"Today's actions" list?

[RobertGale]

My action lists are lengthy. I could probably prune out maybe 10% or 15% of my projects if I worked harder at it, but my two most basic commitments [family--with young kids and major medical issues--and my job] just add up to quite a large number of projects and actions.

I have been reviewing my action lists when I get into work each morning and copying 10 to 20 actions onto a a "today's actions" list. I usually put a few more than I judge realistic, just in case things go smoother than I expected.

In his FAQ on whether there is any alternative to constantly interacting with really long action lists, David seems to be saying that my "today's actions" list is not the best practice:


Your 'action lists' should just reflect your commitments. If it's 'too long' either you need to get used to a big list of still-undone things (renegotiating regularly with the whole batch that it's OK you're not doing all of them right now) or you need to make fewer commitments.

But I can't keep a list of 20 key items in my head, I'm bound to forget something important. Reviewing the entire action list can take me 30 minutes or more--I don't see how I could afford to do this more than once a day.

Am I missing something here?

Robert

[cris]

I think a today's action list is fine as long as you only copy it off of your standard GTD system at the beginning of the day, and throw it out at the end of the day. I do that. However it is because I have too much to do. I think in general that doing too much is something that needs to be addressed. If the amount of things you have to do repels you, then you will not use the system. So I try to keep the lists as short as I can. Easier said than done.

[wordsofwonder]

Reviewing the entire action list can take me 30 minutes or more--I don't see how I could afford to do this more than once a day.

I guess the question I'm asking here is what reviewing your action list looks like for you. Are you making decisions about projects, or about next actions?

In my weekly review, I examine each of the projects (43, at present) and Someday/Maybe items (21). I decide/set Next Actions for each project, move items from my Someday/Maybe list to my project list if I want to act on them, and move renegotiated commitments onto my Someday/Maybe list if appropriate. This takes me an hour or so in a typical week.

When I "review my Next Action list", on the other hand, I'm scanning a list of the actions valid in my current context to decide which one I want to do now. Even when I have 40 Next Actions in a single context, a quick scan of the list to decide what to do next doesn't take more than a minute or so.

Perhaps you could tell us more about why it takes you 30 minutes to review your Next Action list, and then we could provide some more meaningful assistance.

-- Tammy

[RobertGale]

I do some maintenance of my system while I am scanning for next actions. When I am scanning, I often think of stuff relating to my projects, and I want to capture it before I forget it.

I suppose that this happens more when I am looking at my project lists than my other action lists. Maybe if I stopped doing that, I could speed up the process significantly. I probably should.

[mondo]

At the Chicago GTD Roadmap, David said that in principle he's not against a Daily Action list, so long as the list is compiled from the various choices of the complete next action list (otherwise the integrity of that list is in doubt), with the possible exception of things that have just come up.

The other, and major proviso, is that you be willing to throw out the daily to do list, or rewrite it completely, at a moment's notice when stuff happens.

There are times when a single daily list is the best thing I can do. Its usually when I am going to be in a single place at a single time, and have a limited subset of contexts. I probably have control of my time (at least foreseeably), and as such I write down a list, prioritise it and go.

This rarely happens at work. As a senior manager in the tech game, my day moves fast, and I am covering a wide range of topics.

At home on the weekend with few "hard landscape" items ahead of me is when the single list works best. I have stuff I need to get down around the house, or at home, so the major lists of @Anywhere, @Computer and @Home are my major source of NA's. I grab some important stuff, some low hanging fruit, and get going.

But when context, time and energy are moving fast (ie. at work), the plain vanilla DA way works better.

Cheers

Des

[kewms]

I do some maintenance of my system while I am scanning for next actions. When I am scanning, I often think of stuff relating to my projects, and I want to capture it before I forget it.

I suppose that this happens more when I am looking at my project lists than my other action lists. Maybe if I stopped doing that, I could speed up the process significantly. I probably should.

If you are reviewing your project lists, you are not "scanning for next actions." You are reviewing your project lists. The two activities are very different from a GTD perspective.

The whole point of NA lists is that your projects have *already* been scanned, you have *already* identified the Next Action needed to move those projects forward, and you're ready to settle down and get to work.

Under GTD, the Weekly Review is set aside for project-level review. Many people (myself included) conduct minireviews more often than that. But identifying new actions every time you look at your project lists is a bad sign. It suggests that your Weekly Reviews aren't as thorough as they should be, and so your brain is constantly trying to clear itself.

Katherine

[WebR0ver]

Rather than creating a separate today list, I often put a star next to items on my Next Action lists that I need to do today. That way they stay in their contexts, but a quick glance at one list or all lists allows me to select the most critical action to do next.

[RobertGale]

Rather than creating a separate today list, I often put a star next to items on my Next Action lists that I need to do today. That way they stay in their contexts, but a quick glance at one list or all lists allows me to select the most critical action to do next.

This (like my "Today's Actions" list) sounds like a kind of prioritizing. But doesn't this reverse the GTD way of deciding what to do? GTD says you look 1st at your context, 2nd at your energy level, and 3rd at priority.

[Borisoff]

I put project name as a second word in a Next Action line, i.e. "Chat ABC PROJECT with Tommy re: new shop openning possibility". Thus even if I have 40 Next Actions from different list in front of me I can take the most important project NAs first. "First things first" :)

Regards,

Eugene.

[WebR0ver]

This (like my "Today's Actions" list) sounds like a kind of prioritizing. But doesn't this reverse the GTD way of deciding what to do? GTD says you look 1st at your context, 2nd at your energy level, and 3rd at priority.

If I have all or most contexts available to me, and something has to be done, then priority moves up the food chain. To me this stays within the framework of GTD better than a separate today list. Some days there are no stars. Three would be a lot.

[wordsofwonder]

When I am scanning, I often think of stuff relating to my projects, and I want to capture it before I forget it.

Two comments:


When you're selecting Next Actions to work on, you shouldn't be looking at your project lists. If you feel like you need to do a mini-review of your project list, that's fine, but you shouldn't be doing that every time you go to select a Next Action. If you're spending time making your daily task list, you can treat that time as a mini-review and check in on your projects. But if you're having to review projects several times each day, your weekly review probably isn't capturing everything you need to do. Perhaps spending more time on your weekly review would be a good thing.
If you're frequently thinking of new stuff while scanning your lists, try this: Keep a stack of index cards nearby. When you think of something you'd like to capture, write it on an index card and throw it in your Inbox. Next time you process your Inbox, that's the time to decide what to do with the new items you're capturing.


-- Tammy

[garthk]

Trying to distil it down:

If something occurs to you whilst looking at your next action lists, try to resist the urge to process it immediately. Write it on a piece of paper, throw it in your in-box, and get back to picking an already decided action appropriate to your context and energy level.

For whatever reason, I find that mixing processing and just about anything else -- especially, for me, review -- really stuffs up both the processing and the whatever else.

[eeckberg]

On thing that was a "gotcha" early on for me was listing three or four actions for a specific project on my NA list for that context. If I have 20 items on my @Computer NA List, then there should be nor more than one action to a project on that list. I may have a few one-off short maintenance tasks on the list, but other than that, it's one item per project. When that item is completed, I can either look at the project support folder for the next item and keep working (based on energy and priority) on the project, or put the next item at the bottom of my @Computer list and then do the next item at the top of the list.

Eric

[Jorge Ledesma DDS]

Originally posted by WebRover:

Rather than creating a separate today list, I often put a star next to items on my Next Action lists that I need to do today. That way they stay in their contexts, but a quick glance at one list or all lists allows me to select the most critical action to do next.

-------------------

This is a great idea, I use it as well on the Blackberry an exclamation symbol works great (!) automatically shifting the next action to the top.

I used to think mini day list were good but now after 4+ years doing Gtd I recommend you stay away from this trap...

[Jorge Ledesma DDS]

I put project name as a second word in a Next Action line, i.e. "Chat ABC PROJECT with Tommy re: new shop openning possibility". Thus even if I have 40 Next Actions from different list in front of me I can take the most important project NAs first. "First things first" :)

Regards,

Eugene.

Borisoff, do you generally try to shorten your project names, this seems like an excellent idea I'm going to try, I think you're on to something given the limitations of pda, I think this might work, thanks for sharing such a great idea !!

[RobertGale]

Several posts have mentioned ways of putting things at the "top of the list" or "bottom of the list", and doing the "next thing on the list". From reading David's books, I understood that NA lists are supposed to be unordered, and specifically UNprioritized.

[kewms]

Several posts have mentioned ways of putting things at the "top of the list" or "bottom of the list", and doing the "next thing on the list". From reading David's books, I understood that NA lists are supposed to be unordered, and specifically UNprioritized.

In my experience, an unordered list with 20-30 items on it is unusable. YMMV.

There are two ways around the problem. One is aggressive use of the Someday/Maybe list, so that everything left on the NA list is equally important, and it doesn't matter which you do first. The other is to prioritize within the NA list.

But really, the two amount to the same thing. If you look at your NA lists in the morning and identify the five things you want to do today, have you "moved the rest to Someday/Maybe," or have your "prioritized your NA list?" And does it matter as long as you are happy with the results?

Katherine

[plapointe]

Katherine:
You have mentioned this concept of being ruthless in using the S/M list in another thread (I've read so many I can't remember where) ... and I have to tell you this was a CRITICAL message to me. I have gained so much improvement on my GTD systems since learning to "be agressive" with myself about putting things on my S/M that I do not have the intention to complete THIS WEEK. Wow! I want to get it done, but not this week = S/M. I previously had such a different definition of S/M, that it only contained things for about a year out. So, thank you, for helping me to help myself to a NA list that is clean and clear and concise.

Pamela

[garthk]

Yow. I must try that out. My Next Action lists are unwieldy, so I resist looking at them. If shoving everything a week or more out into Someday/Maybe means I can read my Next Action list without blanching, I'll be a step a head.

[Borisoff]

Borisoff, do you generally try to shorten your project names, this seems like an excellent idea I'm going to try, I think you're on to something given the limitations of pda, I think this might work, thanks for sharing such a great idea !!

Yep, the whole project name could be "Household: Change tyres" but I take only the keyword (usually that's the last word of the sentence) and put it down on the action list. This way I can proritize based on the priority within the same context.

Eugene.

[Loukas]

Hi everyone,

Something related to the above that I have read recently and have implemented, is the following: Separate the S/M list to a "Future" and "Maybe" lists!

Anything that needs to be done within the next week (max two) remains on the relevant category: @call, @c, @out, @h etc. These are the things I can realistically tackle any time during the next week or two.

Anything that would have a definite future date in the next few months that I *definately* want to do, I assign to category "F". For example, my "Write Xmas cards" NA is under "F" and dated 1/12/2006 ... It's something I *definately* want to do, just not in the next couple of weeks. No use of being in my immediate view. I will re-assign it to my @h category during the Weekly Review on 26/11, for example (and remove the date aspect).

Anything that is a Maybe, such as for example "Pick up brochures for summer trip to Maldives" (summer is too far, not even sure if I want to go to Maldives) is put under my "M" category.

Now, the reason I trust to put some of my non-immediate NA in the "F" category is that I know I'll re-visit them and possibly re-assign them during the Weekly Review. Thus, nothing is lost, but I can instead focus on the more immediate tasks at hand in each of my categories.

This has un-clogged my NA lists and has enabled me to attend to my immediate NA's, freeing my mind of the worry of endless lists that are not getting anywhere... :)

Comments welcome....

L

[Borisoff]

Anything that would have a definite future date in the next few months that I *definately* want to do, I assign to category "F". For example, my "Write Xmas cards" NA is under "F" and dated 1/12/2006 ... It's something I *definately* want to do, just not in the next couple of weeks. No use of being in my immediate view. I will re-assign it to my @h category during the Weekly Review on 26/11, for example (and remove the date aspect).

Loukas, why not to use a tickler for that?

[Loukas]

Loukas, why not to use a tickler for that?

Well, I guess it's a sort of an electronic tickler file, you are correct. In this way I can have everything accessible through Outlook and synchronized with my Smartphone, I guess. But you are right! :)

[Borisoff]

Well, I guess it's a sort of an electronic tickler file, you are correct. In this way I can have everything accessible through Outlook and synchronized with my Smartphone, I guess. But you are right! :)

Then I think it's better to use Outlook calendar for that and not the Future category. If I want to be reminded of some action to start in the future (to be put into the system) I add ! sign in the begining and put it as the whole day event. For example, if you want to start preparation for the New Year then put !Start New Year Preparations Project for the desired date. In this case you won't miss it and that's more convinient then to use Future category.

Eugene.

[Loukas]

Hi Eugene,

I see what you are saying and will look into it. Nonetheless, the benefit of leaving these futue NA's in Tasks is that you just change their category when they become relevant, and they are there! So, you go from "F" to "@H" and that's it... very simple.

But, as they say, "it's horses for courses...", whatever works best!

Thank you for your suggestion,

Loukas