fooddude
Registered
No I just don't do it for simplicity. Only one action can be the very next action.
Interesting experiment - Number of active projects
- Thread starter Tom_Hagen
- Start date
TesTeq
0
@fooddude Let's assume you have a project: "My family history described". Your grandparents are divorced and you want to interview both of them. You've got two obviously independent Next Actions: "Call Grandmother to schedule an interview!" and "Call Grandfather to schedule an interview!". Which one will you eliminate from your @phone Next Actions list?
fooddude
Registered
Either one. I can only do one next. I would probably Call grandma first. When I'm done I might immediately call grandpa. If I don't it would go on my @phone list for when I come back to it. I don't have a list of all next actions for a project either. That way when I stop I can just put the very next action on my context list. If I don't, I will pick it up during my next weekly review.
Tom_Hagen
Registered
In my opinion, a common misunderstanding is what we mean by the definition of a "next action list." According to GTD, these are activities in a project that, given the given constraints: context, time, energy, and priority, can be completed asap. A project might have one such activity, but not necessarily. Sometimes, parallel work is possible.
However, a list of activities understood as an algorithm is something else entirely. And I don't believe that projects where the entire cycle of activities can be planned should not be planned at once. For example, due to my profession, I have to work through many IT books, which I divide into chapters, topics, or even portions of pages. Clearly, it's more efficient to write them down immediately in the project and then, by checking off the completed step, "pull" the next one off the list. This saves time; in some implementations (e.g., Evernote), you can see the project's progress, etc.
I've never been convinced by the idea of completing a task in a project and only then, during the weekly review, wondering what's next for the project. What a waste of potential during the week.
bobusa
Registered
Surely there can be some middle ground here. The GTD goal is to have space and free time, not to complete as many next actions as possible. I agree that waiting for the next weekly review might not be very productive, depending on the type of role you have and the nature of the area or project. I don’t think @fooddude is working at that extreme. One does review their next actions during daily reviews as well, which helps find a better balance and leaves room for unplanned activities.
Tom_Hagen
Registered
I don't agree with the statement as above.
Whether someone wants to have free time or accomplish as many tasks as possible is an individual matter, and GTD doesn't define it at all.
The goal of GTD is to be properly engaged and focused on all the issues and obligations / commitments (external/internal) we choose to accept. In this sense, GTD allows for both extremes: striving for laziness and being a workaholic.
bobusa
Registered
That’s a better way to explain it. However, the goal is to have a clear mind and create the necessary space. Of course, the great thing about GTD is that you can adapt it to your own perspective on life.I don't agree with the statement as above.
Whether someone wants to have free time or accomplish as many tasks as possible is an individual matter, and GTD doesn't define it at all.
The goal of GTD is to be properly engaged and focused on all the issues and obligations / commitments (external/internal) we choose to accept. In this sense, GTD allows for both extremes: striving for laziness and being a workaholic.
fooddude
Registered
That is not exactly what I meant. I don't do one next action and wait for the review to record the next action. I do the very next action and then might or might not do several next actions as I work on the project. When I stop I record the very next action to pick it up from where I left off. If I miss that opportunity I will pick it up during my weekly review of scanning my project list.
fooddude
Registered
Yes since the next actions are in context, I would look at them when I was in that context. ie: @Home. I can only do an at home next action at home.
fooddude
Registered
Again my system is simple. My project list is a list of projects in a simple statement of what done looks like. I don't have project planning lists unless it is very complicated. I may break a complicated project into smaller chunks to distill it to it's simplest form. These photos are not from the same time so next actions don't match projects. They are example screenshots. I also am not too interested in tracking progress. (I know some people just fainted). I just take the steps needed to completion. One step after the other.
Peter Van Harmelen
Registered
I think you need to do whatever you need to do to get the project off your mind. If that means list all the next possible actions, go for it. However, there is some wisdom in only having 'one' next action. In the example above about interviewing grandma and then grandpa - yeah they can both be next actions, yet you will pick one first. And after you talk to grandma, well, the thing might change and you may not want to talk to grandpa right now. One next action will automatically lead to the next. I tend to subscribe to the "only one" next action method: Area->Project->1 next action. After the next action is done, it leads the next one.
gtd solo-studente
Registered
Is it also being suggested a one-&-done Next Action is possible while being independent of any Project and perhaps somehow productively serving an Area-of-Focus ?
fooddude
Registered
I do this often. I have a next action that is not a project (two or more next actions) but am not in the context to do it. I might put it in the context and do it then.
I also prefer one next action per project.
I find that most projects have multiple possible pathways, and multiple independent threads that could be followed concurrently. My logical conclusion was that I should populate my action lists with as many as I could think of. However, this led me to procrastination. When in my calls list, I would put off the call. The call would be better after I had run the errand. Then while running errands, I would hold off on a purchase because it would be better to talk to a collaborator first. This sort of procrastination held me back on many projects.
Now, I realise what I was doing was avoiding making a choice. Because of this, when making a next action decision, I look for the single next action that will progress the project. If there are multiple possibilities, then I make a choice.
Importantly, when I look at my lists and see actions, I know that those actions are required (not optional) to progress a project.
This works well for me for most of my projects. I do have one or two that have large independent strands that have a next action each.
I find that most projects have multiple possible pathways, and multiple independent threads that could be followed concurrently. My logical conclusion was that I should populate my action lists with as many as I could think of. However, this led me to procrastination. When in my calls list, I would put off the call. The call would be better after I had run the errand. Then while running errands, I would hold off on a purchase because it would be better to talk to a collaborator first. This sort of procrastination held me back on many projects.
Now, I realise what I was doing was avoiding making a choice. Because of this, when making a next action decision, I look for the single next action that will progress the project. If there are multiple possibilities, then I make a choice.
Importantly, when I look at my lists and see actions, I know that those actions are required (not optional) to progress a project.
This works well for me for most of my projects. I do have one or two that have large independent strands that have a next action each.
Oogiem
0
But both are equally "Doable" You cannot determine which is "first' and both are independent ergo both are "next"actions and BOTH deserve to be on your lists. Because "sheep happens"and you might get to talk to grandpa before grandma and need to be able to take advantage of the opportunity even if grandma was "first"on your list.
I agree but I understand the virtue of simplicity. The issue of recognizing and handling parallel versus sequential project actions adds complexity on the front end. As a hack for simple actions, you can write “Contact Grandfather & Grandmother re interview” and erase or cross out the one you contact first.
Last edited:
fooddude
Registered
I could but I would make a choice just for simplicity's sake. I could also decide at the last minute to call the other one first. Since next actions on this project are not "hidden" from me and don't rely on the first action to uncover a hidden next action on the second. I doubt I'd do that but I could. I hope that made sense. By the way I'm stealing "sheep happens"
schmeggahead
Registered
There is a lot of personal preference and spontaneity in deciding how to handle a situation where there are multiple potential next actions available for parallel execution. This thread illustrates that quite well.I could but I would make a choice just for simplicity's sake. I could also decide at the last minute to call the other one first. Since next actions on this project are not "hidden" from me and don't rely on the first action to uncover a hidden next action on the second. I doubt I'd do that but I could. I hope that made sense. By the way I'm stealing "sheep happens"
I tend to put all available next actions onto context lists so they are available to be done. Given that, I haven’t always done it this way. When I had very limited executive function capacity per day, I would only put one next action from a project on a given context even though there were multiple available in that context. I did this especially when that list was long. I made the decision to put the first one identified and then stop. Much less decision power at the time I put it on the list and the time I looked at the list to choose what to do.
Now, I only put next actions on contexts lists when they have my attention and are next actions. I don’t try to get all available next actions identified completely, just the ones that come to mind. I’m attracted to those and as long as they really are next actions, it works.
I’ve been adjusting my system to capture what has my attention rather than to capture every open loop in my life. If it ain’t bothering me then I’ll do something that is. When I went for full coverage of everything not exactly the way I wanted it to be, I had someday and maybe lists that were enormous and unmanageable and more importantly unreviewable.
It’s on my lists when I want or need to put my attention on it.
Y’all have really helped my understanding of this topic.
Clayton
When you pay attention to what has your attention, you’ll find out what really has your attention.
@schmeggahead, I agree, it’s just honest struggle to get the right balance. I think you’re probably right about “what has my attention” as opposed to “what are my open loops.” David Allen is a great communicator, and he sometimes uses words and phrases which are similar but not quite equivalent- you have to in order for people to understand. “What open loops are on my mind?” Is kind of a nuanced phrase to start from.
schmeggahead
Registered
Like Meg Edwards description of the mind sweep: what woke you up in the middle of the night?, are you procrastinating on anything? or gone numb to anything?
Good stuff.
Thanks
Clayton.
Just because you captured it, it doesn't mean you have to do it. - Meg Edwards