Do you keep "waiting for" lists per person or one global list?

Ben S

Registered
Title says it all -- I've been maintaining a waiting for list under each person I have agendas for, but recently I've been considering whether I should have a single waiting-for list that I review regularly. The per-person lists are generally pretty short and having them distributed among people makes it harder to regularly review and get an overall picture of what I'm waiting for. I'm curious about everyone's thoughts on this
 

TamaraM

Registered
I just have one @WaitingFor list, using the same format each time so I can use search and have the info I need handy. Starting with the person's name/initials or company name, and ending with the date I made the request:

"DT: Confirm resignation date? 3/16"

"Plumber: Schedule visit to fix office hot water? 3/30"

"BS: Response re: # of @WaitingFor lists? 3/31"
 

aderoy

Registered
One waiting list, very similar to TamaraM format.
Find it the easiest way to get an overview of what and how long the wait of stalled project.

I do have an Agenda list per person that note all items to discuss, this may reference the WaitingFor list without duplicating the whole item.

Yes mine are on paper, if electronic a tag etc would be used.
 

TesTeq

Registered
I just have one @WaitingFor list, using the same format each time so I can use search and have the info I need handy. Starting with the person's name/initials or company name, and ending with the date I made the request:

"DT: Confirm resignation date? 3/16"

"Plumber: Schedule visit to fix office hot water? 3/30"

"BS: Response re: # of @WaitingFor lists? 3/31"
So the syntax is:
<id>: <my_request>? <date_of_my_request>
- where <id> is the identifier of the person or something that should satisfy my request.
 

John Ismyname

Registered
I've been considering whether I should have a single waiting-for list that I review regularly. The per-person lists are generally pretty short and having them distributed among people makes it harder to regularly review
My short answer is these lists are not mutually exclusive; I use both.

For my long-winded answer;
Back in the dark ages - before GTD, before the internet, before cel phones , I had to communicate with a mobile workforce who would call me from pay-phones. Inevitably, I would suddenly think of something to say to such a co-worker just after we said "goodbye". My solution was what I called "planner sheets" (original name, huh?) I had these sheets in alphabetical order in a 3-ring binder with page dividers in between. When a mobile co-worker would call, I'd run down his/her list of things to talk about. I started traveling more and made a planning sheet for cities as to what I could do whilst there. So, if I HAD to go to Orange, New Jersey, I COULD make a sales call to a prospect there, see my Uncle Fred and take him to that seafood restaurant I heard about.

Flash-forward to the present - we have cel phones , email, and GTD. My planner sheets are now the "notes" field on my Outlook/phone contacts as there are still things to talk to people about in live/ synchronous conversation that can/should wait until the next time I am talking to him/her.

To your question, I use an "@ waiting for" when there is a specific item to follow up with a specific person or organization if a condition is not met by a specific date. If/when I execute this follow-up, I will go through the rest of my planner sheet with this person or organization.
 

Oogiem

Registered
I've been maintaining a waiting for list under each person I have agendas for, but recently I've been considering whether I should have a single waiting-for list that I review regularly.
I use waiting for as a context and it doesn't matter whether it's a person, or an event or even me finishing another project, the action has an @waiting for context. I review that context (and all my others) at least weekly. I run down them every morning as I do a quick refresh whether the plan for my day will actually work given the weather etc.

So I have things like in a project to complete the 2020 Sheep Census an @waiting for 210 census returns and I decrement the number as I get returns in. My original plan was that once I had them all I'd start entering in the updates but in practice I've been finding that I do better to do them as they come in. So I moved the waiting for to the end of the project action list (It's a sequential project) and when I am done with the forms I have or that have come in, I will see how many I ma waiting for and I can then move on to figure out how to contact those people and get the data.

I use agenda's somewhat differently. Those are for things I want to talk to people about not for things I am waiting for them to do. In effeft an agenda is a context that is based on me needing that person as a necessary condition of being able to do the work not them doing the work and reporting back to me.
 

GTDengineer

Registered
It depends how many items each person owes you! But, if you use software to manage your lists you can add the person’s name to the description and search the list for their name when you meet with them.
 

JenniferOrigami

Content Creator, Origami Twist YouTube Channel
I have both.

For ongoing arrangements that involve a large amount of shared commitments with the person or topic, they each have their own "agenda" file or list that includes what I'm waiting for from them, but also includes things they are waiting for me on if they aren't time sensitive, (i.e. my husband, accountability partner, group work collaboration, good friends, etc.). The one off deferred actions (waiting for test results, waiting for feedback about birthday party, waiting for hotel to get back to me for the holiday we're taking in December, etc.) go on a general waiting for list.

I also update it regularly. If the agenda hasn't been used in a while or is only used sporadically, then that person or topic gets moved to my general list. If one topic is dominating the general list, it gets its own agenda.

Upon reflecting, I do the same with the organisation of my projects too. I have a projects section of my filing cabinet for the big stuff, with each major project getting its own folder. Then I have a folder at the beginning of the same section filled with the all of my mini projects that only have a few steps.

It definitely keeps the one offs from getting lost and the big stuff from getting jumbled, that's for sure! The secret is, as with many things in GTD, in the Weekly Review. I know that I will be reviewing the content and structure of the content once a week so nothing ever gets to the point of becoming ridiculous or overwhelming.

Ha. I was about to say, "It's a fluid process.". Then I remembered Dave's, "Mind like water." ... Now I get it on an even deeper level. Genius.
 
Last edited:

OF user

Registered
Sven Fechner is an omnifocus user who has posted a bit on the OF website. He is an executive for Cisco in Germany. He did not keep Waiting fors by name but when he met with a member of his team he would pull up their Agenda context and then do a name search on the person and OF would pull up any waiting fors he had for that person. He eventually created perspectives (an OF feature) for each member of his team.
 

Boomer

Registered
I do both. I have a context in my Tasks List of Outlook called wait for that usually ties to an email. The task is begins with first initial and last name then what I am waiting for followed by the date added in parenthese. It allows me to review, if not complete to click into original email and resend a reminder. I keep agendas for a lot of my team in a OneNote notebook called Agendas. As I come across an email or anything I want to discuss with the person the next time we speak I use the Outlook feature to send to OneNote.
 

cfoley

Registered
My rule of thumb for any of my lists is to split them up or merge them together based on how many times are in them.

One @Waiting For list with 50 items: I would split that up.

Ten @Waiting For lists with one or two items each: I would merge them.

A @Waiting For list with 20 items, 10 of which are for the same person: I would make a separate list for that person.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
My rule of thumb for any of my lists is to split them up or merge them together based on how many times are in them.

One @Waiting For list with 50 items: I would split that up.

Ten @Waiting For lists with one or two items each: I would merge them.

A @Waiting For list with 20 items, 10 of which are for the same person: I would make a separate list for that person.
Very reasonable approach.
 
Top