Confused about Next Action list

trican

Registered
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

Registered
trican;68214 said:
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

Registered
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

Registered
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

Registered
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

Registered
Next Action definition.

trican;68214 said:
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

Registered
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

Registered
TesTeq;68231 said:
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

Registered
trican;68262 said:
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

Registered
GTD is for non-trivial applications.

trican;68262 said:
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

Registered
Significance

Senol;68268 said:
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

Registered
Next Actions should be as granular as you need.

Senol;68268 said:
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

Registered
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

Registered
TesTeq;68278 said:
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

Registered
Foxman;68410 said:
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

Registered
whpalmer4;68437 said:
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

Registered
Foxman;68440 said:
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 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

Registered
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

Registered
Foxman;68450 said:
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

Registered
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!
 
Top