GTD methodology

[garce]

I wanted to share some of my thoughts and questions about GTD implementation.
The execution part of GTD are Review and Do. When I look at the "Advanced GTD workflow", you do the following daily: Review Tickle file, Calendar, Next Actions, Waiting for. According to GTD, you are NOTreviewing your projects daily. Also, every time you create a project you note the (one) next action
How do you handle:
1. Projects that start in the middle of the week and need to be completed within the week?
2. Projects that have multiple steps that need several actions to move along appropriately?

A couple of options:
a. During the weekly review, while you review "Project A", create ALL "Project A" next actions that should happen within this upcoming week (so no need to refer to the project list).
b. (While Processing a new input within week), if "Project B" is created, create all next actions that should happen within the week. Create "Project B" in project list so it can be reviewed on next weekly review. Unless maybe all the actions listed complete the Project B before the next weekly review.

 

[Gardener]

The review makes sure that you touch and evaluate each project at a regular interval. You don't review your projects every day, but that doesn't mean that you're forbidden to change them. If a project pops up mid-week, it's perfectly fine to create it and add its action. If you work an action, it's perfectly fine to add another action.

 

[@Newbie]

In my understanding you don't just create 'the one' next action, you make sure during the revieuw that every project has at least one. You can create as many next actions as possible if they can be executed simultaneously. If something i am thinking about sparks ideas that should be done after that next action, I also write them down because there is no point in doing the thinking twice. (I usually put them in the project list as next action when X is done, now that i'm writing this down i am thinking of adding a waiting for @myself list where to put these.)

 

[bcmyers2112]

You should update your lists any time throughout the week as needed. The weekly review isn't the only time to do that, but is instead a time to look at everything with more focus and rigor so you can catch anything that may have fallen through the cracks during the week.

It's a common misnomer that GTD limits you to one action per project. If there are multiple actions you could be working on for a particular project (i.e. ones that aren't dependent on something else being completed first), you should get them all in your lists. During the weekly review you want to make sure there is *at least* one action in your lists per project but if it makes sense to have more, by all means have more.

 

[Gardener]

If there are multiple actions you could be working on for a particular project (i.e. ones that aren't dependent on something else being completed first), you should get them all in your lists.

I disagree with making this a "should." I'd call it "could". I don't think that GTD forbids it, but I don't think that it demands it, either. I get much better focus with one action per project. If there's a clear separate effort that could usefully be worked simultaneously, and I have the spare bandwidth, I will make that a separate project and give it one action. Or I might make it a separate project and drop it into Someday/Maybe.

Edited to add: In addition to the better focus with one action, I found that much of my weekly review time was found in tweaking and deleting and adding those extra actions--my planning rarely turned out to be accurate. So those extra actions had a substantial time cost.

 

[TesTeq]

If there's a clear separate effort that could usefully be worked simultaneously, and I have the spare bandwidth, I will make that a separate project and give it one action. Or I might make it a separate project and drop it into Someday/Maybe.

What about the "Book landing page created" Project?
It's productive to define the following simultaneous Next Actions:
- write "About Author" subpage text @computer-offline;
- register "GTDforDogs.com" domain @computer-online;
- call Fred to schedule the photo session @call.
No need to create separate Projects.

 

[Gardener]

What about the "Book landing page created" Project?
It's productive to define the following simultaneous Next Actions:
- write "About Author" subpage text @computer-offline;
- register "GTDforDogs.com" domain @computer-online;
- call Fred to schedule the photo session @call.
No need to create separate Projects.

It's productive for you. It's not productive for me. If I had any fear that I'd forget those things, I'd put them in project support material, not in my project/action lists. Again, I'm not saying that it's a "shouldn't", I'm just saying that it's not a "should".

 

[bcmyers2112]

I disagree with making this a "should." I'd call it "could". I don't think that GTD forbids it, but I don't think that it demands it, either. I get much better focus with one action per project. If there's a clear separate effort that could usefully be worked simultaneously, and I have the spare bandwidth, I will make that a separate project and give it one action. Or I might make it a separate project and drop it into Someday/Maybe.

Edited to add: In addition to the better focus with one action, I found that much of my weekly review time was found in tweaking and deleting and adding those extra actions--my planning rarely turned out to be accurate. So those extra actions had a substantial time cost.

I don't have time to find the exact page number and passage right now, but adding multiple actions for a single project if they can be worked on independently is definitely what DA advises in the book. I understand that's not your preference, and that's fine. As I've matured in my practice of GTD I've come to understand that it needn't be a one-size-fits-all system. David Allen needn't be the final word on productivity for everyone, everywhere. People can adapt GTD to their needs and put their own spin on it. I color outside the lines with my GTD system these days. But in the interests of being accurate, David Allen does indeed offer it as a "should."

 

[TesTeq]

It's productive for you. It's not productive for me. If I had any fear that I'd forget those things, I'd put them in project support material, not in my project/action lists. Again, I'm not saying that it's a "shouldn't", I'm just saying that it's not a "should".

I understand. On the other hand it in my system would be awkward to postpone calling Fred until I write "About Author" text and register a domain. It's not about fear of forgetting. It's about fear that Fred will plan a trip around the world before my Weekly Review. Calling Fred does not depend on anything and is immediately actionable so in my system it is not hidden in the project support.

 

[Gardener]

But in the interests of being accurate, David Allen does indeed offer it as a "should."

Can you point to where? I've seen this assertion more than once, and I've searched the book for this more than once, and I haven't found it. I've seen at least one instance of "at least one next action", which clearly licenses having more than one. But it's usually "the" next action.

For example, under "Intelligent dumbing down" there's the quote

"If you have truly captured all the things that have your attention during the mind sweep, go through the list again now and decide on the single very next action to take on every one of them."

I'm believing you that there's somewhere where he specifies multiple actions for multiple-thread projects. I'm just not finding it.

Now, maybe this is a matter of semantics--maybe each thread of a multiple-thread project is a "thing" in the above quote.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Can you point to where? I've seen this assertion more than once, and I've searched the book for this more than once, and I haven't found it. I've seen at least one instance of "at least one next action", which clearly licenses having more than one. But it's usually "the" next action.

For example, under "Intelligent dumbing down" there's the quote

"If you have truly captured all the things that have your attention during the mind sweep, go through the list again now and decide on the single very next action to take on every one of them."

I'm believing you that there's somewhere where he specifies multiple actions for multiple-thread projects. I'm just not finding it.

Now, maybe this is a matter of semantics--maybe each thread of a multiple-thread project is a "thing" in the above quote.

On page 78 of Getting Things Done (second edition) DA writes, "A project is sufficiently planned for implementation when every next-action step has been decided on every front that can actually be moved on without some other component's having to be completed first. If the project has multiple components, each of them should be assessed appropriately by asking, 'Is there something that anyone could be doing on this right now?' You could be coordinating speakers for the conference, for instance, at the same time that you're finding the appropriate site.

"In some cases there will be only one aspect that can be activated, and everything else will depend on the results of that. So there may be only one next action, which will be the linchpin for all the rest."

 

[Gardener]

On page 78 of Getting Things Done (second edition) DA writes, "A project is sufficiently planned for implementation when every next-action step has been decided on every front that can actually be moved on without some other component's having to be completed first. If the project has multiple components, each of them should be assessed appropriately by asking, 'Is there something that anyone could be doing on this right now?' You could be coordinating speakers for the conference, for instance, at the same time that you're finding the appropriate site.

"In some cases there will be only one aspect that can be activated, and everything else will depend on the results of that. So there may be only one next action, which will be the linchpin for all the rest."

Got it! Now, this is definitely an example where I would have multiple projects--one for the speakers, one for the site--each with a single next action. And odds are that all but one would be in Someday/Maybe. But, yes, I agree that here he does seem to be recommending separate simultaneously progressing threads for projects that support them.