FV and FVP Forum > FVP and cycle times (time in queue)
I've been doing FVP for only a little more than a week, but yes, FVP has encouraged me to spend more time on recent ("hot") activities. Consequently, I spend more time on fewer things than I did in AF1, but I finish more of those things sooner. This is a mixed blessing, maybe, in that my older stuff has been in limbo for the past week.
On the other hand, I will probably get back to those older things now that vacation is over and life will be going back to normal tomorrow. More to the point, though, is just the fact that I was able to knock off so many bigger things this week. I was worried that having so much unstructured time all of a sudden would be paralyzing and I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Or that I'd just end up doing nothing. Instead, I was able to zoom in on a handful of things that were just right for this week, and get them done.
Regarding your question about what it is about the algorithm that makes this possible, I believe it's the way it lets you leverage your momentum. With AF1, you work on X for as long as you'd like, but once you move on, you have to do numerous other things before you can come back to X. That's great for the slew, and it's even great for X if X is the kind of project that benefits from frequent mental rebooting. But if X is not that kind of project, then spending too much time away from it only makes it harder to get back up to speed when you pick it up again.
While it is nice to have a lot of things moving forward all at once with AF1, the glacial pace of all that juggling (without finishing anything for a long while) can be a drag on morale. But now I'm eager to get back to the things that I left behind last week.
Going forward, I can see myself alternating between FVP and AF1 periodically; using FVP when there's more stress or urgency to finish important things quickly, and AF1 when I can afford to juggle a little more. But I'm sticking with FVP for now!
On the other hand, I will probably get back to those older things now that vacation is over and life will be going back to normal tomorrow. More to the point, though, is just the fact that I was able to knock off so many bigger things this week. I was worried that having so much unstructured time all of a sudden would be paralyzing and I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Or that I'd just end up doing nothing. Instead, I was able to zoom in on a handful of things that were just right for this week, and get them done.
Regarding your question about what it is about the algorithm that makes this possible, I believe it's the way it lets you leverage your momentum. With AF1, you work on X for as long as you'd like, but once you move on, you have to do numerous other things before you can come back to X. That's great for the slew, and it's even great for X if X is the kind of project that benefits from frequent mental rebooting. But if X is not that kind of project, then spending too much time away from it only makes it harder to get back up to speed when you pick it up again.
While it is nice to have a lot of things moving forward all at once with AF1, the glacial pace of all that juggling (without finishing anything for a long while) can be a drag on morale. But now I'm eager to get back to the things that I left behind last week.
Going forward, I can see myself alternating between FVP and AF1 periodically; using FVP when there's more stress or urgency to finish important things quickly, and AF1 when I can afford to juggle a little more. But I'm sticking with FVP for now!
August 10, 2015 at 2:25 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Seraphim, did you ever figure this out? I was wondering how you could use FVP well with hundreds of items, but apparently for some reason you didn't have that many.
August 5, 2020 at 21:22 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Hi Alan,
Looking back, I think FVP's algorithm naturally puts more focus on completion than many of Mark's other systems, such as AF1 or Simple Scanning, and that tends to reduce the WIP.
Regarding the large number of items I would often have on my lists -- FVP worked especially well for me during a very crazy year when there were many competing priorities, changing directives coming down from upper management, and general chaos. It kept me focused on the main things and was very responsive to the changes.
However, there could be periods of weeks when I never saw the beginning of my list -- there were just too many changes and incoming work. Only occasionally would I get a breather, and cycle back to see what I had left behind. And a lot of it would turn out to be no longer relevant.
So while the list could grow to a few hundred items, FVP kept me focused on what really mattered and was really pressing - and then let me delete a lot of stuff later when the time came.
This wasn't really a problem at all. It was similar to Serial No-List in this regard - staying focused on the most pressing things, and naturally taking you back to the other things when the time was right. I didn't feel that the earlier items were being neglected -- more that it wasn't time for them.
After that crazy year, the chaos turned to calm, and I need to figure out where to focus. FVP was good at that, too, but my own habits had become so accustomed to the chaos and the need for responsiveness and speed, that I would find myself processing lots of trivia -- clearing my inbox several times per day, stuff like that, rather than getting on with the more substantial work. I felt I needed something to help me stay focused on the larger things. A few things really helped with that:
- Using the "current initiative" hack for FVP - http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2560976
- Using a dated notebook, and re-entering maintenance items to the next day after I had completed them, so I would not see them till the next day
- Using TOC to decide where to focus
I still use the last two methods every day. If I give FVP another try (just for fun and for the camaraderie of the community here!), I may try the current initiative hack again, too.
Looking back, I think FVP's algorithm naturally puts more focus on completion than many of Mark's other systems, such as AF1 or Simple Scanning, and that tends to reduce the WIP.
Regarding the large number of items I would often have on my lists -- FVP worked especially well for me during a very crazy year when there were many competing priorities, changing directives coming down from upper management, and general chaos. It kept me focused on the main things and was very responsive to the changes.
However, there could be periods of weeks when I never saw the beginning of my list -- there were just too many changes and incoming work. Only occasionally would I get a breather, and cycle back to see what I had left behind. And a lot of it would turn out to be no longer relevant.
So while the list could grow to a few hundred items, FVP kept me focused on what really mattered and was really pressing - and then let me delete a lot of stuff later when the time came.
This wasn't really a problem at all. It was similar to Serial No-List in this regard - staying focused on the most pressing things, and naturally taking you back to the other things when the time was right. I didn't feel that the earlier items were being neglected -- more that it wasn't time for them.
After that crazy year, the chaos turned to calm, and I need to figure out where to focus. FVP was good at that, too, but my own habits had become so accustomed to the chaos and the need for responsiveness and speed, that I would find myself processing lots of trivia -- clearing my inbox several times per day, stuff like that, rather than getting on with the more substantial work. I felt I needed something to help me stay focused on the larger things. A few things really helped with that:
- Using the "current initiative" hack for FVP - http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2560976
- Using a dated notebook, and re-entering maintenance items to the next day after I had completed them, so I would not see them till the next day
- Using TOC to decide where to focus
I still use the last two methods every day. If I give FVP another try (just for fun and for the camaraderie of the community here!), I may try the current initiative hack again, too.
August 6, 2020 at 1:57 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Push to next day seems a very useful hack. Borrowed.
August 6, 2020 at 16:28 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
More importantly, I am feeling that important projects and tasks are getting completed faster, without hanging around week after week. I've still got quite a backlog of things to work through, but I've been seeing this effect pretty dramatically.
A few other people have mentioned this effect here, too. I've been wondering what it is about the algorithm that generates this effect.
There's a lot of theory (sometimes with data to back it up) about the relationship between WIP limits, cycle time, time in queue, slack time, and time spent working around blockages. See, for example, this Leankit presentation ( http://leankit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015.08-FSGD-Webinar1.pdf#page=14 ) or this Google search ( http://www.google.com/search?q=don+reinertsen+WIP+cycle+time )
This leads me to wonder if the FVP algorithm encourages focus on a smaller number of WIP items, perhaps? Most of the time, I do tend to work toward the end of the list, repeatedly engaging with the tasks that have my attention, and only returning to the earlier part of the list after I've completed the more active/current items, or perhaps when I want a change of pace. Perhaps this has the benefit of keeping me focused on a limited number of WIP items -- which has been demonstrated to be a key to reducing cycle time and time-in-queue.
Slack time is also related to a smaller WIP limit, and slack time is also related to responsiveness. And with FVP, I do feel a stronger sense of responsiveness to changing needs. So I am wondering if this is somehow part of the phenomenon.
In contrast, when I used AF1 (which I loved despite my struggles with it), I would tend to have so many open pages, each with something that would grab my attention, that I tended to have multitudes of unfinished tasks and activities, all inching forward in parallel but none really driving toward completion.
Anyone else have thoughts on this topic?
I am thinking of measuring this and seeing how it changes over time. I already write the date at the top of new pages when I start them. I think I will start dating them when I finish, them, too, and then use that as a measure of "time in queue". Easy to capture, and maybe it will help generate some insights into these effects.