How important is organizing NA by context?

[clairenyc]

I'd like some help with whether to organize next actions by context. I'm fighting this suggestion and I'm not sure whether I'm resisting something that would help me or whether it's a part of the GTD system that just doesn't work for me. On the pro side of organizing by context, I understand the idea that grouping similar NAs (e.g., phone calls) makes it easier to scan them when one is in that context (e.g, by a phone).

On the con side I'm worried about mixing actions that are in discrete categories. Before I explain this, let me give some background. I'm a part-time psychologist in private practice and a part-time stay-at-home mom. My work as a therapist is done in many contexts. Although the meat of it is seeing clients in my office, I also complete a lot of paperwork and notes at home, make phone calls at home or at the office, and attend a variety of meetings to improve my work or build my practice (e.g, peer supervision, my own therapy, a reading group, workshops, conferences, and meetings with potential referral sources). Currently, my NAs are organized mostly by content as opposed to location completed. They are personal (self/family, other relationships, finances, home, and errands) and work-related (client-related, professional development, practice-building).

If I switch to a context organization, aren't tasks more likely to get lost? What if I miss making an important phone call to a client or to my daughter's daycare because it's lost in a long list of less pressing calls? That seems especially likely because so much of my work and personal life takes place at home when my daughter is sleeping. During that precious work time, wouldn't I have too many contexts (on the phone, on the computer, at home, at anywhere) from which to choose? That's more than half of my NA list! Currently, any task that's associated with clients or with my daughter naturally takes precedence for me.

And what about identifying projects? When I considered self/family this week, I recorded the following next actions: email a friend to borrow yoga dvd, email a neighbor and parent of older children for feedback on local preschools, take my daughter to the butterfly exhibit at the Bronx Zoo, call doctor's office to schedule her next pediatric check-up, and discuss Christmas travel plans with my husband. I don't believe I would have captured all these if I was just looking at a list of contexts like phone, computer, home, office, errands, and anywhere.

Have any of you adopted GTD without organizing by context? Does anyone feel strongly that this step is important? Have you organized by context and found that it helped you in a way you didn't anticipate? I was very impressed with the previous thread on procrastination, and I wonder whether my reluctance to take this step in GTD is related to my fear that I won't review my list frequently enough or that I'll fail to complete important tasks.

Thanks for any feedback or advice.

Claire

[spectecGTD]

You hit on an important point at the end of your thread. The weekly review is where you tie it all together. (Some people do mini-reviews more frequently). Without the weekly review, it is entirely possible to let something slip through the cracks - in fact it's almost guaranteed.

Thinking about undoable N/A's when you are not in the context to actually do something about them is pointless. The purpose of organizing N/A's by context is to keep your mind free to do when you can actually do - otherwise why are you allowing something to waste time & psychic energy occupying your mind? Organizing your N/A's by context is the most effective way to gain tangible efficiencies from the time you spent collecting, organizing, defining a successful project outcome, and determining each N/A.

Personally, I can't envision bothering to determine N/A's without putting them in their context bucket. Otherwise I might find myself thinking I could somehow email a friend about a yoga class while I was looking at a butterfly exhibit at the zoo. My mind somehow doesn't understand that this can't be done, so it needs some trusted system to help it get organized.

[luisr]

I too had issues similar to yours. I use a laptop as my prime & only computer, and do a lot of work from home and from client locations. So many of the context categories that other people seem to use (@work,@pc) didn't really work for me.

The breakthrough for me occurred when I started modifying the categories to suit my situation.

Like you, I have client related activities that should take priority over other project-related or administrative activities. So for example, I have @Call$$Client for client-related, business development activities. When I scan my context list I check this category as a priority.

I use an @office context for tasks that require me to be 'in the building' (where my files are stored).

I do that same thing with appointments (I use a Palm Treo 600 & datebk5, which uses different categories for appointments & for to-do tasks).

I use a Client$Meeting category vs. StaffDev Meeting or generic meeting.

It may seem like too many categories -- but it works for me, and so, there's my advice to you ... forget the specific categories that other use in their GTD systems; prune the ones that don't make sense to you (@Pc, @desk, @work, whatever), and add some that are helpful for you (ie. @CHILDRelated!).

In the situation you describe, you might want to flag client-related tasks separately from child-related ones, separate from everything else ... do what works for your circumstances.

Luis

[emuelle1]

That's some good advice. Often, the defaut categories don't apply across the board to all of us. I'm trying to sort out specific ones for myself. While I was setting up my system, I created @home and @home computer. They are actually two different things. I use Log Me In (http://www.logmein.com), which enables me to log in to my computer remotely, so I don't have to be at home to do an @home computer task. I also have a category called @anywhere, but I'm thinking it may be unnessessary because these are the kinds of tasks I would either do on my Pocket PC or on my home computer, either sitting there or logged in remotely.


I have a few more crossed wires. With a one year old and another child due tomorrow, I often don't have time at home to take care of a lot of things, but I do have a job where I'm able to carve out time for personal things, like logging on to my computer. I will often take my "in box" from home and sort it out at work. I also catch up on some of my periodicals at work as well. These are techinically things that I would do at home, but the context I get them done in is at work.

Ain't it great being a knowledge worker with few clearly defined boundaries?

[TesTeq]

For me @contexts are for filtering out the Next Actions that are not doable in current situation. You cannot call somebody when you are not in @call context.

[Barry]

A lot of good advice in this thread. If you find that you have several contexts that can all be active when you are at home, try consolidating them all into one context (@home). Maybe you are just trying to implement too many. For a lot of people, having just 2 or 3 contexts may be all that are needed. One for home, one for the office and one for errands. The trick is recognizing that the system is flexibe and figuring out what makes the most sense for you. And as mentioned, the contexts do not have to be physical locations, but could be time slots, topics, energy levels or states of mind. It should be based on how you work and how you think.

For example, for me, having an @calls context doesn't make sense because I have phones in my home, in my office and one on my belt. There is hardly ever a time or place where I could not make a call. I lump my calls in with my home or work contexts, depending on when/where I plan to make the call.

If you are looking at your context list and you have the nagging feeling that you are overlooking an important next action from another list, then the system is not working for you. The whole point is to keep stuff like that off of your mind. So either change or eliminate your contexts so that you have confidence in your system.

[kewms]

As others have pointed out, it's pointless to worry about phone calls when you don't have access to a phone. Sorting by context hides activities that you can't do, so you can focus on doing the ones that you can.

And, as others have pointed out, everyone will have a slightly different list of contexts. Use the ones that work for you, ignore the ones that don't.

The other thing to remember is that no one ever said you had to *only* sort by context. Use an organizer that allows multiple categories and you can also sort by project (or client name), by focus area (professional, family, household maintenance), or whatever criteria make sense.

Something else to think about is that, if you have such a long list of phone calls that the important ones are likely to get lost, maybe you need to trim the list. Either dedicate an hour or two to just blasting through them all, or just drop (or move to Someday/Maybe) the ones that don't matter to you. Or maybe the nature of your life is that you spend a lot of time on the phone, and so need to block out regular time to keep your call list under control. And the same with other contexts. If your list is longer than you can accomplish in a reasonable amount of time, make a conscious decision about what not to do.

Katherine

[mark_g]

I found similar problems with mixing personal and work contexts and categories. I don't want to go through a whole list of personal calls (ring Fred and arrange to go to pub) with critical work calls for instance. Also if you have a seperate NA-context for each project, and a project is anything with more than one or two steps you soon have a bewildering number of contexts and projects.
I have found the best way round it is to have a GTD Work system based on Outlook, MindManager (www.mindjet.com) and Blackberry; and a seperate Home GTD system based on the Hipster PDA (http://merlin.blogs.com/43folders/2004/09/introducing_the.html) idea. Perhaps this is the "wrong" thing to do as regards GTD but I find it the best way to organise.
--
Mark

[bmd]

This thread is the biggest epiphany for me since originally reading GTD. Just yesterday, in utter frustration from several nights of poor sleep (weather-related), I separated my current priorities as Mindful, Semi-Mindless, and Mindless. Worked through them as my energy dropped. Made for a much more productive day! Contexts as "state of mind" REALLY address some major procrastination issues. I guess Julie Morgenstern discusses this, too. Thanks for all the good stuff.

Please don't wonder why I'm being paid good money to do "Mindless" work. A portion of my work involves folding, stuffing, stapling, etc.

[JLouise]

I separated my current priorities as Mindful, Semi-Mindless, and Mindless. Worked through them as my energy dropped. Made for a much more productive day! Contexts as "state of mind" REALLY address some major procrastination issues.

These contexts would be helpful for someone with a chronic or acute illness, too.

[ludlow]

Great question, and some really interesting answers. I definitely agree that contexts as envisioned in the GTD book don't work for everyone. I saw from the start that for my job it would be ridiculous to make all the phone calls associated with several projects, then do all the web research, then the writing. Each project has to develop more organically than that.

It's also question of technology, I think. If you use an electronic organizer, perhaps what you need is a system that allows you to switch very easily between NAs organised by context and NAs organised by project/life area. If, like me, you use paper, you have to make a choice. I organise NAs by project, but I sometimes make a note a context too, to make it easier to batch tasks when I'm in the mood:

[renewpassport] get new passport photos taken @ERRANDS

where "[renewpassport]" is the project, "get new passport photos taken" is the NA, and @ERRANDS is the context. It's not watertight; sometimes the contexts are improvised. That's because for me, unlike for example spectecGTD above, the key relaxation from GTD comes from knowing I've got the stray NAs written down and easily accessible, not from knowing that I have them sorted by context. I can see that point of view, though.

[pageta]

I have one general context (Tasks) and then I have specific contexts - Errands, Computer, Phone Calls, Outside (yardwork), etc. Most of my tasks fall into the Tasks context, but not so many that it is overwhelming. If something is critical, it goes on the calendar or in the tickler file. I even break out "Cleaning" tasks onto their own list simply because I only want to look at those things when I'm in the cleaning mode.

I also have Errands and Shopping categories - Errands are specific things I need to do (mail package at post office) and shopping is things I need to keep a look out for when I'm in town (new placemats for the dining room table). Errands are things I need to do; Shopping is things that I can do if I feel like, and even if I find an item, that doesn't necessarily mean I'll buy it.

In answer to your main question - is it necessary to break tasks down by context (vs roles), I would say that is the most important thing I've learned from GTD. I used to keep lists, but they weren't necessarily next actions, and they certainly weren't ordered by contexts. Now, everything on my main Tasks list can be done at home, some elsewhere as well. Errands aren't in my way on my list when I'm at home thinking about what to do next.

When/if you switch over to contexts instead of roles, give it a month to figure out what context lists work best for you. It will take a month of fine-tuning. I am a SAHM with an in-home business. Both personal and business tasks are on all lists because those aspects of my life are very intertwined. Business calls are on a separate list from personal calls, though. You just have to figure out what works for you. It takes a bit more thinking to figure out since you're not working in corporate America (aka the type of person the book seems to be speaking to the most), but it certainly can be done. Give it a month, and then see.

[Rainer Burmeister]

Claire,

perhaps you could use the following NA lists:

1. Mother (Mother at private practice, at home, and elsewhere)
2. At private practice (Therapist and personal items at private practice)
3. At home (Therapist and personal items at home)
4. Elsewhere (Therapist and personal items somewhere else)

Hope this helps.

Rainer

[ProfDD]

If I switch to a context organization, aren't tasks more likely to get lost? What if I miss making an important phone call to a client or to my daughter's daycare because it's lost in a long list of less pressing calls? That seems especially likely because so much of my work and personal life takes place at home when my daughter is sleeping. During that precious work time, wouldn't I have too many contexts (on the phone, on the computer, at home, at anywhere) from which to choose? That's more than half of my NA list! Currently, any task that's associated with clients or with my daughter naturally takes precedence for me.You could establish a policy of answering all client calls same day or by some number of work or calendar days. Then you could sort your calls by the date by which the call-back is required. No client calls could be lost.

I also agree with comments suggesting that contexts should be used creatively. If you had 10 minutes between clients that you didn't need for note-taking or review, you could make some short calls, but not ones likely to lead to long conversations. So you might want to break out short calls (@10mins) from other calls (@Phone).

I think the GTD context concept is a significant productivity aid. You may appreciate that some ADDers use categories that reflect the intensity of focus required to complete a task.

[peter_g]

Wow - great thread so far - keep going!

The issue of having too many items in a general-context list such as @Calls, @Home, @Email, etc. can be a major problem in implementing GTD when you have multiple work locations, multiple life roles, etc.

That being said, the physical contexts are critical distinctions to make as part of the up-front "pre-filter" of the inventory of available (and current if you do the weekly review!) next actions.

I've found it very useful to add at least one (and possibly two) additional parameters to each next action, as I create them (yes, I pay the 2-second time penalty each time, but it's worth it):

1) I assign a rough priority (in Outlook, high/medium/low) to each next action; and

2) I assign a category to each next action - using the Project data field for projects, goals, agendas, etc. with a distinctive description, such as @Role:Personal:Husband; @Agenda:Board Meeting, Project:Personal:Cottage:Refinish Bedroom Floor, etc.

Now I set views in Outlook and in my Palm to display the @Calls context list by priority, so I get that immediately available to me as a rough input to that moment-to-moment decision as to what to tackle next on this list. As the original thread author notes, this is where some high priority calls regarding children, or major clients can be made to appear a little higher on the list without being overbearing.

If the context list gets truly huge (like my @Emails list), I fire up outlook and look at a view of this context list grouped by project (as I define this field in item 2 above) - allowing me to tackle a specific area of focus - so if I'm working on issues related to the Board of Directors of my start-up company, my mind is already focused on these types of issues, allowing me to knock off a group of emails in short order.

If you're really, really, keen and you use Outlook, you can also create custom views that combine contexts - when I'm at my home office, I can display @Calls, @Emails, @Home:Office, and other such contexts in a single, combined list, grouped by either priotity or context, allowing me another tool to make the right (and critical!) choice of next action.

Hey, it works for me...

Regards,
Peter

[grt]

I get very distracted by having personal next actions mixed in with business next actions, so I have modified the contexts somewhat.

Work items are
@agendas
@waiting for
@calls
@computer
@work
Projects
Someday/Maybe

For personal items, I use z instead of @:
zCalls
zComputer
zErrands
zHome
zProjects
zSomeday/Maybe

This has helped me keep my focus where it should be. The z items show up on the bottom of my Outlook. If there is something personal I need to do during my work day, I set the reminder for a particular time. This has been very helpful when I've needed to make calls to a business, like the dentist or the utility company, during office hours.

[ProfDD]

I get very distracted by having personal next actions mixed in with business next actions, so I have modified the contexts somewhat.

For personal items, I use z instead of @:
.....
This has helped me keep my focus where it should be. The z items show up on the bottom of my Outlook.Why should personal items be automatically less important than work items ?

I always thought that one of the strengths of GTD from a motivational point of view was that it advocated keeping work and non-work items together. Why is it always true Many of my Principles of Management students were appalled that many (most ?) managers and professionals did not maintain a bright line between work and non-work items in their schedules (and to-dos).

Personally and practically, I never understood how one would be able to keep work and personal life very separate. For example, if all the adults in a household have 9-5+ jobs, how are they supposed to get calls on household business done ? Don't people make social arrangements with co-workers during work hours ? Don't people talk to work colleagues about personal matters ?

In cases where an employer successfully enforces a strict no-personal-calls/e-mail-on-company-time policy, contexts can be used to allow an employee to make the best use of break times for non-work purposes with an @breaks context.

Contexts need to be used creatively, reflecting one's own circumstances and, yes, values. DA's contexts are HIS contexts, not the last word on what each individual's contexts should be, as he has stated.

[pageta]

Why should personal items be automatically less important than work items ?

I always thought that one of the strengths of GTD from a motivational point of view was that it advocated keeping work and non-work items together. Why is it always true Many of my Principles of Management students were appalled that many (most ?) managers and professionals did not maintain a bright line between work and non-work items in their schedules (and to-dos).

Personally and practically, I never understood how one would be able to keep work and personal life very separate. For example, if all the adults in a household have 9-5+ jobs, how are they supposed to get calls on household business done ? Don't people make social arrangements with co-workers during work hours ? Don't people talk to work colleagues about personal matters ?

In cases where an employer successfully enforces a strict no-personal-calls/e-mail-on-company-time policy, contexts can be used to allow an employee to make the best use of break times for non-work purposes with an @breaks context.

Contexts need to be used creatively, reflecting one's own circumstances and, yes, values. DA's contexts are HIS contexts, not the last word on what each individual's contexts should be, as he has stated.

Personal items may be more fun and intriguing than work items. I've had jobs like that. If I allowed myself to think about personal stuff, I'd never get any work done. Thus I had to separate the two in order to discipline myself to work. It simply depends on the job. You could still take a 5 minute break and work on a personal task. But if you were running errands for your company, you wouldn't be tempted to drop by the dry cleaners on your way back to the office since you were on company time. So I can definitely see a place where it would be good to separate the two. Now are mine separated? No, but I work for myself from home.

[ChuckR]

Once you have more than a few NA's, some categorization is needed to locate tasks to do when you are ready to knock some off. Perhaps organization by project can do it, but I think organization by context is key - otherwise you are going to have to run through a big list of NA's each time.

[ludlow]

Chuck R: This is where I think I disagree, and where I think it really begins to matter *what* Things are Getting Done, though I would be honestly very interested in any thoughts about better ways to harness the power of contexts in a situation like mine. (I hope this doesn't derail the original thread too much; I think it will apply to others.)

I write articles for publication. Say I'm working on three of them, at the moment. I could make all the phone calls for all three, then do the web research for all three, then write the outlines for all three - etc etc. But that would have the effect of deliberately interrupting the gradually developing thought process, creative process, whatever you want to call it, which is how the ideas develop.

So it seems to me that contexts only become useful for more mundane tasks, like obviously making sure that, when I make a trip to town, I remember to buy the groceries AND go to the post office, or whatever. Or is it just a question of defining contexts wrongly? I've never quite been able to figure out how to reconcile GTD with the "flow" of working on a project.

ludlow

[spectecGTD]

This is a very useful thread in terms of examining the usefulness/utility of contexts. I agree that much of it is very specific to the individual's work habits, modes of operation, etc.

However, to use the previous example, time is a continuum and we only have a given amount of it to expend. Therefore, if I forget to visit the post office on my trip to the grocery store, and if it is still necessary to make the trip to the post office, then I have essentially wasted some valuable time which could have been spent more productively (possibly working on one of the three articles).

More specifically, if I have all my projects defined and N/A's assigned to their proper contexts in a TRUSTED SYSTEM, them I should be free to devote the proper amount of time to each creative effort. In fact, I should be free to be more creative, since I'm not being distracted by worrying about what I'm not doing while I'm doing what I'm doing. Eliminating the distractions should enhance creativity, IMO.

[ceehjay]

Chuck R: This is where I think I disagree, and where I think it really begins to matter *what* Things are Getting Done, though I would be honestly very interested in any thoughts about better ways to harness the power of contexts in a situation like mine. (I hope this doesn't derail the original thread too much; I think it will apply to others.)

I write articles for publication. Say I'm working on three of them, at the moment. I could make all the phone calls for all three, then do the web research for all three, then write the outlines for all three - etc etc. But that would have the effect of deliberately interrupting the gradually developing thought process, creative process, whatever you want to call it, which is how the ideas develop.
As Jason Womack has posted in this forum, the NA is a "bookmark." If you are working on an article and make a phone call about that article, there's no reason you can't proceed from there on that specific article. If you have the time to do more and the ideas are flowing, the best use of your time might be to keep working. When you reach your stopping place, you add your NA for that article to your list so you can pick up where you left off, and move to an NA for another project or "mundane task."

Completing an NA doesn't mean you MUST go to another NA. You have the choice of whether to follow up on the first NA or to move on. Time available, context, energy level, deadlines -- all should enter into your decision.

Carolyn

[Brent]

I agree 100% with Carolyn's excellent post above.

Here's an example from just last night. One of my responsibilities is security and administration of a web server. I had a couple of NAs to update a logging script in various ways, and upgrade a piece of software. Once I was done with those, I felt like continuing with web server work for awhile. So I continued upgrading other pieces of software, and consulted my Project list for the web server to find a few other things that needed to be done, and did them.

After a couple of hours had passed, I decided to go to bed. I removed my completed NAs from my NA list and added a new one resulting from my work. Work done.

So, no, you don't have to work exclusively off your NA list; your NA list is "just" a reminder of the next physical, visible action in each of your projeccts.

[pageta]

Thanks to this thread I am somewhat re-defining my contexts. I am a WAHM so technically everything but errands and phone calls could go on a single list. However, I know that I would be overwhelmed. I like working on things that I "feel" like doing so last night when I did my weekly review, I analyzed my categories once again. I typed everything into Excel and there were over 80 next actions from the past week. I sorted them according to my moods.

So I have Home Office (personal financial stuff), Domestic Diva (organizing and improving my household), Deep Cleaning (I keep an ongoing list of things that I notice need to be cleaned but aren't a part of my normal cleaning routine), Outside (I don't like to be outside unless it's a nice day and when my toddler wants to play outside, I like to have a list of things I can do), Business Admin (anything that doesn't have to do with customers), Business Follow-through (things that have to do with customers where I simply need to follow through) Business Initiation (where I need to take the initiative and contact prospects, the most difficult part of my business). I also have a cateogry for Errands.

All of those categories technically fit into "Home" but they give me a much shorter list that I can refer to according to my mood when I need something to do. They do in some ways reflect roles. And they do let me keep a semblance of balance in my life by making sure I cover all areas (for instance, that I'm not just doing business admin stuff and thinking I should be making money).

So to the OP, if your categories are working for you, then stick with them. If you're in the mode to think about clients and make a couple calls, there is no reason why those calls need to be on the same list as the calls you need to make for your children. I think "Context" for each person is very subjective, and doesn't necessarily have to do with our physical reality. Where the physical reality is obvious (like with Errands), it is easy to separate out. But I think it's perfectly fine to go with more subjective contexts as well. Kind of like the semi-mindless and completely mindless categories someone else mentioned on this thread...

[ludlow]

Thanks, spectec, ceehjay and Brent - some really useful ideas.

[clairenyc]

Thanks so much, everyone. It was really useful to read how each of you have slightly different ways of categorizing your work based on location, focus area, motivation level, role, and priority. I was intrigued by the fact that so many people recommended a combination of these different methods. I didn't expect that. It was also comforting to see that I'm not the only one whose personal and work lives get combined into a gloppy stew.

I'll be playing around with some new context ideas over the next few weeks to see which is best in practice. Thanks again for your thoughtful posts.

[Esquire]

This is an excellent discussion and topic.

As I've noted elsewhere, I sit at a desk in my office >95% of the time, so at least 3-4 context-based lists are always in play. Personally, I find that I'm too lazy to switch between lists on my Palm desktop.

I always thought that something lacking from discussions here is whether and how to use DA's final three filters (time available, energy, priority) in a more structured way. This is especially so when, like for me, the "context" filter doesn't really filter all that much out (usually on "errands" and "@home").

[ChuckR]

Chuck R: This is where I think I disagree, and where I think it really begins to matter *what* Things are Getting Done, though I would be honestly very interested in any thoughts about better ways to harness the power of contexts in a situation like mine. (I hope this doesn't derail the original thread too much; I think it will apply to others.)

I write articles for publication. Say I'm working on three of them, at the moment. I could make all the phone calls for all three, then do the web research for all three, then write the outlines for all three - etc etc. But that would have the effect of deliberately interrupting the gradually developing thought process, creative process, whatever you want to call it, which is how the ideas develop.
ludlow

Agreed - to me a combination of context and Project organization works best. I organize sometimes by context, for subdividing between @work, @computer, @phone, @errand, etc. and quickly locating NA's by those various contexts when I am in them. But at work I have literally 100 projects with their own NA's, so the @work context by itself doesn't provide enough organization and therein I use Project organization, and even subprojects where warranted.

[pageta]

More thoughts...(I seem to be obsessed with this thread because I keep finding myself thinking about it)...

GTD has four criterias for picking what to do next on your list: Context, Time available, Energy level, and Priority.

It makes perfect sense to sort out the context for things like errands, home and work. But within those contexts, I think perhaps the CONTEXT is no longer relevant. So perhaps it is good to begin by separating out the next actions that clearly belong in a specific context, but beyond that, context is no longer the issue. Rather, you can sort things by time required or energy level, which would be the next two criteria on the list of parameters to consider when deciding what to do next.

I don't know that I would separate out things by time available simply because I try to keep all of my next actions to things that take 15 minutes or less. That is possible when the next action is very specific, but if the next action is that specific, then there are probably subsequent next actions that could easily follow. So I don't think - at least in my world - it would make sense to divide things by time required.

But energy level...now that has some possibilities. Planning a new project takes a completely different level of energy than simply executing a simple, already-planned-out next action. I mean, there are many things on my list that simply need to be done (and don't require much thought) and there are things that I know will require thought and creativity in order for me to complete the next action according to my standards. For example, there is washing the dishes and cleaning out the pantry. With washing the dishes, you already know where things belong and you just have to do the task; with cleaning out the pantry, you have to decide what to keep, what to toss, and then where everything will go. Both tasks are in the same context, but they require vastly different amounts of energy.

So perhaps you find yourself with very few physical contexts and a very long next action list (I get more done when mine are short because I don't feel so overwhelmed), you could sort your next actions by the type of energy required to perform them.

Just a thought...

[Esquire]

Although it's a bit (maybe alot) more structured than GTD, Julie Morgenstern's Making Work Work and Time Management from the Inside Out address the time-available and energy criteria.

She suggests listing the estimated completion time next to each Next Action. Unlike Pageta, some of my NA require a nice big block of time, and when I have a few open hours, it's nice to have those right at my fingertips without wading through the 10-minute stuff that, in that setting, can serve as a temptation to distraction and avoidance of the bigger stuff. Similarly, if I only have 15 minutes, it's nice not to be bothered digging through the multi-hour NA's (which usually only increases my anxiety over the fact that they're not done yet).

On the issue of energy, Morgenstern suggests tracking your energy cycle over a few days, and planning to work on the heaviest stuff when your mind's usually the sharpest, and saving the mind-numbing stuff for when you're usually toast.

Again, for some GTD true believers, Morgensterns' abit heterodox, but I think her works are a nice supplement to GTD for people in enviroments where context-based action lists don't really filter out that many NAs.

[Brent]

I've recently begun clustering my NAs within their contexts. So, while I have one "Online" context, within that list I've clustered together work to be done on a particular web server (involving different projects), then websites to review, etc. It's very informal, and when I glance at the list it gives me an idea of a bunch of things to do if I'm in a mood to work on websites, or read websites, or shop online, or what-have-you.

This may be no more than a sign that I should break out my Online context into several different contexts. Hmmmm.

[ActionGirl]

I've recently begun clustering my NAs within their contexts. So, while I have one "Online" context, within that list I've clustered together work to be done on a particular web server (involving different projects), then websites to review, etc. It's very informal, and when I glance at the list it gives me an idea of a bunch of things to do if I'm in a mood to work on websites, or read websites, or shop online, or what-have-you.

This may be no more than a sign that I should break out my Online context into several different contexts. Hmmmm.
Not if it's been working for you (unless you feel like trying something new).
I've recently gone to having almost everything on one list, grouped by context as you say, and I like it. My only contexts right now are home and elsewhere, so I'm not looking at things I couldn't be doing and I don't have so many items that it's overwhelming to look at.