Multiple Required Contexts

[Matthew Hussey]

I try to only have a single context for each next action but I am running into a couple of cases where it seems that I require more than one.
I have seen people in other threads mention that need a context that is a subset of another (such as @computer and @computer-online), or multiple optional contexts that could be grouped together under an abstreact (such as using @digital instead of @computer OR @phone).
My problem is when I require more than one context. For instance:

• I have some things that I need to review online with my wife, such as options for changing our utility company or looking for presents for our children. Therefore I require @digital AND @wife, or @pc AND @wife.
• I have activities I want to do with one or more of my children at a specific location. Therefore @child1 AND @child2 AND @home, or @child1 AND @child3 AND @wife AND @school.

I could create unnecessary tasks, such as "Print utility options for @wife and send them to her for review" but it seems a bit daft.

Are there any sensible options to do this without using multiple contexts?

 

[David Parker]

These may be the exceptions but if you really need more than one Context then put the Next Action on all the relevant Context lists.

In the example you give of changing your utility company, if you want to do this @online with @wife, then put it on both lists but phrase the Next Actions so you remember that both Contexts are needed. For example, put "Review utility companies @online with @wife" on your @online and @wife Next Actions. Then when you're with @wife you'll need to get her to the computer, or if you're at the computer you'll need to get @wife.

You could just put it on the @wife list as she's the primary Context, and these days @online can be just about anywhere. Same with your kids. They're probably the primary Contexts so put the Next Actions on their lists, for example, on @child1 put "Watch Scott play football at school".

Make the system work for you - don't let the system work you . . .

 

[kelstarrising]

Per usual, @drparker48 has great advice!

 

[David Parker]

I have learned from the best . . . and if in doubt I just read "the book" again! Thanks, Kelly!

 

[Oogiem]

Are there any sensible options to do this without using multiple contexts?

I just pick the most necessary one or the primary one and use that. It's easy to see when the particular action won't work as I review my lists and I'll just skip doing it then. There's nothing that says you have to finish all actions in a given context when you start working in it.

 

[John Ismyname]

Occasionaily there are multiple contexts... mostly created by technology and reducible by technology. My favorite is email. You can do that from your phone. I need a a keyboard and Outlook to process my email efficienyy. Maybe this is what Oogiem means by "the most necessaty one", I call it the most efficent context. Matthew, when I need to discuss something digital with my wife, I forward it to her as an email and say "have a look at this and we'll discuss tonight". If you need two people and yourself to be in a specific location to do something, it is best handled as a meeting/appoitmnet.To me,their is no shame to saying to @child1 and @child2, "We are going to get you both skates on Saturday morning at 9am." If it is not best handled as a meeting, maybe it is a (mini)project?

 

[Gardener]

Random possibilities:

In general, I would be inclined to choose the scarcer context. I have access to the computer most hours of the day, but I only have access to Himself at night. So if I needed both @computer and @himself, I'd just go with @himself.

If a given combo-context happens a lot, you could just make it its own context: @himselfandpc

If I had the permutations of @child1 and @child2 and @wife and so on, I might create a context and call it @people. I would know that that context means I need some combination of people, so when I realize, "Hey! I'm at school with one of the kids!" or "Hey! We're at that dinner with Joe!" I'd read @people carefully to see if there are any relevant actions.

(Edited because my proposed context referred to an actual user.)

 

[Bill Myers]

If you need two people and yourself to be in a specific location to do something, it is best handled as a meeting/appoitmnet.

Yep. That's one of the things I was going to suggest. When I need to do something that requires my wife and me to run an errand together -- for example, going to pick out furniture -- I schedule it with her. Simple and effective.

If it's something I need to discuss with her while the two of us are sitting together at a PC, I just add it to the "@agendas" list I maintain for talking with my wife. I know that discussion will take place at home where my PC is always available. Could we conceivably have the conversation elsewhere, and look up what we need to on the web browser on my iPhone? Possibly. Would we? No.

I've learned to narrow down my contexts to reflect where and how I'm really going to get something done rather than worrying about all the possible permutations of how I could do things. And that's worked well for me.

 

[John Ismyname]

Could we conceivably have the conversation elsewhere, and look up what we need to on the web browser on my iPhone? Possibly. Would we? No.I've learned to narrow down my contexts to reflect where and how I'm really going to get something done .

Great example, bcmyers! David Allen had a great example in the first edition of GTD where he had a context for @ internet access as he did a lot of business travel by plane. Now wifi hotspots are MOST places. I can access the internet (theoretically) from anywhere by connecting my laptop to my phone. While this is not the most cost-effective nor the most productive way to get things done, I have long removed @ internet from my contexts.

Part of GTD proficiency is going through the portal of having too many @ contexts and narrowing them down through experience.

 

[Matthew Hussey]

Thank you for your help.

I had thought that agendas or calendars were for tasks that had to be performed at a specific time, otherwise they are in your lists and can be done whenever the context is available. It seems very rigid to book in an appointment with my wife, but maybe we could do that.

In reality, it's something we can fit in whenever we are both available, which doesn't happen often with the children, but requires more than just the two of us. For instance, we couldn't do it if we were together shopping, but likewise I couldn't do it when I am sat at my PC but she's out with the children.

As for numbers of contexts, I think I'm struggling to fit my life into contexts. I either have a few with a single context containing huge amounts of tasks, which makes that list unwieldy and I just get nothing done. Or, I have lots of contexts and cannot work out where anything should go, so also get nothing done

I think my current contexts are quite narrow:

• home - things I have to do at home, such as maintenance, chores, etc
• digital - things I can do on any of my devices, generally online things
• calls - kinda obvious
• errands - things I can do when out and about in my car, etc.
• school - things I need to do when at my children's school. This is more than for other people because my wife is a school governor and head of the parent/teacher association so we do voluntary work there.
• work - things I can do when at my work pc
• boss - things to chat to my boss about (I have 3 of these)
• work-walkabout - things I can do at work when away from my desk on a wander
• product - things I have to do on the product I engineer

I don't actually have contexts for my family members right now because I'm trying to work out how to handle them. My PC was separate but is currently rolled up into @home, although I'm not sure it works. I have PC maintenance tasks currently such as tidying up my folders and sorting out my backup where they have to be done at my PC. The problem is that I am rarely at my PC (now is the first time for 2 weeks) so I really want to see things I can do while I'm sat here. I also have software development tasks.

If anything, I'm finding that I have too few contexts, particularly at work where the vast majority of mine are PC tasks and looking at that list just hurts my head, but I don't know how else to break them out. At home @digital is like this.

 

[Longstreet]

Thank you for your help.

I had thought that agendas or calendars were for tasks that had to be performed at a specific time, otherwise they are in your lists and can be done whenever the context is available. It seems very rigid to book in an appointment with my wife, but maybe we could do that.

In reality, it's something we can fit in whenever we are both available, which doesn't happen often with the children, but requires more than just the two of us. For instance, we couldn't do it if we were together shopping, but likewise I couldn't do it when I am sat at my PC but she's out with the children.

As for numbers of contexts, I think I'm struggling to fit my life into contexts. I either have a few with a single context containing huge amounts of tasks, which makes that list unwieldy and I just get nothing done. Or, I have lots of contexts and cannot work out where anything should go, so also get nothing done

I think my current contexts are quite narrow:

• home - things I have to do at home, such as maintenance, chores, etc
• digital - things I can do on any of my devices, generally online things
• calls - kinda obvious
• errands - things I can do when out and about in my car, etc.
• school - things I need to do when at my children's school. This is more than for other people because my wife is a school governor and head of the parent/teacher association so we do voluntary work there.
• work - things I can do when at my work pc
• boss - things to chat to my boss about (I have 3 of these)
• work-walkabout - things I can do at work when away from my desk on a wander
• product - things I have to do on the product I engineer

I don't actually have contexts for my family members right now because I'm trying to work out how to handle them. My PC was separate but is currently rolled up into @home, although I'm not sure it works. I have PC maintenance tasks currently such as tidying up my folders and sorting out my backup where they have to be done at my PC. The problem is that I am rarely at my PC (now is the first time for 2 weeks) so I really want to see things I can do while I'm sat here. I also have software development tasks.

If anything, I'm finding that I have too few contexts, particularly at work where the vast majority of mine are PC tasks and looking at that list just hurts my head, but I don't know how else to break them out. At home @digital is like this.

Maybe subdivide your computer list into types of work - writing, analyzing, admin stuff, etc. This works well for me.

 

[Bill Myers]

@Matthew Hussey:

Agendas are lists of things to discuss with someone, whenever you have the opportunity. They're not necessarily time-dependent. I believe the Getting Things Done book uses the example of a colleague you bump into in the hallway at the office as a good reason to keep an agendas list, because you can use that opportunity to run something by that person.

It's true that David Allen suggests you reserve your calendar for appointments and things "that will just die" if you don't do them that day. But think about it: have you ever had someone reschedule a meeting or appointment with you because something urgent came up, or have you ever done so yourself? I'm guessing the answer is "yes" to both. Does that mean you shouldn't have scheduled the appointment? Of course not. It's OK to renegotiate commitments.

I don't feel that scheduling something with my wife is rigid. I feel like I'm respecting both her time and mine to ask, "Would it work for you to join me this coming Saturday to go to the garden store to pick out some plants we both like?" And if we change our minds that day, we can renegotiate the commitment. But I find that scheduling it does a better job of getting it off my mind than creating a context such as "when my wife and I happen to be at the garden store together." Because I find circumstances like that don't tend to occur unless I plan them.

As for your struggle with additional contexts, at one time I tried using contexts such as "email" because I could send an email from any internet connected device, or "cloud" because many of the applications I use personally and professionally are available in the cloud. I found myself resisting them. For one thing, I found that mobile devices for me are best suited for quick tasks like firing off two-minute-or-less replies to emails. If the activity is more involved I'm going to take care of it from a PC.

I do keep separate lists of "home" and "home PC" actions, though. I find that things I can do at home like repairing the gutters or purging a closet require a different frame of mind than researching options for a new car online. And I usually have enough of both types of actions that it made sense to break them out into separate lists. Someone who typically has a much smaller number of actions that can be done at home or on a home PC might find it useful to roll them up into one "home" list, though.

Which leads me to my last point: it's possible that none of my suggestions will work for you. If nothing else, though, I hope that sharing my thought process will help you develop your own. Even if it is starkly different from mine. I would say that the fundamental, underlying principle is to create contexts that mean something to you because they truly reflect how you work; and that aren't so fuzzy in your mind that you don't want to stop to think whether that context is available to you.

 

[Bill Myers]

I don't actually have contexts for my family members right now because I'm trying to work out how to handle them. My PC was separate but is currently rolled up into @home, although I'm not sure it works. I have PC maintenance tasks currently such as tidying up my folders and sorting out my backup where they have to be done at my PC. The problem is that I am rarely at my PC (now is the first time for 2 weeks) so I really want to see things I can do while I'm sat here. I also have software development tasks.

If anything, I'm finding that I have too few contexts, particularly at work where the vast majority of mine are PC tasks and looking at that list just hurts my head, but I don't know how else to break them out. At home @digital is like this.

I was thinking more about your particular concerns and I have some specific suggestions to offer. At a bare minimum, try separate contexts for "home" and "PC" and see if that helps. If you feel the resulting lists are still too long and unwieldy, some people here have reported success using contexts for particular computer applications they use regularly. For example, a graphic designer might have a "Photoshop" context.

Something else to consider: if your lists are so long you're getting numb to them, that may be a sign you've accepted too many commitments and need to renegotiate some of them. Perhaps some of the things on your lists could be shunted to someday/maybe for reconsideration during your weekly reviews.

As for activities that require you to be with certain people at certain places, I can think of a couple of different ways to handle it. For example, if being with your children at their school happens frequently then that could be a context. The sticking point would be whether it would occur to you to check it when you're in that situation. If so, there's nothing wrong with having that as a context. If not, I'd suggest scheduling such activities. I can't promise the latter option will work for you, but it's worked for me.

I used to have a myriad of contexts for all the permutations of where and when I could do things. I had three computer contexts: "computer-work," "computer-home" and "computer-any" (for things I could do in the cloud). I also had contexts for "mobile" and "email". For me, it got confusing. I consolidated my contexts and they now look very similar to what's recommended in Getting Things Done. Sometimes my lists get long, but for me that's either a sign that I've accepted too many commitments or I need to get cracking. My list application lets me sort by create date, so sometimes I'll choose activities based on what's been sitting in my lists too long. Other times I zero in on activities based on what my gut tells me is most important, and I feel good knowing that the other actions will be there in my lists to review later.

If this was helpful, great. If not, hopefully someone else's advice will steer you in the right direction. Good luck finding the answers you're looking for. They're out there and if you stick with it you'll find them eventually.

 

[Oogiem]

I don't actually have contexts for my family members right now because I'm trying to work out how to handle them. My PC was separate but is currently rolled up into @home, although I'm not sure it works. I have PC maintenance tasks currently such as tidying up my folders and sorting out my backup where they have to be done at my PC. The problem is that I am rarely at my PC (now is the first time for 2 weeks) so I really want to see things I can do while I'm sat here. I also have software development tasks.

If anything, I'm finding that I have too few contexts, particularly at work where the vast majority of mine are PC tasks and looking at that list just hurts my head, but I don't know how else to break them out. At home @digital is like this.

I would find your list of contexts far too small. The PC ones I'd break out either by class of work or by software package you use to run them. I have software development tasks broken out separately as well. For example LambTracker code development is on my MacBook but the program is an Android program so my test devices are Kindle Fires and the database development is on my desktop. I lump all of the LambTracker development tasks into one context because I need to be in the same mindset to work on it. However I also have things I am doing using Scrivener, LibreOffice and DEVONThink that cover many different projects but I separate them by application because I find switching applications to be more draining than switching projects. I separate out all tasks that require Internet access. In rural American always on Internet is not a given so it makes sense to separate them. I have my home or inside tasks separated out by whether I need my husband present or whether they are things I can do by myself. As a point of reference I have 35 active contexts right now. I've tried to simplify them into a smaller number but always keep coming back to more granularity not less.

 

[John Ismyname]

“I had thought that agendas or calendars were for tasks that had to be performed at a specific time, otherwise they are in your lists and can be done whenever the context is available. It seems very rigid…”

You are correct on both counts! Pure GTD is just as you described. As part of making GTD work for one’s own unique circumstances and platform, one has to adapt it. I have a few suggestions that are not part of GTD

‘It seems very rigid to book in an appointment with my wife”

“‘boss - things to chat to my boss about (I have 3 of these)”

Despite email, texting, instant messaging, ect, there is still a need to “tell or discuss this with boss next time I’m taking to her.” That is, it’s neither something appropriate to email nor is it something you want to call her about. So, the next time she comes into your office or calls you say “by the way, boss, how about this is issue?” The easiest way to do this is to note this on the contact card for this person in your contact list. (I use to do this with post-it notes on a rolodex back in the day…) Make it a habit, to pull up this contact card whenever you are talking to her.

That said, if the issue (even with a spouse) might require you set up a meeting. For example, I schedule meetings with my wife to for subjects like the care of her elderly mother (whom I love and am committed to looking after), tax planning, estate planning. These are not topics that are enjoyable and the require us being face-to-face with documents to resolve.

“I think I'm struggling to fit my life into contexts.”

Welcome to the club

“I either have a few with a single context containing huge amounts of tasks, which makes that list unwieldy and I just get nothing done.”

There is a contradiction in the above. Is your @ big-single-context list unwieldy or is there just too much on it? Do you really get nothing done or do you switch contexts and get things done in another context?

“the vast majority of mine are PC tasks and looking at that list just hurts my head, but I don't know how else to break them out”

I can relate as I have to really long context lists – @ home office and @laptop. I would suggest;

DELETE-Are you really going to convert that box of 1980s cassettes to Mp3s? Are you really going to read everything in your “To Read” email bin? If not delete it.

DELEGATE – Its more cost-effective for me to pay a cleaning lady and virtual-assistant to delegate to.

DEFER – if there is something on my @ list I am not going to do for days, weeks, or months, it comes of my @ Context lists and gets automatically put back on at the appropriate date

DEFINE – Maybe your task has an ambiguous next action? Maybe it is really a project maybe it should go on you maybe list?

“My PC was separate but is currently rolled up into @home, although I'm not sure it works. I have PC maintenance tasks currently such as tidying up my folders and sorting out my backup where they have to be done at my PC. The problem is that I am rarely at my PC (now is the first time for 2 weeks) so I really want to see things I can do while I'm sat here. “

Consider an @ PC context. I find this useful as my PC is a conduit to so many facets of my life but I want to avoid being glued to my computer while at home (or glued to a smartphone).

“If anything, I'm finding that I have too few contexts, particularly at work”

You impress me with your “ work-walkabout” context. I question of you need your @ product context as this might be better suited to projects.

 

[Bill Myers]

You are correct on both counts! Pure GTD is just as you described. As part of making GTD work for one’s own unique circumstances and platform, one has to adapt it. I have a few suggestions that are not part of GTD

Great advice, but I have two minor quibbles. First, agendas don't have to be time-specific. I keep an agenda list for my wife, my boss and some key co-workers and often refer to it anytime we have a chance to talk together. In the case of my wife, I see her at home quite nearly every day; no need to schedule discussions with her. She likes talking to me. Or at least she tolerates it.

I also question why you say your suggestions aren't "pure GTD." I think they're all in keeping with the system as presented in the book. I think GTD is a much more flexible system than most of us give it credit for.

 

[Longstreet]

Great advice, but I have two minor quibbles. First, agendas don't have to be time-specific. I keep an agenda list for my wife, my boss and some key co-workers and often refer to it anytime we have a chance to talk together. In the case of my wife, I see her at home quite nearly every day; no need to schedule discussions with her. She likes talking to me. Or at least she tolerates it.

I also question why you say your suggestions aren't "pure GTD." I think they're all in keeping with the system as presented in the book. I think GTD is a much more flexible system than most of us give it credit for.

I like your comment about "pure GTD". I agree - it is a flexible system and one must personalize it to make it work best for you. Just look at the differences in contexts. Cheers!

 

[TesTeq]

I like your comment about "pure GTD". I agree - it is a flexible system and one must personalize it to make it work best for you. Just look at the differences in contexts. Cheers!

GTD is like water. Pure water is flexible, isn't it? ;-)

 

[John Ismyname]

Great advice, but I have two minor quibbles. First, agendas don't have to be time-specific.

BC, you are right! The dictionary says an agenda is "a list of matters to be discussed".

I also question why you say your suggestions aren't "pure GTD." I think they're all in keeping with the system as presented in the book.

My biggest deviation from GTD is this

Thank you for your help.

I had thought that agendas or calendars were for tasks that had to be performed at a specific time, otherwise they are in your lists and can be done whenever the context is available.

My GTD platform is MS-Outlook and its robust tasks module gives me a lot of flexibility with tasks that I cannot get in many platforms. My rule-of-thumb is that if I estimate a task that I am starting on a future date will take more than two hours to complete, then I put it on my calendar for that date. This is to prevent my monthly calendar view from becoming ‘clogged’. Outlook limits this view to a maximum of five items. No matter what platform you use, if you have too many items on your calendar, you start miss things and you lose trust in your GTD system.

To answer your question, I am explaining this below. If you have no interest in MS-Outlook, you can stop reading

I use low priority tasks in Outlook for my @ context tasks and use an Outlook category for each of my contexts. I created a view in Outlook that sorts these categories so it displays and them (and can print them) as my GTD @ context lists . While this follows GTD to the letter, I add the task due date as to when I want to revisit its @ context status. When its due date is past, the task turns from black ink to red. This is my signal to revisit the task.

I also use the task’s start date in the future to hide a task until its start date is on or before today. If I can’t start a task until next week or next month, I do not want to see it until that date or my weekly review.

This brings me to Outlook high priority tasks- my A-LIST of what I have committed to completing TODAY. I keep these of my calendar until I am ready to execute them. When I view my task list in an Outlook view for tomorrow, I have seven tasks that I have deemed must get done by end of day that I estimate will take me collectively 2.5 hours to do. (This displays in the lowest row in my high priority task list as “TOTAL A … 2.5h”.) As I time block out tomorrow, I note the number of Pomodoros I will need for this. I do not convert the tasks to calendar appointments before execution.

There is an example in the GTD book of having a task to call Yuki anytime on a specific day to which David’s GTD solution is to put this on his calendar for that specific day. In my system, I have this recorded this a task. I convert this to a calendar item (which then syncs to my phone) , if nothing else, as a reminder. If 8am is the earliest I can call Yuki, I convert this to a calendar appointment starting at 08:00 with an alarm set for this time. If Yuki is unavailable, I will move this item to 9am and continue until I reach Yuki. (I admit, ‘telephone tag’ scenario like this are becoming fewer and farther between … but are strangely alive and well in government institutions.)

In my ‘boots to the ground’ of getting-things-done on a daily basis, I have my calendar item appointments, my pomodoro time blocks that I have committed to getting my high-priority tasks done and my low priority task which are @ context items.

This leaves medium priority tasks, which is the tasks I am committed to completing WITHIN 7 DAYS. These are tasks that are typically not urgent – they don’t need to be done today but I don’t want to leave them at the mercy of being in the right @ context. If I don’t get to my B-List tasks, they are waiting for me the next day with my due date a day closer! Thus, I might want to change this to my A-list or commit to a specific calendar appointment to get such tasks done.

I also admit it is my “everything else” place for things that do not fit into my GTD.

As with my A list, I have Outlook display in the lowest row of my high priority task list, “TOTAL B … 4.25h”. This is my “reality check” - How much time have I COMMITTED to executing my A-list high priority items (now in time blocks) and to meetings/appointments? How much B-List time is to work on projects? because its fast and easy to change a priority, start date, or converts a task to an appointment. I can start each day with a realistic plan to be productive