GTD-Sweden said:
I think this subject is broader ... ... minimalist approach seems harder
I totally agree that the whole subject is broader. I also believe that we all tend to reject methods that we perceive as overly simplistic, crude, clunky etc in relationship to our desires (for clarity, confidence etc).
I think this whole discussion is broader in the sense that the underlying problem that many of us perceive is that we risk being drowned in long lists of actions and/or drowning in too many shorter lists. We fear losing our overview and fear that we will forget some of the things that we cannot afford to delay for too long (whether an action has a hard deadline or not it can still be time-critical - every day or hour counts.)
Some of the methods that have been discussed on this forum for dealing with this overwhelm is:
Prioritization - reclassifying some actions as Someday/Maybe even though they are in fact "next" (i.e. perfectly possible to do now and I have no other reason than sheer overload not to consider them). Or removing entire projects from your active project list; essentially the same kind of thing. This is a trick recommended by David Allen, but he does not use the word "priority" for it. Basically, I do not like this method myself. I do not like A-B(-C) prioritization like this, i.e. entirely hiding away perfectly possible and "approved" things - there is a chance that I will be in exactly the right context to get it out of the way without unnecessary delay if I leave it in view on my next actions list (active project list).
Scheduling - putting particularly important things on the calendar even if they are not hard. This goes against the fundamental approach described in GTD 2001, but has apparently been recommended by David and some of his coaches since then. I personally do not like this method either. As I can change these dates at my own whim anytime I want they have very limited real significance (pure clutter, IMO). I of course realize, though, that if used sparingly, like Longstreet does it, its negative effects will be quite negligible, and it may help address the overwhelm problem to have the critical tasks conveniently identified on this separate "list" (which happens to be designed as a calendar).
Flagging - marking actions with various colors, icons or other visual cues that help you spot the critical things and help you avoid overly frequent reviewing of others. This is the method I personally prefer. It has the advantage that I do not have to introduce or adjust any vacuous dates. Unfortunately this method has not been mentioned by David, but I cannot see that it in any way would conflict with the core principles. (In fact, I think it tallies extremely well with the core principles.)
I agree with TesTeq that blocking time for (large) projects - or entire areas, for that matter - is quite different from blocking out time for individual tasks (or smallish projects). In fact, time blocking is something most of us do without even documenting it when we are aware that, say, 9-5 is predominantly office time or Sundays are predominantly family time. Please note that these time blocks are "hard landscape". Office hours have been agreed with others. family time has been communicated to, and is expected by, others. They represent "hard" commitments, external to yourself. And you could go on - if you work in an overly meeting-oriented company, to, say, block out time in the morning for doing individual work tasks and communicate that clearly to others (e.g. in your shared calendar system) to prevent them from booking you. This is also "hard landscape", since it is in fact something you have communicated with others, and you have perhaps given them the right to book you at other times, something you cannot easily change without incurring additional renegotiation work with your colleagues. You cannot easily move such commitments to another day at your own whim. That is what makes them "hard".
