How important is organizing NA by context?

  • Thread starter Thread starter clairenyc
  • Start date Start date
This is a very useful thread in terms of examining the usefulness/utility of contexts. I agree that much of it is very specific to the individual's work habits, modes of operation, etc.

However, to use the previous example, time is a continuum and we only have a given amount of it to expend. Therefore, if I forget to visit the post office on my trip to the grocery store, and if it is still necessary to make the trip to the post office, then I have essentially wasted some valuable time which could have been spent more productively (possibly working on one of the three articles).

More specifically, if I have all my projects defined and N/A's assigned to their proper contexts in a TRUSTED SYSTEM, them I should be free to devote the proper amount of time to each creative effort. In fact, I should be free to be more creative, since I'm not being distracted by worrying about what I'm not doing while I'm doing what I'm doing. Eliminating the distractions should enhance creativity, IMO.
 
Next Actions as Bookmarks

ludlow said:
Chuck R: This is where I think I disagree, and where I think it really begins to matter *what* Things are Getting Done, though I would be honestly very interested in any thoughts about better ways to harness the power of contexts in a situation like mine. (I hope this doesn't derail the original thread too much; I think it will apply to others.)

I write articles for publication. Say I'm working on three of them, at the moment. I could make all the phone calls for all three, then do the web research for all three, then write the outlines for all three - etc etc. But that would have the effect of deliberately interrupting the gradually developing thought process, creative process, whatever you want to call it, which is how the ideas develop.
Click to expand...
As Jason Womack has posted in this forum, the NA is a "bookmark." If you are working on an article and make a phone call about that article, there's no reason you can't proceed from there on that specific article. If you have the time to do more and the ideas are flowing, the best use of your time might be to keep working. When you reach your stopping place, you add your NA for that article to your list so you can pick up where you left off, and move to an NA for another project or "mundane task."

Completing an NA doesn't mean you MUST go to another NA. You have the choice of whether to follow up on the first NA or to move on. Time available, context, energy level, deadlines -- all should enter into your decision.

Carolyn
 
I agree 100% with Carolyn's excellent post above.

Here's an example from just last night. One of my responsibilities is security and administration of a web server. I had a couple of NAs to update a logging script in various ways, and upgrade a piece of software. Once I was done with those, I felt like continuing with web server work for awhile. So I continued upgrading other pieces of software, and consulted my Project list for the web server to find a few other things that needed to be done, and did them.

After a couple of hours had passed, I decided to go to bed. I removed my completed NAs from my NA list and added a new one resulting from my work. Work done.

So, no, you don't have to work exclusively off your NA list; your NA list is "just" a reminder of the next physical, visible action in each of your projeccts.
 
Thanks to this thread I am somewhat re-defining my contexts. I am a WAHM so technically everything but errands and phone calls could go on a single list. However, I know that I would be overwhelmed. I like working on things that I "feel" like doing so last night when I did my weekly review, I analyzed my categories once again. I typed everything into Excel and there were over 80 next actions from the past week. I sorted them according to my moods.

So I have Home Office (personal financial stuff), Domestic Diva (organizing and improving my household), Deep Cleaning (I keep an ongoing list of things that I notice need to be cleaned but aren't a part of my normal cleaning routine), Outside (I don't like to be outside unless it's a nice day and when my toddler wants to play outside, I like to have a list of things I can do), Business Admin (anything that doesn't have to do with customers), Business Follow-through (things that have to do with customers where I simply need to follow through) Business Initiation (where I need to take the initiative and contact prospects, the most difficult part of my business). I also have a cateogry for Errands.

All of those categories technically fit into "Home" but they give me a much shorter list that I can refer to according to my mood when I need something to do. They do in some ways reflect roles. And they do let me keep a semblance of balance in my life by making sure I cover all areas (for instance, that I'm not just doing business admin stuff and thinking I should be making money).

So to the OP, if your categories are working for you, then stick with them. If you're in the mode to think about clients and make a couple calls, there is no reason why those calls need to be on the same list as the calls you need to make for your children. I think "Context" for each person is very subjective, and doesn't necessarily have to do with our physical reality. Where the physical reality is obvious (like with Errands), it is easy to separate out. But I think it's perfectly fine to go with more subjective contexts as well. Kind of like the semi-mindless and completely mindless categories someone else mentioned on this thread...
 
Thanks for your help

Thanks so much, everyone. It was really useful to read how each of you have slightly different ways of categorizing your work based on location, focus area, motivation level, role, and priority. I was intrigued by the fact that so many people recommended a combination of these different methods. I didn't expect that. It was also comforting to see that I'm not the only one whose personal and work lives get combined into a gloppy stew.

I'll be playing around with some new context ideas over the next few weeks to see which is best in practice. Thanks again for your thoughtful posts.
 
This is an excellent discussion and topic.

As I've noted elsewhere, I sit at a desk in my office >95% of the time, so at least 3-4 context-based lists are always in play. Personally, I find that I'm too lazy to switch between lists on my Palm desktop.

I always thought that something lacking from discussions here is whether and how to use DA's final three filters (time available, energy, priority) in a more structured way. This is especially so when, like for me, the "context" filter doesn't really filter all that much out (usually on "errands" and "@home").
 
ludlow said:
Chuck R: This is where I think I disagree, and where I think it really begins to matter *what* Things are Getting Done, though I would be honestly very interested in any thoughts about better ways to harness the power of contexts in a situation like mine. (I hope this doesn't derail the original thread too much; I think it will apply to others.)

I write articles for publication. Say I'm working on three of them, at the moment. I could make all the phone calls for all three, then do the web research for all three, then write the outlines for all three - etc etc. But that would have the effect of deliberately interrupting the gradually developing thought process, creative process, whatever you want to call it, which is how the ideas develop.
ludlow
Click to expand...

Agreed - to me a combination of context and Project organization works best. I organize sometimes by context, for subdividing between @work, @computer, @phone, @errand, etc. and quickly locating NA's by those various contexts when I am in them. But at work I have literally 100 projects with their own NA's, so the @work context by itself doesn't provide enough organization and therein I use Project organization, and even subprojects where warranted.
 
More thoughts...(I seem to be obsessed with this thread because I keep finding myself thinking about it)...

GTD has four criterias for picking what to do next on your list: Context, Time available, Energy level, and Priority.

It makes perfect sense to sort out the context for things like errands, home and work. But within those contexts, I think perhaps the CONTEXT is no longer relevant. So perhaps it is good to begin by separating out the next actions that clearly belong in a specific context, but beyond that, context is no longer the issue. Rather, you can sort things by time required or energy level, which would be the next two criteria on the list of parameters to consider when deciding what to do next.

I don't know that I would separate out things by time available simply because I try to keep all of my next actions to things that take 15 minutes or less. That is possible when the next action is very specific, but if the next action is that specific, then there are probably subsequent next actions that could easily follow. So I don't think - at least in my world - it would make sense to divide things by time required.

But energy level...now that has some possibilities. Planning a new project takes a completely different level of energy than simply executing a simple, already-planned-out next action. I mean, there are many things on my list that simply need to be done (and don't require much thought) and there are things that I know will require thought and creativity in order for me to complete the next action according to my standards. For example, there is washing the dishes and cleaning out the pantry. With washing the dishes, you already know where things belong and you just have to do the task; with cleaning out the pantry, you have to decide what to keep, what to toss, and then where everything will go. Both tasks are in the same context, but they require vastly different amounts of energy.

So perhaps you find yourself with very few physical contexts and a very long next action list (I get more done when mine are short because I don't feel so overwhelmed), you could sort your next actions by the type of energy required to perform them.

Just a thought...
 
following up on Pageta's post

Although it's a bit (maybe alot) more structured than GTD, Julie Morgenstern's Making Work Work and Time Management from the Inside Out address the time-available and energy criteria.

She suggests listing the estimated completion time next to each Next Action. Unlike Pageta, some of my NA require a nice big block of time, and when I have a few open hours, it's nice to have those right at my fingertips without wading through the 10-minute stuff that, in that setting, can serve as a temptation to distraction and avoidance of the bigger stuff. Similarly, if I only have 15 minutes, it's nice not to be bothered digging through the multi-hour NA's (which usually only increases my anxiety over the fact that they're not done yet).

On the issue of energy, Morgenstern suggests tracking your energy cycle over a few days, and planning to work on the heaviest stuff when your mind's usually the sharpest, and saving the mind-numbing stuff for when you're usually toast.

Again, for some GTD true believers, Morgensterns' abit heterodox, but I think her works are a nice supplement to GTD for people in enviroments where context-based action lists don't really filter out that many NAs.
 
I've recently begun clustering my NAs within their contexts. So, while I have one "Online" context, within that list I've clustered together work to be done on a particular web server (involving different projects), then websites to review, etc. It's very informal, and when I glance at the list it gives me an idea of a bunch of things to do if I'm in a mood to work on websites, or read websites, or shop online, or what-have-you.

This may be no more than a sign that I should break out my Online context into several different contexts. Hmmmm.
 
Brent said:
I've recently begun clustering my NAs within their contexts. So, while I have one "Online" context, within that list I've clustered together work to be done on a particular web server (involving different projects), then websites to review, etc. It's very informal, and when I glance at the list it gives me an idea of a bunch of things to do if I'm in a mood to work on websites, or read websites, or shop online, or what-have-you.

This may be no more than a sign that I should break out my Online context into several different contexts. Hmmmm.
Click to expand...
Not if it's been working for you (unless you feel like trying something new).
I've recently gone to having almost everything on one list, grouped by context as you say, and I like it. My only contexts right now are home and elsewhere, so I'm not looking at things I couldn't be doing and I don't have so many items that it's overwhelming to look at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top