FV and FVP Forum > *Main* task/project resulting in a very short preselection lists. What's your experience?
I just skim the list very quickly in cases like this. Intuitively, I know to skip ahead to the end list to where the important task is, so I don't lose too much time actually reading all tasks in between. I do make a point of a more careful reading of the complete list once a day, to make sure my intuition about what's on the list stays correct.
August 7, 2012 at 15:45 |
Nicole
Nicole
When I've been in hyperfocus situations, I've also done what Nicole described, or resorted to the get-out-of-preselection-free tactic of declaring the preselections stale and repicking from the last preselected item (which has the net effect of putting that first item on hold until the urgent stuff has been dealt with).
August 7, 2012 at 18:40 |
Sarah
Sarah
Ditto to Nicole and Sarah.
August 7, 2012 at 19:05 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Since FV is for discretionary time, wouldn't the time spent on the project be non-discretionary? (and therefore FV doesn't apply - unless you have a project-specific FV list) You can do the FV list when you're done with the project for the day, or when you need a break from the project for a little while.
August 7, 2012 at 20:32 |
Lillian
Lillian
Could it be that this whole "discretionary" vs. "non-discretionary time" issue is a conceptual flaw that somehow makes this whole "system" (and others) a non-"system"?
Like, it's just a way to work a to-do list, and a "system" should be a bit more than that? Shouldn't a "system" somehow also be able to *balance* "discretionary" and "non-discretionary" time, work and life, or big, long-term projects and quisquilie?
Don't want to sound too negative, but I'm a bit tired of dabbling with "systems" that tend to be overrun by routines, compulsory treadmills and "big issues", and always brought to a grinding halt after a short while.
P.S.: No, I haven't tried the "Final" version yet, didn't feel any urge to do so. Mostly because there's no dismissal mechanism, which was the only appeal of all the AF/SF etc. methods vs. DIT (the latter having enough problems of its own).
Like, it's just a way to work a to-do list, and a "system" should be a bit more than that? Shouldn't a "system" somehow also be able to *balance* "discretionary" and "non-discretionary" time, work and life, or big, long-term projects and quisquilie?
Don't want to sound too negative, but I'm a bit tired of dabbling with "systems" that tend to be overrun by routines, compulsory treadmills and "big issues", and always brought to a grinding halt after a short while.
P.S.: No, I haven't tried the "Final" version yet, didn't feel any urge to do so. Mostly because there's no dismissal mechanism, which was the only appeal of all the AF/SF etc. methods vs. DIT (the latter having enough problems of its own).
August 7, 2012 at 23:55 |
Alex W.
Alex W.
Alex - no I don't think so. You wouldn't use FV (or any other system) to decide what you're doing for the 2 hours scheduled for the meeting your boss says you must attend. That's non-discretionary time. You would use FV to decide what to do for the 2 hours before the meeting. That's discretionary time.
A project that's super-important and must be done before everything else on your list? What do you need FV to decide what to do. You work on the project as long as you have to either (a) get it done or (b) need a mental break to do something else for 30 minutes or whatever. The project is non-discretionary.
A project that's super-important and must be done before everything else on your list? What do you need FV to decide what to do. You work on the project as long as you have to either (a) get it done or (b) need a mental break to do something else for 30 minutes or whatever. The project is non-discretionary.
August 8, 2012 at 0:52 |
Lillian
Lillian
Alex, I'm having trouble reconciling your statements:
Alex>... a "system" should be a bit more than that? Shouldn't a "system" somehow also be able to *balance* "discretionary" and "non-discretionary" time, work and life, or big, long-term projects and quisquilie?
Alex> ... I'm a bit tired of dabbling with "systems" that tend to be overrun by routines, compulsory treadmills ...
In one paragraph you seem to expect that the system should have a comprehensive algorithm for determining what to do at any particular time, but in the second you object to being overrun by compulsory actions. These seem to be mutually contradictory to me.
I think any system - whether a conceptually simple one like to-do lists, a complex one like GTD, or something in between like FV - is a tool to support our brain (or perhaps to train our brain, when it comes to things like overcoming resistance), NOT a replacement for our brain. Like a telephone, a time or task management system is a good tool but a terrible master - we shouldn't suspend our judgement and blindly answer the phone/follow the system when circumstances warrant a different response.
This goes some way towards my answer to Artem's question. If you have something important that warrants utilising all your available time, then do it - because that means you are being productive and doing what is most needful. Isn't that the point of these systems, do pay attention to what is most needed rather than what is most noisy? Like others suggested, keep the system in the background for when you need to take a break and to record new tasks that come up but don't warrant interrupting your work.
Tim
Alex>... a "system" should be a bit more than that? Shouldn't a "system" somehow also be able to *balance* "discretionary" and "non-discretionary" time, work and life, or big, long-term projects and quisquilie?
Alex> ... I'm a bit tired of dabbling with "systems" that tend to be overrun by routines, compulsory treadmills ...
In one paragraph you seem to expect that the system should have a comprehensive algorithm for determining what to do at any particular time, but in the second you object to being overrun by compulsory actions. These seem to be mutually contradictory to me.
I think any system - whether a conceptually simple one like to-do lists, a complex one like GTD, or something in between like FV - is a tool to support our brain (or perhaps to train our brain, when it comes to things like overcoming resistance), NOT a replacement for our brain. Like a telephone, a time or task management system is a good tool but a terrible master - we shouldn't suspend our judgement and blindly answer the phone/follow the system when circumstances warrant a different response.
This goes some way towards my answer to Artem's question. If you have something important that warrants utilising all your available time, then do it - because that means you are being productive and doing what is most needful. Isn't that the point of these systems, do pay attention to what is most needed rather than what is most noisy? Like others suggested, keep the system in the background for when you need to take a break and to record new tasks that come up but don't warrant interrupting your work.
Tim
August 8, 2012 at 5:25 |
Tim
Tim
Alex, what exactly are you looking for? For a comprehensive "system" -- a set of rules and behaviors and algorithmic processing?
Personally, I've always been seeking how to learn the best principles and how to internalize them.
The DIT book itself seems more like a set of "principles for self-management", rather than a "system" a la GTD or AF or DWM.
Most of Mark's "systems" all achieve the aim of teaching you those best principles and internalizing them. They teach you by doing, they show you how you can be effective with "little and often", with repeated exposure, with writing everything down, etc. After awhile, you do internalize a lot of those principles -- at least I have -- so you don't even need to rely so much on the "system" itself.
Gerry's "systems" are proof of this. They really just take these basic principles and use the most fundamental mechanics in the simplest way possible.
Personally, I've always been seeking how to learn the best principles and how to internalize them.
The DIT book itself seems more like a set of "principles for self-management", rather than a "system" a la GTD or AF or DWM.
Most of Mark's "systems" all achieve the aim of teaching you those best principles and internalizing them. They teach you by doing, they show you how you can be effective with "little and often", with repeated exposure, with writing everything down, etc. After awhile, you do internalize a lot of those principles -- at least I have -- so you don't even need to rely so much on the "system" itself.
Gerry's "systems" are proof of this. They really just take these basic principles and use the most fundamental mechanics in the simplest way possible.
August 8, 2012 at 18:15 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim, that's exactly my experience. Lately, I've been going back to DIT, and I realized after a few days that all Mark's previous systems (AF, AF2, DWM, SF, FV) each have characteristics that help to make DIT work. I very clearly saw where Mark was coming from when developing FV and all the systems before that. Teaching by doing is a nice way of describing it.
Previously, I liked DIT but couldn't really make it work because I was getting waaay behind within just a few days. After all the experience of AF etc, I'm finally managing to make DIT (processed sort-of FV-style) work, and currently my oldest page is actually 1 day old, hurray. And no, I'm not constantly rewriting from the oldest page. I do the occasional rewriting when I can't do the first task on the list right now, but that happens once or twice a day. So apparently I've finally internalized Mark's principles.
Thanks for pointing this out!
Previously, I liked DIT but couldn't really make it work because I was getting waaay behind within just a few days. After all the experience of AF etc, I'm finally managing to make DIT (processed sort-of FV-style) work, and currently my oldest page is actually 1 day old, hurray. And no, I'm not constantly rewriting from the oldest page. I do the occasional rewriting when I can't do the first task on the list right now, but that happens once or twice a day. So apparently I've finally internalized Mark's principles.
Thanks for pointing this out!
August 8, 2012 at 19:54 |
Nicole
Nicole
I'm thinking today how AutoFocus (every version) worked fantastic on the first day. The list is small and contains those things that most stood out for you. After that they generally hold up well but not as the first day. Of course if every day you started anew the lesser tasks will get forgotten and neglected so that isn't good either. The challenge is to do the urgent and the important and limit the rest so the former are done well.
Perhaps if I make a list consisting of critical items, and add to that list "evaluate new" and "manage old" where the latter task is done when you feel the backlog is under control for today. But mainly we process the critical list until those items are no longer critical today.
Perhaps if I make a list consisting of critical items, and add to that list "evaluate new" and "manage old" where the latter task is done when you feel the backlog is under control for today. But mainly we process the critical list until those items are no longer critical today.
August 9, 2012 at 4:13 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<I'm thinking today how AutoFocus (every version) worked fantastic on the first day. The list is small and contains those things that most stood out for you. After that they generally hold up well but not as the first day. Of course if every day you started anew the lesser tasks will get forgotten and neglected so that isn't good either. The challenge is to do the urgent and the important and limit the rest so the former are done well.>
What sort of tasks are bulking up your list? Are they mostly 'must do soon' or are they mostly 'maybe someday' ideas?
If there's an abundance of both then I doubt any system could cope!
What sort of tasks are bulking up your list? Are they mostly 'must do soon' or are they mostly 'maybe someday' ideas?
If there's an abundance of both then I doubt any system could cope!
August 9, 2012 at 13:00 |
smileypete
smileypete
neither. They are "I could do them now and there would be value in that, but I don't have to".
August 9, 2012 at 17:19 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan, do those items have a built-in life expentancy? (if you don't do it in a week, it will never get done) If so, could you just run through the list once a week-ish and clear out the 'dead' items?
August 9, 2012 at 21:31 |
Lillian
Lillian
Some do but most don't. Most will always be relevant but not urgent.
August 10, 2012 at 2:30 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Last week or so my work life was dominated by single pretty big project represented by a single task, say, "build feature X" + meetings. Little time goes into anything else and it is quite a correct situation - for a while this main project is really more important than lots of other things.
FV works sort of OK with this situation, but what I noticed is that most of the time my preselection lists happen to be very short, sometimes of just 2-3 items such as:
----
- Have a look at competitors (it's just the first open task, not really important)
- Next step of "Build feature X"
- Email
----
And the first task in this preselection list (Have a look at competitors) can really be delayed so I usually do just a smal step there or ignore and rewrite to the end of the list.
That.. sort of works, but means that I am going through some 200 tasks for building the same short list of main project + minimal maintenance (email, calls) + just a bit of whatever the first task is.
Doesn't feel super good, does it?
What is your experience with the situations like these? What works for you?