FV and FVP Forum > FV in reversed order
Wow! I wonder if you are the first person to think of this (except maybe for Mark of course). I certainly never considered it. Nick61, could you expand on the advatages you have experienced?
August 24, 2012 at 11:12 |
Leon
Leon
If you think of it, the underlying idea is similar to AF2 ( ... but removing the very -- for me -- boring and unpleasent rule consisting of always restarting the scanning from the end of the list ...).
[convention: top of the list = oldest items; end/bottom of the list = newest items]
*note 1*
When you start from the end of the list, you will suddenly (likely) find (i) urgent tasks not yet addressed and (ii) ongoing tasks that you have rewritten (after "little and often"). This results in much shorter chains than with the orthodox approch, mainly because it is unlikely that proceding toward the top of the list yuo wil find many items that "you want to do before ..." . The process is much fluid and fast, with little and very focused chains. You focus on small chains "full" of urgent and big/important unfinished tasks.
*note 2*
After some time of application of this procedure, at the top of the list will be drained tasks that are very easy to dismiss (in case the list becomes too long), because thay have been considered for selection many times and have been unactioned. [I'm not shure that this property is exclusively peculiar to the procedure described here ...]
*note 3*
Forcing the selecting the fist item at the end of the list seemed to me, at the beginnig, something not completely logical; but In the experience of these weeks it has note been a problem (more on this subject in the future).
*note 4*
Whould some of you experiment this revolutionary [ ;) ] approach, in order to exchange experiences on it?
[convention: top of the list = oldest items; end/bottom of the list = newest items]
*note 1*
When you start from the end of the list, you will suddenly (likely) find (i) urgent tasks not yet addressed and (ii) ongoing tasks that you have rewritten (after "little and often"). This results in much shorter chains than with the orthodox approch, mainly because it is unlikely that proceding toward the top of the list yuo wil find many items that "you want to do before ..." . The process is much fluid and fast, with little and very focused chains. You focus on small chains "full" of urgent and big/important unfinished tasks.
*note 2*
After some time of application of this procedure, at the top of the list will be drained tasks that are very easy to dismiss (in case the list becomes too long), because thay have been considered for selection many times and have been unactioned. [I'm not shure that this property is exclusively peculiar to the procedure described here ...]
*note 3*
Forcing the selecting the fist item at the end of the list seemed to me, at the beginnig, something not completely logical; but In the experience of these weeks it has note been a problem (more on this subject in the future).
*note 4*
Whould some of you experiment this revolutionary [ ;) ] approach, in order to exchange experiences on it?
August 24, 2012 at 11:52 |
nick61
nick61
nick61:
A rule is needed to prevent loops.
breakfast
email
running
laundry
project x
•breakfast
email
•running
laundry
•project x
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
•email
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
laundry
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
project x
running
•breakfast [Breakfast again?]
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
–e-m-a-i-l–
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
•laundry
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
project x
running
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
breakfast
•email [Email again?]
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
–e-m-a-i-l–
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
–l-a-u-n-d-r-y–
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
project x
running
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
breakfast
–e-m-a-i-l–
email
laundry [Laundry again?]
A rule is needed to prevent loops.
breakfast
running
laundry
project x
•breakfast
•running
laundry
•project x
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
laundry
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
project x
running
•breakfast [Breakfast again?]
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
–e-m-a-i-l–
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
•laundry
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
project x
running
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
breakfast
•email [Email again?]
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
–e-m-a-i-l–
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
–l-a-u-n-d-r-y–
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
project x
running
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
breakfast
–e-m-a-i-l–
laundry [Laundry again?]
August 24, 2012 at 20:51 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
My example is based on my understanding of your rules, but I could use some clarity.
You said "...go back along the list...".
"Go back along" as in "go back along your list in reverse from the last task" or as in "go back along your list from the beginning of the list and create your chain heading forward towards the last task"?
You said "...go back along the list...".
"Go back along" as in "go back along your list in reverse from the last task" or as in "go back along your list from the beginning of the list and create your chain heading forward towards the last task"?
August 24, 2012 at 23:52 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B. : I intended the first interpretation you described.
August 25, 2012 at 8:39 |
nick61
nick61
Michael B. :
breakfast
email
running
laundry
project x
selec "project x" as base of the chain, and then procede to the top asking the famous question:
•breakfast (i want to do breakfast before running)
email
•running (i want to do running before project x)
laundry
•project x (the base of the chain)
than, you execute the chain in the inverse order:
•breakfast
•running
•project x
you reenter the three of them:
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
email
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
laundry
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
breakfast
running
project x
this is different of what you described.
breakfast
running
laundry
project x
selec "project x" as base of the chain, and then procede to the top asking the famous question:
•breakfast (i want to do breakfast before running)
•running (i want to do running before project x)
laundry
•project x (the base of the chain)
than, you execute the chain in the inverse order:
•breakfast
•running
•project x
you reenter the three of them:
–b-r-e-a-k-f-a-s-t–
–r-u-n-n-i-n-g–
laundry
–p-r-o-j-e-c-t--x–
breakfast
running
project x
this is different of what you described.
August 25, 2012 at 13:54 |
nick61
nick61
nick61:
"this is different of what you described."
You're right! Ha. I built the chain from the end, then actioned it forward instead of in reverse.
Using your correct method, as long as one enters new items between working on chains, there'll be new tasks to dot at the end of your list. However, if your list stays the same for a while, as in the example above, you'll need to work on "project x" (or whatever that task may be) again at the end of your next chain. That's actually a great "push-to-finish" feature, but the flaw is when you encounter a recurring task like "shower". You'll be having a shower at the end of every chain until you add a new task! This may be a plus for some. Those chains could be filled with sweat-producing tasks.
Aside from a rule to counter this, how are you handling new urgent items? Not the kind you drop everything and do, but the less urgent types that must be done next and added to your current chain?
"this is different of what you described."
You're right! Ha. I built the chain from the end, then actioned it forward instead of in reverse.
Using your correct method, as long as one enters new items between working on chains, there'll be new tasks to dot at the end of your list. However, if your list stays the same for a while, as in the example above, you'll need to work on "project x" (or whatever that task may be) again at the end of your next chain. That's actually a great "push-to-finish" feature, but the flaw is when you encounter a recurring task like "shower". You'll be having a shower at the end of every chain until you add a new task! This may be a plus for some. Those chains could be filled with sweat-producing tasks.
Aside from a rule to counter this, how are you handling new urgent items? Not the kind you drop everything and do, but the less urgent types that must be done next and added to your current chain?
August 25, 2012 at 23:01 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B.:
1) "However, if your list stays the same for a while, as in the example above, you'll need to work on "project x" (or whatever that task may be) again at the end of your next chain. That's actually a great "push-to-finish" feature, but ... "
I noticed that "push-to-finish" effect. For task generated by the "little and often" process, I tend to consider this effect as positive, not as a problem.
2) "... the flaw is when you encounter a recurring task like "shower". You'll be having a shower at the end of every chain until you add a new task! "
For recurring tasks, for whom the next execution make sense only after a certain interval of time, I tend to move the item in a reminder system, and reintroduce it in the list only when it will pop up at the correct time.
3) "Aside from a rule to counter this, how are you handling new urgent items? Not the kind you drop everything and do, but the less urgent types that must be done next and added to your current chain? "
I apologise, but I don't get the point ...
1) "However, if your list stays the same for a while, as in the example above, you'll need to work on "project x" (or whatever that task may be) again at the end of your next chain. That's actually a great "push-to-finish" feature, but ... "
I noticed that "push-to-finish" effect. For task generated by the "little and often" process, I tend to consider this effect as positive, not as a problem.
2) "... the flaw is when you encounter a recurring task like "shower". You'll be having a shower at the end of every chain until you add a new task! "
For recurring tasks, for whom the next execution make sense only after a certain interval of time, I tend to move the item in a reminder system, and reintroduce it in the list only when it will pop up at the correct time.
3) "Aside from a rule to counter this, how are you handling new urgent items? Not the kind you drop everything and do, but the less urgent types that must be done next and added to your current chain? "
I apologise, but I don't get the point ...
August 27, 2012 at 10:45 |
nick61
nick61
nick61:
Me: Aside from a rule to counter this, how are you handling new urgent items? Not the kind you drop everything and do, but the less urgent types that must be done next and added to your current chain?
nick61: "I apologise, but I don't get the point..."
... If you're working on a chain and five new urgent tasks are assigned to you by your boss, and they can wait until you've finished with your current task, but they cannot wait until you finish your current chain; how are you adding these tasks to your current chain?
This is a common occurrence; as new tasks come in, some need doing next, and often more than one, one after the other, but before the next items in your current chain. How are you currently dealing with this? Or, how are you going to deal with this when you encounter it?
Me: Aside from a rule to counter this, how are you handling new urgent items? Not the kind you drop everything and do, but the less urgent types that must be done next and added to your current chain?
nick61: "I apologise, but I don't get the point..."
... If you're working on a chain and five new urgent tasks are assigned to you by your boss, and they can wait until you've finished with your current task, but they cannot wait until you finish your current chain; how are you adding these tasks to your current chain?
This is a common occurrence; as new tasks come in, some need doing next, and often more than one, one after the other, but before the next items in your current chain. How are you currently dealing with this? Or, how are you going to deal with this when you encounter it?
August 27, 2012 at 19:37 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B.:
"This is a common occurrence; as new tasks come in, some need doing next, and often more than one, one after the other, but before the next items in your current chain. How are you currently dealing with this? Or, how are you going to deal with this when you encounter it?"
Sorry, but I don't have a particular procedure for this case. When a new item(s) comes in, I've only two options:
1) execute it immediately (it can't wait);
2) write it at the bottom of the list (it will be considered in the next chain).
"This is a common occurrence; as new tasks come in, some need doing next, and often more than one, one after the other, but before the next items in your current chain. How are you currently dealing with this? Or, how are you going to deal with this when you encounter it?"
Sorry, but I don't have a particular procedure for this case. When a new item(s) comes in, I've only two options:
1) execute it immediately (it can't wait);
2) write it at the bottom of the list (it will be considered in the next chain).
August 29, 2012 at 10:58 |
nick61
nick61
Can't you just enter the new task, dot it, finish the current task and then start from the beginning of the chain where the new dotted task is?
August 29, 2012 at 14:33 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
vegheadjones:
"Can't you just enter the new task, dot it, finish the current task and then start from the beginning of the chain where the new dotted task is?"
... No. The beginning of your chain is in the middle of your list, so the new dotted task is at the end of your chain. His tweak involves creating chains in reverse from the end of the list and working them forward towards the end of the list.
Adding a series of new urgent tasks throughout the day to the end of your list and dotting them to be worked on next will inevitably lead to confusion as you ping-pong between working your chain forward from the middle towards the end and working your new urgent tasks in reverse towards the middle or perhaps working your new urgent tasks forward towards the middle from the oldest new urgent task now 2/3 of the way into your list before returning to the beginning in the middle! Phew.
"Can't you just enter the new task, dot it, finish the current task and then start from the beginning of the chain where the new dotted task is?"
... No. The beginning of your chain is in the middle of your list, so the new dotted task is at the end of your chain. His tweak involves creating chains in reverse from the end of the list and working them forward towards the end of the list.
Adding a series of new urgent tasks throughout the day to the end of your list and dotting them to be worked on next will inevitably lead to confusion as you ping-pong between working your chain forward from the middle towards the end and working your new urgent tasks in reverse towards the middle or perhaps working your new urgent tasks forward towards the middle from the oldest new urgent task now 2/3 of the way into your list before returning to the beginning in the middle! Phew.
September 8, 2012 at 2:27 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
I solve this conundrum by not being strict about the order of execution. Once my list is selected, I work them generally in order but not necessarily. If a new task gets added at the end and selected, I may do it whenever during the course of a chain.
September 11, 2012 at 14:35 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I found some advantages from this procedure. Some one else realized that?