How many items in a list is sensible?

[Campion]

Hi all,

I am actively using the GTD system with my PDA & Outlook.

I come to a point these days, that I accumulate a moderate number of NA in my lists, such that it's not as easy to have an overall impression of this "soft-landscape" when I evaluate them from time to time. This makes me struggle to keep my mind from taking the whole thing back into its consciousness.

My point is, I am surely not having as many NA as most of you here (I'm only a student), so you guys must have a perfect strategy for this.

I considered breaking large lists into smaller lists with more refined contexts, so every one of them does not carry so many. But I don't want to have too many lists too (for example, jokingly, breaking @Home into @Toilet, @living room, @kitchen, @bedroom... sounds ridiculous, unless I have a giant house).

I also considered tagging items in big list with prefix like, @Desk, @Meeting etc. It's what I am doing now, but it does not completely solve my problem.

Of course, after all, ultimately I should train myself to have more analytical power so I can sensibly evaluate ~20 items in any given list at a glance.

What do you think?

[jknecht]

I am constantly doing battle with the number of next actions on each of my lists too. I like to keep each context as small as possible, because too many items are difficult for me to get my mind around without spending too much mental energy. Here are some of my strategies...

1. (as you've already mentioned) Refine the contexts. Most of the time, this is not necessary (because of my other strategies). When I do this, it is usually temporary.

2. Defer. Sometimes I have to just recognize that my list is too long, because I've committed to too many things. In this case, it's time to renegotiate and get some things off my plate -- at least until my next weekly review.

3. Do. I pick several of the smallest items on my list (especially the ones that I know have a low possibility of generating more next actions or turning into a project), and just do them. These are rarely the most important things on my list, but it does feel good to get those lists down to a reasonable size.

4. Delegate. I have no problem at all if there are dozens of items in @waiting. Funny how that works.

5. Dump. This is akin to #2 (Defer), except that it is a conscious decision to jettison the next action/project entirely. This is usually the most difficult one to accomplish for me -- probably because I have to admit that things have changed, and I'm just not that into it anymore.

6. Combine. If I've got next actions that can be combined, I have been known to do that. For example, if I have 2 next actions: "Call Bill about party this weekend" and "Call Andy about party this weekend", I might just combine them into "Call Bill/Andy about party this weekend". After I call one of them, I just change the next action.

Some of these things aren't too far removed from rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; but if they help to keep things manageable for me, I don't worry about it.

Hope something here helps.

[richard.watson]

I'd say try have few nooks and crannys stuff can get lost in. If possible keep them together but find some way of indicating which items are meant to be done very soon. How, depends on your GTD solution.

As you say, you're committing to too much. If so, you just need to start managing that commitment. So the real issue is "do now" vs "do a bit later", not whether it's in the bathroom or lounge. Solving a time (or priority) problem with a space solution isn't the way to go :) (IMVHO.)

[Borisoff]

To make less things in the list you need to remove all non-important & non-urgent projects to your Someday-Maybe list. Take only 6 projects to move for the next week and go through them. That should give you not more then 6 Next Actions at the same category. If there're more - it means there're hidden projects that are not on your list.

[TesTeq]

How many items in a list is sensible?

Put no more items on each list than you'll be able to do until the next Weekly Review.

[Borisoff]

Put no more items on each list than you'll be able to do until the next Weekly Review.

Is it possible to foresee if you can do all ASAP items you put on the list and how many?

[Paul@Pittsburgh]

Put no more items on each list than you'll be able to do until the next Weekly Review.

If you adopt this strategy aren't you just pre-defining your work in the strict manner as Frankliin-Covey and similar methods/planners? Doesn't this go against the flexible concepts of GTD?

Paul

[Campion]

If you adopt this strategy aren't you just pre-defining your work in the strict manner as Frankliin-Covey and similar methods/planners? Doesn't this go against the flexible concepts of GTD?

Paul

Ya. I ponder too. The next-action list in GTD methodology is, in my understanding, meant to be a collection of actions, without having to assess the "importance","priority" etc. when you collect them into your system. As far as I know, this evaluation comes into play at the "do" level, when you decide what you should do by context\time\energy\priority. Of course, there would be time when we eliminate redundant NA (when they are obsolete or when you don"t needa do it anymore), but it shouldn"t be a major routine, isn"t it?

[kewms]

When processing an item out of your Inbox, "Defer" is one of the GTD-approved choices. There's nothing "anti-GTD" about deciding that you can't (or don't want to) deal with something right away. In fact, DA is very clear about the importance of deciding what *not* to do.

If your NA list is too long for you to evaluate the items when you're actively doing work, then it's also too long for you to actually do the items in a reasonable amount of time. Some of those items *will* get deferred. The Weekly Review is your chance to proactively decide which commitments to renegotiate.

Katherine

[jknecht]

If you adopt this strategy aren't you just pre-defining your work in the strict manner as Frankliin-Covey and similar methods/planners? Doesn't this go against the flexible concepts of GTD?

Paul

If I think about Franklin-Covey versus GTD, I view GTD as an improved "Master Task List". In other words, "this is everything that I'm committed to doing".

In Franklin-Covey, you schedule the items from the Master Task List into particular days of the upcoming week. Whereas in GTD, you just carry the Master Task List around with you and pick the actions you can perform when you're in the right context. The key distinction being that, in GTD, things aren't scheduled unless they are part of the hard landscape.

In my view, there is nothing wrong with pre-defining the work. That is, after all, a major aspect of the weekly review. The problem comes when you start to schedule things in the form of daily to-do lists too far in advance.

[theorganizedartist]

You pose an interesting question and I think I may have a solution for your conundrum:


Pick a context list
Go to that context
Sit down
Do the stuff on the list


You'll find its size begin to decrease dramatically, making it much easier to wrap your mind around.

[TesTeq]

Is it possible to foresee if you can do all ASAP items you put on the list and how many?

It is unreasonable to put everything on your context lists. If you know that you will not be able to do some action during next week - defer it.

[TesTeq]

If you adopt this strategy aren't you just pre-defining your work in the strict manner as Frankliin-Covey and similar methods/planners? Doesn't this go against the flexible concepts of GTD?

No. I am removing unreasonable expectations from my @context lists.

[Paul@Pittsburgh]

I agree with some of the comments about deferring work but this for me is where GTD is all a bit vague. I have the master lists separated by contexts. I do a weekly review and sure there are some things that I will make appoiintments with myelf for the following week so that I know that they will get done. There are other things on my list that there is no way that I plan to do them... unless of course the customers/boss etc yells for them the next week and pushes them higher up my priority list.

So maybe I take some calls off my phone list during the weekly review and I defer them to the someday/maybe. But then during the week I find myself with an hour to kill while waiting for something (e.g. my flat tire to be fixed that I hadn't planned for during the weekly review). Now because I shifted those extra calls I could be making onto my someday/maybe and off my calls list, I have to go through the whole list to figure out what calls I could have made again. That doesn't make sense to me. Why move them off the @calls list?

For this reason I don't play the game of shifting things from a next action list to a someday/maybe list and back again. I just have an @week and @today context category and check these in addition to my regular context category in order to flag the items that I want to do that week (or that day). If I have more time in a given context I can still check my original context lists (e.g. I haven't moved any phone calls off the list).

Paul

[Barb]

Paul, your concept of @Today and @Week sounds interesting. Can you explain a bit more about how you use them?

[Campion]

I, too, think that moving tasks between someday/may and NA lists is not at all the essence of GTD. After all, chances that the scenario Paul describes will happen - and it happens all the time that unexpected time windows pop up and we can do what we didn't plan to be able to.

I ponder if a @Week/@Today list is the solution. I am sure it helps in some ways, that it restricts your daily regime to only the @Today list. Then, however, still fall short in terms of flexbility since your priority/energy/time/context change dynamically in the day (okay~may be not "context"). You may become able to do what you don't plan for today (and thus in the @Today list), so you needa look for lists outside of "@Today". Once you look outside of @Today, the significance of this list becomes less obvious.

I am thinking about other advices too, for example, the "commitment management" Catherine or others mentioned. We might think of too many "to-dos", and commit ourselves to too many things. Some might needa be considered "wild-ideas", and some might just be trashed. Defer is good, but putting things into NA is also a genuine form of deferment too - that they would be done ASAP, but not at the moment. Someday/maybe works more like "indefinite deferment" to me.

What I'm curious is, DA mentioned in his book that a normal person constantly has ~100-150 NA in his list. I don't have that many, but I'm sure most of you guys, like DA himself, do. While DA lets that ~100-150 stay on his NA, what is to be done with it to speed up evaluation while preserving the integrity of action decision?

I have difficulty in two areas :
#1 DA mentions we need to feel good about having more NA (to-dos) than we can possibly do.
#2 We need to be contented with what we don't do.

To sum up, DA presumes the system to hold ~100-150 NA (in the NA list of course) for a regular person, so there must be some ways to work around long lists. Pulling things to someday/maybe, or out of NA in other forms, is totally sensible option. But I'd really like to know how, provided a constantly long list (~100-150 /or/ 15-20 in each context) is here to stay, what is the best strategy?

[kewms]

I think each person has to decide what is reasonable, given their overall workload and also the type of item. For example, it's often quite easy for me to knock off five or ten phone calls in a day, so a list of 20 or more calls would not be unmanageable. On the other hand, a list of 20 NAs along the lines of "write intro to *topic*" might represent several months of work. Phone calls are relatively easy to work on in odd bits of time, too while writing usually requires large chunks of focused concentration.

Perhaps the only universally applicable statement is that if you think your lists are too long, you're probably right. But the solution depends on the precise nature of the problem. Maybe you need to defer (or dump) some things. Maybe you need more granular contexts. Maybe you just need better list management tools. Treat the discomfort with your lists as a warning sign and go from there.

Katherine

[richard.watson]

Here's what I do, and it seems to work nicely. Obviously it's in my own application but you just have to find a way to replicate it in whatever you're using.

I don't play around with the contexts. If something is in a @Calls context, it stays there. It's a call, so that doesn't change just because it's not hugely urgent.
Instead, I have a "state" for each action. That can be "Next action", "Action", "On hold", "Done", "Waiting For" and "Someday/Maybe". If a call needs to be done now, it's a "next action". If it's something I must do but it's not critical, it's an "action".

It just seemed logical to separate 1) where something can be done (context) and 2) what state it's in right now.

[Update - to explain a bit more - I can filter on the state, so putting it on "show only next actions" will hide the others. This can be replicated in e.g. Excel with a bit of coding.]

[Barry]

...I am actively using the GTD system with my PDA & Outlook.

...it's not as easy to have an overall impression of this "soft-landscape" ...

I tried to work from a PDA and found that the screen, which is smaller than a business card, was not adequate for me to get a good overview of my commitments. Having to scroll through a list somehow made it harder for me to work with intuitively. I find paper is better for this for me.

Also, moving some things to the Someday/Maybe list for another week helps me focus on what really can and should be done this week.

[Campion]

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions again. I still hesitate to pre-define the priority/importance of tasks on NA before I really need to do about them on the field. However, I think Richard's solution, as all others', are completely sensible. It works for many, but I have a bit of paranoid and worry that priorities/importance change dynamically, and I couldn't make informed decision with pre-defined state.

I am thinking, may be every one of my lists is different in nature with all the others. For example, @Call/@Agenda list may as well hold 20-30 items without seemingly long; but >20 items in @Office/@Home would make it seem amorphous to me. Of course, I believe the specific strategy one takes depend greatly on personal taste. But I cannot come up with one that I'm totally comfort with, yet.

[Ruud]

I've moved towards the point that a NEXT action list should be NEXT-able.

Given that NA's are at least more than 2 minutes (and usually much more than 2 minutes), having 200 items on my NA list simply doesn't help. By the time I get to item #200 it surely isn't NEXT anymore but something that happens quite deep into the future.

Overload cannot be managed with or without GTD. It simply is. 200 To Do items is not sensible.

This is where some of the things David writes and talks about make sense. With lists like we have in GTD you start to say "no" to suggestions, invitations and prospects. Because you know you're in too deep already.

Likewise, these list help you say "maybe by the end of the year" instead of "tomorrow" because you know there is so much to do already.

This is true for the self-employed as well as the employed. If you sit down with your manager and say, "look, if I were to take just ONE action on everything we're working on, this is the list of items we're looking at", you certainly will be able to make some progress in that conversation.

[wordsofwonder]

I still hesitate to pre-define the priority/importance of tasks on NA before I really need to do about them on the field.

I think that the reason why GTD doesn't incorporate a built-in priority measurement for NAs (like the Franklin-Covey A/B/C system) is that too many factors can change the priority of an NA between the time it's put on a list and the time you get to doing it. For example, "research a new multi-function printer/copier thingie" might be a low priority item at the moment. But if I'm doing the research because my multi-function device, which I rely on for my work, has a problem, the sudden failure of the unit during a busy workday might well push that "low priority" NA into a much higher priority position on my radar.

After all, as David says, if you have a project to replace your tires, the NA that says "call tire shop for an appointment" might suddenly get replaced with "call auto club for a tow". Priorities change too quickly, and the trick in any system is the agility to respond to new inputs.

That said, here's what I do: I put on my NA lists the items I reasonably would like to, and think I can, get done over the next week. I review and think about my projects, but I don't necessary spend much time capturing "potential" NAs for things I'm not ready to move on. If I know I have an action that I want to do ("Call Joe about the proposal") but I don't want to do it right now, I'll drop it in the tickler file for the next day on which I have a weekly review scheduled.

In practice, if something comes up today that makes "Call Joe about the proposal" more urgent, I can simply add it to my list and take care of it. I trust my system enough to know that the "pending action" sitting in my tickler file is something I'll catch up to at my next weekly review. When the card comes out of my tickler, I can say to myself, "Oh, good, I already did that" and throw it away.

To me, the purpose of the system is not to replace my intuitive moment-to-moment choices about what stuff needs to get done. Rather, by freeing my mind from having to worry about what I have out there, I make the space for fully-informed intuitive decision-making.

-- Tammy

[ellobogrande]

My @Home list has accumulated so many next actions that I'm no longer able to effectively evaluate it and make a decision on what to do. There's a high "yuck" factor attached to that list and I don't even want to look at it.

Ultimately, I realize this might cause my brain to stop entirely trusting my system. I started searching the posting board to get some ideas on how to shore up this weak point in my system and I found this thread. After I read some of the excellent ideas here I connected them with this piece of text I saved from an old posting. In fact, I think David Allen wrote this.

GTD: Projects, Someday/Maybes, NAs

Projects lists should only contain those things that you need to deliver on in the next 9 months. Deliverables beyond that belong on your 'Someday / Maybe' list and can be turned into Projects when they fall into the 9 month window. If you include a review of your Someday/Maybe list in your weekly review, you won't miss the projects and you can get them off your mind.

Next Actions Lists should only contain NA's that you plan to complete in the next 2-3 weeks. Note other actions that you think of during the weekly review in your project support material and turn it into a next action when needed.
During the weekly review, one is supposed to review the action lists for completed items and identify at least one next action for every project on the project list. I've taken the latter literally; I've created next action for every project on a context list or on my calendar. However, I think that I've activated too many projects around the house, and as a result my @Home list has too many items for me to use it effectively.

Admiral Karl Doenitz, commander of the German U-boat forces during WWII, stated in his officer's training manual that it was better to sink a few ships than to damage many. In essence, I've been doing just the opposite. I've only made tiny progress on many projects instead of focusing on a few and seeing them to completion. As a result, I don't get the wins I so desire, I don't even want to look at my @Home list, and sometimes I even hate my house because of all the stuck energy created by these open loops.

I've decided to modify the way I conduct my weekly review. As I review my action lists for completed items, I will decide whether or not I can or will commit to completing each item within the 2-3 week window. If the answer is "no", then I have several options to consider.

If the next action is not attached to a project, I will move it to Someday/Maybe. Until I feel comfortable that I can commit to doing it within 2-3 weeks, it does not move back to an action list.

If the next action is attached to an active project, I will note the next action in the project support material and remove it from the context list. However, that doesn't mean that I have to or want to move the project to Someday/Maybe. If I'm still committed to finishing it within a 9-month window, but need to shelve it for a few weeks to deal with more important things, I'll leave it on the Projects list. As long as I've identified the next action and recorded it in a place I'll look at least once a week, that should keep the project off my mind. I can always put it back on the appropriate list once I have the bandwidth to finishing that next action within 2-3 weeks.

As I review each item on the Projects list, I'll evaluate whether or not I'm truly committed to finishing it within the 9-month window (or if at all) and decide whether or not to jettison it or move it to Someday/Maybe.

I think that by doing this I can keep my @Home list down to a reasonable number of items, and keep me from committing to too many projects at a given time. I'll try this strategy for a month and post an update.

Have a safe and merry Christmas!

[Barb]

You don't mention the type of items you have on your @home list, but I saw on this forum somewhere some ideas that came from www.flylady.net. I looked at the website (it's hoaky) and listened to some of her podcasts (even more hoaky). But you know what? I tried some of the ideas and I can't believe how I'm cruising with the housework now! I spend only 15 minutes a day....focusing on one room for a whole week...decluttering before I clean. My house has never been that bad, but in just 30 days here's what I have to show for the time:

1. I have company coming for Christmas. They will be here tomorrow. All I have to do is spiff the house a little and vacuum.
2. I have all meals planned for the entire holiday. Christmas morning casserole is prepared and in the freezer.
3. I FINALLY caught up on all of my filing, and now I'm cleaning out the existing files.
4. I have 11 large garbage bags of stuff to donate in my attic (have to wait til after Jan. 1 for tax reasons)
5. I've probably thrown away 5 garbage bags of useless junk.
6. All the laundry is caught up. I do one load a day...everyday...and it's far less of a hassle.
7. My kitchen is ready to go at any time. I clean my sink every night. (a big Fly Lady thing)

Anyway, blah blah blah and hooray for me....but I thought I'd pass it on.

[richard.watson]

My @Home list has accumulated so many next actions that I'm no longer able to effectively evaluate it and make a decision on what to do. There's a high "yuck" factor attached to that list and I don't even want to look at it.
...
I think that by doing this I can keep my @Home list down to a reasonable number of items, and keep me from committing to too many projects at a given time. I'll try this strategy for a month and post an update.

Great post on an important issue - I think it'll work well for you.

I place great emphasis on hiding actions from myself! Your system shouldn't hurt your ability to action items, and by being "nagged" by them daily you grow a scab over them, reducing the chance you'll do them. So I fully support actively moving items between Someday/Maybe and NA's/Projects.

GTD should work for you, not you for it.

Richard

[SirSmilez]

Sometimes I finish tasks and I have absolutely no clue why I just did that. It was on my @computer list, along with a gajillion other things, so I know it's supposed to be moving a project forward somewhere, but I have no clue which one.

I've completely failed at projects on more than one occasion because I did the next action, had no clue what to do next, and moved on to the next thing on my list. I got like a hundred little next actions done, meaning I crept forward incrementally on all my projects, but missed the deadline on the ones I should have been working on.

Before GTD I would have just hunkered down on whatever project was most urgent and gotten it done. I was stressed out, but at least I was getting projects done on time.

[unstuffed]

Barb, the Flylady is very popular around the place: I know of several people here in Adelaide (South Australia) who swear that she's saved their lives, marriages, sanity, and probably the world as well.

Sir Smilez, I think that's an indication that either you've got too many projects on the go or that you're not reviewing often enough. What should be happening is that you review at least once a week, and that review includes checking which projects need new NAs, and which projects might need to be moved from Someday/Maybe to current.

I'd recommend, as would some others here, that you do a mini-review at the end of each day. This just consists of going through the NAs you've completed, finding the next NA for that project, and re-acquainting yourself with your project list. It should only take a few minutes (about 5 or 10, for me, but YMMV), but it means that you're then kept aware of which projects the NAs relate to and how those projects are progressing compared to their deadlines.

The other thing that might be happening is that you're restricting yourself to completing only the NAs on the list. If so, you don't need to do this: if you've got a project that needs a lot of work done on it, you're free to keep working once you complete the listed NA. And one of the reasons that you can feel comfortable doing this is that you've got a good handle on the rest of your projects by doing a daily mini-review, so you know that the other projects can be left for a day or two.

[Jay Levitt]

After all, as David says, if you have a project to replace your tires, the NA that says "call tire shop for an appointment" might suddenly get replaced with "call auto club for a tow". Priorities change too quickly, and the trick in any system is the agility to respond to new inputs.

How very true! I had just such a project. In April, I added "Switch to summer tires" as a NA. Last week, I agilely deleted it to respond to the snow.

[Jay Levitt]

In fact, I think David Allen wrote this.

GTD: Projects, Someday/Maybes, NAs

Projects lists should only contain those things that you need to deliver on in the next 9 months. Deliverables beyond that belong on your 'Someday / Maybe' list and can be turned into Projects when they fall into the 9 month window. If you include a review of your Someday/Maybe list in your weekly review, you won't miss the projects and you can get them off your mind.

Next Actions Lists should only contain NA's that you plan to complete in the next 2-3 weeks. Note other actions that you think of during the weekly review in your project support material and turn it into a next action when needed.

During the weekly review, one is supposed to review the action lists for completed items and identify at least one next action for every project on the project list. I've taken the latter literally; I've created next action for every project on a context list or on my calendar. However, I think that I've activated too many projects around the house, and as a result my @Home list has too many items for me to use it effectively.

@ellobogrande and SirSmilez: Not to tout software as a silver bullet, but one of the things I like about MyLifeOrganized is that it has two main views of your tasks: as a project/task hierarchical outline, and as a ToDo list (filtered by context, ordered by relative importance of the parent projects). And you can mark a task as "Hide this task in To-Do List".

So if I ever - I mean, WHEN - I do my weekly reviews, if I want to come up with Next Actions early, I can do that, and just hide them from the To-Do list till the project actually starts. And if I don't, I'll see that this project has no next action, and I'll add one at the appropriate time. There's no mucking about with writing Next Actions in the support material, and then moving them to the task list.

Oh, and for FlyLady fans: she sounds like Hints from Heloise. If you want more tips like "My candles never seemed to give off enough light, so I decided to use a match to set them on fire", you'll love this:

John Kelly - Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301516.html)

[sdann]

Sometimes I finish tasks and I have absolutely no clue why I just did that. It was on my @computer list, along with a gajillion other things, so I know it's supposed to be moving a project forward somewhere, but I have no clue which one.

I've completely failed at projects on more than one occasion because I did the next action, had no clue what to do next, and moved on to the next thing on my list. I got like a hundred little next actions done, meaning I crept forward incrementally on all my projects, but missed the deadline on the ones I should have been working on.

Before GTD I would have just hunkered down on whatever project was most urgent and gotten it done. I was stressed out, but at least I was getting projects done on time.

Perhaps your NAs need a bit more information. For example, "rewrite intro for house of widgets presentation on 1-2-08." A quick reference, be it in acronyms, to the project will bring you back to your deadlines. I also second that you should do more mini-reviews. I don't always work down the NA list; mostly I move back and forth from NAs to projects etc. I have many NAs on my list that do not take priority over a project with a strict deadline.