FV and FVP Forum > FV versus AF1
Wooba:
I still regard AF1 as a very fine system and it doesn't worry me in the slightest if anyone prefers it to FV.
However having said that I'd like to respond to some of the points you make. A lot of the trouble you have had seems to be concerned with the way you pre-selected the chain. As far as I can tell from what you say, you abandoned the FV algorithm altogether apart from always picking the first item on the list. You described your method as "I end up just selecting what feels right to do at the moment".
This of course isn't FV at all. It's just a pre-selected list. So it's hardly fair to say FV doesn't work for you, when you didn't in fact do FV but something completely different.
The result of not using the algorithm was that you ended up with long lists with no sense of progression about them.
Used properly the algorithm should have resulted in a relatively short list (short enough to do at least three per day) with a distinct sense of progress about it.
I still regard AF1 as a very fine system and it doesn't worry me in the slightest if anyone prefers it to FV.
However having said that I'd like to respond to some of the points you make. A lot of the trouble you have had seems to be concerned with the way you pre-selected the chain. As far as I can tell from what you say, you abandoned the FV algorithm altogether apart from always picking the first item on the list. You described your method as "I end up just selecting what feels right to do at the moment".
This of course isn't FV at all. It's just a pre-selected list. So it's hardly fair to say FV doesn't work for you, when you didn't in fact do FV but something completely different.
The result of not using the algorithm was that you ended up with long lists with no sense of progression about them.
Used properly the algorithm should have resulted in a relatively short list (short enough to do at least three per day) with a distinct sense of progress about it.
May 27, 2012 at 15:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
When my chains become too long and contain stale or undifferentiated tasks I change the Question to: "What do I DEFINITELY want to do before I do x?"
This produces a short chain with clear priority distinctions from one task to the next. Because it is short it is less likely to get stale even if you extend it with a few late-breaking additional tasks. With this method those additional tasks should only be added to the chain if you DEFINITELY want to do them before the current task in the chain.
I also try to scan the list quickly rather than dwell on each task when building a chain. This is easier with the revised question because what you DEFINITELY want to do before you do x is easier to assess. This makes reading the whole list go much faster. It almost feels like speed reading.
I also combat long lists that are spread over many pages with the following rule which is not part of FV:
At the start of each day act on or delete all tasks older than one month.
Acting on includes "getting the file out" or simply rewording or reflecting on the task which is then reentered at the end of the list.
Of course you can you use a different cut off duration.
This produces a short chain with clear priority distinctions from one task to the next. Because it is short it is less likely to get stale even if you extend it with a few late-breaking additional tasks. With this method those additional tasks should only be added to the chain if you DEFINITELY want to do them before the current task in the chain.
I also try to scan the list quickly rather than dwell on each task when building a chain. This is easier with the revised question because what you DEFINITELY want to do before you do x is easier to assess. This makes reading the whole list go much faster. It almost feels like speed reading.
I also combat long lists that are spread over many pages with the following rule which is not part of FV:
At the start of each day act on or delete all tasks older than one month.
Acting on includes "getting the file out" or simply rewording or reflecting on the task which is then reentered at the end of the list.
Of course you can you use a different cut off duration.
May 27, 2012 at 16:14 |
Mike D
Mike D
Mark:
I agree with your assertion that "used properly the algorithm should have resulted in a relatively short list (short enough to do at least three per day) with a distinct sense of progress about it."
Occasionally, this would happen, as intended, but most of the time I just lose the question. I think it may be that my brain can't keep the question in mind while reading through all the options I have for building the chain. Even though I know I should keep the chain short, there is just too much to choose from that I want to do before I do X (most of the list -- maybe my list is a good chain already and I don't need to pull out a "sub-chain"). Sorry, I'm rambling.
I agree with your assertion that "used properly the algorithm should have resulted in a relatively short list (short enough to do at least three per day) with a distinct sense of progress about it."
Occasionally, this would happen, as intended, but most of the time I just lose the question. I think it may be that my brain can't keep the question in mind while reading through all the options I have for building the chain. Even though I know I should keep the chain short, there is just too much to choose from that I want to do before I do X (most of the list -- maybe my list is a good chain already and I don't need to pull out a "sub-chain"). Sorry, I'm rambling.
May 27, 2012 at 16:59 |
Wooba
Wooba
Mike D:
Thanks for the idea, but I don't think it would help me -- I would probably still lose the question.
Perhaps the beauty of AF1 is that you process the list as you work through it, whereas with FV you process the list (build the chain) before you work the list. It is as extra step, and for me it gets in the way of getting things done.
Thanks for the idea, but I don't think it would help me -- I would probably still lose the question.
Perhaps the beauty of AF1 is that you process the list as you work through it, whereas with FV you process the list (build the chain) before you work the list. It is as extra step, and for me it gets in the way of getting things done.
May 27, 2012 at 17:04 |
Wooba
Wooba
This doesn't make sense to me Wooba.
First, although most of the list is stuff you want to do before the first X, once you choose one (Y), and then choose another (Z), there should be very few things you want to do before X,Y and Z. So the question of what do I want to do before Z should skip most of the stuff in the list. And when you pick something, that would narrow your choice even more.
Second, "forgot" shouldn't be a factor. If you act without the proper question of course you'll have a huge list and the system won't work. But if you scan through the list and pick something forgetting the question, just stop for a moment and say "what was the question?". Look back for the previously picked task and ask if you REALLY want to do this new task BEFORE the one you previously picked. Usually the the answer will be no, and you can proceed. And if you picked a bunch forgetting the question,just go back and unpick them and do it right.
First, although most of the list is stuff you want to do before the first X, once you choose one (Y), and then choose another (Z), there should be very few things you want to do before X,Y and Z. So the question of what do I want to do before Z should skip most of the stuff in the list. And when you pick something, that would narrow your choice even more.
Second, "forgot" shouldn't be a factor. If you act without the proper question of course you'll have a huge list and the system won't work. But if you scan through the list and pick something forgetting the question, just stop for a moment and say "what was the question?". Look back for the previously picked task and ask if you REALLY want to do this new task BEFORE the one you previously picked. Usually the the answer will be no, and you can proceed. And if you picked a bunch forgetting the question,just go back and unpick them and do it right.
May 27, 2012 at 20:42 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Wooba,
<<I find the question disappears as I am making the chain, and I end up just selecting what feels right to do at the moment>>
I struggle with this also. Focusing on any of the items in my list seems to dislodge the question, as if there is only one shelf in my brain where both must be kept. It takes concentration, or achieving a certain flow, to make the question stick.
Possibly this is due to my strong auditory processing style. I tend to remember things by hearing them in my head, and I can remember a second thing if it is very short, or nonverbal, by imagining it visually, but then I'm maxed out. When I read, I hear the words in my head, unless I make a great effort to read visually. So, while building a chain, there I am keeping that question in my mind's ear while "hearing" the list rushing past as I scan.
I guess it tends to work when I scan visually, though I never really thought about it that way. I'll try focusing on keeping the list visual for my next chain.
The other thing I'm becoming suspicious of is the sheer length of my list. Since I started with a legacy AF/DWM list, I've never experienced FV from a clean slate. My list was steadily shrinking, until I hit a crazy-busy period as the kids' school year closed down these past several weeks. Now the list is much longer. Maybe I should draw one of those nice heavy lines and start fresh below it.
I still like FV (after the chain is built) and have no plans to switch. AF was too unfocused for me.
<<I find the question disappears as I am making the chain, and I end up just selecting what feels right to do at the moment>>
I struggle with this also. Focusing on any of the items in my list seems to dislodge the question, as if there is only one shelf in my brain where both must be kept. It takes concentration, or achieving a certain flow, to make the question stick.
Possibly this is due to my strong auditory processing style. I tend to remember things by hearing them in my head, and I can remember a second thing if it is very short, or nonverbal, by imagining it visually, but then I'm maxed out. When I read, I hear the words in my head, unless I make a great effort to read visually. So, while building a chain, there I am keeping that question in my mind's ear while "hearing" the list rushing past as I scan.
I guess it tends to work when I scan visually, though I never really thought about it that way. I'll try focusing on keeping the list visual for my next chain.
The other thing I'm becoming suspicious of is the sheer length of my list. Since I started with a legacy AF/DWM list, I've never experienced FV from a clean slate. My list was steadily shrinking, until I hit a crazy-busy period as the kids' school year closed down these past several weeks. Now the list is much longer. Maybe I should draw one of those nice heavy lines and start fresh below it.
I still like FV (after the chain is built) and have no plans to switch. AF was too unfocused for me.
May 28, 2012 at 0:03 |
Bernie
Bernie
Wooba,
It does seem like you are forgetting change your baseline item "x" when scanning for a third or fourth item to add to your chain.
Are you (wrongly) comparing your whole list against the oldest item on it? When asking the question "What do I want to do before I do x?" x changes each time you pick a new task. The task just picked becomes the new x. Since it is the task just picked, it should be easy to remember what it is.
The new x is part of the question, not something to be remembered separately from the question and it changes every time you add an item to the chain. It also raises the bar and there should be fewer items that you want to do before this new x.
Comment about extending chains:
I think I've only extended a chain once or twice. When I know I've added something to the end of the list that needs attention soon, it just makes the "little" part of "little and often" very brief for remaining items on the chain so I can get to the point where I'm picking a new chain more quickly. It really helps break resistance to those older item because I'm now in the position of doing the most minimal part of the task so I can press ahead with my more urgent matters. But now I've broken the resistance and things move along better.
The other advantage of just gutting it out through the existing chain is that it make "faux urgent" items much more apparent. When making my new chain, I don't always end up picking the task that I almost added to an existing chain. So it obviously wasn't as urgent as it seemed at first.
It does seem like you are forgetting change your baseline item "x" when scanning for a third or fourth item to add to your chain.
Are you (wrongly) comparing your whole list against the oldest item on it? When asking the question "What do I want to do before I do x?" x changes each time you pick a new task. The task just picked becomes the new x. Since it is the task just picked, it should be easy to remember what it is.
The new x is part of the question, not something to be remembered separately from the question and it changes every time you add an item to the chain. It also raises the bar and there should be fewer items that you want to do before this new x.
Comment about extending chains:
I think I've only extended a chain once or twice. When I know I've added something to the end of the list that needs attention soon, it just makes the "little" part of "little and often" very brief for remaining items on the chain so I can get to the point where I'm picking a new chain more quickly. It really helps break resistance to those older item because I'm now in the position of doing the most minimal part of the task so I can press ahead with my more urgent matters. But now I've broken the resistance and things move along better.
The other advantage of just gutting it out through the existing chain is that it make "faux urgent" items much more apparent. When making my new chain, I don't always end up picking the task that I almost added to an existing chain. So it obviously wasn't as urgent as it seemed at first.
May 28, 2012 at 2:38 |
MartyH
MartyH
Wooba
<<I pick too much at a time for each chain, leading to a feeling of overwhelm.>>
I have the same problem at times.
My solution is to :Build the long chain as normal and then shorten it by deselecting any items except for the root/oldest task. This is obvious, but it's a systematic way of building a chain to a length you want and in the order for the algorithm to stay the same.
<<2. I rarely finish a chain in less than a day. This is partly because the chains are too long, and partly because FV doesn't work for me.>>
It happens. But I think a realistic sense of what you can complete in a day will help build better chains that will be complete-able within 1 day of work. Figure out how much time you can invest towards work for the day. Then figure out how much work you want to complete in that time. Then build a chain(s) to reflect this amount of work.
<<3. I usually need to extend an unfinished ladder each morning, which often means that the first (oldest) task languishes for days. Therefore, the tasks that I am resistant to are not getting touched very often, and the whole list just gets longer and longer.>>
If this were af, and the page contains tasks you want to do before the oldest task. Then you'd get the same result anyways. No? I could be wrong about this.
Anyways, I won't ramble. But I too have found af and sf to be much simpler than FV. And the question also tends to escape me when building long chains. Not that I forget the question, it is more that I get confused with the question. Though it is simple, I tend to think what I want to do before x , is 'too easy to answer' to the point where I think I'm building an 'incorrect' chain that doesn't reflect the algorithm as it is supposed to work. In other words, I think I'm screwing up the algorithm with my answers. it's probably a lack of trust in my answers though. as the operative word is BEFORE and not WANT. the 'ready to be done' tasks of af and sf closely reflect WANT as an operative word, which is why it seems simpler.
<<I pick too much at a time for each chain, leading to a feeling of overwhelm.>>
I have the same problem at times.
My solution is to :Build the long chain as normal and then shorten it by deselecting any items except for the root/oldest task. This is obvious, but it's a systematic way of building a chain to a length you want and in the order for the algorithm to stay the same.
<<2. I rarely finish a chain in less than a day. This is partly because the chains are too long, and partly because FV doesn't work for me.>>
It happens. But I think a realistic sense of what you can complete in a day will help build better chains that will be complete-able within 1 day of work. Figure out how much time you can invest towards work for the day. Then figure out how much work you want to complete in that time. Then build a chain(s) to reflect this amount of work.
<<3. I usually need to extend an unfinished ladder each morning, which often means that the first (oldest) task languishes for days. Therefore, the tasks that I am resistant to are not getting touched very often, and the whole list just gets longer and longer.>>
If this were af, and the page contains tasks you want to do before the oldest task. Then you'd get the same result anyways. No? I could be wrong about this.
Anyways, I won't ramble. But I too have found af and sf to be much simpler than FV. And the question also tends to escape me when building long chains. Not that I forget the question, it is more that I get confused with the question. Though it is simple, I tend to think what I want to do before x , is 'too easy to answer' to the point where I think I'm building an 'incorrect' chain that doesn't reflect the algorithm as it is supposed to work. In other words, I think I'm screwing up the algorithm with my answers. it's probably a lack of trust in my answers though. as the operative word is BEFORE and not WANT. the 'ready to be done' tasks of af and sf closely reflect WANT as an operative word, which is why it seems simpler.
May 28, 2012 at 4:53 |
GMBW
GMBW
@Wooba
I Still love AF1. It is still a great system and for me the best of all MF systems. It is the only one I really stick. I only made one little trick. Each day I begin my day by putting the date and then put on the list all what is in my mind. I don't care if there are some double beams. Then I pick 3 items in the list they are my MIT of the day.
I put everything in the list ideas, notes... Then I do the most I can and let go the system.
I try not to let to many thing things on the list. I can report them on projects in omnifocus or in word pages.
Better than FV, better than SF, AF is the system I most like and feel comfortable with. It makes for me the perfect equilibrium between rationality and intuition.
What else ?
I Still love AF1. It is still a great system and for me the best of all MF systems. It is the only one I really stick. I only made one little trick. Each day I begin my day by putting the date and then put on the list all what is in my mind. I don't care if there are some double beams. Then I pick 3 items in the list they are my MIT of the day.
I put everything in the list ideas, notes... Then I do the most I can and let go the system.
I try not to let to many thing things on the list. I can report them on projects in omnifocus or in word pages.
Better than FV, better than SF, AF is the system I most like and feel comfortable with. It makes for me the perfect equilibrium between rationality and intuition.
What else ?
May 28, 2012 at 10:49 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
I also tend to "go numb" to "the question" sometimes. This thread has prompted me to think more carefully about why that happens.
Sometimes, there really isn't a clear distinction in priority between items. I might have a batch of 30 items that all have roughly the same priority. As I go through the selection process, one of these jumps out, and I select it. Let's call it Task G.
But as I continue through the list, when I ask, "What do I want to do before X?", I tend to start thinking like this: "Task H is about the same priority Task G. I'll just group it together with Task G. Hmm, Task M is also about the same. Let's select that one too." Etc.
I didn't realize till now that I was actually doing that. And, this does NOT follow the rules. The rules say to select things that "jump out" at you, because you want to do them BEFORE X. Not "together with X" or "with roughly the same priority as X".
So instead, I should be selecting like this: "Task H is about the same priority Task G. Skip it. Hmm, Task M is also about the same. Skip it. Look only for something that is CLEARLY a higher priority than Task G."
I will be trying this to see if it helps prevent the numbness from occurring. Select ONLY if the task is CLEARLY to be done BEFORE X. Not if the task is maybe sort of a little higher priority or about the same priority as X.
Sometimes, there really isn't a clear distinction in priority between items. I might have a batch of 30 items that all have roughly the same priority. As I go through the selection process, one of these jumps out, and I select it. Let's call it Task G.
But as I continue through the list, when I ask, "What do I want to do before X?", I tend to start thinking like this: "Task H is about the same priority Task G. I'll just group it together with Task G. Hmm, Task M is also about the same. Let's select that one too." Etc.
I didn't realize till now that I was actually doing that. And, this does NOT follow the rules. The rules say to select things that "jump out" at you, because you want to do them BEFORE X. Not "together with X" or "with roughly the same priority as X".
So instead, I should be selecting like this: "Task H is about the same priority Task G. Skip it. Hmm, Task M is also about the same. Skip it. Look only for something that is CLEARLY a higher priority than Task G."
I will be trying this to see if it helps prevent the numbness from occurring. Select ONLY if the task is CLEARLY to be done BEFORE X. Not if the task is maybe sort of a little higher priority or about the same priority as X.
May 28, 2012 at 19:54 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
The comment of Seraphim's I quote at the end of this comment seems really insightful - I think I've been "batching" items at a similarly-priority level as described, and ending up with overlong chains.
Another related thing I've wondered is whether "the question" is better interpreted as:
a) What do I want to do before the very last item I preselected (without thinking about any of those before it)? or
b) What do I want to do before doing everything else I have preselected for this chain so far?
I realize "a" is closer to what the rules say, officially, but I think there's a bit of ambiguity, and perhaps "b" is truer to what we're actually committing ourselves to with each selection. Maybe there's been a discussion of this distinction previously, but I haven't noticed it. I suspect each interpretation might have its uses, even for the same person, in different situations, but I'm curious what others think. (Side note - On interpretation "b," the puzzle about transitivity that came up very early on doesn't arise. I could explain that comment more clearly, but I don't think it would be of general interest.)
>But as I continue through the list, when I ask, "What do I want to do before X?", I tend to start >thinking like this: "Task H is about the same priority Task G. I'll just group it together with >Task G. Hmm, Task M is also about the same. Let's select that one too." Etc.
>I didn't realize till now that I was actually doing that. And, this does NOT follow the rules. The >rules say to select things that "jump out" at you, because you want to do them BEFORE X. >Not "together with X" or "with roughly the same priority as X".
Another related thing I've wondered is whether "the question" is better interpreted as:
a) What do I want to do before the very last item I preselected (without thinking about any of those before it)? or
b) What do I want to do before doing everything else I have preselected for this chain so far?
I realize "a" is closer to what the rules say, officially, but I think there's a bit of ambiguity, and perhaps "b" is truer to what we're actually committing ourselves to with each selection. Maybe there's been a discussion of this distinction previously, but I haven't noticed it. I suspect each interpretation might have its uses, even for the same person, in different situations, but I'm curious what others think. (Side note - On interpretation "b," the puzzle about transitivity that came up very early on doesn't arise. I could explain that comment more clearly, but I don't think it would be of general interest.)
>But as I continue through the list, when I ask, "What do I want to do before X?", I tend to start >thinking like this: "Task H is about the same priority Task G. I'll just group it together with >Task G. Hmm, Task M is also about the same. Let's select that one too." Etc.
>I didn't realize till now that I was actually doing that. And, this does NOT follow the rules. The >rules say to select things that "jump out" at you, because you want to do them BEFORE X. >Not "together with X" or "with roughly the same priority as X".
May 29, 2012 at 3:30 |
Franklin
Franklin
I never (or VERY seldom) consider priority when making a chain. "Want to do before" is much different than "what is higher priority" in most cases. I say most, since you could be ready to push through high priority tasks for some reason. In that case, "want" would be closely related to priority.
But for me, it is usually something unrelated to priority that drives what I want to do.
If doing your highest priority work first is the way you want to structure your discretionary time, then just identify you "A" priorities and go do them. AF, SF, or FV isn't going to be much help.
But for me, it is usually something unrelated to priority that drives what I want to do.
If doing your highest priority work first is the way you want to structure your discretionary time, then just identify you "A" priorities and go do them. AF, SF, or FV isn't going to be much help.
May 29, 2012 at 5:38 |
MartyH
MartyH
I too go numb too or lose the question. I too tend to ask the question using the auditory channel while scanning the list visually.
So, I end up with what Mark calls just a preselected list, rather than FV. Whatever you want to call it, I like it a lot and it works.
When I feel myself struggling, I slow down and carefully ask the question before each item.
So, I end up with what Mark calls just a preselected list, rather than FV. Whatever you want to call it, I like it a lot and it works.
When I feel myself struggling, I slow down and carefully ask the question before each item.
May 29, 2012 at 13:15 |
moises
moises
Mike D suggests removing stuff older than a month. My goal is to stay within a week. This was a habit I picked up from Mark's DWM system.
What I like about FV (or whatever it is I do when I say that I am doing FV) is that all kinds of goals, plans, desires, hopes, and wishes are incorporated into the question. Since I do not want to have anything older than a week in my list, I want to do all the items at the top of my list today.
I played tennis this past weekend and focused on my two-handed backhand. Sometimes my left hand does most of the work in the backhand, and other times my right hand does.
Sometimes "want" does most of the work when I do FV and other times "before" does.
What I like about FV (or whatever it is I do when I say that I am doing FV) is that all kinds of goals, plans, desires, hopes, and wishes are incorporated into the question. Since I do not want to have anything older than a week in my list, I want to do all the items at the top of my list today.
I played tennis this past weekend and focused on my two-handed backhand. Sometimes my left hand does most of the work in the backhand, and other times my right hand does.
Sometimes "want" does most of the work when I do FV and other times "before" does.
May 29, 2012 at 13:22 |
moises
moises
I usually write "WHAT DO I WANT TO DO BEFORE X?" at the top of my notebook pages, usually every other page. It helps remind me of the question. I think the idea to cap the chain at 3-4 items is a good one to also keep in mind; I work my FV list only a couple of times a week, though, so i tend to have long chains.
May 29, 2012 at 15:00 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Has anybody tried bouncing only 2 items of each other?
In other words - 'What's the one thing I want to do before X'?
I dunno, but it seems to keep the whole thing simple and moving along. I've found even 3-4 item chains can be a bit stressful for me as I worry I'm not going to make my benchline task whilst in the right context (e.g. The benchline task needs to be done whilst I'm still in the office but plan to leave soon. I am one of those people who find having 2 notebooks unimaginable).
It should be simple to build a 2 item comparitive chain! Bench line items should get attention more regularly - wether they are easy or difficult. Urgent items would be accomodated also when building the 2 item chain and / or by marking it for action as in the FV rules.
What's not to like?
In other words - 'What's the one thing I want to do before X'?
I dunno, but it seems to keep the whole thing simple and moving along. I've found even 3-4 item chains can be a bit stressful for me as I worry I'm not going to make my benchline task whilst in the right context (e.g. The benchline task needs to be done whilst I'm still in the office but plan to leave soon. I am one of those people who find having 2 notebooks unimaginable).
It should be simple to build a 2 item comparitive chain! Bench line items should get attention more regularly - wether they are easy or difficult. Urgent items would be accomodated also when building the 2 item chain and / or by marking it for action as in the FV rules.
What's not to like?
May 29, 2012 at 20:41 |
Leon
Leon
@Leon,
Restricting yourself to 2-item chains might mean not looking at, and not acting on, items while they are near the end of the list. (Except for, as you have noted, items that present themselves to you as needing immediate action.)
Restricting yourself to 2-item chains might mean not looking at, and not acting on, items while they are near the end of the list. (Except for, as you have noted, items that present themselves to you as needing immediate action.)
May 29, 2012 at 21:59 |
isinger
isinger
I don't like the question "what do I want to do before x" my question would be better "What do I really want to do" Then I just dot the items and feel free to eliminate them if necessary. I used to prefer in many ways AF1. In many ways I felt much better with it so I came back since 2 days to it adding the dot system. It is much better for me.
May 30, 2012 at 19:01 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
@ MartyH:
>>I never (or VERY seldom) consider priority when making a chain. "Want to do before" is much different than "what is higher priority" in most cases. I say most, since you could be ready to push through high priority tasks for some reason. In that case, "want" would be closely related to priority.<<
Our terminology is getting confused in this thread. If I recall correctly, Mark uses "A has higher priority than B" to mean precisely "I want to work on A before I work on B." If you want to eat breakfast before going to work discovering a cure for cancer, then eating breakfast has priority.
"Prior" is just Latin for "before."
If you want to do A before B, *for whatever reason* (or maybe no reason), then you have just decided that A has priority over B.
>>I never (or VERY seldom) consider priority when making a chain. "Want to do before" is much different than "what is higher priority" in most cases. I say most, since you could be ready to push through high priority tasks for some reason. In that case, "want" would be closely related to priority.<<
Our terminology is getting confused in this thread. If I recall correctly, Mark uses "A has higher priority than B" to mean precisely "I want to work on A before I work on B." If you want to eat breakfast before going to work discovering a cure for cancer, then eating breakfast has priority.
"Prior" is just Latin for "before."
If you want to do A before B, *for whatever reason* (or maybe no reason), then you have just decided that A has priority over B.
May 30, 2012 at 22:49 |
Richard C
Richard C
Mike D:
<< When my chains become too long and contain stale or undifferentiated tasks I change the Question to: "What do I DEFINITELY want to do before I do x?" >>
Interesting idea. Does this qualify as changing The Question, or merely interpreting it? Either way, it does seem like it would lead to shorter chains actioned more frequently, which is an area many people seem to struggle with.
<< When my chains become too long and contain stale or undifferentiated tasks I change the Question to: "What do I DEFINITELY want to do before I do x?" >>
Interesting idea. Does this qualify as changing The Question, or merely interpreting it? Either way, it does seem like it would lead to shorter chains actioned more frequently, which is an area many people seem to struggle with.
June 21, 2012 at 19:09 |
Deven
Deven
Wooba:
<< Perhaps the beauty of AF1 is that you process the list as you work through it, whereas with FV you process the list (build the chain) before you work the list. It is as extra step, and for me it gets in the way of getting things done. >>
I can see advantages to both. Would it be possible to create a hybrid of AF1 and FV somehow to get the benefits of both?
<< Perhaps the beauty of AF1 is that you process the list as you work through it, whereas with FV you process the list (build the chain) before you work the list. It is as extra step, and for me it gets in the way of getting things done. >>
I can see advantages to both. Would it be possible to create a hybrid of AF1 and FV somehow to get the benefits of both?
June 21, 2012 at 19:11 |
Deven
Deven
Seraphim:
<< I will be trying this to see if it helps prevent the numbness from occurring. Select ONLY if the task is CLEARLY to be done BEFORE X. Not if the task is maybe sort of a little higher priority or about the same priority as X. >>
Have you tried this? What were your results?
<< I will be trying this to see if it helps prevent the numbness from occurring. Select ONLY if the task is CLEARLY to be done BEFORE X. Not if the task is maybe sort of a little higher priority or about the same priority as X. >>
Have you tried this? What were your results?
June 21, 2012 at 19:12 |
Deven
Deven
Wooba:
<< Perhaps the beauty of AF1 is that you process the list as you work through it, whereas with FV you process the list (build the chain) before you work the list. It is as extra step, and for me it gets in the way of getting things done. >>
Deven: "Would it be possible to create a hybrid of AF1 and FV somehow to get the benefits of both?"
That sounds like "My System" http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1292640
As evidenced from the discussion there, I explained it extremely poorly, so let me explain it again more simply, and alter it to be more like FV:
1) Draw a line at the end of your list.
2) Like FV, scan through the entire list straight from beginning to end.
3) Like AF1, work any tasks as they stand out, but only a little. Rewrite unfinished stuff after the line.
4) When you reach the end, draw a second line to mark the new end.
5) Like AF4's closed list, cycle through tasks between these two lines, doing any that stand out, (But unlike AF4, don't rewrite from this sub-list.) Stop cycling when you want.
6) Ignore all the previously drawn lines, and return to step 1.
The mechanics of building a sub list (1-4) and processing it (step 5) is much like FV, except you work the list as you build it.
<< Perhaps the beauty of AF1 is that you process the list as you work through it, whereas with FV you process the list (build the chain) before you work the list. It is as extra step, and for me it gets in the way of getting things done. >>
Deven: "Would it be possible to create a hybrid of AF1 and FV somehow to get the benefits of both?"
That sounds like "My System" http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1292640
As evidenced from the discussion there, I explained it extremely poorly, so let me explain it again more simply, and alter it to be more like FV:
1) Draw a line at the end of your list.
2) Like FV, scan through the entire list straight from beginning to end.
3) Like AF1, work any tasks as they stand out, but only a little. Rewrite unfinished stuff after the line.
4) When you reach the end, draw a second line to mark the new end.
5) Like AF4's closed list, cycle through tasks between these two lines, doing any that stand out, (But unlike AF4, don't rewrite from this sub-list.) Stop cycling when you want.
6) Ignore all the previously drawn lines, and return to step 1.
The mechanics of building a sub list (1-4) and processing it (step 5) is much like FV, except you work the list as you build it.
June 21, 2012 at 20:19 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
@Woobia
i was delighted to read your excellent post about your reactions to the FM experience.
in my experience, even a small source of irritation with a method can cause it to fail over the long haul
for myself, i too have found that AF1 suits me best, of all the methods Mark has created.
but i have modified it to add some of the features of the other methds that i felt were useful
so i focus on just one page at a time (ala AF1) but use the FM technique of making a chain.
i love the ability to focus on just one page at a time - so i dont get bothered or distracted by the huge number of items sitting on other pages waiting to be done.
the first unactioned item is selected automatically. i then ask the 'what do i feel like doing before that' question (the AF1 'feeling' process) and add the selected items to the chain. but i have a strict limit on the size of the chain.
the size must be such that i can progress all the items on the chain in a reasonably short time. that time depends on the nature of my day. some days i can afford long chains (time-length, not item-count). other days i need to move rapidly forward so i select short chains (again, measured by time not item-count).
my goal is to process all my open pages several times each day.
if i am getting bogged down then i adjust two things;
first i will spend less time on each item (i will progress it and then add it to the end of the list).
second; i will select shorter chains.
i call the selected chain a 'sprint' (from the SCRUM world). i want short sprints and lots of them in my day.
this modification to AF1 has worked extremely well for me. my productivity is even better than it was using any of the AFx or FV methods.
but we are all different. and even a small irritation with a method is like a pebble in the shoe - it will eventually cause us to slow down or stop.
respect
paul
i was delighted to read your excellent post about your reactions to the FM experience.
in my experience, even a small source of irritation with a method can cause it to fail over the long haul
for myself, i too have found that AF1 suits me best, of all the methods Mark has created.
but i have modified it to add some of the features of the other methds that i felt were useful
so i focus on just one page at a time (ala AF1) but use the FM technique of making a chain.
i love the ability to focus on just one page at a time - so i dont get bothered or distracted by the huge number of items sitting on other pages waiting to be done.
the first unactioned item is selected automatically. i then ask the 'what do i feel like doing before that' question (the AF1 'feeling' process) and add the selected items to the chain. but i have a strict limit on the size of the chain.
the size must be such that i can progress all the items on the chain in a reasonably short time. that time depends on the nature of my day. some days i can afford long chains (time-length, not item-count). other days i need to move rapidly forward so i select short chains (again, measured by time not item-count).
my goal is to process all my open pages several times each day.
if i am getting bogged down then i adjust two things;
first i will spend less time on each item (i will progress it and then add it to the end of the list).
second; i will select shorter chains.
i call the selected chain a 'sprint' (from the SCRUM world). i want short sprints and lots of them in my day.
this modification to AF1 has worked extremely well for me. my productivity is even better than it was using any of the AFx or FV methods.
but we are all different. and even a small irritation with a method is like a pebble in the shoe - it will eventually cause us to slow down or stop.
respect
paul
July 4, 2012 at 16:56 |
Zytex
Zytex
Good post, Zytex. To be clear, every FM is meant to be FV, I think. Things that stood out to me:
- interesting idea to do FV on each page instead of on the whole list.
- my goal is to process all my open pages several times each day.
- a small irritation with a method is like a pebble in the shoe
- interesting idea to do FV on each page instead of on the whole list.
- my goal is to process all my open pages several times each day.
- a small irritation with a method is like a pebble in the shoe
July 4, 2012 at 17:40 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
During the weeks leading up to the release of FV, I was not very productive. I think this had a lot to do with waiting for the Final Version -- waiting for this new amazing system that would improve my productivity several-fold :)
Then FV arrived. I wasn't sure about it. I didn't know why, couldn't put my finger on it...
But I jumped straight into it, using my existing list (on paper). As I am always looking for the perfect electronic implementation, I tried a few existing solutions, tried Evernote (yuk!), wrote my own in NoteTab which worked, but nothing worked as well as paper and pen. So I went back to paper and pen, and read every forum post, but simply didn't get much done.
I have been back with AF1 for two weeks now, and my list is down to 3 active pages (from 28 using FV).
Here are some of my observations:
1. I pick too much at a time for each chain, leading to a feeling of overwhelm.
2. I rarely finish a chain in less than a day. This is partly because the chains are too long, and partly because FV doesn't work for me.
3. I usually need to extend an unfinished ladder each morning, which often means that the first (oldest) task languishes for days. Therefore, the tasks that I am resistant to are not getting touched very often, and the whole list just gets longer and longer.
4. the process of making the chain is often enough to make me feel exhausted -- there is just too much to look through. And everything in the chain has to be done! With AF1, there is at most a page of stuff to do, and often I only need to do one thing on the page, so no feeling of overwhelm. Also, I never need to read the entire list at once (unless I want to).
5. I find the question disappears as I am making the chain, and I end up just selecting what feels right to do at the moment, a la AutoFocus, but then when I try to work the resultant chain it is stale. I have found that it is essential to stick to the same question throughout the chain building process, otherwise the resultant chain just doesn't work. Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I almost always end up choosing an ad hoc list, rather than a linked chain.
6. Using the AF1 yesterday tweak means that the urgent stuff gets done in the morning, then I cycle round to the oldest page, so the oldest page is visited every day, and usually more than one old resistant task is dealt with every day.
7. the order of execution of tasks is backwards in FV, which causes me much resistance -- I prefer to work the list in the order I wrote it.
8. There is more writing and crossing off with FV.
9. there is less page turning in AF1 -- because most new tasks, rewritten tasks and urgent tasks crop up while working the newest end of the list, I rarely have to turn a page to write the new task. With FV there is a lot more page turning (I hate page turning, unless it is because I have finished working the page)
10. By the time I get back to some items on the chain, I don't want to do them *at the moment* -- the whole chain isn't necessarily old, but some of its links are.
11. Although FV is meant to be "simple", I find it more complicated and confusing than AutoFocus or SuperFocus.
I am keeping an open mind, and will continue to watch the FV Forum closely. I will almost certainly try FV again when AF1 temporarily stops working for me (I need something new occasionally), but I think I will always end up going back to AF1.