did you end up doing today? Working those projects even though they're not dotted (since you haven't opened the list) or wander around doing whatever catches your eye?
I don't think there's anything wrong with working those projects 'offlist' and once you're done as much as you need to, go back to the list and continue there. If any of the projects got done, I'd update the list so there isn't 'stale' info, but otherwise I'd just pick up the list and start a new chain (or continue the existing chain).
i wouldn't say working offlist today counts as a disaster. (at least I hope not, because I've been working offlist at home for about 2 weeks and I don't think of it as a disaster)
May 22, 2012 at 19:40 |
Lillian
Lillian
Working off-list isn't automatically bad (or is it?), but you do run the risk that you're missing something that the system might remind you of, or misdirecting your focus. I go off-list for little things like new email. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not. (But ultimately, if you're getting done what you need to get done, when you need to get it done, that's the most important thing.)
May 22, 2012 at 19:43 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >> high-resistance tasks ..... if it's at the end of the list, you don't get the laddering effect<<
not exactly -- 'end of the list' doesn't necessarily mean the 'last item of the list'. After a day, or even a few hours, there's been items added to the list. So that high-resistance item might be #25 of 25 at 9am and #20 of 28 at 10.30am (5 items were done, so it moved up to #20, and 8 were added so the list is now 28 items long)
You couldn't ladder the item at 9am since it literally was the end of the list. At 10.30, it's at the end of list where you could get a laddering effect with up to 8 items following the item
(if you think of the list in rough thirds - 1/3= beginning/top, 1/3=middle, and 1/3=end/bottom)
(still willing to join back in the conversation if something seems 'new')
not exactly -- 'end of the list' doesn't necessarily mean the 'last item of the list'. After a day, or even a few hours, there's been items added to the list. So that high-resistance item might be #25 of 25 at 9am and #20 of 28 at 10.30am (5 items were done, so it moved up to #20, and 8 were added so the list is now 28 items long)
You couldn't ladder the item at 9am since it literally was the end of the list. At 10.30, it's at the end of list where you could get a laddering effect with up to 8 items following the item
(if you think of the list in rough thirds - 1/3= beginning/top, 1/3=middle, and 1/3=end/bottom)
(still willing to join back in the conversation if something seems 'new')
May 22, 2012 at 20:01 |
Lillian
Lillian
Lillian:
<< not exactly -- 'end of the list' doesn't necessarily mean the 'last item of the list'. After a day, or even a few hours, there's been items added to the list. So that high-resistance item might be #25 of 25 at 9am and #20 of 28 at 10.30am (5 items were done, so it moved up to #20, and 8 were added so the list is now 28 items long)
You couldn't ladder the item at 9am since it literally was the end of the list. At 10.30, it's at the end of list where you could get a laddering effect with up to 8 items following the item
(if you think of the list in rough thirds - 1/3= beginning/top, 1/3=middle, and 1/3=end/bottom) >>
It's all relative, I guess. Ultimately, the more tasks that you have after the high-resistance task, the more options you have for laddering your way up to it. So being the last item in the list is the worst-case scenario, while the first item is the best-case scenario.
<< (still willing to join back in the conversation if something seems 'new') >>
Glad to hear it! :)
<< not exactly -- 'end of the list' doesn't necessarily mean the 'last item of the list'. After a day, or even a few hours, there's been items added to the list. So that high-resistance item might be #25 of 25 at 9am and #20 of 28 at 10.30am (5 items were done, so it moved up to #20, and 8 were added so the list is now 28 items long)
You couldn't ladder the item at 9am since it literally was the end of the list. At 10.30, it's at the end of list where you could get a laddering effect with up to 8 items following the item
(if you think of the list in rough thirds - 1/3= beginning/top, 1/3=middle, and 1/3=end/bottom) >>
It's all relative, I guess. Ultimately, the more tasks that you have after the high-resistance task, the more options you have for laddering your way up to it. So being the last item in the list is the worst-case scenario, while the first item is the best-case scenario.
<< (still willing to join back in the conversation if something seems 'new') >>
Glad to hear it! :)
May 22, 2012 at 20:12 |
Deven
Deven
Cricket >>I tried two methods. The first was like your first. Every chain, select the oldest line in the book -- which by definition is the thing I was resisting longest and usually considered either unimportant or a guilty pleasure or starting one more project when I have too many on the go already. What did I want to do before that? Well, knowing that the important work for the day was already dotted, nothing.
Yep, you guessed it -- I'd do anything rather than that one, and the rest of the chain, priority or not, waited. Yes, I could have written it at the end of the list and moved on, but I've said before that I don't like that slippery road, and first thing in the morning isn't the right time to ask me to take a risk like that.
Having to dot the oldest line in regular FV is genius. By the time I work my way up the chain, I've made good progress on the priorities. Brain and muscles moving. All priorities under control (or not -- but at least my info is current). Good progress on the priorities, time for a bit of pleasure. None of that exists if it's first on the list.<<
I'm slightly brainfogged at the moment, but I don't understand the difference between these two methods. I think this is two different things being described, anyway, one that works and one that doesn't. But they sound like the same thing to me. The oldest line in the book - isn't that the same thing as the oldest line in regular FV? And I'm not sure where "first on the list" comes in. Am I just being really easily confused here?
<< Koske, The stars are by priority (which may be affected by urgency -- today's report is more urgent next month's), not resistance. It's a way of ensuring that the priorities are met. Keeping momentum is important. >>
I thought the reason Deven came up with the P-list was that priority tasks were being strongly resisted, so much that Deven didn't trust regular FV to break the procrastination in time. It does make sense that P-FV, like regular FV, would reduce resistance and you would keep the P-list anyway. I can see that you don't have to have resistance to make the P-list. I just got curious how the resistance changed for Deven.
Yep, you guessed it -- I'd do anything rather than that one, and the rest of the chain, priority or not, waited. Yes, I could have written it at the end of the list and moved on, but I've said before that I don't like that slippery road, and first thing in the morning isn't the right time to ask me to take a risk like that.
Having to dot the oldest line in regular FV is genius. By the time I work my way up the chain, I've made good progress on the priorities. Brain and muscles moving. All priorities under control (or not -- but at least my info is current). Good progress on the priorities, time for a bit of pleasure. None of that exists if it's first on the list.<<
I'm slightly brainfogged at the moment, but I don't understand the difference between these two methods. I think this is two different things being described, anyway, one that works and one that doesn't. But they sound like the same thing to me. The oldest line in the book - isn't that the same thing as the oldest line in regular FV? And I'm not sure where "first on the list" comes in. Am I just being really easily confused here?
<< Koske, The stars are by priority (which may be affected by urgency -- today's report is more urgent next month's), not resistance. It's a way of ensuring that the priorities are met. Keeping momentum is important. >>
I thought the reason Deven came up with the P-list was that priority tasks were being strongly resisted, so much that Deven didn't trust regular FV to break the procrastination in time. It does make sense that P-FV, like regular FV, would reduce resistance and you would keep the P-list anyway. I can see that you don't have to have resistance to make the P-list. I just got curious how the resistance changed for Deven.
May 22, 2012 at 20:25 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske:
<< I'm slightly brainfogged at the moment, but I don't understand the difference between these two methods. I think this is two different things being described, anyway, one that works and one that doesn't. But they sound like the same thing to me. The oldest line in the book - isn't that the same thing as the oldest line in regular FV? And I'm not sure where "first on the list" comes in. Am I just being really easily confused here? >>
As I understand it, the two methods Cricket tried were: (1) select the oldest low-priority task AFTER the high-priority tasks, and (2) prioritize the oldest low-priority task once a day to the top priority level in use. Method (1) didn't work well because nothing got selected after the high-resistance task, method (2) worked better because of the laddering effect.
<< I thought the reason Deven came up with the P-list was that priority tasks were being strongly resisted, so much that Deven didn't trust regular FV to break the procrastination in time. It does make sense that P-FV, like regular FV, would reduce resistance and you would keep the P-list anyway. I can see that you don't have to have resistance to make the P-list. I just got curious how the resistance changed for Deven. >>
That was the reason why I tweaked the rewriting rules to make Prioritized FV, because standard FV was enabling MORE procrastination on a high-priority high-resistance task.
But resistance isn't the only reason to mark a task as a priority. That being said, approaching it that way would be a worthwhile experiment.
<< I'm slightly brainfogged at the moment, but I don't understand the difference between these two methods. I think this is two different things being described, anyway, one that works and one that doesn't. But they sound like the same thing to me. The oldest line in the book - isn't that the same thing as the oldest line in regular FV? And I'm not sure where "first on the list" comes in. Am I just being really easily confused here? >>
As I understand it, the two methods Cricket tried were: (1) select the oldest low-priority task AFTER the high-priority tasks, and (2) prioritize the oldest low-priority task once a day to the top priority level in use. Method (1) didn't work well because nothing got selected after the high-resistance task, method (2) worked better because of the laddering effect.
<< I thought the reason Deven came up with the P-list was that priority tasks were being strongly resisted, so much that Deven didn't trust regular FV to break the procrastination in time. It does make sense that P-FV, like regular FV, would reduce resistance and you would keep the P-list anyway. I can see that you don't have to have resistance to make the P-list. I just got curious how the resistance changed for Deven. >>
That was the reason why I tweaked the rewriting rules to make Prioritized FV, because standard FV was enabling MORE procrastination on a high-priority high-resistance task.
But resistance isn't the only reason to mark a task as a priority. That being said, approaching it that way would be a worthwhile experiment.
May 22, 2012 at 20:58 |
Deven
Deven
Ah, thanks Deven.
May 22, 2012 at 21:25 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
I stalled all morning, then made acceptable progress on the projects others depend on right now. Only those projects, nothing else, not even longer projects like continually setting a good example for the kids about unpacking after the holidays.
I updated the list as if I used it, so projects that got action today are in the newest page, and will try again Thursday. I'm out all day Wednesday.
<< Once a day seems a little arbitrary to me. Is there a better way to make this self-regulating? Maybe keep one low-priority item with the top-priority group, let it cycle normally, and only promote another low-priority task when it gets actioned normally? >>
The original plan was as you describe, but I found I wouldn't quite finish a chain, even though that was the plan. So, if a chain stalled with just that task left, I scrapped the chain and started fresh. After a few rounds of that, I was happy to deal with the oldest line. FV normally whips through those old projects. This shifts the balance so the priority tasks get more attention, without totally neglecting the old ones.
Koske, I use "oldest line" for "first unactioned item". I prefer oldest line because often that project isn't unactioned -- it got action several weeks ago. "First line" is the first line when you're making a chain. Normally, they're the same, but with p-FV the high-priority projects are written above the low-priority projects, even if the low-p ones are older.
In my case, it didn't feel like I was resisting the high-priority tasks -- at least not too much -- but usually my chains were long and off-balance. I'd be in the mood to make great progress on stalled low-priority projects, and over-confident. My chains were off-balance, with too many low-priority tasks chosen on the early pages. It didn't help that when I imported a list, I kept the original date, so there were always pages of old, stalled, low-priority projects.
Once I set FV aside, I made good, fast progress on the priorities, with no resistance.
As an exercise, I might try changing The Question to "If I could only do one thing before X?" or "If I could only do one thing in addition to X before another chance to work on my priority projects?" In both cases, build a chain, just like the normal FV.
Deven,
Stars for resistance is redundant. The main list is already sorted that way! An awareness of resistance feeds into priority. If you have two otherwise-equal tasks, the one that is more likely to stall if you don't give it regular attention is higher priority.
I updated the list as if I used it, so projects that got action today are in the newest page, and will try again Thursday. I'm out all day Wednesday.
<< Once a day seems a little arbitrary to me. Is there a better way to make this self-regulating? Maybe keep one low-priority item with the top-priority group, let it cycle normally, and only promote another low-priority task when it gets actioned normally? >>
The original plan was as you describe, but I found I wouldn't quite finish a chain, even though that was the plan. So, if a chain stalled with just that task left, I scrapped the chain and started fresh. After a few rounds of that, I was happy to deal with the oldest line. FV normally whips through those old projects. This shifts the balance so the priority tasks get more attention, without totally neglecting the old ones.
Koske, I use "oldest line" for "first unactioned item". I prefer oldest line because often that project isn't unactioned -- it got action several weeks ago. "First line" is the first line when you're making a chain. Normally, they're the same, but with p-FV the high-priority projects are written above the low-priority projects, even if the low-p ones are older.
In my case, it didn't feel like I was resisting the high-priority tasks -- at least not too much -- but usually my chains were long and off-balance. I'd be in the mood to make great progress on stalled low-priority projects, and over-confident. My chains were off-balance, with too many low-priority tasks chosen on the early pages. It didn't help that when I imported a list, I kept the original date, so there were always pages of old, stalled, low-priority projects.
Once I set FV aside, I made good, fast progress on the priorities, with no resistance.
As an exercise, I might try changing The Question to "If I could only do one thing before X?" or "If I could only do one thing in addition to X before another chance to work on my priority projects?" In both cases, build a chain, just like the normal FV.
Deven,
Stars for resistance is redundant. The main list is already sorted that way! An awareness of resistance feeds into priority. If you have two otherwise-equal tasks, the one that is more likely to stall if you don't give it regular attention is higher priority.
May 23, 2012 at 1:16 |
Cricket
Cricket
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - a loud long deathly scream rings out. been trying to follow this now three part discussion. and could just not hold back from screaming.
if the task is so important that it must be of high priority, then it will just automatically become first
thing to do on a normal FV chain.
you should depend on the same criteria and internal sense that leads you to decide it is high priority to also decide to place it as the first thing to do on a chain.
if the task is so important that it must be of high priority, then it will just automatically become first
thing to do on a normal FV chain.
you should depend on the same criteria and internal sense that leads you to decide it is high priority to also decide to place it as the first thing to do on a chain.
May 23, 2012 at 2:31 |
matthewS
matthewS
matthewS:
That was positively cathartic!
I think one of reasons this thread seems to be going 'round and 'round is due to the various definitions we give to the following vague terms:
urgency
importance
resistance
priority
There even seems to be confusion around the word "want"!
If we don't agree on fairly precise definitions of these terms communication will go nowhere. Mark has been very helpful in sorting some of this out.
The word "priority" is a special problem. In some instances of use it seems to mean importance and in other uses it means precedence or sequence.
FV works very well for me. I generally allow my unconscious to quickly answer the question what do I want to do before x? For my purposes it doesn't really matter what urgency, importance or resistance means. What matters is what I want to do BEFORE x for what ever reason (conscious or otherwise). As Mark has pointed out just because I want to do something doesn't mean I have to like it.
Building a chain using the question sets up an ordered task list. Each task is actioned PRIOR to the next. Thus it is a list of ordered priorities but due to the problems with the word "priority" it may be better to say each task precedes the next. I call it a list of precedence to avoid confusion.
I often complete each pre-selected chain in order of precedence without interruption. When an urgent task comes to my attention that can't wait for me to complete a chain I deal with it as soon as I can stop what I'm doing. There are times and situations where this can happen repeatedly. The list gets extended with tasks that take precedence over all the existing selections. The result is that I am always doing what I want to do before the next task in the list of precedence. It is more important to me that I am doing that than it is to complete any given chain without interuption. When things settle down I quickly complete the chain which has its own benefits.
Whether it is a tweak or not it seems simple and straight forward and works for me.
That was positively cathartic!
I think one of reasons this thread seems to be going 'round and 'round is due to the various definitions we give to the following vague terms:
urgency
importance
resistance
priority
There even seems to be confusion around the word "want"!
If we don't agree on fairly precise definitions of these terms communication will go nowhere. Mark has been very helpful in sorting some of this out.
The word "priority" is a special problem. In some instances of use it seems to mean importance and in other uses it means precedence or sequence.
FV works very well for me. I generally allow my unconscious to quickly answer the question what do I want to do before x? For my purposes it doesn't really matter what urgency, importance or resistance means. What matters is what I want to do BEFORE x for what ever reason (conscious or otherwise). As Mark has pointed out just because I want to do something doesn't mean I have to like it.
Building a chain using the question sets up an ordered task list. Each task is actioned PRIOR to the next. Thus it is a list of ordered priorities but due to the problems with the word "priority" it may be better to say each task precedes the next. I call it a list of precedence to avoid confusion.
I often complete each pre-selected chain in order of precedence without interruption. When an urgent task comes to my attention that can't wait for me to complete a chain I deal with it as soon as I can stop what I'm doing. There are times and situations where this can happen repeatedly. The list gets extended with tasks that take precedence over all the existing selections. The result is that I am always doing what I want to do before the next task in the list of precedence. It is more important to me that I am doing that than it is to complete any given chain without interuption. When things settle down I quickly complete the chain which has its own benefits.
Whether it is a tweak or not it seems simple and straight forward and works for me.
May 23, 2012 at 5:31 |
Mike D
Mike D
matthewS and Mike D:
Hallelujah!
I feel like it's finally stopped raining in my head.
You've said what I've been trying to communicate.
If you choose to do something prior to something else, it's a higher prior—ity for you — at that moment.
If you choose to eat breakfast before saving the world, then at that moment eating breakfast is a higher prior—ity to you than saving the world because you want to do it prior to that. When breakfast is eaten, or the window of time has passed, its high priority status is lowered and saving the world's is heightened.
Even Superman decided at times that Lois Lane's lips were a higher priority than saving the world from General Zod and his hot goth bad girl crew member.
Higher priority = "I highly want or need to do this *prior* to doing something else".
That also means it's more urgent to you in that moment — as in "I want to do this thing before that thing therefore it is automatically more urgent to me."
And if you create a list of these high prior—ities (things you intend to do prior to others on your list) in FV, it is in a sequence that you chose and therefore explicitly prior—itized. And why is your list always made of 100% pure explicitly prioritized highest/urgent priorities when using FV? Because you chose to do them before all other tasks on your list and in a specific order based on priority/urgency based on what you want to do before something else!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Haha.
It's the terms.
The differing definitions of terms.
Hallelujah!
I feel like it's finally stopped raining in my head.
You've said what I've been trying to communicate.
If you choose to do something prior to something else, it's a higher prior—ity for you — at that moment.
If you choose to eat breakfast before saving the world, then at that moment eating breakfast is a higher prior—ity to you than saving the world because you want to do it prior to that. When breakfast is eaten, or the window of time has passed, its high priority status is lowered and saving the world's is heightened.
Even Superman decided at times that Lois Lane's lips were a higher priority than saving the world from General Zod and his hot goth bad girl crew member.
Higher priority = "I highly want or need to do this *prior* to doing something else".
That also means it's more urgent to you in that moment — as in "I want to do this thing before that thing therefore it is automatically more urgent to me."
And if you create a list of these high prior—ities (things you intend to do prior to others on your list) in FV, it is in a sequence that you chose and therefore explicitly prior—itized. And why is your list always made of 100% pure explicitly prioritized highest/urgent priorities when using FV? Because you chose to do them before all other tasks on your list and in a specific order based on priority/urgency based on what you want to do before something else!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Haha.
It's the terms.
The differing definitions of terms.
May 23, 2012 at 15:08 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Mike D and others:
<< urgency
importance
resistance
priority >>
Priority is simply the order in which you should do things. As Michael B. says it's whether you do one thing prior to another. A high priority task is one which, for whatever reason, should be done before lower priority tasks. You may choose to give something priority because a lot is hanging on it, or you may choose to give something else priority because you hate doing it and know the only way to get it done is to do it straight away. Or you might give something priority because if you don't do it today it will be too late to do it at all.
These three are examples of prioritizing by importance, by resistance and by urgency.
Prioritizing consistently by any one of these on its own presents a problem. If you prioritize by importance or resistance only, then urgent stuff is liable to get neglected. If you prioritize by urgency only then important but non-urgent stuff gets neglected (and usually acquires quite a degree of resistance too)
The ideal solution is one which takes all three of these into account, which is precisely what FV is designed to do.
Deven's states:
"... the FV algorithm draws attention to the first item, and standard FV indiscriminantly uses the oldest unactioned task, while Prioritized FV draws attention to the oldest unactioned task at the highest priority level."
This contradicts itself because if you are giving something a high priority then you want to do it before other lower priority tasks. This is the definition of "priority". Therefore the question "What to you want to do before x?" would already have resulted in the high priority task being selected. If it doesn't, it's because you are not actually giving the task priority.
Giving a task top priority is not a matter of putting stars in front of it and moving it around the list. It's a matter of doing it first.
<< urgency
importance
resistance
priority >>
Priority is simply the order in which you should do things. As Michael B. says it's whether you do one thing prior to another. A high priority task is one which, for whatever reason, should be done before lower priority tasks. You may choose to give something priority because a lot is hanging on it, or you may choose to give something else priority because you hate doing it and know the only way to get it done is to do it straight away. Or you might give something priority because if you don't do it today it will be too late to do it at all.
These three are examples of prioritizing by importance, by resistance and by urgency.
Prioritizing consistently by any one of these on its own presents a problem. If you prioritize by importance or resistance only, then urgent stuff is liable to get neglected. If you prioritize by urgency only then important but non-urgent stuff gets neglected (and usually acquires quite a degree of resistance too)
The ideal solution is one which takes all three of these into account, which is precisely what FV is designed to do.
Deven's states:
"... the FV algorithm draws attention to the first item, and standard FV indiscriminantly uses the oldest unactioned task, while Prioritized FV draws attention to the oldest unactioned task at the highest priority level."
This contradicts itself because if you are giving something a high priority then you want to do it before other lower priority tasks. This is the definition of "priority". Therefore the question "What to you want to do before x?" would already have resulted in the high priority task being selected. If it doesn't, it's because you are not actually giving the task priority.
Giving a task top priority is not a matter of putting stars in front of it and moving it around the list. It's a matter of doing it first.
May 23, 2012 at 16:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
welcome back Mark :)
May 23, 2012 at 16:39 |
Lillian
Lillian
Thank you Mark for the clarity. Tasks don't have importance, resistance, urgency, or priority intrinsically. We grant them all of those attributes at specific moments of time and only in relationship to the tasks we've committed to. I've not found any system that tries to encode and assign those attributes to a task to have any long term utility as the overhead of maintaining the "correct" coding for any length of time becomes unbearable.
FV works for me because of its simplicity. I don't need to think about all of the overhead and what priority a task should have, all I need to do is figure out what I want to do before X and then do it.
My experience is that it doesn't matter if it's the absolute best thing to do right now, it is always a good enough thing to do right now and I'll be doing something else good enough or a little better right after it. I get lots of good enough work done with FV and fret very little about not having done the best possible thing at any particular moment.
Do things get missed? Rarely, and its never as important as I thought it might have been.
Thanks again Mark!
FV works for me because of its simplicity. I don't need to think about all of the overhead and what priority a task should have, all I need to do is figure out what I want to do before X and then do it.
My experience is that it doesn't matter if it's the absolute best thing to do right now, it is always a good enough thing to do right now and I'll be doing something else good enough or a little better right after it. I get lots of good enough work done with FV and fret very little about not having done the best possible thing at any particular moment.
Do things get missed? Rarely, and its never as important as I thought it might have been.
Thanks again Mark!
May 23, 2012 at 21:39 |
Tom L.
Tom L.
Lol @ matthewS and Stefano.
I feel as if I'm jumping on the bandwagon with this. But I'm glad to see this is finally clarifying. 4 threads with plus 50 comments each is hard to follow. Especially with long comments. I threw in the towel on this thread at least 4 times but I keep seeing it at the top that I can't help but read.
Not to add confusion but I always thought of priority to mean just that. Something done prior to the something else. It may have attributes of importance and urgency (like Eisenhowers matrix respective quadrants for priority 1,2,3 and 4) it may have attributes to criticality and emotion ( like respective quadrants for priority 1,2,3,4) it could be based on impact and effort (like an action priority matrix) It could be some wild combination of many things. Regardless of ones choice for determining what is and what is not a priority, prioritization simply sorts things to do in a sequential order. As in first, second, third ...
This is why prioritized FV in my opinion seems back to front. You have to do N (N being a number that could also be zero) number of other things before what you would consider a top priority. it's almost like always doing something in quadrant 2,3,or 4 before something in quadrant 1. Quadrants being priorities or stars of how however one determined it.
From Crickets example of the list I asked for an example of, it seems as if quadrant 1 tasks are done in standard FV style, then quadrant 2 done in standard FV , then quadrant 3 done in standard FV , then quadrant 4 done in standard FV. As Cricket said, the mid level priority tasks don't worry her. Which makes sense. This seems logical to me as long as your priorities are in order all the time
To me, The only problem that I can see is that priorities change fast. So organizing the list by stars is a lot of work, whereas standard FV is much easier as I rely on my intuition whih depends only on what the moment says the priorities are.
As I understand it, prioritized FV ensures that a "priority" is placed in each chain. But, from my experience with regular FV my priorities build the chain because I'm asking what do I want to do before x?
I feel as if I'm jumping on the bandwagon with this. But I'm glad to see this is finally clarifying. 4 threads with plus 50 comments each is hard to follow. Especially with long comments. I threw in the towel on this thread at least 4 times but I keep seeing it at the top that I can't help but read.
Not to add confusion but I always thought of priority to mean just that. Something done prior to the something else. It may have attributes of importance and urgency (like Eisenhowers matrix respective quadrants for priority 1,2,3 and 4) it may have attributes to criticality and emotion ( like respective quadrants for priority 1,2,3,4) it could be based on impact and effort (like an action priority matrix) It could be some wild combination of many things. Regardless of ones choice for determining what is and what is not a priority, prioritization simply sorts things to do in a sequential order. As in first, second, third ...
This is why prioritized FV in my opinion seems back to front. You have to do N (N being a number that could also be zero) number of other things before what you would consider a top priority. it's almost like always doing something in quadrant 2,3,or 4 before something in quadrant 1. Quadrants being priorities or stars of how however one determined it.
From Crickets example of the list I asked for an example of, it seems as if quadrant 1 tasks are done in standard FV style, then quadrant 2 done in standard FV , then quadrant 3 done in standard FV , then quadrant 4 done in standard FV. As Cricket said, the mid level priority tasks don't worry her. Which makes sense. This seems logical to me as long as your priorities are in order all the time
To me, The only problem that I can see is that priorities change fast. So organizing the list by stars is a lot of work, whereas standard FV is much easier as I rely on my intuition whih depends only on what the moment says the priorities are.
As I understand it, prioritized FV ensures that a "priority" is placed in each chain. But, from my experience with regular FV my priorities build the chain because I'm asking what do I want to do before x?
May 24, 2012 at 0:41 |
GMBW
GMBW
Mark,
Thanks for retuning some sanity to this topic.
Thanks for retuning some sanity to this topic.
May 24, 2012 at 4:42 |
MartyH
MartyH
Amen! More thanks for restoring sanity/clarity to this long-winded thread.
May 24, 2012 at 5:04 |
Djorn
Djorn
Tom L. :
>>My experience is that it doesn't matter if it's the absolute best thing to do right now, it is always a good enough thing to do right now and I'll be doing something else good enough or a little better right after it. I get lots of good enough work done with FV and fret very little about not having done the best possible thing at any particular moment.<<
This. I think this is why FV appealed to me so strongly, and possibly why (way back in a previous thread on this topic) I found the idea of P-FV paralyzing. My most effective motivational tactic is "just make it a little better." So good enough work is taking something that works and running with it. My perfectionism would turn P-FV very quickly into an attempt to do the best possible thing and that will lock me up and I'll be back to doing nothing.
(Does P-FV *require* you to do the best possible thing? Of course not. That would be the result for me, though.)
>>My experience is that it doesn't matter if it's the absolute best thing to do right now, it is always a good enough thing to do right now and I'll be doing something else good enough or a little better right after it. I get lots of good enough work done with FV and fret very little about not having done the best possible thing at any particular moment.<<
This. I think this is why FV appealed to me so strongly, and possibly why (way back in a previous thread on this topic) I found the idea of P-FV paralyzing. My most effective motivational tactic is "just make it a little better." So good enough work is taking something that works and running with it. My perfectionism would turn P-FV very quickly into an attempt to do the best possible thing and that will lock me up and I'll be back to doing nothing.
(Does P-FV *require* you to do the best possible thing? Of course not. That would be the result for me, though.)
May 24, 2012 at 13:56 |
R.M. Koske
R.M. Koske
Phew!!! Sanity has returned at last!
Hopefully the attempt to " pimp" the wonderfully simple an effective FV method is over!?
I have now been using FV quite heavily at work in particular and all I can say is that it's the most effective task manangent system I have ever used. As mentioned in previous post I use std fv and I just remember to include a " resistance FV" task to remind me to do a resistance pass every day or two
The other key thing for me is keeping conscious of chain speed.
I try hard to keep em moving quickly and that way everything else just naturally falls into place!!
Great !!! :)
Hopefully the attempt to " pimp" the wonderfully simple an effective FV method is over!?
I have now been using FV quite heavily at work in particular and all I can say is that it's the most effective task manangent system I have ever used. As mentioned in previous post I use std fv and I just remember to include a " resistance FV" task to remind me to do a resistance pass every day or two
The other key thing for me is keeping conscious of chain speed.
I try hard to keep em moving quickly and that way everything else just naturally falls into place!!
Great !!! :)
May 24, 2012 at 22:11 |
Grik
Grik
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)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694 (Prioritized FV - Part 2)
The first post in the "Prioritized FV" thread above describes the context of this this thread, and should be read first.