What is the purpose of contexts?

[Paola52]

I have a list of 25 next actions sorted by importance (sales related then non-sales related). I do them one by one by importance. It doesn't matter in which context it is. If I have to call my client then I have to do it and not wait for the right context to appear. I make this context :)

When I sorted them by contexts then it just prevented me from choosing the most important one. I had to do double job looking through different contexts for the most important next action to do next.

Am I doing something wrong?

[clango]

I have a list of 25 next actions sorted by importance (sales related then non-sales related). I do them one by one by importance. It doesn't matter in which context it is. If I have to call my client then I have to do it and not wait for the right context to appear.

What if you'd have not available a phone?

Can we assume therefore there are context in which a phone is available and other it isn't? If you are in the office you are not at home....;)

[Paola52]

If my kost important next action is at home when I'm at office it means I have to go home. Quickly. And it is rediculous these days not to have a phone at office :)

[AE Thanh]

Contexts are a way to group your action items. They usually represent a location, tool, person, or energy level.

The main advantage is that you can work in batches so it will speed up your work. For example, if you have a context of "Phone", you can look at all the people you need to call or text.

Other times, you can only do certain things at certain locations. For example, you can only buy toothpaste whenever you're out of the house. So an action item of "buy toothpaste" could have the "errands" context. When you're working in an office, there is no need for you to look at a list of errands. However, when you're out doing errands you can look at this list and see what you need to do.

So yeah, main advantage is doing things in batches.

[TesTeq]

If my kost important next action is at home when I'm at office it means I have to go home. Quickly.

So let's assume that you've got the following Next Action list - sorted by priority:
1) Fix a door @home.
2) Talk to boss about a new project @work.
3) Write a birthday card to mother @home.
4) Prepare an outline of a presentation @work.
5) Wash the dishes @home.
6) Install Omnifocus @work.

Will you be travelling forth and back between your work and home all day?

[Paola52]

Yes, I prefer doing important stuff then low priority. And you?

[pxt]

The GTD books talk about a hard landscape and discretionary time.

So the things that *must* get done, go into your hard landscape, which may be a calendar. So there's the time when you might go home from work because you have to do it next.

Contexts come alive during discretionary time. "While I'm here", what shall I do?

So, maybe you have to go home from work to receive a big delivery. They are late ( always ! ), so now you can check your At Home context for something productive to advance your projects while you are waiting.

The advantage is that you did the thinking about those next actions when you had the project in mind. Now you are in the situation, you don't have to re-think anything - you just do it.

[Paola52]

Pxt, makes sense! My top priority is sales call or customer meeting. It means I should book making sales calls from 10 to 11 am. Then schedule customer meeting if any. And should I have time in between I will check my @action list. Right?

[pxt]

Pxt, makes sense! My top priority is sales call or customer meeting. It means I should book making sales calls from 10 to 11 am. Then schedule customer meeting if any. And should I have time in between I will check my @action list. Right?

Sounds good !

PXT.

[kkuja]

Yes, I prefer doing important stuff then low priority. And you?

Answering even while I'm not asked. I'm new to GTD, but I have always thought that it is wisest to group task so you minimize the time wasted doing them. I think that is also at least partially behind GTD philosophy. If you have an hour to wait until next meeting, you can achieve 12 5-minute task during that time. Or an hour to rest if you decide nothing requires your attention right now.

Also it is easier to not to stress about fixing door when you are on context in which you cannot fix it but you have made a clear decision and have solid reminder to fix it when possible.

Best regards, Jukka

[Paola52]

Jukka,

"not possible" means never for me. My day is full of incoming calls and people. When there's 1 hour before the next meeting I would prefer to do the most important action across all the contexts instead of bunch of lower priority stuff. If the most important action is to fix the door to ensure my kids security then I will change the context to do it. And you would prefer to make 12 five lower priority actions instead? ;)

What is the plus of doing low priority stuff for one hour when you can change the context and do something of more value for you?

[kkuja]

My example was poor. If there is door to be fixed for childrens security I fix it before I go to work. Of course common sense if important, it overrides my task lists.

But for lower priority stuff. If task is not at least somewhat important it goes to trash (or maybe someday/maybe). All my next actions are actions which must be done at some point. Some are more important than other but they still have to be done. And I find (at least in thoughts, I'm still trying to implement this stuff) it is easier for me to achieve get most done when I apply context.

I realise that everyone of us different and what works for one may not work for other.

Thank you for your thoughs. :)

Best regards, Jukka

[ellobogrande]

Contexts are the very first limiting criteria that you face when deciding what to do with your discretionary time. That's why D.A. recommends organizing your actions by context.

If you're at the office during the work day with 12 minutes before a meeting you can't hang that picture in your living room or do any actions that require your physical presence at home.

Bottom line: You don't want undoable actions in your face when you're trying to decide what's the best thing to do at the moment given your available time and energy. When you're in the war zone you have to be able to make quick intuitive judgment calls and you can't do that when you have to pick out what you can and cannot do from a long list.

Choose your contexts carefully, though. Don't create too many; you need as many as you need but as few as you can get by with. Start with D.A.'s recommended default list and decide as you use your system if your life warrants additional contexts.

[TesTeq]

Yes, I prefer doing important stuff then low priority. And you?

I prefer to do important stuff without unnecessary overhead (travel).

[May]

Jukka,

"not possible" means never for me. My day is full of incoming calls and people. When there's 1 hour before the next meeting I would prefer to do the most important action across all the contexts instead of bunch of lower priority stuff. If the most important action is to fix the door to ensure my kids security then I will change the context to do it. And you would prefer to make 12 five lower priority actions instead? ;)

What is the plus of doing low priority stuff for one hour when you can change the context and do something of more value for you?

Here is I how I look at it. All your next actions are the actions that you have decided to get done anyway so it doesn't really matter which actions you do and in which order as long as they all get done.
So following this logic it doesn't make sense to waste time by switching contexts to do actions as long as they are about the same priority and don't have deadlines.

However it is not how I work either, so let me explain

I personaly don't use contexts much and instead I sort by area of focus most of the time. Every project gets labeled as a certain area of focus(work,personal,etc) and then I can filter next actions by this label(so I will see next actions only from work related projects and all work related single actions too for example).
I work online and most actions have online context so when I want to do work I will filter by work area of focus and when I want to do personal I will filter by personal area of focus.

It doesn't make sense for me to do all my online actions in a batch because the list is kinda endless and I can basically spend all day online.
Also it doesn't make sense to have separate contexts for online-work and online-personal, online-whatever because they are not real contexts and it just generates more lists to check and it's pointless because as long as I have access to internet I can do any online actions.

I still have contexts and use them the way they are suposed to: like errands, agendas, home and etc I just don't find them very useful since most of the time I'm not limited by context and I can do anything anyway. I also might assign a focus context sometimes to certain actions, it kinda generates a most important to do list based on the whole gtd system and it is not a real context. But I don't use it often either.

So basically I can choose to see all my next actions or to filter next actions by contexts or by area of focus and
I can look at my focus list or I can even just look at only one single project. It depends on real life circumstances and what I want to see.

The goal is tweak your gtd system so that it suits your needs and helps you personally... It is going to be different for different life/work styles. I can see how context could be very useful for a person who switches locations a lot and has to do different things at different locations, but if you're not limited by context most of the time then that makes them a lot less useful




When I sorted them by contexts then it just prevented me from choosing the most important one. I had to do double job looking through different contexts for the most important next action to do next.

Am I doing something wrong?



if you're not limited by context then don't filter by context.
Filter by context only when you are actually limited by context or want to do actions only from certain context, does this make sense?
In short - Context is important but it doesn't have to be the only one single criteria for filtering actions. Even though DA in his book kinda emphasises heavily on it


And to answer the thread title quesion "What is the purpose of contexts?"
There are two purposes behind a context: limitation (I can only do X in/with Y) and batch processing (it's easier to make 3 calls in a row).

[graphicdetails]

It takes me 40 minutes to get to work. If I had 4 NAs on my list, in order...

1. most important (@work)
2. next (@home)
3. next (@work)
4. next (@home)

Doing them in order of importance (lets assume 20 minutes per NA) would take me a total of 4 hours to complete, and about $24 in gas.

Doing them by context would take me 2 hours and 40 minutes, and about $12 in gas.

So every NA, regardless of importance, gets done quicker overall. That's the object of contexts. To help you work smarter, not harder. It allows you to pick the most important tasks that can be done at that exact moment and just get them done.

[Paola52]

In this scenario you would cut you gas costs. And it can happen that you start from your @home list. Your action would appear to be longer then expected. You spent the whole day at home. You didn't do your @work action and was fired :D

Another comment on 'all actions are the same priority and have to be done anyway'. You had 10 dollar opportunuty. At some point 1 mln customer appeared. Who is more important at this point of time? And imagine 1 mln dollar customers keep coming and you have no time for 10 dollar customer. Why to bother about 10 dollars when there're millions? You can just move this 10 usd to someday or not?

[kkuja]

Another comment on 'all actions are the same priority and have to be done anyway'. You had 10 dollar opportunuty. At some point 1 mln customer appeared. Who is more important at this point of time? And imagine 1 mln dollar customers keep coming and you have no time for 10 dollar customer. Why to bother about 10 dollars when there're millions? You can just move this 10 usd to someday or not?

Your question was probably for me. So here is my take. In my opinion you don't actionate things that come to you and require your attention. You react.

My Next actions might be like:
- Brainstorm website draft ideas to client A
- Borrow War&piece from library
- Publish website of client B
- Buy printer (Canon PIXMA2700) from local supermarket
- Make invoice for client C

If client C calls me about new deal while I'm brainstorming website ideas, I'll handle the call and after that continue.

No time/life management system gives you definitive answer to your question. It is a personal judgement call to you continue with 10 dollar customer or change to 1mln customer. Personally I always try to treat people equally so if I'm serving a 10 dollar client but 1000 dollar client appears I tell him/her please wait, I'm serving another person, I'll serve you on next (if he/she is next i.e. there is no line).

"You can just move this 10 usd to someday or not?"

IMO Personal call. Three possibilities. 1) Decide next action (possibly delegate), 2) move project to someday/maybe, 3) delete it. Worst possible thing to do is just leave it hanging.

Would you like to answer your own question? How should the situation be handled?

Mr Allen wrote about how our competetive edge as knowledge workers is on how fast and well we can react to changing world. I think that is totally true.

[kkuja]

In this scenario you would cut you gas costs. And it can happen that you start from your @home list. Your action would appear to be longer then expected. You spent the whole day at home. You didn't do your @work action and was fired :D

Your calendar (i.e. timed task&events) creates you hard landscape in which you do your next actions. If your work hours are 8-17 then that defines much of your day.

If action is longer than expected then pause it and continue when you are correct context again.

Your stated example problem also applies if you are using priority lists. And it can be continued: Is your number one priority fixing the door or going to work? At the end, you may not have enough time for more than first item.

[kkuja]

But back to your original question, What is the purpose of contexts?

I think that purpose of contexts is to filter your Next actions lists so that you can do next actions with minimal loss of time and energy.

[Suelin23]

I find contexts useful, particularly as it takes me about 90 minutes to get to work, and I also work at another site apart from the main office (also 90min from the main office), and have another field location I visit regularly (about 2 hrs from the main office). Obviously contexts help reduce travelling, but I find this works just as well in home life as well as work.

Also I find that priority is too simplistic. Tasks can be important or not, but also urgent or not. There are tasks that are important but not urgent, like filing, I like to accumulate a list of these type of tasks and do them in one go when in the city office. Also same with field visits, a field visit usually takes 2-3 hours due to the driving distance required, so if I have a list of important but not urgent tasks I'll put them on my context list and do them in one go. If I have an important and urgent task in a particular context, I'll put it on my calendar, but while I'm at that context, also check if there's any other tasks I can easily do at the same time.
If you have on your list tasks that can wait for a while, why not put them on a context list rather than do them straightaway, or there will be too much travelling.

Don't split your contexts if you don't have to. If you always have your phone and can make calls, a calls list probably isn't that helpful. However I work in a shared office, and only like to make calls when the office is quiet, so I have a calls list and when it's a good opportunity to talk, I'll check my calls list.
Also the errands list is great. I also have an internet surfing list, for websites and forums I'd like to check out when I have some free time, these are not important or urgent but I'd like to do them so it's good to have a context list for them.

[May]

In this scenario you would cut you gas costs. And it can happen that you start from your @home list. Your action would appear to be longer then expected. You spent the whole day at home. You didn't do your @work action and was fired :D

Another comment on 'all actions are the same priority and have to be done anyway'. You had 10 dollar opportunuty. At some point 1 mln customer appeared. Who is more important at this point of time? And imagine 1 mln dollar customers keep coming and you have no time for 10 dollar customer. Why to bother about 10 dollars when there're millions? You can just move this 10 usd to someday or not?

Yeah I'd move 10 dollar customers to someday then, don't want to clutter my next actions. I would probably assign a "@focus" context to 1mln customer too to make sure it gets done asap

And about staying at home and doing home actions all day, I've covered that in my previous comment but in short It doesn't make sense for me to do all my online actions in a batch because the list is kinda endless and I can basically spend all day online.
So you have to decide yourself how much time you want to spend in different areas of focus during the day. For example how much work you want to do during the day and how much fun you want to have during the day. And maybe even how much time you want to spend on a certain most important project a day.

My day doesn't have any hard landscapes most of the time because I work for myself and don't have to go to work because it's online.
So when I want to stop doing work and start doing personal projects I will filter by personal area of focus, I can also filter the result by context too then.
So of course your next actions list filtered by context doesn't have to be done completely in one go, it's up to you to decide when and how often to switch areas of focus (or contexts).

Again
There are two purposes behind a context: limitation (I can only do X in/with Y) and batch processing (it's easier to make 3 calls in a row).
But sometimes it doesn't make sense to batch process.

Here is quote from StevePavlina


The problem with sorting actions into context bins is that you scramble actions from different projects together. Perhaps you make 5 phone calls in a batch, each of which is associated with a different project. That’s fine if you’re out of the office, and you want to put your cell phone to good use, but what if you’re at your desk in your office? Does it still make sense to batch phone calls just because they all involve physically picking up a phone? If the calls are unrelated, then I’d say probably not.
...
Taking on too many projects at once and switching between them often during the day will limit the complexity of the projects you can handle. This is fine for simple projects or if you do cog-like work, but it kills productivity on large projects where you need to keep a lot of information in your head at once. Some examples of the latter would be designing a new computer game or a web site, writing a book or screenplay, or doing strategic planning work for a business. In order to work productively on such projects, you can’t keep switching between projects, or the work will take forever.
...
Sometimes the mental context is a lot more important than the physical one. Sticking with a single project and moving all around your office building to perform the different physical actions may be better than staying at your desk and doing desk work from 5 different projects. Getting up to do something in another room may cost you a couple minutes, but switching projects will often cost you a lot more. When are you working most productively on a project? Definitely not during the first 15-30 minutes.
source
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/04/dynamic-planning/

He dumped context completely, I personally still use contexts the way the are suposed to but I don't rely on them either of course. I have more of a balanced system where I have lots of easy short projects and also some huge complicated projects.


The downside to working like this is that once I’ve loaded up a particular mental context, it’s hard to let it go. I become semi-obsessed. My phone will ring, or my wife will walk into the room and talk to me, or my son will be crying in the next room, and I’ll automatically tune them out. It’s as if my brain has allocated all available RAM to the given project, and nothing else will fit.

That's becase he doesn't have a trusted system I think. GTD is not only action lists it's about having a great reference support material too. I personaly don't have this problem at all and I don't rely on my brain RAM too much. I had this problem in the past but solved it by writing EVERYTHING down. Whatever information is important and related to a project is ALWAYS written down in project support files so I don't have to rely on remembering anything. Yeah it takes time to write it down and then you have to find it and read it but it's worth it.
My mental RAM is not enough anyway if the project is very complicated. My mental RAM have better things to do than holding on to stuff even when I work and focus on just a single project and don't get interrupted. And if I get interrupted then

from DA book

if someone interrupts you and it's
something you've got to take, "bookmark your brain" about where you just were on a piece of paper and drop that into your
inbox. You'll not only be more present with the person in front of you, since your brain won't trying to hold on to that place
you just were, but you will also have a trusted place to go back to (your Inbox) to pick up where you left off.

[mcogilvie]

Jukka,

"not possible" means never for me. My day is full of incoming calls and people. When there's 1 hour before the next meeting I would prefer to do the most important action across all the contexts instead of bunch of lower priority stuff. If the most important action is to fix the door to ensure my kids security then I will change the context to do it. And you would prefer to make 12 five lower priority actions instead? ;)

What is the plus of doing low priority stuff for one hour when you can change the context and do something of more value for you?

It's possible gtd has nothing to offer you at this time. David Allen has always said people should try out the methods he advocates and see what the results are for them. If you have done that and it has no value for you, fine; if you are unwilling to try it, fine. In either case, let the nice people who have been patiently trying to explain contexts get on with their lives. I will say that I have studied and tried many methods of time management, and gtd is really the only one that made sense in light of my experience, and works well pretty much all the time.

[May]

It's possible gtd has nothing to offer you at this time. David Allen has always said people should try out the methods he advocates and see what the results are for them. If you have done that and it has no value for you, fine; if you are unwilling to try it, fine. In either case, let the nice people who have been patiently trying to explain contexts get on with their lives. I will say that I have studied and tried many methods of time management, and gtd is really the only one that made sense in light of my experience, and works well pretty much all the time.

I don't think that gtd has nothing to offer for the topic starter. IMO gtd is essential. He asks valid questions and it's just that the simple contexts are not enough for some people and it doesn't mean they shouldn't use gtd either.

another quote from Steve Pavlina



To put it very simply… standard GTD will teach you how to do things right. It’s extremely effective at that. But before you concern yourself with doing things right, you must first figure out what the right thing to do is. This is commonly said to be the difference between management and leadership: Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing. Standard GTD is a personal management system. But it’s essential that you also have a personal leadership system. If you master GTD without the life leadership elements, your life will be like a ship that’s very well managed, except that it has no captain and no destination. It will bounce around randomly with great efficiency.

The lack of a GTD personal leadership element is also prevalent in David Allen’s second book, Ready for Anything. Take note of the title. You’re ready for anything. But what is that anything? You’re ready to act, ready to get stuff done. But what’s the stuff? Who chooses it? Where does it come from? What kind of person would value the state of readiness above all else? Perhaps a martial artist. But perhaps a slave too.
...
Before you can get things done, you must consciously choose those “things” you want to be doing. Before you put yourself into a state of readiness, you must consciously define what you want to be ready for. Knowing your life’s purpose is the answer.


Yeah and the problem with the high level purpose is that you have to master the runaway level first... But he makes a really good point.

While it's true that GTD is more focused on doing whatever comes at you rather than doing what you should be doing it doesn't have to be that way if you use areas of resposibility more instead of contexts.
OP asks about how to choose what to do and my answer is that contexts are not the only end all, be all criteria basically and it doesn't mean you have to dump the whole gtd either.

Context is low level criteria. It helps you to do things right. But if you are a leader then it's not enough. You need to also do the right thing. You need more to choose from than just context and you are not limited by context - low level criteria.
There are criterias like Areas of Responsibility( aka area of focus/ area of constant improvement/ etc.) which I apply for filtering next actions too and I showed in previous comments how to connect the Areas of Responsibility and filter it down to the lower levels (next actions) and so on.

English isn't my native language so maybe it's not very clear but hopefully you get it.

[Paola52]

May,

Your post resonated with me. It is easer to choose an action within one area of focus then action from different areas of focus. For example, it's easier to choose between a call to setup a meeting with a new client or drafting a proposal for an old one then between playing with your small one or making a customer call.

During next weekly review I will go through my actions lists and make projects for all the actions. Delegate projects. Then sort the rest of projects between areas of focus: Sales, Non-Sales, Family, Health, Self-Development. Set a schedule that incorporates time for all areas of focus, for example: 9.00 - 15.00 Sales; 15.00 - 17.00 - non sales.

Then I will sort my next actions into the following contexts to fill in the schedule:

@Sales
@Non-sales
@Agenda
@Home
@Waiting

As a reslut I want to start my day with the most important sales activity. And I want my day to mostly include sales activities. Then I need time for non-sales as I have to move some projects there as well. On the other hand I could look for sales next actions across my other contexts like @phone or @ipad but it is easier when they are grooped together.

Do you think it makes sence?

[May]

Here is another example which could further illustrate what I mean.
I have a context @online and I have a context @computer anywhere (don't need online access). I put all the actions I can do on a computer without internet in @computer anywhere context. And all actions which need online access in @online context.

case 1.
I'm on the go and don't have an internet but have my netbook/tablet device. So in such cases I will filter by "@computer anywhere" context because I'm actually limited by context.

case2.
I'm at home and can do both online and offline context and also home context and also some agenda contexts and etc.. So do I go through all those context lists one by one? No. I will filter by whatever Area of Responsobility I want to work in. For example if I want to do work related projects I will filter by *work Area of Responsobility and see all my next actions regardless of context related to work projects. if I want to do personal projects I will filter by *personal Area of Responsobility and so on.

What's wrong with using contexts if I'm at home? Actually nothing wrong and I might still use them but not often. Alright, let's say I'm at home and look at @online context for example: I might miss important actons from @computer anywhere context and some important actions from @home contexts and etc. So I have to check all possible contexts - waste of time and energy.

But I still could use a @home context to see actions that can be done at home only. It can be an action from a weekly review project which I want to do only at home. It can be some home cleaning actions and etc.

So I will filter by context only when I'm actually limited by context or want to do actions only from certain context.
If I'm not really limited by context I will filter by Area of Responsobility ( which I do most of the time)



May,

Your post resonated with me. It is easer to choose an action within one area of focus then action from different areas of focus. For example, it's easier to choose between a call to setup a meeting with a new client or drafting a proposal for an old one then between playing with your small one or making a customer call.

During next weekly review I will go through my actions lists and make projects for all the actions. Delegate projects. Then sort the rest of projects between areas of focus: Sales, Non-Sales, Family, Health, Self-Development. Set a schedule that incorporates time for all areas of focus, for example: 9.00 - 15.00 Sales; 15.00 - 17.00 - non sales.

Then I will sort my next actions into the following contexts to fill in the schedule:

@Sales
@Non-sales
@Agenda
@Home
@Waiting

As a reslut I want to start my day with the most important sales activity. And I want my day to mostly include sales activities. Then I need time for non-sales as I have to move some projects there as well. On the other hand I could look for sales next actions across my other contexts like @phone or @ipad but it is easier when they are grooped together.

Do you think it makes sence?

Yeah it does make sense, I personally would add labels as areas of focus (like Sales, Non-Sales, Family, Health, Self-Development) to projects.
And then I would filter next actions by those labels if I want to filter by area of focus (no need to manually assign those labels again to actions as contexts, it's done automatically) and I would filter by contexts too if I want (like @ipad,@home and etc.) but it really depends on the tools you use for gtd. You got the idea correctly.

[kelstarrising]

I highly recommend reading about the Four Criteria for Choosing model in the Getting Things Done book. It does a great job describing why context is the first limitation and reasons why it can help to sort your actions that way--it sorts your choices based on opportunity to do.

Sure priority comes into play. And many times I am in the right context, have the time, have the resources to do anything, and priority is my only factor in choosing. But that doesn't eliminate the usefulness of contexts as how I organize--it just provides another vantage point for reviewing my context sorted lists to choose the best thing to do in the moment. Often I'll zone right in on my Calendar or @Computer list (where most of my work lives).

And my overall advice? You don't have to do everything in GTD to get value. Do what you can, as it makes sense, and build on it from there. It's a whole "ecosystem of productivity," but there's also value in applying any one piece of it to anything in your life.

Cheers.

[May]

I highly recommend reading about the Four Criteria for Choosing model in the Getting Things Done book. It does a great job describing why context is the first limitation and reasons why it can help to sort your actions that way--it sorts your choices based on opportunity to do.

Sure priority comes into play. And many times I am in the right context, have the time, have the resources to do anything, and priority is my only factor in choosing. But that doesn't eliminate the usefulness of contexts as how I organize--it just provides another vantage point for reviewing my context sorted lists to choose the best thing to do in the moment. Often I'll zone right in on my Calendar or @Computer list (where most of my work lives).

And my overall advice? You don't have to do everything in GTD to get value. Do what you can, as it makes sense, and build on it from there. It's a whole "ecosystem of productivity," but there's also value in applying any one piece of it to anything in your life.

Cheers.

Thaks for the reply, yeah I completely agree that contexts are the first limiting factor and they are useful.
But Areas of Resposonbility are actually not priority at all.
Using contexts like @Urgent, @Important, or @A/@B/@C is an indicator that you've fallen back to traditional «time management» methods. It's not helpful to know that a next action is urgent if you can't act upon it where you are right now.

Areas of Resposonbility are 20,000 feet level of current job responsobilities.



The problem with four criteria model is that when you're not limited by contexts most of the time you waste time and energy by checking all possible context lists.

Levels above the project level are not well integrated into the system as a whole and have always been a little grey in terms of implementation, but reality is they are a part of real life and it makes sense to use them rather than rely completely on “intuition”.


Four Criteria for Choosing
1 | Context
2 | Time available
3 | Energy available
4 | Priority

When you work GTD at the level of projects and actions and use Four Criteria for Choosing there’s no connection with higher levels at all. You are always at the runaway level and can't see a bigger picture.
I think that DA didn’t really cover higher levels enough and how to connect them with the whole system in the book.
In 4 criteria model the last criteria is priority which you should figure out based on intuition but it's too vague so it makes a lot more sense to evaluate your options from actually a slightly higher perspective (20,000) first insted of using intuition right away.

So here is an example
1. context = doesn't matter ( so you haven't filtered anything)
2. time = doesn't matter
3. energy = always high energy
4. priority = ? (use intuition)

So in this example you are actually suposed to make a choice based on intuition. You haven't really filtered actions or you just have more lists to check if you did.
"While it's definitely a kind of "first world problem" to have, facing the unlimited freedom to chose from any of a bajillion similar tasks from similar projects with similar outcomes is not nearly as fun as it first sounds."
It is a lot harder than evaluating your options from a slightly higher perspective (20,000) first ( current responsobilities ).

So here is a different model which would make a lot more sense in such case

0. area of focus = work or personal or whatever ( actually filters your actions )
1. context = doesn't matter ( for example most of your work takes place at one context )
2. time = doesn't matter (don't have hard landscapes, you're your own boss)
3. energy = always high energy (for example you are very healthy person)
4. priority = ? ( now a lot easier to decide within one area of focus instead of choosing within all areas of focus)

Merlin Mann:
"Contexts can help shape your day, but they're less than useful if they don't track realistically to the demands of your work."

My advice is not to dump contexts but to use Areas of Resposonbility/focus (20,000 feet) for filtering next actions (instead of only intuition) IF you are not really limited by contexts. If you are actually limited by context then filter by context first. Or you can filter by both/all criteria of course. It's a win-win-win-win scenario
It's not about doing less in GTD, it's about making it all work :)

[kelstarrising]

Great! Sounds like you've found a blend of approaches, including following what you know is true and will work for you.

[May]

Great! Sounds like you've found a blend of approaches, including following what you know is true and will work for you.

Thanks, Kelly! :)

[Cpu_Modern]

I think what May showed us also means, that Areas of Focus can also be contexts.

Why is this so?

As already mentioned in this thread, other teachers of time-management principles also have identified the 20k-level and named it for example categories of constant improvement or roles. In fact, on the GTD Fast CDs DA aknowledges the beauty of Covey's model for the 20k-level stuff 'roles'.

The word used by Covey 'Role' hints at the fact, that when looking at our 20k-level items we possibly see ourselves engageging totally in one Area of Focus or let's say: living in one Role. Each of this Roles require a specific mindset to be fullfilled properly. And such mindset can indeed be a GTD-style context, because it is not always available or at least not too easy to create.

For example you will feel differently and talk to yourself differently when working out rather than browsing through the pages of a new bought book sitting on your couch. Similarly you will find that you need a certain inner concentration on your role as a salesman, when talking to a client or event thinking about calling a client.

[ccoleman99]

I understand contexts and why they are valuable for many, but count me as someone who has little use for them. I can almost always do anything at any time. And even for rare things that require a special context, I can almost always just change contexts quickly anyway.

I only use two contexts: errands (for obvious reasons), and weekends (for things that need several hours to do). Everything else goes into a big pile. I then sift that pile by project (because I often know what projects I want to work on) or else I just go through in the morning and star a handful that I'd like to get done.

[Paola52]

On Monday I start a new life. A new experiment.

I deleted all the contexts and sorted the actions into two main contexts: @Sales and @Other. I will still have @Agenda for set meetings and @Waiting.

I will start the day with processing new inputs into the system. Then I will work with @Sales actions till after lunch. After lunch I will do @Other.

Anyone to join?

[clango]

On Monday I start a new life. A new experiment.

I deleted all the contexts and sorted the actions into two main contexts: @Sales and @Other. I will still have @Agenda for set meetings and @Waiting.

I will start the day with processing new inputs into the system. Then I will work with @Sales actions till after lunch. After lunch I will do @Other.

Anyone to join?

Do you expect more results from @Sales or from @Other?

[Paola52]

I expect more results because I will be focused on @Sales for a longer time. I will have no options to do other pleasant task or any other tasks that do not move me closer to the deal.

[clango]

I understand that If you could stay more focused in @Sales you can surely get more results than before. Isn't it?

In the morning, therefore, when you are @Sales what if you could focus your energy only there? If you could start the morning with a clear plan, already prepared, do you think you could get more sales? In case you get also a "prize" on the sales volume would you consider to prepare the plan the day before at least or on friday afternoon for the next week @Others?

[Cpu_Modern]

copy pasted from 43folders.com comments:

Podophile Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:55
I’m a writer working at home, so @computer, @phone, @home never really worked for me. Instead, I’ve matched my contexts to the way I structure my workday. The morning, from 8am - noon is for writing and editing. The afternoon, from 1 - 5 is for research, reading, email, website maintenance, etc. The evening is for entertainment and housework.

So on my @morning list, I have:
- Stories I can start drafting
- Drafts that need editing

My @afternoon list may contain:
- Research that needs to get done
- Phone calls to make
- Email to send
- Photos to take
- Website maintenance issues
- My “to read” file

My evenings are pretty unstructured, but my @evening list may contain:
- Household chores
- Adding movies to Netflix cue
- Potentially long personal phone calls

My only other context is @errands, which is basically a shopping list, which I do either on my lunch break or in the evenings, as needed.

So far, this system has helped to keep my workday structured, which is never easy when your at home sitting in front of a computer with a high-speed connection all day.

[Paola52]

I understand that If you could stay more focused in @Sales you can surely get more results than before. Isn't it?

In the morning, therefore, when you are @Sales what if you could focus your energy only there? If you could start the morning with a clear plan, already prepared, do you think you could get more sales? In case you get also a "prize" on the sales volume would you consider to prepare the plan the day before at least or on friday afternoon for the next week @Others?

Sure, my @Sales includes only next actions to move my sales. That could include calls, drafting action plans, drafting proposals or even reading news. Just choose a next action that gives me more $$$ and start with that. Makes sence?

[TesTeq]

The first rule of @contexts is: you do not talk about @contexts.
The second rule of @contexts is: you DO NOT talk about @contexts!
Third rule of @contexts: if there's nothing to do in a given @context you relax or change @context.
Fourth rule: @context is followed by time available, energy and priority.
Fifth rule: one @context at a time, fellas.
Sixth rule: just cranking wigdets at @context. No shirt, no shoes, no weapons.
Seventh rule: doing at @context will go on as long as it has to.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at @context, you have to DO at least one Next Action.

[debbieg]

I personaly don't use contexts much and instead I sort by area of focus most of the time. Every project gets labeled as a certain area of focus(work,personal,etc) and then I can filter next actions by this label(so I will see next actions only from work related projects and all work related single actions too for example).
I work online and most actions have online context so when I want to do work I will filter by work area of focus and when I want to do personal I will filter by personal area of focus.













I'm also sorting by areas of focus. My question for you is this...

Let's say you have 3 high priority areas of focus. Do you have a separate list for each one where you capture ideas/future actions? How often are you reviewing these lists? If you are going to work on one next action from each of your three areas of focus on Monday, where do you keep track of these key next actions so you don't loose sight of them?

[May]

I'm also sorting by areas of focus. My question for you is this...

Let's say you have 3 high priority areas of focus. Do you have a separate list for each one where you capture ideas/future actions? How often are you reviewing these lists? If you are going to work on one next action from each of your three areas of focus on Monday, where do you keep track of these key next actions so you don't loose sight of them?

I don't have separate lists, all next actions are in one list and I can filter that list by context, area of focus (label), project. I use electronic system, it's very easy to keep track of everything, all I have to do is to set areas of focus (labels) for projects and contexts for actions and the rest is automatic (I don't need to set areas of focus for actions manually and I don't have to keep multiple lists).

I capture all new ideas and some new actions with evernote (inbox) or paper (goes to evernote inbox later) and then process it whenever I want to and add to my gtd system.

All new actions are added to some project (if it's a single action it is added to "work single action" project or "personal single action" project and etc.).
I review the system constantly but it takes only 20mins a day overall.

[Myriam]

I have a list of 25 next actions sorted by importance (sales related then non-sales related). I do them one by one by importance. It doesn't matter in which context it is. If I have to call my client then I have to do it and not wait for the right context to appear. I make this context :)

When I sorted them by contexts then it just prevented me from choosing the most important one. I had to do double job looking through different contexts for the most important next action to do next.

Am I doing something wrong?

what you might see differently:
- a next action is only the next physical step for a project, it doesn't mean you have to stop after it. If I have a project to set up a now type of training that I will give for a client, then my next action might very well be "search old training material for training x at company y for inspiration". That might take me 10 minutes, after that I hava a choice. Eighter I'm glad with that tiny bit of progress (maybe I don't have time for more), and then I define a new next action, like "read old training material for inspiration". Or I have time to work on that specific project, and I go on till I have (for example) an outline for the new training. Then I stop and write down the next action, being "discuss outline with client". So a next action is like a bookmark (where was I for this project).
- you can not always "make" a context. if you have an urgent call to a client and it's the middle of the night, or you are in a train without a phone, you simply can not make that call. But in that train, you might do some reading.
- If you do have a choice of contexts, then yes, the urgency will define what context you choose. But if you have some time, then you might say "I made this urgent call, I'm in call modus now, let's make those 3 other calls I need to make"

Of course, if you have 26 fires burning, you will need to put them out first, without thinking "oh I got a fire going, and being close to a fire means I'm in @fire-context, so let's sit down and have a BBQ" :-D

greetings,
Myriam

ps: I loved the reply from TesTeq about "travelling forth and back between your work and home all day", it resumes the context story really well!

[Paola52]

Today's results.

Competed:
10 next actions: 5 @Sales, 5 unplanned, Zero @Other
5 meeting planned: 2 Sales, 3 Others, 2 Unplanned
41 calls

Feelings: feel no drive.

What statistics is missing here?

Waiting for tomorrow to compare the stats.

[Paola52]

Of course, if you have 26 fires burning, you will need to put them out first, without thinking "oh I got a fire going, and being close to a fire means I'm in @fire-context, so let's sit down and have a BBQ" :-D

greetings,
Myriam

ps: I loved the reply from TesTeq about "travelling forth and back between your work and home all day", it resumes the context story really well!

Liked your quote about bbq! And TesTeq quote makes no sense. Let's say you have a big project to earn money and you go to the office to meet the customer. When at work you open your list just to find out that you need to make your tax that requires to be at home and this is the most important project after the customer meeting. So you jump to the car and go back. Won't you?

In resume we follow our priorities all day long. It sounds crazy as you said to have bbq because you have a fire to put out (in other words touse context to do something instead of the most important thing to do now). The day is limited to 24 hours and it's up to you to fill it with priority projects or other stuff.

[Myriam]

Liked your quote about bbq!

Thanks !:D




And TesTeq quote makes no sense. Let's say you have a big project to earn money and you go to the office to meet the customer. When at work you open your list just to find out that you need to make your tax that requires to be at home and this is the most important project after the customer meeting. So you jump to the car and go back. Won't you?

Since I work from home (I'm self employed), this situation wouldn't require me to jump in my car... but I can't imagine your boss being very happy if you jump in your car to go do "something urgent" at home... There's home time and office time for most people and not everyone has the physical possibilities to run over to the other place. Also, I find it very difficult to prioritise private vs work projects. What is most important? My n° 1 work project or my n° 1 home project? Ask your boss, you'll get one answer, ask your husband you might get another... So the quote from TesTeq does make sense, and it is exactly what would happen if you only follow priorities... n° 1 is at home, n° 2 at work, n°3 at home again... then why not do n°1 and n°3 at the same time, and save yourself one round trip. And yes, that is exactly what contexts are about...



In resume we follow our priorities all day long. It sounds crazy as you said to have bbq because you have a fire to put out (in other words touse context to do something instead of the most important thing to do now). The day is limited to 24 hours and it's up to you to fill it with priority projects or other stuff.
The great thing about GTD is that the longer you get going with it, the more you get to work on the non priority stuff. And that is when contexts come in very handy! Then suddenly comes the day that you have to make a small fire for some reason, and you do have the time and the option to say "let's do a BBQ at the same time, it's on my list, it's not urgent, but I can handle it now".

Myriam

[kkuja]

When at work you open your list just to find out that you need to make your tax that requires to be at home and this is the most important project after the customer meeting. So you jump to the car and go back. Won't you?

No, I won't. I would make my taxes after work, when I'm at home. And if deadline is before I'm home from work, then I'd do it on previous day. If I notice it today then my system has failed me and it's time to revise it so I can trust it.

My boss expects me to be at the office from 9 to 17 (9am-5pm). So it's very logical that I don't waste my energy to stress about about things I cannot do. When I'm at office I select actions from my @office, @online, @computer and @phone contexts which are all doable.

Also, when I'm at home, I don't want to stress about actions I can take only at office.

So, for me, context are also about separating work and personal life. David Allen put it well: "Keep in mind, you can feel good about what you're not
doing, only when you know what you're not doing." (And you know there is reminder in trusted system about those actions, so they will be done.)


In resume we follow our priorities all day long. It sounds crazy as you said to have bbq because you have a fire to put out (in other words touse context to do something instead of the most important thing to do now). The day is limited to 24 hours and it's up to you to fill it with priority projects or other stuff.

As I mentioned previously, I basically don't use priorities. If action is important enough to do It goes to my list. Some actions have due dates, because I have to get them ready at certain day. Of course common sense overrides all action lists. If house is on fire or there is some kind of serious accident, then it defines my next actions (E.g. 1. Find out what is happening (estimate seriousnes of situation, number of injured people, etc), 2. call for help, etc (from Red cross instructions for accidents)).

P.S. If I recall correctly DA said most important thing is to get stuff out of your head and to a trusted system. I interpret context and format of lists are secondary in importance.

Anyway, if/when you find what works for you, please report. No two people in this forum has identical needs and we all can learn from each other.

[May]

So, for me, context are also about separating work and personal life. David Allen put it well: "Keep in mind, you can feel good about what you're not
doing, only when you know what you're not doing." (And you know there is reminder in trusted system about those actions, so they will be done.)



As I mentioned previously, I basically don't use priorities. If action is important enough to do It goes to my list. Some actions have due dates, because I have to get them ready at certain day. Of course common sense overrides all action lists. If house is on fire or there is some kind of serious accident, then it defines my next actions (E.g. 1. Find out what is happening (estimate seriousnes of situation, number of injured people, etc), 2. call for help, etc (from Red cross instructions for accidents)).

P.S. If I recall correctly DA said most important thing is to get stuff out of your head and to a trusted system. I interpret context and format of lists are secondary in importance.

Anyway, if/when you find what works for you, please report. No two people in this forum has identical needs and we all can learn from each other.


Just wanted to point out a couple of things.
First of all areas of focus are not priorities. Priorities are best assigned on the fly while you review your options.
Areas of focus/responsibility are groupings of projects into the various areas or roles of one's life. "Personal" or "Work" are typical examples of Areas of Focus. Areas of Focus helps you be more productive as you change roles throughout the day.

Again it's true that contexts are useful but there is no reason to use only contexts or only areas of focus for filtering next actions, it's easy to use both criterias, it's not like you have to dump one to use the other unless of course your system is paper based or very limited. Of course you can use areas of focus as contexts or mix them with contexts if you want but you don't have to and I think it's not the best approach. Personally I use both depending on the situation I'm in and what I want to see as my options.

[vicve]

In my job, I have to go in and out of various databases throughout the day. I have each database set up as a context so that, as I receive tasks I need to do within a certain database, I simply capture the task by context and then, when I go in there later, I can knock out 5-6 things I needed to do at one time rather than going in and out each time. This has really helped me. "At office computer" was too general and didn't buy me much as far as efficiency.

That being said, I also created a "hotlist" for myself of stuff that I need to do today no matter what or where so context is secondary in that sense.

I use Pocket Informant as my primary capture tool which allows me to switch how I view my tasks and in what order. I can view by context first or, can easily switch to view by my "starred" (hotlist items), or by next action. It also allows you to view by project folder. It's useful to have a tool that allows you to switch views because context may not be that important depending on what you are working on.

[Jamie Elis]

Depends on your life and your time/work management skills. If your life and work are very much under control then prioritizing is not so important because you have captured everything including deadlines and carving out time to plan projects and organize them. You are doing more things in bits as they go along and also allowing for the longer and deeper work sessions that some next actions require. If you are managing by crisis, then you may have to jump from and through contexts to meet deadlines.

If some of your physical contexts allow you to do more than one kind of action you may want to do some choosing between working in one context or another. It might be more important to follow a project through a few steps toward completion than to follow a context-based list. So you are making phone calls and you are also at your computer on-line. You have made 4 basic calls to schedule ordinary appointments but the 5th is to talk with a funeral director about the details of a funeral you are organizing. You finish that discussion but he wants you to look at his website for various extra frills for the funeral. You were @phone calls. You do not want to look at his site at all. You decide just to switch to writing up your thoughts right after that call and then send some emails to your cousins about the options discussed and not look at the website at all. You may want to skip, for now, your 6th call,which was to be to the snow plow company to discuss the damaged mailbox. Instead you may want to shop for a coat on-line. You need the coat to wear for the funeral so you may want to order it before you get involved in emailing the cousins.

[May]

Also I would like to add more thoughts about why David Allen doesn't describe having Area of Focus lists (filtering by Aof).

* You need to have a lot more lists.And if you want to use paper then that's going to make it too hard to maintain. I mean if you're going to have just contexts list with next actions then you might have around 5-10 lists with next actions.
Now if you want to also have Area of Focus lists then you have maintain 10-20 lists with next actions.
And if you want to have each Area of Focus list filtered by each context then you might end up with about 60 lists for next actions.

Now obviously it's a lot easier to maintain only 5-10 NA lists. I think David describes paper based system in his book even though the system doesn't matter for gtd.
I think paper is a lot harder to maintain compared to electronic :) so he has to strip the "features" as much as possible. But when we go electronic we are no longer limited by this paper based approach.

I think that using Areas of Focus aswell as contexts is a huge improvement and a huge advantage over old scholl only context approach.


* Another reason. Some people don't even need to use Areas of Focus much. For example one of the reasons why I need AoF is the fact that I work for myself and most of my actions are in @online context. If I'm going to look only at @online context all the time without separating personal from work then I might not do much work at all :) And it's going to take too much time to scan and re-scan the list.

* GTD is tailored more to a person who is not a leader and is constatly told what to do.

"The lack of a GTD personal leadership element is also prevalent in David Allen’s second book, Ready for Anything. Take note of the title. You’re ready for anything. But what is that anything? You’re ready to act, ready to get stuff done. But what’s the stuff? Who chooses it? Where does it come from? What kind of person would value the state of readiness above all else? Perhaps a martial artist. But perhaps a slave too."

I mean having only context lists would work really well for people who have a lot of hard landscapes, a somewhat structured day and a boss.
So when they go to work they simply don't have the option to switch any Areas of Focus and/or contexts, they only can do work at work anyway.
Also note David's examples in the book like whenever you get 10 minutes before a meeting or whatever...

Anyway those are my thoughts.

[Suelin23]

Let's say you have a big project to earn money and you go to the office to meet the customer. When at work you open your list just to find out that you need to make your tax that requires to be at home and this is the most important project after the customer meeting. So you jump to the car and go back. Won't you?


No, I would have thought that the whole philosophy behind GTD is to make things so efficient and organised that you no longer have to do this whole 'chasing the most important thing' all the time, that you have time for all the little and big things in your life.

Doing the tax return has to be done at home, but you should have set a deadline for yourself for when you want to have submitted it. Also you should have either set it as a calendar to do or appointment to actually prepare the tax return. When you choose the date to prepare the tax return, you select a date when you know you will have time to do this at home, so when you see it on your to do list, you don't need to rush home from the office, you can stay there and complete other office tasks until it's time to come home.

If you're rushing from place to place maybe consider blocking out time each week in each context, there shouldn't need to be so much travelling in response to your lists.

[Spalding]

I don't really use contexts very much if at all, or you could say I have them simplified to just two, @work and @home. In both cases I always have both phone and computer available so that is all that I need. But I do keep a list for things that accumulate until I talk to my boss.

[Marcelo]

I have a list of 25 next actions sorted by importance (sales related then non-sales related). I do them one by one by importance. It doesn't matter in which context it is. If I have to call my client then I have to do it and not wait for the right context to appear. I make this context :)

When I sorted them by contexts then it just prevented me from choosing the most important one. I had to do double job looking through different contexts for the most important next action to do next.

Am I doing something wrong?

The purpose of sorting NAs by context is to be reminded of NAs at the right time and place, e.g. if you went to the post office at the mall you can take out your @mall list and see if there is something else you need from there - instead of looking through a long list of NAs or coming back home and remembering you also needed to buy milk. However, this is useful only if you have a long list of NAs. 25 NAs would fit in one page (if you were using paper for your lists), so in your case sorting NAs by context is unnecesary - you can see all your NAs at a glance.

As for your second sentence, if after you sorted your NAs by contexts you still look through different contexts... Suppose you are at home at 9 pm, would you look at your @office list for a next action to do right then? Or you are in the mall shopping, would you look at your @home list for a next action in the mall?

The idea of contexts lists is to reduce your search for the next action to the ones that are relevant right now instead of looking through all your NAs.

But again, if you have only 25 NAs and apparently your contexts don't limit your choices (someone might use @calls, @web and @office for example, though the NAs in those lists can be all done from the same chair), then probably you don't need contexts at present

[Gardener]

Liked your quote about bbq! And TesTeq quote makes no sense. Let's say you have a big project to earn money and you go to the office to meet the customer. When at work you open your list just to find out that you need to make your tax that requires to be at home and this is the most important project after the customer meeting. So you jump to the car and go back. Won't you?

Definitely not. If I've organized my time and tasks correctly, then while my taxes may be the most _important_ task, they won't be an _emergency_ task. So there will be no need to waste a lot of driving time going home to do taxes, and then going back to the office to do something else.

Let's try an extreme example: You have an important meeting at 1pm, and another one at 3pm. The time between 2 and 3 is free. The "most important" task is one that has to be done at home. Home is 29 minutes away. So do you drive 29 minutes there and 29 minutes back, to have two minutes to spend on the most important task? No; you stay at work and spend an hour working on a less important task. The satisfaction of knowing that you're working on the "most important" thing is not valuable enough to justify wasting 58 minutes.

What if home were twenty minutes away, so that you would only waste forty minutes in order to work for twenty? What if it's ten minutes away? There's still time wasted. I argue that with correctly organized time, there's no logical reason to go home, because the at-home task won't be an emergency; you'll do it in the evening or on the weekend, when you'll naturally be at home anyway.

Changing contexts takes time, even when the context change isn't as extreme as going from work to home. Wasting time just to have the satisfaction that you're working on the "most important" task, when that task isn't in emergency status, is, IMO, wasting time.

Gardener

[Juan]

.. Do I create folder in the email section and categories in the task section?

[Juan]

... Do I save it under @Call or @Boss or @Office.

If I need to review a process with a collegue. Would I save it under location, person, tool, or energy level?

Thanks,
Juan

[kelstarrising]

I would not put that under @Boss--if that list is an Agenda list. Agenda lists don't typically remind you of the action to speak/meet with them, but rather topics to cover when you do speak/meet with them. So that leaves @Office or @Calls. No real black/white rule on this.

If I thought the only place I would do that action was in the office, then I might put it on that list. But I look at Calls often enough that it would be a trusted placeholder on that list too and if I was out and about and saw that, I'd likely just skip over it knowing I wouldn't want to make that call then.

I tend to have more like that with @Computer stuff. If it required my Mac or was personal, I'd put it on my @Home list to do on my personal computer or at home. But then I started to have so many of those I just created an "@Computer Personal" list.

Hope that helps!

Kelly

[cwoodgold]

Jukka,
What is the plus of doing low priority stuff for one hour when you can change the context and do something of more value for you?

Example: You're at work and the most important thing on your list has
to be done at home.

Sub-case 1: The most important thing is 100 times as important as
anything else on your list, its deadline is within 24 hours, and
you have the kind of job where it's feasible to go home in
the middle of the day. Travelling between home and work provides
exercise and time to think and mentally relax.

Sub-case 2: Each thing on your list is about 10% more important than
the next thing, and they alternate between things needing to be done
at home and things needing to be done at work. Travelling between
home and work takes about as long as getting one of the things
done and provides little or no benefit in terms of exercise, relaxation
etc. but is expensive, stressful and dangerous. The deadline for
each thing is in about a week.

In sub-case 1, it's probably good to go home immediately and do
that important thing. That's probably what you're imagining. However,
for many people, most situations look more like sub-case 2.
For me, travelling between home and work usually means exercise and
some mental relaxation; still, it takes time. It's more worthwhile to
get several things done which are of considerable value (though not
the highest value) and get the highest-value thing done later, than
to spend a lot of time going back and forth and get a lot fewer things
done. If the deadline is in a week (or even tomorrow), the thing
can be done just as effectively later in the day, so there's no need
to do them in a particular order.

The value is: if you stay in one context and do several things,
you get more things done in total by the end of the day.
Valuable things.

Doing the most important thing first is a technique. It's not an
absolute rule (unless an individual chooses to make it so), and
it's not the ultimate goal of life. Other techniques, such as choosing
a way to get the most value out of the time available, can conflict
with that technique.

I don't think David Allen discusses in his books how to decide
when to change contexts. I disagree both with Paolo52 and with
another poster on this thread, who said essentially the opposite:
that you stay in a context until you've finished everything to be
done there. The choice of when to change contexts is a complex
decision based on many factors. I don't seem to have much
difficulty making those sorts of decisions.

[kkuja]

I disagree both with Paolo52 and with
another poster on this thread, who said essentially the opposite:
that you stay in a context until you've finished everything to be
done there. The choice of when to change contexts is a complex
decision based on many factors. I don't seem to have much
difficulty making those sorts of decisions.

I agree.

Usually at office I can do next action from @office, @computer, @phone and @online lists. And at home I usually can do actions from @home, @computer, @phone and @online lists (last two with some restrictions). Current I change context between possible ones without thinking it much. I don't (yet) know if it's good or bad. I think that in my case the best reason to stay in certain list is that I'm already in correct frame of mind to continue doing stuff from it. E.g. When I'm making calls, I'm on a calls mode, etc. (Starting to make calls is very hard to me, but after I have made few, it temporarily comes easier.)

I just realised my opinions may seem to change very often (not saying it has happened now, I still don't believe in priorities and chancing physical location to change context and losing few hours while doing it.). Which is probably related to thing that I'm just starting to learn GTD.