Two GTD sticking points: time needed and a today list

[Brent]

And that's the thing. Where does GTD "end" (and life begins hahaha)? I never could define this frontier in one clear statement.

I'm confused. What do you mean by "end" and "frontier?"

 

[Cpu_Modern]

I'm confused. What do you mean by "end" and "frontier?"

Ok, how do I explain myself...

The issue at hand is the decision to switch context. Where does that come from? Out from your system or out from your head? (Note: Ultimately everything you do comes out from your head. If you put it into your system you did so becaus it was in your head.) It comes out of your head. It is head --> head. Not head --> system (like when you process stuff).

Compare this with deciding to do a next action: in most cases you read the NA out from your system an put it back into your head to do it. It is system --> head.

When you schedule a time block to work in a specific context, the decision to change context at that given point in time comes from your calendar. It is system --> head.

The "end of GTD" and the "frontier" is the border between all the system-->head stuff on one side and all the head --> head stuff on the other side.

 

[Brent]

Ah, OK, thank you. That makes sense.

Now, why do you think that this needs to or should be defined in one clear statement?

 

[Cpu_Modern]

Ah, OK, thank you. That makes sense.

Now, why do you think that this needs to or should be defined in one clear statement?

Generally, if you can sum something, anything up in one precise statement....

then, mhm, I worked to much in marketing. Well, I guess I thought then you understood it.

The issue at hand: I want to understand why so many GTDers have an Today-Addon to theire systems.

 

[ojibwa13]

A daily Most Important Task (MIT) list

I first read about this on Matt Cornell's blog (http://ideamatt.blogspot.com/):

"...we decide our most important task in the morning and do it before anything else - interruptions, email, or phone."

Another blog I read (can't remember exactly which one) suggested listing your top 3 MITs and working to complete them first.

I generally list my top 3-5 MITs for the day every morning, and I begin working on them immediately. While interruptions and priority changes do occur, I at least have an idea what I would like to get done at the start of each day.

 

[moises]

corrected link

I first read about this on Matt Cornell's blog (http://ideamatt.blogspot.com/):

"...we decide our most important task in the morning and do it before anything else - interruptions, email, or phone."

Another blog I read (can't remember exactly which one) suggested listing your top 3 MITs and working to complete them first.

I generally list my top 3-5 MITs for the day every morning, and I begin working on them immediately. While interruptions and priority changes do occur, I at least have an idea what I would like to get done at the start of each day.

http://ideamatt.blogspot.com/2007/06/some-thoughts-from-book-getting.html

 

[Borisoff]

I think it's better to have all the options (Next Actions) on the plate in front of you. You should make the choice in the moment what Next Action to take or what context to choose depending on the priority of the Projects. I even think that Someday-Maybe is "incorrect" list as you can always move all your projects at least one more step further. The right list should sound "can't do it now but will start after ...".

 

[Cpu_Modern]

I even think that Someday-Maybe is "incorrect" list as you can always move all your projects at least one more step further. The right list should sound "can't do it now but will start after ...".

Thanks for pointing this out! Yes, KEWMS and DA have different opinions on what the SdMb-list is all about. Well, I guess both are enjoying a successfull life.

 

[ArcCaster]

Generally, if you can sum something, anything up in one precise statement....

then, mhm, I worked to much in marketing. Well, I guess I thought then you understood it.

The issue at hand: I want to understand why so many GTDers have an Today-Addon to theire systems.

For me, the next action list is too big. If it contains enough actions for a week, it could easily exceed 100 next actions. Logistically, if I revisit my next action list every time I complete an action, that means that, on average, about 50 items will be looked at, ignored, and skipped in between every action item. For me, this is tremendously noisy, hugely irritating, and deadens my awareness. That is, if you do 100 next actions every week, you will decide NOT to do many actions several dozen times. After you have decided against doing something so many times in such a short period of time, something psychological happens -- those ignored items acquire a kind of "anti-doing" attribute.

 

[kewms]

For me, the next action list is too big. If it contains enough actions for a week, it could easily exceed 100 next actions. Logistically, if I revisit my next action list every time I complete an action, that means that, on average, about 50 items will be looked at, ignored, and skipped in between every action item. For me, this is tremendously noisy, hugely irritating, and deadens my awareness. That is, if you do 100 next actions every week, you will decide NOT to do many actions several dozen times. After you have decided against doing something so many times in such a short period of time, something psychological happens -- those ignored items acquire a kind of "anti-doing" attribute.

I would argue that the NA list shouldn't have 100 items on it in the first place. I may do 100 items in a week, but many of them are dependent: actions after the NA for a project, for instance.

Also, this is one of the reasons for context lists. I might get overwhelmed by the full list of 100 NAs, but not by a list of 15 or 20 phone calls, half of which I can knock off in a half hour burst.

The problem with Today lists is that having one and then *not* doing everything on it is hugely demotivating, contributing to a feeling that one is completely buried and will never catch up. I won't deny that a daily review to identify top priorities can be helpful. But for me, I know I'd better keep that list of priorities very very short. Five is borderline, three is better. Seven is too many.

Katherine

 

[ArcCaster]

So maybe we should divide the day up into two contexts: required and flexible.

Required is the 'today' list -- it has from 3 to 5 priorities.
Flexible is everything else.

Do the required, then move on to the flexible.

Keep the required context short and doable so that you virtually always make it.

Enjoy picking and choosing from the flexible list.

 

[Brent]

So maybe we should divide the day up into two contexts: required and flexible.

When do you decide what goes on which list?

Flexible items will become required later, right? So you'll have to review all your items to make sure you're not missing something that's become more important, right?

 

[TesTeq]

Try ETP (Emergent Task Planner).

Try ETP (Emergent Task Planner). You can find the form and the description here http://davidseah.com/blog/the-printable-ceo-vi1-emergent-task-planning/.

 

[Howard]

So maybe we should divide the day up into two contexts: required and flexible.

This is a good solution. I use respectively, red and yellow colouring of daily, untimed appointments in Outlook to achieve something similar. The key is to mark in red only those items which really need to be done on a given day.

Like others, I find it very difficult to work on a daily basis directly from context lists. The disadvantage of doing so is that each completion of a next action necessitates a new assessment of which next next action to be addressed. This imposes recurring interruptions which are particularly unwelcome in fast moving, reactive roles. I prefer to maintain my context lists as a holding place for actions that I need to complete at some point and to review daily to compile and prioritise a manageable list for the next day i.e. all in one go rather than between actions. Also, night-before planning is an effective technique for going home mentally unburdened and starting the next day's work quickly, moving rapidly from one action to the next.

I do understand the appeal of a "no daily list" regime; end-of-day disappointment and frustration is avoided as no daily goals of lists are set in the first place, but I think this may be a luxury that can only be enjoyed by those who have more control over their daily events rather than by those who have to move fast and react quickly.

 

[sdann]

Like others, I find it very difficult to work on a daily basis directly from context lists. The disadvantage of doing so is that each completion of a next action necessitates a new assessment of which next next action to be addressed. This imposes recurring interruptions which are particularly unwelcome in fast moving, reactive roles. I prefer to maintain my context lists as a holding place for actions that I need to complete at some point and to review daily to compile and prioritise a manageable list for the next day i.e. all in one go rather than between actions. Also, night-before planning is an effective technique for going home mentally unburdened and starting the next day's work quickly, moving rapidly from one action to the next.

Your concept of a "holding place" is exactly how I view mine, where I'm continuously reviewing, adding, deleting. I must primarily work from a ~5 item daily priority list first. Not too often can I just work one NA after another from the context list, like quite a few on this forum can. I've always wondered why do I always need to see the "why" for doing something.