Multiple NAs for a project?

[Jon Walthour]

Oogiem: Thanks for the clarification! I think maybe we're talking across-purposes!

Let me see if I can communicate my point more accurately. For simplicity's sake, let's say that I only complete one Next Action, then stop and move on to another Next Action on my list. Let's also pretend I only work on one Context list.

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

I believe, in your simplification, you have removed the element of concurrency here, which is the factor which allows you to approach the 50 and exceed the 20.

Expand a bit on your example and add an "@Errands" context, for example. Now, you have three projects for which you need to pick things up. If you indeed were doing everything in serial, then you'd have to run errands several times, one or more times for each project. However, by gathering them all up, you can accomplish more in less time (i.e., you're already out and about. So running to the hardware store, the grocery store and the bank all in one trip to move several different projects along or even different aspects of the same project along, can allow you to get more done with less).

Have I understood your point correctly?

 

[kewms]

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

The fallacy is your assumption that all actions are created equal. They aren't. There's a difference between doing 20 actions for 20 projects and 20 actions for 5 projects. If a project has five non-dependent actions, and I do all of them, then chances are I've moved that project a pretty good distance forward. I might even have gotten the project to a state where I can ignore it completely for the time being, for instance while I wait for others to get back to me with information.

Whether doing those five actions is the best decision depends on the situation, just like any choice between focused work on a single project and attacking open loops on several projects. But if the actions aren't on my list, I might not even realize that I had the opportunity.

Katherine

 

[Roger]

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20? I just don't understand why that would be. I'm only going to complete 20 items; I'll never get to the other 30 whether they're on my list or not. And with 50 items on the list, I have more content to comprehend and sort through every time I look at my list.

I'm going to drop into one of David Allen's metaphors -- money.

"Not being aware of all you have to do is much like having a credit card for which you don't know the balance or the limit -- it's a lot easier to be irresponsible." -- GTD, Chapter 11 (appropriately enough)

Within that metaphor, this is what your plan might sound like:

"Look, every month I've only got enough money to pay half my bills. Nothing is going to change that. So I take half my bills and throw them away. I'm not going to be able to pay them anyway. And it makes me feel a lot less stressed out about my finances!"

I think this gets to the heart of why some people are exceptionally, perhaps irrationally, upset with this approach. It's tempting to see something fundamentally dishonest in it.

I don't think it really is inherently dishonest or counter-productive, if you're handling it in the right way. But hopefully that helps you see why some people are so resistant to it.

 

[Oogiem]

For simplicity's sake, let's say that I only complete one Next Action, then stop and move on to another Next Action on my list. Let's also pretend I only work on one Context list.

Now, let's say I complete 20 Next Actions per week on my list.

You're contending that I would get more done if I had 50 items on that list instead of 20?

A problem with your example. If you really can only do 20 items and never change contexts, then why do you need GTD at all?

My multiple next actions are usually in different contexts. Or if a project has several actions in the same context they do not depend on the results of one to do the next.

I'm working on a specific project now and I have a next action in phone to call the court re some papers I have to file, another phone call is to call a person who may be called as an expert witness and get their proper legal name and address for the court filing, another action on the project is to search the gvmt web site for case decisions that relate, another is at my desk with my calendar writing a log of all times I talked to anyone about that item. These are all independent actions, none depends on the other to be done first and they are all part of the same project with trying to settle a court case I am involved in. By your thinking I'd only have 1 item on that list, I'd have to decide which is the one that I'll call "next action" and do that and ignore the rest. Yet right now I am inside and have access to my computer calendar. If I wasn't typing this message I could be searching it for any references to conversations I had. Next time I go out to check sheep to see if anyone is lambing I may have to stay out there a while to keep an eye on a ewe looking ready. But I always have my cell phone and note pad with me. I could at that time call the court and also call the possible witness. I'm in a different context and I can move the whole project forward by having several things on my lists at once.

Another example, the project is send out Christmas cards. Actions include creating mailing labels, ordering cards, writing the general letter and writing the personal notes for each recipient. 3 of those actions can go on the appropriate context at once. I can create the mailing labels, order the cards and write the general letter independent of everything else. However I can't write the personal notes until the general letter is written. So when I activate the Send Christmas Cards project I will immediately add 3 tasks to the appropriate contexts but not the one about writing personal notes or any after that (printing letters or mailing them). Since the contexts for all those 3 actions are different they will necessarily be out of my view unless I can really do them.

The more projects you have and the more contexts you have the more actions need to go on your lists or else projects will never get completed. But they have to be independent actions.

 

[Brent]

I'm afraid I over-simplified. My point isn't getting across.

Thanks for your comments, everyone! Interesting discussion.

 

[nshram]

There are some software GTD implementations (PyGTD, for example), which allow you to input multiple NAs for a project in a specific order. But only the next NA shows up in project and context review lists. The other NAs are hidden. After the current NA for a project is done, then the next one pops up.

Maybe this is one way to have your cake and eat it too!

 

[Oogiem]

There are some software GTD implementations (PyGTD, for example), which allow you to input multiple NAs for a project in a specific order.

Omnifocus allows for either actions in parallel or actions in sequence and you can set the view to see only next actions or all available actions. It's got a lot more flexibility I am just learning about how to use.

 

[DaveR]

I often list what I call a "double NA." That is two distinct but very connected, sequential NA's. For instance I might have the NA: Print flyer/mail flyer. Or Move furniture/remove carpet.

Works for me.

-- DaveR