GTD wastes mental energy?

[jenter]

Hi everyone!
I'm trying to adopt GTD for managing my projects and tasks, and have stumbled upon a problem with contexts. If anyone would help me clear things up, it would be great.

The typical scenario in GTD is that you find yourself e.g. near a telephone and start doing your @phone next action list. Or you are at a PC and do the @computer list.

GTD is (on the surface) against multitasking, but I've found that going through the lists in this fashion forces me to switch between my projects like crazy, and I just feel how my energy is wasted on the switch!! It is a proven fact that human brain requires up to 15 minutes to switch from one project to another. I feel that razor-sharp focusing on only one or two projects per day brings much better results.

Moreover, doing something just because I'm at a phone, or in the city feels stupid. If it is an important thing to do, I'll change my context, but I want to see it!

So for the time being I decided to use contexts only for tasks and projects which don't require a lot of thought - paying taxes, doing errands, etc. For my main projects I find that more traditional project planning with hierarchical tasks and daily to-do list work much better.

But maybe I've got it all wrong. Could you explain this to me please? Thanks!

[Trish]

I hate to say it but I think you have a point. In my life, there are so many things that I hv to block out 2 to 4 hours for and I have tried getting around it with GTD, but I never have. Work is work.

[abhay]

There are many people, including me, who treat some next actions on context list as bookmarks into projects. After that starter action is done, one may simply continue to work on that project while the momentum is on. After a while, which may be 1 to 4 hours depending upon the working style, we usually want to stop and move onto something else. That's the time again when we turn to the context list.

And you are right: if something is that important, you wouldn't wait for finding yourself in that context but rather change the context. In GTD terms, this decision can be taken when the item first shows up. This can be considered "work as it appears", or if you decide today morning that this item be done today afternoon, then it should go in the calendar. GTD never says that you should just be driven by the world into various contexts without control (but yes, that you decide to change context is never explicitly mentioned at least in the book: it appears indirectly in the form that I said above: work as it appears, or calendared work.)

A more interesting aspect is this: now that you have decided to change context for this important action, it will be nice if you look up the list for that context so that you can possibly finish a few other actions in this changed context while you are in it.

Pay attention to what you feel: If you feel stupid that you are doing something just because you are in that context, may be there is some reason why you don't want to do it. Is that the exact thing that you need to do next in this context? Are you mentally ready to do it? If it's a vital call, are you energetic enough to make it? (The energy criterion.) If that action will trigger a further load of actions, have you unconsciously decided that you don't want that for the next month, but have not yet consciously agreed with yourself?

Further, weekly review is a good time to look at all your actions (and all other categories) to analyze why certain things are not moving.

Regards,
Abhay

[TesTeq]

Moreover, doing something just because I'm at a phone, or in the city feels stupid. If it is an important thing to do, I'll change my context, but I want to see it!

If you have a following prioritized list of things:
A) Call Fred (David Allen's friend).
B) Buy a screwdriver.
C) Call Jane.
D) Buy a hammer.

are you really calling Fred, than going to the hardware store to buy a screwdriver, than returning to home to call Jane and finally going to the hardware store again to buy a hammer :?:

[jenter]

are you really calling Fred, than going to the hardware store to buy a screwdriver, than returning to home to call Jane and finally going to the hardware store again to buy a hammer :?:

Please note that going to the hardware store doesn't require serious mental effort. That's the case when GTD works just fine. I could even argue that B and D are really one action - "buy a screwdriver _and_ a hammer at the hw store" ;)

But imagine a bit different set of actions:

A) Call Fred to discuss a serious and nasty problem re project A
B) Do some internet research on solving the problem in project A
C) Do some internet research on using hammer for fixing your kitchen sink
D) Call a hardware shop to ask if they have the model of the hammer that you want

Strictly following GTD, you'd have to first do all the calls, and then internet research (or vice versa). But it is easy to see why it would be stupid.

[jenter]

There are many people, including me, who treat some next actions on context list as bookmarks into projects. After that starter action is done, one may simply continue to work on that project while the momentum is on.

Hmm, that's an interesting thought. But still doesn't answer the question - what if I do a not important action instead of important one just because I'm in the wrong context?


And you are right: if something is that important, you wouldn't wait for finding yourself in that context but rather change the context. In GTD terms, this decision can be taken when the item first shows up. This can be considered "work as it appears", or if you decide today morning that this item be done today afternoon, then it should go in the calendar. GTD never says that you should just be driven by the world into various contexts without control (but yes, that you decide to change context is never explicitly mentioned at least in the book: it appears indirectly in the form that I said above: work as it appears, or calendared work.)

But what if this is a really important strategic project. But not urgent, and it will never become urgent. And it didn't appear from nowhere. But if it is completed, it will bring me large benefits. If I don't budget time for it in advance, it will never be completed. How does that fit into "work as it appears"?


A more interesting aspect is this: now that you have decided to change context for this important action, it will be nice if you look up the list for that context so that you can possibly finish a few other actions in this changed context while you are in it.

Sometimes this works. But if my action is really mentally challenging, I don't want to have anoything else on my radar until some definite milestone is reached. For example, when I'm going to a job interview, I won't take my clothes to the laundry, even if it is in the same block!


Pay attention to what you feel: If you feel stupid that you are doing something just because you are in that context, may be there is some reason why you don't want to do it. Is that the exact thing that you need to do next in this context? Are you mentally ready to do it? If it's a vital call, are you energetic enough to make it? (The energy criterion.) If that action will trigger a further load of actions, have you unconsciously decided that you don't want that for the next month, but have not yet consciously agreed with yourself?
Agree 100%. But it doesn't really answer the context question for me.

[abhay]

But imagine a bit different set of actions:

A) Call Fred to discuss a serious and nasty problem re project A
B) Do some internet research on solving the problem in project A
C) Do some internet research on using hammer for fixing your kitchen sink
D) Call a hardware shop to ask if they have the model of the hammer that you want

Strictly following GTD, you'd have to first do all the calls, and then internet research (or vice versa). But it is easy to see why it would be stupid.

You need to understand the term next actions better: B and D above are not real next actions: they are next to next. So you will only have A and C as next actions on appropriate context lists. When you finish them, you have a choice to:

1) Do the immediate following action then and there (or change the context if you have to)
2) Add the following action to appropriate context list because you don't want to do it now
3) The lazy and dangerous option: Neither 1 nor 2. Your weekly review will prompt you to ask what happened to this project and add a next action at that time!

Regards,
Abhay

[abhay]

A) Call Fred (David Allen's friend).


Hilarious! :)

[jenter]

You need to understand the term next actions better: B and D above are not real next actions: they are next to next.

Let's assume that the actions are independent and can be done in any order. E.g. your call to Fred doesn't depend on the results of the research; and that you've already selected the hammer that you want, and you want to buy it and also to find out how to fix your sink with it.

[abhay]

Hmm, that's an interesting thought. But still doesn't answer the question - what if I do a not important action instead of important one just because I'm in the wrong context?

But what if this is a really important strategic project. But not urgent, and it will never become urgent. And it didn't appear from nowhere. But if it is completed, it will bring me large benefits. If I don't budget time for it in advance, it will never be completed. How does that fit into "work as it appears"?

That was my last point: Weekly review. If you find something not moving, you should plan for whatever is required to make it moving during the weekly review. It may involve scheduling a few blocks of time in the coming week to work on that project. Or it may involve mentally noting that this project is important, so that when you look at the context lists you are reminded to pick up those actions. Depends upon whether you are regularly in the context required by that project. Of course there are dangers of overfilling your calendar which may leave you inflexible, so the balance is important.


Sometimes this works. But if my action is really mentally challenging, I don't want to have anything else on my radar until some definite milestone is reached. For example, when I'm going to a job interview, I won't take my clothes to the laundry, even if it is in the same block!

Perfectly fine. I just said you look up the list so that you can possibly finish a few actions. Does not mean you should do all or even any of them. There will be situations when you would be thankful that you just had a look at the appropriate action list!

Hope this helps,
Regards,
Abhay

[abhay]

Let's assume that the actions are independent and can be done in any order. E.g. your call to Fred doesn't depend on the results of the research; and that you've already selected the hammer that you want, and you want to buy it and also to find out how to fix your sink with it.

So what is the question now?

[jenter]

So what is the question now?

The question is, is doing all the calls (inet researches) first still preferable to focusing on the project?

If I recall correctly, the definition of a context is a set of actions that you physically can do now. So, in a way, if I can change my location, all the actions there can be considered to be in the same context.

And also, I now tend to think that @phone is not a real context ever since the invention of cell phones. I won't be using it anymore, it has always felt somewhat redundant to me.

Sometimes I even think that having two contexts @inside and @outside would do the trick for me, where @inside is at home and in the office and @outside - everywhere else ;)

[abhay]

No prescriptions here. You can either continue on the same project (because that's also a next actionable now that you have completed the prerequisite), or pick up an unrelated action from the same context. Entirely depends upon you. If you think other actions on your list can wait till you take advantage of the momentum that you have gained on a project by doing one action on it, go for it. When you want to stop, add the then-next action to the appropriate list so that you can start where you stopped.

Yes, you can change your location, and it's up to you to decide whether you want to spend time in getting actions done while in a location or keep changing locations! :) no offense; exaggerating just to make my point.

What contexts you use is entirely up to you. I do not use a phone related context. I have home, office, and a few types of out-and-about. If I have some actions that I have to do in the day time and have to leave my office for that, I put it in my office list, since when I had an outdoor-daytime context, I usually ignored it in spite of reviewing it in my daily review. There are people in this forum who have dropped all contexts and maintain a single next actions list. It's all about what works for you.

Hope this helps,

Regards,
Abhay

[CoffinDodger]

Strictly following GTD, you'd have to first do all the calls, and then internet research (or vice versa). But it is easy to see why it would be stupid.

Do you follow that you can be in several contexts at once? Strictly following GTD does not mean you are in only one context at once.

Right now I am sat at my office desk... so I'm in

@phone
@agendas
@boss
@office
@internet / computer
@waiting for

Any of the next actions on my lists are candidates for work. Currently I'm doing my morning processing and got dragged into this thread and spent more than 2 minutes on it ;)

But once I'm processed and go to working from my lists I've got something like 70 NAs which are "in context". I've got to pick which is my priority and start working on that. Depending on my mental state I might rattle through some of the no-brainers, but I've also got a great many important 1-4 hour tasks that will be started as a result of one of those NAs - I'll probably spend at least 2 hours of my morning supporting an important customer for example.

Just because "Phone the doctor to make an appointment" is on your NA list does not mean you HAVE to do that if you're near a phone. Choosing not to do it right now but knowing it is in your system to return to is part of the power of GTD!

[sdann]

Let's assume that the actions are independent and can be done in any order. E.g. your call to Fred doesn't depend on the results of the research; and that you've already selected the hammer that you want, and you want to buy it and also to find out how to fix your sink with it.

This is a silly question, but if you already know that you can use the type of hammer you are buying, then why are you doing research? That is what Abhay is saying, a next action cannot be buy the right type of hammer for fixing kitchen sink if you still need to do research on the hammer type. Or vice versa, you may need to buy the hammer and then do the research depending upon the type of hammer you are using. If the actions are independent, and your example is unclear to me, then sure put them both on your lists.

I sometimes have more than one active next action open for a project, if they are truly next actions and not waiting for me to finish a prior action. Separately, I will put "get dry cleaning on my errand list". It does not mean that I will pick up the dry cleaning the next time I pass by the dry cleaner. I may have 2 other errands to do for which I have the time now, that take more energy for the longer drive or that take priority. Separately I could sit in the parking lot, pull out my phone and make some calls.

GTD recommends you use context lists. It does not tell you what to put on the lists, in what order to do them, what your priorities are, what contexts you use etc. These are your choices. If it works better for you to do a next action, delve further into the project, then go back and find another next action on your list, then go for it.

[El_Stiff]

I don't think you let contexts rule you - if you're near a phone, it doesn't mean you HAVE to do your phone calls. Similarly, as you said if you're going for a job interview, you're not going to drop off your dry cleaning at the same time! And that's fine - GTD is meant to make things easier, not impose fascisitic rules on your behaviour!

The idea is you have things captured in that context so when are you near a phone, and are thinking "who do I need to call" you have the list right there and don't waste any mental energy on desperately trying to think of who you should be calling!

Also, contexts overlap - in my office, I'm @computer, @phone, and @email so I need to switch between them to keep track of my work. But if I've organised my "stuff" correctly (I hope I have!) that's not a problem, because I have clearly defined next action lists and know immediately what to do in each one.

The problem I think you're alluding to is when there is something that HAS to be done, but maybe you don't find yourself in that context - you need to move yourself into it. For example, say I HAVE to buy a present for my girlfriend, but I don't plan on going into town so I won't be switching into my @errands context and may miss it (imagine that as an excuse :) ). If it's time dependent - it has a deadline either imposed by yourself or someone else - it should go on the calendar, to remind you to move into that context that day. If it's something you need to expend a lot of mental energy over and really needs thought, then blocking out some time on your calendar and do it then.

Ultimately, the idea is that everything is recorded and organised so you know where to look to find something and don't panic that you'll miss something. Other than that, you can pretty much work as you like!

[Oogiem]

GTD is (on the surface) against multitasking, but I've found that going through the lists in this fashion forces me to switch between my projects like crazy, and I just feel how my energy is wasted on the switch!! It is a proven fact that human brain requires up to 15 minutes to switch from one project to another. I feel that razor-sharp focusing on only one or two projects per day brings much better results.


The flip side is that changing contexts requires at least 15 minutes or more to do. If your next actions re well defined and actually single next actions, not full projects in and of themselves, then you should not have problems just working a list when you are in the context.

You can still choose what context to be in or pick from the available contexts. For example, I carry my phone with me all the time. If my phone context is clear and current with all the calls I need to do then when I am standing around waiting for water tanks to fill I can make a quick call. Because I also carry a note pad and pen with me all the time I can take any notes at the same time and process them later.

[Oogiem]

In my life, there are so many things that I hv to block out 2 to 4 hours for and I have tried getting around it with GTD, but I never have. Work is work.

Lots of my tasks are multi hours long to complete. Some single next actions for me can take days, months or years so length of time to do something does not mean GTD won't work.

The key is having a discrete complete accurate next action defined within the context list where it belongs.

Examples
Put coats on ewes - This is a next action that has to happen before the sheep come in to the winter corrals. It will likely take my husband and I 3 or 4 days of 2-3 hours per day to get them all done. We can't work sheep in the afternoon, it's too hot. And I physically can't put coats on more than 30-40 sheep at a time before my back and arms get too tired. Sheep don't particularly like wearing clothing. ;-)

Re-build back ram corrals - This action takes 2 of us and a lot of energy. We have to put in new posts and wire every year. We'll do more on this today. Maybe we'll get done, maybe not. It all depends on how many rocks we hit. But it's still the next action and we'll spend 3-4 hours on it today.

Spin combed tops for shooting sock 2 ply yarn - This action is one I've been working on all summer. I'm about half done. The project is knit some shootings socks for a friend. Right now I'm spinning all the yarn I will need. I work on this action at night when we watch TV and I am slow because this is a new grist yarn I am spinning and it's not in muscle memory yet. I figure I'll finish the spinning by Thanksgiving and can start the knitting then. That too will take a long time.

One of my next actions that took years was weave Black Welsh cloak fabric. I spent 6 years from start to finish for that one action. Total project just got finished this summer. From start of project to checked off was 12 years.

I've gotten more done using GTD to manage my long term and huge projects in the last year or so than I did trying regular todo lists in the previous 5 years. More importantly I have a feel for all the things I wnat to finish or do and a plan to get me there.

[Oogiem]

The question is, is doing all the calls (inet researches) first still preferable to focusing on the project?

If I recall correctly, the definition of a context is a set of actions that you physically can do now. So, in a way, if I can change my location, all the actions there can be considered to be in the same context.

And also, I now tend to think that @phone is not a real context ever since the invention of cell phones. I won't be using it anymore, it has always felt somewhat redundant to me.

Sometimes I even think that having two contexts @inside and @outside would do the trick for me, where @inside is at home and in the office and @outside - everywhere else ;)

I think that batching jobs by context and staying in that context is much more effective in getting things done vs changing contexts to follow a project to conclusion. I live where I work and can change contexts pretty much at will but I still find them particularly valuable for helping me really get work done instead of just planning it or floundering around.

I also have a phone with me at all times but the phone context keeps phone calls out of my hair until I have time to deal with talking to people. I just added a phone business hours context to further separate phone calls I need to make during the day vs ones I can make most anytime.

And be sure the things listed in your phone context can be done if all you have is a phone. (and ubiquitous capture tool :-) )

An example where that is not the case:

I have to call the water referee regarding a water right we are fighting for in court. But to do that I need to have my files on the appropriations, permits, beneficial use dates and so on to hand to go over the items on them. So that phone call is actually on my inside by myself context list as the files and data I need are in a project folder at my desk.

I use contexts to separate stuff that is possible from the impossible.

Weekly review time is when I make sure I am going to each context regularly enough to move projects forward. For example I have a Computer Windows context for the stuff that requires the one Windows package I use to manage the sheep association lamb registrations. I hate windows, I hate to go into that context so I tend to avoid it. But at weekly review time I can see that hmm, all these lamb registrations haven't been processed and I need to do it. So I bite the bullet, go into the windows SW and once there I try to stay there until I've cleared the list completely because I hate to do it so much. I'm running windows on my mac under VM Ware so technically I could be in the Computer mac or computer internet context as well but I still use the Windows context list to help me focus.

[jkgrossi]

Rather than looking at your context lists as a strict set of commands that you have to complete, try looking at them as 'options' of things that you have available to do when in a respective context.

For example, when you find yourself at a phone with some discretionary time, you're not required to make every call on your @calls list... however, while you are at the phone your @calls list shows you all of the calls that you've committed to make and gives you the option of choosing among them.

If your at a phone and don't feel like making any of the calls on your list, don't. But at least you have a complete inventory of all of your commitments available and can feel good about 'not making any calls on your @calls list'.

[dusanv]

If I recall correctly, the definition of a context is a set of actions that you physically can do now. So, in a way, if I can change my location, all the actions there can be considered to be in the same context.

No, a definition of a context might be, e.g. in thefreedictionary.com -- I just double-clicked the word in Firefox with Dictionary tooltip extension:)
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

Also, David Allen defines it on pg. 143 of his book as either the tool or the location or the person needed to complete an action (I would add "or the combination thereof).

So if you think about it, you could see various possibilities to define your own contexts, e.g. @Calls-Fred might be a possibility regarding your previous example. Also you may try @Calls-demanding and @Calls-other (I am using @Calls here in order to avoid any potential shortcomings of @Phone). The same principle would apply to Internet researches. Take some time to figure out which contexts suit your working style best and give them a try.

It's important to realize that you have to be in a context to complete an action, but you don't have to complete an action if you are in a particular context -- from your questions, it seems you are alluding to the latter, which is IMO an incorrect interpretation of GTD (I think others have made the point here as well).

Dusan

[humblepie]

i'm a newbie here so i will try not to sound stupid. i think the topic starters experience would be encountered by a person practicing GTD during alot of stages of learning and practicing.

I have it difficult as well. It drove me to the point that i need to change the way i work to a more rigid form. I became a nut case checking up on my to do list for what to do next and most of the time, i am doing knowledge work and the urge to finish a task overwhelms the quality of my work. I kept switching to @contact, @computer and @office and it creates alot of additional stress.

Nowadays i gotten a better hold on things. The key for me is planning a rigid scheduling for everyday. There will be a set of fixed contexts and important tasks, subprojects you need to perform.

Where context comes in is understanding these contexts and your environment and when these contexts are triggered. it doesn't mean that if u are at a phone u gotta clear all your phone context.understand that once you are done with your main tasks what contexts are you in and how much time you have available to do it.

[jenter]

Thanks a lot to everyone for providing interesting insights into using contexts in GTD! You've made it all much more clear for me!

I'll try to summarize the most important and useful tips which I devised from the responses, and which would help me and everyone else who experiences the same problems:

1) You can review the list of current context actions to pick up the one you'd like to do. But you don't have to. If the next action is evident to you priority-wise, just do it. Even if it requires changing your current context.

2) Plan your day based on your schedule and actions which are in your calendar. Don't forget to budget time for challenging tasks. This will also define your contexts for the day (emergencies notwithstanding).

3) Do a weekly review. Set weekly goals for yourself and prioritize the related next actions.

4) If you feel discomfort from something showing up on your NA list, you should analyze why you don't want to do it now and maybe put the corresponding project on hold.

5) Use contexts to separate possible from the impossible. Start from having no contexts, review your list of next actions and ask yourself, doing which actions right now is impossible and why. Contexts which you get using this approach will be much more useful than the ones which you can come up with up-front.

6) Consult your list of next actions when you:
- plan the day
- change contexts
- finish doing a NA and don't know what to do next.

7) If you feel stupid following the system - stop and analyze, why. Eliminate this feeling via changing the system to fit your needs. Otherwise this feeling will kill your trust in your system, and that means return to stress and anxiety.

[jarvek7]

Reading all this stuff... I say it is NEVER out of style to follow your common sense... GTD or not.

[Layla]

Great thread! It is answering some of my questions too..

As a newbie it is probably easy to overcomplicate things, or get hung up on particular aspects or words...

I've tried several different systems in the past, some of them actually worked, and I abandoned them because I thought they didn't work well enough - only to discover they still worked better than other things and all that was needed was some minor tweaks and/or re-alignment of expectations!

Do you guys put NAs both on the context lists and the project lists when they are part of a bigger project? (Might be handy in case the project gets put on hold or so?)
Or do you just put them into project support when you decide to put them on hold?

[Oogiem]

Do you guys put NAs both on the context lists and the project lists when they are part of a bigger project? (Might be handy in case the project gets put on hold or so?)
Or do you just put them into project support when you decide to put them on hold?

For me my projects lists and actions lists are different views of the same data. I do not re-write things twice or double enter I just look at them differently.

Some projects only have a single next action defined for it. Others have one next action per different context when the actions are truly independent.

Project support material is usually notes in the data field for notes about the project for most of my projects. Some have physical paper file folders as well or instead of notes. For those I rarely have a list of next actions in there instead it's things like knitting patterns for a knitting project, or reference material on how to calculate inbreeding coefficients for a sheep mating plan project, or tables of industry standard weight corrections based on sex, type of birth and type of rearing for lamb average daily gain calculations project.

[dusanv]

Do you guys put NAs both on the context lists and the project lists when they are part of a bigger project? (Might be handy in case the project gets put on hold or so?)
Or do you just put them into project support when you decide to put them on hold?
The project size is not relevant as far as the project list is concerned. The project list is meant to remind you of your project-level commitments and to be as simple as possible -- for each project, I put a brief one-line description of the project outcome there. As you already have NAs for all your current projects on the appropriate context lists, it seems a double work to put them on the project list as well -- after all, it's a list and not a table.

You can't have a NA for an inactive ("on hold") project -- what you can have in that case is an action which is not a next action according to the definition. As you are referring to bigger projects, I've sometimes found it useful to define a sequence of actions in advance and put that in the support material as a small project plan (this applies to both current and future projects). But I can say that hierarchical if-then-else plans work better for me in many occasions, and naturally sometimes I need more complex plans. OTOH, David Allen seems to be right when saying that in 90% of cases you don't need explicit project planning of any kind. So, the general advice is to keep it simple, but do make project plans when necessary.

Dusan

[Layla]

Thank you, DusanV & OogieM! :)

I speak about sort-of 'project plans', yeah..
Sometimes I also just journal about stuff and come up with ideas or NAs... (Some of those are mini-projects really, or maybe-projects)
I'm thinking to put those thoughts from my journals into appropriate places - NA lists or project or maybe-project lists... Would this be a good procedure? (In a journal, they get lost in all other mental clutter..)

Dusan, can you tell more about the 'hierarchical if-then-else plans' or more complex plans or point to any links on where I could find out more (or see a pic/example)? Is this a bit like 'decision trees'?

[dusanv]

Thank you, DusanV & OogieM! :)

I speak about sort-of 'project plans', yeah..
Sometimes I also just journal about stuff and come up with ideas or NAs... (Some of those are mini-projects really, or maybe-projects)
I'm thinking to put those thoughts from my journals into appropriate places - NA lists or project or maybe-project lists... Would this be a good procedure? (In a journal, they get lost in all other mental clutter..)

I put any thoughts or notes related to a project in the project support material after having processed them. Don't put ideas into any lists -- ideas are just stuff you need to process and by far are less likely to be immediately actionable than not.

There is no distinction between projects and mini-projects in GTD -- everything consisting of more than one action is a project. Also note that a "sort-of project plan" is a project plan since there is no formal procedure on how you make a project plan in GTD -- in fact, you are free to either make it the way that makes most sense to you or even not make it at all.


Dusan, can you tell more about the 'hierarchical if-then-else plans' or more complex plans or point to any links on where I could find out more (or see a pic/example)? Is this a bit like 'decision trees'?
I used the term more or less informally, I guess it's an old programming habit -- yes, a sort of a decision tree. When planning projects, I often create such plans in an outliner as outliners support a hierarchical structure as opposed to mindmappers which are more free-form. As for overview of project planning, I still consider chapters 3 and 10 of the GTD book very informative and useful. If you are looking for particular software, I guess it's easy to just google "outliner software" and see what you like.

Dusan

[Oogiem]

Sometimes I also just journal about stuff and come up with ideas or NAs... (Some of those are mini-projects really, or maybe-projects)

Thoughts are not projects or next actions yet. You do need to capture them but those still need processing before they fully enter your system. Most of mine end up as someday/maybe items that I review regularly to see if any can be tossed, still need to incubate a while longer or are now active actual projects.

I have hundreds of these someday/maybe perhaps a project later things.

[peakaytea]

I rely on contexts to tell me what to do when my resources are limited. For instance, if I'm waiting for my kids at swim practice, I can use my laptop without an internet connection (@computer) or make calls (@calls), but I can't do @home, @office, @online. I just bang out tasks that are on the available lists.

In contrast, if I'm home and have almost all of my resources available to me, I can do whatever I like. When in that situation, I'm unlikely to organize my work by context, and will instead just do things organized by focus area or project or whim (e.g. a few hours of housework or repairs or gardening, or a big blast of journal reading).

I hope that helps. Contexts aren't meant to lock you into any decision; they're only meant to give you some easy handle on what you can do when resources are limited. Just because you made one phone call, doesn't mean you have to make them all.

[kewms]

But imagine a bit different set of actions:

A) Call Fred to discuss a serious and nasty problem re project A
B) Do some internet research on solving the problem in project A
C) Do some internet research on using hammer for fixing your kitchen sink
D) Call a hardware shop to ask if they have the model of the hammer that you want

Strictly following GTD, you'd have to first do all the calls, and then internet research (or vice versa). But it is easy to see why it would be stupid.

GTD doesn't say anything of the sort. If you have both the internet and a phone available, you are free to use either context. Also, calling the hardware shop is not an "immediately doable" action until you've done the research, and therefore doesn't belong on your Next Action list at all.

Katherine

[humblepie]

Thoughts are not projects or next actions yet. You do need to capture them but those still need processing before they fully enter your system. Most of mine end up as someday/maybe items that I review regularly to see if any can be tossed, still need to incubate a while longer or are now active actual projects.

I have hundreds of these someday/maybe perhaps a project later things.

they are not actionable, but they are things you need to do to get to the goal. so what do you do? leave them out? i tend to use a task and name it brainstorm about something. and i fix a schedule to it. you need to fix a schedule for it else it aint close to actionable.

don't put a context to brainstorming. unless its a sub context and you have affix one special chunk of your week to do that.

[Oogiem]

they are not actionable, but they are things you need to do to get to the goal. so what do you do? leave them out?


I'm confused. A next action is, by definition, something you can do now to move a project forward. Anything else is a thought, brainstorm, possibility, something you think is a NA but it's really a project or some other category but not really truly a next action. In my world they are almost always things I want to consider in future. Usually after I process them they they go on Someday/Maybe.

If you look at the workflow diagram, a non-actionable item can go in the trash, into someday/maybe or into reference.

Actionable ones are things with something to do now, but might get deferred to a specific day or time, i.e. a calendar item.

I don't think you can have a non-actionable item that is a requirement to finish a current project that is actionable. At least I can't wrap my brain around that as a concept.

Schedules aka calendar are only for things with a hard due date. All else is as soon as you can, and thus on the next actions lists.

[humblepie]

I'm confused. A next action is, by definition, something you can do now to move a project forward. Anything else is a thought, brainstorm, possibility, something you think is a NA but it's really a project or some other category but not really truly a next action. In my world they are almost always things I want to consider in future. Usually after I process them they they go on Someday/Maybe.

If you look at the workflow diagram, a non-actionable item can go in the trash, into someday/maybe or into reference.

Actionable ones are things with something to do now, but might get deferred to a specific day or time, i.e. a calendar item.

I don't think you can have a non-actionable item that is a requirement to finish a current project that is actionable. At least I can't wrap my brain around that as a concept.

Schedules aka calendar are only for things with a hard due date. All else is as soon as you can, and thus on the next actions lists.


well perhaps brainstorming should be consider as something you do by fixing on your schedule. how do you expect to process something like

- architect the server-client requirements for your clients after gathering all the inputs
-creating a software architecture for the iphone application that you will be creating
-after gathering inputs from team members, draft strategy to differentiate your company's soft drink from coke and pepsi.

to me its brainstorming or processing or whatever they call it, but we arent suppose to have either of those in your todo list.

but you need to sit down and thinkin about how to do them.

[Oogiem]

- architect the server-client requirements for your clients after gathering all the inputs
-creating a software architecture for the iphone application that you will be creating
-after gathering inputs from team members, draft strategy to differentiate your company's soft drink from coke and pepsi.

IMO none of those are next actions. Those are all projects. And they are totally unprocessed ones at that. They should be sitting in your inbox ready to be defined.

For the first one, What is the outcome you want from a the new server? Who do you need inputs from? What are you waiting for? Do you have the phone number for the person who can give the inputs? Do you need to set up a meeting? It's so vague as to not even really be able to be worked on yet. You need to process it a lot more to get to a next action.

Ditto for number 2. What is the purpose? Who does it serve? Again the entire thing is a major project and it's very undefined.

For number 3. Who are the team members? Are you going to call, e-mail, virtual meeting or in person meeting for inputs? Again a major project that is not defined.

For me all of the things you mention would be what I had sitting in my inbox. And they'd be notes. I'd take a copy of the workflow diagram and refer to it as you process each of those things completely. For me I would expect that the 3 inputs you mention would take about 45 minutes of processing to really get them clean and clear and down to a project with at least one appropriate next action.

You world may be different, but even in my world of mostly farming I figure on about 2 hours of processing time a day just to keep all the notes and ideas clean and current And initially when I started using GTD principles it took me almost a week of 3-4 hour days to get all my initial data collection stuff processed.

[kewms]

to me its brainstorming or processing or whatever they call it, but we arent suppose to have either of those in your todo list.

but you need to sit down and thinkin about how to do them.

Brainstorming and processing are not the same thing. It's entirely legit for the Next Action for a project to be "brainstorm project plan." And once you've decided that, the item is fully processed.

Katherine

[humblepie]

the problem is processing itself is also a task if you look at it. those are the kind of task i do and each one would sometimes take more than a day.

its not gonna be a one day thing "processing" a software archiecture or a business plan really. if it were that easy to follow what is the goal what are you trying to achieve i think we would have alot of millionaires.

GTD serves as the guiding light as to which direction you should go and as a noobie GTDer you spend most times constraining yourself to the process but as you get better thats when you really get things done because the initial phase will be what context do i assign this to? is this a project? this is not actionable what should i do?

[kewms]

the problem is processing itself is also a task if you look at it. those are the kind of task i do and each one would sometimes take more than a day.

I think you and I have different definitions of processing. By my definition, anything that takes more than a day is at a minimum a Next Action in its own right, and probably a project.

Katherine

[humblepie]

I think you and I have different definitions of processing. By my definition, anything that takes more than a day is at a minimum a Next Action in its own right, and probably a project.

Katherine

hi katherine, perhaps so, but its not something i can break down into a few next action if you get what i mean. its not something u can plan to process brainstorming this portion then this then that. its like, you dun even know much conrete initially.

perhaps along the way you get to itemize it.

[sdann]

hi katherine, perhaps so, but its not something i can break down into a few next action if you get what i mean. its not something u can plan to process brainstorming this portion then this then that. its like, you dun even know much conrete initially.

perhaps along the way you get to itemize it.

Processing in GTD is making a decision about something in your inbox or a decision about a project. You are basically applying the process of the workflow to decide whether it is actionable and then to do it, defer it, delegate it or trash it. I think you may be using processing in a different context.

[humblepie]

Processing in GTD is making a decision about something in your inbox or a decision about a project. You are basically applying the process of the workflow to decide whether it is actionable and then to do it, defer it, delegate it or trash it. I think you may be using processing in a different context.

i think my processing is a different context from what is used within GTD. in that case strictly according to GTD i shouldn't put it as a task, since its not actionable. But you really need to think about such stuff, but this thinking IS NOT the GTD form of processing nor is it actionable.

sometimes there are problems in life that can't be just describe by a GTD workflow.

best regards.

[kewms]

i think my processing is a different context from what is used within GTD. in that case strictly according to GTD i shouldn't put it as a task, since its not actionable. But you really need to think about such stuff, but this thinking IS NOT the GTD form of processing nor is it actionable.

Thinking IS the Next Action.

I don't mean to be obnoxious, but you are not special. GTD's target audience is executives. A good executive's job includes enormous amounts of thinking. GTD can handle it, honest.

Katherine

[humblepie]

Thinking IS the Next Action.

I don't mean to be obnoxious, but you are not special. GTD's target audience is executives. A good executive's job includes enormous amounts of thinking. GTD can handle it, honest.

Katherine

nah im just raising some noob questions here. cause i get the idea thinking isn't suppose to be a next action since its not actionable. thats how i feel.

[Linada]

Just about everything is a next action. What makes you so sure that thinking isn't an action?
I often defer planning projects and thinking problems through. They are fairly big next actions, sure, but sometimes actions can't be broken down any more.

[humblepie]

Just about everything is a next action. What makes you so sure that thinking isn't an action?
I often defer planning projects and thinking problems through. They are fairly big next actions, sure, but sometimes actions can't be broken down any more.

thats what i used to think. but alot of people will procastinate on thinking stuff since if u dun have a good idea how u are going to start, you tend to defer it. it becomes like what happens if we don't define a task in an actionable way.

[Oogiem]

thats what i used to think. but alot of people will procastinate on thinking stuff since if u dun have a good idea how u are going to start, you tend to defer it. it becomes like what happens if we don't define a task in an actionable way.

That's where you are missing some of the power of GTD. You need to not only think about what the next action really is as part of processing but then you actually have to DO the actions.

Best way to avoid procrastination is to get a really clear specific next action item.

For example the thinking part of my job can end up with actions like these:

Brainstorm possible crops for lower pear orchard field for fall forage for sheep. (We did that one, tried 2, discovered we have soils that can't stand plowing and are now back into improved permanent pasture.)

Brainstorm ways to create multiple small bits of shade evenly spread over the winter ram pens. (This one has resulted in a project to build some solar PV "trees" for shade and to offset our electric use. The brainstorming included planting real trees, building various forms of both permanent and temporary shelters, and then as an aside why not a solar array that does double duty. )

Similarly when I have an action or a project that is not moving forward, which I discover at my weekly review time, I spend an extra bit of time re-doing the workflow model with that item or project. I usually uncover that the thinking has not been done. Once I get clear on what I want, the outcome, and really break it down I can get to more actionable items. Procrastination for me is almost always the result of incomplete processing of an item.

Current example from my world:

I had an action to cull out 15 ewes before breeding season. I thought it was a next action, but the reality is I have to identify which 15 are to go first. And I couldn't do that until I had their physical evaluations done. So with help we did full evaluations on all 75 ewes. But the act of putting names on the slaughter list still wasn't happening. So I re-evaluated and I realized I had a bunch that were all equally good and could not choose between them for keep for breeding vs dinner. Realized that part of the procrastination was not knowing which were critical bloodlines and which were over-represented. So I evaluated the genetics of the ewes for kinship and inbreeding coefficients. That helped put a few on one or the other list but I still did not have my 15 selected. Then realized that the real issue is that I didn't know which sheep were more likely to produce lambs worth more money for me. So I had an action to figure out whether breeding stock, meat or wool is our most profitable product. That involved reviewing the financial data on income by product. Discovered that meat is a big part of our profit but that wool is the most important criteria used by buyers of new breeding stock and breeding stock sales are the the most profitable. So then I realized that what I needed to do was pick the best wooled sheep with the meatiest bodies to keep and butcher the others. I'm still not done, but I have more on my keep and go lists now and a smaller pool of sheep in the undecided category. Right now my action item on this project is check loin length of Rhan, Barb, Adeyrn, Aelwyd, Aelwyn, Carol, Moreen and Banon. I have a similar list of sheep to inspect wool on. It was a very long process. Thankfully with a regular weekly review I figured out the stuck project in time to collect the additional data I need to make a good decision. The thinking hadn't been done up front and that slowed me down. If I had spent more time processing I'd have started with the next action of checking loin length but I skipped on the thinking early on and the entire project is taking a lot longer than it should.

[humblepie]

Hii Oogiem,

thanks for the clear example. ultimately what i get from your experience is that you have to partition/schedule a time to perform that part of thinking brainstorming and translating it to actions. if you don't then things dun get move forward.

thanks for the illustration. my english is not very good but culling seems to mean killing (yikes!)

[kewms]

nah im just raising some noob questions here. cause i get the idea thinking isn't suppose to be a next action since its not actionable. thats how i feel.

You might want to reread chapter 10 in the GTD book, which is about getting projects under control and specifically deals with "brainstorming" and "thinking" as next actions.

Katherine

[Oogiem]

you have to partition/schedule a time to perform that part of thinking brainstorming and translating it to actions....culling seems to mean killing (yikes!)

Yes, I schedule the time and yes culling means killing. Sheep on the farm have many jobs, one of them is to feed either us or our customers. I have the task of deciding who goes to the freezer and who stays and I have to evaluate entire flock health/genetics/breed goals/personal goals/income streams/ time/energy available and how many sheep I can afford to keep each year when making the choices. I'd love nothing more than to only butcher the bad attitude sheep, those with bad behavior, (it's easy to eat a ram who has bashed you :) ) but I sometimes have to choose among really good sheep. Then it becomes harder. If I am doing my job right, over time, with years of selective breeding the job becomes even harder because there would be no bad sheep. It's the lot of all farmers that your job is to work to make your job harder from year to year. No other business has such an immediate the better you do your job the harder it becomes correlation.

[humblepie]

You might want to reread chapter 10 in the GTD book, which is about getting projects under control and specifically deals with "brainstorming" and "thinking" as next actions.

Katherine

thanks i will re-read that.

[humblepie]

Yes, I schedule the time and yes culling means killing. Sheep on the farm have many jobs, one of them is to feed either us or our customers. I have the task of deciding who goes to the freezer and who stays and I have to evaluate entire flock health/genetics/breed goals/personal goals/income streams/ time/energy available and how many sheep I can afford to keep each year when making the choices. I'd love nothing more than to only butcher the bad attitude sheep, those with bad behavior, (it's easy to eat a ram who has bashed you :) ) but I sometimes have to choose among really good sheep. Then it becomes harder. If I am doing my job right, over time, with years of selective breeding the job becomes even harder because there would be no bad sheep. It's the lot of all farmers that your job is to work to make your job harder from year to year. No other business has such an immediate the better you do your job the harder it becomes correlation.

Oh thanks for explaining. In my neck of the woods we eat mutton from goats to keep ourselves warm. but since our daily temperature never falls below 32 degrees celcius there is no need to do that. =)

[TesTeq]

thinking isn't suppose to be a next action since its not actionable.

My thinking is a real, physical activity. So it can be the Next Action. YMMV.

[Layla]

I put 'brainstorm XY' or 'draft YZ'... on my project list, and see it sort of as 'next action' too.. I'm still a newbie to GTD though...

I was planning to maybe even put @journal as a context list? (Basically can't do it in front of the computer, need some time for reflection and reflective mode..)

Maybe thinking is not a NA only if you do it without a pen and paper? For me, 'brainstorm' and 'draft' mean paper and pencil in hand..

Oogie, it would be a tough decision for me too... So I'll probably never keep sheep for a living, more as a 'hobby' or pets maybe.. Maybe it's even harder if you have them named etc? It's probably difficult to not have them named though.. (My uncle had a cow named as my ex-schoolfriend! :))

After listening to Prioritizing and Procrastination on GTD Connect the other day (highly recommended!), a few of my projects I procrastinated on turned out to be a bit like Oogie wrote too!! (If I want to do this, I need to do this first - oh, and what do I need to do for this? So, a lot of things clarified..)

I'm still learning though.. :)

[dusanv]

My thinking is a real, physical activity. So it can be the Next Action. YMMV.
I second that, and especially since GTD puts much emphasis on knowledge work. For me, thinking is definitely actionable if it has a purposeful outcome.


I put 'brainstorm XY' or 'draft YZ'... on my project list, and see it sort of as 'next action' too..
And that's what the book suggests (p. 213)


Maybe thinking is not a NA only if you do it without a pen and paper?
Maybe it's not a NA only if you do it without any medium at all. But I think the point of defining NA as "the next physical, visible activity" is that you need some external source (outside of your mind) to initiate your thinking (this might be Stuff you have collected, which in turn could come in part from your mental gathering), else you'd miss any true motivation for the action and your system wouldn't be trusted -- at least that's how I see it.

Dusan

[sdann]

Thinking by itself is already implied in most next actions. Take the next actions "identify resources needed for project A" or "write introduction to proposal B." Each requires thinking. The action does not need to have the word think or brainstorm as an action verb to qualify as thinking.

[Layla]

Thinking by itself is already implied in most next actions. Take the next actions "identify resources needed for project A" or "write introduction to proposal B." Each requires thinking. The action does not need to have the word think or brainstorm as an action verb to qualify as thinking.
Interesting!

If you are eg writing an article or blog post, or just starting something, for me 'brainstorm' is less threatening and easier to do.. 'Identify resources' means something more specific than 'brainstorm' to me - it's probably better, not always applicable in what I do.. Thank you for the good idea though!

The key is probably whatever sounds better to you or is more actionable to you personally!

Dusanv, thank you for the 'heads up'! (I read the book so quickly I'll probably soon have to read it again! :))

[dusanv]

Thinking by itself is already implied in most next actions. Take the next actions "identify resources needed for project A" or "write introduction to proposal B." Each requires thinking. The action does not need to have the word think or brainstorm as an action verb to qualify as thinking.
I agree with that, but my point is that while the next action does not need to have a word like think or brainstorm in its name, there are situations where having it might be desirable. Take, for example, those (rare) situations when creating a project plan is a project in and of itself. If I wanted or needed to be pedantic about the natural planning model, I might have next actions like "clarify project purpose", "envision project outcome" or "brainstorm project plan", which are all thinking per se. I agree that such NAs could be rephrased as to remove any mention of any form of thinking, but I assume one could name those in the way that makes most sense to them, including those names just stated above.

Dusan

EDIT: Just thought I'd mention that this thread has changed its topic of discussion so many times as to become silly and actually begin to waste one's mental energy as stated in the title. I guess I am unsubscribing now.

[dusanv]

Dusanv, thank you for the 'heads up'! (I read the book so quickly I'll probably soon have to read it again! :))
I admit that many concepts have become much clearer to me after a second read, but even re-reading the first part (chapters 1-3) has helped me a lot. I also used the diagram from pg. 139 as a quick reference.

Dusan

[fwade]

Earlier it was said:

7) If you feel stupid following the system - stop and analyze, why. Eliminate this feeling via changing the system to fit your needs. Otherwise this feeling will kill your trust in your system, and that means return to stress and anxiety.

I liked what you said here, but I wondered if you meant to say that if some element of GTD doesn't work, then use something that does.

I also realize that lots of people have "lost faith" in GTD because it didn't work for them.

I think this is unfortunate, as GTD wasn't designed for everyone, but it does emphasize some inescapable elements of all time management systems that must be incorporated by anyone who is serious about their productivity.

This is too bad because I don't get the feeling that it was written as a solution for all professionals.

(OR was it?)

[Cpu_Modern]

I also realize that lots of people have "lost faith" in GTD because it didn't work for them.

I think this is unfortunate, as GTD wasn't designed for everyone [..]

GTD is certainly better than other "systems" I've tried. However I think in general the saying "if you work the system, the system works" holds true (more or less). The many people you are referring to, I think many of them do not realize that it is not GTD that has to work. The people have to change habits and work theire work. Not the system. You have to learn GTD it takes some time. The magic does not come without the work. There is no substitute for 'get movin'.

[fwade]

GTD is certainly better than other "systems" I've tried. However I think in general the saying "if you work the system, the system works" holds true (more or less). The many people you are referring to, I think many of them do not realize that it is not GTD that has to work. The people have to change habits and work theire work. Not the system. You have to learn GTD it takes some time. The magic does not come without the work. There is no substitute for 'get movin'.

CPU:

I agree for the most part. Nothing happens unless there are habit changes, and that take a lot of work. In fact, I think that most people fail when they try to adopt new time management systems because they don't appreciate the challenge.

On the other hand, working harder and harder at trying to implement GTD only works for a handful of people who would benefit from a 100% implementation.

Most people end up implementing parts of GTD that works for them, but it's not because they are lazy, or unwilling to work hard.

Instead, it's because they have lost the focus they need to have on the fact that this is _their_ system at the end of the day, and GTD exists as a powerful guide to help them upgrade it.

People blame themselves for being lazy, when in fact it's just a an error in perspective.

IMHO!

[webagogue]

The question is, is doing all the calls (inet researches) first still preferable to focusing on the project?

If I recall correctly, the definition of a context is a set of actions that you physically can do now.



Half right. Contexts can be thought of as a state of mind. Yes, you always have a mobile phone with you, but does that mean you should always be making calls? Probably not. However, make one phone call and it probably isn't all that much trouble keep that ball rolling.... you're now in the state of mind where making a second or third phone call isn't so difficult. And you'll want a place to easily find the next phone call you should make. You're in the phone context.

[Jamie Elis]

I think we all have to fine tune in our own way--

Some actions that are context specific can be done across projects in a bunch--so the next actions listed by context works great then.

This is especially true for people's lives that are so spread out in regard to context, for example, I work in an office that has no internet, so anything I need internet for that is work related I must do from home. I live far from any good produce markets so if I set off in the direction of one I want to get any fresh fruit or veggie I anticipate using in three or four days' time.

But as noted by the initial poster, some projects are better worked on in larger pieces. In fact, if I am going to write, research, sort out stuff, I need block of time and to be in the right context(s), such as @home, @library. I think that maybe if we are trying to plan the work ahead maybe for these types of work it might be helpful to identify times on the calendar that accomodate these "intensives" and maybe on the next action list put the action but also indicate that it will be the entry point into something bigger and/or some time guestimate (e.g. "@ phone get attorney's feedback" is something different from ""@phone confirm dentist appointment). Similarly, "@errands-return sweatshirt for a refund" is different from "@errands-try on frames for new glasses (1 Hour )" from "@errands-take all three children for athletic shoes (2 hours)".

I am also thinking that if the deeper more intensive work is part of one's regular work, maybe the "best" practice is to have regular times for it in the day or week or month or whatever fits you.

I would love to hear how people handle this type of thing who do it effectively.