Confused about Next Action list

[trican]

Hi all!


I'm starting down the road of adopting GTD. After listening to the audio book and doing the initial collection two weeks ago, I'm confused about the following regular scenario for me:

1. I get a thought about a project whilst I'm working on it, for other steps I need to do later. Should all these steps go on the particular project list or does part of it go on the next action list?

2. I take it I dont need to list absolutely every single step to achieve a project. I find the project list and the next action list really good to get started and then blitz through a number of action points without even realising it. I havent found the granularity that suits yet i think

3. I thought I understood the next action list - is it was a way of recording what next to do in a project when moving away from the project to do something else - is that correct?



Any help or pointers would be most appreciated! thanks!

[Roger]

1. I get a thought about a project whilst I'm working on it, for other steps I need to do later. Should all these steps go on the particular project list or does part of it go on the next action list?

Let's break this one down a bit:

1. You get a thought. Good! Write it down, throw it in the Inbox.

2. While processing your Inbox, it comes up. Now you need to decide what it is and what to do about it. In this sort of case it might be "Update project plan" or "Brainstorm about project alternatives" or something else.

3. If there is one or more actions that come out of it, they'll need to end up on a next action list at some point, or they'll never actually get done.


2. I take it I dont need to list absolutely every single step to achieve a project. I find the project list and the next action list really good to get started and then blitz through a number of action points without even realising it. I havent found the granularity that suits yet i think

It's a personal thing, yeah. It takes some tweaking.


3. I thought I understood the next action list - is it was a way of recording what next to do in a project when moving away from the project to do something else - is that correct?

That's not all it is, but as a first approximation it's a pretty good way to look at it.

[trican]

Thanks for the fast response Roger, much appreciated.

I think I'm a bit clearer now, though I suspect I missed much subtlety in the book, but I guess (or at least hope) it probably take quite a bit of time before everyone feel the GTD guidelines are natural and instinctive

[Roger]

I've personally found it to be one of those iterative processes: read the book, try it out, learn some things, read the book again... repeat until forever. Parts of it didn't make sense until I had tried it out a bit.

[sdann]

Any thoughts on a project - tasks, milestones, what-have-yous - that arise while working on a project, could also go in your project support material if you've processed it. Anything you deem a next action should be put on your context lists. Some only put one next action, others several, on their context lists. That depends on your preference and maybe the size and complexity of the project.

[TesTeq]

1. I get a thought about a project whilst I'm working on it, for other steps I need to do later. Should all these steps go on the particular project list or does part of it go on the next action list?


The "next action" is the next physical, visible activity that needs to be engaged in, in order to move the current reality toward completion. - GTD book (paperback), page 34

Next Action lists contain Next Actions only. No project steps, no next next actions, no project plans.

I think the Next Action definition should be printed on each page of the next edition of the GTD book.

[trican]

Hi TesTeq,

What confuses me is that the current way I'm thinking about this, there seems to be redundancy between the next action list and the project lists? Going back to my scenario:

I get a couple of thoughts about a project (lets call them t1,t2,t3 for proj1, and t4,t5 for proj2) whilst I'm working on proj1. So it seems clear these thoughts/tasks should be added to the inbox for later processing. After reaching a natural point to take a break in proj1 I process my inbox. So I put t1 and t4 in the next action list for the appropriate project and put the remaining tasks on the appriopriate project list. Moments later I continue working on proj1 with task t1.

So here are my issues with the above workflow: Firstly it almost seems a waste of effort to place t1 on the next action list when I know I'm going to do that next anyway? That point aside, as I appreciate it might clarify thinking about the project and/or task, the greater problem I have is that the tasks required for proj2 are split on two lists - is there not redundancy here? for example when I complete t4, I still need to refer to the proj2 list anyway to figure out what next to do (i.e. t5).

Am I missing something here?

thanks again!

[Senol]

The "next action" is the next physical, visible activity that needs to be engaged in, in order to move the current reality toward completion. - GTD book (paperback), page 34


But then this comes to mind: the next physical action.
In my line of work this could be: check all accounts wether (spelling) they correspond to what is entered in the accounting program.

but the very next physical action is: get customer folder 234423 from archive

I am still having difficulty with the next physical action.
Could one say the next physical action that is needed to move current reality for 1 hour at least?

[Roger]

So here are my issues with the above workflow: Firstly it almost seems a waste of effort to place t1 on the next action list when I know I'm going to do that next anyway?
It depends. Just how sure are you? If you're really sure that you won't be interrupted, or feel like doing something else, or otherwise experience anything unexpected, then sure.


the greater problem I have is that the tasks required for proj2 are split on two lists - is there not redundancy here? for example when I complete t4, I still need to refer to the proj2 list anyway to figure out what next to do (i.e. t5).
Again I think it's sort of related to stability and rate-of-change. If nothing ever changes between whenever you wrote your project plan and the time you finish t4, then yeah, you don't gain a lot of benefit from looking up t5. If things may have changed, then it might be worthwhile to give it a bit more thought at that time.

[TesTeq]

I get a couple of thoughts about a project (lets call them t1,t2,t3 for proj1, and t4,t5 for proj2) whilst I'm working on proj1. So it seems clear these thoughts/tasks should be added to the inbox for later processing. After reaching a natural point to take a break in proj1 I process my inbox. So I put t1 and t4 in the next action list for the appropriate project and put the remaining tasks on the appriopriate project list. Moments later I continue working on proj1 with task t1.

GTD is for non-trivial applications. If you have 2 projects and 5 actions in your life you don't need any system. Your brain can handle them. But if you have 40 projects you need an external trusted system to support your brain.

If you prepared project plan with actions (in project folder) - you put one or more of the immediately doable actions on @context lists. So there can be some redundancy in the system. But you don't have to do it with each action - sometimes you can do subsequent actions without rewriting them to the @context lists.

One more thought: the t1,t2,t3,t4,t5 thoughts that you put in your inbox are only thoughts about projects - not actions or Next Actions. You will determine their meaning during the processing phase of GTD workflow.

[Scott_L_Lewis]

But then this comes to mind: the next physical action.
In my line of work this could be: check all accounts wether (spelling) they correspond to what is entered in the accounting program.

but the very next physical action is: get customer folder 234423 from archive

I am still having difficulty with the next physical action.
Could one say the next physical action that is needed to move current reality for 1 hour at least?

Senol,

I use the "rule of ones" to define next actions. Next actions are:
- One meaningful unit of work that is done in
- One context on
- One occasion by
- One person (i.e., me)

The "meaningful unit of work" part may need some explanation. It means doing a set of physical acts that realizes or significantly advances a desired outcome. The "significantly advances" part of the definition is what makes "Verify all accounts against the accounting program" a next action while "Get out folder 234423" is not.

This is a useful way of keeping yourself out of a kind of "Xeno's paradox" of being overly granular with defining next actions. Otherwise, every next action you have for every project will be "Blink my eyes." :-)

[TesTeq]

but the very next physical action is: get customer folder 234423 from archive

Next Actions should be as granular as you need. There is no general rule. Some people can successfully use "Write chapter 4 of the book" Next Action while other people in the same situation need "Open chapter 4 file in word processor and write first sentence" Next Action.

[Senol]

Thanks both of you for explaining this as most of my na's were becoming to blink my eyes indeed.

I need to take a step back and begin collecting again I think.
Maybe after that I can check where the project is and what needs to be done to get it passed a point.

thanks again

[Foxman]

while other people in the same situation need "Open chapter 4 file in word processor and write first sentence"

I think that is a little too granular. The two minute rule needs to be applied for GTD to really work, (the above action could be done in less than two minutes - so writing it down and tracking it on your list is actually wasting time). For next actions to work effectively, you need to be able to match the time/energy you have with what is on your list. Next Actions should be 5,10,30,60 etc minutes long so you can slot them in around down/opportunity time when it turns up. That is when your are really being most effective in your life - when you can make the most of every minute with purposeful guided action.

I think.....! :D

[whpalmer4]

I think that is a little too granular. The two minute rule needs to be applied for GTD to really work, (the above action could be done in less than two minutes - so writing it down and tracking it on your list is actually wasting time).
I think there can be substantial value in writing out steps at this level of granularity, depending on the project and environment. Any project where success depends on doing the right thing at the right time, without any steps skipped, duplicated, or done out of sequence is an example of this, especially if you work in an environment with lots of interrupts. In a paper-based environment, it may make more sense to have the action be "execute items on XYZ checklist" than to enumerate them by hand on your next action list.

My take is that the two minute rule applies to processing your inbox, NOT that you shouldn't ever have actions that take less than two minutes to complete.

[Foxman]

My take is that the two minute rule applies to processing your inbox, NOT that you shouldn't ever have actions that take less than two minutes to complete.

Forget just processing your inbox, it applys across the board IF you want to make the most in the productivity stakes. Of course, GTD is a systematic approach with a lot of room for modification. Bottomline in my opinion, and i've been a GTD'er for 5 years and have done and tried EVERYTHING looking for that productivity nirvana, - any thing that can be done in under 2 minutes is not worth the time/effort/energy to track, just get it done!!!!

[whpalmer4]

any thing that can be done in under 2 minutes is not worth the time/effort/energy to track, just get it done!!!!

That's the sort of attitude that leads to sponges left inside patients during surgery and flaps or gear not deployed when landing an aircraft. Almost nothing on a commercial airliner's takeoff or landing checklist takes as much as 2 minutes, but I won't willingly fly with any pilot who thinks running the checklist is optional!

Here's a picture (http://www.flight255memorial.com/marker.html) of the memorial to the 156 passengers of Northwest 255, who died needlessly because their flight crew didn't bother with the checklist. As I said, if doing the project successfully requires that the steps be done in the right order, without omissions or duplications, it's worth tracking all the steps, whether they take many hours or a few minutes. If your work has no appreciable penalty for screwing up, well, then better to be "productive" than careful, right?

[Foxman]

Hooooooooooold on a minute!!

Comparing moving forward on a project/processing your inbox to the flight checks on an airplane, or surgery for that matter, is no where near the same thing!!!!!!!!!

All those things you mention would have premeditated steps governed by the LAW and have time blocked out for them to be completed to the highest standard. I think your getting a little confused - we are talking about time and productivity management to give you the edge in day to day life - not skimping of life of death required procedures!!!

[kewms]

I think your getting a little confused - we are talking about time and productivity management to give you the edge in day to day life - not skimping of life of death required procedures!!!

In some people's jobs, the two categories overlap substantially.

I like TesTeq's advice: make your actions as granular as YOU need. No one else cares what's on your lists, just that the work gets done.

Katherine

[Foxman]

I would really like to see one example of a life of death situation on a next actions list!

In my experience putting things which are to granular on your next actions list actually becomes a form of procrastination. If you can do it then and there and it doesn't take too long (i.e less than 2 mins) do it! Suggesting otherwise is kind of against the whole point of GTD - remember it's about being in control and being productive not just making lists!

[Oogiem]

I would really like to see one example of a life of death situation on a next actions list!

From things that got added to mine yesterday:
Check triplet mom for fly strike twice a day, treat as necessary - This is a critical thing. Fly strike can kill a sheep within a day so I have to keep on top of it.

Catch scouring ewe lamb and treat for worms - I tried yesterday and she escaped. I have to get her today even if it means I have to run the entire flock into the sweep. She could die within another 24 hours if left untreated. But yesterday the stress as I tried to catch her would have been worse as it was hot. So I'll catch her this am in the cool.

Catch Bunny & treat for bots - longer term problem, bots won't kill the sheep for a few days or weeks but still critical to treat

Fix waterer in butcher chicken pen - left pans of water out last night, need to fix the waterer or the chickens will die.

Things that came up as due starting today:
Puppy shots second set
larvacide ponds to reduce West Nile mosquito population

I get a fair number of projects that are like that.

I also have checklists whose actions take less than 2 minutes but that I still read and check off. My sheep lambing triage lists for one. The general ADR (ain't doing right) animal lists of things to check to determine what my real next action is when an animal is sick are like that. Each action may only take a few seconds to do but I have to go through all of them.

[Oogiem]

we are talking about time and productivity management to give you the edge in day to day life - not skimping of life of death required procedures!!!

For some of us life and death *is* our day to day life and work experience.

[kewms]

I would really like to see one example of a life of death situation on a next actions list!

Project: Fly to Vancouver
Next Action: @Airplane Go through pre-flight checklist. Double check fuel gauge repair.

Project: Mrs. Smith's appendectomy
Next Action: @Phone Call nurse, make sure Mrs. Smith hasn't eaten this morning.

Not to mention the much more mundane
Project: Maintain car
Next Action: @Phone Call garage re: soft brake response.

My point being that part of the idea is to keep minor problems from escalating to the point where they become life or death.

My other point being that some occupations deal with life or death decisions on a regular basis. Are you suggesting that GTD can't be used by those people?

Katherine

[Day Owl]

If I don't do my job well, I'll end up on the street. That is close enough to life-or-death for me.

[TesTeq]

In my experience putting things which are to granular on your next actions list actually becomes a form of procrastination. If you can do it then and there and it doesn't take too long (i.e less than 2 mins) do it! Suggesting otherwise is kind of against the whole point of GTD - remember it's about being in control and being productive not just making lists!

For some people "Write chapter 4 of the book" Next Action can be a source of procrastination because it is too big for them.

They will see "Open chapter 4 file in word processor and write first sentence" Next Action more doable. It is the "kick-start bookmark" for them to write the whole chapter.

[Day Owl]

What TesTeq said. That is akin to Mark Forster's "I'll just get the file out" as a procrastination-beater or resistance-beater. It allows one to take a small non-intimidating action that may well ease the person over the resistance hump and lead to some real progress.

http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/7/30/ill-just-get-the-file-out-conquer-procrastination-for-ever.html#comment1688447

[graphicdetails]

Not everything that can be done in 2 minutes or less is possible if you are not in the correct context.

GTD is such a simple solution as it boils down to projects, actions, and contexts. I read a lot on this forum where comments make it much more difficult than needed, and I read a lot of comments of people pushing their own version of GTD down each other's throats.

What may be too granular for you may be just what another person needs to get started and all-of-a-sudden write the whole "chapter 4" they were jumpstarted into by that simple action in the best context.

[Foxman]

Project: Fly to Vancouver
Next Action: @Airplane Go through pre-flight checklist. Double check fuel gauge repair.

Project: Mrs. Smith's appendectomy
Next Action: @Phone Call nurse, make sure Mrs. Smith hasn't eaten this morning.


This is what i'm talking about, there is not a pilot on the planet with that as a next action - if there is he/she shouldn't be flying a plane!! Thousands of hours of training, checklists, etc have been taking place before GTD exsisted. What would happen if they left their GTD list at home - forget the flight check?

I would venture the same with the doctors example, once the context is @hosptail procdures, training, checklists take over. Would a doctor consult a next actions list in surgery? I don't think so - these situations it would have to be 2nd nature.



Not to mention the much more mundane
Project: Maintain car
Next Action: @Phone Call garage re: soft brake response.

My point being that part of the idea is to keep minor problems from escalating to the point where they become life or death.


This is more like it, but this action would take place regardless of GTD as any sensible human being would act on it. The GTD just puts this in place where you going to make better use of your time.



My other point being that some occupations deal with life or death decisions on a regular basis. Are you suggesting that GTD can't be used by those people?

Katherine

I haven't suggested that at all and it's a bit of a riduclous statement to implie that I did.

[Foxman]

For some people "Write chapter 4 of the book" Next Action can be a source of procrastination because it is too big for them.

They will see "Open chapter 4 file in word processor and write first sentence" Next Action more doable. It is the "kick-start bookmark" for them to write the whole chapter.

If someone has that as a next action they will never end up be an author. They would spend more time writing next actions that writing the book in the first place!! What would you do once you've completed it - go back to your next actions and write @computer - open word processer, find file and write sentence number 2?

Wouldn't a more sensible next action be:-

@computer - Open word doc and draft a page/200 words

Maybe this could take 10 - 20 mins to do but you would be making real progress on a project not kidding yourself you are with the first example.

[Foxman]

Not everything that can be done in 2 minutes or less is possible if you are not in the correct context.

GTD is such a simple solution as it boils down to projects, actions, and contexts. I read a lot on this forum where comments make it much more difficult than needed, and I read a lot of comments of people pushing their own version of GTD down each other's throats.

What may be too granular for you may be just what another person needs to get started and all-of-a-sudden write the whole "chapter 4" they were jumpstarted into by that simple action in the best context.

Writing next actions too granular is making GTD more difficult than needed, and that is not 'pushing their own version of GTD down each other's throats' that IS GTD. The 2 minute rule is the key here, there is no point in tracking anything less than that, just do it - otherwise it becomes counterproductive, and i'm speaking from experience - you end up with loads of half done items all over the place that could quite easily have been finished a lot quicker.

You mention 'not being in the correct context' to do a 2 minute item, but even then would say that isn't exactly the case. I would say most things (95%) that you couldn't while processing, because of not being in the right context take more that 2 minutes to do anyway in all reality.

[Brent]

If someone has that as a next action they will never end up be an author. They would spend more time writing next actions that writing the book in the first place!!

As an author who has used GTD to write stories, I can tell you that you're mistaken.

Remember, a Next Action is a bookmark. You don't have to scurry back to your NA list as soon as you finish the "Write first sentence" NA.

[sdann]

Writing next actions too granular is making GTD more difficult than needed, and that is not 'pushing their own version of GTD down each other's throats' that IS GTD. The 2 minute rule is the key here, there is no point in tracking anything less than that, just do it - otherwise it becomes counterproductive, and i'm speaking from experience - you end up with loads of half done items all over the place that could quite easily have been finished a lot quicker.

You mention 'not being in the correct context' to do a 2 minute item, but even then would say that isn't exactly the case. I would say most things (95%) that you couldn't while processing, because of not being in the right context take more that 2 minutes to do anyway in all reality.

There are bound to be situations where the under 2 minute action cannot be implemented. There are also times where I won't interrupt what I'm doing because I find an under 2-minute action. It goes on my NA list or into my inbox, because I don't want to break the flow of my current thoughts.

As to the granularity of a next action that is a very personal decision. Most next actions for most people are probably pretty standard, but there are times when a very granular NA is really what is need to propel you to delve further into a project. Granted those very granular NAs aren't very productive when working straight down a context list, but they can be very helpful in the above situation.

[Foxman]

As an author who has used GTD to write stories, I can tell you that you're mistaken.

Remember, a Next Action is a bookmark. You don't have to scurry back to your NA list as soon as you finish the "Write first sentence" NA.

Brent, you would honestly write a next action to be that granular?

Surely as a writer you couldn't get into flow with something as small as that? Wouldn't you block out time for the muse? Next actions are most effective when they can be done in the little openings of time that appear everyday 'i've got an extra 15mins before X so what can i fit in here' for example.

As a writer myself (i'm involved in the TV/film industry) i would be interested in the way you would use GTD to go about writing stories just for a different view point/method. Do you use mind maps, etc? I'm constantly looking new ways to make story structure easier!

[kewms]

Brent, you would honestly write a next action to be that granular?

Surely as a writer you couldn't get into flow with something as small as that? Wouldn't you block out time for the muse? Next actions are most effective when they can be done in the little openings of time that appear everyday 'i've got an extra 15mins before X so what can i fit in here' for example.

15 minutes is plenty of time to brainstorm candidate first sentences, or to shuffle a handful of index cards around. Blocking out time is great, but not always possible. Small progress is better than no progress at all.

It's also easy to get overwhelmed and paralyzed by big projects. Even the big ones are written one sentence at a time, so breaking it down to the sentence level can help get the rock rolling.

Katherine

[GTDWorks]

I found that when I was new to GTD, I was very granular with my next actions. But today, "Outline Introduction to Sunday's Sermon" is all I need to get started.

[graphicdetails]

You mention 'not being in the correct context' to do a 2 minute item, but even then would say that isn't exactly the case. I would say most things (95%) that you couldn't while processing, because of not being in the right context take more that 2 minutes to do anyway in all reality.

Suddenly, I remember, I need to add chlorine to the pool. Hmmm, it takes less than 2 minutes to do that, so I'll do it now. WAIT! I'm 25 MILES FROM HOME! Oh well, it's too much effort to put it on my @Home list so I'll just forget about it.

Get the idea, foxman? 95% is a ridiculous figure. It may be the case for you, but I add items all day while I'm out.


and i'm speaking from experience - you end up with loads of half done items all over the place that could quite easily have been finished a lot quicker

You are speaking from your experience, not the experience of all others. As Brent stated, the NA for a project is a bookmark of sorts to notify you of where you have left off. You don't have to simply do the exact action and stop. The NA is a physical action that you need to do to keep the project moving along.


Writing next actions too granular is making GTD more difficult than needed, and that is not 'pushing their own version of GTD down each other's throats' that IS GTD

And congratulations, you've actually made my point while telling us hindred spirits what IS GTD.

[Foxman]

Suddenly, I remember, I need to add chlorine to the pool. Hmmm, it takes less than 2 minutes to do that, so I'll do it now. WAIT! I'm 25 MILES FROM HOME! Oh well, it's too much effort to put it on my @Home list so I'll just forget about it.

Get the idea, foxman? 95% is a ridiculous figure. It may be the case for you, but I add items all day while I'm out.

But are you sure that it's as simple as add chlorine? Is there any measuring to be done or anything else to be done as part of a process? It honestly takes less than 2 mins?

Like I said 95% of the time. Thats just one thing you've mentioned, there are alway exceptions - so it's not quite ridiculous.



And congratulations, you've actually made my point while telling us hindred spirits what IS GTD.

Cant really see what your getting at here?

BTW I'm not trying to be an a&*$hole even though it may come across like that! I like hammering out ideas/opinions with others to see what holds up under pressure.

Steve

[abhay]

Relax, folks! Using GTD is not licensed under legal terms which require you to follow the two minute or any other rule.

Even if something is going to take two minutes, can be done here and now, many times I have decided to procrastinate on it. Sometimes I have answered emails while processing and it has taken twenty minutes. No lawyers from The David Allen Company came looking for me! ;)

In fact, Page 132 (paperback) of the GTD book says:


Two minutes is in fact just a guideline. If you have a long open window of time in which to process your in-basket, you can extend the cutoff for each item to five or ten minutes. If you've got to get to the bottom of all your input rapidly, in order to figure out how best to use your afternoon, then you may want to shorten the time to one minute, or even thirty seconds, so you can get through everything a little faster.


About the granularity: A way of looking at it that helps me sometimes: If the action looks monstrous, I need to break it further. If it looks ridiculously tiny, I need more challenge in it. If I feel comfortable that I have to take this action, then that's mostly right. Sometimes a monstrous-looking action just cannot be broken down further. Fine, it stays.

Regards,
Abhay

[Oogiem]

Brent, you would honestly write a next action to be that granular?
....
Next actions are most effective when they can be done in the little openings of time that appear everyday

2 things to comment on here:

Not Brent but I will and have written next actions that are that granular for writing assignments. Whether I need to do granular NAs or not often depends on the project.

Also in my job my guess is that over 75% of my less than 2 minute actions cannot be done when I process them. So I do often write down on NA lists small things. I process inside at my computer, I do outside most of the time in various barns and fields. Changing the light bulb on the chick brooder may take less than 2 minutes, but if I'm up in the far field with a lambing ewe when I think of it I am not going to be able to do it. So I write it down and add it to my chicken barn context when I process. Then when I am next in the chicken barn I deal with it.

The second point is the one I think is the main difference between how you do things and most of the rest of us.

You appear to use NA lists only for ways to fill in small bits of time.

I use NA lists as the map for what I need to do all the time. A NA list is not a, "well I'm waiting for something to do now let me look at my lists" kind of thing but instead it's a total picture of everything I should or want to get done soon. I work from my lists constantly not just in the holes of time.

[kewms]

I use NA lists as the map for what I need to do all the time. A NA list is not a, "well I'm waiting for something to do now let me look at my lists" kind of thing but instead it's a total picture of everything I should or want to get done soon. I work from my lists constantly not just in the holes of time.

Exactly. The whole point is that your system should contain EVERYTHING you need to do. If it doesn't, you can't trust it.

Katherine

[GTDWorks]

"I use NA lists as the map for what I need to do all the time. A NA list is not a, "well I'm waiting for something to do now let me look at my lists" kind of thing but instead it's a total picture of everything I should or want to get done soon. I work from my lists constantly not just in the holes of time."

Exactly. Once I committed to this GTD methodology by making it my trusted system, I've never looked back. These lists are my lifeline to, well, GETTING THINGS DONE and to accomplishing the things that matter most to me and the things that matter little but still must be done in order for me to reach toward my higher levels of focus.

[sdann]

Oogie, I like the map concept.

[Brent]

Brent, you would honestly write a next action to be that granular?

Yes, absolutely. I do it all the time.


Surely as a writer you couldn't get into flow with something as small as that?

Why couldn't I? That's the next thing I have to do. What else would I need?

It's not like the NA is the only thing I remember about the story.


Wouldn't you block out time for the muse?

I do, sometimes. But one of the great points of GTD is that I don't have to block out time. I can look at my @Home list and have a complete list of everything I could do next. So I can write even if it's not the scheduled time.


Next actions are most effective when they can be done in the little openings of time that appear everyday 'i've got an extra 15mins before X so what can i fit in here' for example.

What makes you say this?

Why would you only look at your NAs during the little openings of time throughout the day? I literally work off my NA lists. When I reach a natural stopping point on one project, I look at the relevant NA list to figure out what to do next. That's the Mind Like Water metaphor -- your NA lists are literally your road map of where you can go next at any point in time.

You seem to be describing your NA lists as things that you look at once your "real work" is done (I may be misunderstanding). My NA lists are my real work.


As a writer myself (i'm involved in the TV/film industry) i would be interested in the way you would use GTD to go about writing stories just for a different view point/method. Do you use mind maps, etc? I'm constantly looking new ways to make story structure easier!

Well, if I'm going to write a story, I usually have a vague story idea (even if it's just "I want to write a story about a fey child"), so I create a project called "Write story based on (story idea)". The Next Action is typically "Journal about (story idea)". When I get to that NA, I'll pull open my journal and start scribbling down ideas for the story.

If I don't have a complete story outline by the time I reach a natural stopping point or are interrupted, the NA remains the same. Otherwise, I'll cross off that NA and add a new NA like "Create document for (working story title)" That'll prompt me to create the document and start working on the story.

As I go, after each session of work on the story, I'll update the NA as appropriate. It can literally be as detailed as "Write sequence describing Will entering the house."

Does that make sense?

[graphicdetails]

But are you sure that it's as simple as add chlorine? Is there any measuring to be done or anything else to be done as part of a process? It honestly takes less than 2 mins?

Yes, I walk out back, grab the chlorine bottle, and dump it in. It really takes about 1 minute. :D

I think I've mistaken some of your postings as a little harsher than you are really trying to be. I guess that sometimes happens on forums. :rolleyes:

Getting back to GTD, I only listed one idea, but I seriously add little things all the time that I need to do in another context. I agree with the last few posts, I use GTD as everything that I need to do in my life. I even have everything broken down and coded into my areas of focus/responsibilities so I can have a greater understanding of what I want to do and if I'm actually progressing toward it as effectively as I would like.

[TesTeq]

Wouldn't a more sensible next action be:-

@computer - Open word doc and draft a page/200 words

Everybody should decide what's sensible for her/him and what's not. What motivates her/him and what doesn't.

What would you do after writing a page/200 words? Stop because you set such limit? Or continue because the Next Action was just a trigger to start writing?

[unstuffed]

I'd like to chime in here, although I've come late to the party. I suffer (and I do mean suffer) from procrastination and anxiety - it's something that's developed over decades as a result of various factors in my life that I won't bore you with. But the end result is that I procrastinate very badly: the thought of doing something, anything, gives me a little jet of anxiety that really interferes with my work (and life).

So I have very granular NAs, because that's the only way that I can trick myself into starting - once started, I mostly roll along fairly well, but getting started is the difficult part. Seeing something like "Write Chapter 3" on my NA list would cause me to curl up and whimper, because that's hitting me in the face with a very demanding task - I can't tick it off until I complete it, and since just the thought of it gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies, I'm unlikely to even start such a (to me) mammoth undertaking. Even if I do force myself (which is a Bad Thing to do, with procrastination), my creativity is completely shot because I'm so tense.

But something like "Create document for Chapter 3 and save to appropriate folder", that's something that I can do. Note however that I rarely stop there: as TesTeq says, the NA is a bookmark that lets you pick up from where you left off, not a prescriptive and complete listing of everything you need to do, in order. I can agree to do such an NA because it's small and non-threatening, and even if I do have a conniption fit and stop there, I've moved the project a tiny step closer to completion. Mostly, I'll continue for a while and achieve more.

So there's several of us who use granular NAs for different reasons, although the underlying reason is the same: they work for us. I don't suggest that my way is best for everybody, because not everybody has my projects or my personal issues, but it's best for me. I think that's one of the strengths of GTD - it provides a framework that works for a very diverse group of people.

[Brent]

So I have very granular NAs, because that's the only way that I can trick myself into starting - once started, I mostly roll along fairly well, but getting started is the difficult part. Seeing something like "Write Chapter 3" on my NA list would cause me to curl up and whimper, because that's hitting me in the face with a very demanding task

Yes. This is very common.

And even if most folks don't have this problem with most things, I think we all have this problem with something. There's at least one unpleasant project that we'll feel internal resistance to. So why not be in the habit of granular NAs, so that all your projects will be manageable and easy to move on?

[robstrange]

Not really sure if I should start a new topic but I thought that as the debate was in full swing I would ask my NA question here.

I am new to GTD and think I have a fairly good handle on the process. My question to you is how do you deal with NAs once they are completed?

Do you

1. Before/After marking the NA as complete draft the next NA.
2. Wait for the weekly review to write the next one, bearing in mind that this could be 6 days later.
3. Have a list of Actions to complete the project and the next one automatically becomes the Next Action.
4. Something else.

I realise that GTD has very personal aspects to it but I wondered how you guys ensure that you always have a full list of NAs for all your projects and do you have more that one NA or Action for your projects.

Thanks

Rob

[Oogiem]

Do you

1. Before/After marking the NA as complete draft the next NA.
2. Wait for the weekly review to write the next one, bearing in mind that this could be 6 days later.
3. Have a list of Actions to complete the project and the next one automatically becomes the Next Action.
4. Something else.


All of the above :-)

Depending on what project, where I am, how things are organized and the urgency of the item I am working on.

Some projects I know what I need to do next and I'm on a roll so I just keep going with the next action, some of those actions never make it to my lists and only when I stop do I document where I was when I finished. Other projects have been well thought out and lots of next actions are already defined. In my system the next action automatically becomes available when I finish one. Some projects are not well defined and I postpone decisions on the next action until the weekly review. And I sometimes do various versions or mixtures of the above as the case warrants.

[sdann]

1 or 3. I use a program that flags me if a project doesn't have a next action.

[unstuffed]

#4 - Something else. ;)

I tend to see the NAs as bookmarks: they tell me where I can jump back into a project, but I don't always just do that one item and stop. Often I'll continue automatically for a while, doing other stuff, and sometimes when I stop I'll write down the next NA, but often I won't.

I'll sometimes dump a bunch of not-really-next Actions into my project support material, if I think I might not remember about them (aspects of a project that are not compulsory, for example), but mostly I find that the NA is more usefully defined at the point where I stop - that tells me what's next, more than any predefined programme.

Just my way - your mileage may, as ever, vary.

[abhay]

1, but not quite. I would rephrase it as "as soon as I stop working on that project for the time being for whatever reasons (lunch, leaving for home, etc)", which I kickstarted with the NA that was written down.

In most cases, option 2 would be too slow, but there may be exceptions as Oogiem notes. Treat weekly review as a safety net (among other things that do not happen on a daily basis), and not as the only time to decide next actions.

Regards,
Abhay

[Brent]

I am new to GTD and think I have a fairly good handle on the process. My question to you is how do you deal with NAs once they are completed?

Do you

1. Before/After marking the NA as complete draft the next NA.
2. Wait for the weekly review to write the next one, bearing in mind that this could be 6 days later.
3. Have a list of Actions to complete the project and the next one automatically becomes the Next Action.
4. Something else.


I deal with the NA once I'm done with that particular work session.

Let's say I have an NA to write the next bit of a story, as part of completing a short story. I decide to work on that NA. I start writing. I continue writing for an hour, going well beyond the bit outlined in the NA. I then sit back and take a deep breath, and look at my NA list. I cross out the NA that no longer applies, and write a new one ("Draft query letter").

Sometimes, of course, I forget to write the NA before moving on, but as I scan my NA lists throughout the day, out-of-date NAs will be obvious and I can update them then. Or they'll be taken care of at my next Weekly Review, of course.

[Day Owl]

Let's say I have an NA to write the next bit of a story, as part of completing a short story. I decide to work on that NA. I start writing. I continue writing for an hour, going well beyond the bit outlined in the NA. I then sit back and take a deep breath, and look at my NA list. I cross out the NA that no longer applies, and write a new one ("Draft query letter").

My goodness, Brent, a query letter just as the draft is barely cool? No revisions? No keeping it overnight so you can look at it with fresh eyes in the morning? I'm green jealous!

[Brent]

Heh. I wish! I actually do a lot of revisions to my manuscripts.

[Day Owl]

Heh. I wish! I actually do a lot of revisions to my manuscripts.

Well, that's a relief. You're in good company (Hemingway, me, et al.).

[Glitch]

I have followed this Thread with great interest and done some personal questioning about the original post and here is what I think is missing in the replies it generated.

If the nature of Next Action lists is not understood, they cannot be used as effective tools. A Next Action list is a tool to help you gain horizontal control or focus in your life/projects. What they do is this: they remind you of all your outstanding Projects that could concretely be moved forward by performing one of the actions within the list. In essence, they give you a landscaped of what project can be leveraged in your current context. Putting subsequent actions in your NA list would only dilute this vision; it is a no no.

If you want to understand the sequencing of a project itself, then a project plan is the tool you are looking for.


As I see it, some of the posts have been mixing a few concepts like the one about the operating table and the cockpit of an airplane. Here is what I mean:

There is a tendency of wanting to put several subsequent actions on the same Next Action list when they have the same Context. One thinks.. well, when I finish this action, then I could do the one after that easily so why not put them all on that list... Context lists serve 2 purpose. One is the purpose I stated above wich is: "What project should I move forward right now in the context that I am?". The other purpose has more to do with the field of expertise it was originally built for wich is "Knowledge Works". In this field of work, you sometimes need to pull a lot of non related project actions together and do them all at once to save time and energy.

The nature of knowledge works is so that the nature of the projects seem to change all the time. So your subsequent action will often change depending on the result of the Next Action you have to perform. Thinking about them in advance is sometimes counter productive in that scenario. That is exactly where one should chop an action and say that this action is granular enough.

When you can say by looking at the action description that you know that you can comfortably evaluate if you can finish it before something unexpected shifts your focus. It is where you believe that you could easily put the project you are working on aside and move to another project easily if the need arises. Opening a book rarely fits into that category and operating on a patient surely doesn't.

Now let's come back to the pilot exemple. The smallest Next Action that could be in his Next Actions list is not even piloting his plane to destination. Piloting is his job, it should be in his agenda as something he cannot move or do when he has spare time or he pleases. When he has to pilot, he is in ONE context and has ONE project on his plate so he should not opt to use a context list to make an informed choice. He should instead look at a Project Plan wich has all the sequential action steps he needs to pull the project to completion and use it as a checklist. Same goes for a doctor. Prep for surgery might be possible but surgery is a project that has priority on anything else and you shouldn't have the opportunity to change context in the middle of it. I understand something urgent and non standard could happen but even then, the tool to help you focus in these circumstances is not the context lists but project plans.

In a nutshell:

What I believe is an effective way to use GTD's Next Action lists is to think of them as a TOOL that will allow you to see your projects that you can move forward in any one context.
Next Action's granularity should be thought of as where could I chop this project and easily go to another and come back to this one later.
It all comes down to what tool you need... A Project Plan for vertical focus or a Context list (NA list) for horizontal focus. If you want both controls, you need two lists!


Also, this part came up...
In a project, you may have more then 1 movable (read actionable) part.

From Paperback Book "Getting Things Done" p.76


The Basics

Decide on next actions for each of the current moving parts of the project.
Decide on the next action in the planning process, if necessary.

These parts could be developed in projects of their own if you feel like the situation warrants it. Making them effectively sub-projects of your big project. But you should have 1 Next Action per moving part of your project :)

[Pablo]

[QUOTE=Glitch;69281]
It all comes down to what tool you need... A Project Plan for vertical focus or a Context list (NA list) for horizontal focus. If you want both controls, you need two lists!

Outlook allows you to use a Project Plan and the NA list via Context in the same list. By Creating a project, context = *Project & listing your NAs in the notes field line by line. At the bottom of the task window click on Categories & select your Contexts. I always select *Project & the corresponding @context that goes with the NA listed in the notes field. Hence the Project & NA are in the same list.

During my weekly review I only have to peruse my *Projects list. I do have other @Contexts but they are incorporated in the *Projects list so I don't have to do a double scan.

Pablo

QUOTE]

[Glitch]

I totally acknowledge that you can find tools that will give you both visions at once and if that's what you feel you need, then by all means you should use them. In my experience though, doing that, you tend to notice the BIG and LONG projects more and you start putting more effort into them then into the other projects/areas of you life and work.

If a Project is an Active one and not in the someday/maybe list, then it means you intend to finish it as soon as possible like all the other ones in the Project List. So most of the time, your better off completing a buch of tasks not related to the same projects so that everything moves smoothly forward. You can always focus on one if it becomes a priority. But as soon as you do, you start loosing perspective on all the others.

It's like this old chinese proverb says:
If you look at a Tree (Vertical Focus), your not seeing the Forest (Horizontal Focus).

Big projects will have a number of movable parts so it will be incorporated in the context lists and that project will naturally get done according to size. When you see you have your actions done for your context, you'll probably see you In-box full with the NA of all those you just finished. Time to process again :)

On top of that, when I see all the actions for all the projects that I have, I start to feel stressed because I see that I have so much stuff I want to accomplish and that I have so limited time to do them all. This defeats the purpose of getting things out of your mind to work stress free IMHO.

[Pablo]

I totally acknowledge that you can find tools that will give you both visions at once and if that's what you feel you need, then by all means you should use them. In my experience though, doing that, you tend to notice the BIG and LONG projects more and you start putting more effort into them then into the other projects/areas of you life and work.

I don't notice BIG and LONG projects anymore than I do projects with fewer NAs. When I open Outlook & Click on a context it ONLY shows me ONE NA for each project. I still process my projects by the 4-Criteria model for choosing NAs:
1. Context
2. Time Available
3. Energy
4. Priority

I Currently have 108 projects and w/ 108 NAs, weighing each one by the 4-Criteria model.

If a Project is an Active one and not in the someday/maybe list, then it means you intend to finish it as soon as possible like all the other ones in the Project List. So most of the time, your better off completing a buch of tasks not related to the same projects so that everything moves smoothly forward. You can always focus on one if it becomes a priority. But as soon as you do, you start loosing perspective on all the others.

Totally agree with you on the previous paragraph.

It's like this old chinese proverb says:
If you look at a Tree (Vertical Focus), your not seeing the Forest (Horizontal Focus).



Big projects will have a number of movable parts so it will be incorporated in the context lists and that project will naturally get done according to size. When you see you have your actions done for your context, you'll probably see you In-box full with the NA of all those you just finished. Time to process
again :)

I don't have to reprocess my NAs, because as soon as I complete it I date stamp it & move it to the bottom of the list.

On top of that, when I see all the actions for all the projects that I have, I start to feel stressed because I see that I have so much stuff I want to accomplish and that I have so limited time to do them all. This defeats the purpose of getting things out of your mind to work stress free IMHO.

Seeing all the actions for the projects that you have, just shows you that you've done some advanced thinking. Sorta like setting up dominos and watching them all topple in the order that you designed them to.

Pablo

[Glitch]

If it works for you, who am I to say you shouldn't use it :)
All I'm saying is why I use it as less as possible.
If prepping things like dominos all ready to go relieves you from stress and makes you productive, then it's the way to go!
Me, it makes me anxious, so it is obviously not the way to go for me.

Don't get me wrong, I have a number of projects that are very well outlined, but for the majority of my day to day projects, the next action's result will influence what the next action will be, so thinking in advance is counter productive in these cases.
I'm trained to know what I have to do in either case, just have to formulate that case into an action and put it in the system.

At first I planned everything with it's possibilities and all.
But I soon realised that it pushed me more to the "control" part of the system and I needed more "perspective" to better manage myself.
I was becoming a control freak, so I speak from experience.

Lastly, I just want to mention that the system was designed to think less about the system and do things. It was designed to think a little more about stuff then you thought you had to, but not as much as you feared to. It is to have a fast system that requires almost no effort to maintain and that supports you on your hectic work day. Seams to work for me that way anyhow...

[Pablo]

If it works for you, who am I to say you shouldn't use it :)
All I'm saying is why I use it as less as possible.
If prepping things like dominos all ready to go relieves you from stress and makes you productive, then it's the way to go!
Me, it makes me anxious, so it is obviously not the way to go for me.

Don't get me wrong, I have a number of projects that are very well outlined, but for the majority of my day to day projects, the next action's result will influence what the next action will be, so thinking in advance is counter productive in these cases.
I'm trained to know what I have to do in either case, just have to formulate that case into an action and put it in the system.

At first I planned everything with it's possibilities and all.
But I soon realised that it pushed me more to the "control" part of the system and I needed more "perspective" to better manage myself.
I was becoming a control freak, so I speak from experience.

Lastly, I just want to mention that the system was designed to think less about the system and do things. It was designed to think a little more about stuff then you thought you had to, but not as much as you feared to. It is to have a fast system that requires almost no effort to maintain and that supports you on your hectic work day. Seams to work for me that way anyhow...


Hey Glitch,

Just dropped the additional actions from all my projects. This reminds me of a quote.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-Antoine de Saint-Exup'ery

Can I get some tobasco sauce to go with this crow?:)

Pablo

[Glitch]

Hey Glitch,

Just dropped the additional actions from all my projects. This reminds me of a quote.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-Antoine de Saint-Exup'ery

Can I get some tobasco sauce to go with this crow?:)

Pablo

Wow, never thought that my post would make such an effect!

As for the quote, I think it should be in the book!!!
Good Job, here's some sauce :D

[Gardener]

3. I thought I understood the next action list - is it was a way of recording what next to do in a project when moving away from the project to do something else - is that correct?!

That's one function for it, but I'd say that it's also a tool for starting to make progress on a project where you're stalled. For me, a Next Action is something that I know how to do - or it's the actions required to find out how to do it. That's how I "size" the action.

So let's say that my Next Action is "Get access to department file server.". But I realize that I can't just do that, because I don't know what to do - who do I talk to, what forms do I fill out? So the action isn't properly defined, and it might sit there forever, because I don't know how to do it. I need to change it to something that I can just do.

So I change my Next Action to "Ask Judy how she got access to department file server." _That_, I know how to do.

Though we could imagine that even that isn't quite right, because I don't have Judy's phone number any more, and she's working in another office. So the Next Action changes to, "Ask John for Judy's phone number." John sits next to me, and he'll be in tomorrow, so now I have a Next Action that I really can just do.

Now, once I get access to that server, I'll have learned where the forms are, and how to submit them. So next time I need access to a server, the task "Get access to other department file server" may really be a properly defined task, because now I know how to do it.

So, to use another example that I may have used before, I can have "Make fried chicken for picnic" as a next action, because I know just how to make fried chicken. But if I didn't, I might need to narrow the action to, say, "Find my copy of Joy of Cooking." (And then, "Look up fried chicken recipes". And then "Make shopping list for fried chicken." And so on.)

Gardener