Next action(s) and one thing at a time

[Gardener]

According to David Allen, you should have processed an item bevore you do it (even in two minutes). And to proceed follows collecting. In my opinion it makes sense to split these steps and to respect the sequence.

Are you sure that you're required to process a two minute item? Do you mean, as in write it down/type it?

I've always assumed that if I think, "Oh, yeah, I should take the chicken out to thaw," the two minute rule would tell me to go get the chicken and put it in the fridge, without writing anything down.

 

[Murray]

@Murray What about collecting? Why collect something when you can just do it in less than 2 minutes?

My understanding is that the two minute rule doesn't apply there. Collecting/capturing doesn't take anywhere near as much time as organising and tracking an action, and many of the items that are collected will just be trashed in the processing phase. David has said pretty much this about his mind sweeps.

...which doesn't mean you have to collect it rather than do it. It just means that the 2 minute rule doesn't apply, if I'm not mistaken.

I haven't got the book handy right now but here is a quite from one of David's "Two Minute Tip" podcasts:

"First of all, the key thing is to decide what’s the very next action on something I need to do about any of this change that’s happening, any of this stuff I’m involved in right now. What would I need to do next? Once you’ve decided very clearly and specifically what that is if you can do it in less then two minutes, do it right then. Teflon, boom! In and out."

Episode #79: David Allen with a Two-minute Tip—The Two-minute Rule

David Allen discusses mental RAM, rapid refocusing, and checklists, and how they relate to GTD and performance improvement.

gettingthingsdone.com

"decide what's the very next action" strongly implies we doing more than just capturing something that's on our mind and we are clarifying/processing.

 

[Murray]

According to David Allen, you should have processed an item bevore you do it (even in two minutes). And to proceed follows collecting. In my opinion it makes sense to split these steps and to respect the sequence.

This doesn't sound right to me. Doing "work as it shows up" is definitely a big part of GTD and would not necessarily involve any collecting or processing before doing the work.

 

[RomanS]

Doing "work as it shows up" is definitely a big part of GTD and would not necessarily involve any collecting or processing before doing the work.

That's correct but has in my opinion nothing to do with the two minute rule. The two minute rule is in my understanding an instrument in the planning process: "Shall I do it immediately or later?" And "plan your work" is one kind of work. Another kind of work is "work as it shows up" (unplanned) regardless of whether the completion takes one, two or 60 minutes.

 

[TesTeq]

According to David Allen, you should have processed an item bevore you do it (even in two minutes). And to proceed follows collecting. In my opinion it makes sense to split these steps and to respect the sequence.

@Roman (German speaking) What about the extreme example: your boss/coleague/wife enters a room and asks for a pencil because she lost hers. Do you collect her request in your inbox for further processing and organizing or simply give her your pencil? @Gardener
GTD is the Advanced Common Sense – not the Ridiculous Set of Rules..

 

[RomanS]

@Roman (German speaking) What about the extreme example: your boss/coleague/wife enters a room and asks for a pencil because she lost hers. Do you collect her request in your inbox for further processing and organizing or simply give her your pencil? @Gardener
GTD is the Advanced Common Sense – not the Ridiculous Set of Rules..

@TesTeq No, I would not. I would stop doing planned work (option 1 according to DA) or planning the work (option 2 according to DA, where the 2 minute rule is relevant) and do work as it shows up (option 3 according to DA, where the 2 minute rule is not relevant) and give her the pencil.

 

[schmeggahead]

@Murray What about collecting? Why collect something when you can just do it in less than 2 minutes?

I remember David Allen saying during collecting "If you can quickly put it where it belongs, do that."
Kind of implied that the what is it question and the what is my relationship to it question had both been answered by just picking it up and looking at it.

 

[Gardener]

That's correct but has in my opinion nothing to do with the two minute rule. The two minute rule is in my understanding an instrument in the planning process: "Shall I do it immediately or later?" And "plan your work" is one kind of work. Another kind of work is "work as it shows up" (unplanned) regardless of whether the completion takes one, two or 60 minutes.

I think I'm still disagreeing.

For example, if I'm at work when it occurs to me that I should thaw the chicken, I might put "thaw chicken" in the inbox. It'll be several hours before I can do it, so it's not work as it shows up.

But when I get home and happen to see that while looking at my lists, I'm not going to process it. I'm going to go to the freezer, move the chicken from freezer to fridge, and delete "thaw chicken" right from my inbox without ever processing it.

 

[schmeggahead]

I might put "thaw chicken" in the inbox. It'll be several hours before I can do it, so it's not work as it shows up.

I would put "thaw chicken" in my inbox, then immediately move it to "@home" context that's where I need to see it (process & organize) and add a location trigger (my system supports it). That's what I personally need to do for me to get it off of my mind. That's me.

Process and organize can be automatic things, routine. For me, put book back on shelf doesn't require capture at all.

Our systems are there for us to control, not the other way around.

If putting "thaw chicken" in your inbox & not processing works to clear your head & generates the desired action, it is processed and organized.

Clayton.

 

[Silvestro]

GTD does not expect you to write down every action. Only record the project “pay bill” (note: better written as a desired outcome “bill paid”) and the one next action “fetch bill”.

You can perform the next steps from your intuition, unless you stop this project half way through. In this case you would record the new next action for this project and then move on to another activity.

I would like to explore this aspect of the technique further.
David often talks about lists, in a positive sense. As I understand it, he says to collect all the actions related to a process and then choose the next actionable one.
You say that it is enough to just write down the next action, and then the next one "comes by itself", by intuition.
Could you tell me the chapter where this approach is explained?

 

[TesTeq]

As I understand it, he says to collect all the actions related to a process and then choose the next actionable one.

@Silvestro I've never heard about "collecting all the actions related to a process". As I recall @DavidAllen and GTD trainers always say: do as much planning as it is required to get it out of your mind. At least it should be the successful outcome specification and one next action. In other words: what "done" means and what "doing" looks like. And you don't have to describe the whole "doing" – first step is enough.

 

[FocusGuy]

That's correct but has in my opinion nothing to do with the two minute rule. The two minute rule is in my understanding an instrument in the planning process: "Shall I do it immediately or later?" And "plan your work" is one kind of work. Another kind of work is "work as it shows up" (unplanned) regardless of whether the completion takes one, two or 60 minutes

I am right with this. I would make a distinction. Are you focus or not ? Let's say I am working on something I am deeply focus on. I think at something. Most of the time I just take a piece of paper write on it what I think about very shortly and throw it in my inbox. I won't apply the 2 mn rule. Except if I judge that the income is most important and worth to stop what I am doing to apply it. It happens, but indeed rarely.

@Roman (German speaking) What about the extreme example: your boss/coleague/wife enters a room and asks for a pencil because she lost hers. Do you collect her request in your inbox for further processing and organizing or simply give her your pencil? @Gardener
GTD is the Advanced Common Sense – not the Ridiculous Set of Rules..

If my wife or my boss suddenly enter and speak to me and I am working on something I just stop what I am doing and answer or write the subject and the things to do very quickly. Then I drop the paper in my inbox in the same way than above...

The 2 mn rule apply for me in 2 cases
1. I am clarifying my inbox. An item has to be done in less than 2 mn I do it and follow the process
2. I am At my office on my desk and not focus on something. Something Happens. I think to something I must do and less than 2 mn I will do it immediately. Idem If someone comes.

For the chicken the main question is "what has my attention ? "
Do I need to do it now and can I or not ? It I must do it now and freeze that chicken because I am going back from my errands Of course I would do it. It is a question of good sens...

I love that rule, and I still learn it an try to apply it the best I can every day.
I hope I did understand it well and did not miss something...

 

[schmeggahead]

If my wife or my boss suddenly enter and speak to me and I am working on something I just stop what I am doing and answer or write the subject and the things to do very quickly. Then I drop the paper in my inbox in the same way than above...

I kind of do a bit of the opposite approach: I write down my next action or thought on what I am working on (just enough to resume my mental state before they arrived). I toss that into IN.

Then I can give them my full attention, capturing as needed and then do another capture my thoughts so I can resume processing what was brought to me, tossing it into IN while pulling out what I was working on before if I have time remaining to continue.

It's cool to see multiple solutions to the same problem. Now I know what to do with someone who won't wait for me to save state before taking my attention.
Clayton.

Courtesy can be a powerful productivity tool, when used wisely.

 

[FocusGuy]

I kind of do a bit of the opposite approach: I write down my next action or thought on what I am working on (just enough to resume my mental state before they arrived). I toss that into IN.

I like this way of doing. Thanks for the idea. I noticed that after the storm passed I take some time to get through again. This way is a good way to rush in work immediately after. Also I notice that my physical inbox is indeed one of my best tool. Perfect for interruption, perfect for ideas on the rush, better than collecting with OF inbox. I cut a few little piece of paper I put on my desk so I can jot little notes immediately inside my inbox.

 

[Gardener]

As I understand it, he says to collect all the actions related to a process

I think the idea is that every effort/project/possible project should have representation in the system, to get it out of your mind.

But that's not the same as fully predicting all the actions for each of those things. I don't think that's part of the process.

 

[Jeremy Jones]

Agreed. I never try to list out all the actions for any project. The thought of doing that will kill all my progress on everything because it's too daunting.

So if I envision any project, I might think of three to five things I obviously need to do and record those in the project. But the only thing(s) that will go into next actions are those that can be acted on directly, with no gating items, and which I can completely control.

 

[DKPhoto]

My point assumed that the Pay Bill project was already in your GTD system, so processed, clarified and written on your NA lists- In this case Fetch Bill.

Once you complete this NA it would take longer to add the NA (Pay bill) to your lists than just do it (okay that’s possibly arguable, but it’s not massively different) so just get on and do it.

I have a project on my list to Photograph the flowers outside the pub next door for a brewery competition. My NA is to sort out the equipment to take.

It’s likely that i will then go and photograph them, come back, download the photos, edit and process them, and then supply them to the pub, all in one go. None of these actions will be written down, as I will just do them.

However if the phone goes whilst I am downloading them, and I have to go and do something else, then the NA that goes on my list is “edit photos” (once started the download is automatic so nothing else for me to do).

My point about the 2 minute rule is that if the action AFTER the Next Action takes less than 2 minutes then just do it, don’t bother processing it, unless you get interrupted and can’t complete it.

Although it’s called a rule, it can be used in more than one place IMO.

This is a bit off the topic of the OP but...



I may have misinterpreted your point here, but just to make sure the 2 minute rule is clear for anyone reading this...

My understanding is that the 2 minute rule applies specifically to time you're spending on the processing/clarifying phase of GTD workflow. Ie: taking inbox items and other miscellaneous inputs and decided whether they are actionable and if there is a project etc. If an item is actionable and the action would take less than 2 minutes then the general guidance from David and Co is to do it in the moment rather than spend time organising and tracking it in the system.

 

[DKPhoto]

Having said all that, I actually use Checklists for regularly occurring bills such as Pay Credit Card bill. This does have all the individual steps listed, but i only see the collapsed name (Pay Credit Card Bill) in my NA lists. I can tick each action off just to make sure I have done them.

I use a software based list and my checklist has a tag (context), a start date (the date the statement arrives) and a due date (the date payment needs to be completed). It recurs every month.

I have the same for my VAT bill too, but every quarter.

As all the steps have the same context there is no need to change anything.

So once set up i have nothing further to do in terms of processing-it appears in my NA list the date the statement arrives.

 

[Bill Myers]

On page 78 of the updated edition of Getting Things Done, DA writes, "A project is sufficiently planned for implementation when every next-action step has been decided on every front that can actually be moved on without some other component's having to be completed first. If the project has multiple components, each of them should be assessed appropriately by asking, 'Is there something that anyone could be doing on this right now?' You could be coordinating speakers for the conference, for instance, at the same time you're finding the appropriate site."

That says pretty clearly, at least to me, that DA recommends that if there are multiple next actions for a project that I can move on now (i.e. that don't have any dependencies) I should include them all in my next-action lists. I've found that for most of my more complex projects, this makes a lot of sense both from the standpoint of efficiency as well as keeping things off my mind.

I understand there are those in this forum who are either uncomfortable with that approach or who have projects that just don't lend themselves to it. That's fine. I'm a big proponent of people doing what's most comfortable for them. Your GTD system shouldn't be based on my preferences and needs but on yours. I would be cautious about stating such a personal preference as a universal principle, though. I do believe the idea that there should be "a maximum of one action per project" as a rule or even a recommendation is a misnomer.

 

[TesTeq]

Your GTD system shouldn't be based on my preferences and needs but on yours. I would be cautious about stating such a personal preference as a universal principle, though. I do believe the idea that there should be "a maximum of one action per project" as a rule or even a recommendation is a misnomer.

@bcmyers2112 Totally agree! Personal preferences that are contrary to the basic principles of GTD should stay personal. The idea of "a maximum of one Next action per project" was so many times debunked on this forum that I hardly believe that anybody can still say it. There's important difference between "Actions" and "Next Actions". An Action becomes a Next Action when it ceases to be dependent on anything.

By the way: I think we should call these subsequent Actions "Next Next Actions" or "N2Actions"…

To summarize: for an active Project you must have at least one Next Action and as many Actions as you need to get this Project out of your mind.