Replacing the idea of Tool Based Contexts with Areas of Focus?

[ivanjay205]

I have a current set of contexts that are mostly tool based. As most can attest to I get too much in my computer list. I have subdivided it into Computer-->ipad-->phone tasks which are all nested so that when working on a tool within this group I can see what I can work on. That works well for me.

However, I find that context switching in terms of tool is not really what slows me down because in today's work it is all really available.

The limiting criteria for me seem to be time as my first one (I am a business owner with large responsibilities in lots of different areas so maximizing time is critical) and secondly I seem to work better on a single project or scope of my responsibility vs a context. For example switching from computer to make a phone call and back does not bother me. There are very few things I can only do in my office (a few but very few). However, switching form finance to HR to IT that requires my brain to switch "modes" And while I know the intent of GTD is not filter by this way i am wondering if anyone ever has and has had success with it?

 

[Gardener]

I have a current set of contexts that are mostly tool based.

I've never found tool based contexts to be useful, largely for the reason that you describe--the context switch between different projects with different goals costs me a lot more than the switch between different tools, especially when "different tools" just means different pieces of software or different devices, all available in the same place.

However, for my GTD lists, I use one of the tools (OmniFocus) that allows me to switch between projects and contexts easily, and also allows me to group projects and see actions based on that grouping, so for me to change contexts to areas of focus would be largely redundant. If I want to continue working on a project, I switch to project view, and if I want to work by context, I switch to context view.

Which still leaves the question of what contexts are useful.

The answer to that is easier when the contexts are more...physical? For example, in the garden, prepping beds requires appropriate clothes, appropriate weather in the present and the recent past (so the soil is damp enough and not too damp), and gathering certain tools and supplies. In that...context, it's useful to be able to check OmniFocus on my phone to find the whole list of bed-prep tasks and choose the most important ones.

Similarly, if I've totally cleared the decks in the kitchen, it can be useful to find cooking tasks to go along with whatever specific cooking project I cleared the kitchen for. If I'm making frittatas to freeze, I could ALSO caramelize extra onions, chop and blanch extra vegetables, whatever. If I'm making cookie dough, I could ALSO make a batch of scones to freeze. I should note that this may involve "actions" that look like "Use up the cream".

For work or other desk activities, my contexts are more likely to be about time and mental/emotional resources. So a context might be "Mindless Batch Tasks" or "Programming Focus" or "Scary Emails".

 

[Broomscot]

And while I know the intent of GTD is not filter by this way i am wondering if anyone ever has and has had success with it?

I started implementing GTD a couple of months ago and initially just had one action list. I only created new lists when I realised there was a certain type of task that I either didn't want to see on my main list or, for clarity, wanted to see on a list of its own. I work at home, and if I'm working at my desk, I don't want to know about outdoor tasks, so those go on a separate list. I have a secondary computer in a different room, so I have a list for that so that I can batch the tasks that need that computer and do them in one sitting. I have one list that is related to an area of focus rather than a context. I supervise cohorts of students so I have a list that shows the next actions for each cohort. I never actually work off this list. However, I review my action lists daily and find it effective to review my cohort-related tasks at that time.

I think in terms of lists rather than contexts, and I think it really is whatever works for you. What actions do you want to see together on a single list, and what actions keep popping up when you don't want to see them, signifying that they need a separate list?

 

[Matt_M]

I started implementing GTD a couple of months ago and initially just had one action list. I only created new lists when I realised there was a certain type of task that I either didn't want to see on my main list or, for clarity, wanted to see on a list of its own. I work at home, and if I'm working at my desk, I don't want to know about outdoor tasks, so those go on a separate list. I have a secondary computer in a different room, so I have a list for that so that I can batch the tasks that need that computer and do them in one sitting. I have one list that is related to an area of focus rather than a context. I supervise cohorts of students so I have a list that shows the next actions for each cohort. I never actually work off this list. However, I review my action lists daily and find it effective to review my cohort-related tasks at that time.

I think in terms of lists rather than contexts, and I think it really is whatever works for you. What actions do you want to see together on a single list, and what actions keep popping up when you don't want to see them, signifying that they need a separate list?

Actually, you're more right than you know: contexts are lists. David has consistently and repeatedly referred to them as lists. It's exactly right to think of them as buckets or groupings of items that you don't want to see mixed in with other actions/items that don't fit. I emphasize this because it's quite the breakthrough for most people and it's cool to see.

I have a current set of contexts that are mostly tool based. As most can attest to I get too much in my computer list. I have subdivided it into Computer-->ipad-->phone tasks which are all nested so that when working on a tool within this group I can see what I can work on. That works well for me.

However, I find that context switching in terms of tool is not really what slows me down because in today's work it is all really available.

The limiting criteria for me seem to be time as my first one (I am a business owner with large responsibilities in lots of different areas so maximizing time is critical) and secondly I seem to work better on a single project or scope of my responsibility vs a context. For example switching from computer to make a phone call and back does not bother me. There are very few things I can only do in my office (a few but very few). However, switching form finance to HR to IT that requires my brain to switch "modes" And while I know the intent of GTD is not filter by this way i am wondering if anyone ever has and has had success with it?

I actually just replied to another thread with a very similar question, in premise, so I will repeat the relevant part here:

Projects themselves can be the context. I often find myself, more and more, looking at things by project and never by context. Much like you stated, there's little to no difference/cost switching between tools, location, etc. these days. As well, I use 20+ applications simultaneously on my computer and phone such that grouping by app is not effective either.

My contexts now of days, look more like batch-processing groups than anything else (e.g. "financial" may have a bunch of tasks that are things that are best done all at the same time: enter receipts, submit expense reports, approve expense reports, update financial databases/spreadsheets, etc.). At that point, I usually just run my context lists down to completion if I am looking at them (i.e. I do all of the tasks on the "financial" list in a single session rather than trying to slice it up or pick any single task).

Experimentation is the name of the game. Try things out and see what works for you and what doesn't. Change, pivot, and course correct accordingly as you go along and learn more.

 

[FocusGuy]

As @Gardener said
<< Which still leaves the question of what contexts are useful>>

I dont think there can be any right answer to this. People has different need and even for ourself needs change and working from everywhere makes things more complicated.

In my gtd experience i made different context setting

-Some narrow like By tool, by time, by energy, Mixt or not, by mood, by process…
- Some large eg @office @home

3 stayed permanently.
Waiting for, smb, agenda

As a business maker context has no real meaning for me. As someone said project can become context. For example if i decide to work on a building nothing else matter. I focus on it and do everything i can do about it.

I try to make it simple and manageable.

The most important is having one next action for every actionable project. Il can be on a sheet of paper, a page on a paper notebook or inside a digital tool I don't care...

Also a core element is about projects and what I mean actionable for me. I make a difference between actionnable and not actionnable.
- An actionnable project Is a project i decide to work during this week or next. Some can happen they will go on my actionnable project list.
- All others "non actionnable" projects are someday, stalled or planned for the future. Eg Some will become available for the first quarter of 2024…

From my own experience, i consider contexts as choice to make. I prefer a global list. So, Omnifocus as now only one general context : Nextaction and some remaining specific tags waiting for, someday, errands, agenda.

About areas and context :
I Tried making the in OF, Things and also in Nirvana. I noticed Omnifocus doesn't like complexity. It is efficient when it is simple. OF is made for action.
So I set some meeting with myself for everything which don't belongs to action.

Eg i have a meeting for evaluating relationship of areas :
One for H3, another for H4, another for H5 , another for examining the impacts from h2 to h5 in personal or professionnal life…

Eg I have meetings for working on project

a single list manage all that's mini meeting I do on time burst.

In summary, context doesn't mean anything for me. It is just a tool, a list for choosing action at the right time. If there is a result to obtain and it is actionnable now or in the very near future (this week or even next week if i need time to make it happens) there must be a next action. This next action is only but what matters for me.

It looks me years to understand that. so may be Do what works with you but make it easy and simple.

 

[ivanjay205]

THanks all, just weighing the thought of yet again changing my system lol. Just feels like I take as much time doing that sometimes as engaging clearly still searching for what works for me. However, I can sense things are on my mind even though its documented on my lists so something is not sitting right.

I did start coaching with Meg Edwards (waiting on my first meeting) so I think I will sit tight for right now as I would assume Meg can really help me iron this out

 

[Oogiem]

the context switch between different projects with different goals costs me a lot more than the switch between different tools,

And this is a case of YMMV. Personally, for me, I can switch contexts FAR easier than I can switch tools or projects. I have no problem at all switching beteen a Libre Office task of writing a Christmas letter, and a Libre Office task of writing a grant application response and one writing a review of a book I read but have a horrible time switching between writing a Christmas Letter, selecting and arranging the photos for the photo collage I send with it in LightRoom and creating the mailing labels that I use to send it out. in my mailing app.

I only created new lists when I realised there was a certain type of task that I either didn't want to see on my main list or, for clarity, wanted to see on a list of its own.

THIS!!!

Ignore what I or anyone else says, create the lists in a way that fits what works for you. GTD is infinitely adaptable to MANY dofferent ways of working. Find the yway that works for you and stick with it until it no ;omger works, then change based on your experience. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Over time you will end up with something that is uniquely yours and works for you in a way that makes you comfortable.

 

[ivanjay205]

And this is a case of YMMV. Personally, for me, I can switch contexts FAR easier than I can switch tools or projects. I have no problem at all switching beteen a Libre Office task of writing a Christmas letter, and a Libre Office task of writing a grant application response and one writing a review of a book I read but have a horrible time switching between writing a Christmas Letter, selecting and arranging the photos for the photo collage I send with it in LightRoom and creating the mailing labels that I use to send it out. in my mailing app.


THIS!!!

Ignore what I or anyone else says, create the lists in a way that fits what works for you. GTD is infinitely adaptable to MANY dofferent ways of working. Find the yway that works for you and stick with it until it no ;omger works, then change based on your experience. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Over time you will end up with something that is uniquely yours and works for you in a way that makes you comfortable.

On your latter part I do completely agree. However, I have yet to find the right approach. This is why I reached out for coaching as I think I am still missing some missing key component on the engage side. There are a lot of times when my system works great.... For example, when I have 10 minutes between meetings I have an OmniFocus for quick hits and it presents all of the quick low energy/thinking tasks I need to and I can knock one or two off.

When I am in my office I can see the tasks that require my presence in the office. Even better is my home inside and home outside list. I can quickly see what I can do physically. Today it was cold and rainy in NY. Home outside list was not happening, but I could tackle some home inside things just fine.

Where I struggle is when I can work out of a few lists. I have yet to find a view that shows me what is my best option, instead of a big list of too much stuff that I become turned off to..... For example, lets say I have an hour or more, so time is not a constraint. I am in my office, so my phone list, computer list, and office list are all viable. If I click on any one of those, well what is driving that decision. How do I know that one of those is more appropriate than the other? I know that is sementatics and I can work on any of them but I find I tend to engage with smaller tasks more often vs taking on those big picture items. What I really need to figure out is how to get those high importance and high value items in my leadership role more front and center. This way the easier, quicker, and simpler stuff is reserved more for in between meetings.

I also have some low priority stuff that I am required to maintain. so it is low "priority" but of high importance if that makes sense. Nothing happens if I dont do it, but I make significant improvements to our operations for others (thus efficiency) if I do do it.

So this is really what I am struggling with. Getting those bigger things done and getting myself out of the weeds. I do know and acknowledge this is in a big way a higher horizon issue too. I am in tune with those, however, we had some staffing issues recently and I am covering positions I normally would not. So that is "enhancing" the problem for lack of better terms.

 

[FocusGuy]

Where I struggle is when I can work out of a few lists. I have yet to find a view that shows me what is my best option, instead of a big list of too much stuff that I become turned off to..... For example, lets say I have an hour or more, so time is not a constraint. I am in my office, so my phone list, computer list, and office list are all viable. If I click on any one of those, well what is driving that decision. How do I know that one of those is more appropriate than the other? I know that is sementatics and I can work on any of them but I find I tend to engage with smaller tasks more often vs taking on those big picture items. What I really need to figure out is how to get those high importance and high value items in my leadership role more front and center. This way the easier, quicker, and simpler stuff is reserved more for in between meetings.

I still struggle with this. On one hand it is nice have a collection of choices for choosing what to do at the adhoc time. On the other hand it is energy consuming and sometime hard to make. Some will answer the 4 criteria and the horizons would be some help. Sometime for me it is of no help at all. My solution is again my own morning mini meeting with myself. At the beginning of the day after reviewing my calendar list, my next action list I focus on my done list and weekly goal list. What really matters ? What happens if not done ever ? I put in parenthesis 2 project max theses are my daily priorities I have to advance on. I dont know if it is GTD or not. What I know is that it works for me.

 

[Mrs-Polifax]

I did start coaching with Meg Edwards (waiting on my first meeting) so I think I will sit tight for right now as I would assume Meg can really help me iron this out

I'm so excited for you to be doing this! Congratulations! I've seen some of Meg Edwards' Focus videos. If you learn anything you feel like sharing, I'd be interested, and I'll bet everyone would love that.

 

[Longstreet]

On your latter part I do completely agree. However, I have yet to find the right approach. This is why I reached out for coaching as I think I am still missing some missing key component on the engage side. There are a lot of times when my system works great.... For example, when I have 10 minutes between meetings I have an OmniFocus for quick hits and it presents all of the quick low energy/thinking tasks I need to and I can knock one or two off.

When I am in my office I can see the tasks that require my presence in the office. Even better is my home inside and home outside list. I can quickly see what I can do physically. Today it was cold and rainy in NY. Home outside list was not happening, but I could tackle some home inside things just fine.

Where I struggle is when I can work out of a few lists. I have yet to find a view that shows me what is my best option, instead of a big list of too much stuff that I become turned off to..... For example, lets say I have an hour or more, so time is not a constraint. I am in my office, so my phone list, computer list, and office list are all viable. If I click on any one of those, well what is driving that decision. How do I know that one of those is more appropriate than the other? I know that is sementatics and I can work on any of them but I find I tend to engage with smaller tasks more often vs taking on those big picture items. What I really need to figure out is how to get those high importance and high value items in my leadership role more front and center. This way the easier, quicker, and simpler stuff is reserved more for in between meetings.

I also have some low priority stuff that I am required to maintain. so it is low "priority" but of high importance if that makes sense. Nothing happens if I dont do it, but I make significant improvements to our operations for others (thus efficiency) if I do do it.

So this is really what I am struggling with. Getting those bigger things done and getting myself out of the weeds. I do know and acknowledge this is in a big way a higher horizon issue too. I am in tune with those, however, we had some staffing issues recently and I am covering positions I normally would not. So that is "enhancing" the problem for lack of better terms.

What I have discovered about myself from coaching with Julie Ireland is that I work best from my Areas of Focus. From there, I can go down to specific projects or next actions. The only physical-based lists that work for me are home, errands, calls, and agendas. Of course, I have waiting for and project lists. But as David Allen said, it is important to "climb up the fire tower" to get a view of what is on your plate. That helps me immensely in terms of deciding what to do from moment to moment. And, of course, if there is an Area of Focus or project that I need to spend a lot of deep work/focused time on, I will time block this on my calendar.

 

[Oogiem]

Where I struggle is when I can work out of a few lists. I have yet to find a view that shows me what is my best option, instead of a big list of too much stuff that I become turned off to..

My tactic for this situation is I have one list that is all my projects. Since each project is now a note in Obsidian it's a simple dataview query to get them. I can take a quick look at the active projects and see which one I want to move forward now. Then click into its note and see its next action. Once I am in the context for that specific next action I revert back to my continue on in that context until I have a natural break.

Putting it another way, If I am unsure what context to start on I look at what project I need/want/have to work on and then do its next action and use that as the way to decide what context I am going to stay in for a while.

 

[mcogilvie]

What I have discovered about myself from coaching with Julie Ireland is that I work best from my Areas of Focus. From there, I can go down to specific projects or next actions. The only physical-based lists that work for me are home, errands, calls, and agendas. Of course, I have waiting for and project lists. But as David Allen said, it is important to "climb up the fire tower" to get a view of what is on your plate. That helps me immensely in terms of deciding what to do from moment to moment. And, of course, if there is an Area of Focus or project that I need to spend a lot of deep work/focused time on, I will time block this on my calendar.

I have found that the contexts that are most useful for me are agendas, errands, home, and waiting-for. I‘ve folded calls into anywhere. I think this is symptomatic of context collapse, where almost all actions are @screen. I like to fit in small actions as a break from biggear projects, so that conditions how I want to see things.

 

[John Forrister]

I have found that the contexts that are most useful for me are agendas, errands, home, and waiting-for. I‘ve folded calls into anywhere. I think this is symptomatic of context collapse, where almost all actions are @screen. I like to fit in small actions as a break from biggear projects, so that conditions how I want to see things.

Like you, I still use agendas, errands, home, and waiting for.

For me @screen isn't specific enough to be an optimal context. The speed of the connection and the working area of the screen make a difference in what work I would choose to do.

 

[Gardener]

And this is a case of YMMV. Personally, for me

Oh, yeah--I meant "me" very literally as me, not as a general rule.

But I think that there's a tendency to assume that contexts are supposed to be tool-based rather than project-based or mindset-based, so it's worthwhile for an individual to think about whether that's valuable for them.

 

[mcogilvie]

Like you, I still use agendas, errands, home, and waiting for.

For me @screen isn't specific enough to be an optimal context. The speed of the connection and the working area of the screen make a difference in what work I would choose to do.

@screen was not meant literally. However, I am rarely very far in time and space from phone, tablet, and computer. I can erect somewhat arbitrary preferences, but in a pinch I can do many of the same tasks on any of them. I know young people who always have their laptop with them.

 

[FocusGuy]

What I have discovered about myself from coaching with Julie Ireland is that I work best from my Areas of Focus. From there, I can go down to specific projects or next actions. The only physical-based lists that work for me are home, errands, calls, and agendas. Of course, I have waiting for and project lists. But as David Allen said, it is important to "climb up the fire tower" to get a view of what is on your plate. That helps me immensely in terms of deciding what to do from moment to moment. And, of course, if there is an Area of Focus or project that I need to spend a lot of deep work/focused time on, I will time block this on my calendar.

Hi @Longstreet Reading your post made me realize that may be this was the reason my system had friction.

May be it is because I dont work enough from my area of focus.

Of course OF can managing my horizons : By tags and perspective or even by folders but I wanted to make it as simple as possible.

For this, no doubt Nirvana is the best tool I ever tried. So I made a little migration with some core actionnable projects. Do you still use it for this ?

 

[Longstreet]

Hi @Longstreet Reading your post made me realize that may be this was the reason my system had friction.

May be it is because I dont work enough from my area of focus.

Of course OF can managing my horizons : By tags and perspective or even by folders but I wanted to make it as simple as possible.

For this, no doubt Nirvana is the best tool I ever tried. So I made a little migration with some core actionnable projects. Do you still use it for this ?

I am glad that resonated with you. Yes, I am an avid Nirvana user!

 

[FocusGuy]

I am glad that resonated with you. Yes, I am an avid Nirvana user!

Well I tried. Nirvana was good but I have too much datas in Omnifocus. I am stuck with OF. Anyway it does the job very well.

 

[jaybee9]

My contexts tend to change over time as life changes but I’ve had a mixture of a few different types over time - tool based, location based and time/energy based.

After doing GTD on and off for many years I’ve finally come to the conclusion, that at least for me, the biggest barrier to using contexts is task management apps, they’re not simple enough (too much metadata per task) and they link actions to projects so even when you’re looking at a context list there’s something on the screen telling you what project it belongs to which I’ve realised makes my brain want to think about stuff from the project perspective instead. David Allen suggests looking at the project list as little as once per week, with most task management apps (OF, Things etc) that’s basically impossible as it sits there continuously telling you about projects which for me is cognitive overhead.

I now use a simple app for next actions where you can’t have much metadata per task (no notes, priority, start date, due date et ), it’s just multiple lists where I can swipe on an action to complete it. And my projects are listed in a different app so I’m not continuously looking at them. Without that extra mental overhead I find context lists now work great…. Might be worth a try?