Bogged down in minutia (long)

[jkgrossi]

Hi All,

I was just wondering if anyone else has found the process of writing down every single NA to be overly tedious. I've been a practitioner of this methodology for about two years, and I've come to the conclusion that I just can't be bothered with that level of detail tracking...

I've found that I'm more productive if I just take something that I have to do and write down the general "outcome" i.e. "Change Direct Deposit info at work", and work it until it's done. This as opposed to writing down each of the consecutive NA's as each is completed, such as:

1. look online for the Direct Deposit Authorization Form
2. Download Direct Deposit Authorization Form
3. Fill out Direct Deposit Authorization Form
4. Attach voided check to Direct Deposit Authorization form
5. Mail form to human resource department
6. Waiting For... Direct Deposit change to take effect...

The above is great if you hit a road block along the way to know where you're at with a "project", but over the years I've found that if I don't follow through all the way (or as far as I can) in the moment, what I've ended up with is just a bunch of incomplete projects. Using the above detailed list, I'd often be apt to stop working a "project" once the NA was completed and not move on to the next item (especially if the next NA was in a different context). Now, by working straight through and changing contexts if need be, I get much more accomplished!

Another element that I battle with is prioritizing. I know that David advocates letting your intuition prioritize for you, but for some reason I can't get this to work for me. I've recently gone back to the old FC way of prioritizing (A, B, C, 1, 2, 3), and I've found I'm much more productive if I complete all of the A's first, then B's, etc. I've noticed that I've had less of the really "important" things fall through the cracks (happened to me all the time with straight-forward GTD). Now, I look at something that has an "A" next to it, and even if it's something that "repels" me, I see the "A" and know that I must do it TODAY. I force myself to do it because it's an "A". I've found that with GTD, it's too easy for me to put off things that "repel" me and just work on the stuff that attracts me.

I love the theory of GTD, my problem has been in the implementation. I'm not disciplined enough to allow my conscience dictate what must get done first, and I'm not anal retentive enough to get down to that level of detail Has anyone else had similar experiences? If so, what have you done to make it work for you?

[Anonymous]

Hi jk

Your outcome derived system sounds a lot like Anthony Robbins "Time of Your Life" or "Rapid Planning Method" system.

He basically sets up outcomes, including the "Why" as well as the things that work with the outcome.

His systems is derived on
Result - Outcome
Purpose - Purpose
Massive Action Plan - Action
Depending how long you've been following his system. Old (OPA) new (RPM).

The basic format works like so:

Result - Be prepared for my staff/board meeting
Purpose - do a good job, professional pride, etc.

Action

Prepare agenda
Prepare financial reports
Prepare administration reports
List correspondence.

So, how I work something like this is to set up

Prepare for staff/board meeting on my agenda/calendar

Then, using a planner, I'd cover the bases for listing all the tasks as action items, mostly so that I don't miss one that's important. They'd be "A" or High priority tasks for the due date.

I like David's system for the contect type planning, but I also use the outcome system.

David does seem to describe it as projects, however, to me project infers something major - like planning a wedding, preparing a manual, or completing year end accounting duties (all 58 steps in 6 different areas). It isn't getting ready for a meeting - that's an RPM Block.

I too have studied the Covey/Franklin systems. However, in the long run, I've found that the combination of the RPM, Franklin Covey and David Allen systems combined into a mish mosh seems to work best for me.

Basically, I'm using David's @ categories for context - helps me with the basics, (i.e. I've got time to make a phone call, who should I call). I use the Franklin/Covey roles, and the general principles of the big rocks tends to permeate my planning processes. Then I use the Robbins Outcome planning - helps achieve the big rocks. I like David's outlook idea of all day appoiontments for the Outcomes of today/must tasks, it keeps it visible on my pocket pc. I manage this on my pocket pc using Pocket Informant - I just love their Hierarchical tasks for outcome planning, or, alternatively their customizable ABC-Z system also works for outcome planning.

Sorry this got so long, just wanted to let you know, that after years of research, no one system worked for me, just a mishmash of several seems to make all the difference, but it's o.k. not to use just one person's ideas.

Have a good day.

Christine

[intrigueme@aol.com]

A quick "flashback" to my earlier opinion, from a similar topic on July 3, 2003:

"Calendars, ToDo's & Philosophical Tunnel Vision:
07/03/03"

I may be taking my life in my hands with this one, but here goes...

The more that I study "G.T.D."; the more similarities I see between David's Philosophy and those espoused by Charles Hobbs & Hyrum Smith (the latter being the founder of Franklin Quest, not Franklin Covey).

David says that the Calendar is the "hard landscape" of where we have to be, and what we have to be doing. This has "hard edges" that are both Physical (location) and Chronological. If there is something on The Calendar; we cannot be doing "Next Actions" simultaneously.

Hyrum Smith calls this "Non-Discretionary Time." He says anything listed on a calendar is not ours to debate, or open to subjective interpretation.

David says that the "Next Actions" are to be chosen from when we have windows of time that are not blocked out on our Calendar. He says they are not related to time; and even encourages people not to include Due Dates, or Priorities. He expounds further by saying if something HAS to be done (or due) on a particular date, to record it as an "Untimed Event" listed on that day.

Hyrum's "Prioritized Daily Task List" is for things that HAVE to be done on that date. It is not a "wish list" of stuff that we'd like to do that day, or that week, or sometime. The "P.D.T.L." is an EXTENSION of the Calendar. He calls the "P.D.T.L." "Discretionary Time" - and says that it IS related to Time, and it is what is to be done in between the windows of time that are not blocked out on our Calendar. It is, in effect, a series of "untimed events" that have to happen on that date. Hyrum expounds further by strongly encouraging people NOT to put something on the "P.D.T.L." that they do not have enough hours in the day to do. That will lead to the same feelings of inadequacy, defeat & overwhelm that David seeks to avoid.

David's "Next Actions" are very similar to Hyrum's "Master Task List." It is a list of "actions" to be done on non-specific days, with non-specific priorities. Most of these actions are usually tied to a larger whole. Hyrum called these "Intermediate" or "Long-Range Goals." David calls them "projects." They are both things that have to be done, as soon as possible to move toward a larger outcome. David's organization of these by Context is a very insightful way to tap into human momentum & adrenaline. This keeps them from becoming a muddy list of "stuff."

* To add in one MORE perspective: Anthony Robbins espouses that you are productive when you "Commit" your time to actions related to an outcome. Robbins believes that you block out the periods of time for the "must outcomes" of the day, and asterisk the "must actions" (a.k.a. "A Priorities).

As I'm typing this - I have a Palm M515 on my desk, synched to David's "G.T.D." Add-In for Outlook on my PC. I also have my Classic Daily Franklin Planner open to today's date in front of me. Their "Daily Record of Events" is my ""G.T.D."" time/date stamped "IN" - collecting input from people via phone & in-person. I have both my Next Actions on my Palm & Outlook; and a select few of those I've committed to completing on today's "Prioritized Daily Task List."

I've studied both systems & philosophies over the past 6 years. I've also studied a great deal of Eastern Philosophy; which David resonates very strongly with. David's desired outcome is "Mind Like Water": clear with a relaxed focus, despite disturbances of things being thrown in the water. Hyrum's desired outcome is "Laser Thinking": pure white light with focus to cut through disturbances. Their IS Added Value in both; and they are NOT "mutually exclusive."

People approach a variety of systems & guru's looking for a "Silver Bullet" that will solve everything in one neat package so they do not have to think independently. Some people do this with Time & Life Management some do it with Home Stereos, or Religion. Millions have been killed (some very recently) as a result of "all or nothing at all" thinking. It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to "take what you like and leave the rest" or adapt it into your own philosophy.

"An old Master was crossing the sea to die with his wife. A student asked him what religion he practiced. He said it is none of the ones you listed - it is my own. The student said: A one man religion ? Come On! The Master replied: There is no other kind."

"The problem lies not in the stars, but ourselves."

Back to today...

There are several of us on the board who've been exposed to many of these different belief systems. I believe Frank Buck is also familiar with "taking what you like, and leaving the rest" from the different methodologies. I apologize in advance if I'm misspeaking here Frank :) I believe that we truly do have to have "Minds Like Water" to keep moving and exploring the surface of these ideas - not "Mind Like Ice" which is frozen in one rigid perspective only.

[Longstreet]

Hello Folks,

I just wanted to add my two cents worth here. IT IS REALLY EASY TO BE BURIED IN TOO MANY NEXT ACTIONS! What I do is similar to the Anthony Robbins approach in that I create a weekly action plan based on my comprehensive weekly review. My focus is also on outcomes, but on a goal-oriented approach. I set goals for the week based on my highest priority projects across my spectrum of roles (my Covey part of my system) and make sure I have the necessary next actions on my context lists. An important part of this planning process is to estimate the time for completion of all of my next actions. This way, I can see fairly quickly if I will be able to realistically achieve my goals based on this time crunch assessment -- my meetings, appointments, etc. already on my calendar. There is nothing more delflating than to set goals and not be able to achieve them because I had an unrealistic idea of how much time I really had available for the week. This now gives me a blueprint of what I want to accomplish this week. There is still flexibility -- I DO NOT HARD CODE EVERYTHING INTO THE CALENDAR! However, I do schedule time blocks during the week -- in essence, scheduling a meeting with myself -- to have high focus work on the highest priority next actions and projects. This works most of the time, but yes -- there are times when I have to re-evaluate things and modify my weekly plan. David talks about this in his books and it does happen. So, my weekly action plan is that -- a plan. But without it, I feel lost amongst a sea of hundreds of next actions. Now, about prioritizing! THIS IS THE MOST DIFFICULT AREA! I have read and studied almost every time management book imaginable over the last 20 years. The gentleman said that he feels better assigning A,B,C codes to things. Wonderful -- there is really nothing wrong with that! However, do realize that YOU ARE MAKING A CONSCIOUS DECISION ON WHAT HIGH PRIORITY IS WHEN YOU DO THIS! So, in reality, it is not different than what David Allen says in relying on your own intuition. If it makes you more efficient to use a coding system, then by all means, do it!

At any rate, just my thoughts...

Best to all,
Longstreet

[jkgrossi]

Hi Rich,

I agree that the Master Task List is very similar to what David suggests. My take on the PDTL is a little different, though.

I'm exactly like you in the fact that I currently have both systems at work for me. I, too, have my Palm M505 synced to GTD Outlook Add-in, and my classic FC planner sitting next to me. My problem is that I see advantages to both systems, and when I try to use one of them exclusively, I can't help but think that there's something about the other system that I liked better. I keep switching back and forth.

To further complicate the matter, I'm stuck in limbo between paper and Palm. I think that from a visual standpoint, using a paper planner is just easier. There is also something to be said about actually putting pen to paper. For some reason, I just like it.

On the other hand, I just saw the new Palm Tungsten T3 at Best Buy and thought it was really cool (I'm really a techno-geek at heart). I like the portability of the Palm (and according to Smith, you should carry your planner with you wherever you go).

Now, back to my original post - for some reason, I need some kind of urgency associated with my NA list, and it can't be from an internal source. I need the urgency to come from the outside somewhere. I need something in my face telling me "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS NOW". I find that the PDTL accomplishes this for me. I equate the "A"'s on the PDTL to the hard coded items on the GTD calendar. The rest is up for grabs. It is, however, very cumbersome to have to keep forwarding incomplete tasks in a paper system...

Ah... what to do, what to do...

Forever in limbo,

Jim

[Anonymous]

Jim

Adding 2 more cents to the mix.

David says keep your planner with you at all times.
Anthony Robbins says "strap your planner to your butt"
Covey says keep your planner with you at all times.

Then, the most important one I've read & can't remember who said it.

Only use one calendar.

I've also discovered (the hard way) that you should also have only one planner. Having multiple sources of infomation causes systemwide leaks. I always lose control when I've got stuff on my pocket pc, stuff on paper, stuff in a notebook and post it notes everywhere. When all those things happen, I know I've been really busy, only hitting the most urgent or pressing and have truly lost control, definately not a mind like water scenario.

So, like you I had to give up my Franklin Planner actually, it was getting too heavy and was giving me shoulder pain. It was hard giving up on the paper - I'm a visual & tactile person, however, I've helped with the visual by using my pocket pc with colors - palm has Datebook I think that helps with that.

So, that's my 2 cents.

Christine

[intrigueme@aol.com]

...an additional 2 cents (or nickel)

I have to remind myself occassionally that (as I understand it) David's OUTCOME in his methodology is to RAISE our level of awareness TO the "Outcome" level (which is another synonym he uses for "Projects"). In my personal lists, I have one for "Projects: Work" and "Outcomes: Life" which push two very different emotional buttons for me.

I believe the "Next Action" lists are supposed to serves as more "oh yeah - that" bookmarks, than a rigid anal retentive index. They are supposed to be there to keep us FROM worrying about what's happening on that lowest level of awareness.

Ironically enough - How much time & energy are we spending nervously worrying about this level in a system that was designed for us not to worry about it ?

(whew, lol)

[csweningsen]

Rich, et. al.,

Very well spoken, thank you,

Christian

[mondo]

An intriguing dialogue. Thanks!

I had the same thought at first - that capturing and organising every NA would bog you down in minutia.

However, it quickly dawned on me that the power of writing the NEXT action is that it gives you a reference point from which to start.

When we complete a next action, another next action reveals itself. Often these will be "less than 2 minute" type actions, so there is no point in capturing, processing and organising. Just do it - assuming you have 2 minutes, otherwise it will need to be CPO'd.

One thing leads to another, and you often end up with multiple Next Actions done without ever being CPO'd!

When you get to a point where a longer than 2 minute NA reveals itself, then you might just keep on with the flow. Alternatively, you might determine to capture it.

This also fits with the DO phase of three types of work - predefined work, defining your work, or doing work as it pops up.

A mind like water allows you to make the determination.

Having the project on a list means that you can "drop the ball" right after finishing off a NA without thinking about the next NA - knowing that it will bounce back during the next weekly review.

The power of GTD is in the system, not the individual parts.

This thread has helped me to frame a few more links in my mind.

Thanks

[zzzagman]

The first posting in this thread describes a frequent problem for GTD-ers. I believe that the intent of the GTD system is to "free up your mind" and not to make you dive into ridiculous levels of detail. I recal from the book that David mentions several times that the level of detail has to be sufficiently deep to *take that issue out of your mind and place it into a trusted system*.

The first poster gives a great example of how diving too deep into the level of detail could overload the system. A simple NA like "Call Jim B. re: Lakers Tickets" could be a project in itself: Open PDA, Scroll down to B..., Pick up receiver, Press buttons in sequence, Breathe in..... You get the idea. However, by this time everyone knows how to make a phone call, so we can skip the details, without sacrificing peace of mind.

However, when one is not familiar with a task, breaking it down into small NA's would be necessary to make sure that one has a clear understanding of what comes next, to make the task less amorphous and, utimately, to decrease the level of apprehension and to enable focused execution.

For those of you who had kids, you will remember the first time you fed the infant. It was a great deal, you needed a lot of pointers, you had to think about every single detail, down to the position of your arms, to offer proper support, etc. 4 months later you could do it while talking on the phone. You didn't even have to put on the NA list anymore: it took less than 2 minutes.

Aside from unnecessary level of detail on the NA list, I used to accumulate Tasks because I did not diferentiate between "Have to..." and "Nice to..." Learn Spanish was in my Projects list for 12 months and I still haven't started it! I solved this problems by using the tickler and the Sometime/Maybe. By purging the "Nice to do/have/etc....." out of the projects list, I brought the list down to under 75, and the NA list to under 157. (They are at 51/107 now and I thing that it is a reasonable load...)

These are my $0.02.

I will stop here now. (In reality, I will click with the mouse, Make sure posting show up, Turn IE off, Turn computer of... etc., but you do not need that level of detail, do you?)

[andmor]

What a rich thread! - tempting to wade in, even at the risk of repeating (not quite as well) what has been said before....

If the Master List paradigm is to write everything down with no sorting / coding until you are ready to make up the daily/weekly plan, then I think that the GtD equivalent is "Collecting". The Processing phase of GtD does the sorting before the writing (i.e. entering into the lists), which makes the Organized lists more manageable/sensible. The Processing phase is an exercise in stratification and Prioritization, between Calendar, Active Items (multi step Projects with Next Actions, and single-step outcomes) and Inactive Commitments / Wish List. This early-stage thinking activity is, I am guessing, the reason that DA places Priority last in the 4-Criteria selection of things to Do in the moment - the lists already reflect the general Prioritization (actionable vs non-actionable commitments). The philosophies may be similar, but the construction of the lists is quite different.

The GtD idea seems to be that if everything in the lists is properly thought out and in the right place, then the selection of things to Do should be fairly mechanical, or at least the list of currently-Doable items is limited. I like this idea because it creates a distinction between planning mode and doing mode, which staves off the temptation to wallow in planning (continuous tinkering with the lists) as a form of procrastination. It's nice in theory, but I still find that I need additional triggers to action and currently I am using a combination of Now/Soon/zzz and Must/Want/Wish - is that eclectic or what? Actually, I find this coding useful in balancing importance/proactivity against context/convenience.

On the subject of writing down Next Actions (excluding total no brainers, such as "Seal the Envelope, Affix Stamp, Place in Outbox, etc.), the late Mark MacCormack wrote that you should write down what you are about to Do and keep it in sight to heighten focus. It works for me and it helps to build the all-important momentum, and it has the added benefit that if I choose to be interrupted the Next Action is already written down. An additional benefit is that if the Next Action involves a change of Context, then as I write it down I am forced to make a conscious decision about whether I want to stay in the current context or change, and if I choose to change, to look through the list for other items in the new context in planning the next hour or two (bearing in mind the 2-minute rule as a secondary consideration - since I don't see the 2-minute rule as being applicable where a change of context is involved because of the time wasted in context-changing).

I hope this thread continues.

Andrew

[pstmstr]

Great topic and very interesting reading. I think I sometimes fall into the trap of too much organizing and not enough "doing". David mentions this problem in one of his articles. I love my PPC and spend a lot of time playing with it. I also use it in combination with Outlook at work. I find if I spend too much time fretting about my system, I am not near as productive if I just trust GTD to keep my incomplete actions "in" so it's not in my head bogging me down.

Some excellent suggestions and methods in these posts but the bottom line is whatever works for an individual to accomplish what we're all after, to get things done.

Great reading on these posts. Let's keep it going and learn from each other.

[Anonymous]

Having worked to implement GTD for about a year now, I have to say that the less clear I am about what I'm trying to do and why, the more I tend to tinker with my GTD methods. Ironically, I make some interesting discoveries for better methods when I am focusing on outcomes.

There is a book titled, "The Answer to How is Yes". The author contends that self help is a lucrative industry because so many people think they need to know *how* to be successful. The answers are endless. Those who have decided *what* they will be successful at and *why* tend to figure out their own how. Some of them even mange to be successful without GTD :wink:

[rossw]

I suspect that Andmor put his finger on an important point when he mentioned change of context. I see no obvious reason for splitting any NA that you can do in one context.

[Anonymous]

We all want to feel there is a plan- from mailing our bills [get envelope (check); stamp envelope (check); put envelope in mailbox (check)] to our plan for our lives [marry at 30 (check); have 2.2 children (check); die rich, fat, and happy (check?) ]. As I learned from Hyrum Smith, checking off stuff feels wonderful.

DA is pretty clear about next actions being placeholders, or bookmarks which tell us where to start working on a project again. A few personal observations:

On simple projects, overplanning is a waste of time, because once I start, I know how to keep going. When I stop, a good next action will let me pick up again easily.

On complicated projects, detailed planning is a waste of time because things change. Planning as much as I need to, but no more, is a good way to go. Only intermediate-scale projects benefit much from having lists of possible next actions. Big projects generally need big plans, not little lists.

Choosing good next actions is hard! If I am procrastinating a project, the three most likely reasons:
1) Desired outcome isn't clear.
2) Next action isn't next or isn't an action.
3) I don't want to do it (but I have to).
If I am being sufficiently adult at that moment, I can overcome 3).

I need to tolerate uncertainty about the future, while striving for clarity in the present.

[Scott_L_Lewis]

jkgrossi wrote:


I was just wondering if anyone else has found the process of writing down every single NA to be overly tedious.


The tedium may be due to the way you are defining next actions. Are your next actions normally as finely grained as your example list? A rule of thumb I use for defining a next action is that it can be done by me (or the group I'm in) in one context on one occasion. Obviously, stapling forms together, putting them in envelopes, and putting stamps on the envelopes are actions that most people would try to do in one sitting. Again, to use your example, I would probably just have "Change Direct Deposit info" as the next action just as you suggest.

Writing down unnecessarily detailed next actions interrupts thinking and execution rather than enhancing it. The test of an optimally defined next action is whether or not you are clear about what you need to do. If you aren't, then you need more detail. If you are, then additional detail is a waste of time.

[jkgrossi]

...an additional 2 cents (or nickel)

I believe the "Next Action" lists are supposed to serves as more "oh yeah - that" bookmarks, than a rigid anal retentive index. They are supposed to be there to keep us FROM worrying about what's happening on that lowest level of awareness.

Ironically enough - How much time & energy are we spending nervously worrying about this level in a system that was designed for us not to worry about it ?

(whew, lol)

Right! That's exactly my point! I spend more time managing the "system" than actually doing anything about the items in the system. In addition, the bookmarks are great for reminding me that "oh yeah, that needs to be done", however, these "bookmarks" don't do anything in terms of getting me to do "what needs to be done". They don't stop me from procrastinating over things that repel me. I realize that nothing can "make" me do anything; on the other hand, for some reason looking at "A" items on a list instills some sense of urgency that that "needs to be done NOW!"

[jkgrossi]

When we complete a next action, another next action reveals itself. Often these will be "less than 2 minute" type actions, so there is no point in capturing, processing and organising. Just do it - assuming you have 2 minutes, otherwise it will need to be CPO'd.
Thanks

That's part of my problem, in a sense. Sometimes, when I write down the "very next action" as opposed to just the "outcome", when I complete the very NA another NA pops up. I know that's inherent in workflow, however, for some reason I feel like the "psychich high" that Hyrum Smith talks about from checking things off when they're done is somewhat denied... When I check off an "outcome", I'm done!

Often I find myself making excuses. For example, on my @Calls list, I might have "Call so and so re: meeting agenda". I know that it's important, and I'm not really motivated to do it. An example of my excuse might be "well, I'm not near a phone right now, so I don't have to make the call", or "ah, this can wait... I'll do it later". There's nothing there, in my face, nagging me to get it done.

For some reason, if I see an "A" next to the item, I'll get up, go to a phone and make the call. I can't explain it, it's just the way I am...

[Anonymous]

As I think about this I realize that David's GTD methodology does have priorities. They appear to be as follows, using a simple ABC prioritization scheme:

Calendar (Hard Landscape) = A
Next Actions (Pre-Defined Work) = B
Ad Hoc Work = C

Now, the GTD approach basically says that these priorities are negotiable. In the heat of battle (your day), ad hoc work may become an A priority. However, once that piece of ad hoc work is complete, the waves settle, and you return to the previous plan/prioritization scheme by checking your calendar for what MUST be done next, your NA lists for what COULD be done next, or taking on the next piece of ad hoc work because the other two are free and clear. David simply calls for us all to be flexible but the priorities are there...

[jkgrossi]

The first posting in this thread describes a frequent problem for GTD-ers. I believe that the intent of the GTD system is to "free up your mind" and not to make you dive into ridiculous levels of detail. I recal from the book that David mentions several times that the level of detail has to be sufficiently deep to *take that issue out of your mind and place it into a trusted system*.

The first poster gives a great example of how diving too deep into the level of detail could overload the system. A simple NA like "Call Jim B. re: Lakers Tickets" could be a project in itself: Open PDA, Scroll down to B..., Pick up receiver, Press buttons in sequence, Breathe in..... You get the idea. However, by this time everyone knows how to make a phone call, so we can skip the details, without sacrificing peace of mind.

However, when one is not familiar with a task, breaking it down into small NA's would be necessary to make sure that one has a clear understanding of what comes next, to make the task less amorphous and, utimately, to decrease the level of apprehension and to enable focused execution.

For those of you who had kids, you will remember the first time you fed the infant. It was a great deal, you needed a lot of pointers, you had to think about every single detail, down to the position of your arms, to offer proper support, etc. 4 months later you could do it while talking on the phone. You didn't even have to put on the NA list anymore: it took less than 2 minutes.

Aside from unnecessary level of detail on the NA list, I used to accumulate Tasks because I did not diferentiate between "Have to..." and "Nice to..." Learn Spanish was in my Projects list for 12 months and I still haven't started it! I solved this problems by using the tickler and the Sometime/Maybe. By purging the "Nice to do/have/etc....." out of the projects list, I brought the list down to under 75, and the NA list to under 157. (They are at 51/107 now and I thing that it is a reasonable load...)

These are my $0.02.

I will stop here now. (In reality, I will click with the mouse, Make sure posting show up, Turn IE off, Turn computer of... etc., but you do not need that level of detail, do you?)

Good post! I wasn't really talking about getting into that much detail :D

What I'm having trouble with is that often I'll lift up a rock, and all of these worms will come crawling out... I feel like if I try to capture all of the woms, it slows me down...

Using your example of the phone call, "Call Jim B. re: Lakers Tickets" could quickly turn into a project, but not for the steps necessary for making the call itlelf. What if for some reason you can't find the number? I'll use this example to illustrate - I recently wanted to have an additional sattelite line installed in my home. So, what's the next action here? Where do I find an number - the yellow pages, the internet, etc.? This is definately a project... I could have multiple NA's here alone... Look in the Yellow pages and look on the internet are mutually exclusive items. One doesn't necessarily have to come before the other... Could both take more than 2 minutes - yes, definately! So this would dictate that they both be written down...

What I did was this - wrote down "Call sattelite co. to get estimate on 2nd line". I flipped open the yellow pages and called a couple of numbers. Went on line and called a couple of numbers. Made appointements for 3 estimates. Got estimates and had line installed.

Ok, now there are MANY NA's at different stages that got skipped over here... The question becomes "were they really necessary in the first place?". I don't really know, but it seems like they were not... I didn't stop along the way and think of each one (all took longer than 2 minutes). I just did them and got it done.

More importantly, for me, if for some reason I didn't want to make the call, there is nothing there screaming at me to do it!

[jkgrossi]

The GtD idea seems to be that if everything in the lists is properly thought out and in the right place, then the selection of things to Do should be fairly mechanical, or at least the list of currently-Doable items is limited. I like this idea because it creates a distinction between planning mode and doing mode, which staves off the temptation to wallow in planning (continuous tinkering with the lists) as a form of procrastination. It's nice in theory, but I still find that I need additional triggers to action and currently I am using a combination of Now/Soon/zzz and Must/Want/Wish - is that eclectic or what? Actually, I find this coding useful in balancing importance/proactivity against context/convenience.

Andrew
That's part of my problem. Having the selection be mechanical doesn't help me... What if a call really needs to be made, but I'm not near a phone? If the call's really important, shouldn't I find a phone? Of course I should! If the call's important but repels me, without something screaming at me to make the call I'm not going to find the phone; I'm going to use the excuse that I'm not near a phone to not make the call!

[jkgrossi]

jkgrossi wrote:
The tedium may be due to the way you are defining next actions. Are your next actions normally as finely grained as your example list? A rule of thumb I use for defining a next action is that it can be done by me (or the group I'm in) in one context on one occasion. Obviously, stapling forms together, putting them in envelopes, and putting stamps on the envelopes are actions that most people would try to do in one sitting. Again, to use your example, I would probably just have "Change Direct Deposit info" as the next action just as you suggest.

Yes, but is "Change Direct Deposit info" really a NA as defined by GTD? Something that simple can easily turn into a GTD "Project". My point was "is that really necessary?". I took your post to mean "no, it's not". But then is it really GTD? I agree with you that I don't need to be as finely grained as my example suggests. I was just trying to illustrate my point :wink:.



Writing down unnecessarily detailed next actions interrupts thinking and execution rather than enhancing it. The test of an optimally defined next action is whether or not you are clear about what you need to do. If you aren't, then you need more detail. If you are, then additional detail is a waste of time.

I couldn't agree more, and that was my point (although you said it much better than I did!)

Now that we've got that sorted out, what's your take on priorities?

[jkgrossi]

As I think about this I realize that David's GTD methodology does have priorities. They appear to be as follows, using a simple ABC prioritization scheme:

Calendar (Hard Landscape) = A
Next Actions (Pre-Defined Work) = B
Ad Hoc Work = C

Now, the GTD approach basically says that these priorities are negotiable. In the heat of battle (your day), ad hoc work may become an A priority. However, once that piece of ad hoc work is complete, the waves settle, and you return to the previous plan/prioritization scheme by checking your calendar for what MUST be done next, your NA lists for what COULD be done next, or taking on the next piece of ad hoc work because the other two are free and clear. David simply calls for us all to be flexible but the priorities are there...

Actually, my take on GTD was that anything on your calendar was non-negotiable! This does address the problem, however. For some stupid reason, I found this to clutter my calendar, and the non-check ability robbed me of Smith's "psychic high" :shock: ...

Stupid, I know, but

[jkgrossi]

As I think about this I realize that David's GTD methodology does have priorities. They appear to be as follows, using a simple ABC prioritization scheme:

Calendar (Hard Landscape) = A
Next Actions (Pre-Defined Work) = B
Ad Hoc Work = C

Now, the GTD approach basically says that these priorities are negotiable. In the heat of battle (your day), ad hoc work may become an A priority. However, once that piece of ad hoc work is complete, the waves settle, and you return to the previous plan/prioritization scheme by checking your calendar for what MUST be done next, your NA lists for what COULD be done next, or taking on the next piece of ad hoc work because the other two are free and clear. David simply calls for us all to be flexible but the priorities are there...

Actually, my take on GTD was that anything on your calendar was non-negotiable! This does address the problem, however. For some stupid reason, I found this to clutter my calendar, and the non-check ability robbed me of Smith's "psychic high" :shock: ...

Stupid, I know, but for some reason it's important to me!

[jkgrossi]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their contributions! That's the great thing about a board like this - it's an open forum for people to share ideas and help one another! I know that your posts have benefited me, and I hope all of you feel the same to some degree. Thanks!

Jim

[Anonymous]

One way to reduce the number of next actions is to not write down the 2minute actions, which can be done right away. Let's say I have a 15 minute time window open up and I am at my computer. I can then look at the list of actions under @computer and pick one (BTW there can be a group of actions tied to a desired outcome but there will be only one NEXT action in this group!). I will execute that action. If my next action takes less than a couple of minutes, I can just go ahead and execute that without writing it down. In this manner I can go through a series of actions and before my time is up, I should just write down what my NEXT action should be in that context.

One of the basics of what DA says (my interpretation) is that our thoughts should be focused on only the next action. Do not think about the actions that come later. So even if we don't have a list/plan of next actions, after executing a task we can simply ask the question 'what place/context am I at' AND 'what is my next action' and proceed with it. If there is a list of next actions to look up from, fine. If not just answer the questions and proceed.

If the action list is there in your head, get it on paper - knowing that only one action in a project will be the next action. If the action list is not there in your head, then don't bother to think about them just to write them down.

[intrigueme@aol.com]

...another 2 cents....

(at this rate, if we all pool these, we can buy a cup of Starbucks' coffee...)

I believe the bottom-line OUTCOME that David is shooting for is to get us all 100% purely IN "The Present Moment." He alludes to this in some of his writings. In Eastern Philosophy, it's the concept known as "Satori" - where thought and action become one and the same.

I believe the desired outcome is to use "GTD" to be totally GENUINE with ourselves. If that is true, then using our minds to "over-think" the lists is almost as bad as using our minds to "remember" the stuff instead of putting it on a list. As long as we are "carrying this stuff around in our heads" we will NEVER BE 100% in the PRESENT MOMENT. No worries, no concerns, no "whirring mind." Just "be" (or "do" in this case...). Once the worrisome mind engages, you lose that 100% presence.

As long as we carry "stuff" around - part of your attention will always BE paying attention to it. "What to do? When to do? Is this the right moment?" etc...It will never be 100% totally honest/genuine. Which means we have to totally TRUST oursleves (or the system). If we capture everything that is on our minds, up to that last second, as a result - we will then be a 100% totally GENUINE, AUTHENTIC Human Being in the present. Not in our own internal "self-created" worlds.

To end this latest "2 cents" on a lighter note - it struck me while typing this that the title of the book is "Getting Things Done" (past tense of "do") not, "Getting Things Thought" (past tense of, well, you know....lol)

[intrigueme@aol.com]

Addendum/Clarification

(or one more cent if you will)

What I was trying to communicate in the above post is the concept of "Direct Experience." When you FEEL the sun on your skin, and go "ooh, ahh" - that's the Direct Experience.

The minute you THINK "This feels warm" - you're no longer fully present in the Direct Experience. Your present in the THOUGHT about the Direct Experience - which happened one second earlier.

So, the "GTD System" is about capturing our THOUGHTS about the DOING (or the Direct Experiences). It won't "DO" anything, or "MAKE" actions happen. That's also why they're called "Next Actions" - they're what our mind thinks the next "Direct Experience" is going to be like; but we'll never know 100% of what it REALLY is until we're doing it. And then, our feelings about what the "next action" after that is may change.

EXAMPLE: Ever have an emotionally intense conversation with a loved one? Even if you "list all the Next Actions" about what you're going to say to that person, then what they'll say to you, then your 'next action' back...it NEVER turns out exactly the way you plan it! You never know - until you are in the Direct Experience (aka - Present Moment) And, at some point in that; you're probably no longer "thinking" about what's going on - you're just "doing."

(That's also why we shouldn't make it TOO complicated, or multi-tiered, because the time spent on that is time taking us away from "Doing" or "Being" in the Present Moment)

So, "GTD" is the "parking garage" for our THOUGHTS about future "DOING." It's NOT the "DOING." It's keeps us from worrying about putting money in the meter every hour, so we can be 100% "fully present" in the moment of the play/movie/musical.

Sheesh, I hope all that made sense...(lol)

[andmor]

[quote="Anonymous"]As I think about this I realize that David's GTD methodology does have priorities. They appear to be as follows, using a simple ABC prioritization scheme:

Calendar (Hard Landscape) = A
Next Actions (Pre-Defined Work) = B
Ad Hoc Work = C

I have posited often that the Processing phase involves prioritization and this is the first time that anyone has taken up the topic :) However, according to the Workflow Diagram, the fundamental prioritization is between commitments that are made active and those described as currently nonactionable. Next Actions could in fact be Calendar Items or ToDo's or Calls or WF.

Now, the GTD approach basically says that these priorities are negotiable.

Everything is negotiable, even Calendar items, right up to the time that the selection is made. But, I think that DA's approach is more fluid, yet at the same time more focussed, than the traditional A/B/C. It forces the elimination from consideration of those items that are not currently Doable:
-nonactionable items, including WF's
-anything other than the item assigned to the Calendar timeslot that is "now"
-items requiring location, tool or people that are not currently available
-items that will take longer or will require more mental or physical energy than are currently available at the moment of choice.
-ASAP's that are secondary to (today's) date-sensitive items

What is left to choose from is limited. The choice is positive. What is rejected is rejected for valid reasons and should not cause psychic distraction.

Andrew

[Scott_L_Lewis]

jkgrossi wrote:


Yes, but is "Change Direct Deposit info" really a NA as defined by GTD?


Yes, it is. To quote GTD (p34):



The "next action" is the next physical, visible activity that needs to be engaged in, in order to move the current reality toward completion.


So, "Pay due bills" is a properly formed next action. I don't need to decompose it into printing checks, signing checks, etc., even though those are discrete steps of the process of paying bills. Zzzagman's post does a good job of describing how you can go nuts decomposing next actions unnecessarily.

I have been thinking about the rule of thumb I mentioned in the previous post. I think it would be better to say that a next action is a significant advance toward an outcome that can be done in one context on a single occasion.

This makes it a bit harder for a next action to turn into a project simply because it has been arbitrarily decomposed into multiple steps. Projects become outcomes whose actions must be done in multiple contexts and/or on multiple occasions. If you have a bunch of steps that could be done in one context at one sitting, then I would say you are justified in describing them as a single next action.



Now that we've got that sorted out, what's your take on priorities?


If you are going to do ABC prioritizing, then I would suggest you do it in pencil because priorities change. This happens even in the Franklin-Covey universe. For example, as the due date of an important task approaches, its priority will go from a B to an A. It was only important before. Now it is important and urgent.

In the real universe, priorities can change dramatically on short notice, like for example when your boss shows up at your desk with a security guard and a cardboard box. :-(

Task prioritizing is really an attempt to answer Lakein's question. which is:"What is the best use of my time right now?" Priority only partly answers that question. Even if you know what your absolutely highest priority next action is, you still won't work on it if:
1) You are not in the place where the work can be done.
2) You do not have enough time available to start working on it.
3) You don't have the psychic or physical energy to do it.

The GTD Four-Criteria model is a better approach to answering Lakein's question, because it takes into account context, time available, and energy available as well as priority. Usually, the best use of your time is the highest priority action that you can do in the place where you are with the time and energy you currently have. Occasionally, however, you will have something to do that is so important and so urgent, that the best use of your time would be to:
1) Go to the place where the work can be done
2) Rearrange your schedule to make time for it
3) Pop open a can of Jolt Cola.

[Cikub]

jkgrossi wrote:
Task prioritizing is really an attempt to answer Lakein's question. which is:"What is the best use of my time right now?" Priority only partly answers that question. Even if you know what your absolutely highest priority next action is, you still won't work on it if:
1) You are not in the place where the work can be done.
2) You do not have enough time available to start working on it.
3) You don't have the psychic or physical energy to do it.


This is one place where I have a disagreement with David. He says that prioritizing by value is OK, but only after these three criteria are met. I agree with him on the first two items since if you're not in the right place, you're not in the right place and if there isn't time, there isn't time--you just can't physically do something. But #3, in my mind, should come after value prioritization because in practical terms, it really translates to "Do I feel like doing this right now?" Very--if not most--often, whether or not you feel up to a task or feel like you have the energy to do your best work is not relevant. For most tasks, if it's due or it's important, it needs to get done--even if you have to slog through it in the most miserable manner.

From a workflow perspective, when I do ABC prioritization, it's not a mental drain for me to go down the list, starting with A1 and say "Don't have time" or "Not in the right place", and skip down the list to find the one that is actually possible to do at that point in time. I don't feel guilty or confused when temporarily passing over tasks I physically cannot do at a point in time. Almost instantly, I can find the next, most important task that I can actually do. That way, I get the most important things done whether or not I feel like it. In fact, that's the whole value of ABC--it forces you to focus and doesn't let you use your mood as an excuse to procrastinate something important.

I'm not saying the GTD is bad or it doesn't work. For some people it works best. For people like me, GTD style lists work some days and ABC style works best others depending on what's going on at any point in time.

C

[jkgrossi]

[quote=Scott_L_Lewis]jkgrossi wrote:

This is one place where I have a disagreement with David. He says that prioritizing by value is OK, but only after these three criteria are met. I agree with him on the first two items since if you're not in the right place, you're not in the right place and if there isn't time, there isn't time--you just can't physically do something. But #3, in my mind, should come after value prioritization because in practical terms, it really translates to "Do I feel like doing this right now?" Very--if not most--often, whether or not you feel up to a task or feel like you have the energy to do your best work is not relevant. For most tasks, if it's due or it's important, it needs to get done--even if you have to slog through it in the most miserable manner.

From a workflow perspective, when I do ABC prioritization, it's not a mental drain for me to go down the list, starting with A1 and say "Don't have time" or "Not in the right place", and skip down the list to find the one that is actually possible to do at that point in time. I don't feel guilty or confused when temporarily passing over tasks I physically cannot do at a point in time. Almost instantly, I can find the next, most important task that I can actually do. That way, I get the most important things done whether or not I feel like it. In fact, that's the whole value of ABC--it forces you to focus and doesn't let you use your mood as an excuse to procrastinate something important.


Right! That's exactly where I run into trouble w/the GTD approach. Too often, I'd allow my mood to dictate whether or not to do something, and often those things were important and needed to be done. ABC prioritization forces me to focus on what needs to be done. Thanks for the great post!

[Scott_L_Lewis]

Cikub wrote:


Very--if not most--often, whether or not you feel up to a task or feel like you have the energy to do your best work is not relevant. For most tasks, if it's due or it's important, it needs to get done--even if you have to slog through it in the most miserable manner.


It depends on the task. Some tasks require your best work. Other tasks just need to get done. The point is that if a task requires you to be at your best and you aren't, you should defer doing it if possible.

What is being advocated is the principle of being mindful of our current capacities and making intelligent choices about what to do based on them. For some people, this would become a license to be irresponsibly self-indulgent. Those people should probably not try to employ the principle.

I would add however, that chronically ignoring our energy levels and feelings will make us more productive... right up until the time when we become sick or depressed...or dead. :(

Cikub also wrote:


From a workflow perspective, when I do ABC prioritization, it's not a mental drain for me to go down the list, starting with A1 and say "Don't have time" or "Not in the right place", and skip down the list to find the one that is actually possible to do at that point in time.


In other words, you are doing more than simple task prioritizing. You are finding the most important thing to do in the current context in the time available. Let's call that the "Three Criteria Model." :wink:

[Anonymous]

I would like to share my experience with you

as Scott said earlier ABC priorities do change. I don't want to spend my time re-evaluating them or missing some B that turned into a A before I realized it. So what I do is the following: I use the palm for GTD more or less the same as David does but in addition I use the 1 2 3 4 5 priorities in Palm as follows:

for Projects (in a category of To Do)
1 = Must or Promised (Project with a deadline or something I promised to somebody) in that case I enter a due date
2 = Want or Important (something that I really want to do or is important but is not time bound)
3 = Wish (something I wish to do but if I don't get around to it straight away, no big deal)
4 = Project on hold (not active yet but soon to be)
5 = Future Project (or someday/maybe if you prefer)

During the weekly Review when I decide I want a project on hold or a future project to become active I evaluate and change the priority to a 1 or 2 or 3 and put a NA somewhere with the same priority

for Next Actions which are in my to do list by context:
it's the same without the 5
1 = Must or Promised (Project with a deadline or something I promised to somebody) also with a due date if there is one
2 = Want or Important (something that I really want to do or is important but is not time bound)
3 = Wish (something I wish to do but if I don't get around to it straight away, no big deal)
4 = on hold (that is when it's a one step activity which can wait a bit)

I have the above in a memo in my palm to remind me of what those numbers mean to me.

the 5 doesn't exist because this a Next Action list which means things to do ASAP
the 4 means on hold which translates to me to : 'as soon as possible but right now it's not possible because of other priorities'

I set the palm view to show tasks by priority. the advantage of that system is that whan I open a NA list @phone for example I know in a glance what are the actions I want to tackle before the others so I don't waste time going through the list to evaluate what to start with. it also helps me avoid procastinating things that I don't simply feel like doing the way Scott described it

another advantage is when you look at tasks in 'all' view you see them grouped by importance (even if the projects get mixed with the tasks but you can see they're projects if you chose the priority,category view)

I also use attached notes to the projects with all the key steps or Next Actions and I pick from there the Next Action when it becomes doable , meaning when the parent ones are accomplished, and put it in the right context list, that way i avoid overcrowdind my NA list
sometimes there are several next actions part of one project which can start independently of each other so they're all in the corresponding NA list

I hope this helps, if it does help at least one person here i will be really glad because I did learn a lot from this board- thank you

Ludmilla

[jkgrossi]

Cikub wrote:


Very--if not most--often, whether or not you feel up to a task or feel like you have the energy to do your best work is not relevant. For most tasks, if it's due or it's important, it needs to get done--even if you have to slog through it in the most miserable manner.


It depends on the task. Some tasks require your best work. Other tasks just need to get done. The point is that if a task requires you to be at your best and you aren't, you should defer doing it if possible.

What is being advocated is the principle of being mindful of our current capacities and making intelligent choices about what to do based on them. For some people, this would become a license to be irresponsibly self-indulgent. Those people should probably not try to employ the principle.

Understood. The problem, however, is that unless you are the boss, you are not the one who impozes the deadlines. To give you an example, I have a project that's due today. I was given the assignment on Wednesday. I wrote down the project and NA's in my categorized list. I was in meetings until about 3:30 on Wednesday, and by the time I got back to my desk I was mentally drained. I definately was not at my best. Based on the GTD criteria, I probably should pass on working on my new assignment. I did. Thursday came around, and I got called into two more meetings that ran almost all day. Mentally drained again... Keep in mind, I've got a project due tomorrow... What shoud I do?



I would add however, that chronically ignoring our energy levels and feelings will make us more productive... right up until the time when we become sick or depressed...or dead. :(




Cikub also wrote:


From a workflow perspective, when I do ABC prioritization, it's not a mental drain for me to go down the list, starting with A1 and say "Don't have time" or "Not in the right place", and skip down the list to find the one that is actually possible to do at that point in time.


In other words, you are doing more than simple task prioritizing. You are finding the most important thing to do in the current context in the time available. Let's call that the "Three Criteria Model." :wink:[/quote]

[andmor]

Whether we are talking about Must / Want or QI / QII, I tend to get a more positive attitude about my list if it is heavily weighted to Wants and QII's. There are 2 ways I try to get to this:

1. In the Process phase I try to think "Want" or "Improvement" by focussing on a positive outcome when I decide that something should be Actionable.
2. I try to get Musts into the Calendar so that when I look at the ToDo list I am looking mainly at Wants. I work through the Calendar before the ToDo list. (That's a bit like doing the ugly things first.)

Once an item is on my list, it's harder to change its nature and my reaction to it. Artificial triggers, such as A/B/C simply reinforce my negative feelings about B's and C's so that they may continually get pushed behind more attractive new items. What I do in the Process phase before items hit the lists is the key to how I feel about my lists when I Review them. Processing with the right discernment, hopefully Mood" can become less of a decision factor.

Andrew

[Longstreet]

Nice sytem, Ludmilla! We are all visually-oriented/stimulated beings and assigning a category to help remind us of the importance of it is not a bad thing to do! One still has to make the intuitive choice of what one should do, though, per what David Allen says in his books. :)

Best to all!
Longstreet

[Scott_L_Lewis]

Longstreet wrote:


The problem, however, is that unless you are the boss, you are not the one who impozes the deadlines. To give you an example, I have a project that's due today. I was given the assignment on Wednesday. I wrote down the project and NA's in my categorized list. I was in meetings until about 3:30 on Wednesday, and by the time I got back to my desk I was mentally drained. I definately was not at my best. Based on the GTD criteria, I probably should pass on working on my new assignment. I did. Thursday came around, and I got called into two more meetings that ran almost all day. Mentally drained again... Keep in mind, I've got a project due tomorrow... What shoud I do?


Who sets the deadline is not relevant. The question is how to best manage your work so that you do the best job possible in the time you have available.

Being "at your best" is not really the issue, either. The question is whether you are good enough to tackle that particular project. Furthermore, projects do not make uniform demands on your capabilities. Some parts of a project are demanding, some can still be done even when you are ready to keel over. So, even if you were feeling drained on the earlier evenings, there still might have been some parts of the project you could have worked on.

Let's assume for this example, you were so drained that you couldn't do anything meaningful on the project until the night before it is due.

You have two options at this point.

One option is to go to your boss and renegotiate your delivery date. A lot of times bosses pick due dates out of their nether regions just to give a subordinate a delivery target. There is no shame in renegotiating an arbitrary delivery date, especially when you have busting your hump doing other things of equal or greater importance.

However, the delivery date may not be arbitrary. For example, your project may be a grant application, and the filing deadline is tomorrow. In that case, you go with the second option which is something I suggested in an earlier post. Pop open a can of Jolt Cola, get busy, and accept whatever quality of product you can produce under those circumstances.

The important point is this. When you apply the Four Criteria Model you are weighing four factors. All four of those factors vary over time, and because of that, your weighing will produce different results at different times. On Wednesday, you had slack in your schedule, so your lack of energy weighed more heavily than the priority of the task. On Friday, the priority has gone up because of the impending deadline, and now outweighs your lack of energy.

There is also one more thing I'd like to say. Considering your energy level is not asking yourself whether or not you "want to" or "feel like" doing something. It is asking yourself if you can do something. If you can't recognize the difference, then don't use the criterion in your decisionmaking.

[Cikub]

This has been a good discussion. It's interesting how, when common sense is involved, we all end up splitting hairs when it comes to honest-to-goodness differences in opinion. We seem to agree on most things with only minor differences: "You say 'to-may-to', I say 'to-mah-to'".

C