Please express an Easier way [GTD or Otherwise] to execute Next Actions

[gtd solo-studente]

GTD Opportunity Management

A D D I N G [Parlaying]
W H A T
N E E D S
t o
B E
C O N T E X U A L L Y
D O N E
t o
W H A T
i s
A L E A D Y
B E I N G
C O N T E X U A L L Y
D O N E

 

[fooddude]

The only action you should have for any project is the very next action in context.

 

[Oogiem]

The only action you should have for any project is the very next action in context.

Nope, you must have at least one action and no action can depend on another but there is NOTHING in the GTD books that says only 1 next action. Depending on your projects many "next actions" can be done or are available simultaneously.

 

[fooddude]

Nope, you must have at least one action and no action can depend on another but there is NOTHING in the GTD books that says only 1 next action. Depending on your projects many "next actions" can be done or are available simultaneously.

Check out this video. 2:20 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6rzYhWgHWk
Also you can have a project with no next action. But if I have a next action I only have the very next action. I also don't have a list of all next actions for a project. I have a project list and contexts with the very next action in context.

 

[Mark R]

David Allen is talking about not having all the “sequential actions” listed in a next action list. The “project “ in your example is very simple. I think Oogiem is talking about more complex projects where different actions can be done that are not dependent on each other and don’t have to be done in a specific order in relation to each other. And can also require different contexts for different parts of the project.

 

[fooddude]

David Allen is talking about not having all the “sequential actions” listed in a next action list. The “project “ in your example is very simple. I think Oogiem is talking about more complex projects where different actions can be done that are not dependent on each other and don’t have to be done in a specific order in relation to each other. And can also require different contexts for different parts of the project.

No matter how complex the project, I only ever have one next action in context. And My project list is what you see in the example.

 

[Oogiem]

No matter how complex the project, I only ever have one next action in context. And My project list is what you see in the example.

And I would say from that list that you are not dealing with anything at all complex or that includes a significant number of moving pieces and parts. Nor are you interacting with very many other variables, be they people, weather, animals, resources, time or energy.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

No matter how complex the project, I only ever have one next action in context. And My project list is what you see in the example.

@fooddude

Make's very good GTD sense with very good GTD self-awareness and humility since your GTD approach appropriately coincides with reality and 'built-in' space for allowance of any inevitable Next Action glitches and saboteurs to focus on reliably completing a foundational Next Action with Mind Like Water for the many Next Actions to come . . . good GTD job

As you see GTD fit. . . .

 

[fooddude]

And I would say from that list that you are not dealing with anything at all complex or that includes a significant number of moving pieces and parts. Nor are you interacting with very many other variables, be they people, weather, animals, resources, time or energy.

Again it doesn't matter how complex. For example Project- present final budget to the church. Has only one next action. Design menu for x customer. Has only one next action. Plant rhododendrons has one next action. I rarely break up projects into sub projects. So "present budget" for example is what done looks like. I don't make it complicated. I don't make separate project lists with all next actions that could possibly happen next. I list the very next action in context. In other words, I spend less time on my system and more time on the doing. I've done it this way for since I found David Allen 15 or so years ago.

 

[Oogiem]

For example Project- present final budget to the church. Has only one next action. Design menu for x customer. Has only one next action.

NO, If there are things that are not dependent they are adjacent and can be done in any order they need to be included in the next actions. Example. Project is redo the red barn pens and gates so that sheep can be moved from either side into the sweep without hassle.There are 2 things that need to happen next. 1 is purchase 2 wire filled gates for east and west sides of southern red barn pen. The other is install existing 12 ft wire filled gate on north side of north red barn pen. I cannot do anything beyond those actions until those are done but it doesn't matter in what order I do those 2 equal priority tasks so both are next actions as either could be done next.

If I happen to be in the town where I can buy the wire filled gates that is the right thing to do by context. If I am outside I could choose to do the install existing gate task. Both have to happen before the next action in the plan but it doesn't matter what I do first, they are not dependent on each other so are by definition potential next actions.

Limiting yourself to one next action means you will never complete involved and complex projects that have parallel paths to completion if you cannot take advantage of the context, energy and other factors in deciding what specifically to do next among the options.

 

[RomanS]

Exactly. If you limit yourself to only one next action at a time, even though there are independent parts of the project, you slow yourself down unnecessarily. If you can perform each of these actions directly when you are in the appropriate context, I don't see why they should complicate the system or make it more bureaucratic (you have to record them at some point anyway). However, if @Fooddoode feels uncomfortable or overwhelmed with many next actions, he can of course limit himself to one next action.

I record sub-projects when I otherwise feel I have too little control over an independent project component. Otherwise, I refrain from doing so.

You can also think about future next actions, even if you can't do them yet. However, these actions belong in the reference material, not in the active context lists. You run the risk that the project will develop differently than expected and that the work will be wasted time. I only do this if I can't get the project out of my head.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[fooddude]

NO, If there are things that are not dependent they are adjacent and can be done in any order they need to be included in the next actions. Example. Project is redo the red barn pens and gates so that sheep can be moved from either side into the sweep without hassle.There are 2 things that need to happen next. 1 is purchase 2 wire filled gates for east and west sides of southern red barn pen. The other is install existing 12 ft wire filled gate on north side of north red barn pen. I cannot do anything beyond those actions until those are done but it doesn't matter in what order I do those 2 equal priority tasks so both are next actions as either could be done next.

If I happen to be in the town where I can buy the wire filled gates that is the right thing to do by context. If I am outside I could choose to do the install existing gate task. Both have to happen before the next action in the plan but it doesn't matter what I do first, they are not dependent on each other so are by definition potential next actions.

Limiting yourself to one next action means you will never complete involved and complex projects that have parallel paths to completion if you cannot take advantage of the context, energy and other factors in deciding what specifically to do next among the options.

I just like to keep it simple. I've never had an issue not getting things done. I have always just been able to list the very next action.