Next Action with deadlines

[bcmyers2112]

Hi All! I have been practicing GTD for the last 2 years, but was always a bit unclear on this one thing. Lets say you have a project that has a deadline, for discussion sake, lets say the project is piano recital on October 1st. The next action defined for this project is "practice piano". Should "practice piano" be put on Calendar? or on the Next Actions list? the practicing doesn't need to happen on any specific date or time, so it doesn't feel right putting it on the calendar... but if it's in the next action list, how do I make sure I will get to it in the sea of other next actions from other projects that may not have a deadline?

Hi, Vincent. I actually think scheduling time for practicing piano make sense. If you don't do it often enough, you won't be ready for the recital. So it is time-sensitive.

I can offer a few ideas on how to handle something like that:
1. Schedule specific dates/times in your calendar. As long as you can honor those appointments with yourself, I think it would work.
2. Schedule it for a specific date but not a specific time (most electronic calendars allow you to schedule "all day" events, or you could just pencil it into a paper calendar). Just honor it like any other time-specific commitment.
3. There is a technique called "don't break the chain" that Jerry Seinfeld has used to motivate himself to write a new joke every day. Every time you perform a certain task you'd like to make a habit, you cross off that day on a calendar. The idea is not to have any dates without an "x" through them -- an unbroken chain.

Don't worry about the argument that has erupted over the interpretation of GTD -- you get to decide for yourself how to interpret and use GTD. The best guide is experience. Trial and error is the best way to learn. Before long, you'll be the one giving others advice.

Best of luck with your GTD practice.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Of course, Folke. We indeed want the same thing. I think your approach is great and I am so glad it works so well for you! I do still disagree with your assessment of "the unfortunate side of scheduling". For me, it works beautifully.

I've never been one to block off time for tasks on my calendar because I am in sales and unexpected calls from a customer that upend my plans for a given day aren't interruptions in my world -- they're vital opportunities for advancing my business. You have however opened my mind to how time-blocking can be perfectly consistent with a good GTD practice. Who knows? There may be opportunities for me to apply this knowledge in the future. Thanks for sharing the way you do it.

 

[Longstreet]

bcmyers2112 : You are very welcome! I have been doing GTD for many years now and my whole-life practice has indeed transformed my life. Everyone has a different wrinkle in aspects of implementation, but the basic principles are ageless and GTD is the foundation of, well....how I get things done!

 

[Folke]

As I've said before Folke - if your purpose in continuing your argument is to have David make changes to what you feel is the key to GTD, then this is not the appropriate forum. This forum is to help others who are using GTD.

Maureen

One purpose does not necessarily exclude the other, but that aside I genuinely think (and definitely hope) that I contribute just as much as anybody else here to help people understand and implement GTD. And I think David, too, has a professional interest in wanting to get better and better at understanding how his recommendations are understood by others and how he can fine-tune his presentation and recommendations.

Ask yourself why people would want this kind of help on a forum or would want to discuss their understanding of it. My guess is that one reason might be that the subject matter is abstract and unfamiliar to many, especially to those how have come to GTD straight from a previously "undocumented" life (without lists or calendars in any form, nor any other form of project or management training, nor any experience from other apps or app forums where these matters are discussed). Another reason could be that people want to compare different tweaks to the methodology in order to find the most optimal twist for themselves. A further reason could be that the recommendations obviously are not entirely unambiguous - this and many other threads bear testimony to the fact that different readers can refer to the exact same passage in the same book and take home entirely different messages. I have heard many GTD adherents explain how they interpret the 2001 book on how to use the calendar. To many it is crystal clear that David describes an utterly restrictive approach compared to, say, project management inspired personal methodologies where you schedule virtually everything that is of any importance. But lots of other people take home the exact opposite message from the same chapter - that GTD boils down to scheduling; I have even heard one claiming that "GTD is all about scheduling". It has always fascinated me that interpretations can differ so much when we all feel that the book spells it out so very clearly - it is only when we compare notes that we realize the differences.

Apparently you have very little personal interest in discussing differences in what the various interpretations are, and the pros and cons of each such approach. But how then do you advise someone who is asking for help if you do not let them know that these different interpretations exist? And why would you try to stop others from debating the pros and cons if that is the "help" they need to to more fully appreciate the merits of each approach and create their own system optimized for themselves? By debating we get better and better at putting our finger on the things that really matter most to us - at least that is how I feel.

 

[GTD-Sweden]

As for David's terminology I am a bit uncertain what he actually means. He uses the word "priority" for the choice of action you actually do in the moment. He also uses the word "priority" for the inherent "fourth decision factor" (along with context etc) that you will consider when choosing a task to do now. He also uses the word "priority" for the "bad" practice of "staging" tasks ("ABC prioritization" - do the As before the Bs etc). Funnily, I think pushing things into Someday is precisely an A vs B prioritizing that results in some thing being hidden, so I am not sure how he would reconcile that. Does anyone know?

These are really interesting questions, great post. I have always found the time-context-energy easier to grasp than the fourth priority in GTD. For me prioritization - and focus on the important - is the core of productivity. And it would be valuable if the GTD-onion would be peeled a bit futher in this area.

 

[Longstreet]

In my discourse and understanding, David makes it clear that priority is quite complex and can change rapidly. So,when you are deciding what action to do next and you go through context, time, and energy, you are left with priority. What is your top priority at this moment? I go up the levels to Areas of Responsibility and goals. I consider people in these mental deliberations as well in terms of relationships. Yes, a top priority is to write that draft of the discussion section for an important manuscript, but my graduate student needs my help with her experimental design. That relationship and the sense of fulfillment I get by helping others pushes this to the top priority. So I work with her. An hour from now, a new sense of priority may arise based on changes in my professional and personal world. So.....priority is complex and constantly changing. It is David Allen's brilliance that recognized this.

 

[Folke]

I think you are over-simplifying it, Longstreet. What you are talking about is priority in ONE of all the senses that David Allen talks about it - choosing what to do right now. This is constantly changing, as you and David both say perfectly correctly, and I totally agree, but I am sorry to say that I see no brilliance at all in recognizing that obvious fact. I myself would not even have chosen the abstract word priority for this - I would simply have called it "choice of task" - but be that as it may; since David has chosen to call it priority let me qualify it a little bit by calling it "momentary priority".

But then you have the next kind of priority, the "fourth factor" that determines - along with context, energy and time - whether you will actually select this task to be your "momentary priority" (i.e. your choice of task right now). This fourth-factor priority presumably is a more stable kind of priority (importance, urgency, whatever). For example, if you have one action that tells you to send a potential customer a presentation or quotation that you promised them a couple of days ago in a phone conversation (without giving them a specific date), and you have another action to stock up firewood in time for the Christmas holidays, it is pretty obvious that the former has a higher priority from now on, even though your momentary priorities may fluctuate. One question is how GTD would deal with this stable kind of priority. I have seen no clue from David Allen, except that he recommends that you hide lots of things in Someday. This might mean that in order not to be overloaded you would demote the firewood task to Someday (or make it a Tickler). This means you will not see it and not do it even if you happen to be standing right next to a firewood shop tomorrow. Well, that would be "GTD by the book", as far as I can see, but it is not good enough for me. Just saying.

I appreciate that people try to defend David Allen and GTD. I do too. He deserves it. He did a good job overall. But I think we need to be at least at least a little bit honest. David is not very clear at all on the issue of priority, and we have to sort most of it out for ourselves. And, to some quite significant extent I believe this is what this whole scheduling discussion is actually all about - how to highlight the important things - the "priorities".

 

[TesTeq]

In my discourse and understanding, David makes it clear that priority is quite complex and can change rapidly. So,when you are deciding what action to do next and you go through context, time, and energy, you are left with priority. What is your top priority at this moment? I go up the levels to Areas of Responsibility and goals. I consider people in these mental deliberations as well in terms of relationships. Yes, a top priority is to write that draft of the discussion section for an important manuscript, but my graduate student needs my help with her experimental design. That relationship and the sense of fulfillment I get by helping others pushes this to the top priority. So I work with her. An hour from now, a new sense of priority may arise based on changes in my professional and personal world. So.....priority is complex and constantly changing. It is David Allen's brilliance that recognized this.

Totally agree. No over-simplification found here.

And David's "momentary priority" is based on the "life intuition" built during Weekly Reviews.

One interesting feature of David's "momentary priority" is its binary nature. You do something and you don't do everything else. Foreground and background. Signal and noise. A and C - no B.

 

[mommoe436]

Apparently you have very little personal interest in discussing differences in what the various interpretations are, and the pros and cons of each such approach. But how then do you advise someone who is asking for help if you do not let them know that these different interpretations exist? And why would you try to stop others from debating the pros and cons if that is the "help" they need to to more fully appreciate the merits of each approach and create their own system optimized for themselves? By debating we get better and better at putting our finger on the things that really matter most to us - at least that is how I feel.

There have been a lot of insightful and helpful information in all the posts, including yours , people sharing their perspective and what they do, making suggestions, acknowledging others points of view, and yes discussing the whole calendar thing. But they move forward. I do not find repeating the same thing and ignoring information that supports a perspective different from yours to be helpful, it can confuse and for sure hijacks the original topic/question.

The question from Vincent Sung was for help in how to implement GTD. "Hi All! I have been practicing GTD for the last 2 years, but was always a bit unclear on this one thing. Lets say you have a project that has a deadline, for discussion sake, lets say the project is piano recital on October 1st. The next action defined for this project is "practice piano". Should "practice piano" be put on Calendar? or on the Next Actions list? the practicing doesn't need to happen on any specific date or time, so it doesn't feel right putting it on the calendar... but if it's in the next action list, how do I make sure I will get to it in the sea of other next actions from other projects that may not have a deadline?

bcmyers2112 provided very good options.

If you want to provide your thoughts to David and DAC, you might try becoming a CONNECT Member, or sending a letter, but suggest reading current information from David and DAC....there has been a lot since 2001.

 

[Folke]

TesTeq, I fully believe that there is no significant over-simplification as far as you personally are concerned. If I recall correctly from your earlier posts and other threads you are quite satisfied with the two-step procedure of 1) hiding away quite a big number of perfectly-possible-but-not urgent tasks in Someday, and b) digging out any good next action choices straight from the "raw" next action lists each time you need to pick one. Both of these are very "core GTD".

For Longstreet and many other schedulers, however, and for myself, the situation is a bit different. They/we seem to want to pre-identify the particularly critical actions in order to make them easy to see and difficult to miss. Longstreet, Maureen and many others place these on the calendar. I believe it is probably fair to characterize these tasks as being "high priority" in the more stable "fourth factor" sense. They probably have some inherent importance or urgency about them. If in every momentary decision about which task to pick right now their inherent (stable) priority can be weighed against your current energy and context etc, and if you dynamically "renegotiate" them in this way every time you see them it would still be quite similar to core GTD to have them pre-identified. But if you give up this re-negotiation it is less similar.

The reason I called Longstreet's description "over-simplified" is that he did not mention what kind of "priority" it is that determines which tasks he would put on the calendar - it is definitely not the same kind of momentary priority that he described in that post, and apparently this other, more stable, "priority" (or whatever we choose to call it) is important both to him and Maureen and GTD-Sweden and many others. That's what causes them to put these things on the calendar even if they are not strictly date-related (and it is what causes me to flag them red, wanting to reconsider them multiple times per day).

 

[Longstreet]

Fair enough, Folke. I see your point although what I schedule is also tied into the GTD philosophy. At my weekly review, once I have gone through the standard steps of reviewing, I look at my projects and generally pick 2-4 that I really wish/need to focus on this week. I then schedule major next actions from each for my prime high-focus time -- for me, mornings -- and so I end up with a week with some morning times blocked off. As I have said previously, it may not be a single next action that I schedule -- many times it is simply a "project block". So now we enter the situation I described above about priority and adding that component to the mix of deciding what to do. I look at my calendar and yes, there is that next action or project block. I HAD decided in my weekly review that that was what I deemed important to place my focus. I then quickly review my next actions lists and new things that have come in -- like one of my graduate students really needing/wanting to meet with me. About 60-70% of the time, I will stay with what I had planned and then schedule a meeting with my graduate student for a later time. BUT, there are times as I described where the feeling I have in my gut tells me that she is where I need to focus NOW. SO I either reschedule what I had on my calendar, or simply delete it. Remember, all of these items remain on my projects and next actions lists, so I do not lose anything in the calendar black hole.

I maintain my position that priority is very complex and dynamic, hence I still believe that David Allen was/is brilliant in recognizing this and simple tagging, priority codes, etc. are not sufficient. One must use their own intuition many, many times a day.

 

[Folke]

Thanks, Longstreet, I have a clearer understanding now for how you schedule stuff, and I think it sounds quite acceptable even for me - even though I do not think I would go to that length myself to secure enough "solo time". For me it is usually sufficient to just try my best to avoid unnecessary meetings and to try to book as many of the necessary ones in the afternoon whenever possible. But I do see your point.

As for the rapidly fluctuating priorities that you cannot decide in advance, cannot "code for" in your lists and must judge intuitively every time I maintain that this only applies to the "momentary priority", i.e. when deciding what task to pick right now. And that is how David Allen explains it as well. It is not true for other kinds of priorities. For example, David Allen recommends that you throw stuff into Someday for a whole week. That is not something you constantly reassess or cannot "code for". That prioritization is a very physical move indeed ("hardcoded") and something you later reassess during the weekly review.

And it also is not true for the "fourth factor" type priorities, as in my example above: The proposal I promised to send the customer is more critical (important and urgent etc) than stocking up firewood for Christmas. Those priorities are very stable indeed and can certainly be "coded for" (that's roughly what I do, so I know; although it is not quite "priority" I am coding for; it is review attention/frequency, but it boils down to something very similar). Whether I am in the shower or heading off into a meeting or playing with a grandchild the proposal remains to be a more critical task than the firewood - and yet none of them would be my "momentary priority" that I would choose to do right there and then in those cases as I am busy with something else. But the coding remains correct - I only need to adjust a couple or so during an average week.

 

[Longstreet]

Folke : Actually, I see all of what you described as being interrelated and connected in a complex manner; hence, why priorities are dynamic and changing. The fourth level you describe is exactly what I described that I do in my weekly review and scheduling -- those 2-4 projects that are "high priority" for the coming week. However, the fourth level HAS to be integrated with the moment-to-moment priority shifts. I do not think you can ignore either and to me, they are strongly connected and affect each other avidly.

 

[Folke]

It seems we are seeing things more similarly than we initially suspected. In other words, those say 4 projects that you have determined are "high priority" (in the "fourth factor" priority sense) can be determined in a stable way and can be "coded". You "code" them by putting a time slot for them on the calendar and I code for them by giving them a red flag. But we both do something to make them easy to see, whereas I think TesTeq probably does not (which is more "ultracore" GTD 2001).

Is this "fourth factor priority" interrelated with the "momentary priority" (choosing a task in the moment)? Yes, obviously. We choose a task based on all four criteria. The "momentary priority" is determined by the gut with regard to all four criteria, one of which is the "fourth factor" priority and the other three are context, energy and time.

Are they interrelated the other way around, too? In other words, can the "momentary priority" (whether we choose to do it right now or not) affect the stable "fourth factor" priority that we had determined at some stage, e.g. at a weekly review? Yes, this can sometimes happen, too: If we push it off too many times it may become more and more critical to get it done even more quickly, and then at some stage beyond that, if it still has not been done yet, the whole task may even have become meaningless. So there is an interrelation in that other direction, too, but it is less common and usually less pronounced. For me it is easier to treat these types of priorities as independent. What I choose to do in the moment is one thing, always changing, cannot be coded. And the "fourth factor" priority is a separate thing, very stable, can be coded, only seldom needs to be changed, as I think I understood that you had noticed, too. (How often do you need to swap the 2-4 projects during the week? Only in exceptional cases, right? For me, too, the high-medium-low color flagging that I use hardly ever needs adjustment.)

 

[Longstreet]

Folke : Yes, we are seeing things pretty much in the same manner -- it is just our implementation of those "fourth factor" priorities that we do differently. As for how often I change those priorities on my calendar -- I said in my initial post that I keep those approximately 60-70% of the time.

 

[Folke]

jenkins: Sorry, I did not see your post until now. And sorry for making it sound complicated with my home-made terms. David Allen uses the word "priority" for many different kinds of things and I saw a need to distinguish some of them in order to determine how to best deal with each one.

One of the senses in which David Allen uses the word "priority" is for your "top pick right now" - whatever that choice is and for whatever reason it was that you chose it. For example, you may have lots of urgent and important work to do in the office, but you happen to be standing next to a hardware store and decide to knock off a task titled "Buy hammer" first of all (probably because you are in the right context). It need not necessarily be important or urgent or anything, but it is what you voluntarily chose to do, all aspects considered. It is in fact your top pick. That is the one I named "momentary priority" (probably not the best term for it). David just calls it "priority".

Then David also mentions the fact that some things simply are more important and urgent than others, generally speaking. He says it is usually quite easy to tell which things are more important and urgent overall. No rocket science required, and I agree. These priorities are quite stable as they are derived from your upper horizons (goals, visions etc). David calls this just "priority", too. This kind of more stable priority is one of the four factors that determine what your top pick is going to be. Your top pick, the "momentary priority" (fickle priority), is decided by your gut by combining the aspects of context, energy, time and (stable) priority. This stable priority is the one I referred to as "fourth factor priority" (probably not the best possible term either). In the example above maybe you have stuff in the office that has a high "fourth factor" priority (important, urgent etc - you really MUST do it SOON), and maybe the hammer purchase has not (perhaps no hurry at all, really), but you still decide (for some reason) to buy the hammer first, since you have a good opportunity now (and maybe it is on sale, too).

As for my own system, I do not really think about "momentary priority". I just choose and do. It is intuitive. I have no coding for it, no dates, no alarms, no nothing. But I do have coding for area/project, for context and for something similar to "fourth factor" priority. So I can look at these three (and sort and group and filter and whatever) and then choose which tasks to pick right now.

As for the "fourth factor" priority I do not actually try to assess aspects like importance, urgency etc. I take a more operational approach. I ask myself how often at least I want to review this task (and consider whether now is a good time to do it). If the answer is "multiple times per day" I mark it red (high). If the answer is "at least once per day (in my morning scan)" I mark it blue (medium), and if the answer is that "once a week is enough" I mark it turquoise (low). (In addition, I see the tasks whenever I look for a particular context or focus on a particular area/project etc, but the above times are the guaranteed minimum).

I have found that this "review attention" coding is extremely stable, and the color helps me spot what I need very easily. It saves me time not to have to look at everything every morning. It saves me unnecessary anxiety to know that I can easily find my critical tasks even if I have not starred them tentatively for action today (just look for any red tasks; not many of those and the red bar does stand out). It allows me to keep lots of not-so-urgent stuff on my next list - I have no need for deprioritizing these into Someday and thereby miss out on good opportunities to get them done.

Ah, that last sentence made me remember. David Allen also talks about shoving stuff into Someday to be able to focus more clearly on what you have decided to do first. For some reason he does not use the term prioritization for this, but that is just what it is. It is one of the core GTD tricks, but I personally do not use it (I do not like the downside of it).

 

[GTD-Sweden]

It seems we are seeing things more similarly than we initially suspected. In other words, those say 4 projects that you have determined are "high priority" (in the "fourth factor" priority sense) can be determined in a stable way and can be "coded". You "code" them by putting a time slot for them on the calendar and I code for them by giving them a red flag. But we both do something to make them easy to see, whereas I think TesTeq probably does not (which is more "ultracore" GTD 2001).

Is this "fourth factor priority" interrelated with the "momentary priority" (choosing a task in the moment)? Yes, obviously. We choose a task based on all four criteria. The "momentary priority" is determined by the gut with regard to all four criteria, one of which is the "fourth factor" priority and the other three are context, energy and time.

Are they interrelated the other way around, too? In other words, can the "momentary priority" (whether we choose to do it right now or not) affect the stable "fourth factor" priority that we had determined at some stage, e.g. at a weekly review? Yes, this can sometimes happen, too: If we push it off too many times it may become more and more critical to get it done even more quickly, and then at some stage beyond that, if it still has not been done yet, the whole task may even have become meaningless. So there is an interrelation in that other direction, too, but it is less common and usually less pronounced. For me it is easier to treat these types of priorities as independent. What I choose to do in the moment is one thing, always changing, cannot be coded. And the "fourth factor" priority is a separate thing, very stable, can be coded, only seldom needs to be changed, as I think I understood that you had noticed, too. (How often do you need to swap the 2-4 projects during the week? Only in exceptional cases, right? For me, too, the high-medium-low color flagging that I use hardly ever needs adjustment.)

This is a great post, I have not fully grasped this before.

It is interesting to tie this to how these deeper, stable priorities comes about. As Meg Edwards says (or rather she is quoting David?) - when in doubt what your priorities are, bump up to a higher level. Is not that what David has in mind when he talks about ”hardwire your intuitive judgements” below? Could we ad ”hardwire your intuitive judgements” and thus setting your stable deeper priorities for the week right?

”Doing a weekly look at all your projects, actions and schedule provides as ”inner coordination” that is fundamentally intuitive because of all the shifting factors involved in the complexities of your life. As with all the upper Horizons of Focus, your engagement with this level will assist you greatly in what I call ”hardwire your intuitive judgements,” as you sharpen the functioning of this subjective algoritm with better preparation.” (Making it all work, page 222).

 

[TesTeq]

"Doing a weekly look at all your projects, actions and schedule provides as "inner coordination" that is fundamentally intuitive because of all the shifting factors involved in the complexities of your life. As with all the upper Horizons of Focus, your engagement with this level will assist you greatly in what I call "hardwire your intuitive judgements," as you sharpen the functioning of this subjective algoritm with better preparation." (Making it all work, page 222).

That's a quote I should find myself! Thank you GTD-Sweden!

Folke uses flags to mark priority Projects and Next Actions. I prefer to "hardwire my intuitive judgements" during Weekly Reviews.

Several years ago I discovered that GTD is not about dumping everything out of my brain. There's a second step - filling my brain (during Weekly Reviews) with an "organized intuition" necessary for Next Action prioritization. So it is not true that everything is externalized from my brain. Stuff is dumped out and neatly labelled cabinets are moved in.

 

[Folke]

TesTeq, I don't think one necessarily excludes the other. It is not the judgment (decision) as such that I (nor, presumably, Longstreet) have a problem with - there is no problem determining (from scratch) whether a given task is important or not. You can do that over and over, and consistently get the same result (unless something significant has happened in the meantime). This is probably due to the "hardwired intuition" we build through repeated reflection and reviewing.

What the color marking (or in Longstreet's case, the time blocking) is about is not not halp make decisions but just to make these decided items more visible, easier and quicker to find during the day and week. To make the lists more "likable" and neat, if you will. Why rely on memory or repetitive work if you can get it out of your head? For you this has very little value, as I understand it, because you're happy to rely on your memory and, if necessary, on your ability to quickly scan the entire list every time you want to refresh your memory. I fully respect that, too - why would you clutter your lists if you have no use for it.

I totally agree that the "hardwiring" is indeed honed by proper reviewing. Reviewing is key to it all. Without reflection and nurturing it will all fall to pieces.

 

[TesTeq]

What the color marking (or in Longstreet's case, the time blocking) is about is not not halp make decisions but just to make these decided items more visible, easier and quicker to find during the day and week. To make the lists more "likable" and neat, if you will. Why rely on memory or repetitive work if you can get it out of your head? For you this has very little value, as I understand it, because you're happy to rely on your memory and, if necessary, on your ability to quickly scan the entire list every time you want to refresh your memory.

The length of our active (Projects and Next Actions) lists - that's the difference between us. I scan huge lists during my Weekly Review but my active lists are small. I may have hundreds of Projects and Next Actions in my Someday/Maybe inventory but I limit the number of active Projects to up to 9. Of course I've also got some "life maintenance" recurring actions (monthly bills, laundry, barber etc.) but they live in my calendar or on my checklists.

And yes: I block time for my active Projects. But in the "worst" case I've got only 9 Projects and maybe ad-hoc Next Actions.