Multiple NAs for a project?

[David Cain]

Quick question:

Is there any reason not to list multiple NAs for one project, if either one can be acted upon next?

[MarinaMartin]

Not at all... in fact, doing that is a best practice. If you can do multiple steps of a project right now, then they should all be on the Next Action list.

For example, if you're painting your living room, there's no reason why "Choose color" and "Buy paintbrushes" can't both be on the NA list and done in either order.

[David Cain]

Excellent, thank you. :D

[El_Stiff]

I wonder if you could make a slight proviso and say that you should only have one NA for a project per context? So "choose colour" might be @home, but "buy brush" would be @errands. Seems to me if you have more than one NA in the same context, you might get a bit bedazzled about which you should do next!

Of course, there might be multiple NA candidates for a context, but you need to pick ONE to be your absolute next thing to do so you have something to get you started.

[kewms]

I wonder if you could make a slight proviso and say that you should only have one NA for a project per context? So "choose colour" might be @home, but "buy brush" would be @errands. Seems to me if you have more than one NA in the same context, you might get a bit bedazzled about which you should do next!

Of course, there might be multiple NA candidates for a context, but you need to pick ONE to be your absolute next thing to do so you have something to get you started.

If a project has more than one errand, I'd definitely want to put them all on my @errand list. I'd be pretty annoyed if I got back from doing @errand buy brush and found that the next action for the project was now @errand get paint samples.

Many of my projects have clusters of related tasks -- a list of several phone calls, for instance -- if all the tasks are on my NA list, I can tackle them in a batch. I can also still move the project forward if one of them is temporarily blocked -- wrong time to call Europe, for instance. If they aren't, I can't.

If a project has more than one immediately doable Next Action, then *any* of those actions will move the project forward. Why not list them all?

Katherine

[El_Stiff]

If a project has more than one errand, I'd definitely want to put them all on my @errand list. I'd be pretty annoyed if I got back from doing @errand buy brush and found that the next action for the project was now @errand get paint samples.

Many of my projects have clusters of related tasks -- a list of several phone calls, for instance -- if all the tasks are on my NA list, I can tackle them in a batch. I can also still move the project forward if one of them is temporarily blocked -- wrong time to call Europe, for instance. If they aren't, I can't.

If a project has more than one immediately doable Next Action, then *any* of those actions will move the project forward. Why not list them all?

Katherine

Good point! I suppose it's that in my system, all those buying things would be under "buy painting supplies" in @errands, and then a note would be attached with a list of stuff to get (I use my Palm for my GTDing). That way I can differentiate it from other @errands stuff that's not project related (and may be less/more important).

As I say, I'm just cautious about having too many NAs for a project on at once, because the idea is by having one, your mind is focused on that and you don't panic and become overwhelmed by the diffuse nature of a project. As long as that's not happening, then having them all listed definitely sounds like a good idea to me!

[Oogiem]

Is there any reason not to list multiple NAs for one project, if either one can be acted upon next?

I can't think of any downside to listing all next actions, in the appropriate context if they truly are independent and do not depend on anything else.

Not to do so would slow progress on projects down to a crawl.

[Pablo]

Quick question:

Is there any reason not to list multiple NAs for one project, if either one can be acted upon next?


I complete my projects by completing the Absolute Next Physical Thing to do as DA has instructed us to do (page 130, 4th paragraph). By listing multiple Next Actions per context morphs into a hybrid system.

I currently have 99 projects (open loops) & 99 next actions that correlate to the projects in the different context categories.

In the analogy of reading 99 books with 99 bookmarks to know where to continue from.

Pablo

[rangi500]

Having lots of NAs per project can make it harder to move the project forward because when you want to start working on the project, you have to then figure out which of your "next actions" is actually the next one you're going to do.

I still often have a couple of NAs per project though too, it just seems to make the most sense sometimes.

[Oogiem]

Having lots of NAs per project can make it harder to move the project forward because when you want to start working on the project, you have to then figure out which of your "next actions" is actually the next one you're going to do.

If the next actions are truly independent or in different contexts then it really won't matter. My own multiple next actions are typically in different contexts but I do occasionally have some ion the same context. In those rare cases it doesn't matter which order they get done it, I have all the tools and info do to either when I am in that context and all need to be done to move the project forward.

[Brent]

I can't think of any downside to listing all next actions, in the appropriate context if they truly are independent and do not depend on anything else.

The downside is overloading your lists with hundreds of independent Next Actions.

If the average person has 50-100 Projects, and many of those Projects have multiple independent Next Actions, you can imagine how large the context lists can become. One can quickly go numb, and be unable to review one's lists effectively. Especially during short windows of opportunity.

In other words, it's easy for an important Action to get buried amongst several hundred NAs.

[Roger]

Well, here's the thing, in my opinion: Projects don't really exist.

I mean, sure, they exist as an organizing tool. But a project just consists of actions and reference, more or less.

The value in a NA list is in its completeness, so I'd be hesitant to start leaving things off of them just because I've already got some NAs from the same 'project'.

Does this make the lists bigger? Sure. Making a list more complete is always going to make it bigger.

All that being said, different people are going to implement different systems that work best for them. If you want to defer some NAs based on project, the GTD Police won't be coming after you.

[Jon Walthour]

Quick question:

Is there any reason not to list multiple NAs for one project, if either one can be acted upon next?

No reason whatsoever. If two NAs can both be done independent of the other, then they can both end up on your Action lists at the same time.

[Oogiem]

The downside is overloading your lists with hundreds of independent Next Actions.

OTOH if you don't put independent next actions on your lists you waste time when in the appropriate context and all your hundreds of projects move more slowly.

[Brent]

OTOH if you don't put independent next actions on your lists you waste time when in the appropriate context and all your hundreds of projects move more slowly.

Hmmmm.

Let me ask this question: Do you ever complete all the actions on a Context List? Completely empty it? I certainly don't. I'm lucky if I get to most of them before my next Weekly Review! :-)

So, if I never get to the bottom of my Context List, how will I move faster by having 100 items on there instead of 30, if I'm only going to complete at most 20 of them per week anyway? (Random numbers there, of course.)

But maybe that's just my own experience.

[GTDWorks]

My experience, too.

[TesTeq]

Well, here's the thing, in my opinion: Projects don't really exist.

I mean, sure, they exist as an organizing tool. But a project just consists of actions and reference, more or less.

Projects do exist! They define the successful outcome that directs our Next Actions.

[Oogiem]

Let me ask this question: Do you ever complete all the actions on a Context List? Completely empty it?

Yes, regularly, not all contexts and not all the time but several times a week one or more context lists is completely empty. A few contexts seem to never get empty (Outside with help) for example but most of the ones I control do on occasion.

I don't see how that matters though. The issue in my mind is to move projects forward I need to be sure as many non-dependent next actions are on my lists or things never get finished.

[Brent]

Oogiem: Thanks for the clarification! I think maybe we're talking across-purposes!

Let me see if I can communicate my point more accurately. For simplicity's sake, let's say that I only complete one Next Action, then stop and move on to another Next Action on my list. Let's also pretend I only work on one Context list.

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

[johnmcoulter]

I see it more as a question of which specific things you're doing, not how many. Maybe you are only going to get to 20 that week, but what if two or three of the ones that should have been done were in the 30 that weren't on the list, and two or three of the 20 in the list that you did finish could have waited a week or two?

Without as complete as possible a list of all non-dependent next actions identified, it's harder to reach the point where you can feel comfortable with what you're not doing, since you don't fully know what it is that you're not doing.

John


Oogiem: Thanks for the clarification! I think maybe we're talking across-purposes!

Let me see if I can communicate my point more accurately. For simplicity's sake, let's say that I only complete one Next Action, then stop and move on to another Next Action on my list. Let's also pretend I only work on one Context list.

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

[Jon Walthour]

Oogiem: Thanks for the clarification! I think maybe we're talking across-purposes!

Let me see if I can communicate my point more accurately. For simplicity's sake, let's say that I only complete one Next Action, then stop and move on to another Next Action on my list. Let's also pretend I only work on one Context list.

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

I believe, in your simplification, you have removed the element of concurrency here, which is the factor which allows you to approach the 50 and exceed the 20.

Expand a bit on your example and add an "@Errands" context, for example. Now, you have three projects for which you need to pick things up. If you indeed were doing everything in serial, then you'd have to run errands several times, one or more times for each project. However, by gathering them all up, you can accomplish more in less time (i.e., you're already out and about. So running to the hardware store, the grocery store and the bank all in one trip to move several different projects along or even different aspects of the same project along, can allow you to get more done with less).

Have I understood your point correctly?

[kewms]

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

The fallacy is your assumption that all actions are created equal. They aren't. There's a difference between doing 20 actions for 20 projects and 20 actions for 5 projects. If a project has five non-dependent actions, and I do all of them, then chances are I've moved that project a pretty good distance forward. I might even have gotten the project to a state where I can ignore it completely for the time being, for instance while I wait for others to get back to me with information.

Whether doing those five actions is the best decision depends on the situation, just like any choice between focused work on a single project and attacking open loops on several projects. But if the actions aren't on my list, I might not even realize that I had the opportunity.

Katherine

[Roger]

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

I'm going to drop into one of David Allen's metaphors -- money.

"Not being aware of all you have to do is much like having a credit card for which you don't know the balance or the limit -- it's a lot easier to be irresponsible." -- GTD, Chapter 11 (appropriately enough)

Within that metaphor, this is what your plan might sound like:

"Look, every month I've only got enough money to pay half my bills. Nothing is going to change that. So I take half my bills and throw them away. I'm not going to be able to pay them anyway. And it makes me feel a lot less stressed out about my finances!"

I think this gets to the heart of why some people are exceptionally, perhaps irrationally, upset with this approach. It's tempting to see something fundamentally dishonest in it.

I don't think it really is inherently dishonest or counter-productive, if you're handling it in the right way. But hopefully that helps you see why some people are so resistant to it.

[Oogiem]

For simplicity's sake, let's say that I only complete one Next Action, then stop and move on to another Next Action on my list. Let's also pretend I only work on one Context list.

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20?

A problem with your example. If you really can only do 20 items and never change contexts, then why do you need GTD at all?

My multiple next actions are usually in different contexts. Or if a project has several actions in the same context they do not depend on the results of one to do the next.

I'm working on a specific project now and I have a next action in phone to call the court re some papers I have to file, another phone call is to call a person who may be called as an expert witness and get their proper legal name and address for the court filing, another action on the project is to search the gvmt web site for case decisions that relate, another is at my desk with my calendar writing a log of all times I talked to anyone about that item. These are all independent actions, none depends on the other to be done first and they are all part of the same project with trying to settle a court case I am involved in. By your thinking I'd only have 1 item on that list, I'd have to decide which is the one that I'll call "next action" and do that and ignore the rest. Yet right now I am inside and have access to my computer calendar. If I wasn't typing this message I could be searching it for any references to conversations I had. Next time I go out to check sheep to see if anyone is lambing I may have to stay out there a while to keep an eye on a ewe looking ready. But I always have my cell phone and note pad with me. I could at that time call the court and also call the possible witness. I'm in a different context and I can move the whole project forward by having several things on my lists at once.

Another example, the project is send out Christmas cards. Actions include creating mailing labels, ordering cards, writing the general letter and writing the personal notes for each recipient. 3 of those actions can go on the appropriate context at once. I can create the mailing labels, order the cards and write the general letter independent of everything else. However I can't write the personal notes until the general letter is written. So when I activate the Send Christmas Cards project I will immediately add 3 tasks to the appropriate contexts but not the one about writing personal notes or any after that (printing letters or mailing them). Since the contexts for all those 3 actions are different they will necessarily be out of my view unless I can really do them.

The more projects you have and the more contexts you have the more actions need to go on your lists or else projects will never get completed. But they have to be independent actions.

[Brent]

I'm afraid I over-simplified. My point isn't getting across.

Thanks for your comments, everyone! Interesting discussion.

[nshram]

There are some software GTD implementations (PyGTD, for example), which allow you to input multiple NAs for a project in a specific order. But only the next NA shows up in project and context review lists. The other NAs are hidden. After the current NA for a project is done, then the next one pops up.

Maybe this is one way to have your cake and eat it too!

[Oogiem]

There are some software GTD implementations (PyGTD, for example), which allow you to input multiple NAs for a project in a specific order.

Omnifocus allows for either actions in parallel or actions in sequence and you can set the view to see only next actions or all available actions. It's got a lot more flexibility I am just learning about how to use.

[DaveR]

I often list what I call a "double NA." That is two distinct but very connected, sequential NA's. For instance I might have the NA: Print flyer/mail flyer. Or Move furniture/remove carpet.

Works for me.

-- DaveR