Next Actions related to Projects List

[Thijs]

Hi! I have a beginner's question after reading the original GTD-book.

When I look at a project on my Projects List, I often think about 10 different things I can or should do related to that project. However, it's not clear to me if I should always only have one Next Action related to the project on my Next Actions-list, or if those actions and ideas should be captured elsewhere.

Thanks a bunch! Thijs

 

[Folke]

Put down all actions that would be possible to do now, but leave out all the other ones that cannot be started until other actions have been completed first.

 

[DenaDahilig]

I often find that, to flush out a project, I have to do a brain dump of what's needed to get the project done. I'd be overwhelmed if all of that went on my next actions list but, darn it, I'm gonna forget it all if I don't get it out of my head.

Put down all actions that would be possible to do now, but leave out all the other ones that cannot be started until other actions have been completed first.

But if that's just waaaaaay too many actions, you could pick one or two to go on your next actions list and write the rest down somewhere and stick them with whatever file or folder goes with that project, or in an Action Support folder.

Lots of ways to answer your question, and the more you work with the system, the easier it'll be for you to find what works best in your situation.

Dena

 

[jenkins]

Hi! I have a beginner's question after reading the original GTD-book.

When I look at a project on my Projects List, I often think about 10 different things I can or should do related to that project. However, it's not clear to me if I should always only have one Next Action related to the project on my Next Actions-list, or if those actions and ideas should be captured elsewhere.

Thanks a bunch! Thijs

Look back through the book for what David Allen calls "Project Support Material." Any actions or ideas related to a project that are not Next Actions are a form of reference material called PSM. This could be a simple list of ideas you don't want to forget, or it could be more formal project planning materials, all the way from outlines and mind maps to Gantt charts.

So just to recap: A "Next Action" must be possible to do right now, assuming you are in the appropriate context. It cannot be dependent on doing something else first, or else that thing would be the true Next Action. The rule is that you want AT LEAST one Next Action for every project. If there are truly multiple actions that can be done independently of one another to move a project forward, you should feel free to add that to your Next Actions list (and I would actually encourage that you do). For other ideas and actions that aren't quite Next Actions yet, you should capture those and organize them outside of your Next Actions lists as Project Support Material.

DenaDahilig I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. If you have a project that's not a Someday/Maybe project, and that project could be moved forward with a bunch of non-dependent (i.e., "Next") actions, why would you so limit your options? How would you discriminate? To me, you either want to move the project forward or you don't. I guess I can see thinking, "Well, I don't WANT to start that set of actions until X is done first" -- but what if you change your mind? That'd be like saying, "I don't want to add these calls to my @Calls list because I don't think I'll feel like making calls for the next week or two."

 

[DenaDahilig]

DenaDahilig I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. If you have a project that's not a Someday/Maybe project, and that project could be moved forward with a bunch of non-dependent (i.e., "Next") actions, why would you so limit your options? How would you discriminate? To me, you either want to move the project forward or you don't. I guess I can see thinking, "Well, I don't WANT to start that set of actions until X is done first" -- but what if you change your mind? That'd be like saying, "I don't want to add these calls to my @Calls list because I don't think I'll feel like making calls for the next week or two."

Excellent question! Because I have a small brain that is easily overwhelmed.

I have a current project "Membership Booklet Revised". There are literally fifty - oh, God, more! - next actions I could do right now without waiting for anything or anyone else. If I put all of those on my list I will see it as clutter, I will start getting that gnawing, overwhelmed feeling in my gut, and I will simultaneously lose track of any one particular action. See, what I'm really doing is tricking my small brain into the doing part of the system and not the deer-in-the-headlights part of the system... not that there is such a thing, but if there were, I could be its poster child.

So, how would I discriminate? In the same way I discriminate when deciding which next actions will get done in the next few hours. I know my lists intimately and trust that I make good choices most of the time. And my lists are extremely fluid which means things don't stay on them too long.

Don't you find, too, that once you start on a next action for a project it inevitably leads into another next action simply because you're in the mindset the project needs? So things don't stop getting done simply because I limit my lists.

Thank you, thank you for asking!

Dena

 

[Folke]

Dena, when we try to answer a question like this, there are at least two different options. One is to say how we personally prefer to deal with it. The other is to try to relay what we we have understood to be David Allen's recommendation. The two may coincide, or they may not.

In this case, David Allen says quite clearly in the 2001 book that that we should list as next actions every possible action from "every moving part of each project". Coincidentally, that happens to be my own general preference, too. But who knows, David may have expressed it differently in some podcast or something, and your point is also valid at times. For example, if you have a list of 100 people that you need to call about an invitation, would you want each one of those as an individual next action? I definitely would not. I would probably put down one single action next action that says "Call people on the X list" .

 

[Gardener]

In this case, David Allen says quite clearly in the 2001 book that that we should list as next actions every possible action from "every moving part of each project".

There's a section that can be interpreted that way (though I don't interpret it that way), but just a page or so later, he says,

How much of this planning model do you really need to flesh out, and to what degree of detail? The simple answer is, as much as you need to get the project off your mind."

shortly followed by:

"Most projects, given my definition of a project as an outcome requiring more than one action, need no more than a listing of their outcome and next action for you to get them off your mind."

I checked the 2001 and 2015 edition, and this is in both of them, pretty near word for word. So I definitely wouldn't agree that standard GTD wants you to write all next actions that you could be acting on.

Me, I generally write one next action. If I'm afraid I'll forget something, I write it somewhere else.

 

[TesTeq]

"Most projects, given my definition of a project as an outcome requiring more than one action, need no more than a listing of their outcome and next action for you to get them off your mind."

The catch is: "off your mind" is not an absolute stable state. It depends on your mood and other factors. An important Project can haunt your mind today even if you get rid of it yesterday.

 

[Oogiem]

When I look at a project on my Projects List, I often think about 10 different things I can or should do related to that project. However, it's not clear to me if I should always only have one Next Action related to the project on my Next Actions-list, or if those actions and ideas should be captured elsewhere.

Do it whichever way works for you.

The key is that the project is not bothering you.

Personally I like to capture in my list manager or in my project support material as much information on upcoming projecs as I can. In my world most projects that have gone through a good and proper natural planning model session will not have their actions change much if at all over the lifetime of the project and some of my projects last decades or even lifetimes to complete.

For simple projects I'll put all the actions I can think of into my list manager (I use Omnifocus) and I usually set the projects to be sequential so only the next true available action shows up in my lists. I also do not like to have subprojects. If a project has a whole thread of actions that can be taken I split it out into a separate project. I don't really like having more than one available action to a project as that usually means I didn't think it through well enough or that the project is actually 2 projects.

Project support material can be in one of 2 places, small bits will in in Active projects in my note tool, DEVONThink, larger electronic files will be in my electronic filing cabinet in a folder under active_Projects and paper materials will be in a paper folder in my active_project drawer of a filing cabinet. I put in the note about each project where the location is of any or all extra project support material

 

[jenkins]

Excellent question! Because I have a small brain that is easily overwhelmed.

I have a current project "Membership Booklet Revised". There are literally fifty - oh, God, more! - next actions I could do right now without waiting for anything or anyone else. If I put all of those on my list I will see it as clutter, I will start getting that gnawing, overwhelmed feeling in my gut, and I will simultaneously lose track of any one particular action. See, what I'm really doing is tricking my small brain into the doing part of the system and not the deer-in-the-headlights part of the system... not that there is such a thing, but if there were, I could be its poster child.

So, how would I discriminate? In the same way I discriminate when deciding which next actions will get done in the next few hours. I know my lists intimately and trust that I make good choices most of the time. And my lists are extremely fluid which means things don't stay on them too long.

Don't you find, too, that once you start on a next action for a project it inevitably leads into another next action simply because you're in the mindset the project needs? So things don't stop getting done simply because I limit my lists.

Thank you, thank you for asking!

Dena

Good points, thanks for explaining. I don't know the specifics about your Membership Booklet project, but I do think I know what type of project you're referring to, and I've had a few of those in my work as well. It's one of those "Where do I even start?" projects -- LOTS of parallel actions and all in the same or very similar contexts, which makes decision-making/prioritizing a real puzzle.

I would caution however that I think this only applies when the actions are all cluttered up within the same or a very small number of context lists. If they could be distributed among multiple contexts, you'd be running a greater risk of missing an opportunity to move a project forward. That makes sense to me -- sure, if you have 15 Next Actions all on the @MicrosoftWord list, you're not running a big risk of slowing things down by only including 5 to get yourself going. But if you're leaving 1 or 2 Next Actions off a context list here and there, you're running a risk of being in the right place at the right time but not taking advantage of the opportunity.

 

[DenaDahilig]

But if you're leaving 1 or 2 Next Actions off a context list here and there, you're running a risk of being in the right place at the right time but not taking advantage of the opportunity.

Although I have a handful of contexts, the reality is that, since my studio is in my home, every context except "Errands" can be done (and has been done) from just about every room in the house, save the closets! So for my particular situation, I'm almost always in the right place. I know that's not the case for others here.

Although I only put a couple of things on a next actions list, I still have all of the other parallel next actions written down in the file and easily accessible.

I'm putting into practice my "Simplify" mantra in every way I can, and lean, mean lists are like Windex for my brain.

Thanks for such a thoughtful answer, jenkins!

Dena

 

[Bill Myers]

There's a section that can be interpreted that way (though I don't interpret it that way), but just a page or so later, he says,

How much of this planning model do you really need to flesh out, and to what degree of detail? The simple answer is, as much as you need to get the project off your mind."

shortly followed by:

"Most projects, given my definition of a project as an outcome requiring more than one action, need no more than a listing of their outcome and next action for you to get them off your mind."

I checked the 2001 and 2015 edition, and this is in both of them, pretty near word for word. So I definitely wouldn't agree that standard GTD wants you to write all next actions that you could be acting on.

Me, I generally write one next action. If I'm afraid I'll forget something, I write it somewhere else.

The point DA was making is that most projects, given how he defines them, will only have one next action that can be worked on at a time. Yet he does strongly suggest that with more complex projects you list all next actions you can do now (i.e. ones that don't have dependencies) in your lists. There's no contradiction there.

Nevertheless, no one is obligated to follow DA's suggestions. If you're more comfortable doing it another way and it isn't impeding your work, by all means follow your own path.

 

[Gardener]

The point DA was making is that most projects, given how he defines them, will only have one next action that can be worked on at a time. Yet he does strongly suggest that with more complex projects you list all next actions you can do now (i.e. ones that don't have dependencies) in your lists. There's no contradiction there.

That is definitely not how I'm "hearing" what he says. I suspect that we could wrangle about the nuances for a good long while, but I'll try to resist the temptation.

 

[Folke]

I agree with bcmyers. There is no contradiction. Often we play projects by ear - wing them - and have just one action defined in them and then that action is the only next action and the rest we will figure out later. In other projects we may have a more detailed plan, where perhaps most of the actions are not possible yet, but a few are. Then all of those that could be started now, in any order, are next actions. No contradiction, no problem, no difficulty.

 

[mike.gerety]

I'm going to tack onto this topic instead of starting a new one because it's very related.

Scenario: I've done my weekly review, and I've written down one/two next actions for my projects on my action lists. Let's say Project A has one next action written down.

Monday, I complete that action for Project A that was on the Calls list because I had some spare time. I have some more spare time, so I look at my lists to see other things to do and complete them. But since there was only one next action on the list, I will make no more progress on project A, because it's not on my list of actions to do. And my list of actions is supposed to help me intuitively know what I should be doing next based on context, priority, etc.

Now what? When do I look at that project again to generate the next action? A week from now at the weekly review? Let's say that from that phone call, I figured out the next 5 things to do for the project. I can do them now, but they're not "in the system". Maybe I collect them on some note paper and throw them into an "in" basket.. but I haven't processed them. They may not get processed until tomorrow morning.

It almost seems like defining one next action limits you from doing other things on that project until you "review the project again" When is that supposed to happen?

 

[Bill Myers]

Now what? When do I look at that project again to generate the next action? A week from now at the weekly review? Let's say that from that phone call, I figured out the next 5 things to do for the project. I can do them now, but they're not "in the system". Maybe I collect them on some note paper and throw them into an "in" basket.. but I haven't processed them. They may not get processed until tomorrow morning.

The answer is: do it in the way that makes the most sense to you. If you've got a complete inventory of your commitments and have reviewed them appropriately, you'll know whether or not it makes sense to work on pre-defined tasks or work that shows up in the moment. And work that pops into your head qualify as something that shows up in the moment. So if it makes sense to tackle the next five tasks now, then do so. If not you can write them down and toss them in your in-basket.

Whether you're going to do them now or later, I'd advise you to write them down in case you get interrupted.

It almost seems like defining one next action limits you from doing other things on that project until you "review the project again" When is that supposed to happen?

First, it's a misnomer that DA suggests you only define one next action. He suggests you define as many next actions as you need to in order to get the project off your mind. If you have identified a number of next actions that you can work on now, it makes sense to plug those into your lists so you can work on them when the time and place is right.

The thing is, some projects are so simple that there will only be one next action you can work on at a time. Other projects are more complex, and will require planning whether it is of the back-of-the-envelope variety or the full-on planning model recommended in the GTD book.

 

[Folke]

Mike, this is what I do.

• I always update my next actions list whenever I complete an action that belongs to a project. (Well, sometimes I forget, but then I usually notice the next morning in my daily review.)
• I always try to process new ideas straight away, or, if I have no time, I jot down an inbox item and deal with it a.s.a.p. that same day
• I normally do a very quick mini review every morning

This is what I don't do:

• I don't "artificially" wait for the weekly review for anything at all. I do things whenever I want to, even check my Someday list during the week if I feel like it. The WR is just an extra safeguard for me if I have missed something
• I don't "artificially" let things stew in the inbox (only if I seriously have no time at all). I want the things processed and on my lists with the shortest possible delay

 

[Folke]

Very good answer from bcmyers. Apparently we posted at the same time, so I did not see it before I had posted my own.

 

[Bill Myers]

Very good answer from bcmyers. Apparently we posted at the same time, so I did not see it before I had posted my own.

Thanks. Yours also. I agree that there's no need to wait to enter things into your NA lists, nor is there a reason to limit reviewing projects to the weekly review. You can review anything as often as is appropriate to keep things off your mind.

The only reason I would jot them down on paper first is that I can generally scribble a note on paper faster than entering five next actions, and were I to get interrupted while in the middle of inputting those items I'd forget the ones I hadn't yet entered.

 

[Folke]

I scribble quite a lot, too
Paper is one of my "inboxes" - very useful e.g. while talking with other people.