Contexts Question- What are your Contexts? Posted in Gear by mistake as well

[jhundley]

Sorry I posted this in Gear and Gadgets as well by mistake
I have been thinking about changing my contexts to better fit me, but have come up at a loss for some items. I would like to ask the group what Contexts do you use?

My hope is that by seeing how others use contexts it will spark my thoughts on how better to set my own contexts up. I use a Palm t3 synching with Outlook so I am limited in the number of contexts. I had thought about either all or some of my contexts matching between Appoinments and Tasks but am not sure on this at this time. Thanks for any help on this issue.

[kewms]

My contexts are:

@Anywhere
@Client -- comparable to @Agenda
@Computer -- assumes internet access, but not my physical office.
@Email
@Errand -- I also have a few location specific contexts, like @Library, for errands that require a special trip to that location.
@Home
@Office -- I actually work out of a home office. @Office is work-related stuff, while @Home is household maintenance.
@Phone
@Read/Review -- similar to @Anywhere, but requires that I take the item with me.
@Waiting For -- Items in this list also appear in @Phone or @Email to remind me of the next followup.
@Write/Edit -- similar to @Anywhere, but requires large chunks of uninterrupted time.

Hope this helps,

Katherine

[CrustyGeek]

My contexts

@Anywhere (very underused - I always seem to miss this one out when scanning for NAs)
@Agendas
@Calls
@Comp Home (things I can only do on my home PC)
@Computer
@Errands
@Home
@Waiting For
@Work

I've tried different contexts, but these seem to work best for me.

[Brent]

@Home (inside, outside, etc.)
@Home Desk (at computer or files)
@Laptop
@Online
@Phone - Daytime
@Phone - Evenings/Weekends
@Work

[tfadams]

I use Outlook and a Pocket PC and I'm near a computer (or my PPC) whether I'm at work or at home so I don't need specific contexts like @Calls or @Computer.

I used to have more contexts, but it became unnecessary for me to break them down further.

@Office (calls during business hours go here, even if they're not business related)
@Home (calls to make on weekends or after business hours go here)
@Outside (used more during the Spring and Summer, to separate outside work from "home" work)
@Agendas (for the various meetings, and info for people I don't see alot of)
@<person name> (when I see a person I interract with repeatedly)
@Waiting For
@Errands

Also, I try to be diligent about putting date specific stuff on the calendar. So a call to make on a certain day would go in Outlook as an All Day event, rather than in the @Office or @Home context list. If I'm waiting for something and it has to be back to me by a certain day, I'll put it on the calendar and on the @Waiting For list. If there is no specific agreed upon date, then it just goes on the @Waiting For list.

- Todd

[mruseless]

My contexts:

.Calls/Emails waiting
.Calls/Emails
Car
Cortex
Home
Office
Shop
[my boss' name here]
[my company name here]
Waiting For

You'll notice I don't use the "@" symbol, and that I use a period to put my calls at the top of the list. That's because I check those a lot and its nice to have them at the top. I use the [My company name here] category for things that I need to do when I am actually on site. The "Car" context includes everything from visiting clients to picking up groceries. Sometimes I use a letter code in front of the item on this list to sort by geography.

Also, I put a date at the front of each Waiting For item, so I can sort them based on how long they have been waiting.

E

[pageta]

I work from home but have separated out categories depending on the type of things I want to do.

Calls
Office (Business)
Office (Personal)
General personal stuff
Outside/Garden
Errands (things I need to buy)
Shopping (things I want to look for but not necessarily buy or make a trip to town for)

I have projects and agendas in the same place. People are simply a type of project for me (in my business) so I make sure the next action is always determined and then put it on one of my context lists. When it comes to holding the actual meeting with my client, after all the prep work has been done, it is fairly straightforward what I need to do based on my notes to that point.

[Desultory]

These are really sub-contexts for Desk/Computer/Phone:
High Energy
Medium Energy
Low Energy

Physical Activity (this one I use to take breaks away from my desk)

Waiting For
Agendas
Errands
Read

[eowyn]

On the Home list:
@Desk
@Desk - Study
@Errand
@Home
@Phone / PDA
@Shed and Outside
@Waiting

On the Work list: (I know - sacrilege - having two lists, but it works for me)
@Agenda
@Desk
@DNN (any computer in the company with intranet access )
@Office (main office)
@Phone
@Waiting
@Walking around (walking around our main site - getting out of the office)
@G @M and @C (these are three other sites I am visiting regularly)

[jhundley]

I just wanted to take a moment and thank everyone for their input

[Skiptomylue11]

Does anyone have @read/review and @anywhere, because I had both contexts for a while, but I eventually thought, I have little that is under @anywhere, and pretty much the only things I can do anywhere is read or think about things.

[kewms]

Does anyone have @read/review and @anywhere, because I had both contexts for a while, but I eventually thought, I have little that is under @anywhere, and pretty much the only things I can do anywhere is read or think about things.

I have both. @read/review isn't a "pure" @anywhere context, because I have to remember to take the item to read with me. So about the only @anywhere contexts are planning, brainstorming, etc.

Katherine

[Queen Sarah]

Here they are, and I must say they are working "okay," but I do have a vexing problem.

@Contact (I usually can choose between phone, email, in-person, letter, etc.)
@Errands (Within this list, I begin each item with @[location] so I can bunch them.
@House
@Job #1
@Buy? (If I know I'm going to buy it, it goes on @Errands. This is for items I'm seriously thinking about, and I want them on their own list, but I'm not necessarily committed to.)
@Read/Listen/View (In addition to reading, I frequently have to listen to or view recorded material.)
@Online
@Computer
@Not This Week (This means Someday/Maybe, but I kind of like the wording better.
@Pending (This means Waiting For.)

I recently added these contexts:
@GTA work (Because I need to keep track of hours, but the work must be done in certain of the above-listed contexts, I've found this works better on its own list.)
@Learn/Research (This is for most of my graduate work -- it requires intense focus and chunks of an hour or more.)


OK, my problem is that it is very difficult to draw clear boundaries around different parts of my life. I have 3 part-time jobs and am working on 2 graduate degrees. My contexts overlap, and they don't happen automatically; I have to consciously put myself into them. When "talk to Nicole about X" is on my list, I can call her, wait til I see her at either of two jobs, leave a note in her mailbox, or email her (my preferred way.) But even email is a fuzzy context. I can email her from home, from my laptop if I happen to be in a wireless hotspot, from the library if I happen to be at the computer, or with my ubiquitous little email-gadget (which is more convenient because I always have it, but less convenient if it's a long email, because I have to thumb-type.) So even a simple task like that becomes tricky when I'm deciding what context list to put it on!

The other part of the problem is deciding what context to put myself in. Most of the time it's not a matter of saying "I'm at the office, so let's look at the @office list." It's more like "I have the next four hours; I could do NAs from any of 6 or 7 context lists."

I would appreciate any ideas you all might have!

[Brent]

If these contexts aren't working, then maybe you don't need these contexts.

Have you tried just putting everything on one big list? Or eliminating all but a few of your contexts?

[Skiptomylue11]

Why would someone want 1 big list, it would be more overwhelming and less organized.

[kewms]

The other part of the problem is deciding what context to put myself in. Most of the time it's not a matter of saying "I'm at the office, so let's look at the @office list." It's more like "I have the next four hours; I could do NAs from any of 6 or 7 context lists."

You might take a look at Julia Morgenstern's book, "Time Management from the Inside Out." Her basic idea is that you need to be aware of the time, energy level, and concentration needed for a task in order to decide when to do it. So it might make sense for you to send all emails and make all phone calls at once, leaving the rest of the day free for work needing more concentration. Or, you might find that you can only focus for an hour or two at a time, so it works better to make phone calls during 15 minute breaks between more focused work. The important part of her approach is a tool called a time map, which plans appropriate work periods (contexts in GTD terms) for a whole week at once.

Using a time map in your example, you might say, "I can count on four uninterrupted hours on Wednesday afternoons. That's a good time to get some focused reading done." Then, when Wednesday comes, you go straight to your @Read/Listen/View list.

Hope this helps,

Katherine

[Brent]

Why would someone want 1 big list, it would be more overwhelming and less organized.

Depends on the number of projects and items in the list, doesn't it?

[Queen Sarah]

I do have the Morgenstern books ~ I will take a look at them ~ thanks! ~Sometimes I don't know what is in all the books I have on the shelves...

One big list would be overwhelming, it's true, but there is one way this idea might work for me. I need to keep my contexts as listed (they are working for me; I just have trouble because they overlap so much and don't happen automatically with clear boundaries.) -- I have thought about this, and it might be just the thing. I could have all the lists on one big (11x17?) sheet of paper, which I could create at the weekly review. Then the NAs would be organized, but I would be able to see the contexts all at once, for those times when they overlap so much. I am a paper person anyway. This would have to be a folded-up thing tucked into my planner so I could get to it easily.

I might try this... thanks!

[Skiptomylue11]

Depends on the number of projects and items in the list, doesn't it?
Yes you are right. If someone has a relatively low number of projects and NAs, I suppose it might be simpler to use one list, which could save time if the list is short.

However I feel that lists sorted by contexts is more organized and easier to navigate with larger amounts of NAs. It will be more adaptable to larger work loads, which I want to take on in the future. I am relieved that I won't have to worry whether the system is adequate for larger loads and put NAs into Someday/Maybe, because I fear that too many items on the "one list" would strain the system.

[Brent]

I agree with you, Skiptomylue11. However, lists with contexts are not working for Queen Sarah, which is why I suggested that perhaps the solution is to eliminate the contexts.

It's far less important why it works than whether it works.

[Starfish]

However, lists with contexts are not working for Queen Sarah, which is why I suggested that perhaps the solution is to eliminate the contexts.

I'd like to clarify this point - I think it is more accurate to say (and it seems that Queen Sarah has said it as well) that the set of contexts that Queen Sarah has chosen are not effective -- due to the fact that the contexts are not mutually exclusive.

But...


It's far less important why it works than whether it works.

In this case, I'd have to wholeheartedly agree :)

By the way, there's some interesting reading at MarkTaw.com on this problem of contexts: What context to I put this next action in? (http://www.marktaw.com/gtd/ContextLists.html)

Matthew

[andersons]

OK, my problem is that it is very difficult to draw clear boundaries around different parts of my life. . .My contexts overlap, and they don't happen automatically;

The other part of the problem is deciding what context to put myself in. Most of the time it's not a matter of saying "I'm at the office, so let's look at the @office list." It's more like "I have the next four hours; I could do NAs from any of 6 or 7 context lists."

I have the same type of situation. I do research too, though I have recently been working from home. So I have a loooooong @Home list. But @Home includes other lists, so if I want to work from a shorter, more focused list, I can. @Home includes

@Computer:Research [requires big blocks of time and lots of effort and energy]
@Errands:Urgent [these show up on just about every @list for obvious reasons]
Computer-
CDplayer-
Phone-
Read-
Morning-
Evening-

I never look at the lists followed by minus signs, but theoretically I could if I wanted to see just those things.

I mainly work from the big @Home list. But when I devote a big chunk of time to research, I switch to @Computer:Research. So that context is mostly conceptual, barely physical. But I really need it.

I do have other contexts, but @Home and its subordinates is the one with all the fuzzy boundaries. I dislike these contexts because they are so ugly -- some are times of day, some are concepts, some are physical items like the computer. But these contexts have been great to work from, so I'm trying to accept the ugliness.

[TesTeq]

I think contexts are meant for eliminating NAs that you are not able to do in a given situation. You do not have to browse the long list of items that are undoable because of the lack of the necessary resources.

For example you cannot buy PDA (in computer shop) when you're in your office (so you don't browse @errands list in your office) and you cannot browse the Internet when you have no connection available (so you don't browse @internet list in this situation).

[andersons]

I think contexts are meant for eliminating NAs that you are not able to do in a given situation. You do not have to browse the long list of items that are undoable because of the lack of the necessary resources.

For example you cannot buy PDA (in computer shop) when you're in your office (so you don't browse @errands list in your office) and you cannot browse the Internet when you have no connection available (so you don't browse @internet list in this situation).
True. But how do you decide when to be in your office? Or when to do errands? If you have few context constraints imposed on you, everything IS potentially doable. You end up reviewing a bunch of different lists in order to decide, so having hard edges between different lists becomes less useful.

When I'm physically at home, I could go out to do errands at any time. With this freedom, it is less helpful to keep the errands off my @Home list since I have to review the @Errands list anyway in order to decide what to do next.

If you have to be in an office 9-5 working on specific projects and actions, it is easy to keep contexts clear and distinct and use them just as filters. When you're at the office, you don't worry about stuff to do at home and vice versa. But if you don't have to go to the office or could leave at any time, you're not constrained to that @Office list; you have many more options and have to choose. I could go to my office and do stuff that I can only do there. Or I could go out and do errands. Or I could stay home and do a hundred different things. Which to choose?

When this is the case, I often have to choose a context based on my NAs rather than the reverse. It is the disadvantage of having too much freedom.

My @Errands:Urgent is a hack to make me choose to do errands sometimes, without forcing me to review all my errands all the time. Once I have something sufficiently important/urgent to brave the traffic, I then consult the @Errands list for all errands I need to do. The urgent ones are on both lists, so @Errands is comprehensive for all errands. Using the urgent NAs as reminders helps me choose my context. I used to keep the urgent errands off my @Home list and confine them to @Errands list only, but I then had to review lots of non-urgent errands frequently just to ensure that no urgent ones fell through the cracks.

Also, if I decide to stay home and do those errands later when the traffic subsides, I can easily filter the @Errands:Urgent NAs out of my @Home list if I don't want to see the NAs suddenly rendered "undoable" by my decision.

I agree that my hack is ugly and I don't like that; I like clean context lists with hard edges better. But this hack has been working well for me, probably because I hate going out to do errands. Seeing an urgent one on my main list helps me decide.

[Skiptomylue11]

I agree with you, Skiptomylue11. However, lists with contexts are not working for Queen Sarah, which is why I suggested that perhaps the solution is to eliminate the contexts.

It's far less important why it works than whether it works.
I agree, the bottom line is whether or not the system works for you. If the single list system works for Sarah and she's productive, then its a success, regardless of how different it is to GTD.

[TesTeq]

True. But how do you decide when to be in your office? Or when to do errands? If you have few context constraints imposed on you, everything IS potentially doable.
I am afraid that pure GTD answer is:

Use your intuition (based on your higher level goals) to decide what to do in a given context and to decide if the context change is needed.

So the clear vision of your life and your future is required but I doubt if it is achievable for most of the people.

[kewms]

Honestly? I find that "picking which context to be in" just isn't that difficult. I only have to do it at all if I run into a roadblock (external or internal) on my major project for the day (chosen either in the morning or at the Weekly Review). Then, I either pick my next most important project to work on--easy to do since the complete list for the week is less than a dozen --or simply go with whichever list is longer and/or whichever suits my mood. (Sunny day = @Errands, rainy day = @Read/Review. :-) )

If context picking is causing undue stress, you might look and see how well your contexts match what you're actually doing, or you might consider that maybe there's a problem with some other part of your system. If any context has more than about a dozen NAs, for instance, it might be time to decide that some of them belong on a Someday/Maybe list.

Katherine

[pageta]

Honestly? I find that "picking which context to be in" just isn't that difficult. I only have to do it at all if I run into a roadblock (external or internal) on my major project for the day (chosen either in the morning or at the Weekly Review). Then, I either pick my next most important project to work on--easy to do since the complete list for the week is less than a dozen --or simply go with whichever list is longer and/or whichever suits my mood. (Sunny day = @Errands, rainy day = @Read/Review. :-) )

If context picking is causing undue stress, you might look and see how well your contexts match what you're actually doing, or you might consider that maybe there's a problem with some other part of your system. If any context has more than about a dozen NAs, for instance, it might be time to decide that some of them belong on a Someday/Maybe list.

Katherine

Katherine, you are too funny! Especially the sunny day/rainy day part!

For me, that is so true. The weather, what mood I'm in, how well my toddler is behaving...all of those things help me decide which context I would be most effective in. I'm a WAHM, and I have a list of things to do outside (when my toddler just needs to go throw some rocks), I have a list of errands I must do (when my toddler needs more of a change of scenery than just going outside), I have a list of errands I can do if I have the energy (aka if my toddler is still behaving), and somedays I think I should have a list of things I can do while I'm watching my toddler and things I need to do while someone else is watching him (haven't done that yet because I'm afraid the latter list would be too long so I just work on a moment by moment basis). But the even deeper value of GTD is having everything written down so that when it seems the only thing I can do is just spend time with my toddler, I can do that without guilt, without worrying that I'm not doing something that I should be. I can make INFORMED decisions.

I hate to say it, but even with a toddler, I've gotten more done since I've been doing GTD than I ever did before I became a mother.

Yes, I can do anything I want at any given moment, but having contexts make it so much easier to choose. Is the weather nice? Well, let's go outside. It's raining today? Daddy can buy milk on the way home - we'll buy groceries tomorrow. Any change of plans is so much easier because I know what I'm choosing not to do.

Short lists - definitely! I have to know what context I want to work in next when I look at the list, and if the list is too long, I can't read the whole thing before making a decision (because I can't get through it without being interrupted and having to start over again). Short lists are definitely the way to go.

[kewms]

Katherine, you are too funny! Especially the sunny day/rainy day part!

I don't have a toddler, but I do have a convertible and a pretty flexible schedule. Especially in the spring, I sometimes find myself actively seeking excuses to run errands.

Katherine

[jac]

You say that your contexts don't have clear boundaries and admit this is causing you difficulties.

Yet you also state that your contexts work for you.

You need to decide which is it?

Also, your "Contexts" are not all contexts and appear to be a mixture of various levels of Next Actions, Lists, Projects and Areas of Focus. Remember that Contexts are a method of organising Next Actions only. No wonder you feel the edges are poorly defined!!!:-

@Contact - not only is this not a Context but you are leaving yourself wide open to poorly defined Next Actions. You need to decide at the front end whether you are going to call (@call), e-mail (@computer or @office or @desk perhaps) or talk in person @agenda.

@Errands - this is fine - a true context!

@House - again a context (I assume you list things you do in your house here?)

@Job #1 - not a context - where do you do this job? If you work from home then perhaps this is @Office or @Desk??? I would suggest that your list of jobs should actually be on your 20,000ft list of Areas of Focus which each one having a number of Projects on your @Projects list?

@Buy? - this is just a list - it doesn't belong on your Next Actions list at all. You might want to review it every week (as part of your Weekly Review) to see if you can move any of these onto your @Errands list. If you must keep it here why not remove the "@" symbol to make it clear it is not a next action

@Read/Listen/View - ok as long as you carry your reading material around with you. Otherwise the Context should be the place where the material exists eg @Library or maybe @Computer?

@Online - fine

@Computer - fine

@Not this Week - not a context at all but a list of Someday/Maybe Projects. Maybe you should remove the "@" symbol to differentiate.

@GTA work - I don't understand this - is it a Next Action list or a log of work done???

@Learn/research - again I would suggest this is an Area of Focus and not a Next Action List

Finally I see no mention of a Projects list.

To summarise, I could see you having the following:-

An Areas of Focus list including Learn/Research, your 2 degree courses and your 3 part-time jobs. It may include other things such as Socialise, Personal Finance etc. However, it is just a trigger list to review occasionally (maybe every week) and it neither a context or a list of Next Actions

A Project list containing tasks that will take more than one action to complete. It may/should include Projects relating to your Areas of Focus. It is the things you are working on right now. It is neither a context or a list of Next Actions. You need to review it weekly to ensure each project has a Next Action (and that the Project is still ongoing).

A Someday/Maybe list containing projects that you aren't currently working on but that you might want to do in the future. You could incldue your Buy list here. Again review weekly.

And finally your Next Action lists sorted by Context. These are the @computer, @desk, @agenda, @errands lists. They needn't be organised by work, job, degree courtse or anything else (the weekly review ties these altogether).

Hope this clarifies for you - I think your underlying problem is that you are tring to apply contexts too widely rather than just to Next Actions.

[andersons]

Using intuition is practical only when the number of choices is limited. Those with few meetings, few changing inputs, and no imposed work hours have to limit more choices more broadly before using intuition for specific NAs is going to work.

Prioritizing based on high-level goals, as TesTeq pointed out, is the crucial first broad stroke to limit NAs. If you don't prioritize goals and projects, it will be hopeless to choose among the many possible NAs.

Another way to broadly limit NA choices is to schedule times upfront for important things. It looks like people with flexible schedules often set up some structure for their time. Katherine described Julie Morgenstern's "time maps" in another post. (Thanks for that book recommendation, by the way.) I too have done something similar which works very well, scheduling blocks of time to work on my most important projects. I have hesitated to block out my time too strictly, but I will check out the book. It sounds like a useful adjunct to GTD strategies for those who have lots of discretionary time.

Useful context lists can help, too. Contexts don't have to be purely physical places with hard edges. They do not have to require physical resources like a computer. Contexts should be any list of actions that is useful in a given circumstance.

If my schedule is somewhat flexible, but I have a few appointments or deadlines throughout the week, it is easy to choose my context and choose NAs, as Katherine described. However, when my schedule is 100% flexible, wide open, no constraints at all, it is much harder to make choices. This is the specific situation I'm talking about, one with few constraints. If you have a toddler to care for, you have a lot of constraints! I'm not suggesting any of this will apply to you. I'm sure it won't.

The weather doesn't help me choose, either. It hardly ever rains here. Nothing but sunny days for 6 months straight. :-)

I am not currently having any problems choosing my context or my NAs. But I once did, and others have posted similar questions to this forum. Queen Sarah's situation sounded similar, so I shared my experience in case it could be helpful for her situation. Mine is a specific situation, and I'm sure that my specific approach won't apply to other situations. Special-case solutions rarely generalize, but they are great for those special cases.

How about the following as a summary of recommendations only for people with lots of discretionary time and trouble choosing among many alternatives?

Situation: Some people have lots of discretionary time with few or no constraints or changing inputs.
Problem: They may find it hard to choose among their many possible NAs on various context lists.
Solution: It's a lot easier to choose from a few things than from many. Make some big choices up front:

1) Review your high-level goals and make sure you're clear about the most important outcomes you want to achieve. (TesTeq)
2) Schedule out blocks of time to work toward your most important goals. (kewms)
3) Tweak your context lists to be more helpful. If it's helpful to have a list of things only related to one important project, then use that list. Don't worry about not having hard edges; that's OK; your situation doesn't have hard edges.
Additions, criticism, discussion?

[kewms]

How about the following as a summary of recommendations only for people with lots of discretionary time and trouble choosing among many alternatives?

Situation: Some people have lots of discretionary time with few or no constraints or changing inputs.
Problem: They may find it hard to choose among their many possible NAs on various context lists.
Solution: It's a lot easier to choose from a few things than from many. Make some big choices up front:

1) Review your high-level goals and make sure you're clear about the most important outcomes you want to achieve. (TesTeq)
2) Schedule out blocks of time to work toward your most important goals. (kewms)
3) Tweak your context lists to be more helpful. If it's helpful to have a list of things only related to one important project, then use that list. Don't worry about not having hard edges; that's OK; your situation doesn't have hard edges.
Additions, criticism, discussion?

I would add: be very sure that your NA list really does include immediately doable items with clear beginnings and endings. Anything vague can easily turn into a three hour window shopping trip or a three hour meander across the Internet. Often, the three hour surfing session will be completely justifiable -- there really is lots of useful information out there -- but that doesn't mean it's the most important thing you could be doing right now.

I've also found that upfront planning is especially important for self-directed people. I'm currently working toward a major deadline on November 21. That's more than two months away! I have plenty of time! Except if I don't work now, I'll find myself trying to do two months worth of work in about two weeks. Oops! And, since the major deadline is two months away, it's especially important to clearly define the very next thing I need to do *this week.*

Katherine

[pageta]

You say that your contexts don't have clear boundaries and admit this is causing you difficulties.

Yet you also state that your contexts work for you.

You need to decide which is it?

@Job #1 - not a context - where do you do this job? If you work from home then perhaps this is @Office or @Desk??? I would suggest that your list of jobs should actually be on your 20,000ft list of Areas of Focus which each one having a number of Projects on your @Projects list?

@Buy? - this is just a list - it doesn't belong on your Next Actions list at all. You might want to review it every week (as part of your Weekly Review) to see if you can move any of these onto your @Errands list. If you must keep it here why not remove the "@" symbol to make it clear it is not a next action

@Read/Listen/View - ok as long as you carry your reading material around with you. Otherwise the Context should be the place where the material exists eg @Library or maybe @Computer?

@GTA work - I don't understand this - is it a Next Action list or a log of work done???

To summarise, I could see you having the following:-

An Areas of Focus list including Learn/Research, your 2 degree courses and your 3 part-time jobs. It may include other things such as Socialise, Personal Finance etc. However, it is just a trigger list to review occasionally (maybe every week) and it neither a context or a list of Next Actions

A Project list containing tasks that will take more than one action to complete. It may/should include Projects relating to your Areas of Focus. It is the things you are working on right now. It is neither a context or a list of Next Actions. You need to review it weekly to ensure each project has a Next Action (and that the Project is still ongoing).

A Someday/Maybe list containing projects that you aren't currently working on but that you might want to do in the future. You could incldue your Buy list here. Again review weekly.

And finally your Next Action lists sorted by Context. These are the @computer, @desk, @agenda, @errands lists. They needn't be organised by work, job, degree courtse or anything else (the weekly review ties these altogether).

Hope this clarifies for you - I think your underlying problem is that you are tring to apply contexts too widely rather than just to Next Actions.

Okay, some thoughts here. Contexts don't have to be absolute.
@Learn/Research could be at the library, at home when no one else is around, or at the park on a sunny day. The point is that you have quiet time to think.
@GTA is a job, and if it is all done in one place and you only need one list, it is the same as @home or @office.
@Read/Listen/View could also be perfectly fine. Sorry, but I'm not going to have an @Movie Theatre next action list. It goes more along the lines of mood - when you're in a receptive mode rather than a generative mode (creativity vs. observation).
@Buy - I have this one. Actually mine is "errands" but I will put specific items I need that I could get any number of places. I always have my errands list out when I go to town, so if I need toothpaste and am at a place that carries it, whether it be Walgreens, Target or the grocery store, I can pick it up.

Bottom line, contexts do not have to be physical in all instances. It's a great general rule to go buy, but doesn't necessarily have to be absolute.

[andersons]

I've also found that upfront planning is especially important for self-directed people. I'm currently working toward a major deadline on November 21. That's more than two months away! I have plenty of time! Except if I don't work now, I'll find myself trying to do two months worth of work in about two weeks. Oops! And, since the major deadline is two months away, it's especially important to clearly define the very next thing I need to do *this week.*
Yes, upfront planning! I have found this too. Do you use the "time maps" you described in your other post to do this?

[Brent]

Using intuition is practical only when the number of choices is limited.

I disagree. Please back this up.

[kewms]

How do I plan? Big topic...

Twice a year, I sit down and figure out revenue goals, other business goals, and personal goals. This process includes looking at how I did against my goals for the last six months, and figuring out what I need to do in the next six months. There is very little project planning involved here, except I will run through my list of client projects to see how much of my revenue goal is already booked, how much is out there in the form of outstanding proposals, and how much is fantasy requiring more marketing on my part. I like to do this between Christmas and New Years in the winter, and during Fourth of July week in the summer.

Whenever I propose a major project, I'll have a pretty good idea how long it will take, both in clock time (billable hours) and calendar time (completion date). Once I actually win the contract, I create a project in my system, usually treating the major milestones as subprojects. (I use mindmaps, but a hierarchical outline would be functionally equivalent.) I'll also plan at least the first few actions for the first major subproject. If much time has elapsed between proposal and contract, I'll need to double check to make sure other commitments haven't intruded to push the completion date back.

Monthly, I review the list of major projects for the month, move things to or from Someday/Maybe as needed, and if needed check how I'm doing against my higher level goals. I try to do this the first weekend of the month. This is also when I review where I am on larger projects that take more than a month to complete.

Weekly, usually on the weekend, I do a more or less standard GTD Weekly Review, which includes looking at my calendar, blocking out time to work on the things I need to work on, moving things to Someday/Maybe when I run out of time slots, and so forth.

My time map is a more or less static document that I use to guide my weekly planning. It reminds me that I will *always* need to feed the cats in the morning, that I need to block out personal time for exercise, food, etc., and that it's completely useless to schedule phone call time in the morning (EST) because the west coast is still asleep. Essentially, the time map documents my "natural" schedule so that I can work around it in my task-oriented weekly planning.

Daily, I process my paper and electronic inboxes and print out a sheet with my current Next Actions, sorted by context. (As I've mentioned elsewhere, if the list takes more than one page, there's too much on it. These NAs are already screened to focus on current projects, as determined during the weekly review.) If I'm feeling overwhelmed or disorganized, I'll use a highlighter to mark the top 5-10 items. Otherwise, I just use this sheet as is. I scribble notes on it as I go, then throw the whole thing in my inbox to review the next morning. (Or evening, if I have time at the end of the day.)

Hope this helps,

Katherine

[andersons]

How do I plan? Big topic...
Hope this helps
Interesting, thank you. Great to read an example of how to do high-level ("30,000'") planning, which is not much elaborated in GTD.

I've already been structuring my time somewhat, and your description of time maps inspires me to do look into that more.

[andersons]

I disagree. Please back this up.
Regarding my statement Using intuition is practical only when the number of choices is limited, okay, here's my reasoning.

Say you have a completely unordered list of 100 actions you want to do and could be doing right now in this context. Now intuitively pick the most important one you want to do right now.

If you're thinking 100 actions is ridiculous, it's too many, you've just proved my point. Who routinely picks "intuitively" among that many choices?

At worst, you'll be overwhelmed and paralyzed with indecision (some people are indecisive). At best, you'll have a big task. It can probably be done, but it's not practical.

(By the way, it's not impossible to have 100 possible next actions. I have that many on my @Home list right now; people here keep chastising me that it's too long.)

If someone pops on the forum and asks this question, they'll be told, "Your list shouldn't be that long. Move stuff you can't do this week to a Someday/Maybe list."

Well, that is just one way of limiting the choices you have to make "intuitively" by making some gross prioritizations upfront. Someday/Maybe IS prioritizing in advance.

Prioritizing goals and projects in advance ("I'll do these this week; everything else can wait") is even more powerful than prioritizing NAs because you can eliminate all a project's actions as choices if you defer the project. Higher-level prioritizing is a powerful way to reduce the load on your intuition during the week (see Katherine's post above for a great example).

Context lists can also reduce list size and therefore make intuitive choices easier by eliminating obviously undoable ones. However, as Queen Sarah's example shows, they do not reduce action choices for everyone.

Just choosing to be in your office from 9-5 is an upfront prioritization that limits action choices.

There are different ways to cut down the list of possibilities. Your job alone may do most of it for you. My point was that one way or another (or all of the above), you have to reduce a list of potential actions to a number you can comfortably choose from on the fly. That number may vary between different people, but each person certainly has his own limit of how many NAs to choose from comfortably.

(And yes, I appear to be contradicting myself by saying a list can't be too long, yet mine has 100 items. But my list is prioritized. The most important items are on the first PDA screenful. If it were not nicely prioritized for me, it would be impossible to work from. The stuff at the bottom is realistically Someday/Maybe, but I don't see any point in moving actions off my list only to have to move them back soon. It doesn't bother me having them there, at least not right now, so I just leave them rather than doing the extra work to move them back and forth between different time-frame lists.)

[Brent]

Say you have a completely unordered list of 100 actions you want to do and could be doing right now in this context. Now intuitively pick the most important one you want to do right now.

If you're thinking 100 actions is ridiculous, it's too many, you've just proved my point. Who routinely picks "intuitively" among that many choices?

At worst, you'll be overwhelmed and paralyzed with indecision (some people are indecisive). At best, you'll have a big task. It can probably be done, but it's not practical.

I have no problems doing this. And I've had well more than 100 actions defined in the past. It may take me a little time to pick the most important one, but it's not impractical.

It may be impractical for some people, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's universally impractical.

How many people find this impractical?

[Desultory]

It's impractical for me. If I see more than a few things (like *five*) on the list for a given context, I feel overwhelmed. There's so much to do!

I waste enough time as it is, the less I spend allowing myself to pick and choose the better. I think one of the reasons paper is working for me is that I can pull one sheet for the context I'm in--and that's what I work on next. All the choosing happened when I put the sheet into the context folder. All the prioritizing happened when I chose which sheets to put into the folders for the day.

Anyway, that's my theory right now.

[TesTeq]

It's impractical for me. If I see more than a few things (like *five*) on the list for a given context, I feel overwhelmed.
As far as I know people feel comfortable with lists of 7 items plus/minus 2 (5 to 9 items).

[Brent]

As far as I know people feel comfortable with lists of 7 items plus/minus 2 (5 to 9 items).

You know, I've heard this for years, but I don't think I've ever seen evidence of it.

I've seen evidence that people can keep no more than 7 (+/- 2) unrelated pieces of data in their mind at once, but that's it.

[andersons]

You know, I've heard this for years, but I don't think I've ever seen evidence of it.

I've seen evidence that people can keep no more than 7 (+/- 2) unrelated pieces of data in their mind at once, but that's it.
There are gazillions of studies confirming Miller's short-term memory limitation of 7 +/- 2 items, but yes, they are distinct items (not necessarily unrelated). "Chunking" is one way we increase our capacity to use information, by grouping related items into a single higher-order one. This is why hierarchical organization is so powerful. If you give someone a list already grouped, they will remember many more items than if the list were ungrouped and unsorted.

In real life, the limit is probably more like 5. We can get people to expend extra effort and energy to do their best in lab tests, but in real life it's too expensive to perform at our lab-best all the time. In our lab, we literally pay subjects bonuses for better performance. For short bursts of time they do their best, then head off to the pub when they're done. :-)

Long-term memory is another way of increasing capacity. If you review a list of 100 things often enough, you build up strong long-term memories of it. So when you look at your list to choose from it, each item is a trigger for a strong existing memory. Contrast this with the case in which someone else gives you a list of 100 actions you've never seen or thought about before.

With my list of 100 actions sorted by priority, I have reviewed and consulted it enough times that I can reproduce the top 20 or 30 items from memory, no problem. If my PDA crashed, I would still know what I want to do today. That's because of long-term memories created by review. I could also probably remember many or most of the lower-priority items, but I would not be able to reproduce all of them without some trigger.

There's also a big difference in what we subjectively feel we remember versus actual memory performance. People can perform way above chance on a recall test, yet still believe they can't remember a thing. This is called "implicit" memory: your brain knows stuff that you don't know you know. :-)

[Brent]

There are gazillions of studies confirming Miller's short-term memory limitation of 7 +/- 2 items

Where are they? I'm not trying to challenge you; I'd genuinely like to read them.

[ritz]

@Anywhere
@Computer: Offiline
@Computer: Online
@Errands: [town I live in]
@Errands: [town I work in]
@Errands: [town I visit]
@Home
@People (my designation for @Agendas)
@Phone (my designation for @Calls)
@Site: [branch office name here]
@Site: [branch office name here]
@Site: [volunteer worksite here]
@Site: [main office here]

Rather than starting with the standard GTD contexts in my list, I started with no contexts, and added each context as required to file my NA's.

I'm careful only to create true contexts - i.e. groups that imply that the basic resources are available to perform the next actions contained within. I avoid creating other types of lists in order to subdivide next actions because in my experience, that results in overlap and having to hunt for NA's. For me, there is no @Waiting context, because when I have an NA that is waiting for an outside requirement to be met, I file it in the context in which it will eventually be performed, and annotate it with the requirement it is waiting for.

[andersons]

Where are they? I'm not trying to challenge you; I'd genuinely like to read them.


If you would like to read some of the current debate about capacity limitations, try
"The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity" by Nelson Cowan, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2000, 24(1):87-185. The 99 pages show that without doubt there are memory and attention limitations, but considerable debate about the specifics. Cowan argues for a limit of 4 chunks. Behavioral and Brain Sciences is an excellent journal, because it publishes many leading researchers' responses to the main author's paper (hence the 99 pages of debate). The main author then answers the points debated by the other researchers. There are some 10 pages of references if you want more reading.


Be warned that this research perspective is to understand the brain's memory functions by isolating short-term memory, not to understand how people actually overcome it in their real-world tasks. (I have some papers about that too, but not handy.) Rehearsal, elaboration, encoding strategies, chunking, and long-term memory all increase memory performance. Researchers in short-term memory limitations specifically try to eliminate those strategies to better understand the underlying capacity limits.

You may be more interested in skilled memory performance, which has much more real-world application. K. Anders Ericsson claims that the critical aspect of exceptional memory performance is not the amount of information stored, but rather how information is stored in and retrieved from long-term memory -- precisely what is controlled for in the capacity-limit research. But exceptional memory performance does not come from increasing the capacity of short-term memory. Nice overview paper: "Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition" published in American Psychologist, August 1994, pp.725-804, by K. Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness. His website (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html) lists more.

The oft-cited paper by Miller was published in Psychological Review in 1956, volume 63, pp. 81-97: "The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits of our capacity for processing information." It relies heavily on information theory.

[TesTeq]

Rather than starting with the standard GTD contexts in my list, I started with no contexts, and added each context as required to file my NA's.
I agree totally with you but some people do not feel comfortable enough with the idea of contexts to make a disciplined approach to the incremental context definition process.


I'm careful only to create true contexts - i.e. groups that imply that the basic resources are available to perform the next actions contained within. I avoid creating other types of lists in order to subdivide next actions because in my experience, that results in overlap and having to hunt for NA's. For me, there is no @Waiting context, because when I have an NA that is waiting for an outside requirement to be met, I file it in the context in which it will eventually be performed, and annotate it with the requirement it is waiting for.
I don't think @WaitingFor is a real context. What resources are available in this context? Besides it interferes with other contexts (some follow-ups can be done in the @Call context only, some in the @Computer context, and some in one of the @Agenda contexts). So treating @WaitingFor as a context is misleading somehow (it is rather another class of the project's "bookmark").

To summarize - in GTD we can "close an open loop" for a given project by defining all NextActions (active - you should do something) and all WaitingFors (passive - somebody should do something).

But isn't it simpler to define the NextAction "Check if John prepared report" in your @Ofiice context instead of putting "John prepared report" in the artificial @WaitingFor context?

[Desultory]

I don't think @WaitingFor is a real context. What resources are available in this context? As I understand it, "Waiting For" is a list on the same level as "Projects" and "Someday/Maybe." Depending on your implementation, I think a lot of us are treating the list as a category. (After all, I think I've seen reference to @Projects and @Someday, and I don't think anyone's confusing those for contexts!) The edges may be getting blurred because things we're "Waiting for" tend to revert to actionable items.

...isn't it simpler to define the NextAction "Check if John prepared report" in your @Ofiice context instead of putting "John prepared report" in the artificial @WaitingFor context?
Trouble is, "Check if John prepared report" isn't an NA until you've Waited a reasonable amount of time for him to do it. You need some other kind of trigger in the future, perhaps in the Tickler, perhaps in a Daily Review, to find out if you need to take action make sure John does turn in the report on time. At which point, the NA could be anything from "Ask John if he needs help" to "Read/Review John's Report".