Forget about contexts.

[mark1968]

The end product of GTD could itself be a problem.

I think this is true for almost anything... exercise, religion, etc. Left to my own devices, I can whittle away the day on the internet reading about my beloved hockey team. GTD - and other productivity/life management systems - help stir me in the right direction... at least some of the time.

In the spirit of your statement above, I think you'll enjoy Seth Godin's take on GTD and life hacking here

 

[supergtdman]

If Steve was following the GTD principles properly, he wouldn't have that problem, because he'd be doing his weekly review and the only phonecalls on his @calls list would be ones he really needed to do.

It doesn't matter. All phone calls would be important but also completely unrelated. It's not like he would be calling press and then the next thing he would be calling his wife and then somebody else, etc. just because he is in @phone mode. You see, this is surely efficient but ridiculous.
He was not choosing available actions from contexts, he was focusing on the results and switching contexts whenever necessary. I think this makes a lot more sense, especially when all your contexts are always available.

 

[vbampton]

It doesn't matter. All phone calls would be important but also completely unrelated.

If you've thought them through during your weekly review, it doesn't matter if they're completely unrelated. You've already thought about the results you're focused on during your weekly review, and now the time's to get those things done in the most efficient and effective way possible.

You're not forced to stay in the same context. Contexts can be used for batching similar tasks, if you so choose, but the context lists purely present you with the options of things you can choose to do at this point in time.

I don't really get what your problem is. GTD is made up of principles, not rules. You adapt the principles to suit your own life. If you don't need multiple contexts, don't use them. The point is really simple - write stuff down so you can keep your head clear and focus on the things that are important, and step back from the 'busy work' during the weekly review to think things through properly. It's common sense.

 

[mcogilvie]

You're not forced to stay in the same context. Contexts can be used for batching similar tasks, if you so choose, but the context lists purely present you with the options of things you can choose to do at this point in time.

Yes, Kelly has mentioned many times how she will "snack on her lists." David Allen has been even more clear: having lists can make it ok to do things that were never on any list. There's no mechanical algorithm, just striving to make clear choices.

 

[oliver_r]

I like David's advice on what to do when being unclear about what to pick from the list:

Jump a horizon higher and get clarity there. If the project list isn't helpful in the moment, look and clarify your areas of focus. If that doesn't help, look at your goals, etc.

I'm pretty goal-driven, so I use my goals list a lot to help me stay focused.

 

[TesTeq]

Interesting level of detail!

This is, I think, part of the problem with GTD. It overloads us with silly analysis over what the next action is — “Move hand forward; Pick up pencil; Move pencil over paper; Lower tip towards paper …); or what “@Context” a given action belongs to. And so on.

Do you really have to operate at that level of detail? Interesting!

What GTD doesn’t acknowledge well is that the really important stuff gets done. Automatically.

Not in my case.

 

[TesTeq]

Overlooking things...

Steve Jobs would set aside different days or parts of days for different focus areas. According to Isaacson’s biography, Monday morning Steve would meet with his top management team. Wednesday he would be meeting with marketing team. Friday (before he sold Pixar) he would drive up to Pixar’s headquarters and spend the day working on Pixar. And Sunday evening (according to Walt Mossberg’s accounts) he would frequently set aside to call up his contacts in the press.

I agree that GTD may be not applicable for visionary CEO who operates at the strategic level. As I see from your description Steve Jobs did not need to remember about an oil change in his car or a contract termination details of the Apple store manager in Bordeaux, France...

The end product of GTD could itself be a problem. Instead of spending time doing important stuff, you become a slave to your lists. It’s on the list, do it.

I think you overlooked this part of the GTD book (The Four-Criteria Model for Choosing Actions in the Moment at the end of Chapter 2).

If something is on your list you use 4 criteria model to decide if you want to do this or not. These 4 criteria are:

• Context
• Time Available
• Energy Available
• Priority

As the saying goes: "If in doubt - read the GTD book again."

 

[Myriam]

why would this be ridiculous?

All phone calls would be important but also completely unrelated. It's not like he would be calling press and then the next thing he would be calling his wife and then somebody else, etc. just because he is in @phone mode. You see, this is surely efficient but ridiculous.

I honestly don't see why this is ridiculous? Working through phone calls because you are in @phone mode can be very efficient, especially of you don't like making phone calls and every (first) call is like overcoming a barrier. Doing one phone call related to 1 project and then continue working on that project because you're in that project-mode can also be very efficient.

One of the great values of GTD is exactly that. That everyone makes up his own system with those elements and approaches that are working for them. I don't see why the approach someone else is using should be labeled as ridiculous just because it's not working for you.

I always find this forum is a very powerful source of all sorts of gtd-approaches, and even if some of them don't seem to work for me (and maybe never will) just knowing that they do work for someone is a plus.

greetings,
Myriam

 

[supergtdman]

I don't really get what your problem is.

I don't have a problem.

As the saying goes: "If in doubt - read the GTD book again."

This is a FRESH look at contexts, no need to re-read gtd book like some sort of bible.

 

[supergtdman]

If something is on your list you use 4 criteria model to decide if you want to do this or not. These 4 criteria are:
Context
Time Available
Energy Available
Priority

When there are important, high priority, next actions that are key steps in achieving your 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 ft and above goals, you simply cannot let the four criteria get in the way.

Get in the right context. Find the energy. Find time.

If you are constantly talking to colleagues and coworkers and checking off those agenda items, constantly driving around and checking off errands, constantly on the phone and checking off those items, but never at your desk to tackle the big action, you simply have to rework your allocation of time. Stop talking to other people, stop driving around making sure you pick up the nails from the hardware store and the butter at the grocery store in one trip, turn off the phone, and get to your desk.

 

[vbampton]

You missed one off your list of time wasters. Stop posting on the forums and get on with your top priority.

Some of us find that buying dog food and paying electricity bills are still essential parts of life, and getting those done in the most efficient way possible frees us up to deal with higher priorities. We're here because the GTD principles are working well for us.

It sounds like your understanding of GTD doesn't suit your life, and that's absolutely fine. But I'm wondering why you're wasting your valuable time on a GTD forum, trying to convince us that GTD is the wrong system to use? Are you wanting to argue or further your understanding?

 

[Oogiem]

It doesn't matter. All phone calls would be important but also completely unrelated. It's not like he would be calling press and then the next thing he would be calling his wife and then somebody else, etc. just because he is in @phone mode. You see, this is surely efficient but ridiculous.

Actually I don't think that is ridiculous at all nor is it inefficient. It's far better to do all the same type of task at once if you possibly can. So it's is far more efficient to do all phone calls at once time instead of piecemeal.

I will make more progress on finishing my Android EID program if I do all the tasks I need to do when I am in the Android development environment, regardless of the specific project they relate to.

I am more efficient if I do all the shopping in one trip rather than waste 3 hours because I forgot something that is important and have to drive back to the city to get it. And yes, I do plan the route to make all right hand turns if possible, that actually can save almost half an hour over the course of a day,a significant time savings.

If I am in bill paying mode with checkbook out it's better to do all of them at once and get them ready to mail rather than do one now, put everything away, then have to dig it all out again later.

If you don't think contexts work for you then IMO you don't understand how to adapt contexts to your life. I maintain that context is a useful distinction for everyone, no matter the situation. In your example, Jobs context was "at Pixar" and he did everything related to that context while there and so on. Your examples do not show a lack of context but a very well defined use of them.

 

[mcogilvie]

When there are important, high priority, next actions that are key steps in achieving your 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 ft and above goals, you simply cannot let the four criteria get in the way.

Get in the right context. Find the energy. Find time.

Yes, we don't let the four criteria get in the way. We are conscious of the role that our location, time, energy and priorities play and manage them accordingly.

If you are constantly talking to colleagues and coworkers and checking off those agenda items, constantly driving around and checking off errands, constantly on the phone and checking off those items, but never at your desk to tackle the big action, you simply have to rework your allocation of time. Stop talking to other people, stop driving around making sure you pick up the nails from the hardware store and the butter at the grocery store in one trip, turn off the phone, and get to your desk.

You seem to be setting up strawman arguments. Nobody is telling anybody to behave in the way you describe. I put things on my lists because I may not get to them for a while because I am doing other important things, not because I am frantically doing inconsequential things. In your original post, you mentioned checking gmail and Facebook. I don't do either. David Allen is very clear that sometimes you may need to schedule time with yourself for important tasks. In fact I rarely need to do that explicitly because the way I manage my contexts, time, energy and priorities makes it largely unnecessary. My agendas list is not so I spend all my time talking to people, it's there to help me make good use of their time and attention as well as mine.

Sometimes when people do look clearly at their backlog of unfinished items, they get uncomfortable. It's certainly possible to procrastinate on a large, unclarified project while tackling smaller things. There are worse ways to procrastinate,but gtd helps to clarify such projects and break them down so you have choices as to how you do them.

 

[supergtdman]

Yeah, you could say that everything in Steve Jobs example could be organised by contexts. In fact, you can organise anything according to GTD by the book.

If you don't think contexts work for you then IMO you don't understand how to adapt contexts to your life. I maintain that context is a useful distinction for everyone, no matter the situation.

But you're missing the point.
Steve Jobs wasn't working on unrelated projects or from context lists. He set aside a whole day to focus on some single area of responsibility, regardless of contexts, time, energy. He didn't try to fit his life into a stereotype system. Yes, could use contexts but it wouldn't be worth it. And that's my point. Organising everything by contexts is a point of friction, it takes a lot of work but it's useful only when you do cog like work, e.g. to batch process unrelated actions.

 

[supergtdman]

I think contexts can work for more straightforward jobs, like sales in which you have a bunch of calls and emails to make and you need a system to follow up on all your leads. But in more creative type of work contexts create more problems than they solve because rather than having hundreds of leads to follow up on, you need to focus on a certain project. The most important thing for the creative innovator is not a ton of tasks to do but rather the ability to see what’s important to focus on and to focus on that deeply.

 

[supergtdman]

I think the problem with GTD is that it tries to fit absolutely everything into some stereotype and creates a lot of friction.

Capture absolutely everything(all open loops), fit everything into some project, each project must have a next action, each next action must have a context, constantly maintain the system up to date, do weekly reviews, etc. etc. It’s too rigid of a system. And it expects too much from it’s users. And when your tasks are continuously ambiguous and need flexibility, the system starts to break down.

Here's a newsletter from David Allen which I particularly disagree with:

"Hi Folks,

The major complaint about our Getting Things Done methodology is not that it doesn't work or that the principles aren't sound—it's that people don't work the system. I've learned that many times the problem is not lack of motivation or discipline, but instead some rather mundane and practical behaviors that can be easily changed to make things work much better."

I don't agree that the problem is "mundane and practical behaviors that can be easily changed". The problem is that gtd expects too much from it’s users. It sounds good in theory but some concepts like contexts are not all that relevant anymore and take too much work to maintain. Most things in GTD are just common sense though, so it "works" but I think the whole system is not appropriate for most people. Most people who try to implement GTD don’t ever get to the point where they master the system because it's too difficult to upkeep.

 

[Barb]

Not my experience at all!

I think the problem with GTD is that it tries to fit absolutely everything into some stereotype and creates a lot of friction.

Capture absolutely everything(all open loops), fit everything into some project, each project must have a next action, each next action must have a context, constantly maintain the system up to date, do weekly reviews, etc. etc. It’s too rigid of a system. And it expects too much from it’s users. And when your tasks are continuously ambiguous and need flexibility, the system starts to break down.

Here's a newsletter from David Allen which I particularly disagree with:

"Hi Folks,

The major complaint about our Getting Things Done methodology is not that it doesn't work or that the principles aren't sound—it's that people don't work the system. I've learned that many times the problem is not lack of motivation or discipline, but instead some rather mundane and practical behaviors that can be easily changed to make things work much better."

I don't agree that the problem is "mundane and practical behaviors that can be easily changed". The problem is that gtd expects too much from it’s users. It sounds good in theory but some concepts like contexts are not all that relevant anymore and take too much work to maintain. Most things in GTD are just common sense though, so it "works" but I think the whole system is not appropriate for most people. Most people who try to implement GTD don’t ever get to the point where they master the system because it's too difficult to upkeep.

Really? I've been practicing GTD for over 10 years now. I spend minutes..MINUTES...on my system everyday. Your comments don't even begin to describe the GTD that I practice, know, and love.

So why are you here?

 

[kelstarrising]

Hello "supergtdman"

I'm not going to counter every point you've argued here on the forums. I'll just address that ones that stood out to me.

David Allen has never said people need to do every facet of GTD to get value. Yes, it is an ecosystem that has many moving parts, but use what you can that is valuable to you. Maybe that would sit easier inside of you, versus trying to dispute the methodology for everyone as flawed because you judge yourself for the parts you don't do or don't like.

As for contexts, here is how David Allen recently replied on that one:

"Contexts" are only useful to be able to distinguish what you don't need to look at. You can't do errands at home, so it's nice to have a simple "errands" list. If you're in Starbucks and want to do computer stuff, no need to see all the rest. If one simple list works to keep your head clear, though, that's all that matters. - David Allen

Kelly

 

[mark1968]

David Allen recently replied on that one:

Kelly - David's quote reminds me of a cultural/religious shift in the Jewish community. In general, the Chassidim - the folks who wear black clothes, furry hats (shtreimels),etc - are seen as rigid, overly litigious and somber. Yet their origins were full of life, creativity, song and vibrancy - ecstatic even. It was the members (combined with powerful historical events) that created much of the Chassidic world we see today (though there are still elements that are very joyous, etc).

I've said this before, I have never found David, the coaches, the webinars, nor my seminar to be overly dogmatic about these things. What some of the members do with this material is another matter.

 

[supergtdman]

trying to dispute the methodology for everyone as flawed because you judge yourself for the parts you don't do or don't like.

The methodologies aren't flawed but they are stereotypes that sometimes pigeon-hole people into roles they weren’t meant to inhabit.

"Contexts" are only useful to be able to distinguish what you don't need to look at. You can't do errands at home, so it's nice to have a simple "errands" list. If you're in Starbucks and want to do computer stuff, no need to see all the rest. If one simple list works to keep your head clear, though, that's all that matters. - David Allen

Yes, again, it's always the "errands" context which is used as an example... Errands works as a separate list. But if I'm in Starbucks I can do 90% of stuff. Hell I can write a book in Starbucks. I can also make calls, emails, reading, thinking. So contexts provide little value.