GTD, ADD, and Master List Overwhelm

[rpederse]

Hi --

I've had GTD partially implemented for about three years now. As is true with others who've posted to this forum, I have Attention Deficit Disorder. I'd love to get some feedback from folks on where GTD works for me at where GTD (or perhaps my current understanding of it) breaks down for me.

The Master Task List and the Occasional (should be weekly) Review do an excellent job of reducing my anxiety about forgetting something important. Making sure my next actions ARE next actions addresses my tendency to put stuff off when I'm not sure how to proceed on them -- sometimes my next actions are ridiculously tiny, but that's okay if it gets me off center. Making checklists for repetitive procedures also helps keep me from dithering over the "what's next" issue. My "getting ready for work" checklist probably saves me ten minutes every morning.

Where I'm having my biggest breakdowns lately has to do with selecting my work. Dividing my list by context doesn't help -- 95% of my work time is spent in front of my computer. I just don't have much of the "15 minutes in an airport" kind of time that appears to make the context lists helpful. I do have my lists sorted by "type of work" -- reading, writing, phone calls, etc. -- which helps me select tasks appropriate to the current levels of energy and ability to focus.

In short, my master task list ITSELF is a great source of overwhelm for me. On a good day, I take this in stride. But on a bad day, I can be reduced to a blob of ineffective anxiety by the sheer size of the thing, and about the best I can do is nibble around the edges of it by selecting low stress tasks, like a predator taking down the slowest and weakest prey. :)

(I did see a suggestion in another thread about the book "The Now Habit", for which I've just placed an order.)

Any thoughts?

[Tomas D.]

Try blocking your time. Say, project no. 1 8:00-12:00, project no. 2 14:00-16:00. I have started with similar setup, and works OK so far. The irrelevant tasks get out of sight, but are still accessible in one click. It can be implemented easily in My Life Organized and Life Balance, not sure about others.

[eno]

I think what might not work for you very well is the @computer or @Internet context. However, I think things like @home might (you won't fix the TV, install the Christmas lights, mow the lawn etc. from your computer -- if you do, there's a potential business idea ;-)).

Contexts don't have to be places all the time, either. How about using them as 'mode of operation' (@can-be-done-fast, or @needs-silence-and-time)?

Another thing could be putting priorities. Or categories (so you don't have to commit time windows, which personally I don't unless I have no other choice).

Now, if all of these still leaves a large list for things to be done at the office, don't forget you can't do everything at once. And certainly you can't do everything (part of GTD is knowing what you're not doing right now is ok so you can do whatever you do right now without worrying about the rest).

Finally, there _are_ bad days when you won't be able to work at 100% (you wrote about energy levels, remember?).

[Skiptomylue11]

Eno, I think similarily as you do, as I use contexts for @computer, @house, @outside, etc.

You brought up prioritizing, and I'm open to anyone's support. How do you GTD users manage to prioritize your lists?

I use a paper system, and I usually think it is wasteful to go through a list and re-write all the items in priority. I can understand that electronically it is easy to re-order and sort items, but using paper its not easy for me. I usually end up putting a red star beside an important item, but it doesn't help prioritize large lists and requires searching instead of a methodical sequencial priority list.

Any suggestions?

[eno]

Eno, I think similarily as you do, as I use contexts for @computer, @house, @outside, etc.

You brought up prioritizing, and I'm open to anyone's support. How do you GTD users manage to prioritize your lists?
I use a Palm PDA with 5 priority levels. 1 = important & urgent, 2 = important , 3 = urgent, 4 = neither urgent nor important, 5 = waiting for someone else to do something. Important means it furthers my own goals, urgent usually means someone else wants me to do something (and/or it is important to them) or it must be done as soon as possible. A task with a due date does not necessarily mean it's urgent.


I use a paper system, and I usually think it is wasteful to go through a list and re-write all the items in priority. I can understand that electronically it is easy to re-order and sort items, but using paper its not easy for me. I usually end up putting a red star beside an important item, but it doesn't help prioritize large lists and requires searching instead of a methodical sequencial priority list.
Write one project on one sheet of paper and then reshuffle the papers? Below the project name have the next action which you cross out as you have it done. Then, work from top to bottom.

[ADD GTDer]

In short, my master task list ITSELF is a great source of overwhelm for me.

As a fellow ADD-er, I can relate! : (

Are your lists on paper, PDA, or something else?

Janice

[DallasLawyer]

>>In short, my master task list ITSELF is a great source of overwhelm for me.<<

I have the same reaction at times. (This phenomenon is not limited to people with ADD!) If I'm feeling stuck, I find it helpful to ask myself:

-- what things absolutely have to get done today?
-- what things absolutely have to get done this week?
-- what one item on here is most important to my #1 career goal?

My superiors have made it clear what my #1 goal is, so at least I don't have to wrestle with that one.

Once in a while, I find that I have nothing that absolutely has to get done that day, but I am starting to feel overwhelmed by the piles on my desk. In that case, I may decide to spend the day working down those piles.

[dal1mdm]

I think the problem is that we need a funnel. From the masterlist to the week, to the day. I've had more success using paper for the weekly and daily and digital for the 100 + projects and NA's.

To be very honest, I dont have the bandwidth for full scale GTD implementation. For the same reason that I need GTD, I'm not able to do it full fledged. I'm much better off than I was, even with the the GTD half fast implementation.

[Brent]

dal1mdm, what do you mean by "not having the bandwidth for full scale GTD implementation?"

[dal1mdm]

Having tried the full implementation I found that the return on the investment didnt warrant the energy and effort I had to expend. Its nice to be that organized, but I just dont find it worth the cost. I function better with a 100+ NA's and projects rather than 200+

I can live with some open loops - life is an open loop.

[kewms]

Having tried the full implementation I found that the return on the investment didnt warrant the energy and effort I had to expend. Its nice to be that organized, but I just dont find it worth the cost. I function better with a 100+ NA's and projects rather than 200+

I can live with some open loops - life is an open loop.

How do you decide what goes in the system and what doesn't?

Katherine

[dal1mdm]

Intuition....

[Brent]

In short, my master task list ITSELF is a great source of overwhelm for me. On a good day, I take this in stride. But on a bad day, I can be reduced to a blob of ineffective anxiety by the sheer size of the thing, and about the best I can do is nibble around the edges of it by selecting low stress tasks, like a predator taking down the slowest and weakest prey.

Then you write


I function better with a 100+ NA's and projects rather than 200+

This does not look like a GTD-style Next Actions list to me.

There should be one item on your NA list for each project. E.g., if you have thirty ongoing projects, your NA list should only be 30 items long. The Projects lists are for notes and potential NAs relating to that project, but the NA list is a view of just the very front end of each project.

Or am I misunderstanding your system?

[Brenda]

I don't agree that you should always have only one next action for each project. If there are two actions that could be done immediately on one project, and if it doesn't matter which is done first then both these actions should appear on your next action lists.

[dal1mdm]

Brent

Actually, your two quotes are from two different posts by two different people.

What does one do with all the single-actions if they dont put them in a NA list?

[ActionGirl]

I don't agree that you should always have only one next action for each project. If there are two actions that could be done immediately on one project, and if it doesn't matter which is done first then both these actions should appear on your next action lists.
I agree with you. I was re-reading GTD just a few days ago, and somewhere in part 1, David gives an example of a seminar exercise in which he has each participant identify all the possible next actions for one mind-consuming project on all fronts, that is, everything that could move the project along right now. In the weekly review section, he does talk about making sure there is at least one next action for each project, but how many next actions per project seems to depend on your needs and on the project.

And besides, there can always be single-step next actions that don't require an associated project.

[Brent]

I don't agree that you should always have only one next action for each project. If there are two actions that could be done immediately on one project, and if it doesn't matter which is done first then both these actions should appear on your next action lists.

I agree that this can be done, and that this can work. However, I think that as a rule, only the single next action should appear in the NA list.

In the situation you provide, I prefer to choose one action and put it on my NA list. The other action goes on a Project list.

[Brent]

Brent

Actually, your two quotes are from two different posts by two different people.


Oops! Sorry about that.


What does one do with all the single-actions if they dont put them in a NA list?

Put the single-actions on separate Project lists.

Perhaps an example would be useful. Imagine that you have five projects: Learn Japanese, Draw a comic book, Make a Flash animation, Read a book, and Update a website. Imagine that you have six pieces of paper in front of you. On the first piece of paper, write down what you think you need to do to learn Japanese (buy a book/tape set, read the book, listen to the tapes, etc.). On the second piece of paper, write down what you think you need to do to draw the comic book. Continue for the first five pieces of paper.

(Note that what you write on these five pages CAN be actions, or broad plans.)

On the sixth piece of paper, write down the next physical, visible action needed to learn Japanese (say, "Buy a book/tape set"). Then just below it, write down the next physical, visible action needed to draw the comic book. Do the same for Making a Flash animation, Reading a book, and Updating a website. Your sixth piece of paper will have five Action items on it. Once you finish one Action item relating to a Project, you can cross it out and write down the next physical, visible action needed to complete that Project.

The first five pieces of paper are Projects lists. The sixth piece of paper is a Next Actions list.

At least, this is how I understand and implement GTD.

[dal1mdm]

"Buy the book, Freakonomics" is on my NA list. Its not part of a project - I just want to read the book. I would say better than half my NA's are not related to projects.

[Brenda]

"Buy the book, Freakonomics" is on my NA list. Its not part of a project - I just want to read the book. I would say better than half my NA's are not related to projects.

I use David's definition of a project as anything that requires more than one next action to complete, so in my system I'd have a project which would be "Read the book, Freakonomics".
My next action would be on my @ERRANDS list and would be "Visit bookshop to buy or order Freakonomics". Just buying the book is not going to complete the project, so I like to have it on my projects list.

[dal1mdm]

Reading a book is not a project for me. I consider it a pleasure and so I dont need to check it off on a list - its something I'd like to do enough that I wont need to be reminded to do it, or make a project plan up in order to make it happen most efficiently. This would be way too mechanical for me. Maybe I didnt give a good example.

How about "call Mom"? Should that be part of a larger project called "Love Mother"? Its a single action thats not related to a project.

Another example: update sales CRM (@Laptop). Its not part of a project, but I need to remember to do it, so its a NA.

[xoff]

-- what things absolutely have to get done today?
-- what things absolutely have to get done this week?
-- what one item on here is most important to my #1 career goal?


This is a great idea. I have struggled with the traditional: Urgent/Important...urgent...important...non
This approach has created way too many items in the first 2 categories never letting me get to the third.

I like this 'window of time" approach, especially when one reprioritizes on a daily basis.

[ProfDD]

I think that Brenda and Action Girl deserve a prize for careful reading of DA. I hunted around in the book and found that DA clearly refers to "at least one" NA per project, but also confuses some of us by having a whole chapter on "What's THE next action ?" The chapter was emphasising the importance of having a next action for every project, not limiting us to one NA per project.


I agree that this can be done, and that this can work. However, I think that as a rule, only the single next action should appear in the NA list.

In the situation you provide, I prefer to choose one action and put it on my NA list. The other action goes on a Project list.

I would like to understand why Brent favors having one and only one NA per project. It seems absolutely impossible in some cases. For example, let's say that a project has to be completed before the next weekly review, that several actions are needed to complete it, and that they are independent of each other. I would argue that all of these items should be on the NA list.

To avoid overwhelm, we may need some principles to work the list down to a more manageable size, but I haven't yet heard of a good systematic formulation for doing so.

[ProfDD]

Hi --

As is true with others who've posted to this forum, I have Attention Deficit Disorder.
I also have ADD and sympathize.

I liked your summary of the benefits of GTD for you and your metaphor of hunting for the weak prey among NAs.



Where I'm having my biggest breakdowns lately has to do with selecting my work. Dividing my list by context doesn't help -- 95% of my work time is spent in front of my computer. I just don't have much of the "15 minutes in an airport" kind of time that appears to make the context lists helpful. I do have my lists sorted by "type of work" -- reading, writing, phone calls, etc. -- which helps me select tasks appropriate to the current levels of energy and ability to focus.
Perhaps you could characterize the NAs by the quality of mental activity (Needs High Focus, Potential Hyperfocus Trap, Normal) that they require from you and match then with the time of day or medication schedule point that makes you most likely to succeed efficiently. Maybe just characterize items as needing "@QualityTime".

I would be very interested to hear what works for you and whether you think this idea would be practical for you.

[Brent]

I would like to understand why Brent favors having one and only one NA per project. It seems absolutely impossible in some cases.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

[ProfDD]

Directed to Brent and anyone else who follows this rule:

In your experience, why is it better to adhere to the "One NA per Project Rule" ? DA certainly does not require it. He states only that there should be AT LEAST one NA per Project.

[kewms]

Only immediately doable actions should appear on your NA lists. Listing actions that you can't actually do (given the appropriate context) undermines the whole GTD system.

Projects are likely to include many dependent actions, and these dependent actions should certainly be included in your project support materials. But only immediately doable actions should appear on your NA lists.

I don't follow the one NA per project rule myself, since my projects often have parallel tasks. But the purpose of the rule is sound: to limit your NA list to only those actions that you can actually do.

Katherine

[ProfDD]

Is there some kind of psychological advantage to the "One-NA-per-Project" rule, other than shortening the master NA or context-specific NA lists ?

It always seemed that it would force me to go back to the Project too often during the week if a project needed to be moved along before the next weekly review. I liked the PigPog method for simple sequence projects, though record-keeping on the early steps was either lost or a little awkward.

[airolg]

I use David's definition of a project as anything that requires more than one next action to complete, so in my system I'd have a project which would be "Read the book, Freakonomics".
My next action would be on my @ERRANDS list and would be "Visit bookshop to buy or order Freakonomics". Just buying the book is not going to complete the project, so I like to have it on my projects list.

This is really where my attempt to implement GTD fails so often.

I'm just not breaking my stuff down enough and it hurts the entire system...Thank you for pointing out this example of some of the things I'm doing wrongly.

[kewms]

Is there some kind of psychological advantage to the "One-NA-per-Project" rule, other than shortening the master NA or context-specific NA lists ?

It always seemed that it would force me to go back to the Project too often during the week if a project needed to be moved along before the next weekly review.

What's wrong with going back to the Project during the week?

There's a lot wrong with having undoable actions on your NA lists. Undoable "stuff" is why a traditional ToDo list is not the same as a GTD NA list.

Katherine

[ProfDD]

I use David's definition of a project as anything that requires more than one next action to complete, so in my system I'd have a project which would be "Read the book, Freakonomics".
My next action would be on my @ERRANDS list and would be "Visit bookshop to buy or order Freakonomics". Just buying the book is not going to complete the project, so I like to have it on my projects list. This looks like an excellent situatioin for using PigPog, perhaps as follows:
"Check Borders store inventory, visit bookstore, read Freakonomics" is the Task entry. It would appear in @Online initially, then @errands, then @Reading, deleting the completed bits as you go.

[Brent]

Thank you, ProfDD, for engaging me on this. It's a fascinating line of thought.


Directed to Brent and anyone else who follows this rule:

In your experience, why is it better to adhere to the "One NA per Project Rule" ?

It clears my head and sharpens my focus.

Let's reduce this to a simple case: One project, with three actions. Would you rather have a to-do list with three things on it, or a list with one thing on it? Which would be easier to focus on, the three things or just one thing?

Now multiply that by twenty projects.

Okay, how about the other end of this? Wouldn't adding several possible, non-interdependent actions for the same project increase my efficiency? No, because it clouds my focus with a long list of possible actions. I already have 99 Next Actions on my NA list, just with one NA per project, and each context has at least a dozen NAs each.


It always seemed that it would force me to go back to the Project too often during the week if a project needed to be moved along before the next weekly review.

The real world interferes with my projects too much to allow me to wait until the weekly review to check back with my projects. Also, if I take one action that renders a project unnecessary or requires a major shift in focus, I don't want to have to hunt through my NA list for all the NAs relating to that project to prune them out.

Moreover, I think it's helpful that GTD forces me to revisit my projects as I accomplish a significant amount of work on them (so I can formulate a Next Action). Often, the action I have taken has affected my plan enough that I need to change my plan.

(Also note that I'm not performing Mini Weekly Reviews when I do this; I just spend a few seconds thinking about my project, and figuring out the Next Action.)

How many of your NAs are unnecessary because of actions you've already taken that will require you to change course?

[Brent]

Replying to my own post, but:

I just want to make clear: I am not suggesting that your NA list must only have one Action per Project. I am suggesting that "one Action per Project" is a good desired state, and a good general rule to follow, and that it brings deep, significant benefits.

I've certainly had multiple Actions per Project on my NA list. And in fact, I just noticed a couple on there right now. I don't think this is necessarily a good state.

[ashraf999]

I have not read any books from GTD but I have learnt alot from reading the threads here. I wonder if it is applicable in GTD system to have multiple NA lists instead of one?. In other words, can you have one NA list for each project?.

[kewms]

I have not read any books from GTD but I have learnt alot from reading the threads here. I wonder if it is applicable in GTD system to have multiple NA lists instead of one?. In other words, can you have one NA list for each project?.

You should have one and only one master NA list (sorted by context). Otherwise, you have to look all over the place to figure out what to do next, which misses the point.

However, your project support materials can and should contain as much detail as you want about the actions associated with each project.

Katherine

[Brent]

Yes. The major exception to this rule (in my mind) is to keep one NA list at work and another at home. Often, the work/home divide is large enough that this is the most efficient process.

[CJSullivan]

I've certainly had multiple Actions per Project on my NA list. And in fact, I just noticed a couple on there right now. I don't think this is necessarily a good state.

I don't believe it's a *bad* state at all to have multiple next actions on a project. There are some projects that will have "dependent" actions, which means I must do action A before I do anything else. But there are plenty of larger projects that have subprojects, and each subproject might have one or more discrete actions that can be done to move things forward. In fact, if you don't capture all of the next actions on all the components of a project, then you're missing out. So, no worries on multiple actions per project in my mind!! :-)

[ashraf999]

Thanks for the clarification :)

[ProfDD]

I don't believe it's a *bad* state at all to have multiple next actions on a project. .... In fact, if you don't capture all of the next actions on all the components of a project, then you're missing out.
To reinforce the point, the important thing is to have AT LEAST one NA per project or subproject. I can even cite DA on this, if you'd like. The one-NA-per-project "rule" is not part of GTD.

Common sense would suggest that moving a project along quickly with only weekly project reviews would require completing multiple actions in the week if possible. The "PigPog" (q.v.) method is useful for moving through a simple, linear sequence of NAs that constitute a project or subproject without having to review the project.

[Brent]

...there are plenty of larger projects that have subprojects, and each subproject might have one or more discrete actions that can be done to move things forward. In fact, if you don't capture all of the next actions on all the components of a project, then you're missing out.

I think you're confusing my point. I completely agree with you about the importance of capturing all those components of a project, but those belong on the Project's list, not necessarily on the NA list.

There's a danger in having an NA list so large that some actions can get lost.

Computer programming is a good example. In many programming projects, there are many possible NAs that are not dependent on anything else. I could add twenty NAs to my NA list, all related to one project, but that seems not useful to me. Better to choose now which one of those to concentrate on and add that to my NA list.

I want to decrease the amount of mental work I have to do when I look at my NA list. I can more quickly choose one of twenty hand-picked NAs than one of a hundred. It requires a little more up-front work to decide on just one NA per project, but I think it's worthwhile when I'm glancing at my NA list for the tenth time today, and I only have a few seconds in which to choose something.

There's a psychological aspect to this: If I glance at a list in which 50% of its actions relate to one particular project, I'm going to be more likely to work on that project than others. But that's not fair to the other projects. Seems to me that, by having multiple NAs per project on your NA list, then some projects are going to get more of your time than others. I want to make sure all of my projects get equal attention.

[CJSullivan]

I want to decrease the amount of mental work I have to do when I look at my NA list. I can more quickly choose one of twenty hand-picked NAs than one of a hundred. It requires a little more up-front work to decide on just one NA per project, but I think it's worthwhile when I'm glancing at my NA list for the tenth time today, and I only have a few seconds in which to choose something.

Not having a background in computer programming, I'm sure I am underestimating the amount of overwhelm that volume of Next Actions might cause! My original post was, perhaps, more "theoretical" in nature, and it certainly works for me to have all the next actions that have popped into my head about a particular project on the appropriate next actions list(s). I'm assuming all the next actions you're talking about would fall into the same context, say, @Computer...and would make for a toilet-paper roll sized list!

I'm now listening to the GTD Fast CDs for the umpteenth time (the only program I've been through where I literally hear/learn something new with each listening), and I'm really getting (as per my "How to Be Idle" post) that the system is all about getting MORE done with LESS effort. And only you will know what that looks and feels like for you.

[Loukas]

I know this is not part of the original thread, but I would appreciate it if some of you with ADD would post some good links regarding this issue (maybe in a new thread). I tried Googling it but I get loads of irrelevant stuff as well.

I might have a "light" version of it, I'm trying to read up on this.

Thank you in advance,

Loukas

[ProfDD]

I know this is not part of the original thread, but I would appreciate it if some of you with ADD would post some good links regarding this issue (maybe in a new thread). I tried Googling it but I get loads of irrelevant stuff as well.

I might have a "light" version of it, I'm trying to read up on this.

Thank you in advance,

Loukas
Depending on your age and your contact with psychologists, it is very plausible that you would have ADHD and escape diagnosis, particularly if yours is ADHD-Inattentive, as opposed to ADHD-Hyperactive or ADHD-Combined Type. (See DSM-IV for the diagnostic criteria.) ADD is a term formerly used to describe what is officially known in the US as ADHD. It is still often used to describe adult ADHD, since hyperactivity often disappears after adolescence.

There are numerous on-line discussion groups about ADHD, most of them are either chatty or are about parents concerned about their children. The best source of links that I know is: http://www.maaddsg.org/ the site of the Manhattan Adult ADD Support Group. This includes links to screening questionnaires.

The most important thing is to get a diagnosis and determine whether to medicate.

I often refer people with ADHD to the various GTD sites, including this one, which has a few threads which mention ADHD.

Good popular books on ADHD are: "Delivered from Distraction" (2005), "Answers to Distraction" (1995), and "Driven to Distraction" (1992), by Hallowell and Ratey.
"Delivered from Distraction" has a bibliography. The science of ADHD is a little disappointing. You might like a well-written book like "The Executive Brain", by Elkonoh Goldberg, not about ADD. Given your thoughts about your possible ADD being "Lite", you might also read "Shadow Syndromes" by Ratey. All the books mentioned are likely candidates to be in your local library network.

You may contact me privately on this subject if you would like.

[ADD GTDer]

...There are numerous on-line discussion groups about ADHD, most of them are either chatty or are about parents concerned about their children...

If you're looking for a discussion group, I'd recommend the Yahoo group ADDventures. This group is specifically set up for Adults with ADD (there's a sister group to discuss issues with the kids.) Members there are very happy to talk with people who are considering the possibility that they have ADD.

Janice

[ProfDD]

Addventures eluded me in my searches. I look forward to participating there.

[ceehjay]

Addventures eluded me in my searches. I look forward to participating there.
I find Google searches give better results than a Yahoo groups search. It was second on my Google results list.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ADDventures

Carolyn

[ProfDD]

Yahoo!Groups has the most pathetic search for content of the group sites that I could imagine. I believe that the only look at the most recent 25 posts. You can only look back farther by searching the next 25 posts, then the next 25, etc. I hope someone can correct me, if I am wrong.

[ADD GTDer]

Yahoo!Groups has the most pathetic search for content...the only look at the most recent 25 posts. You can only look back farther by searching the next 25 posts, then the next 25, etc. I hope someone can correct me, if I am wrong.

Sorry, but I don't typically use the Search Message function. I do know Yahoo searches in batches, and it appears you're right. Sorry if it won't work for you.

Janice

[Cordelya]

There's an exercise I discovered through a friend (it's a meme making its way around various blogs and journals) that might help you.

When you're feeling overwhelmed by your list, try to look at it in another way. Take four pieces of paper. Head each piece of paper with one of these: "5" "15" "30" and "60+" so that each sheet has a different heading. Go through your master NA list and determine how long you think each NA will take to complete. If your NA list is excessively long, limit each sheet to 5 or 10 items, and leave the rest. Clearly, you can also choose to only pick items that fit into one context. Arranging a list based on the amount of time it takes can give you a new and fresh perspective on your NAs. I might decide to limit each time-frame to three items, and limit the 60+ to one item that is a reward (go to the movies, eat dinner out, etc). I then start at the 5 minute list for a few easy wins, continue on to the 15 and 30 minute lists, and then reward myself when I'm done. This can also be used as an exercise to improve your attention span.

I haven't been diagnosed with ADHD, nor has a doc told me I *don't* have ADHD, so I don't know if I know how it feels. I do have a rather short attention span sometimes; am attracted by shiny things and all that.

[Barry]

...my master task list ITSELF is a great source of overwhelm for me. On a good day, I take this in stride. But on a bad day, I can be reduced to a blob of ineffective anxiety by the sheer size of the thing...
That quote is from the original post in this thread. Pardon me if we have moved past that by now, but I do have a comment about it.

I think your overwhelm is because you have more on your Next Action lists than you can reasonably do or even get your head around when you review the list. That tells me that a lot of those N/As should really be on your Someday/Maybe list. Try this exercise. At your next weekly planning session, empty your entire N/A list into your Someday/Maybe category. Now selectively move some items back to your N/A list only if you think you can reasonably accomplish them within the next week. Don't load it up to the point where it is more than can possibly be accomplished within the next week. I think the N/A list will be less indimidating at that point and you can begin knocking out items with less stress. All of the other items will remain safely captured on the Someday/Maybe list for next week's review.

Don't use your N/A list as a comprehensive inventory of everything you could possibly do, but as a tactical list of things that you really can and intend to do within the week. (This tip is NOT intended as an interpretation of official GTD method, but just an idea that might help in this circumstance.)

Also, even though the semantics do not matter, you refer to your list as a "Master Task List" which is a concept from Franklin Covey for cataloging tasks that you can't get to right now. You should never try to work from a "Master Task List." In Franklin Covey terms, you should be working from a "Daily Task List" and in GTD terms you should be working from a contextualized "Next Actions" list. Call it whatever you want, but make sure you know the difference between these kinds of lists.

Good Luck.

[ProfDD]

Which would be easier to focus on, the three things or just one thing?

Now multiply that by twenty projects.

....

The real world interferes with my projects too much to allow me to wait until the weekly review to check back with my projects. Also, if I take one action that renders a project unnecessary or requires a major shift in focus, I don't want to have to hunt through my NA list for all the NAs relating to that project to prune them out.

Moreover, I think it's helpful that GTD forces me to revisit my projects as I accomplish a significant amount of work on them (so I can formulate a Next Action). Often, the action I have taken has affected my plan enough that I need to change my plan.

How many of your NAs are unnecessary because of actions you've already taken that will require you to change course?

I see the point. It seems that the best approach depends on the type of project:
Simple, known, linear sequence of simple steps: Pigpog; Lots of uncertainty about steps after next one: one NA per project & go back to project notes after each action;
Many independent actions with long lead times, deadlines not distant: as many NAs as you can.

This is obviously not a mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive list, but it does show some ideal types of projects. Are there other strategies that work for other project types ?

[BigStory]

It helps me to remember that the Projects list is a list of the outcomes I am committed to. I review this list regularly so nothing slips through the cracks, and it ensures that I am moving forward on everything I have committed to (no matter how slowly).

The Next Action lists (by context) are, on the other hand, a list of bookmarks that let me pick up where I left off. When I go to work on a next action, I often do more than the "next action" on a particular Project. Often I will work on the Project for awhile and knock off a number of steps, or really get into the zone and make all kinds of progress. Then, when I am done that "phase" or if something interrupts me, I mark down the "next" action, so it is easy to get back in the groove when I pick it up again. The NA list of course also lets me work down a list of things I am in the "mode" to do, such as crank out phone calls if my time or space or energy limits what I can do.

I think the NA list is not only about the "limits" of a context, but also about the "motivation" of a context. When I am working outside my home to make my yard look nice, I tend to want to stay in that "zone" and do a number of different things outside. Some of them may be parts of different Projects, but all contribute to the beauty of my yard, or just need to get done while I am in the mood to work outside.

I guess in this sense the NA list functions in two ways simultaneously, as a Context-based list I can crank through, and also as bookmarks of where to pick up again. Unless there is a true sub-component of a Project that can move forward for awhile on its own, I don't often have multiple NA's for a particular Project, although it is entirely possible.

Anything I want to make sure I don't forget during the execution of a Project, such as reference phone numbers and names, key steps, guiding principles etc. do go in the Note section of the Project, or the Project file. They do not become multiple NAs.

This is the way I understand DA, and it works as claimed.

Best Wishes,
Gordon

[TesTeq]

I think the NA list is not only about the "limits" of a context, but also about the "motivation" of a context.
I agree with you that this is a very important aspect of the whole idea of contexts - triggering the execution of the NAs in the basic work and home environments.

[Brent]

Excellent replies!

I've mellowed on this subject as time goes on. I now have mutliple items from the same project in my NA list, and it's worked. I only do this for tasks that need to be accomplished soon or that clearly belong in completely different categories. I have noticed that my efficiency decreases as projects sprout up all over my NA list; I'm less sure of the progress I'm making on each project.

[Day Owl]

Responding to an earlier post in this thread, here are a few more books on adult ADD that I have found extraordinarily helpful:

"You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid or Crazy?" by Kate Kelly and Peggy Ramundo

"Attention Deficit Disorder: A Different Perception" by Thom Hartmann

"ADD Success Stories" also by Thom Hartmann

I stumbled across the first book (Kelly & Ramundo) by accident in a supermarket discount bin. Seriously, it changed my life.

Thanks to others who have contributed to this subject on this thread.

[aderoy]

Question: Does not the 'Master Task List' from Franklin Covey roughly equal the 'Project List' that David Allen suggest we keep? Project list being of course a complete listing of all projects that we currently have a nextaction associated to?