Contexts vs. Priority question

S

Sarahsuccess

Registered
In thinking about what contexts to use for my deferred next actions list, I found that the original suggested contexts of Calls, At Computer, At Office, At Home etc. were not working for me. I am grateful to #mcogilvie for sharing his three office task contexts, "Timely", "MIT - Most Important Things", and "Opportunity". He shared them in this thread: Naming for two business next action groups. I am currently using them, and I find they help me to better clarify, organize and do tasks. They make me more productive and get more things done.

However, I have a niggling question that those three contexts are actually priority setting and not contexts in the pure GTD sense. In the book Getting Things Done (2015, page 146) David Allen defines contexts as "either the tool, or the location or the situation needed to complete [the action]". Those three contexts seem to be none of those. David also says (pages 144-145), "...you shouldn't bother to create some external structuring of the priorities on your lists that you'll then have to rearrange or rewrite as things change. Attempting to impose such scaffolding has been a big source of frustration in many people's organizing. You'll be prioritizing more intuitively as you see the whole list against quite a number of shifting variables. The list is just a way for you to keep track of the total inventory of active things to which you have made a commitment, and to have that inventory available for review." I think David is referring here to the Franklin Planner daily list prioritizing by A, B, & C. However, those three contexts seem quite similar to prioritizing. This quote, which I originally read years ago, gave me a subtle undercurrent of anxiety that unless my lists are completely current, I could not effectively choose what to do. The three contexts I use now allow me to feel confident to choose tasks to do even if my lists are not 100% current.

The three contexts of Timely, MIT and Opportunity are working for me, and I intend to continue using them, however on the principle of the matter, I would like to hear from experienced GTD members whether or not they think these categories contradict the original intention of contexts in a pure GTD sense. I would especially appreciate if #mcogilivie could speak to this.

Thank you
 
In my opinion they are contradict and they will reduce your motivation to regularly review all of your lists and keep your system current.

I did something like that in the past but after a while of practicing GTD I have found it to be inefficient and making a friction in the system. I believe that the same applies to the popular distinction between personal and professional tasks.

But I am not sure if you should force yourself to do exactly as written in the book – I didn’t do it myself – just at some point in the past it was a natural adjustment.
 
Hi Sarah,

I have evolved my system a little since I wrote that. I still use Timely, Important and Opportunity as categories to organize how I see projects and next actions. I have used the Area level of Things for these. This ensures that I don’t inadvertently
miss projects and next actions which are time-sensitive or important. All my next actions are tagged with contexts, which are useful often enough to justify the effort of tagging. This works well for me, and I don’t see myself changing my system in a major way any time soon.

I don’t think any of this is really contradictory to the spirit of GTD. First of all, it is easier for me than a vanilla paper style implementation, which always made me anxious. With paper lists, items appear in the order they are written. You may have cleared your head of the action, but you have to maintain some kind of metadata about what it means to you. I can’t see anything wrong in objectifying some of that metadata. Second, it’s not about prioritizing, it’s about how I want to see things. I still make intuitive choices, but I’m not relying solely on my intuition in the moment. I’ve preserved some of my earlier thinking of what a project or next action means to me. Finally, consider the standard recommendation for time-sensitive actions and projects: put items with deadlines on your calendar. This is essentially having a time-sensitive category for your projects and next actions which lives outside of context lists. What I do is more flexible, gives me advance notice of upcoming due dates, and I do have contexts for all those next actions.

If you feel like your system is working well for you, that’s good. When things do not seem to be going well, it can be surprisingly difficult to figure out why. Subtle changes to a good, functioning system can have a big impact. If you feel that you are growing and learning, that is probably the best sign you are headed in a good direction.
 
I'm not sure I could call myself an experienced GTD practitioner...but Contexts are something I've been playing around with recently. As I work almost entirely from home, the work / office / home context doesn't work for me. Calls rarely come up - I avoid the telephone whenever possible - and other than Errands most of my things fall into a Home category. That's not super helpful, so I do a mix of category and "priority". I should add I'm probably ADHD or similar and if something isn't going "hey, this is kinda urgent" and isn't right under my nose, I am likely to skim over it! I also have more than one reminder for things that are critical (see ADHD)...

My contexts look like:
Locations at home - Upstairs; Outside etc. (I have a lot of garden projects ongoing)
A rough due date as additional metadata - this is more for helping me sort and filter, and in most cases is fairly arbitrary! This is totally anti-GTD officially I guess, but it works for my slightly scrambled brain.
I also note Area of Focus and Horizon 3 (where applicable) against NAs, which is useful when I want to have a Focus Day. So I can pull out all my Garden tasks, or all my Family, Home or Self Development for example. (I use Excel so I have many many filters)

Anything that is a Must Do (Today) goes into my Bullet Journal (bujo) daily page.
Any time-based appointments go in my work Outlook calendar and my Future Log in my bujo - I don't have access to my work calendar remotely - and added to the relevant bujo daily. (see multiple reminders above!)

I guess, it's whatever works for you. David actually talks a bit about this, can't remember if it's in GTD or MIAW but he met someone who has a "brain dead" context, for those times when you Just Cannot. When he discusses priority he points out it's something you have to consider on multiple changing axes at once - urgency, location, resources, values, focus area, energy etc. MIAW does a bit more of a dive into this gnarly issue of prioritising. My tagging / filtering just helps me with reviewing some of those so as to inform my decision making.

It's really about what those context tags mean to you specifically, so "timely" might not mean right now, but this is something you're going to need to get to before some of those other things. If it works and it gets things done and you're not dropping important balls, I'd say it's fine!
 
Lucas W. said:
In my opinion they are contradict and they will reduce your motivation to regularly review all of your lists and keep your system current.

I did something like that in the past but after a while of practicing GTD I have found it to be inefficient and making a friction in the system. I believe that the same applies to the popular distinction between personal and professional tasks.

But I am not sure if you should force yourself to do exactly as written in the book – I didn’t do it myself – just at some point in the past it was a natural adjustment.
Click to expand...
What contexts did you use that you found to be inefficient and making friction?
What contexts have you 'naturally adusted' to?
Thanks
 
mcogilvie said:
Hi Sarah,

I have evolved my system a little since I wrote that. I still use Timely, Important and Opportunity as categories to organize how I see projects and next actions. I have used the Area level of Things for these. This ensures that I don’t inadvertently miss projects and next actions which are time-sensitive or important. All my next actions are tagged with contexts, which are useful often enough to justify the effort of tagging. This works well for me, and I don’t see myself changing my system in a major way any time soon.

I don’t think any of this is really contradictory to the spirit of GTD. First of all, it is easier for me than a vanilla paper style implementation, which always made me anxious. With paper lists, items appear in the order they are written. You may have cleared your head of the action, but you have to maintain some kind of metadata about what it means to you. I can’t see anything wrong in objectifying some of that metadata. Second, it’s not about prioritizing, it’s about how I want to see things. I still make intuitive choices, but I’m not relying solely on my intuition in the moment. I’ve preserved some of my earlier thinking of what a project or next action means to me. Finally, consider the standard recommendation for time-sensitive actions and projects: put items with deadlines on your calendar. This is essentially having a time-sensitive category for your projects and next actions which lives outside of context lists. What I do is more flexible, gives me advance notice of upcoming due dates, and I do have contexts for all those next actions.

If you feel like your system is working well for you, that’s good. When things do not seem to be going well, it can be surprisingly difficult to figure out why. Subtle changes to a good, functioning system can have a big impact. If you feel that you are growing and learning, that is probably the best sign you are headed in a good direction.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this reply, it is very helpful.

Your reply and my further thinking about it have led me to conclude that those contexts of Timely, MIT and Opportunity are in fact true to the intention of GTD. David says that the context can be the "situation" needed to complete the action. For my own clarification, I looked up the definition of situation: "all of the facts, conditions, events that affect something at a particular time and a particular place". I think these contexts are a way for me to clarify and organize how I perceive the "situation".

I like how you said, "it’s not about prioritizing, it’s about how I want to see things". These contexts help me determine the "situation" or how I perceive the action. I also like how you say these contexts preserve my thinking about what these next actions mean to me. They are kind of like a tickler, to push things that need to be dealt with sooner to the front of the line.

I think there is a fundamental difference between the contexts of Timely, MIT and Opportunity and a daily prioritized task list "that you'll then have to rearrange or rewrite as things change" that David talks about. The items in these contexts do not to be frequently rearranged or re-written. Those contexts enable me to make a master list of my commitments that are organized in a way that allows me to make decisions efficiently about what to do in the moment. I still need to prioritize intuitively as I "do", but my thinking in terms of "situation" and "tickler" that I mentioned before have been preserved. This helps me to choose actions to do with greater ease.

So now I have contexts that work for me, and I see how they are true to the GTD intention of contexts, so thank you!

I hope I have expressed myself clearly.
 
I do not use a priority "context" Those go on my calendar. Context is specifically what i can do only at that place or that tool. ie: calls and texts are @phone. anything computer like i can do on phone or laptop goes on @computer. I keep things really simple. I see so many complicated systems, I wonder if they spend more time on the system than actually getting things done.
 
fooddude said:
I do not use a priority "context" Those go on my calendar. Context is specifically what i can do only at that place or that tool. ie: calls and texts are @phone. anything computer like i can do on phone or laptop goes on @computer. I keep things really simple. I see so many complicated systems, I wonder if they spend more time on the system than actually getting things done.
Click to expand...
Actually, I agree with you. In some sense, I only have one list of active next actions. I can filter it by a few contexts: Anywhere, Computer, Home, Out, Waiting For, Spouse and Agendas. Pretty familiar, right? The difference is that this list is grouped in a way that I find helpful: most next actions are inside projects, and I see timely and important things near the top of the list to increase my awareness. I find that for me the cognitive load and maintenance time required is less than with other schemes.
 
fooddude said:
I do not use a priority "context" Those go on my calendar. Context is specifically what i can do only at that place or that tool. ie: calls and texts are @phone. anything computer like i can do on phone or laptop goes on @computer. I keep things really simple. I see so many complicated systems, I wonder if they spend more time on the system than actually getting things done.
Click to expand...
I initially thought that Timely, MIT & Opportunity are priority setting contexts. However, I now think they are more like “situational” contexts. They preserve my thinking about what my actions mean to me, so it’s easier to make intuitive decisions about what to “do”, in the GTD sense of the word. They act more like a tickler, bringing things I want to see sooner to the forefront. Tickler is definitely a GTD tool. I think they are fundamentally different then the traditional practice of prioritizing. For me, using these three contexts makes my action list simpler to use.

I like the term “metadata” used by #mcogilvie & #HelenM. The Wikipedia definition is "data that provides information about other data", but not the content of the data itself. That’s exactly what those 3 contexts do for me.
 
Last edited:
I personally try and avoid value judgements in my Next Actions like the phrase "important" because its too subjective. However I do think that Context is an area where where users should experiment and find what works for them. Especially for people with very operational jobs, where you can have a super long list of small tasks, there needs to be some way of breaking up your NA lists into manageable chunks. And tools/place doesn't work any more for many people, when 90% of their work is on a computer. So trying things out is worth it, even if you iterate through a few ideas that don't work at first.
 
This is an age-old question that comes down to personal preference and what works best for each individual given a number of factors. Ultimately, use whatever helps you and makes sense for you.

Minor aside, I think there's a definite danger into reading too much into the GTD book and interpreting it as a set of absolutes or as some kind of immutable set of ideas. It's a starting point, nothing more. A key principle of GTD is to adapt to what is current in your individual case and what helps you to get stuff off of your mind.

If you find that the recommended starting contexts don't work for you and/or don't make sense for you: don't use them. It's absolutely OK to not use them. Use what helps you the most. In fact, it's a wise idea to, at some appropriate frequency that's not too often but not too infrequent either, to re-evaluate your system's structure and tweak it as appropriate (i.e. clean & maintain the system in and of itself).

Using a "MIT" or "Important" context is fine if it helps you and gets things off of your mind. It's not anti-GTD or an anti-pattern in GTD. If it doesn't help you or becomes an unmaintainable mess, then re-evaluate, re-plan, and re-sort to get back on track.

Personally, I had over 1,200 items in my system relatively recently; I had to stop and streamline things. 900 of those items got put onto a list called "Backlog" because I know that I can never look at them ever again and be totally fine. If I ever get bored, interested, or whatever then I have a treasure trove of stuff to pull from. That means I only had less than 300 items to manage with around half of them being "Someday / Maybe" or "Waiting For". Therefore, I only had to truly organize around 150 items across a dozen or so contexts (i.e. around 10 or so items per list). That was all actually manageable and I only had to look at a handful of lists routinely, made my weekly reviews ALWAYS less than an hour for months now, and reduced my stress to basically none.

Be flexible and adaptable in approaching GTD, not rigid and dogmatic.
 
mcogilvie said:
Second, it’s not about prioritizing, it’s about how I want to see things.
Click to expand...

This is a key point here. Whatever you call them, contexts are simply a tool to truncate your lists into a manageable number of options. I do think there is value in the physically limiting factors like tools, location, etc for contexts because they will always have some degree of relevance, though the specifics will evolve.

However, mental context matters too, and is an equally valid way to apply the principle.

I always encourage new folks to start with the suggestions in the book and "lean in hard" on them before venturing into customizing contexts. They have worked for a lot of people for a long time for good reasons. The goal is to deeply understand the method and the underlying principle.

It's like playing music - if you don't have a solid understanding of chords, keys, and scales, and first learn to play music as written, when you try to improvise it's going to sound... off :).

Eventually, though, your GTD system will evolve and become unique to you and look very different than the "vanilla" setup described in the book. That's why its a "methodology" and not a "method".
 
Matt_M said:
Personally, I had over 1,200 items in my system relatively recently; I had to stop and streamline things. 900 of those items got put onto a list called "Backlog" because I know that I can never look at them ever again and be totally fine. If I ever get bored, interested, or whatever then I have a treasure trove of stuff to pull from. That means I only had less than 300 items to manage with around half of them being "Someday / Maybe" or "Waiting For". Therefore, I only had to truly organize around 150 items across a dozen or so contexts (i.e. around 10 or so items per list). That was all actually manageable and I only had to look at a handful of lists routinely, made my weekly reviews ALWAYS less than an hour for months now, and reduced my stress to basically none.
Click to expand...

I capture lots of ideas, some of which are "Timely" and MIT, and some are more like Opportunity.

I am thinking that maybe Timely, MIT and Opportunity are more like tags than contexts.

Can you please share your 'dozen or so' contexts that you use to organize? It sounds great that it makes weekly reviews less than an hour and reduces stress.

"....your organization system is not something that you'll necessarily create all at once...It should and will evolve as you do....the best structure for you manage them a year from now may look different than what you come up with dealing with your world today." David Allen GTD pgs 141-142
 
Sarahsuccess said:
In thinking about what contexts to use for my deferred next actions list, I found that the original suggested contexts of Calls, At Computer, At Office, At Home etc. were not working for me. I am grateful to #mcogilvie for sharing his three office task contexts, "Timely", "MIT - Most Important Things", and "Opportunity". He shared them in this thread: Naming for two business next action groups. I am currently using them, and I find they help me to better clarify, organize and do tasks. They make me more productive and get more things done.

However, I have a niggling question that those three contexts are actually priority setting and not contexts in the pure GTD sense. In the book Getting Things Done (2015, page 146) David Allen defines contexts as "either the tool, or the location or the situation needed to complete [the action]". Those three contexts seem to be none of those. David also says (pages 144-145), "...you shouldn't bother to create some external structuring of the priorities on your lists that you'll then have to rearrange or rewrite as things change. Attempting to impose such scaffolding has been a big source of frustration in many people's organizing. You'll be prioritizing more intuitively as you see the whole list against quite a number of shifting variables. The list is just a way for you to keep track of the total inventory of active things to which you have made a commitment, and to have that inventory available for review." I think David is referring here to the Franklin Planner daily list prioritizing by A, B, & C. However, those three contexts seem quite similar to prioritizing. This quote, which I originally read years ago, gave me a subtle undercurrent of anxiety that unless my lists are completely current, I could not effectively choose what to do. The three contexts I use now allow me to feel confident to choose tasks to do even if my lists are not 100% current.

The three contexts of Timely, MIT and Opportunity are working for me, and I intend to continue using them, however on the principle of the matter, I would like to hear from experienced GTD members whether or not they think these categories contradict the original intention of contexts in a pure GTD sense. I would especially appreciate if #mcogilivie could speak to this.

Thank you
Click to expand...
@Sarahsuccess,

For whatever it might be worth, on this end have found 'rolling list up,' into appropriate singular purposes to be very GTD helpful

For example . . . the follow Next Action lists:

LISTENING, POSTING, PRAYING, READING, TALKING, TRYING, WATCHING, etc. all Contexed into @LEARNING . . . simple . . . nothing fancy like "Perspective Expansion through Entransitive and Intransitive activities"


While using appropriate purposes does seems to require more attentive focus in the beginning, its GTD value exponentially compounds over-time by preventing "stuff" from compounding over-time and seemingly builds-up/develops the intuition 'muscle' in regards to one's GTD system

As you see GTD fit. . . .
 
Last edited:
Sarahsuccess said:
I capture lots of ideas, some of which are "Timely" and MIT, and some are more like Opportunity.

I am thinking that maybe Timely, MIT and Opportunity are more like tags than contexts.

Can you please share your 'dozen or so' contexts that you use to organize? It sounds great that it makes weekly reviews less than an hour and reduces stress.

"....your organization system is not something that you'll necessarily create all at once...It should and will evolve as you do....the best structure for you manage them a year from now may look different than what you come up with dealing with your world today." David Allen GTD pgs 141-142
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're alluding to something that is important to point-out / differentiate. You identified a known fault of GTD: it completely fails (and never can/will work) for high-volume, time-sensitive work (e.g. fire fighting (both literally and metaphorically), SLA customer service tasks, production outage incidents, etc.). Those are all types of work that no productivity system can ever help with because A) they're usually driven by factors out of our control (i.e. life) B) they cannot wait, cannot be planned for, and must be dealt with immediately C) they're all a sort-of form of "cranking widgets" (i.e. the work's shown up, clarified on what to do, and success/done is already defined).

GTD is purely for knowledge work whereby a majority, if not all, of the work is not clearly defined or obvious. That's where GTD is meant to be used and where it shines. Anything off that path, it gets rough real fast and counterproductive ASAP. It's like trying to drive a car with square tires ... good luck.

As for classifying your designations as tags vs contexts (or labels, groups, filters, lists, smart lists, etc.), that's essentially semantics. If you find a specific term(s) more appealing or helpful, by all means, use them. I prefer the term "context" simply based on my preference for "classical GTD" and the general ubiquitous language around GTD. Calling them "fancy ways to group tasks across lists that help you more easily identify commonly related tasks that are otherwise best looked at together or possibly done together" is certainly better and more clear but definitely not as pithy or catchy (clearly it would be obvious I was getting paid by the word if I was writing the book then).

As for my contexts, I can certainly share them but they're completely useless for anyone but me. They won't mean much to anyone but me.

Ultimately, it comes down to what works for you, what feels right, helps you make decisions, and gets things off your mind. Again, don't feel constrained by GTD or the book itself, it's some suggestions and a starting point for people to jump off of and into their own customized system.

In no particular order, this is my current context list:

Code: 
@ Documentation                = Creating or updating various long-form documents (e.g. contracts, setup documents, administration materials/paperwork, etc.)
@ Admin & Sys Maintenance      = Usually this is GTD System maintenance and/or related to the GTD System in general that is not about doing any actual work. I strictly time box this work otherwise is leads to massive amounts of wasted time.
@ Pain                         = Stuff that has to be done no matter what. This list is the first and only list I MUST complete every single day, without fail (i.e. pay bills, file taxes, get gas in car, call repairman for appliance, etc.).
@ Tech. Maintenance            = All activities related to maintaining hardware and software (i.e. installing/updating software, cleaning up files/folders/etc., charging devices, clean keyboard/mouse, etc.). All general technology administration work.
@ Recreation                   = Anything that is for fun, entertainment, relaxation, etc.
@ Chore                        = Tasks that I have to do, at some point, but are not time sensitive (e.g. clean out basement, organize hall closet, clean junk drawer, fix decorations on coffee table, dust knick-knacks on top of cabinets, clean behind fridge/stove/etc., etc.)
@ Financial Planning           = Anything related to finance and money such as updating spreadsheets, balancing checkbook, updating budgets, checking savings goals, etc.
@ Home Office                  = Anything that is particularly focused on my home office (e.g. organize bookshelf, purge extra filing cabinet, fix squeaky sliding drawer, etc.)
@ Shopping                     = Assorted items to buy, with no specific ranked importance or urgency (regularly purchased items like groceries and supplies are on separate checklists that almost never change)
@ Car                          = Anything related to maintaining a car (e.g. oil change, taxes/plates/insurance/etc., car wash/waxing, replace windshield wipers, rotate tires, etc.)
@ iTunes                       = Mostly recreational stuff to do in iTunes (new playlists to create, albums to import/sort, and playlists to update between all my devices)
@ Professional Development     = Anything related to my career, improving my skills, refreshing my knowledge on topics, professional training, and general career planning
@ Strategic Planning           = Anything that I want to spend time thinking, planning, or consider for a careful decision before any significant action (this is a context I rarely use outside of major life changes: change job, move city, change career, marry/divorce, etc.)
@ Home                         = What it says on the tin. Tasks for things around the house
@ Errands                      = Tasks for when I am traveling locally
@ Work                         = Obvious

Recently deprecated contexts
@ Read / Review / Research / Observe = This used to make more sense in an older system but I no longer need this anymore since I have a perpetual list of "to-read" that I can always pull from. Anything that _MUST_ be read should be in @ Pain.
@ Travel = I don't use this anymore since I don't travel overnight or non-locally since circa 2018/19
Click to expand...

A couple of these have only a handful of items on them (e.g. @ iTunes has got only a handful of things such as re-arrange some specific albums, import some specific CD's, etc.).
 
Matt_M said:
You identified a known fault of GTD: it completely fails (and never can/will work) for high-volume, time-sensitive work (e.g. fire fighting (both literally and metaphorically), SLA customer service tasks, production outage incidents, etc.). Those are all types of work that no productivity system can ever help with because A) they're usually driven by factors out of our control (i.e. life) B) they cannot wait, cannot be planned for, and must be dealt with immediately C) they're all a sort-of form of "cranking widgets" (i.e. the work's shown up, clarified on what to do, and success/done is already defined).

GTD is purely for knowledge work whereby a majority, if not all, of the work is not clearly defined or obvious. That's where GTD is meant to be used and where it shines. Anything off that path, it gets rough real fast and counterproductive ASAP. It's like trying to drive a car with square tires ... good luck.
Click to expand...
@Matt_M So what does it mean "the trifold nature of work" (https://gettingthingsdone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Threefold.pdf) in the GTD methodology? David has defined:
  1. Pre-defined Work.
  2. Work As It Appears.
  3. Defining Work.
IMHO "Work As It Appears" is exactly the description of such time-sensitive work. Where's this "known fault of GTD"?
 
I don’t think I agree with @Matt_M that GTD fails for high-volume time-sensitive work and is purely for more reflective knowledge work. Most people have some mix of things they need to do, but individual differences, in the work and in each person’s approach to it, are crucial. Any system to help handle it all involves compromises, often revolving around simplicity and sustainability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top