FV and FVP Forum > Resisting the core mechanism of FV
I may give standard FV one more try, without tweaks, starting with an empty list. However, I don't really expect it to work for me, because the core mechanism just doesn't sit right with me. AF1 has a much more natural flow to it, and I think I need a system based on AF1, not based on FV.
I'm certain that I need to tweak AF1 somehow for urgent/important tasks -- I'm hopeful that the AF1 tweaks I'm testing will do the trick. Time will tell.
I'm certain that I need to tweak AF1 somehow for urgent/important tasks -- I'm hopeful that the AF1 tweaks I'm testing will do the trick. Time will tell.
July 25, 2012 at 3:32 |
Deven
Deven
Why not use both? do af1. But to combat urgent /important items, switch to FV. switch back and forth on your own terms.
1. It seems you want to get a lot of things done. .
2. It also seems you want to get the urgent/important things done.
af1 will accomplish number 1. FV (and alternates) will do number 2. However, it seems as if you want a mechanism to indicate the perfect order of tasks to do. That is, order it by priority and order you want to do it in /path of least resistance. Am I right? if so, then you have a bit of a conflict. That's why I'm suggesting switching between the two systems to appeal to both sides.
I'm sure if you take a moment and just review your tasks with an objective in mind you will just know what this order is based on priorities and what you are wanting to do. when I say objective I mean aim or target. ( it could be you are working to buy something, or training to improve something, or get something you want. ). I hope I'm not rambling and I hope you find a system that works well for you.
1. It seems you want to get a lot of things done. .
2. It also seems you want to get the urgent/important things done.
af1 will accomplish number 1. FV (and alternates) will do number 2. However, it seems as if you want a mechanism to indicate the perfect order of tasks to do. That is, order it by priority and order you want to do it in /path of least resistance. Am I right? if so, then you have a bit of a conflict. That's why I'm suggesting switching between the two systems to appeal to both sides.
I'm sure if you take a moment and just review your tasks with an objective in mind you will just know what this order is based on priorities and what you are wanting to do. when I say objective I mean aim or target. ( it could be you are working to buy something, or training to improve something, or get something you want. ). I hope I'm not rambling and I hope you find a system that works well for you.
July 25, 2012 at 6:45 |
GMBW
GMBW
Deven
Have you tried AF2? It seems largely abandoned on here but I've found it restricts me the least. I use some elements of FV to create a short list of gradually more demanding tasks. But I always start at the end of the list. To combat the drift that occurs with older tasks I pull one or two tasks from the first page of the list (per day) to the end to encourage movement on them. I do reserve a day or half day a week to process the list in FV mode - I like to work the list in more than one way and mindset.
Have you tried AF2? It seems largely abandoned on here but I've found it restricts me the least. I use some elements of FV to create a short list of gradually more demanding tasks. But I always start at the end of the list. To combat the drift that occurs with older tasks I pull one or two tasks from the first page of the list (per day) to the end to encourage movement on them. I do reserve a day or half day a week to process the list in FV mode - I like to work the list in more than one way and mindset.
July 25, 2012 at 7:52 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
" After a while, the preselected chain starts to feel like a straightjacket, binding me to a predetermined course of action, and I don't care for being ordered around like that, even by my past self."
I don't use the preselected chain as a straightjacket. I use it as a recommendation. If the next task doesn't suit me at the moment, i will skip it, or add something else to the list to do first.
I don't use the preselected chain as a straightjacket. I use it as a recommendation. If the next task doesn't suit me at the moment, i will skip it, or add something else to the list to do first.
July 25, 2012 at 13:43 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
GMBW:
<< Why not use both? do af1. But to combat urgent /important items, switch to FV. switch back and forth on your own terms. >>
Well, I'd rather use a single consistent system, even if it's a hybrid of other systems, than to switch back and forth. That's why I experimented combining the standard FV question and Alternative FV question into a single algorithm, since each seemed promising in a different way:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1867411
Unfortunately, my resistance to the core mechanism of FV remained, and I think using the Alternative FV question made it worse, because having my most-resisted task in the chain made me want to avoid processing the chain even more.
<< 1. It seems you want to get a lot of things done. . >>
Yup. Don't we all?
<< 2. It also seems you want to get the urgent/important things done. >>
Again, don't we all?
<< af1 will accomplish number 1. FV (and alternates) will do number 2. >>
I agree that AF1 is likely to accomplish number 1. I'm not so sure about number 2. I had to tweak FV to create Prioritized FV because I found that FV didn't handle urgent/important tasks so efficiently, at least for me.
My current tweak to AF1 is based on my tweak to FV to make Prioritized FV. Time will tell if it works out or not.
<< However, it seems as if you want a mechanism to indicate the perfect order of tasks to do. That is, order it by priority and order you want to do it in /path of least resistance. Am I right? if so, then you have a bit of a conflict. That's why I'm suggesting switching between the two systems to appeal to both sides. >>
No, I don't want the system to indicate the perfect order. If I wanted that, I'd try some sort of ABC prioritization scheme like Franklin Covey. I want a system to keep me on track and efficient, reduce resistance, keep urgent/important items front and center, and keep anything from falling through the cracks. AF1 seems to be the closest to meeting those goals, except for its weakness in handling urgent/important items. So, of course, I'm trying to tweak it. :)
<< I'm sure if you take a moment and just review your tasks with an objective in mind you will just know what this order is based on priorities and what you are wanting to do. when I say objective I mean aim or target. ( it could be you are working to buy something, or training to improve something, or get something you want. ). I hope I'm not rambling and I hope you find a system that works well for you. >>
The real issue is that I don't have a single objective to achieve. I have dozens, and they're all in tension against each other, because they all have different stakeholders and most tasks are usually urgent in someone's mind. So it's a juggling/balancing act.
<< Why not use both? do af1. But to combat urgent /important items, switch to FV. switch back and forth on your own terms. >>
Well, I'd rather use a single consistent system, even if it's a hybrid of other systems, than to switch back and forth. That's why I experimented combining the standard FV question and Alternative FV question into a single algorithm, since each seemed promising in a different way:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1867411
Unfortunately, my resistance to the core mechanism of FV remained, and I think using the Alternative FV question made it worse, because having my most-resisted task in the chain made me want to avoid processing the chain even more.
<< 1. It seems you want to get a lot of things done. . >>
Yup. Don't we all?
<< 2. It also seems you want to get the urgent/important things done. >>
Again, don't we all?
<< af1 will accomplish number 1. FV (and alternates) will do number 2. >>
I agree that AF1 is likely to accomplish number 1. I'm not so sure about number 2. I had to tweak FV to create Prioritized FV because I found that FV didn't handle urgent/important tasks so efficiently, at least for me.
My current tweak to AF1 is based on my tweak to FV to make Prioritized FV. Time will tell if it works out or not.
<< However, it seems as if you want a mechanism to indicate the perfect order of tasks to do. That is, order it by priority and order you want to do it in /path of least resistance. Am I right? if so, then you have a bit of a conflict. That's why I'm suggesting switching between the two systems to appeal to both sides. >>
No, I don't want the system to indicate the perfect order. If I wanted that, I'd try some sort of ABC prioritization scheme like Franklin Covey. I want a system to keep me on track and efficient, reduce resistance, keep urgent/important items front and center, and keep anything from falling through the cracks. AF1 seems to be the closest to meeting those goals, except for its weakness in handling urgent/important items. So, of course, I'm trying to tweak it. :)
<< I'm sure if you take a moment and just review your tasks with an objective in mind you will just know what this order is based on priorities and what you are wanting to do. when I say objective I mean aim or target. ( it could be you are working to buy something, or training to improve something, or get something you want. ). I hope I'm not rambling and I hope you find a system that works well for you. >>
The real issue is that I don't have a single objective to achieve. I have dozens, and they're all in tension against each other, because they all have different stakeholders and most tasks are usually urgent in someone's mind. So it's a juggling/balancing act.
July 25, 2012 at 14:30 |
Deven
Deven
Caibre65:
<< Have you tried AF2? It seems largely abandoned on here but I've found it restricts me the least. I use some elements of FV to create a short list of gradually more demanding tasks. But I always start at the end of the list. To combat the drift that occurs with older tasks I pull one or two tasks from the first page of the list (per day) to the end to encourage movement on them. I do reserve a day or half day a week to process the list in FV mode - I like to work the list in more than one way and mindset. >>
I've studied all versions of Autofocus, including AF2, but I haven't used AF2 in its original form. However, I have used my own hybrid AF1/AF2 system, inspired by nuntym's Context Autofocus system (CAF), However, it was fairly complex, and I'm hoping for a simpler solution. To that end, I'm experimenting with tweaking stock AF1 in a manner similar to the Prioritized FV tweak to see if that achieves the goal without the multimode complexity of combining AF1 and AF2...
<< Have you tried AF2? It seems largely abandoned on here but I've found it restricts me the least. I use some elements of FV to create a short list of gradually more demanding tasks. But I always start at the end of the list. To combat the drift that occurs with older tasks I pull one or two tasks from the first page of the list (per day) to the end to encourage movement on them. I do reserve a day or half day a week to process the list in FV mode - I like to work the list in more than one way and mindset. >>
I've studied all versions of Autofocus, including AF2, but I haven't used AF2 in its original form. However, I have used my own hybrid AF1/AF2 system, inspired by nuntym's Context Autofocus system (CAF), However, it was fairly complex, and I'm hoping for a simpler solution. To that end, I'm experimenting with tweaking stock AF1 in a manner similar to the Prioritized FV tweak to see if that achieves the goal without the multimode complexity of combining AF1 and AF2...
July 25, 2012 at 15:23 |
Deven
Deven
Alan Baljeu:
<< I don't use the preselected chain as a straightjacket. I use it as a recommendation. If the next task doesn't suit me at the moment, i will skip it, or add something else to the list to do first. >>
I was effectively doing something like that -- if the next task didn't suit me, I just went off-list and did something else, but that made it harder to return to the list later. I suppose I could have added it to the list and selected it for the current chain, but that's really only supposed to be done for urgent tasks, not because you're avoiding the next task in the chain...
<< I don't use the preselected chain as a straightjacket. I use it as a recommendation. If the next task doesn't suit me at the moment, i will skip it, or add something else to the list to do first. >>
I was effectively doing something like that -- if the next task didn't suit me, I just went off-list and did something else, but that made it harder to return to the list later. I suppose I could have added it to the list and selected it for the current chain, but that's really only supposed to be done for urgent tasks, not because you're avoiding the next task in the chain...
July 25, 2012 at 15:26 |
Deven
Deven
Deven - Have you looked at Superfocus? (there's a post here - http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1317396 - although I'm not positive if that's the full explanation) I haven't tried Superfocus myself, it seemed more involved than I needed, but from I remember of it, it sounds like something that might work for you. Or if not, it might be give you some ideas for building your system.
July 25, 2012 at 15:34 |
Lillian
Lillian
I don't suggest going off-list. I suggest going on-list for another task.
"If at any stage you find that a task on the list is no longer relevant, then delete it.
If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant..., then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet."
"If at any stage you find that a task on the list is no longer relevant, then delete it.
If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant..., then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet."
July 25, 2012 at 15:52 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<<The real issue is that I don't have a single objective to achieve. I have dozens, and they're all in tension against each other, because they all have different stakeholders and most tasks are usually urgent in someone's mind. So it's a juggling/balancing act.>>
Okay. Having many objectives is normal. But is it possible that the majority of them could be grouped together? Are there any objectives that if completed would make you satisfied the most? If no to both of these questions, would putting these objectives into categories put them front and center? i.e categories like ‘finances’, ‘business’, ‘friends/family’ etc. Would time mapping coupled with your system help?
<< I want a system to keep me on track and efficient, reduce resistance, keep urgent/important items front and center, and keep anything from falling through the cracks. AF1 seems to be the closest to meeting those goals, except for its weakness in handling urgent/important items. So, of course, I'm trying to tweak it. :)>>
To reduce resistance, I would suggest to aggressively breakdown a few items routinely (daily, hourly etc.) Keep breaking down the items to easy tasks. SF is good for this, because unfinished items and urgent items are forced to be broken down or worked on routinely (each page turn).
A last recommendation would be to cut down your task lists and commitments. Consider you only have 1 week to live, what tasks must you get done? Which tasks wouldn’t matter at all? Which tasks are ‘so’ urgent and important that it can’t be passed on to another person if you were gone...only you can do it? Once you identify that subset of tasks, use your system to ensure it gets done in a week. Then repeat the question the next week.
Okay. Having many objectives is normal. But is it possible that the majority of them could be grouped together? Are there any objectives that if completed would make you satisfied the most? If no to both of these questions, would putting these objectives into categories put them front and center? i.e categories like ‘finances’, ‘business’, ‘friends/family’ etc. Would time mapping coupled with your system help?
<< I want a system to keep me on track and efficient, reduce resistance, keep urgent/important items front and center, and keep anything from falling through the cracks. AF1 seems to be the closest to meeting those goals, except for its weakness in handling urgent/important items. So, of course, I'm trying to tweak it. :)>>
To reduce resistance, I would suggest to aggressively breakdown a few items routinely (daily, hourly etc.) Keep breaking down the items to easy tasks. SF is good for this, because unfinished items and urgent items are forced to be broken down or worked on routinely (each page turn).
A last recommendation would be to cut down your task lists and commitments. Consider you only have 1 week to live, what tasks must you get done? Which tasks wouldn’t matter at all? Which tasks are ‘so’ urgent and important that it can’t be passed on to another person if you were gone...only you can do it? Once you identify that subset of tasks, use your system to ensure it gets done in a week. Then repeat the question the next week.
July 25, 2012 at 16:49 |
GMBW
GMBW
Lillian:
<< Deven - Have you looked at Superfocus? (there's a post here - http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1317396 - although I'm not positive if that's the full explanation) I haven't tried Superfocus myself, it seemed more involved than I needed, but from I remember of it, it sounds like something that might work for you. Or if not, it might be give you some ideas for building your system. >>
Yes, SuperFocus was the first of Mark's systems that I tried to use. Unfortunately, the compulsory C2 rules make it totally unworkable for me, and it was only a week or two before I had to give up on it entirely. AF1 variants are more my style.
<< Deven - Have you looked at Superfocus? (there's a post here - http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1317396 - although I'm not positive if that's the full explanation) I haven't tried Superfocus myself, it seemed more involved than I needed, but from I remember of it, it sounds like something that might work for you. Or if not, it might be give you some ideas for building your system. >>
Yes, SuperFocus was the first of Mark's systems that I tried to use. Unfortunately, the compulsory C2 rules make it totally unworkable for me, and it was only a week or two before I had to give up on it entirely. AF1 variants are more my style.
July 25, 2012 at 18:18 |
Deven
Deven
Alan Baljeu:
<< I don't suggest going off-list. I suggest going on-list for another task. >>
I realize that, but rather than just adding something to the list, it's easier to just set the list aside. I'm not saying it's better, but that's what I find myself doing in practice.
<< "If at any stage you find that a task on the list is no longer relevant, then delete it. >>
I'm not clear how this relates.
<< If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant..., then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet." >>
Granted, this is within the rules, but as I've previously mentioned, it feels like a violation of the system to overuse this rule, especially when taken to the extreme someone else suggested (returning to preselection after actioning every task). If I'm adding to the chain to avoid a high-resistance task, I don't think that really qualifies as "no longer relevant". It's just gaming the rules, isn't it?
<< I don't suggest going off-list. I suggest going on-list for another task. >>
I realize that, but rather than just adding something to the list, it's easier to just set the list aside. I'm not saying it's better, but that's what I find myself doing in practice.
<< "If at any stage you find that a task on the list is no longer relevant, then delete it. >>
I'm not clear how this relates.
<< If you find that your preselected list is no longer relevant..., then scrap the preselection and reselect from the beginning. A shorter way to do this is to reselect only from the last preselected task which you haven't done yet." >>
Granted, this is within the rules, but as I've previously mentioned, it feels like a violation of the system to overuse this rule, especially when taken to the extreme someone else suggested (returning to preselection after actioning every task). If I'm adding to the chain to avoid a high-resistance task, I don't think that really qualifies as "no longer relevant". It's just gaming the rules, isn't it?
July 25, 2012 at 18:35 |
Deven
Deven
GMBW:
<< Okay. Having many objectives is normal. But is it possible that the majority of them could be grouped together? Are there any objectives that if completed would make you satisfied the most? If no to both of these questions, would putting these objectives into categories put them front and center? i.e categories like ‘finances’, ‘business’, ‘friends/family’ etc. Would time mapping coupled with your system help? >>
I've looked at the time mapping idea, but that feels like yet another rigid structure that will generate resistance, so I'm a bit dubious of the value for me personally.
As for my objectives, my main concern is my work objectives, which are defined by others, not by me. I have a lot of flexibility in how I pursue them, but I can't go randomly discarding tasks just because I don't want to do them.
<< To reduce resistance, I would suggest to aggressively breakdown a few items routinely (daily, hourly etc.) Keep breaking down the items to easy tasks. SF is good for this, because unfinished items and urgent items are forced to be broken down or worked on routinely (each page turn). >>
I agree with "little and often", but I found that FV really wasn't hitting the same tasks very often.
<< A last recommendation would be to cut down your task lists and commitments. Consider you only have 1 week to live, what tasks must you get done? Which tasks wouldn’t matter at all? Which tasks are ‘so’ urgent and important that it can’t be passed on to another person if you were gone...only you can do it? Once you identify that subset of tasks, use your system to ensure it gets done in a week. Then repeat the question the next week. >>
As I said, at work my commitments are mostly defined for me by others, and I don't have much control over what I'm committed to doing. I mostly have control in how I allocate my time and prioritize the tasks I'm committed to, within reason.
I need to manage the workload, not avoid it. The only way I'll be able to reduce it is to finsih the tasks on my list.
<< Okay. Having many objectives is normal. But is it possible that the majority of them could be grouped together? Are there any objectives that if completed would make you satisfied the most? If no to both of these questions, would putting these objectives into categories put them front and center? i.e categories like ‘finances’, ‘business’, ‘friends/family’ etc. Would time mapping coupled with your system help? >>
I've looked at the time mapping idea, but that feels like yet another rigid structure that will generate resistance, so I'm a bit dubious of the value for me personally.
As for my objectives, my main concern is my work objectives, which are defined by others, not by me. I have a lot of flexibility in how I pursue them, but I can't go randomly discarding tasks just because I don't want to do them.
<< To reduce resistance, I would suggest to aggressively breakdown a few items routinely (daily, hourly etc.) Keep breaking down the items to easy tasks. SF is good for this, because unfinished items and urgent items are forced to be broken down or worked on routinely (each page turn). >>
I agree with "little and often", but I found that FV really wasn't hitting the same tasks very often.
<< A last recommendation would be to cut down your task lists and commitments. Consider you only have 1 week to live, what tasks must you get done? Which tasks wouldn’t matter at all? Which tasks are ‘so’ urgent and important that it can’t be passed on to another person if you were gone...only you can do it? Once you identify that subset of tasks, use your system to ensure it gets done in a week. Then repeat the question the next week. >>
As I said, at work my commitments are mostly defined for me by others, and I don't have much control over what I'm committed to doing. I mostly have control in how I allocate my time and prioritize the tasks I'm committed to, within reason.
I need to manage the workload, not avoid it. The only way I'll be able to reduce it is to finsih the tasks on my list.
July 25, 2012 at 19:03 |
Deven
Deven
>I need to manage the workload, not avoid it. The only way I'll be able to reduce it is to finsih the tasks on my list.
Just curious, if you got no new tasks, how much time would it take to finish everything on your list? (not including time waiting for someone to provide you any info you need to do your job) I know it's not realistic to think that you will not get new tasks, but if you have, say, 30 days worth of tasks on your list now that you want to do this week, there's no way you'll get them all done. There literally isn't enough days in the week for that. Plus adding in new 'must do this week' tasks.
And if your usual amount of new 'must to this week' tasks is 12 days worth, that's not realistic to think you'll get them done either.
I'm not sure why I think this (as in I can't quote anything specific) but it seems like you're got more than a week's worth of work to do in a week. And I understand the "we have to do more with less" mentality but it does make it tough to manage that kind of workload. (apologies if I'm misunderstanding your situation)
Just curious, if you got no new tasks, how much time would it take to finish everything on your list? (not including time waiting for someone to provide you any info you need to do your job) I know it's not realistic to think that you will not get new tasks, but if you have, say, 30 days worth of tasks on your list now that you want to do this week, there's no way you'll get them all done. There literally isn't enough days in the week for that. Plus adding in new 'must do this week' tasks.
And if your usual amount of new 'must to this week' tasks is 12 days worth, that's not realistic to think you'll get them done either.
I'm not sure why I think this (as in I can't quote anything specific) but it seems like you're got more than a week's worth of work to do in a week. And I understand the "we have to do more with less" mentality but it does make it tough to manage that kind of workload. (apologies if I'm misunderstanding your situation)
July 25, 2012 at 20:39 |
Lillian
Lillian
<As I said, at work my commitments are mostly defined for me by others, and I don't have much control over what I'm committed to doing. I mostly have control in how I allocate my time and prioritize the tasks I'm committed to, within reason.>
I was going to suggest something similar to what Lillian said.
It sounds as if tasks are being given to you at rate you can't manage well enough to gain control.
Perhaps you could take some time one day to review each task one by one. Give each one a time estimate. Sure it won't be accurate to the T but at least you'll have a general idea of your task load. add them all up. pretend your day or week is a bucket and start placing items in it one by one in your prioritized order you see fit. now you'll have a workload to focus on. If anyone requests something of you simply explain to them what you're currently working on and when you can get to their requests. there are plenty of ways to kindly say 'no'. there's only so much you can do in finite amount of time. So just do what you can.
To increase accuracy, pay attention to tasks that have high estimates. it's easier to estimate small tasks than large ones.
I was going to suggest something similar to what Lillian said.
It sounds as if tasks are being given to you at rate you can't manage well enough to gain control.
Perhaps you could take some time one day to review each task one by one. Give each one a time estimate. Sure it won't be accurate to the T but at least you'll have a general idea of your task load. add them all up. pretend your day or week is a bucket and start placing items in it one by one in your prioritized order you see fit. now you'll have a workload to focus on. If anyone requests something of you simply explain to them what you're currently working on and when you can get to their requests. there are plenty of ways to kindly say 'no'. there's only so much you can do in finite amount of time. So just do what you can.
To increase accuracy, pay attention to tasks that have high estimates. it's easier to estimate small tasks than large ones.
July 25, 2012 at 22:34 |
GMBW
GMBW
Sounds like you're in a similar situation to Seraphim, so if the AF1 + tweaks don't work out why not try his current approach detailed in this thread:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1887251
I'd recommend some sort of quick daily plan of overall priorities and to base selection on that.
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1887251
I'd recommend some sort of quick daily plan of overall priorities and to base selection on that.
July 26, 2012 at 12:24 |
smileypete
smileypete
smileypete:
<< Sounds like you're in a similar situation to Seraphim, so if the AF1 + tweaks don't work out why not try his current approach detailed in this thread:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1887251
I'd recommend some sort of quick daily plan of overall priorities and to base selection on that. >>
Thanks for the pointer, I'll check it out.
<< Sounds like you're in a similar situation to Seraphim, so if the AF1 + tweaks don't work out why not try his current approach detailed in this thread:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1887251
I'd recommend some sort of quick daily plan of overall priorities and to base selection on that. >>
Thanks for the pointer, I'll check it out.
July 26, 2012 at 21:28 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< Just curious, if you got no new tasks, how much time would it take to finish everything on your list? >>
Hard to say. I'm a programmer, and programmers are generally prone to overly optimistic time estimates. At any given time, I have enough on my list to keep me busy at least a few weeks and more likely a few months.
<< I'm not sure why I think this (as in I can't quote anything specific) but it seems like you're got more than a week's worth of work to do in a week. And I understand the "we have to do more with less" mentality but it does make it tough to manage that kind of workload. (apologies if I'm misunderstanding your situation) >>
Sometimes I'm flooded with new work, other times it's quiet. Either way, there always seems to be a stubborn backlog that persists despite my efforts to clear it, even when it's been quiet. I'm trying to get a handle on it, but somehow it's never easy.
<< Just curious, if you got no new tasks, how much time would it take to finish everything on your list? >>
Hard to say. I'm a programmer, and programmers are generally prone to overly optimistic time estimates. At any given time, I have enough on my list to keep me busy at least a few weeks and more likely a few months.
<< I'm not sure why I think this (as in I can't quote anything specific) but it seems like you're got more than a week's worth of work to do in a week. And I understand the "we have to do more with less" mentality but it does make it tough to manage that kind of workload. (apologies if I'm misunderstanding your situation) >>
Sometimes I'm flooded with new work, other times it's quiet. Either way, there always seems to be a stubborn backlog that persists despite my efforts to clear it, even when it's been quiet. I'm trying to get a handle on it, but somehow it's never easy.
July 26, 2012 at 21:33 |
Deven
Deven
GMBW:
<< It sounds as if tasks are being given to you at rate you can't manage well enough to gain control. >>
Sometimes, but other times I just need to better manage what's already on my list. When there are 40+ tasks on the list that will each take anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks, it gets somewhat overwhelming. That's why I've been participating in this forum and working with Mark's systems, to improve that. Ideally, I'd like to get the official list down to 10-20 items, but I haven't had much luck with that so far.
<< Perhaps you could take some time one day to review each task one by one. Give each one a time estimate. Sure it won't be accurate to the T but at least you'll have a general idea of your task load. add them all up. pretend your day or week is a bucket and start placing items in it one by one in your prioritized order you see fit. now you'll have a workload to focus on. If anyone requests something of you simply explain to them what you're currently working on and when you can get to their requests. there are plenty of ways to kindly say 'no'. there's only so much you can do in finite amount of time. So just do what you can. >>
I do what I can to manage expectations, but I try not to offer target dates when I can avoid it, simply because they'll expect that date to be met, and won't take into account the juggling act I have to perform as new tasks come in with varying priorities. Sometimes a task that I expected to get to next ends up getting pushed back weeks or months due to new work coming in that's higher priority. If I told the customer it would be done this week, it looks worse when it's a month later.
<< To increase accuracy, pay attention to tasks that have high estimates. it's easier to estimate small tasks than large ones. >>
If nothing new ever came in, I could make a plan and target dates that have some semblance of reality to them. But when new work comes in that shuffles the priorities, such plans get thrown out the window.
I know I can do a better job of managing this juggling act, but I'm looking for a system to support that process. So far, AF1 variants have been the most successful for me.
<< It sounds as if tasks are being given to you at rate you can't manage well enough to gain control. >>
Sometimes, but other times I just need to better manage what's already on my list. When there are 40+ tasks on the list that will each take anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks, it gets somewhat overwhelming. That's why I've been participating in this forum and working with Mark's systems, to improve that. Ideally, I'd like to get the official list down to 10-20 items, but I haven't had much luck with that so far.
<< Perhaps you could take some time one day to review each task one by one. Give each one a time estimate. Sure it won't be accurate to the T but at least you'll have a general idea of your task load. add them all up. pretend your day or week is a bucket and start placing items in it one by one in your prioritized order you see fit. now you'll have a workload to focus on. If anyone requests something of you simply explain to them what you're currently working on and when you can get to their requests. there are plenty of ways to kindly say 'no'. there's only so much you can do in finite amount of time. So just do what you can. >>
I do what I can to manage expectations, but I try not to offer target dates when I can avoid it, simply because they'll expect that date to be met, and won't take into account the juggling act I have to perform as new tasks come in with varying priorities. Sometimes a task that I expected to get to next ends up getting pushed back weeks or months due to new work coming in that's higher priority. If I told the customer it would be done this week, it looks worse when it's a month later.
<< To increase accuracy, pay attention to tasks that have high estimates. it's easier to estimate small tasks than large ones. >>
If nothing new ever came in, I could make a plan and target dates that have some semblance of reality to them. But when new work comes in that shuffles the priorities, such plans get thrown out the window.
I know I can do a better job of managing this juggling act, but I'm looking for a system to support that process. So far, AF1 variants have been the most successful for me.
July 26, 2012 at 21:42 |
Deven
Deven
If you are overly optimistic about your time estimates, I'd recommend you put a time estimate on any s/w development tasks, and then track the time to see how accurate you are. You will get more accurate over time.
July 26, 2012 at 23:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I'm find the FV gets bogged down with more than 3 or 4 pages of stuff to scan through to do the preselection. The scanning takes too long, and completing the work for 1 chain takes too long. I'd recommend declaring a backlog whenever your list starts taking too long, and just start over fresh with whatever tasks are most pressing on your mind.
With my FV+DIT approach, if I have outstanding tasks from 1 or 2 previous days, it's no big deal, I can usually deal with them -- clear them out totally -- during the course of a normal day. But if I get further behind, and the previous pages are pretty full, or there are more than 1 or 2 of them, I have to declare a backlog and reset my active list.
This helps keep the list fresh, keep it short and agile, and also gives me a good idea how much I can realistically accomplish in one day.
With my FV+DIT approach, if I have outstanding tasks from 1 or 2 previous days, it's no big deal, I can usually deal with them -- clear them out totally -- during the course of a normal day. But if I get further behind, and the previous pages are pretty full, or there are more than 1 or 2 of them, I have to declare a backlog and reset my active list.
This helps keep the list fresh, keep it short and agile, and also gives me a good idea how much I can realistically accomplish in one day.
July 26, 2012 at 23:59 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Why does it seem that FV really only works well with a short list? I don't like having to declare a backlog because it's near certain to be neglected forever. At least with AF1, those backlog items MIGHT get actioned...
July 27, 2012 at 18:29 |
Deven
Deven
because it asks you to go through the whole list every time.
July 27, 2012 at 18:46 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Deven,
From what I've seen of your posts it seems that it often takes you a day or more to get through a single FV chain. You might try making your chains short enough so that the whole chain can be done in a single sitting of 30 minutes or less. That is the way that FV works best for me.
Striving for short chains makes me select only a few items (1-6) at a time, and to use the "little and often" principle on those items. Most importantly, it means that I'm not trying to work on items that my "past self" selected in some other context.
From what I've seen of your posts it seems that it often takes you a day or more to get through a single FV chain. You might try making your chains short enough so that the whole chain can be done in a single sitting of 30 minutes or less. That is the way that FV works best for me.
Striving for short chains makes me select only a few items (1-6) at a time, and to use the "little and often" principle on those items. Most importantly, it means that I'm not trying to work on items that my "past self" selected in some other context.
July 27, 2012 at 19:20 |
Jeff N
Jeff N
Deven (regarding Jeff N's post):
"...try making your chains short enough so that the whole chain can be done in a single sitting of 30 minutes or less."
... I came to the same conclusion as Jeff. I often ask "What makes sense to do right before X in the next 30 minutes?".
Focusing on a smaller time frame for my preselection improved FV for me. Conditions shift, keeping your times tight ensures chain relevancy, shorter chains, more oldest items are actioned, unfinished and newly urgent items get seen more often, the list is reviewed frequently, and scans of your list are quicker because less items will be chosen for doing in the next 30 minutes *right* before X.
I use an FV/A2 hybrid with metronome-style review of urgent and unfinished items "below the belt" and without A2's dismissal. During my experiments this month with all of Mark's systems I found that when using FV, 30 minute (or so) time frames work very well.
"...try making your chains short enough so that the whole chain can be done in a single sitting of 30 minutes or less."
... I came to the same conclusion as Jeff. I often ask "What makes sense to do right before X in the next 30 minutes?".
Focusing on a smaller time frame for my preselection improved FV for me. Conditions shift, keeping your times tight ensures chain relevancy, shorter chains, more oldest items are actioned, unfinished and newly urgent items get seen more often, the list is reviewed frequently, and scans of your list are quicker because less items will be chosen for doing in the next 30 minutes *right* before X.
I use an FV/A2 hybrid with metronome-style review of urgent and unfinished items "below the belt" and without A2's dismissal. During my experiments this month with all of Mark's systems I found that when using FV, 30 minute (or so) time frames work very well.
July 28, 2012 at 8:33 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
I concur with Michael B. and Jeff N's fundamental notion that FV is improved by adding a time constraint.
The fundamental key to productive activity is little and often. For some research to support this view, I urge you to read any book by Robert Boice on getting published in academia.
If you deny little and often you get either:
1. big and often, or
2. big and infrequent, or
3. little and infrequent.
Big and often is impossible if you are going to get lots of things done. It works if you have a life compatible with monomania. Most of us, however, do not.
Big and infrequent is bingeing. (the spellcheck here wants me to write "binging"). Bingeing is not a sustainable way of functioning. It is ultimately self-destructive.
Little and infrequent is a viable choice. This is what I did when I did David Allen's Getting Things Done. The problem with little and infrequent, though, is that I did not get much done.
So, my personal experience confirms Mark's assertion that little and often is the way to be.
My problem with FV was that it was too easy for me to slip into not doing it in a little and often manner,.
I am psychologically constituted in a manner that is not unique. I tend to plan irrationally, by convincing myself that I have plenty of time to complete commitments that have deadlines further out than a few days.
If I were rational, I would not need much of a system. I would assess what is the best thing to do right and do it. But since I am irrational, I need a system to nudge me into thinking that something that has a deadline 6 weeks from now actually has a (partial) deadline at the close of business today.
It is not my nature to do what is important. It is my nature to do what is urgent (i.e., has a deadline a few hour from now).
So, I need to create artificial deadlines. That is, I need to add a time constraint to FV (which constrains order, but not time).
I do tend to keep my chains short. But I have no strict rules about this. What I did learn from DWM, however, was that if I force myself to allow no items to become older than a week, I will be in big trouble if I create multi-day chains. All I need to do is to add the rule that older than a week items get dismissed and the chain size takes care of itself.
So, yes, Jeff N and Michael B. are right: FV works a lot better by adding a time constraint. But my experience has been that the time to constrain is not the time it takes to complete a chain. The time to constrain is how long the oldest item has remained unactioned on the list. Take care of this time, and the other time will take care of itself.
{Edit: I wrote that FV "constrains order but not time." This is technically wrong. Doing x before y is a time constraint, since "before" is a temporal relation. FV does have a time constraint. My experience has been that it needs a stricter time constraint akin to that found in DWM.}
The fundamental key to productive activity is little and often. For some research to support this view, I urge you to read any book by Robert Boice on getting published in academia.
If you deny little and often you get either:
1. big and often, or
2. big and infrequent, or
3. little and infrequent.
Big and often is impossible if you are going to get lots of things done. It works if you have a life compatible with monomania. Most of us, however, do not.
Big and infrequent is bingeing. (the spellcheck here wants me to write "binging"). Bingeing is not a sustainable way of functioning. It is ultimately self-destructive.
Little and infrequent is a viable choice. This is what I did when I did David Allen's Getting Things Done. The problem with little and infrequent, though, is that I did not get much done.
So, my personal experience confirms Mark's assertion that little and often is the way to be.
My problem with FV was that it was too easy for me to slip into not doing it in a little and often manner,.
I am psychologically constituted in a manner that is not unique. I tend to plan irrationally, by convincing myself that I have plenty of time to complete commitments that have deadlines further out than a few days.
If I were rational, I would not need much of a system. I would assess what is the best thing to do right and do it. But since I am irrational, I need a system to nudge me into thinking that something that has a deadline 6 weeks from now actually has a (partial) deadline at the close of business today.
It is not my nature to do what is important. It is my nature to do what is urgent (i.e., has a deadline a few hour from now).
So, I need to create artificial deadlines. That is, I need to add a time constraint to FV (which constrains order, but not time).
I do tend to keep my chains short. But I have no strict rules about this. What I did learn from DWM, however, was that if I force myself to allow no items to become older than a week, I will be in big trouble if I create multi-day chains. All I need to do is to add the rule that older than a week items get dismissed and the chain size takes care of itself.
So, yes, Jeff N and Michael B. are right: FV works a lot better by adding a time constraint. But my experience has been that the time to constrain is not the time it takes to complete a chain. The time to constrain is how long the oldest item has remained unactioned on the list. Take care of this time, and the other time will take care of itself.
{Edit: I wrote that FV "constrains order but not time." This is technically wrong. Doing x before y is a time constraint, since "before" is a temporal relation. FV does have a time constraint. My experience has been that it needs a stricter time constraint akin to that found in DWM.}
July 29, 2012 at 3:34 |
moises
moises
I agree with limiting time, but not "...try making your chains short enough so that the whole chain can be done in a single sitting of 30 minutes or less." 30 minutes is a good time for 1 task, not all of them. Maybe 2hrs is a sensible limit for a chain.
July 29, 2012 at 19:01 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
+JMJ+
Caibre65 probably has hit on something, Deven: I have been using AF2 (at least a form of it), and I am thoroughly enjoying it. And yes, I have not used FV since the outgo, I have been resisting against it and I don't know why :/
How about trying the AF2 form I have been using, Deven? It is basically AF2 with this small yet big change: Everytime I process the list, I cross-out the oldest items until I hit upon a still relevant item, upon which I re-write it at the end and start processing.
I found that this removes the old problem of AF2 in which we "forget" old items. This also takes care of the dismissal process.
But I think that best thing about this small yet big change is that it retains the main advantage of AF2 above all the other systems (which I honestly forgot until I started using this): "little and often". More than any other of Mark's systems, AF2 exploits "little and often" because it re-presents to the user the task he had just rewritten a few items ago, reminding him of it. It is not rare for me, using this system, to be surprised to finishing more than a few tasks almost simultaneously by jumping from one task to another over the day, which removes boredom and the feeling of being shackled to a task. And it actually makes doing hard tasks easier because I am confident that, by using this system, I can lay off from the difficult task if need be and not forget about it because of how often this system reminds me of it.
Caibre65 probably has hit on something, Deven: I have been using AF2 (at least a form of it), and I am thoroughly enjoying it. And yes, I have not used FV since the outgo, I have been resisting against it and I don't know why :/
How about trying the AF2 form I have been using, Deven? It is basically AF2 with this small yet big change: Everytime I process the list, I cross-out the oldest items until I hit upon a still relevant item, upon which I re-write it at the end and start processing.
I found that this removes the old problem of AF2 in which we "forget" old items. This also takes care of the dismissal process.
But I think that best thing about this small yet big change is that it retains the main advantage of AF2 above all the other systems (which I honestly forgot until I started using this): "little and often". More than any other of Mark's systems, AF2 exploits "little and often" because it re-presents to the user the task he had just rewritten a few items ago, reminding him of it. It is not rare for me, using this system, to be surprised to finishing more than a few tasks almost simultaneously by jumping from one task to another over the day, which removes boredom and the feeling of being shackled to a task. And it actually makes doing hard tasks easier because I am confident that, by using this system, I can lay off from the difficult task if need be and not forget about it because of how often this system reminds me of it.
July 29, 2012 at 23:31 |
nuntym
nuntym
I find FV works quite well for me without any form of additional constraints (time or other). Maybe this is because I unconsciously or automatically adjust and finetune the chain length for it to work well. My oldest items are around 50 working days old (more than usual because of vacation period), I have 10 or 11 pages with items still open, adding up to between 90 and 100 open items at any time. I tend to finish between one and three chains in a typical day. All this is work (office) only.
July 30, 2012 at 16:11 |
Marc (from Brussels)
Marc (from Brussels)
@moises - That is the best description of "little and often" and the reasoning behind it that I've ever read! Thanks for that!!
July 30, 2012 at 18:00 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@moises -
<< I do tend to keep my chains short. But I have no strict rules about this. What I did learn from DWM, however, was that if I force myself to allow no items to become older than a week, I will be in big trouble if I create multi-day chains. All I need to do is to add the rule that older than a week items get dismissed and the chain size takes care of itself. >>
It's interesting that you are combining concepts from DWM and FV. That's essentially what I am doing also.
The value I always found in DWM was that I would reach an equilibrium -- my list size would balance out. With all the other systems, my list would grow without end.
But I didn't really like DWM's task-selection mechanism: read through the list, and do whatever tasks stand out. It didn't have the same feel as AF1 that made the standing-out idea so powerful. It seemed a lot more mechanical, rather than engaging both the rational and unconscious mind, as in AF1.
DWM's expiration mechanism combined with FV's task selection algorithm, gives you the best of both worlds. In fact, I think they bring out the best in each other. DWM keeps the FV shorter and nimbler, which makes it work more effectively. FV softens the mechanical feel of DWM and makes it more intuitive.
That's what I'm finding in my DIT/FV combination also. But the DIT component has some advantages over DWM. I am getting a MUCH better feel for how much I can really do in one day or one week, than I was ever able to get with DWM. DWM did reach an equilibrium, but still, the list was too large to be really effective. I never felt able to gauge my day-to-day, week-to-week workload with DWM.
DIT solves this by adding one more constraint: how much room do I have on my page for each day? If I have 7-12 project items, and 7-12 recurring items, that's PLENTY to do in one day, at least for me.
My list is in a 1-day-per page paper notebook, so it gives me a strong visual indication of how much I have committed for the day. If my list were electronic, I'd need to be more creative to get such a strong visual cue of my overall workload. I was never really able to do that in OneNote.
<< I do tend to keep my chains short. But I have no strict rules about this. What I did learn from DWM, however, was that if I force myself to allow no items to become older than a week, I will be in big trouble if I create multi-day chains. All I need to do is to add the rule that older than a week items get dismissed and the chain size takes care of itself. >>
It's interesting that you are combining concepts from DWM and FV. That's essentially what I am doing also.
The value I always found in DWM was that I would reach an equilibrium -- my list size would balance out. With all the other systems, my list would grow without end.
But I didn't really like DWM's task-selection mechanism: read through the list, and do whatever tasks stand out. It didn't have the same feel as AF1 that made the standing-out idea so powerful. It seemed a lot more mechanical, rather than engaging both the rational and unconscious mind, as in AF1.
DWM's expiration mechanism combined with FV's task selection algorithm, gives you the best of both worlds. In fact, I think they bring out the best in each other. DWM keeps the FV shorter and nimbler, which makes it work more effectively. FV softens the mechanical feel of DWM and makes it more intuitive.
That's what I'm finding in my DIT/FV combination also. But the DIT component has some advantages over DWM. I am getting a MUCH better feel for how much I can really do in one day or one week, than I was ever able to get with DWM. DWM did reach an equilibrium, but still, the list was too large to be really effective. I never felt able to gauge my day-to-day, week-to-week workload with DWM.
DIT solves this by adding one more constraint: how much room do I have on my page for each day? If I have 7-12 project items, and 7-12 recurring items, that's PLENTY to do in one day, at least for me.
My list is in a 1-day-per page paper notebook, so it gives me a strong visual indication of how much I have committed for the day. If my list were electronic, I'd need to be more creative to get such a strong visual cue of my overall workload. I was never really able to do that in OneNote.
July 30, 2012 at 18:17 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Have you explained the DIT/FV anywhere Seraphim? How long has it worked for you?
OneNote: The number of tabs down the side is a plenty strong cue for me. Not you?
OneNote: The number of tabs down the side is a plenty strong cue for me. Not you?
July 30, 2012 at 21:42 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I tried hard to make short FV chains that could be completed quickly, but it's easier said than done when many of my tasks make sense to spend hours on, once I get started. While "little and often" is valuable, if I'm making good progress on a task, the last thing I want to do is interrupt the flow state, stop working on it and incur the context-switch overhead of starting another task JUST for the purpose of making sure it's "LITTLE and often". Therefore, in practice, it's quite easy for the chain to become "stale".
Ultimately, I find I just don't like this mechanism. Using the "standing out" approach to select an appropriate task to work on immediately feels much more conducive to productivity than predetermining a list of tasks to work on based on what made sense when the list was created.
As for using AF2, that's not something I've tried, but I have used my own AF1/AF2/CAF hybrid system before FV. It worked okay, but I'd like something simpler. Since the system with the most "staying power" seems to be AF1, I'm starting with straight AF1 as a base and experimenting with my own tweaks (based on my experience with tweaking FV and earlier systems) to address the known AF1 problems with urgency/importance, trying to keep the changes minimal. So far it's going quite well, and I'm much happier with this system than I've been with any variant of FV.
Ultimately, I find I just don't like this mechanism. Using the "standing out" approach to select an appropriate task to work on immediately feels much more conducive to productivity than predetermining a list of tasks to work on based on what made sense when the list was created.
As for using AF2, that's not something I've tried, but I have used my own AF1/AF2/CAF hybrid system before FV. It worked okay, but I'd like something simpler. Since the system with the most "staying power" seems to be AF1, I'm starting with straight AF1 as a base and experimenting with my own tweaks (based on my experience with tweaking FV and earlier systems) to address the known AF1 problems with urgency/importance, trying to keep the changes minimal. So far it's going quite well, and I'm much happier with this system than I've been with any variant of FV.
July 31, 2012 at 19:16 |
Deven
Deven
+JMJ+
@Deven: AF2 is much MUCH simpler than CAF, and AF2 as I am using now is actually simpler than FV and even plain vanilla AF1, and much more nimble. There is no dismissal, you see, and the old strengths of excellent handling of urgent items and maximized use of "little and often" are retained while now much better in handling older items.
1. Make a list of tasks.
2. Write any new task at the end of the list.
3. Delete the oldest task and re-write it at the end of the list (unless that oldest task is already irrelevant, upon which delete it and go to the next oldest task).
4. Starting from the end of the list, choose the task that "stands out" then do it.
5. Upon doing what needs to be done on the item, delete it. If needed, re-write at the end
6. Go back to number 2.
But anyways, I'm glad you're going well with your time management.
@Deven: AF2 is much MUCH simpler than CAF, and AF2 as I am using now is actually simpler than FV and even plain vanilla AF1, and much more nimble. There is no dismissal, you see, and the old strengths of excellent handling of urgent items and maximized use of "little and often" are retained while now much better in handling older items.
1. Make a list of tasks.
2. Write any new task at the end of the list.
3. Delete the oldest task and re-write it at the end of the list (unless that oldest task is already irrelevant, upon which delete it and go to the next oldest task).
4. Starting from the end of the list, choose the task that "stands out" then do it.
5. Upon doing what needs to be done on the item, delete it. If needed, re-write at the end
6. Go back to number 2.
But anyways, I'm glad you're going well with your time management.
July 31, 2012 at 19:25 |
nuntym
nuntym
Hi Alan,
Yes, I posted it here: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1854855#post1882690
And I'm still doing the same thing. I really like it.
I'm still trying to work out some details. For example:
Little and often - I'm trying to do this more, which means crossing things off and re-entering them, often on the same day's page. It doesn't work unless there's room on the page. This is one reason I find I need to stop adding new items to a page once it is 50 to 70% filled.
Matching work to available time - If I have lots of meetings or other things blocking my discretionary time, I have to fill even less. At the beginning of the week, I look over my calendar for the week, and make a note of the days that are especially slammed with meetings. I try not to enter much on my list for those days.
Separation of recurring items - At first, I was writing projects and one-off tasks at the top of the page, and recurring items in the middle of the page, and then reserving a couple lines at the bottom of the page for personal items (during the work week). This gave me a very good feel for where my focus was for the day, and warned me if I was spending too much time on maintenance (recurring items).
The last few days, I tried a simple list for each day, with everything mixed together, and then drawing a line at the end of the list at the beginning of the day, just like the DIT book says. This gives more of a sense of today's page being a "closed list", which I like, but it totally loses the sense of what is recurring, what is work projects, what is personal, etc.
I'm trying to find a good compromise - first 10 lines for projects and one-offs, next 10 lines for recurring, and 2-3 lines at the very bottom of the page for personal. (I try to put off all the personal stuff till the weekends.)
So, it's not an algorithmic system, at least not yet, but it has been very effective and gives me the best sense of any system I've tried for how much I really have on my plate, whether I need to scale down, or whether I can add another commitment or project.
Yes, I posted it here: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1854855#post1882690
And I'm still doing the same thing. I really like it.
I'm still trying to work out some details. For example:
Little and often - I'm trying to do this more, which means crossing things off and re-entering them, often on the same day's page. It doesn't work unless there's room on the page. This is one reason I find I need to stop adding new items to a page once it is 50 to 70% filled.
Matching work to available time - If I have lots of meetings or other things blocking my discretionary time, I have to fill even less. At the beginning of the week, I look over my calendar for the week, and make a note of the days that are especially slammed with meetings. I try not to enter much on my list for those days.
Separation of recurring items - At first, I was writing projects and one-off tasks at the top of the page, and recurring items in the middle of the page, and then reserving a couple lines at the bottom of the page for personal items (during the work week). This gave me a very good feel for where my focus was for the day, and warned me if I was spending too much time on maintenance (recurring items).
The last few days, I tried a simple list for each day, with everything mixed together, and then drawing a line at the end of the list at the beginning of the day, just like the DIT book says. This gives more of a sense of today's page being a "closed list", which I like, but it totally loses the sense of what is recurring, what is work projects, what is personal, etc.
I'm trying to find a good compromise - first 10 lines for projects and one-offs, next 10 lines for recurring, and 2-3 lines at the very bottom of the page for personal. (I try to put off all the personal stuff till the weekends.)
So, it's not an algorithmic system, at least not yet, but it has been very effective and gives me the best sense of any system I've tried for how much I really have on my plate, whether I need to scale down, or whether I can add another commitment or project.
July 31, 2012 at 19:26 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Nuntym
I seem to be doing something very similar, though I try to create a small chain of tasks. When this is done I start from the end of the list.
I also do an almost AF review of the first page of the list, those tasks that have been lingering longest. I pull either one or two (at the beginning of the day) that stand out and could be done today and rewrite them at the end of the list. I try and do them but don't stress if they don't get done, at least I've considered them.
I also add items that I would like to do or have to do today. They are already either on my FV list or project list but have become urgent (either ready to be started or to hit a nearing deadline). When they're near the end of the list they are in my line of sight - i'm confident that I'm not missing anything or having to trawl the list anxiously looking for anything potentially urgent.
I seem to be doing something very similar, though I try to create a small chain of tasks. When this is done I start from the end of the list.
I also do an almost AF review of the first page of the list, those tasks that have been lingering longest. I pull either one or two (at the beginning of the day) that stand out and could be done today and rewrite them at the end of the list. I try and do them but don't stress if they don't get done, at least I've considered them.
I also add items that I would like to do or have to do today. They are already either on my FV list or project list but have become urgent (either ready to be started or to hit a nearing deadline). When they're near the end of the list they are in my line of sight - i'm confident that I'm not missing anything or having to trawl the list anxiously looking for anything potentially urgent.
July 31, 2012 at 20:19 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
I also meant to say that though I think FV is an incredible and logical system I do have a tremendous amount of resistance to being forced to do that first unactioned task. I hope Mark will start posting again and give us some guidance on this.
July 31, 2012 at 20:39 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
I hope too. Until then, let me try :-) Change your mindset from "being forced to do".
Now when you get back to the first task on the list, you are not required to do it. You are encouraged to, but if you don't want to you don't have to. If you choose not, think about why you resist the task, and make a plan for what will help you overcome the resistance next time. (Or you might consider the task unnecessary and delete it.) Perhaps identify what little bit you can get started on. Consider the task done and rewrite it at the end.
It's not cheating, because you actually did some progress.
Now when you get back to the first task on the list, you are not required to do it. You are encouraged to, but if you don't want to you don't have to. If you choose not, think about why you resist the task, and make a plan for what will help you overcome the resistance next time. (Or you might consider the task unnecessary and delete it.) Perhaps identify what little bit you can get started on. Consider the task done and rewrite it at the end.
It's not cheating, because you actually did some progress.
July 31, 2012 at 20:46 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Thank's Alan, I'll give that some thought.
July 31, 2012 at 21:08 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
+JMJ+
That sounds quite complicated, Caibre65. Why do you stick with making chains?
That sounds quite complicated, Caibre65. Why do you stick with making chains?
August 1, 2012 at 0:27 |
nuntym
nuntym
I too sometimes find the chain-construction step a deterrent to getting going. I've posted an alternative method called TATT (Touch All Tasks Today). It's over in the General Forum –
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1907896
– enjoy!
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1907896
– enjoy!
August 1, 2012 at 1:59 |
ubi
ubi
+JMJ+
Indeed. The task chains also seem to hinder "little and often" because you have to finish the chain before you can return to a task, and that could also be a reason for the increased resistance.
I don't think that is a unique flaw of FV, however. In AF1, you have to go through some pages of tasks to get to the unfinished task (unless you care currently in the last page). In AF4 you have to go through the backlog. In DWM and DWM2 you can jump right away to the unfinished task, but it can feel a bit forced since you may have to jump past a few (or more) pages. The SF's were made to facilitate "little and often" but they also feel a bit forced because you have to decide right there and then whether to write at C2 or not.
AF2 however seems to be tailor-made for "little and often" because right after re-writing the unfinished task you have to <<pass through>> that unfinished item while looking at the list from the end, and believe me such items stick out like sore thumbs in the mind's eye. AF2 will never let you forget those unfinished tasks that you left to idle minutes or hours ago.
The main problem with AF2 was that the longer the list was the harder it is to get to the oldest items because you start from the end of the list always. The tweak of re-writing the oldest, still-relevant items to the end of the list everytime I choose tasks solved this issue. Not only did it bring to fore the oldest and most neglected items in the list, it also helps in trimming down the list. Please note that, from the instructions above, if the oldest task is already irrelevant, it is deleted and then you go to the next oldest task to determine its worthiness to be re-written; that next oldest task can still be deleted, and so on with th rest. If I had done twenty tasks today, then I had rewritten twenty old tasks to the fore, but I could also have deleted some or many tasks too.
I started almost a week ago with this form of AF2 with a list of 80+ tasks, which is the list I have been using for the past couple of months using various other time management systems I tried. Now, that same list has 36 tasks. I think that should speak by itself.
Indeed. The task chains also seem to hinder "little and often" because you have to finish the chain before you can return to a task, and that could also be a reason for the increased resistance.
I don't think that is a unique flaw of FV, however. In AF1, you have to go through some pages of tasks to get to the unfinished task (unless you care currently in the last page). In AF4 you have to go through the backlog. In DWM and DWM2 you can jump right away to the unfinished task, but it can feel a bit forced since you may have to jump past a few (or more) pages. The SF's were made to facilitate "little and often" but they also feel a bit forced because you have to decide right there and then whether to write at C2 or not.
AF2 however seems to be tailor-made for "little and often" because right after re-writing the unfinished task you have to <<pass through>> that unfinished item while looking at the list from the end, and believe me such items stick out like sore thumbs in the mind's eye. AF2 will never let you forget those unfinished tasks that you left to idle minutes or hours ago.
The main problem with AF2 was that the longer the list was the harder it is to get to the oldest items because you start from the end of the list always. The tweak of re-writing the oldest, still-relevant items to the end of the list everytime I choose tasks solved this issue. Not only did it bring to fore the oldest and most neglected items in the list, it also helps in trimming down the list. Please note that, from the instructions above, if the oldest task is already irrelevant, it is deleted and then you go to the next oldest task to determine its worthiness to be re-written; that next oldest task can still be deleted, and so on with th rest. If I had done twenty tasks today, then I had rewritten twenty old tasks to the fore, but I could also have deleted some or many tasks too.
I started almost a week ago with this form of AF2 with a list of 80+ tasks, which is the list I have been using for the past couple of months using various other time management systems I tried. Now, that same list has 36 tasks. I think that should speak by itself.
August 1, 2012 at 2:51 |
nuntym
nuntym
+JMJ+
I have made a new thread regarding this form of AF2 at the General Forums to stop hijacking this thread any further: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142
There is a bonus post there that shows how powerful AF2 is in doing "little and often", and believe me when I say it seems to make difficult tasks much easier.
I have made a new thread regarding this form of AF2 at the General Forums to stop hijacking this thread any further: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142
There is a bonus post there that shows how powerful AF2 is in doing "little and often", and believe me when I say it seems to make difficult tasks much easier.
August 1, 2012 at 3:59 |
nuntym
nuntym
When I say chain I mean a small number of gradually more "difficult" tasks just to get a little momentum going. I may well not need to do this, it depends on how I feel. For example when I get to work my first selection of tasks will in most cases be:
Make cup of tea
Tidy Desk
Check voicemail
Check email
I should hopefully be engaged in work mode now so my next little chain might be
Call x to arrange appointment (easy)
Letter to Y (tedious but ok)
Begin work on project Z (not looking forward to this but I can manage 40 mins)
Check email (easy)
Break for a 10 minute browse on here (reward)
After the break I'm still probably engaged by project z so I dot it and do it, no need for a chain.
I'm effectively deciding on several things to do one after another that I feel flow naturally or logically. I use the same process when working on a client project. It might be:
Get file out
Review evernote notes
Review client business records
Detail work required
I'd just write the above items in my list and dot them all. I know intuitively which order to do them in.
I'm trying to get a flow going and use short chains to encourage this.
Make cup of tea
Tidy Desk
Check voicemail
Check email
I should hopefully be engaged in work mode now so my next little chain might be
Call x to arrange appointment (easy)
Letter to Y (tedious but ok)
Begin work on project Z (not looking forward to this but I can manage 40 mins)
Check email (easy)
Break for a 10 minute browse on here (reward)
After the break I'm still probably engaged by project z so I dot it and do it, no need for a chain.
I'm effectively deciding on several things to do one after another that I feel flow naturally or logically. I use the same process when working on a client project. It might be:
Get file out
Review evernote notes
Review client business records
Detail work required
I'd just write the above items in my list and dot them all. I know intuitively which order to do them in.
I'm trying to get a flow going and use short chains to encourage this.
August 1, 2012 at 8:31 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
Limiting the total size of your FV list helps ensure that "little and often" really is. If it's moving too slowly, and you are losing the "little and often" effect, you can declare a backlog and start over.
August 1, 2012 at 16:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I'm sure people will assume that I would be happy with standard FV if I stuck with that instead of creating Prioritized FV by tweaking the rewriting rule. On the contrary, I still consider Prioritized FV to be an improvement over standard FV, and it allowed me to stick to the system longer than I otherwise would have, because it did a good job of keeping the high priorities front and center. That's not the problem.
I'm finding resistance building to the core mechanism behind FV: preselecting a chain and then processing it. Scanning the entire list repeatedly tends to be time-consuming and a bit mind-numbing, seeing the same tasks over and over again, but the real problem lies in processing the chain after it's been created. After a while, the preselected chain starts to feel like a straightjacket, binding me to a predetermined course of action, and I don't care for being ordered around like that, even by my past self.
I could try standard FV again with no tweaks, but honestly, I doubt it would matter. I expect that I would still feel resistance to the core mechanism of preselecting a chain and processing it, and without that mechanism, the system wouldn't be FV at all.
For the past week or so, I've been experimenting with a new system, primarily based on AF1, but with some tweaks based on my experience with Prioritized FV. So far, I'm much happier with it, because I find I'm willing to use the list and process it, instead of avoiding the system. I'll give it more time to see if it holds up and how it handles urgent/important tasks, but it's promising so far. If all goes well, I'll post the details to the General Forum.