Hard Edges: Processing and Organizing

[OldCorpse]

Hi, I'm a GTD newbie, and this is my intro post

I have a really dumb question.

I understand that one can do any of the five stages of the GTD methodology at any time, and that it's very important to clearly define hard edges between the various stages (Collect, Process, Organize, Review, Do).

Now, I understand all the distinctions between the stages, except for Processing and Organizing. I mean, how can you process without organizing? Except for filing, of course. DA says you can engage in any single stage all by itself. I can see that you can just Collect, just Review, and just Do, but how can you just Process without Organizing at the very same time... again, except for filing.

Whenever I process it seems to me I also organize... which leads me to believe that I don't understand organizing or processing or both (hard edges).

I realize there's a very simple answer that I just can't see, but, hey, I'm a noob

Thanks in advance!

 

[kewms]

In the processing step, you look at an item and decide what it is and what to do with it.

In the organizing step, you add the resulting NA to the appropriate context list, and the resulting project to the project list.

In a mature system, it's true that the two activities tend to blur together, and that's fine. Still, they *can* be separated.

What if your boss walks in before you actually put the item on your NA list? Then you can put the processed item back in your inbox, ideally with a note reminding you what you planned to do with it.

What if you discover that you need to create a new context? Or need to fill out a project information sheet? You might defer these tasks until you're done going through your inbox, and then organize a bunch of NAs all at once. (The initial sweep being the canonical example of this.)

What if, as you burrow through your inbox, you find five increasingly irate messages from the same person? You might need to drop everything and call that person *right now,* before anything else and especially before filing his messages away.

And so forth.

Hope this helps,

Katherine

 

[Campion]

I wonder if this will be relevant, but hope it will help.

"When I coach clients through this process, it INVARIABLY becomes a dance back and forth between the simple decision-making stage of PROCESSING the open loops and the trickier task of figuring out the best way to enter these decisions in a client's particular ORGANIZATION system."
GTD book, p.121

It seems that DA admits & follow through this kind of activity, which is as you 'dance' between process-organization-process-organize....etc....

You may make action decisions on 10+ items before you organize it, or you may make an action decision on every one and organize them individually. I believe the choice between these two is a matter of taste. From the above quote, I'd like to say that, DA doesn't mind the 'dance back-n-forth' as you process-organize individually.

Does it hit the question?

 

[OldCorpse]

In the processing step, you look at an item and decide what it is and what to do with it.

In the organizing step, you add the resulting NA to the appropriate context list, and the resulting project to the project list.

In a mature system, it's true that the two activities tend to blur together, and that's fine. Still, they *can* be separated.

What if your boss walks in before you actually put the item on your NA list? Then you can put the processed item back in your inbox, ideally with a note reminding you what you planned to do with it.

Hmm. I see what you're saying. Two points, however. First, I thought it was utterly forbidden to put an item back into the inbox once you've started processing. DA makes a big point out of it. I guess if you are interrupted, you could put the item into the "work-in-progress basket" as DA specifies. Second, you are describing a special situation of being interrupted - and that's understandable. I was referring to the situation where as DA says, you can do any one stage at any given time without immediately following into the next stage - and I just have a hard time picturing that for processing, where you decide on all the next actions in your inbox (processing), yet you fail to put them on a list... what do you do, do yo keep 50 next actions in your head until a few hours/days later when you decide to organize i.e. put them on lists and calendar etc.? Hard to imagine.

What if you discover that you need to create a new context? Or need to fill out a project information sheet? You might defer these tasks until you're done going through your inbox, and then organize a bunch of NAs all at once. (The initial sweep being the canonical example of this.)

Good points.

What if, as you burrow through your inbox, you find five increasingly irate messages from the same person? You might need to drop everything and call that person *right now,* before anything else and especially before filing his messages away.

I would think that this is not controversial, but actually as DA indicates a canonical part of processing - after all, if you find a less than 2 minute action you must do it immediately while processing - without going through organizing, reviewing etc. So there's no organizing to be done here under any circumstances anyhow. Similarly I'd think an emergency doesn't call for organizing anyhow - this would be part of "emergency scanning of the inbox" - in DA parlance, which again, doesn't involve organizing anyhow, by design.

Thank you for the explanations, they've been very helpful

I guess, I still need to think more about this before I'm 100% clear on where exactly the hard edges are between processing and organizing.

I welcome further instruction by the wiser and more experienced GTD ninjas!

 

[OldCorpse]

I wonder if this will be relevant, but hope it will help.

"When I coach clients through this process, it INVARIABLY becomes a dance back and forth between the simple decision-making stage of PROCESSING the open loops and the trickier task of figuring out the best way to enter these decisions in a client's particular ORGANIZATION system."
GTD book, p.121

It seems that DA admits & follow through this kind of activity, which is as you 'dance' between process-organization-process-organize....etc....

You may make action decisions on 10+ items before you organize it, or you may make an action decision on every one and organize them individually. I believe the choice between these two is a matter of taste. From the above quote, I'd like to say that, DA doesn't mind the 'dance back-n-forth' as you process-organize individually.

Does it hit the question?

Interesting. It does address directly what I was wondering about. The part of "matter of taste" struck me especially. I guess, it means you could process and take a long break, but only if that doesn't result in poor organizing... actually, if you have to keep too many results of processing in your head without organizing, that would be anxiety producing and diametrically opposed the whole GTD methodology and what it's supposed to accomplish, i.e. take this off your mind.

 

[kewms]

Hmm. I see what you're saying. Two points, however. First, I thought it was utterly forbidden to put an item back into the inbox once you've started processing. DA makes a big point out of it. I guess if you are interrupted, you could put the item into the "work-in-progress basket" as DA specifies.

For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter. My point is that you've got to put it *somewhere,* and don't have time to put it in its final location.

I would think that this is not controversial, but actually as DA indicates a canonical part of processing - after all, if you find a less than 2 minute action you must do it immediately while processing - without going through organizing, reviewing etc. So there's no organizing to be done here under any circumstances anyhow. Similarly I'd think an emergency doesn't call for organizing anyhow - this would be part of "emergency scanning of the inbox" - in DA parlance, which again, doesn't involve organizing anyhow, by design.

I was actually envisioning a situation where (a) you know that the phone call will take more than two minutes and (b) were doing standard processing until you discovered an emergency in your inbox. Yes, this may be a situation that doesn't call for organizing, "by design," but it's still an example of a hard edge between processing and organizing.

Katherine

 

[OldCorpse]

I was actually envisioning a situation where (a) you know that the phone call will take more than two minutes and (b) were doing standard processing until you discovered an emergency in your inbox. Yes, this may be a situation that doesn't call for organizing, "by design," but it's still an example of a hard edge between processing and organizing.

Yes, I see your point. In combination with what Campion said, I think I'm getting closer to understanding the hard edges and the interplay between processing and organizing. Thank you!

 

[Mark Jantzen]

Process & Organize

This is good stuff!

I distinguish the two as a decision (process) or set of decisions versus a physical action (organize).

Process means you walk the "thing" you have already collected completely through the workflow processing chart. My weakness or fault is sometimes doing this too quickly or thinking of something as just a next action when it's really a project with a series of next actions.

Organize is just the physical action of making sure your system reflects the decisions made above. This can mean an email moved to a folder, a piece of paper put into an Action Support folder, items added to runway & 10,000 foot lists.

By physical action I'm not talking about the doing phase but making sure my system has the appropriate items in the right places.

I've found these boundaries very subtle but an important part of my own GTD system. I hear a lot of people mention getting overwhelmed by larges lists and I find that whenever I have that feeling it means I haven't done the process and organize phases as well as I should. When I get it right the larges lists are no problem.

Mark

 

[cornell]

This is an excellent question, and one I've been wondering about as well. My current thinking is that collection really is a stand-alone activity. It happens all the time, and you can mostly ignore it (unless it's urgent) while it's going on. But you do need to empty it every day, minimum.

Processing and organizing are very closely linked, and I'd argue are not really done separately. I *always* organize when I'm processing. In fact, if you're doing one and not the other, you have some leaks. I think it helps to identify them as separate activities - conceptually they really are different- but they're done together (my 2c.) I'd like a word that combines the two - any suggestions? I like "handle," but it's vague.

Also, review and do are closely linked. I've found it helpful to differentiate between daily and weekly: Daily, you are constantly reviewing your actions list to decide which to do in the moment. You'll also optionally review your waiting for list to decide whether to take action regarding any of them. So I think that daily reviewing without doing doesn't make sense.

However, for the weekly review, you have reviewing with no doing. I find it's a combination of:

o care and feeding of your system (bringing projects up-to-date, reviewing your calendar forward and back, etc)
o getting a more strategic view of your work and life (reviewing projects, and optionally a higher level)
o clearing your head (doing a brain dump)

I'd like to see them teased apart a bit more cleanly...

Good topic.

 

[TesTeq]

Prorganizing.

I'd like a word that combines the two - any suggestions? I like "handle," but it's vague.

Processing and organizing = prorganizing.

 

[OldCorpse]

A lot of good responses here, thanks! For now, my feeling is that there is a sharp theoretical distinction between Processing and Organizing, but a somewhat more blurry practical distinction, in that for 99% of the time, I find myself doing Processing and Organizing during the same activity session (with the exception of filing, which can indeed be postponed). I like the suggestion of combining the two into one name! Prorganizing sounds a bit obscene, but hey, maybe we can generate a list

 

[notmuch]

A lot of good responses here, thanks! For now, my feeling is that there is a sharp theoretical distinction between Processing and Organizing, but a somewhat more blurry practical distinction, in that for 99% of the time, I find myself doing Processing and Organizing during the same activity session (with the exception of filing, which can indeed be postponed). I like the suggestion of combining the two into one name! Prorganizing sounds a bit obscene, but hey, maybe we can generate a list

I think the distinction is largely academic as well. Once you've decided what it is, if the act of entering it into your system exceeds the do-it-now, 2-minute rule, then something is wrong with your system.

I propose the far more elegant "porganessing"

 

[tnoyce]

Keep it simple...

Keep in mind that DA initially describes how to move your existing life into GTD. When you are doing that you need to decide what do with something before you can store it: that is the "dance" element.

Once you are up and running with GTD it is just a matter of dumping the NA/Project you just defined by processing into an existing bin.

Except when it isn't... every now and then you will find that you do not have a handy organisation place for the thing you just defined. Sometimes my folders and filing have to be tweaked because I realise that the way I am putting something away is creating resistance. That is when you need to refocus on "Organise".

Good hunting!
Tim

 

[WebR0ver]

I'd like a word that combines the two - any suggestions? I like "handle," but it's vague.

Processing and organizing = prorganizing.

More like Processagonizing.

 

[cornell]

Both suggestions are much appreciated

More like Processagonizing.

 

[moises]

Hi, I'm a GTD newbie, and this is my intro post

I have a really dumb question.

I understand that one can do any of the five stages of the GTD methodology at any time, and that it's very important to clearly define hard edges between the various stages (Collect, Process, Organize, Review, Do).

Now, I understand all the distinctions between the stages, except for Processing and Organizing. I mean, how can you process without organizing? Except for filing, of course. DA says you can engage in any single stage all by itself. I can see that you can just Collect, just Review, and just Do, but how can you just Process without Organizing at the very same time... again, except for filing.

Whenever I process it seems to me I also organize... which leads me to believe that I don't understand organizing or processing or both (hard edges).

I realize there's a very simple answer that I just can't see, but, hey, I'm a noob

Thanks in advance!

I found the process/organize distinction confusing when I first started as well. For a detailed understanding of what confused me see http://www.davidco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2396&highlight=process
If you follow the link, I show a quotation from David on page 119: “When you’ve finished processing ‘in,’ you will have . . . sorted into your own organizing system reminders of actions that require more than two minutes . . .” This is wrong. I constructed an entire edifice of incorrect analysis by using this quotation as my foundation. (You might try to defend the quotation. But I would suggest you consider the following scenario. You have an in-box with one item. You can finish processing 'in' without yet having organized your item.)

As others have posted, the processing and organizing stages are quite distinct. They are very different concepts and distinct activities as well. The activity of processing is often closely allied with the activity of processing. But they are not, in fact, identical.

1. It is possible to process an item without organizing it.
2. You cannot organize an item until it has been processed.

For example, I have collected various items in my various collection points--in-box, e-mail, fax machine, container outside my door. These exist in a pre-proccessed state and, since organizing can only occur after processing, in a pre-organized state.

One-by-one I take the items and ask myself: What is the desired outcome? What is the next action? Until these questions are answered, the item is pre-processed. Once these questions are answered the item is processed. But until I've entered the answers into my system I have not organized anything.

The phone rings. I have processed but not organized. I finish my phone call and get back to my trusted system. I enter a project and NA in that system. I have now organized.

Processing and organizing are conceptually distinct. Processing and organizing usually occur close together in time but are, in fact, temporally distinct as well.

 

[moises]

I thought this horse was beat to death, but four years later, I see, I am still grappling with these issues.

I could imagine someone objecting to me, "Look moises, if you decide what it is your next action is, part of that decision requires deciding whether that action is to be done at home, at work, on the computer, in the kitchen, etc. So, since processing is deciding, a necessary condition for deciding is determining a context. But determining a context is exactly what organizing is. So, once you've processed, you've organized. And you can't process without organizing."

I think some kind of muddied thinking like this provoked my confusion three years ago.

The correct response to this object is this: Processing occurs in the head; organizing occurs in your trusted system which is external to your head.

Deciding on a context as I decide the NA is a processing activity. It's a decision that goes on in my head. Organizing occurs after I have decided in my head. Organizing is all about putting things in my trusted system.

Consider the following thought experiment: A person has a paper-only trusted system. She has a separate folder for each context. She has one item in her in-box. She reads the item and decides it's actionable. Has she processed the item yet? By my definition, she has.

She now writes the NA on a blank sheet of paper. By my definition, she has not yet organized the item because it has not been placed in her trusted system (the pile of folders).

Here's where it gets interesting (to the 3 people who have an interest in arcane GTD quiddities). She now gets her pile of folders to put the NA into them. But she hesitates. She can't decide which folder to put it in. Maybe she'll do the action at home or maybe at work, maybe she'll need a typewriter to do it or maybe she'll need parchment and a fountain pen.

So, it turns out that she really hasn't finished processing the item. If she is uncertain which context to put it in, then she has not completely processed the item. Processing includes deciding on a context. But mentally putting an item in a context, which is what processing is, is distinct from physically (or virtually physically) putting an item in a context in her trusted system.

Deciding on a context is processing. Putting a representation of an NA into a context folder or tagging an electronic representation of an NA with a context are organizing activities.

The essence of Processing is that it occurs in your head. The essence of Organizing is that it occurs out of your head. The essence of GTD is getting things out of your head. So the essence of GTD is going from Processing (which everyone does) to Organizing (which almost no one, except GTDers, do).

 

[TesTeq]

Do not stop after Processing.

The essence of Processing is that it occurs in your head. The essence of Organizing is that it occurs out of your head. The essence of GTD is getting things out of your head. So the essence of GTD is going from Processing (which everyone does) to Organizing (which almost no one, except GTDers, do).

As you said - if one stops after Processing he will not get stuff out of his head.

 

[emhpasador]

Might help--think of the direction of flow?

First off, thanks all for some really good discussion. This has been very helpful. I have a naive newbie thought to add that may be very simple, but might be helpful.

"You can't organize what's incoming--you can only collect it and process it." p. 31

So at the processing point, it is still "incoming". That is the difference. I see the stream of things getting thrown in my direction, and I collect and process them. Some of them I trash and they never make into my system. Once I have accepted them into my system, once they become internal to me, then I am in the organizing stage. I caught the ball (processed) and now I am deciding where to throw it (organizing).

How these things actually get done in real life I know is much more complicated, and in fact processing and organizing may be one fluid motion for a really good ballplayer, but there really are 2 distinct happenings going on here. It is very interesting, the point where it changes direction from incoming (processing) to beginning to be outgoing (organizing). It may still have a long way to go to get OUT of the system, but it changed direction when you organized it.

Thanks again for all the ideas.
Elaine

 

[jknecht]

I caught the ball (processed) and now I am deciding where to throw it (organizing).

I would take this in a slightly different direction:

I caught the ball (collecting), I have decided where to throw it (processing), and now I am throwing it (organizing).