Daily to-do list vs. GTD model for making action choices

S

street805

0
I am not a complete newbie to GTD but I have not used it exactly as prescribed up to this point in time. GTD does not recommend using daily to-do lists (or priority matrixes) but instead offers 3 different systems for making action choices:

The Four Criteria Model for Choosing Actions in the moment (context, time available, energy available, priority)
The Threefold Model for Evaluating Daily Work
The Six-Level Model for Reviewing Your Own Work

I would really like to implement GTD exactly as described (I am quite close to doing so) but I am having a hard time believing that I would be more productive deciding on what to do next using something like "context" as opposed to spending 10 minutes each day planning my day (with the outcome of producing a daily "to-do" list) based on the GTD system. Basically what I am saying is, how many of you die-hard GTDers are using the GTD system as described but relying on a daily "to-do" list to guide you through your day instead of the systems for making action choices presented in the book. Whew.
 
Actually, I was reading the book again recently, and saw a mention of writing a quick, casual list of tasks or goals (I don't remember what he called them) for the day. (I would offer a quote if I could remember exactly where in the book I saw it.) So I don't think that it's seen as "wrong", it's just not a formal core part of the system.

I don't make a list of things that I want to do today, but I suppose what I do adds up to something very similar: I ruthlessly narrow my choices until the available list of actions is very short. I push things away, instead of pulling things closer.
 
There has been quite a lot of threads here on that topic lately. I think I dare to summarize it as follows:

- few here, if any, make daily todo lists in advance, but some say they block of some time for some tasks in advance
- many here seem to, one way or another, determine a tentative main selection for today, with a few important or agreed tasks
- most then use contexts to find addtional tasks that match those

Some people here say they never go by anything else than the contexts, but I get the impression that most do. Many feel they need to make sure they do not forget particularly important tasks - calendaring and color coding have been described as answers to that, and calendaring seems more frequent. Many also feel that "flagging" tasks onto a Today list, Starred list etc for this very day (but not future days) is very good. Personally I use both "today flagging" and "review attention color coding".
 
Folke said:
Some people here say they never go by anything else than the contexts, but I get the impression that most do.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that, some of us who go by context for 99.99% of the time don't feel it's worth trying to explain to those that don't why we feel it's adequate to handle the volumes of stuff coming our way.

I can count on one hand the number of times in a year that I have to make a priority or flagged or do today type list.

I run with a number of fine tuned contexts and usually have a large number of projects active, any that I can or could work on during this farming season. I can choose to move to nearly any context at any time and I STILL find context critical to being efficient and actually getting my work done. Right now I'm running with 217 active projects and 36 contexts.
 
Well, Oogie, I cannot possibly know what all the people who keep quiet actually do - and neither can you. But we do know that you and TesTeg and bcmyers, just to mention a few, often say that contexts are enough for you. That is perfectly fine; I not making a judgment here; I am just trying to provide "statistics" for street805. But then there are others here on this forum, and on various other GTD app forums, who seem to struggle with tricks that go beyond just contexts, and that is what led me to gauge that "most" (of those who speak up) use some form of complement. Do you have access to more accurate statistics?
 
My take:

when you work on context, you say "I am here, what is the best use of my time".

my preference is to start with projects -- given my calendar and what I feel calling to me, what projects do I want to advance today. That will take me into particular contexts. While I am in those contexts, after I finish a next action that is 'calling to me', I can ask, 'what is the best use of my time, given my current context'.

So yes, I probably spend the majority of my time working from a context. But, I initiate from a calendar and from my project-oriented gut (from wished-for end results that are calling to me)
 
I think most people use due dates as some kind of guide to time-sensitivity. Some use a flag as a marker for importance, and others use it for a daily todo list. Many people have suggested that the ubiquity of modern digital tools has made old-fashioned contexts less useful, and some have incorporated time and energy into the contexts that they use. I think these are all fine (and I think David Allen does too), but you do have to ask: Is what I do promoting a fast and easy workflow? Experimental testing is usually decisive.

Just for fun: I have been putting Emoji at the end of my context names. Not required, but it puts a little color and fun in. My @Home context has a house, my @Spaceship context has the Milky Way, you get the idea.
 
I think there are two major factors driving whether you use a "today" list.

1) Your brain type. I've done it both ways; started GTD in 2002 and avoided using a today list for way too long. I benefit from a today list. Trust your intuition, you know yourself better than David Allen. I'm guessing you probably should use some kind of today list.

2) The nature of your work. If your day is constant change, your today list will become obsolete very quickly. If you do use one, your systems (and brain) need to quickly accommodate the inevitable changing priorities.

How you implement one is based on the above and the tools you use. I sometimes will put a context on my today list. So if stuff is piling up in a context, I might simply put @Spaceship on my list (no icon, that would be silly) and then employ the other three criteria to select tasks. YMMV.
 
Folke said:
Well, Oogie, I cannot possibly know what all the people who keep quiet actually do - and neither can you.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point, neither of us have any clue about the accurate statistics and I think it is inaccurate to say that most people use things other than context as you stated. That is why for my rebuttal I said that SOME of us who use contexts for 99.99% of what we decide to do don't discuss it much. That is based on personal experience verified by private messages from people and my own way I discuss things here. So multiple people have felt that it's not worth discussing, particularly with you since you seem so dead set against it or in trying to prove that you can't function without some additional hot list or color coding or other system. Hence my saying some of us.
 
There is no one size fits all solution. GTD isn't for everyone. Some people use paper planners and daily to do lists and get more done than others. IF you are in control of your day, and know you're getting stuff done, why change?

The benefits of GTD, the psychology of it, is "Remove the clutter from your mind. Then you'll know and see how to attack the big picture stuff". As opposed to, "Yes, you're starting at a mountain of tasks, but first, decide mission and vision, then attack the pile." As philosophically correct as starting your task list from your values sounds, most people don't seem to be able to get started because their pile of tasks is too big, too incomplete, and too debilitating. Count me as someone who used to make a meaningful attempt at creating meaningless lists. 15 to do's to start the day, got 3 done, added 8 others between 10:00-1:00, and I am at a net 20 that I have to re-copy or re-date to tomorrow. Leave work frustrated. Start work the next day amped, continue to fall behind at a net of 3-5 tasks per day, thus necessitating me ripping up the list and starting over at a certain point. Rinse and repeat.

Speaking for myself, I had to get real: I was never going to do the to do list. I am seeing that I need to work based on where I am at, and have it ready to go when I am there. I have been fighting it for a long time, I like the FC method and planners. But times have changed, and I needed an upgrade.
 
Oogiem said:
... people use things other than context as you stated.
...
... you seem so dead set against it.
Click to expand...

I don't know if there has been a misunderstanding. I am definitely not against using contexts. On the contrary. I have used contexts and context lists since the late '70s and I still do. They are one of the fundamental organization principles I use. Neither do I claim that others here do not use contexts or use other things instead of contexts.

What I do claim to have read in many posts, both here and in various GTD app forums, is that many people "spice" their practice in various ways in order to make selected things more visible or make their lists more navigable. Some of those measures I know that people use are:
  • calendar dates to set "appointments with yourself"
  • due dates and alarms to indicate "targets"
  • a tentative (or firm) "do today" list
  • ABC priorities (or other firm sequencing), for example in the form of Somedaying or inactivating or tickling perfectly doable projects
  • importance markers or "review attention levels" etc (e.g. color coding) to just "see" things easier
  • areas and projects to limit your scope temporarily, for execution and/or review

As I have said in other threads I know that contexts alone work very well. I know that because I did that on paper for over twenty years prior to about 1998 - and on a computer after that. I am not at all saying it is bad; I am saying it is good. But what I do sometimes like to point out is that I see nothing wrong in adding things to GTD that I find useful or nice (especially if it does not violate the GTD foundation and turns it into its opposite). I choose not to use "artificial" dates of any kind. I choose not to impose priority sequencing (ABC etc). I use a tentative today list plus color coding as "extras". My fundamental organization is contexts and areas/projects.
 
Folke said:
But what I do sometimes like to point out is that I see nothing wrong in adding things to GTD that I find useful or nice (especially if it does not violate the GTD foundation and turns it into its opposite).
Click to expand...

Everybody can add things to GTD. But some things added by person A will not work for person B. So David Allen created GTD as simple as possible and as complete as possible. He invented the wheel but he did not specify if it should be made from wood or metal or if it should be equipped with a tyre. He only suggests that we shouldn't hammer it to make it square.
 
Here is what I do during my morning routine (it takes 10'):
1. Check my calendar to see if I will have free time during the day
2. Look at my NA list and highlight items that need to get done today (What will burn if I don’t do it today?)
3. Look at my Project list and select the projects I want to work on during the day -> then I highlight NA related to these projects

Then, during my free time I focus on my highlighted items (I switch my context if needed).
When there is no more highlighted items, (my day is done!) I look again at my whole NA list to select the next thing to do.

I tried to implement a "to do today" or "3 wins of the day" list but it was too complicated and not really well integrated with my GTD system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top