FV and FVP Forum > FV Tips & Tweaks to deal with a list grown too long
You must forgive my frustration at this kind of question. It's not my intention to hijack your thread, Seraphim, and I hope my reply will offer food for thought within its context. The question, and indeed much of the discussion on this site, strikes me as a form of procrastination. I will explain why in a moment.
Contrary to much of the teachings here I think that to get things done you need just two things.
1. A way to note the things that might or will or should be done
2. The motivation and behaviour to do them
The first thing should be as complex as it needs to be, and no more than that, to give you the slice and dice views you need. It could be anything from memorising in your head, to a list, to a detailed project management suite. FV is a simple list.
The second thing is very personal. It involves your personality, the way you approach problems, your fears, your mood, your tiredness, your diet, your fitness, your health, your need to control, how manipulative you are, etc.
A system is #1 with some rules of engagement added. FV, AF and the others are a simple list and some rules about how to deal with items on it. GTD is a structured list and some rules about how and where to deal with items on it. And so on.
NO SYSTEM will handle all of the parameters in #2. The rules can provide some structure to overcome the lack of direction with free-form cherry picking, but ultimately the things in #1 will get done because you make an informed decision in #2 to do them.
You're using FV and your chains are getting too long and you're trying to work out how to alter the rules of engagement to address this. You will fail because it's still you in #2 not doing the things on your list.
Why aren't you doing the things on your list? Probably some combination of them being unclear, out of date, irrelevant, unpleasant, unstructured, etc, in #1. And you not feeling like doing them in #2.
You can address #1 by being more clear, deleting old stuff, adding some structure to the lists where needed. YOU CANNOT ADDRESS #2 IN RULES. If you don't feel like writing an awkward letter, you still won't feel like writing it when it's in your brand new modified version of FV. You will carry it over from system to system to system and it won't get done.
In otherwords, chains getting too long is a behavioural thing, not a problem with FV. You fix it by fixing the behaviour that causes it to happen. If you're too tired, try to get more sleep, eat better and get fitter. If you can't bring yourself to start, break the task right down on your list and take it step at a time. Knuckle down and suck it up and get started. Don't bother with pomodro, that's just another excuse to spend time not doing it. Just start. If you're afraid of starting a task, what is the deeper underlying problem here? Look into yourself deeper and think about how you got to this point and how you want to move it along.
So regarding my opening point, I do find a lot of this forum to be procrastination, and even worse it's allowed procrastination under the guise of experimentation, looking for the non-existent 'perfect system'. That's fine - it's fun, educational, some good banter here. But don't confuse that with progress on your personal lists. Those chains are getting longer because you're stuffing too much into them or not doing them, and probably both.
Myself, I use a very loose form of GTD. I use some software called ThinkingRock because it gives me the structure I need in my project management in my day job and carries over well into the home, and it's electronic and portable so I can encrypt it and carry it around. I've used this for many years now, keep coming back to it.
It's taken me years of playing with different systems to realise the truth of everything I've written here. I've had stuff hang around on lists for literally years and watched them move from system to system, but it was my fear of starting those things which caused them to stagnate, and the realisation of this which finally allowed me to approach them and finally get them done.
So in summary, Seraphim, why are your chains getting too long? Your lists are growing faster than you are doing them. Are you too controlling, adding too many items? Do you have old items which cause a mental block? Do you have an irrational fear of missing something which needs to be addressed? Are you capturing absolutely everything but without the realisation that you cannot do so with without an equally robust rejection process, and that this process itself will require time and energy.
These can be awkward questions to tackle because they force us to examine ourselves and we may not like what we see, but until we do it won't fix the problem.
Note I am not disparaging FV or any other of Mark's ideas. They provide #1 above and some rules and are all valid systems. They cannot possibly, by that very nature, be suitable for everyone but they are relatively simple, allow capture and include a way to remove stale ideas, so are pretty good simple systems to use generally.
The key is to check that the system really is structured for your own needs and, if not, change it so that it is, or move to something else that is. And to then NOT use these systems as a way to park uncomfortable ideas to provide a faux sense of achievement, but instead play to their strengths and use them as the tools they are to really help drive yourself forwards with your work.
Everything else is your behaviour and how you wield those tools and only you can examine and tweak that aspect.
Contrary to much of the teachings here I think that to get things done you need just two things.
1. A way to note the things that might or will or should be done
2. The motivation and behaviour to do them
The first thing should be as complex as it needs to be, and no more than that, to give you the slice and dice views you need. It could be anything from memorising in your head, to a list, to a detailed project management suite. FV is a simple list.
The second thing is very personal. It involves your personality, the way you approach problems, your fears, your mood, your tiredness, your diet, your fitness, your health, your need to control, how manipulative you are, etc.
A system is #1 with some rules of engagement added. FV, AF and the others are a simple list and some rules about how to deal with items on it. GTD is a structured list and some rules about how and where to deal with items on it. And so on.
NO SYSTEM will handle all of the parameters in #2. The rules can provide some structure to overcome the lack of direction with free-form cherry picking, but ultimately the things in #1 will get done because you make an informed decision in #2 to do them.
You're using FV and your chains are getting too long and you're trying to work out how to alter the rules of engagement to address this. You will fail because it's still you in #2 not doing the things on your list.
Why aren't you doing the things on your list? Probably some combination of them being unclear, out of date, irrelevant, unpleasant, unstructured, etc, in #1. And you not feeling like doing them in #2.
You can address #1 by being more clear, deleting old stuff, adding some structure to the lists where needed. YOU CANNOT ADDRESS #2 IN RULES. If you don't feel like writing an awkward letter, you still won't feel like writing it when it's in your brand new modified version of FV. You will carry it over from system to system to system and it won't get done.
In otherwords, chains getting too long is a behavioural thing, not a problem with FV. You fix it by fixing the behaviour that causes it to happen. If you're too tired, try to get more sleep, eat better and get fitter. If you can't bring yourself to start, break the task right down on your list and take it step at a time. Knuckle down and suck it up and get started. Don't bother with pomodro, that's just another excuse to spend time not doing it. Just start. If you're afraid of starting a task, what is the deeper underlying problem here? Look into yourself deeper and think about how you got to this point and how you want to move it along.
So regarding my opening point, I do find a lot of this forum to be procrastination, and even worse it's allowed procrastination under the guise of experimentation, looking for the non-existent 'perfect system'. That's fine - it's fun, educational, some good banter here. But don't confuse that with progress on your personal lists. Those chains are getting longer because you're stuffing too much into them or not doing them, and probably both.
Myself, I use a very loose form of GTD. I use some software called ThinkingRock because it gives me the structure I need in my project management in my day job and carries over well into the home, and it's electronic and portable so I can encrypt it and carry it around. I've used this for many years now, keep coming back to it.
It's taken me years of playing with different systems to realise the truth of everything I've written here. I've had stuff hang around on lists for literally years and watched them move from system to system, but it was my fear of starting those things which caused them to stagnate, and the realisation of this which finally allowed me to approach them and finally get them done.
So in summary, Seraphim, why are your chains getting too long? Your lists are growing faster than you are doing them. Are you too controlling, adding too many items? Do you have old items which cause a mental block? Do you have an irrational fear of missing something which needs to be addressed? Are you capturing absolutely everything but without the realisation that you cannot do so with without an equally robust rejection process, and that this process itself will require time and energy.
These can be awkward questions to tackle because they force us to examine ourselves and we may not like what we see, but until we do it won't fix the problem.
Note I am not disparaging FV or any other of Mark's ideas. They provide #1 above and some rules and are all valid systems. They cannot possibly, by that very nature, be suitable for everyone but they are relatively simple, allow capture and include a way to remove stale ideas, so are pretty good simple systems to use generally.
The key is to check that the system really is structured for your own needs and, if not, change it so that it is, or move to something else that is. And to then NOT use these systems as a way to park uncomfortable ideas to provide a faux sense of achievement, but instead play to their strengths and use them as the tools they are to really help drive yourself forwards with your work.
Everything else is your behaviour and how you wield those tools and only you can examine and tweak that aspect.
August 25, 2012 at 21:10 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
I must admit, I agree with nearly everything you wrote. My point of contention would be that of Mark's systems not addressing #2. They do. In limited ways. They motivate, but the behaviour is up to you. You still have to push through and walk the path the rules have cleared for you through your forest of tasks. That's one of the main points addressed in Mark's designs — dealing with a resistive psychology through the use of rules and a certain gamification of your work.
Other than that, I think what you wrote is refreshing. Everyone would be wise to heed its message.
On another note, has ThinkingRock improved at all? I used it last a few years ago and really wanted to like it as it had the step-by-step process and tight structuring I had been looking for. I was using Linux at the time and ThinkingRock used a software language that allowed its use on multiple operating systems, but consequently made it slow as a surfboard in a dry lake.
Has this been improved? What operating systems are you using it on?
I must admit, I agree with nearly everything you wrote. My point of contention would be that of Mark's systems not addressing #2. They do. In limited ways. They motivate, but the behaviour is up to you. You still have to push through and walk the path the rules have cleared for you through your forest of tasks. That's one of the main points addressed in Mark's designs — dealing with a resistive psychology through the use of rules and a certain gamification of your work.
Other than that, I think what you wrote is refreshing. Everyone would be wise to heed its message.
On another note, has ThinkingRock improved at all? I used it last a few years ago and really wanted to like it as it had the step-by-step process and tight structuring I had been looking for. I was using Linux at the time and ThinkingRock used a software language that allowed its use on multiple operating systems, but consequently made it slow as a surfboard in a dry lake.
Has this been improved? What operating systems are you using it on?
August 26, 2012 at 0:31 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael,
I think we're in agreement around #2. I said that no system can handle all of the parameters, for example your tiredness or your subconscious fear of a particular topic. These are things which factor in the ability to do things on your lists. I said that a system can provide some structure here, and in some cases you're absolutely right, in limited ways that will be enough to overcome some of the blockers around, for example, organisation or resource.
It largely depends on whether your list supports the kind of view or views that you need. I tried FV and initially liked it but it lacked the project type views that I need and I found no practical and sutainable way to introduce them. It was too broad, too encompasing for me. I like to switch views depending on my mood, my project, deadlines, day of week, and so on.
I see a lot of posts where people find their FV chains expanding and then tweak the system - ie, they change the rules that allow them to deal with things going into the list - to try and remove them, and probably have some success initially in the same way that people trying a new diet or a new start at the gym have some success, before behavioural factors kick back in and they learn how to fool themselvs and game their own system. In otherwords the behaviour was always the issue and always will be, and tweaking the system is a form of procrastination and avoiding dealing with that.
To be clear, I'm not saying that everyone who tweaks their system is procrastinating. I'm saying that someone who is procrastinating on some of their tasks will become good at gaming their own system and this includes tweaking it to get a renewed sense of control over it.
Thankyou for your kind words.
Regarding ThinkingRock, it has developed tremendously over the years. It's written in Java and is supported by the most recent Java runtime environments available on Windows, Mac and Linux. It now supports full calendar views. I know that Java runtime integration with Linux has improved a lot over the years and I can't see any reason why you would have the same problem with a current version, so if you liked it I'd suggest trying the current trial version (not the free version which is a much older version based on older code).
I think we're in agreement around #2. I said that no system can handle all of the parameters, for example your tiredness or your subconscious fear of a particular topic. These are things which factor in the ability to do things on your lists. I said that a system can provide some structure here, and in some cases you're absolutely right, in limited ways that will be enough to overcome some of the blockers around, for example, organisation or resource.
It largely depends on whether your list supports the kind of view or views that you need. I tried FV and initially liked it but it lacked the project type views that I need and I found no practical and sutainable way to introduce them. It was too broad, too encompasing for me. I like to switch views depending on my mood, my project, deadlines, day of week, and so on.
I see a lot of posts where people find their FV chains expanding and then tweak the system - ie, they change the rules that allow them to deal with things going into the list - to try and remove them, and probably have some success initially in the same way that people trying a new diet or a new start at the gym have some success, before behavioural factors kick back in and they learn how to fool themselvs and game their own system. In otherwords the behaviour was always the issue and always will be, and tweaking the system is a form of procrastination and avoiding dealing with that.
To be clear, I'm not saying that everyone who tweaks their system is procrastinating. I'm saying that someone who is procrastinating on some of their tasks will become good at gaming their own system and this includes tweaking it to get a renewed sense of control over it.
Thankyou for your kind words.
Regarding ThinkingRock, it has developed tremendously over the years. It's written in Java and is supported by the most recent Java runtime environments available on Windows, Mac and Linux. It now supports full calendar views. I know that Java runtime integration with Linux has improved a lot over the years and I can't see any reason why you would have the same problem with a current version, so if you liked it I'd suggest trying the current trial version (not the free version which is a much older version based on older code).
August 26, 2012 at 0:59 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
Thanks, I'll test the trial version for OS X.
Thanks, I'll test the trial version for OS X.
August 26, 2012 at 1:39 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Every systems that Mark has offered us since DIT has had some promise of dealing with overload and overcommitment: both identifying the problem, and offering a solution.
DIT: If you can't complete your Will Do list for several days, you get a backlog. If you keep falling into this situation, then you are overcommitted. (System identifies problem.) When that happens, perform an audit of your commitments (system provides solution to problem.)
AF1: The remaining tasks on a page do not "stand out", after repeated opportunities to take action on them. (System identifies extra tasks.) They are "dismissed". You can review them later to see if you want to re-enter them. (System provides solution.) This helps reduce the total list size and keep it within the range of your actual commitments. However, if you find you cannot cycle through the whole list fast enough to get repeated exposure to the tasks, you are probably too overloaded or too overcommitted to use AF1 effectively. Time for an audit of your commitments...
FV: Every time you build a new chain, you must include the root task. You are forced to deal with that root task. If it is no longer relevant (system identifies problem), you just delete it (system provides solution). You also cycle through the list pretty often, and can delete tasks that no longer seem relevant, at any time. The root task ensures that you can't defer the decision indefinitely. However, if you find that it takes longer and longer to get through each chain, and your overall list is growing longer and longer, then you are probably too overloaded or too overcommitted to use FV effectively. Time for an audit of your commitments...
Chris has identified many of the most common and likely causes of the overload and overcommitment, and I agree this can be helpful.
But that really misses the point of my original post. I was trying to make the point that the only way AF1 and FV tell you that you are overcommitted and overloaded is that they stop working effectively. They just bog down. I can audit my commitments, and deal with some of my workload issues or behavior issues. But then what? Am I going to change overnight? Have I adequately reduced my workload? Can I be sure I will never be overloaded again? These will all be ongoing issues. Can I trust AF1 or FV to deal with them when they become a problem again? Or will the system just "bog down" again?
Personally, I am finding that DIT+FV is extremely responsive to overload -- it gives immediate feedback. I know within a day or two if I get myself overcommitted, and can usually see the cause of the problem right away.
This is the kind of thing I am looking for: systematic methods for identifying and correcting overload.
DIT: If you can't complete your Will Do list for several days, you get a backlog. If you keep falling into this situation, then you are overcommitted. (System identifies problem.) When that happens, perform an audit of your commitments (system provides solution to problem.)
AF1: The remaining tasks on a page do not "stand out", after repeated opportunities to take action on them. (System identifies extra tasks.) They are "dismissed". You can review them later to see if you want to re-enter them. (System provides solution.) This helps reduce the total list size and keep it within the range of your actual commitments. However, if you find you cannot cycle through the whole list fast enough to get repeated exposure to the tasks, you are probably too overloaded or too overcommitted to use AF1 effectively. Time for an audit of your commitments...
FV: Every time you build a new chain, you must include the root task. You are forced to deal with that root task. If it is no longer relevant (system identifies problem), you just delete it (system provides solution). You also cycle through the list pretty often, and can delete tasks that no longer seem relevant, at any time. The root task ensures that you can't defer the decision indefinitely. However, if you find that it takes longer and longer to get through each chain, and your overall list is growing longer and longer, then you are probably too overloaded or too overcommitted to use FV effectively. Time for an audit of your commitments...
Chris has identified many of the most common and likely causes of the overload and overcommitment, and I agree this can be helpful.
But that really misses the point of my original post. I was trying to make the point that the only way AF1 and FV tell you that you are overcommitted and overloaded is that they stop working effectively. They just bog down. I can audit my commitments, and deal with some of my workload issues or behavior issues. But then what? Am I going to change overnight? Have I adequately reduced my workload? Can I be sure I will never be overloaded again? These will all be ongoing issues. Can I trust AF1 or FV to deal with them when they become a problem again? Or will the system just "bog down" again?
Personally, I am finding that DIT+FV is extremely responsive to overload -- it gives immediate feedback. I know within a day or two if I get myself overcommitted, and can usually see the cause of the problem right away.
This is the kind of thing I am looking for: systematic methods for identifying and correcting overload.
August 26, 2012 at 6:16 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I think there's absolute must-do's and then there's everything else. Include in that must-do list things you've specifically committed to someone to doing, for which it would reflect badly if you don't. Doing things on this list (specifically those which are urgent enough to satisfy the "want to do before" criterion) should *certainly not* take all your time.
So to an FV list that includes only these things, add the task "Grow list". This is the opposite of the "Weed list" that Mark uses. Instead of pruning the list to a manageable size, you commit to keeping the list manageable and only grow it when you feel you have room for more, OR you feel something urgently needs to be added.
"Grow list" gathers things from a catch-all list. For that task you scan the catch-all for new tasks you are committed to doing and add them. Then you also scan for tasks you are *not* committed to doing and delete them. Leave the undecideds, but always make a decision on the oldest task(s) to ensure progress.
Just a proposal.
So to an FV list that includes only these things, add the task "Grow list". This is the opposite of the "Weed list" that Mark uses. Instead of pruning the list to a manageable size, you commit to keeping the list manageable and only grow it when you feel you have room for more, OR you feel something urgently needs to be added.
"Grow list" gathers things from a catch-all list. For that task you scan the catch-all for new tasks you are committed to doing and add them. Then you also scan for tasks you are *not* committed to doing and delete them. Leave the undecideds, but always make a decision on the oldest task(s) to ensure progress.
Just a proposal.
August 27, 2012 at 18:23 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Hi Alan - I've tried different variations on that theme several times. It always comes down to "out of sight, out of mind". Works OK for projects, but not for catch-all kinds of things. Have you tried something like this yourself? How does it work for you?
August 27, 2012 at 18:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hi,
I am still using FV on paper. I put nearly everything on the list, and am having no real slowdown problems. This is what I do:
1) Follow FV, adding to the list, preselecting using the standard question, and working the chain backwards.
2) Since I may not finish a chain in a day (usually I get through 1.5 but not when there are a lot of meetings etc.) I start each day by reviewing the items I entered yesterday, dotting any I want to do before I do the other items on the leftover chain. I also weed yesterday if needed.
3) Every morning, after doing 2) I add my check inbox items, email, paper, etc. I often do not select them on the same day, but end up selecting earlier iterations. This causes me to do some important newer tasks (those dotted from yesterday's list) before I get to the important but timesucking task of inbox maintenance
4) I use onenote (thanks again for the Onenote help). Onenote has sections organized by project. Actionable and reference emails go in the right project. Once a week I add each project to my FV list. When a project gets selected I review all actions, and either do them, delete them or add to FV. Many of them may already be on my FV list, but as you have seen, I don't mind duplication and consider that a way to replicate priority in some way.
5) I use a calendar to track appointments and deliverables. I review that daily and add to FV as needed.
My list is long, but with this methodology I have not had to worry about weeding or that the more important things don't get done. In addition longer more difficult projects get its due attention, as do recurring tasks and anything else in between.
Thanks you again Mark for FV, truly, in my book the Final Version!
I am still using FV on paper. I put nearly everything on the list, and am having no real slowdown problems. This is what I do:
1) Follow FV, adding to the list, preselecting using the standard question, and working the chain backwards.
2) Since I may not finish a chain in a day (usually I get through 1.5 but not when there are a lot of meetings etc.) I start each day by reviewing the items I entered yesterday, dotting any I want to do before I do the other items on the leftover chain. I also weed yesterday if needed.
3) Every morning, after doing 2) I add my check inbox items, email, paper, etc. I often do not select them on the same day, but end up selecting earlier iterations. This causes me to do some important newer tasks (those dotted from yesterday's list) before I get to the important but timesucking task of inbox maintenance
4) I use onenote (thanks again for the Onenote help). Onenote has sections organized by project. Actionable and reference emails go in the right project. Once a week I add each project to my FV list. When a project gets selected I review all actions, and either do them, delete them or add to FV. Many of them may already be on my FV list, but as you have seen, I don't mind duplication and consider that a way to replicate priority in some way.
5) I use a calendar to track appointments and deliverables. I review that daily and add to FV as needed.
My list is long, but with this methodology I have not had to worry about weeding or that the more important things don't get done. In addition longer more difficult projects get its due attention, as do recurring tasks and anything else in between.
Thanks you again Mark for FV, truly, in my book the Final Version!
August 27, 2012 at 18:58 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
Sounds plausible, veg. Seraphim, it's what I'm trying. As for OOS-OOM, that goes for AF1 just the same. But because the FV list is short, it doesn't take long before "Grow List" is selected and the catch-all is back in sight.
August 28, 2012 at 2:11 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan,
I'm using AF2ND+, which is my tweak (a la Prioritized FV) to nuntym's AF2ND:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142
Rather than using an FV list of commitments and a "grow list" task with a catchall list, what do you think of using AF2ND+ or Prioritized FV for everything, and simply starring the commitments as priority tasks?
I'm using AF2ND+, which is my tweak (a la Prioritized FV) to nuntym's AF2ND:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142
Rather than using an FV list of commitments and a "grow list" task with a catchall list, what do you think of using AF2ND+ or Prioritized FV for everything, and simply starring the commitments as priority tasks?
August 28, 2012 at 18:21 |
Deven
Deven
I've never tried them, but their descriptions don't appeal to me for unknown reasons.
August 29, 2012 at 15:30 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Are they poorly described, or are you opposed to the idea of explicit prioritization? Doesn't your "grow list" idea essentially amount to an FV list of the high-priority tasks, separate from the catchall list?
August 29, 2012 at 17:09 |
Deven
Deven
vegheadjones - Has your list reached an equilibrium -- more or less constant size -- or does it continue to grow? I can see how your approach keeps you focused on the most fresh and relevant items, and I can see how it might increase your processing throughput to some degree. But I would think that with all the duplication, the list would grow longer and longer. Some of that growth might not be real -- it could just be the duplicate tasks -- but don't the non-duplicate tasks tend to get lost in the early and middle parts of the list? This is what happened with me when I was frequently doing a "partial reset", which you seem to be doing in step (2).
August 29, 2012 at 23:03 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
to return to the OPs original question;
i resumed using af1 some time ago after trying all the systems proposed by mark
i love to focus on a single page at a time - and i try to get to all my active pages several times a day - so selecting a few items and progressing things 'little and often' works best for me
when FV came along, i embraced the concept of making a chain - but applied it within single pages as i execute AF1.
so on each page i (1) select the topmost open item automatically (2) scan down the page asking myself "do i feel like doing this before the previously selected item?" if yes, i add it to the chain. (3) then i execute the chain in reverse order (mostly - the order is not too important)
i call the chain a "sprint" to remind me to keep it short ( about 5..9 items) and get it done in a reasonable amount of time ( 1hr .. 2hrs). at any time i can deal with urgent items or interrupts and return quickly to my active sprint.
if the topmost item on a page cannot be actioned because of context (eg: it needs me to be at home, but i'm currently at work) then i 'progress' it by taking *some* action to increase its probability of getting done - i might put an action into my schedule (on my phone), or i might phone/text the person concerned to set up a commitment to take action, or i might write out a list of specific things to be done - moving it to the end of my newest page.
the other variation i have adopted is to use 'stalactites and stalagmites' to distinguish between normal items and urgent items. urgent new items go on the bottom of the page in a list that grows upwards. those are items that *must* be completed today. at the end of processing each normal page, i must pick one or more iems from this urgent list and progress them before going to the next page. it works for me amazingly well - and the list is never more than 5..8 items at any one time.
respect
paul
i resumed using af1 some time ago after trying all the systems proposed by mark
i love to focus on a single page at a time - and i try to get to all my active pages several times a day - so selecting a few items and progressing things 'little and often' works best for me
when FV came along, i embraced the concept of making a chain - but applied it within single pages as i execute AF1.
so on each page i (1) select the topmost open item automatically (2) scan down the page asking myself "do i feel like doing this before the previously selected item?" if yes, i add it to the chain. (3) then i execute the chain in reverse order (mostly - the order is not too important)
i call the chain a "sprint" to remind me to keep it short ( about 5..9 items) and get it done in a reasonable amount of time ( 1hr .. 2hrs). at any time i can deal with urgent items or interrupts and return quickly to my active sprint.
if the topmost item on a page cannot be actioned because of context (eg: it needs me to be at home, but i'm currently at work) then i 'progress' it by taking *some* action to increase its probability of getting done - i might put an action into my schedule (on my phone), or i might phone/text the person concerned to set up a commitment to take action, or i might write out a list of specific things to be done - moving it to the end of my newest page.
the other variation i have adopted is to use 'stalactites and stalagmites' to distinguish between normal items and urgent items. urgent new items go on the bottom of the page in a list that grows upwards. those are items that *must* be completed today. at the end of processing each normal page, i must pick one or more iems from this urgent list and progress them before going to the next page. it works for me amazingly well - and the list is never more than 5..8 items at any one time.
respect
paul
September 21, 2012 at 11:12 |
Zytex
Zytex
"I progress' it by taking *some* action to increase its probability of getting done"
Excellent concept! Not just any action. The ones you described move it up in your consciousness rather than sideways or, worse, down: "I did something on it.Yay!"
Excellent concept! Not just any action. The ones you described move it up in your consciousness rather than sideways or, worse, down: "I did something on it.Yay!"
September 21, 2012 at 14:10 |
Cricket
Cricket
Chris,
Brilliant post, I could not agree more. This is why I stopped paying attention to TM in general. I found any tool to capture what I needed to do was fine as long as I had the motivation to look at it and do the things that needed to be done. The temporary productivity from new systems tends to wear off and this is why new systems and tweaking are a form of procrastination. Most people know what needs to be done, whether or not they do it is not a time management issue. Thanks for writing this.
Gerry
Brilliant post, I could not agree more. This is why I stopped paying attention to TM in general. I found any tool to capture what I needed to do was fine as long as I had the motivation to look at it and do the things that needed to be done. The temporary productivity from new systems tends to wear off and this is why new systems and tweaking are a form of procrastination. Most people know what needs to be done, whether or not they do it is not a time management issue. Thanks for writing this.
Gerry
September 21, 2012 at 16:51 |
Gerry
Gerry
Gerry says that differences among TM systems are insignificant, as long as they can capture tasks. He says that what determines a person's productivity is her motivation to look at her system and do the tasks.
My personal experience is in conflict with this claim. I have been at the same job for more than ten years. I do not feel any more motivated today than I did ten years ago.
When I started my current job I had no system. I was very ineffective because I was very disorganized.
I then adopted GTD and my productivity improved. Gerry would agree that my productivity change was caused by my adoption of a system.
I then spent more than five years using GTD.
Once I found Mark's DIT I experienced a new surge in productivity, comparable to that I had in the transition from nothing to GTD. I doubt that this was attributable to a change in my intrinsic motivation, since there was no significant change in the nature of my work.
Once I started DWM and FV, there came another qualitative improvement. I can only attribute these improvements to the new systems.
I agree with Gerry's point that endless tweaking of systems is counterproductive.
But the larger point is contrary to my experience.
I have found that a task's meaning is dependent upon its context (in the normal sense of that word). That is, a task in one TM system will have a different feel than in another.
FV keeps me working long past the point where I would have quit if I were using a simple capture tool.
Since tasks are context-dependent, motivation is as well. It has always been my experience that my motivation to do a particular task can vary, depending on the system in which that task is situated.
My motivation to do tasks located in my FV system is higher than my motivation to do tasks in other lists.
My personal experience is in conflict with this claim. I have been at the same job for more than ten years. I do not feel any more motivated today than I did ten years ago.
When I started my current job I had no system. I was very ineffective because I was very disorganized.
I then adopted GTD and my productivity improved. Gerry would agree that my productivity change was caused by my adoption of a system.
I then spent more than five years using GTD.
Once I found Mark's DIT I experienced a new surge in productivity, comparable to that I had in the transition from nothing to GTD. I doubt that this was attributable to a change in my intrinsic motivation, since there was no significant change in the nature of my work.
Once I started DWM and FV, there came another qualitative improvement. I can only attribute these improvements to the new systems.
I agree with Gerry's point that endless tweaking of systems is counterproductive.
But the larger point is contrary to my experience.
I have found that a task's meaning is dependent upon its context (in the normal sense of that word). That is, a task in one TM system will have a different feel than in another.
FV keeps me working long past the point where I would have quit if I were using a simple capture tool.
Since tasks are context-dependent, motivation is as well. It has always been my experience that my motivation to do a particular task can vary, depending on the system in which that task is situated.
My motivation to do tasks located in my FV system is higher than my motivation to do tasks in other lists.
September 21, 2012 at 22:28 |
moises
moises
Moises,
I was speaking from a mostly personal experience. In my job and with my personality the 80/20 is getting everything captured.
I wonder if you became more productive because you went from GTD which in my opinion is cumbersome system to DIT which is simpler and actually had more time to do tasks as opposed to organize them. Or, were you more motivated because you like the system better. Obviously these are mostly subjective points, but I am glad you find the "secret sauce" in a system and it works for you.
Gerry
I was speaking from a mostly personal experience. In my job and with my personality the 80/20 is getting everything captured.
I wonder if you became more productive because you went from GTD which in my opinion is cumbersome system to DIT which is simpler and actually had more time to do tasks as opposed to organize them. Or, were you more motivated because you like the system better. Obviously these are mostly subjective points, but I am glad you find the "secret sauce" in a system and it works for you.
Gerry
September 24, 2012 at 17:15 |
Gerry
Gerry
Gerry,
Thanks for provoking me to think about this some more.
I never really abandoned GTD. Mark's systems are very compatible with GTD. My problem with GTD was not that it was too complex. My problem was that it was possible to have a beautifully organized system and never do any of the tasks it contained.
The genius of all of Mark's systems is that they fill the gaping hole in GTD. They force me to do something.
Lots of people don't like the word "force." I am fine with it because it is I who am both being forced and doing the forcing. That's what Beeminder and similar apps are all about.
My current opinion on this was provoked initially by Seraphim's comment above: out of sight, out of mind.
But my problem was not fully described by that. I see things in my list, but I won't do them unless there is some kind of forcing.
If I wanted to psychologize here, I would say that I naturally avoid tasks that raise some kind of negative feeling. I might see a task description and feel anxious, or upset, or fearful or who knows what. That is a feeling that does not feel good, so, I quickly read some other task so I can put an end to that negative feeling.
Most psychologists today agree that the best thing to do is to confront or approach these tasks that provoke negative feelings. The beauty of Mark's systems is that they force me to do just a little bit of something that I very much want to avoid.
The psychologists tell us that when we do the task we feared, we lose a lot of the fear.
So, if you are afraid of spiders, you walk to the outside door of a building that has a spider in it. That's it.
The next day you open the door and look in the room and see the cage containing the spider, but not the spider itself.
It's systematic desensitization.
Or, you sit with a therapist and talk about painful subjects that you'd rather not talk about. It's all about exposing yourself to the things that you want to withdraw from.
So, I have found that seeing tasks is not enough for me. I need to force myself to do a little bit of the task so that it will lose its power to stimulate negative feelings. The more I do this the better.
That means that I need to circulate through my list as quickly as possible. The longer an item goes unactioned, the more power it has to create negative feelings.
Little and often is the antidote. Any system that encourages L&O will work.
A list, a tool that captures tasks, is inadequate for me. I need to have a set of rules that keeps me acting on things that I would rather not act on.
That is why DWM was so powerful. It had a time constraint. The other of Mark's systems (excepting DIT, I think) did not.
Of course, I agree that it would be much better if I were motivated to do what I need to do without having a lot of rules and tools and bells and whistles. But I am not. Or at least a part of me is not.
So, I use the rules and tools and bells and whistles to have the part of me that is motivated force the part of me that is not motivated to do what I need to do.
Thanks for provoking me to think about this some more.
I never really abandoned GTD. Mark's systems are very compatible with GTD. My problem with GTD was not that it was too complex. My problem was that it was possible to have a beautifully organized system and never do any of the tasks it contained.
The genius of all of Mark's systems is that they fill the gaping hole in GTD. They force me to do something.
Lots of people don't like the word "force." I am fine with it because it is I who am both being forced and doing the forcing. That's what Beeminder and similar apps are all about.
My current opinion on this was provoked initially by Seraphim's comment above: out of sight, out of mind.
But my problem was not fully described by that. I see things in my list, but I won't do them unless there is some kind of forcing.
If I wanted to psychologize here, I would say that I naturally avoid tasks that raise some kind of negative feeling. I might see a task description and feel anxious, or upset, or fearful or who knows what. That is a feeling that does not feel good, so, I quickly read some other task so I can put an end to that negative feeling.
Most psychologists today agree that the best thing to do is to confront or approach these tasks that provoke negative feelings. The beauty of Mark's systems is that they force me to do just a little bit of something that I very much want to avoid.
The psychologists tell us that when we do the task we feared, we lose a lot of the fear.
So, if you are afraid of spiders, you walk to the outside door of a building that has a spider in it. That's it.
The next day you open the door and look in the room and see the cage containing the spider, but not the spider itself.
It's systematic desensitization.
Or, you sit with a therapist and talk about painful subjects that you'd rather not talk about. It's all about exposing yourself to the things that you want to withdraw from.
So, I have found that seeing tasks is not enough for me. I need to force myself to do a little bit of the task so that it will lose its power to stimulate negative feelings. The more I do this the better.
That means that I need to circulate through my list as quickly as possible. The longer an item goes unactioned, the more power it has to create negative feelings.
Little and often is the antidote. Any system that encourages L&O will work.
A list, a tool that captures tasks, is inadequate for me. I need to have a set of rules that keeps me acting on things that I would rather not act on.
That is why DWM was so powerful. It had a time constraint. The other of Mark's systems (excepting DIT, I think) did not.
Of course, I agree that it would be much better if I were motivated to do what I need to do without having a lot of rules and tools and bells and whistles. But I am not. Or at least a part of me is not.
So, I use the rules and tools and bells and whistles to have the part of me that is motivated force the part of me that is not motivated to do what I need to do.
September 25, 2012 at 15:29 |
moises
moises
I really like the FV approach, but found that my list got long enough it was daunting to review. I have introduced a weekly review of tasks, following advice I got in a thread I started asking for advice for when I return to work soon.
I have found the review very useful because it has enabled me to delete duplicate, irrelevant and already completed tasks; and I've also set up a future list and moved tasks that I don't want to action in the medium term. This has meant I've ended up with a much more focussed and relevant list.
However, will these actions be relevant when I return to work when I have less control on my tasks?? I'm not sure. What ever system you are using I see only two solutions to a list that is too long:
* reduce the tasks by deleting or taking on less
* process tasks quicker by being more efficient
Ideal world maybe, particularly in a busy workplace, but I'll be trying to remember them once my work list builds up...
I have found the review very useful because it has enabled me to delete duplicate, irrelevant and already completed tasks; and I've also set up a future list and moved tasks that I don't want to action in the medium term. This has meant I've ended up with a much more focussed and relevant list.
However, will these actions be relevant when I return to work when I have less control on my tasks?? I'm not sure. What ever system you are using I see only two solutions to a list that is too long:
* reduce the tasks by deleting or taking on less
* process tasks quicker by being more efficient
Ideal world maybe, particularly in a busy workplace, but I'll be trying to remember them once my work list builds up...
September 26, 2012 at 16:59 |
Kate Davis
Kate Davis
@moises - The one extra feature that I've added to "write everything down in one place" is "write everything down in a dated journal".
I found that just writing everything down in one place isn't quite enough. I tend to want to do everything, so I need some kind of limiter. If the journal page gets too full, then I know I can't clear the page in one day, and this fires off a big warning signal that I am getting myself overcommitted.
The basic idea is like DIT - finish one day's work in one day.
Sometimes I use FV to process the day's list. Sometimes it helps me to get started, if I feel a little aimless. But once I've got started, I eventually get to a point where I just want to FINISH THE LIST, and bang through it as fast as I can, just running down the list. I think this is another example of your desensitization idea.
I'm also exploring some ideas along the lines of this article: http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2007/10/18/the-art-of-the-finish-how-to-go-from-busy-to-accomplished/ A short closed list of the most important things to be done is, in practice, very much like Mark's "Current Initiative" idea. It works pretty well. I am keeping a list just like the article describes, and start working on that first thing. When I need a break, I try to clear my DIT list, which consists mostly of recurring tasks, one-off tasks, and projects that need to be kept going but don't need a huge push right now.
But now that I am writing and writing about what I am doing, I guess it's not so simple anymore. Need to prune it back.
I found that just writing everything down in one place isn't quite enough. I tend to want to do everything, so I need some kind of limiter. If the journal page gets too full, then I know I can't clear the page in one day, and this fires off a big warning signal that I am getting myself overcommitted.
The basic idea is like DIT - finish one day's work in one day.
Sometimes I use FV to process the day's list. Sometimes it helps me to get started, if I feel a little aimless. But once I've got started, I eventually get to a point where I just want to FINISH THE LIST, and bang through it as fast as I can, just running down the list. I think this is another example of your desensitization idea.
I'm also exploring some ideas along the lines of this article: http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2007/10/18/the-art-of-the-finish-how-to-go-from-busy-to-accomplished/ A short closed list of the most important things to be done is, in practice, very much like Mark's "Current Initiative" idea. It works pretty well. I am keeping a list just like the article describes, and start working on that first thing. When I need a break, I try to clear my DIT list, which consists mostly of recurring tasks, one-off tasks, and projects that need to be kept going but don't need a huge push right now.
But now that I am writing and writing about what I am doing, I guess it's not so simple anymore. Need to prune it back.
September 27, 2012 at 3:02 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
Thanks for the link. I am a big fan of Cal Newport's. I bought one of his books for my son, who is in high school. My son never touched the book. ;)
I have to confess that all my trials with completion-centric systems have been dismal failures. I like the idea of driving toward completion, but when I make that my focus, I do worse.
One of the AFs had the second column and was focused on completion. I didn't complete any more than normal when I tried it. And I very much doubt that Cal's Current Project Page would help me.
Maybe I just am not yet sufficiently advanced in how I function.
One of the things that David Allen said that still rings true is that you can't function well at higher altitudes (life goals, multi-year plans) if your runway (tasks to do right now) is a mess.
So, Allen advocated a bottoms-up approach. That is, focus on what task you are going to do right now, and don't worry about mission statements.
That approach helped me a lot. And the great thing about Mark's systems was that they were much, much better at managing the "runway" than anything David Allen ever came up with.
Allen also said that once you get the runway under control, you then become much better at functioning at higher and higher altitudes. And I did find this to be true.
But I still am not anywhere near where Cal would have me be. And I have not found a system that can get me there.
Given my acceptance of my personal limitations, what I have found is that I am much, much more likely to complete projects if I use L&O.
I understand Cal's criticism that one can be very productive, in the sense of getting many tasks done in a day, and never complete anything meaningful.
My experience is that I am more likely to complete meaningful projects using L&O than if I don't. That doesn't mean that I couldn't improve a whole lot in the completion area, I just don't know how to do it.
Thanks for the link. I am a big fan of Cal Newport's. I bought one of his books for my son, who is in high school. My son never touched the book. ;)
I have to confess that all my trials with completion-centric systems have been dismal failures. I like the idea of driving toward completion, but when I make that my focus, I do worse.
One of the AFs had the second column and was focused on completion. I didn't complete any more than normal when I tried it. And I very much doubt that Cal's Current Project Page would help me.
Maybe I just am not yet sufficiently advanced in how I function.
One of the things that David Allen said that still rings true is that you can't function well at higher altitudes (life goals, multi-year plans) if your runway (tasks to do right now) is a mess.
So, Allen advocated a bottoms-up approach. That is, focus on what task you are going to do right now, and don't worry about mission statements.
That approach helped me a lot. And the great thing about Mark's systems was that they were much, much better at managing the "runway" than anything David Allen ever came up with.
Allen also said that once you get the runway under control, you then become much better at functioning at higher and higher altitudes. And I did find this to be true.
But I still am not anywhere near where Cal would have me be. And I have not found a system that can get me there.
Given my acceptance of my personal limitations, what I have found is that I am much, much more likely to complete projects if I use L&O.
I understand Cal's criticism that one can be very productive, in the sense of getting many tasks done in a day, and never complete anything meaningful.
My experience is that I am more likely to complete meaningful projects using L&O than if I don't. That doesn't mean that I couldn't improve a whole lot in the completion area, I just don't know how to do it.
September 27, 2012 at 13:52 |
moises
moises
Good article. One more blog on my reader. I don't agree with all of it, but he makes some good points.
Moises, try numbering the milestones in your projects. That's my current obsession. It combines little-and-often (many small milestones) with completion (each milestone gets completed).
Schedule them out so you have a reasonable completion date. Include rest / catch-up points to stay realistic. This week, I did inch #2 of 24 in a big pile of ancient papers. That works better than "minutes 16-30 of the 6-hour project". I'm confident that the pile was 24 inches, but not that it's a 6-hour project. If I hit a nasty bit and that inch takes too long, I'm flexible. That's another reason for the catch-up week. Some weeks I even pull ahead, which feels awesome!
It's been a month and I'm very happy with the results. I'm not finishing everything I'd hoped, but I'm happy with the choices I've made, and I rarely look back and say I've wasted a day. There's always some project with a milestone that fits my energy.
He is right about a constant level of productivity being a myth. I rarely manage more than three weekly milestones in a row for any project -- hence the rest/catch-up weeks. Also, I don't schedule the same week for catch-up in all projects. That would make me behind in everything by the time the catch-up week arrives, with too much pressure to catch-up in everything.
However, his recommendation is too extreme for me. An extra three hours for one night leaves me drained and useless for three days. Three hours and a completed project vs 3x6 hours of productivity on everything else lost -- including weekly maintenance.
(What's scary is my 14-year-old isn't even tempted to try an all-nighter. I hope he tries in the next few years, so he knows whether they work for him before it counts.)
Allen is right. You can't focus on the big picture if you're drowning on the runway. However, Mark's insistence on seeing the bigger picture as well is necessary. You'll drown on the runway forever if you don't look at the big picture and decide which things to stop doing, and more efficient ways to do the rest. At an extreme, if you focus only on the runway you'll drive to the store and buy milk. An hour later you'll drive for butter. An hour later you might get both meat and vegetables on the same trip -- but by the time you get home it's too late to cook them. Fifteen minutes reviewing the pantry will save much driving time! (We won't mention impulse buying.)
Moises, try numbering the milestones in your projects. That's my current obsession. It combines little-and-often (many small milestones) with completion (each milestone gets completed).
Schedule them out so you have a reasonable completion date. Include rest / catch-up points to stay realistic. This week, I did inch #2 of 24 in a big pile of ancient papers. That works better than "minutes 16-30 of the 6-hour project". I'm confident that the pile was 24 inches, but not that it's a 6-hour project. If I hit a nasty bit and that inch takes too long, I'm flexible. That's another reason for the catch-up week. Some weeks I even pull ahead, which feels awesome!
It's been a month and I'm very happy with the results. I'm not finishing everything I'd hoped, but I'm happy with the choices I've made, and I rarely look back and say I've wasted a day. There's always some project with a milestone that fits my energy.
He is right about a constant level of productivity being a myth. I rarely manage more than three weekly milestones in a row for any project -- hence the rest/catch-up weeks. Also, I don't schedule the same week for catch-up in all projects. That would make me behind in everything by the time the catch-up week arrives, with too much pressure to catch-up in everything.
However, his recommendation is too extreme for me. An extra three hours for one night leaves me drained and useless for three days. Three hours and a completed project vs 3x6 hours of productivity on everything else lost -- including weekly maintenance.
(What's scary is my 14-year-old isn't even tempted to try an all-nighter. I hope he tries in the next few years, so he knows whether they work for him before it counts.)
Allen is right. You can't focus on the big picture if you're drowning on the runway. However, Mark's insistence on seeing the bigger picture as well is necessary. You'll drown on the runway forever if you don't look at the big picture and decide which things to stop doing, and more efficient ways to do the rest. At an extreme, if you focus only on the runway you'll drive to the store and buy milk. An hour later you'll drive for butter. An hour later you might get both meat and vegetables on the same trip -- but by the time you get home it's too late to cook them. Fifteen minutes reviewing the pantry will save much driving time! (We won't mention impulse buying.)
September 27, 2012 at 14:50 |
Cricket
Cricket
I disagree with what David Allen says
One of the things that David Allen said that still rings true is that you can't function well at higher altitudes (life goals, multi-year plans) if your runway (tasks to do right now) is a mess.
I have found that it is near impossible to get all of the day to day stuff humming along. I tried this approach with a large life goal of restarting a musical instrument. The reality was there is always something that feels like it needs to be done that is a day to day urgent issue.
I finally took the just do it approach and started lessons again, starting playing and performed at a charity show. With the previous approach none of this was happening. I think it is a myth that everything can be put in order and then you will tackle all the interesting big goals.
Gerry
One of the things that David Allen said that still rings true is that you can't function well at higher altitudes (life goals, multi-year plans) if your runway (tasks to do right now) is a mess.
I have found that it is near impossible to get all of the day to day stuff humming along. I tried this approach with a large life goal of restarting a musical instrument. The reality was there is always something that feels like it needs to be done that is a day to day urgent issue.
I finally took the just do it approach and started lessons again, starting playing and performed at a charity show. With the previous approach none of this was happening. I think it is a myth that everything can be put in order and then you will tackle all the interesting big goals.
Gerry
September 28, 2012 at 16:14 |
Gerry
Gerry
I agree. I think the reality is you decide to tackle some goal and put it in the mix but with emphasis applied to meeting the goal. The system is needed to give you that feeling of sanity that allows you to focus on your goal, optimistic that you will get to the other stuff as you get to them. Life won't be in perfect order, but nor will it be a mess.
Why is this so? Because you can spend 100hrs a week cleaning your house if you chose. All the things you could do conspire to fill your time, so the only way to get to the important stuff is to force it in and let whatever fall aside.
Why is this so? Because you can spend 100hrs a week cleaning your house if you chose. All the things you could do conspire to fill your time, so the only way to get to the important stuff is to force it in and let whatever fall aside.
September 28, 2012 at 19:14 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Gerry,
How do you define "put in order"? I agree that if you must have your life running smoothly before starting a big project, you will go nowhere.
But if "put in order" means "capture stuff in a list," then you are more likely to embark on something big even if your life is not running smoothly. As long as your commitments are captured, you have a sense of what other big projects you can take on.
How do you define "put in order"? I agree that if you must have your life running smoothly before starting a big project, you will go nowhere.
But if "put in order" means "capture stuff in a list," then you are more likely to embark on something big even if your life is not running smoothly. As long as your commitments are captured, you have a sense of what other big projects you can take on.
September 28, 2012 at 22:30 |
moises
moises
Moises,
Put in order was probably not a good choice of words. I think what GTD advocates is the idea that if the day to day stuff is handled, you will have time for the bigger goals of one's life. I have found that since life is hectic and random at times, I personally could never get a sense that there was nothing else to do so I should go do music. I found I had to take Nike's advice and just do it.
As I have mentioned personally, I just want my TM system to capture everything and I will decide priority of working on and finishing.
For larger goals I use DOIT and find it works because you basically just time box which ensures you spend time on three big important things in your life and they move forward. DO IT is designed to not integrate into a time management system, which is why it works. No one has to write the great American novel, but they do have to do their taxes. So separating these types of activities hopefully gets both done.
Gerry
Put in order was probably not a good choice of words. I think what GTD advocates is the idea that if the day to day stuff is handled, you will have time for the bigger goals of one's life. I have found that since life is hectic and random at times, I personally could never get a sense that there was nothing else to do so I should go do music. I found I had to take Nike's advice and just do it.
As I have mentioned personally, I just want my TM system to capture everything and I will decide priority of working on and finishing.
For larger goals I use DOIT and find it works because you basically just time box which ensures you spend time on three big important things in your life and they move forward. DO IT is designed to not integrate into a time management system, which is why it works. No one has to write the great American novel, but they do have to do their taxes. So separating these types of activities hopefully gets both done.
Gerry
October 1, 2012 at 18:53 |
Gerry
Gerry
I'm going in a similar direction. I'm capturing the "next big things" that I want to accomplish in my DIT book, in the form of a closed list. I try to focus on those. When I am tired of that, I turn to my Outlook Tasks (where I capture all my odds-and-ends for work) or to Gmail with the Active Inbox plugin (where I capture all my odds-and-ends for personal).
Usually the "big things" are the main projects and things I want to accomplish that are currently pressing on my mind. But sometimes they are maintenance items - for example, if the mail and paperwork is piling up on my desk.
Usually the "big things" are the main projects and things I want to accomplish that are currently pressing on my mind. But sometimes they are maintenance items - for example, if the mail and paperwork is piling up on my desk.
October 6, 2012 at 6:01 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
How much is the latest blog posting "The One Must-Do Task Each Day" relevant to this discussion? Could you have more than one Must-Do Task? Could they be the same tasks each day?
October 6, 2012 at 10:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So, some people (including Mark Forster) have introduced a recurring "Weed List" task to delete items that are no longer relevant. (This is fully within the rules, so would be a "tip", not a tweak.)
Others have come up with new rules or alternatives systems incorporating some FV ideas:
- AndreasE has added a dismissal rule to FV ( http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1932921 ).
- Personally, I've gone to using DIT in a notebook, and processing my DIT list with the FV algorithm ( http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1854855#post1882690 and http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#post1907490 ).
So, if you have ever had the problem of your FV or SF lists getting too long or bogged down, you may want to consider one of these tips or alternatives.
Anyone have any other ideas?