FV and FVP Forum > Systems Poll Discussion
+JMJ+
Well it is pretty obvious that FV is still the system most people use, as to be expected.
I am, however, pleasantly surprised that at least one other than me, Rainer, is using AF2, and I am wondering how he is using it.
AF1 appears to be the runner up in the amount of people using it.
Well it is pretty obvious that FV is still the system most people use, as to be expected.
I am, however, pleasantly surprised that at least one other than me, Rainer, is using AF2, and I am wondering how he is using it.
AF1 appears to be the runner up in the amount of people using it.
August 11, 2012 at 19:18 |
nuntym
nuntym
I noticed the AF1 inclination before the poll. I was thinking of going AF1, if needed to combat "staleness" of my FV list. Currently, attacking FV "staleness" by declaring backlog at 2 months old tasks.
August 11, 2012 at 23:04 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
If you're declaring a backlog with stale tasks older than 2 months old, can you honestly say that AF is working? Are you not in the same state of affairs you started in, now with an additional heap of junk to get through? Declaring backlogs in these systems has always struck me as the productivity equivalent of throwing all the junk in the house into one room and declaring the house tidy - but you still have all the junk to work on, something you should have done originally to avoid the stress of having it hang around or the need to touch it over and over again.
It's not a flippant question by the way. I'm an ex-user of AF1 which I found worked for me up to a point. I need a level of project management in my tasks and AF1 didn't support the structure I needed. I reverted to GTD and ThinkingRock which I've used for years now and am still using with great success. I keep it as simple as possible and put the eneregy into doing the tasks rather than stressing over the system itself or what's in it.
It's not a flippant question by the way. I'm an ex-user of AF1 which I found worked for me up to a point. I need a level of project management in my tasks and AF1 didn't support the structure I needed. I reverted to GTD and ThinkingRock which I've used for years now and am still using with great success. I keep it as simple as possible and put the eneregy into doing the tasks rather than stressing over the system itself or what's in it.
August 12, 2012 at 0:55 |
Chris
Chris
I meant FV and AF1 (I saw you are proposing AF1 instead of declaring backlog for stale FV)
August 12, 2012 at 0:58 |
Chris
Chris
I agree with Chris that the need to declare a backlog is a sign that one's systems aren't working. Like Mark says in the DIT book, the main thing to do when declaring a backlog is to make sure whatever systems you are using are able to deal with your ongoing workload effectively; otherwise you'll just need to declare another backlog after a short time.
That said, declaring a backlog can be a very useful tool. It helps you "start over" and immediately get back on top of your current work, while you try to sort out why this happened and what you can do to fix it.
Getting all of the junk out of the way in one room can make the rest of the house operate a lot more efficiently. But if you don't address the root cause, the pile of junk will just get bigger and eventually take over the whole house!
That said, declaring a backlog can be a very useful tool. It helps you "start over" and immediately get back on top of your current work, while you try to sort out why this happened and what you can do to fix it.
Getting all of the junk out of the way in one room can make the rest of the house operate a lot more efficiently. But if you don't address the root cause, the pile of junk will just get bigger and eventually take over the whole house!
August 12, 2012 at 20:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Given that the poll was posted in the FV Forum, shouldn't you expect FV to be the majority answer? If you post the same poll in the General Forum, will the answers be different? (Watch for duplicates between the two polls if you try it!)
I tend to agree with Chris about declaring a backlog and I like the analogy of calling the house tidy when you shove all the junk in one room. That being said, if that's what your house is really like, it might still be quite livable, even if you do have that messy room hanging over your head, and maybe it's better than having every room in the house somewhat messy? (I was thinking about the analogy literally, not sure if this translates back into time management.)
I also agree with Seraphim that the important thing is that the rest of the house or time management system stays clean, since a constantly growing mess is ultimately unworkable in either case.
I tend to agree with Chris about declaring a backlog and I like the analogy of calling the house tidy when you shove all the junk in one room. That being said, if that's what your house is really like, it might still be quite livable, even if you do have that messy room hanging over your head, and maybe it's better than having every room in the house somewhat messy? (I was thinking about the analogy literally, not sure if this translates back into time management.)
I also agree with Seraphim that the important thing is that the rest of the house or time management system stays clean, since a constantly growing mess is ultimately unworkable in either case.
August 13, 2012 at 15:10 |
Deven
Deven
Devil's Advocate for throwing all the clutter into one room, or stale tasks into a backlog. (Meaning I don't necessarily agree with the position, but think exploring it will be useful.)
it's very hard to organize anything if you don't have enough room. It's obvious that we need enough room to nicely store the items (or time to do the projects). What's less obvious is we need room to actually do the organizing. We need to spread things out to see what we have. We need room for the rent-a-dumpster. We need room to paint and cut the wood. With time management, we need time to look at our high-level goals and make tough decisions. We need to clear our sleep debt and set up systems.
So, used judiciously, declaring a backlog can be useful.
it's very hard to organize anything if you don't have enough room. It's obvious that we need enough room to nicely store the items (or time to do the projects). What's less obvious is we need room to actually do the organizing. We need to spread things out to see what we have. We need room for the rent-a-dumpster. We need room to paint and cut the wood. With time management, we need time to look at our high-level goals and make tough decisions. We need to clear our sleep debt and set up systems.
So, used judiciously, declaring a backlog can be useful.
August 13, 2012 at 17:17 |
Cricket
Cricket
+JMJ+
Bah, I say throw all your backlogs into AF2ND and watch them shrink.
36 items currently in my list.
And ditto on placing another System Poll thread in the "General" forum.
Bah, I say throw all your backlogs into AF2ND and watch them shrink.
36 items currently in my list.
And ditto on placing another System Poll thread in the "General" forum.
August 14, 2012 at 2:49 |
nuntym
nuntym
Deven:
You're right. Two polls it is. I like your observations on the analogy. A well-balanced analysis.
You're right. Two polls it is. I like your observations on the analogy. A well-balanced analysis.
August 14, 2012 at 12:52 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Speaking personally, I think every office needs a junk drawer, and there's a closet on the first and second floors of our house where the 'unclassifiable' and the temporary and the just-in-case items go. I think having a bit of messiness in the system makes it a little more robust and reflective of real life.
My go-to quote on this is from Robertson Davies' novel, "Tempest-Tost":
“Oho, now I know what you are. You are an advocate of Useful Knowledge…. Well, allow me to introduce myself to you as an advocate of Ornamental Knowledge. You like the mind to be a neat machine, equipped to work efficiently, if narrowly, and with no extra bits or useless parts. I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt. Shake the machine and it goes out of order; shake the dustbin and it adjusts itself beautifully to its new position.”
My go-to quote on this is from Robertson Davies' novel, "Tempest-Tost":
“Oho, now I know what you are. You are an advocate of Useful Knowledge…. Well, allow me to introduce myself to you as an advocate of Ornamental Knowledge. You like the mind to be a neat machine, equipped to work efficiently, if narrowly, and with no extra bits or useless parts. I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt. Shake the machine and it goes out of order; shake the dustbin and it adjusts itself beautifully to its new position.”
August 14, 2012 at 14:44 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
@Mike - << I think every office needs a junk drawer >>
I totally agree. Every system needs a method for "exception handling". That's one reason I think the ability of Mark's systems to handle just about any size or shape of task is a feature, not a bug.
I totally agree. Every system needs a method for "exception handling". That's one reason I think the ability of Mark's systems to handle just about any size or shape of task is a feature, not a bug.
August 14, 2012 at 18:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I think it's a matter of scale. If you have a small space set aside for disorganized junk, that's still organized overall. If you have large spaces full of disorganized junk... that's not organized!
August 15, 2012 at 22:14 |
Deven
Deven
Chris said:
<< If you're declaring a backlog with stale tasks older than 2 months old, can you honestly say that AF is working? >>
Seraphim said:
<< I agree with Chris that the need to declare a backlog is a sign that one's systems aren't working. >>
I agree with both of you. Something didn't work fully well. Hehe.
Problem: I over committed and/or put in too many grass catching stuff and didn't action/clean them out fast enough.
Long term solution: Don't put into FV list things I'm not committed to do within the week or month.
Short term solution: Declare backlog on things I haven't actioned older than 2 months or even 1 month. If I still haven't actioned it in that time, its not likely to be that important right? I think of it as similar to DWM time based dismissal but discretionary.
<< If you're declaring a backlog with stale tasks older than 2 months old, can you honestly say that AF is working? >>
Seraphim said:
<< I agree with Chris that the need to declare a backlog is a sign that one's systems aren't working. >>
I agree with both of you. Something didn't work fully well. Hehe.
Problem: I over committed and/or put in too many grass catching stuff and didn't action/clean them out fast enough.
Long term solution: Don't put into FV list things I'm not committed to do within the week or month.
Short term solution: Declare backlog on things I haven't actioned older than 2 months or even 1 month. If I still haven't actioned it in that time, its not likely to be that important right? I think of it as similar to DWM time based dismissal but discretionary.
August 16, 2012 at 8:53 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
Consider this: Your present workload goes in a "box". If that box overflows, you create a backlog of stuff that doesn't fit. Now, ignore the backlog for a minute. What you need is to ensure that on balance your work never overflows the box again. Only two questions need be answered for this:
1) What's a comfortable size for the box?
2) How will you actively manage its contents?
If the box is a good size, it only overflows when it gets clogged with less important stuff that you aren't doing. So rather than continually make more and more backlogs, you must reach a point where your box is usually less than full, and you have some time to attack the backlog as well.
1) What's a comfortable size for the box?
2) How will you actively manage its contents?
If the box is a good size, it only overflows when it gets clogged with less important stuff that you aren't doing. So rather than continually make more and more backlogs, you must reach a point where your box is usually less than full, and you have some time to attack the backlog as well.
August 16, 2012 at 14:22 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
sabre23t: << Long term solution: Don't put into FV list things I'm not committed to do within the week or month. >>
I don't think that's necessarily the right approach. What will you do with thoughts, speculations, ideas, that may or may not lead to commitments? If you don't put those items into FV, then you will not benefit from FV's ability to sift and percolate those items and help you determine whether they are worthy of your commitment or not.
I don't think that's necessarily the right approach. What will you do with thoughts, speculations, ideas, that may or may not lead to commitments? If you don't put those items into FV, then you will not benefit from FV's ability to sift and percolate those items and help you determine whether they are worthy of your commitment or not.
August 16, 2012 at 21:13 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@Alan - << 1) What's a comfortable size for the box? 2) How will you actively manage its contents? >>
I've tried boxes of greatly varying sizes, and still have problems.
Here is what I mean. I've tried small boxes: little pocket notebooks that can only hold so many lines per page, and only so many pages per book. I've tried accordion files filled with slips of paper, paper mail, broken watches needing fixing, tools that need to be put away, etc. And I've tried OneNote, with the potential for infinite pages and infinite lines per page and huge variety in the type of content it can hold. And everything in between. And no matter what size or shape or medium I tried, I generated backlogs.
I think the more important factor (by far) is the process you use to manage the contents of the box. The process should be able to handle your regular workload, as well as the typical spikes of activity that regularly occur. An overflowing box should be a really exceptional and unusual case.
I think you hit on the right solution: there needs to be enough slack in the system to address the typical spikes of activity. The hard part is figuring out how to maintain that slack.
I've tried boxes of greatly varying sizes, and still have problems.
Here is what I mean. I've tried small boxes: little pocket notebooks that can only hold so many lines per page, and only so many pages per book. I've tried accordion files filled with slips of paper, paper mail, broken watches needing fixing, tools that need to be put away, etc. And I've tried OneNote, with the potential for infinite pages and infinite lines per page and huge variety in the type of content it can hold. And everything in between. And no matter what size or shape or medium I tried, I generated backlogs.
I think the more important factor (by far) is the process you use to manage the contents of the box. The process should be able to handle your regular workload, as well as the typical spikes of activity that regularly occur. An overflowing box should be a really exceptional and unusual case.
I think you hit on the right solution: there needs to be enough slack in the system to address the typical spikes of activity. The hard part is figuring out how to maintain that slack.
August 16, 2012 at 21:25 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
You capture as much as you want to get things done and feel comfortable with it.
You make the box as big as it needs to be to hold everything you want to capture.
They are not the same thing and where people are going wrong, in my opinion, is to offload their own task management capabilities and feelings of comfort onto their system and expect the system to manage this. It's just another form of procrastination - to almost expect to be able to sit back an turn a handle and have tasks magically presented and done by some uber system.
If you find yourself capturing lots and lots of stuff then declaring a backlog later on, that suggests you are capturing too much junk. I suspect it's a combination of an obsessive type of personality which tends to hoard things (out of a sense of fear of loss of control) and a system which allows all ideas to make it into the flow of tasks (FV does this).
I think this is why I have always come back to the GTD type methodology. The inbox allows universal capture but things don't get past that into the task flow if there is no satisfactory answer to "what is this?" And many ideas will get entered directly into the flow without needing to touch the inbox which avoids needless processing.
FV on the other hand puts everything into the task flow and demands processing of everything, sometimes multiple times (scanning the same tasks over and over). It also lacks context as a universal capturing device. This in turn favours the aforementioned hoarding type mentality and ironically makes it feel like a great solution to 'the problem'.
If you like the feeling of using FV, perhaps you could GTDise it a little and see what difference it makes. Have smaller FV lists for related tasks, eg cleaning tasks, a particular project, finances, etc and process the contents of those lists according to the context/mood you're in. Process the actual lists themselves in a similar way once a week (say) to ensure lists are not be left idle (consider this the weekly review).
And have an inbox list where you can dump anything and everything that you want, but nothing is allowed onto the main lists until you've picked an item up, held it up to the light and asked "what is this?" and answered satisfactorily.
In a sense this is the GTD workflow but instead of using @contexts you're treating the individual FV lists as a context and processing the tasks within. I suspect this would lead to rapid progress through projects, cleaning, finances, etc without that sense of dread and loss that comes from having everything plus the junk mixed together, while still allowing you to empty your mind of ideas without adding to the clutter.
Since these mods seem to demand an acronym, I'll call this FV-G (for FV Groups or FV GTD if you prefer). If anyone tries organising their FV dump this way I'd be interested to know how they get on.
Chris
You make the box as big as it needs to be to hold everything you want to capture.
They are not the same thing and where people are going wrong, in my opinion, is to offload their own task management capabilities and feelings of comfort onto their system and expect the system to manage this. It's just another form of procrastination - to almost expect to be able to sit back an turn a handle and have tasks magically presented and done by some uber system.
If you find yourself capturing lots and lots of stuff then declaring a backlog later on, that suggests you are capturing too much junk. I suspect it's a combination of an obsessive type of personality which tends to hoard things (out of a sense of fear of loss of control) and a system which allows all ideas to make it into the flow of tasks (FV does this).
I think this is why I have always come back to the GTD type methodology. The inbox allows universal capture but things don't get past that into the task flow if there is no satisfactory answer to "what is this?" And many ideas will get entered directly into the flow without needing to touch the inbox which avoids needless processing.
FV on the other hand puts everything into the task flow and demands processing of everything, sometimes multiple times (scanning the same tasks over and over). It also lacks context as a universal capturing device. This in turn favours the aforementioned hoarding type mentality and ironically makes it feel like a great solution to 'the problem'.
If you like the feeling of using FV, perhaps you could GTDise it a little and see what difference it makes. Have smaller FV lists for related tasks, eg cleaning tasks, a particular project, finances, etc and process the contents of those lists according to the context/mood you're in. Process the actual lists themselves in a similar way once a week (say) to ensure lists are not be left idle (consider this the weekly review).
And have an inbox list where you can dump anything and everything that you want, but nothing is allowed onto the main lists until you've picked an item up, held it up to the light and asked "what is this?" and answered satisfactorily.
In a sense this is the GTD workflow but instead of using @contexts you're treating the individual FV lists as a context and processing the tasks within. I suspect this would lead to rapid progress through projects, cleaning, finances, etc without that sense of dread and loss that comes from having everything plus the junk mixed together, while still allowing you to empty your mind of ideas without adding to the clutter.
Since these mods seem to demand an acronym, I'll call this FV-G (for FV Groups or FV GTD if you prefer). If anyone tries organising their FV dump this way I'd be interested to know how they get on.
Chris
August 16, 2012 at 22:51 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
<< FV on the other hand puts everything into the task flow and demands processing of everything, sometimes multiple times (scanning the same tasks over and over). It also lacks context as a universal capturing device. This in turn favours the aforementioned hoarding type mentality and ironically makes it feel like a great solution to 'the problem'. >>
It's not quite true to say that FV demands processing of everything because you always have the option of deleting a task without doing it. I have often recommended having a task called "Weed list".
<< If you like the feeling of using FV, perhaps you could GTDise it a little and see what difference it makes. Have smaller FV lists for related tasks, eg cleaning tasks, a particular project, finances, etc and process the contents of those lists according to the context/mood you're in. Process the actual lists themselves in a similar way once a week (say) to ensure lists are not be left idle (consider this the weekly review).>>
To my mind you would just be making things more complicated by adding several extra levels of review. However if you found it helped, that would be fine by me.
<< And have an inbox list where you can dump anything and everything that you want, but nothing is allowed onto the main lists until you've picked an item up, held it up to the light and asked "what is this?" and answered satisfactorily. >>
I don't see what the advantage of scanning tasks on an "inbox list" is as opposed to scanning them on the main list. It's just another thing to remember to scan.
<< FV on the other hand puts everything into the task flow and demands processing of everything, sometimes multiple times (scanning the same tasks over and over). It also lacks context as a universal capturing device. This in turn favours the aforementioned hoarding type mentality and ironically makes it feel like a great solution to 'the problem'. >>
It's not quite true to say that FV demands processing of everything because you always have the option of deleting a task without doing it. I have often recommended having a task called "Weed list".
<< If you like the feeling of using FV, perhaps you could GTDise it a little and see what difference it makes. Have smaller FV lists for related tasks, eg cleaning tasks, a particular project, finances, etc and process the contents of those lists according to the context/mood you're in. Process the actual lists themselves in a similar way once a week (say) to ensure lists are not be left idle (consider this the weekly review).>>
To my mind you would just be making things more complicated by adding several extra levels of review. However if you found it helped, that would be fine by me.
<< And have an inbox list where you can dump anything and everything that you want, but nothing is allowed onto the main lists until you've picked an item up, held it up to the light and asked "what is this?" and answered satisfactorily. >>
I don't see what the advantage of scanning tasks on an "inbox list" is as opposed to scanning them on the main list. It's just another thing to remember to scan.
August 17, 2012 at 1:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think what one has to realize is that the old saying is true: "You can do anything - but you can't do everything". This applies to time management systems just as much as to our lives in general. You all seem to be searching for a system which allow you to do everything, but the truth is that if you load any time management system with everything you can possibly think of, whether it be DIT or FV or anything else, it's not going to be able to cope.
The solution, as I think I've said in all my books and have reiterated constantly in this forum and elsewhere, is to audit your commitments so that you only commit yourself to what you have time to do - and then don't allow anything which doesn't relate to your commitments onto your list.
Another point I keep making: A commitment is as much about what you are *not* going to do as about what you are going to do.
The solution, as I think I've said in all my books and have reiterated constantly in this forum and elsewhere, is to audit your commitments so that you only commit yourself to what you have time to do - and then don't allow anything which doesn't relate to your commitments onto your list.
Another point I keep making: A commitment is as much about what you are *not* going to do as about what you are going to do.
August 17, 2012 at 1:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<What will you do with thoughts, speculations, ideas, that may or may not lead to commitments? If you don't put those items into FV, then you will not benefit from FV's ability to sift and percolate those items and help you determine whether they are worthy of your commitment or not.>
If they're numerous, 'bucket' them somewhere other than the main FV list, and have a daily or FV task 'review thoughts and ideas'.
Then rather than *having* sifting them individually, it's easy to look at them as a whole and say - what's best out of all these? More like an AF standing out process...
If they're numerous, 'bucket' them somewhere other than the main FV list, and have a daily or FV task 'review thoughts and ideas'.
Then rather than *having* sifting them individually, it's easy to look at them as a whole and say - what's best out of all these? More like an AF standing out process...
August 17, 2012 at 11:15 |
smileypete
smileypete
Welcome back, Mark!
I think the extra list is an attempt to reconcile the difference between the DIT "will do" list and the AF "could do" list. Though I think I have seen the element of choice about what to do (rather than when to do it) getting less and less in the iterations since AF1.
I think the extra list is an attempt to reconcile the difference between the DIT "will do" list and the AF "could do" list. Though I think I have seen the element of choice about what to do (rather than when to do it) getting less and less in the iterations since AF1.
August 17, 2012 at 12:08 |
Will
Will
Mark, people are declaring backlogs and starting afresh. Where are they going wrong? I've given my thoughts above.
August 17, 2012 at 12:48 |
Chris
Chris
Maybe an all-in-one list has too much 'vertical integration' for some.
But good to see you back Mark!
But good to see you back Mark!
August 17, 2012 at 15:06 |
smileypete
smileypete
+JMJ+
Or use a system which makes you rewrite and rewrite your backlog items so many times you either get sick of them and do them or get sick of them and delete them.
And oh, welcome back Mark.
Or use a system which makes you rewrite and rewrite your backlog items so many times you either get sick of them and do them or get sick of them and delete them.
And oh, welcome back Mark.
August 17, 2012 at 15:35 |
nuntym
nuntym
Mark - Welcome back!
<< The solution, as I think I've said in all my books and have reiterated constantly in this forum and elsewhere, is to audit your commitments so that you only commit yourself to what you have time to do - and then don't allow anything which doesn't relate to your commitments onto your list. >>
Yes, I agree, this is very important. But it also contradicts the instructions of the AF1 and later systems:
<< One of the characteristics of this system is that you can chuck anything at it. I recommend that you enter everything that comes to mind without trying to evaluate. The system itself will do the evaluation. >> (from http://www.markforster.net/autofocus-system/ )
This is something I have always loved about the AF1 and later systems. If you're not sure whether something should be on the list or not, the default action is to add it to the list, and let the system help you sort it out. It helps you get more clarity about what your commitments really are and really should be.
If you only put items on your list that you know are already part of your commitments, then you'd lose this sift & sort effect.
<< The solution, as I think I've said in all my books and have reiterated constantly in this forum and elsewhere, is to audit your commitments so that you only commit yourself to what you have time to do - and then don't allow anything which doesn't relate to your commitments onto your list. >>
Yes, I agree, this is very important. But it also contradicts the instructions of the AF1 and later systems:
<< One of the characteristics of this system is that you can chuck anything at it. I recommend that you enter everything that comes to mind without trying to evaluate. The system itself will do the evaluation. >> (from http://www.markforster.net/autofocus-system/ )
This is something I have always loved about the AF1 and later systems. If you're not sure whether something should be on the list or not, the default action is to add it to the list, and let the system help you sort it out. It helps you get more clarity about what your commitments really are and really should be.
If you only put items on your list that you know are already part of your commitments, then you'd lose this sift & sort effect.
August 17, 2012 at 19:30 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Nuntym wrote:
<< Or use a system which makes you rewrite and rewrite your backlog items so many times you either get sick of them and do them or get sick of them and delete them. >>
I would probably find myself resisting the system itself in a very short time, and give up.
<< Or use a system which makes you rewrite and rewrite your backlog items so many times you either get sick of them and do them or get sick of them and delete them. >>
I would probably find myself resisting the system itself in a very short time, and give up.
August 17, 2012 at 19:32 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Chris wrote:
<< Mark, people are declaring backlogs and starting afresh. Where are they going wrong? I've given my thoughts above. >>
You addressed this to Mark, but I will also give an answer. Auditing one's commitments is key to avoid backlogs, but it's not the ONLY key. You also need to be able to handle thoughts, ideas, and oddball one-offs that may or may not be related to your commitments.
I wrote a lot more on this topic, but perhaps it should go in another thread. I started it here: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1928085
<< Mark, people are declaring backlogs and starting afresh. Where are they going wrong? I've given my thoughts above. >>
You addressed this to Mark, but I will also give an answer. Auditing one's commitments is key to avoid backlogs, but it's not the ONLY key. You also need to be able to handle thoughts, ideas, and oddball one-offs that may or may not be related to your commitments.
I wrote a lot more on this topic, but perhaps it should go in another thread. I started it here: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1928085
August 17, 2012 at 19:48 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
"But it also contradicts the instructions of the AF1 and later systems..."
... But it doesn't contradict the Final Version instructions.
All of Mark's systems with dismissal sift out the non-commitments. With the Final Version, you note your non-commitments elsewhere, as ideas, and then FV sifts your commitments. FV fails to function properly when used with non-commitments as it is commitment-based.
We talked about this here:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1891741
"But it also contradicts the instructions of the AF1 and later systems..."
... But it doesn't contradict the Final Version instructions.
All of Mark's systems with dismissal sift out the non-commitments. With the Final Version, you note your non-commitments elsewhere, as ideas, and then FV sifts your commitments. FV fails to function properly when used with non-commitments as it is commitment-based.
We talked about this here:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1891741
August 18, 2012 at 3:30 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Seraphim:
I just read your post on the General Forum describing your need to process ideas in a systematic way alongside your commitments, so that your "someday maybes" don't languish.
There could be some innovation to be made here.
Perhaps you could use a notebook and process commitments with FV on the right page, and ideas on the left page, using a system with dismissal or a sorting process designed to prepare an idea for commitment. When the idea percolation process is complete, if properly designed, the system could present you with a task ready for commitment and transferring to your FV list.
I just read your post on the General Forum describing your need to process ideas in a systematic way alongside your commitments, so that your "someday maybes" don't languish.
There could be some innovation to be made here.
Perhaps you could use a notebook and process commitments with FV on the right page, and ideas on the left page, using a system with dismissal or a sorting process designed to prepare an idea for commitment. When the idea percolation process is complete, if properly designed, the system could present you with a task ready for commitment and transferring to your FV list.
August 18, 2012 at 4:01 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B. wrote:
<< With the Final Version, you note your non-commitments elsewhere, as ideas, and then FV sifts your commitments. >>
I am not convinced that this was ever intended to be part of FV's rules. The actual rules imply that FV is intended to capture just about anything:
<< FV is based on my earlier time management systems, particularly the extensive range of AutoFocus and SuperFocus systems developed over the last three years. ... The most striking resemblance is that they are all based on one long list (either paper or electronic) which can be used to capture just about every possible action that springs into one's mind. >>
<< With the Final Version, you note your non-commitments elsewhere, as ideas, and then FV sifts your commitments. >>
I am not convinced that this was ever intended to be part of FV's rules. The actual rules imply that FV is intended to capture just about anything:
<< FV is based on my earlier time management systems, particularly the extensive range of AutoFocus and SuperFocus systems developed over the last three years. ... The most striking resemblance is that they are all based on one long list (either paper or electronic) which can be used to capture just about every possible action that springs into one's mind. >>
August 18, 2012 at 6:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Michael B. wrote:
<< Perhaps you could use a notebook and process commitments with FV on the right page, and ideas on the left page, using a system with dismissal or a sorting process designed to prepare an idea for commitment. When the idea percolation process is complete, if properly designed, the system could present you with a task ready for commitment and transferring to your FV list. >>
First of all, thanks for the input and the encouragement!
Yes, I am trying to accomplish something of this kind with my DIT+FV method. I've tried several approaches:
- Unfinished tasks from previous days are highlighted to draw your attention to them, and are processed together with today's tasks -- all part of one big FV list. This worked well for deciding what to do with the handful of tasks that got neglected on previous days, and helped to clean them up rapidly. It did not work well for percolator tasks.
- Capture percolator tasks in a separate notebook, and process regularly. This does't work well for me. What does "regularly" mean? And what does "process" mean? But the biggest problem with this is "Out of sight, out of mind." It just gets neglected.
- Use DWM instead of DIT: that is, enter tasks on today+30's page, instead of tomorrow's page. Re-enter tasks on today+7, instead of tomorrow. This approach does allow everything to percolate, but fails to distinguish between "will do" and "could do" tasks. I don't want my "will do" tasks to percolate - I want to DO them. I only want my "could do" tasks to percolate. Just because something happens to end up on my Today page does not mean it's a "will do" task.
- Lately I've been trying something new. The actual FV list is limited to today's page only. And I have a daily recurring task to review the previous day's unfinished business, if there is any. If any of those tasks are urgent, pressing, must-do, definitely part of existing commitments, definitely part of my regular recurring tasks, then I try to think why it got neglected, and then re-enter that task on tomorrow's page or some other appropriate future page. Any other unfinished tasks from yesterday are left on the page and highlighted. This process takes about 2 minutes, maybe 5 if there are several tasks. When I have some downtime I scan through the highlighted tasks on previous days. If something catches my attention, I may take some action on it, jot down some ideas about it, and re-enter it on tomorrow's page. Eh, it seems to be working OK but I'm not too excited about it. It's not quite organic enough, not quite integrated enough with my daily work. Maybe that's OK. At least it's all in the same notebook.
<< Perhaps you could use a notebook and process commitments with FV on the right page, and ideas on the left page, using a system with dismissal or a sorting process designed to prepare an idea for commitment. When the idea percolation process is complete, if properly designed, the system could present you with a task ready for commitment and transferring to your FV list. >>
First of all, thanks for the input and the encouragement!
Yes, I am trying to accomplish something of this kind with my DIT+FV method. I've tried several approaches:
- Unfinished tasks from previous days are highlighted to draw your attention to them, and are processed together with today's tasks -- all part of one big FV list. This worked well for deciding what to do with the handful of tasks that got neglected on previous days, and helped to clean them up rapidly. It did not work well for percolator tasks.
- Capture percolator tasks in a separate notebook, and process regularly. This does't work well for me. What does "regularly" mean? And what does "process" mean? But the biggest problem with this is "Out of sight, out of mind." It just gets neglected.
- Use DWM instead of DIT: that is, enter tasks on today+30's page, instead of tomorrow's page. Re-enter tasks on today+7, instead of tomorrow. This approach does allow everything to percolate, but fails to distinguish between "will do" and "could do" tasks. I don't want my "will do" tasks to percolate - I want to DO them. I only want my "could do" tasks to percolate. Just because something happens to end up on my Today page does not mean it's a "will do" task.
- Lately I've been trying something new. The actual FV list is limited to today's page only. And I have a daily recurring task to review the previous day's unfinished business, if there is any. If any of those tasks are urgent, pressing, must-do, definitely part of existing commitments, definitely part of my regular recurring tasks, then I try to think why it got neglected, and then re-enter that task on tomorrow's page or some other appropriate future page. Any other unfinished tasks from yesterday are left on the page and highlighted. This process takes about 2 minutes, maybe 5 if there are several tasks. When I have some downtime I scan through the highlighted tasks on previous days. If something catches my attention, I may take some action on it, jot down some ideas about it, and re-enter it on tomorrow's page. Eh, it seems to be working OK but I'm not too excited about it. It's not quite organic enough, not quite integrated enough with my daily work. Maybe that's OK. At least it's all in the same notebook.
August 18, 2012 at 6:42 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
""Out of sight, out of mind." It just gets neglected."
... I agree. I want to regularly interact with future possibilities in a systematic way while not allowing them to distract from present urgencies and all in the same list if possible.
""Out of sight, out of mind." It just gets neglected."
... I agree. I want to regularly interact with future possibilities in a systematic way while not allowing them to distract from present urgencies and all in the same list if possible.
August 18, 2012 at 7:13 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Seraphim:
<< If you only put items on your list that you know are already part of your commitments, then you'd lose this sift & sort effect. >>
But this is like buying a heavy duty shredder, collecting every bit of paper in the entire office building, putting it all through the shredder in one go and then complaining that the shredder can't cope. You can break anything if you try hard enough!
<< If you only put items on your list that you know are already part of your commitments, then you'd lose this sift & sort effect. >>
But this is like buying a heavy duty shredder, collecting every bit of paper in the entire office building, putting it all through the shredder in one go and then complaining that the shredder can't cope. You can break anything if you try hard enough!
August 18, 2012 at 10:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
On the other hand if one insists on putting three times as much on the list as one can possibly do, then one has to be prepared to dismiss/delete two-thirds of the tasks on the list.
Hence the importance of the "Weed List" task.
On the other hand if one insists on putting three times as much on the list as one can possibly do, then one has to be prepared to dismiss/delete two-thirds of the tasks on the list.
Hence the importance of the "Weed List" task.
August 18, 2012 at 10:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
@Seraphim: << I would probably find myself resisting the system itself in a very short time, and give up. >>
Using your terminology, the re-writing idea would probably be only for "percolator" items only. Just re-write the oldest still relevant "percolator" item after doing one task. That would help you to process them "little and often", if you could separate the "percolator" items from the "will do" items like what you did when you placed the former items in a separate notebook.
@Seraphim: << I would probably find myself resisting the system itself in a very short time, and give up. >>
Using your terminology, the re-writing idea would probably be only for "percolator" items only. Just re-write the oldest still relevant "percolator" item after doing one task. That would help you to process them "little and often", if you could separate the "percolator" items from the "will do" items like what you did when you placed the former items in a separate notebook.
August 18, 2012 at 11:20 |
nuntym
nuntym
Hi Mark,
Glad to see you back and participating in the dialog!
You seem to be responding to my former "problem" of having a huge list. You may be surprised to find that my list is much shorter and generally stays that way, ever since I've switched to trying to use DIT but processing the items in my DIT task diary using the FV algorithm. DIT helps keep the total number of items from spinning out of control.
You seem to be backpedaling on your statements that AF1 and FV are "catch-all" lists. Are they, or aren't they? Should we pre-filter the tasks we put onto the list, so that only committed tasks are listed there? Or should we put everything there, and let the process itself help figure out what our commitment should be?
In re-reading the DIT book these past few days, I found that even DIT functions as a catch-all. Pages 122-128 discuss "thinking" -- exactly the same percolation idea that we are discussing here. Exploring tentative opportunities that you may or may not end up pursuing. Deciding whether or not to buy a particular product. Ideas that pop into your head in the shower. They all need to go onto your DIT list, by default on tomorrow's page, but then you can move them to late pages if you want.
I suppose by putting something on your list, you are at least making the implicit commitment that you will consider the item a possibility, you will think about it and let it percolate - and then finally come to a decision. Declaring a backlog or continually rewriting the item forward is a way of deferring that implicit commitment to make a decision.
Glad to see you back and participating in the dialog!
You seem to be responding to my former "problem" of having a huge list. You may be surprised to find that my list is much shorter and generally stays that way, ever since I've switched to trying to use DIT but processing the items in my DIT task diary using the FV algorithm. DIT helps keep the total number of items from spinning out of control.
You seem to be backpedaling on your statements that AF1 and FV are "catch-all" lists. Are they, or aren't they? Should we pre-filter the tasks we put onto the list, so that only committed tasks are listed there? Or should we put everything there, and let the process itself help figure out what our commitment should be?
In re-reading the DIT book these past few days, I found that even DIT functions as a catch-all. Pages 122-128 discuss "thinking" -- exactly the same percolation idea that we are discussing here. Exploring tentative opportunities that you may or may not end up pursuing. Deciding whether or not to buy a particular product. Ideas that pop into your head in the shower. They all need to go onto your DIT list, by default on tomorrow's page, but then you can move them to late pages if you want.
I suppose by putting something on your list, you are at least making the implicit commitment that you will consider the item a possibility, you will think about it and let it percolate - and then finally come to a decision. Declaring a backlog or continually rewriting the item forward is a way of deferring that implicit commitment to make a decision.
August 19, 2012 at 8:02 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
nuntym wrote:
<< Using your terminology, the re-writing idea would probably be only for "percolator" items only. Just re-write the oldest still relevant "percolator" item after doing one task. >>
After re-reading the relevant sections in the DIT book (as I discuss here: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1928085#post1929281 ), I think some rewriting is in order, but I will be implementing it differently than you are doing with AF2. Being forced to rewrite tasks over and over with no end in sight would definitely create resistance for me. But treating "think about ..." as an implicit commitment to arrive at a decision or delete puts a cap on it. Also, keeping it on the DIT "will do" list puts a cap on how many exploration items I can keep simmering at any given time. I think this will meet my needs better, but still need to test it thoroughly. (But am still happy you have found so much value in using AF2 in that way!) :-)
<< Using your terminology, the re-writing idea would probably be only for "percolator" items only. Just re-write the oldest still relevant "percolator" item after doing one task. >>
After re-reading the relevant sections in the DIT book (as I discuss here: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1928085#post1929281 ), I think some rewriting is in order, but I will be implementing it differently than you are doing with AF2. Being forced to rewrite tasks over and over with no end in sight would definitely create resistance for me. But treating "think about ..." as an implicit commitment to arrive at a decision or delete puts a cap on it. Also, keeping it on the DIT "will do" list puts a cap on how many exploration items I can keep simmering at any given time. I think this will meet my needs better, but still need to test it thoroughly. (But am still happy you have found so much value in using AF2 in that way!) :-)
August 19, 2012 at 21:14 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim, Regular scanning of the list counts as percolation. It can take ages for something to be crossed off my list. Every time I scan the list, my subconscious has an opportunity to comment -- if only to say "this is less important than other things".
August 19, 2012 at 21:30 |
Cricket
Cricket
Earlier Alan Baljeu wrote:
<< So rather than continually make more and more backlogs, you must reach a point where your box is usually less than full, and you have some time to attack the backlog as well. >>
You're thinking backlog as must be done. I'm thinking backlog as almost being dismissed totally. So my "weeding backlog" task is really to find some overlooked green things shooting up amongst the almost dead stuff.
Earlier Seraphim wrote:
<< What will you do with thoughts, speculations, ideas, that may or may not lead to commitments? >>
I'll put almost all thoughts, speculations, ideas into my FV list. However some ideas that I've previously classified may go directly into an existing FV task (Things to Buy) or into my Notes (Research Topics).
Mark Forster wrote:
<< On the other hand if one insists on putting three times as much on the list as one can possibly do, then one has to be prepared to dismiss/delete two-thirds of the tasks on the list.
Hence the importance of the "Weed List" task. >>
I think this is what I'm trying to do with my FV list. :-)
<< So rather than continually make more and more backlogs, you must reach a point where your box is usually less than full, and you have some time to attack the backlog as well. >>
You're thinking backlog as must be done. I'm thinking backlog as almost being dismissed totally. So my "weeding backlog" task is really to find some overlooked green things shooting up amongst the almost dead stuff.
Earlier Seraphim wrote:
<< What will you do with thoughts, speculations, ideas, that may or may not lead to commitments? >>
I'll put almost all thoughts, speculations, ideas into my FV list. However some ideas that I've previously classified may go directly into an existing FV task (Things to Buy) or into my Notes (Research Topics).
Mark Forster wrote:
<< On the other hand if one insists on putting three times as much on the list as one can possibly do, then one has to be prepared to dismiss/delete two-thirds of the tasks on the list.
Hence the importance of the "Weed List" task. >>
I think this is what I'm trying to do with my FV list. :-)
August 20, 2012 at 0:13 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
"You're thinking backlog as must be done. " Actually, I'm not. Even if the backlog is to be 99% dismissed, my statement which you quoted still applies.
August 25, 2012 at 15:36 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
The poll is located here: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1917662