NAs by Project?

Botany_Bill

Registered
I'm still new to GTD and find I'm very hesitant to set up my professional Next Actions categories in my paper system. (I haven't even attempted to set up my personal NA categories)

I want to group NAs by Project, but is that acceptable? The reason I want to group this way is because I think it has some efficiency to work on a single project for a time period before moving off it. But the main reason is that I will see what is most important for a given Project. If I don't group that way, but by context (like phone, email, writing, etc), I will have a nagging feeling I'm missing some other important NA on a Project because it's not right in front of me. I like the idea of visiting a project and then moving off it when I've cleared the most pressing NAs. This is basically how I worked pre-GTD: scanning my running list for NAs for a given project, which I'd denote with a letter code.

I've already grouped by Project in my email system, which is easier to change up. I haven't made any NA categories for paper because it's harder to change. So that's why I come to you all for advice.

My email NA categories is @Projects, @teams I sit on but are not my primary responsibility, @reading (w/ sub-categories; I rarely get around to reading!), @Admin (anything from a brief training to Doodle surveys, etc), and that's about it.

Would love some thoughts on this. Thank you!
 

mcogilvie

Registered
If you think of the next actions from projects as bookmarks (do this next then look at project support), you have the option to continue working on the project or move on to something else. For example, you can decide whether a context switch or a project switch is desirable at a give moment.

Also please keep in mind that efficiency is not the sole criterion for effectiveness. It does you no good if you work all week on a big project but find out you have no food in the house, two flat tires, and the cat is suing you for emotional distress.
 

Botany_Bill

Registered
If you think of the next actions from projects as bookmarks (do this next then look at project support), you have the option to continue working on the project or move on to something else. For example, you can decide whether a context switch or a project switch is desirable at a give moment.

Also please keep in mind that efficiency is not the sole criterion for effectiveness. It does you no good if you work all week on a big project but find out you have no food in the house, two flat tires, and the cat is suing you for emotional distress.

For me, I wouldn't work on something w/o coming up for air anywhere near a week. I would check in w/ my priorities and gut every 2 hours or less. The way I thought I could work my contexts is review project NAs, jump into a project that I know is pressing, clear all or some of the NAs, then consider which to jump into next.

What I'm not understanding is how other types of contexts don't cause the same potential problem (focusing on emails while an important paper goes unwritten). This is why I'm resisting using DA's recommended contexts. Would love to hear why they work better than mine and why I wouldn't find I'm missing other important work in his system.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
For me, I wouldn't work on something w/o coming up for air anywhere near a week. I would check in w/ my priorities and gut every 2 hours or less. The way I thought I could work my contexts is review project NAs, jump into a project that I know is pressing, clear all or some of the NAs, then consider which to jump into next.
I’ve arranged next actions by project and by context, and they both mostly work for me most of the time. Both ways you run the risk of ignoring things big and small. Too much project focus and email in particular gets out of control very quickly. If you have big projects with long deadlines and not too much clarity, you can get lost in large numbers one-off actions. You have to look at all the next action lists every day, usually. Multiple times, to build and maintain situational awareness.
What I'm not understanding is how other types of contexts don't cause the same potential problem (focusing on emails while an important paper goes unwritten). This is why I'm resisting using DA's recommended contexts. Would love to hear why they work better than mine and why I wouldn't find I'm missing other important work in his system.
I think organizing by context helps me keep the focus on next actions, and makes day-to-day work easier. It also makes it harder to keep bigger projects clear, and makes connecting the dots in the weekly review harder. Organizing by project improves perspective at the project level, but increases the risk of not handling actions well. In principle, there are software programs that will give the best of both worlds, but I think they are mostly too complicated and slow to use. One thing I do know: thinking too many actions ahead often wastes my efforts, no matter which way I organize them.
 

Botany_Bill

Registered
I’ve arranged next actions by project and by context, and they both mostly work for me most of the time. Both ways you run the risk of ignoring things big and small. Too much project focus and email in particular gets out of control very quickly. If you have big projects with long deadlines and not too much clarity, you can get lost in large numbers one-off actions. You have to look at all the next action lists every day, usually. Multiple times, to build and maintain situational awareness.

I think organizing by context helps me keep the focus on next actions, and makes day-to-day work easier. It also makes it harder to keep bigger projects clear, and makes connecting the dots in the weekly review harder. Organizing by project improves perspective at the project level, but increases the risk of not handling actions well. In principle, there are software programs that will give the best of both worlds, but I think they are mostly too complicated and slow to use. One thing I do know: thinking too many actions ahead often wastes my efforts, no matter which way I organize them.

Thanks for this insight. You've actually given me some peace about how I tackle this. At least this first attempt - organizing by project - isn't off limits. I'll implement it in my paper system and see where it gets me.
 

ivanjay205

Registered
Thanks for this insight. You've actually given me some peace about how I tackle this. At least this first attempt - organizing by project - isn't off limits. I'll implement it in my paper system and see where it gets me.
Just to echo this I too think of both projects and contexts when I am working on something. Sometimes I need to get laser focused on a project and work through its multiple steps. By having each next action with each step if I get interrupted or need to stop I can leave the project and know where to pick up.

but, there are also lots of pockets of times in between things where I can go to contexts and just knock off tasks that are next inline whether they are a project or not. Especially in those 30 minute window between meetings. I find when I do that effectively I get SOOOO much more done in a day.
 

gtdstudente

Registered
I'm still new to GTD and find I'm very hesitant to set up my professional Next Actions categories in my paper system. (I haven't even attempted to set up my personal NA categories)

I want to group NAs by Project, but is that acceptable? The reason I want to group this way is because I think it has some efficiency to work on a single project for a time period before moving off it. But the main reason is that I will see what is most important for a given Project. If I don't group that way, but by context (like phone, email, writing, etc), I will have a nagging feeling I'm missing some other important NA on a Project because it's not right in front of me. I like the idea of visiting a project and then moving off it when I've cleared the most pressing NAs. This is basically how I worked pre-GTD: scanning my running list for NAs for a given project, which I'd denote with a letter code.

I've already grouped by Project in my email system, which is easier to change up. I haven't made any NA categories for paper because it's harder to change. So that's why I come to you all for advice.

My email NA categories is @Projects, @teams I sit on but are not my primary responsibility, @reading (w/ sub-categories; I rarely get around to reading!), @Admin (anything from a brief training to Doodle surveys, etc), and that's about it.

Would love some thoughts on this. Thank you!

1. In keeping the NA / Contexts Lists in tact, one could write the Project in parenthesis

and/or for less 'list-clutter,' I employ the following:

2. I use a color coded four Areas of Focus binary system [Intrinsic: Divine, Agenda/Health/Relationships, Extrinsic: Tools/Utility, Fiscal] and apply it by either using the corresponding pen/pencil color on the NA / Contexts Lists or apply four corresponding color paper for the NA / Contexts Lists.

The reason for the above is to reduce 'Deliberation / Wondering' and increase 'Confidence' by keeping me 'On-Project-Purpose' since ALL Projects and Next Actions are ALL subordinate to my four Areas of Focus.

If you the above worthy . . . hope it makes sense/helps to some degree
 
Top