Projects are not containers

Longstreet said:
So in our rapidly expanding and changing digital world, standard contexts are meaningless to me. Energy is a much better way (and the amount of time estimated for completion of an action) for separation and that is quite useful.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking a lot lately about contexts and if I get value from them. I like having the ability to quickly shift between the Grond level view (next actions in contexts lists) and Projects (one of the reasons I like the Nirvana app). In my work, I'm usually responsible for 3-4 projects at a time, and they are all fast-paced 2-4 weeks long. They come and go quickly so I'm constantly adding new actions to my list based on phone calls, meeting updates, etc. Sometimes it's overwhelming and it's crucial for me to have a "container" for all the actions related to a project.
I thought about doing an experiment and letting go of the need to link next actions to projects, but the mere thought of it makes me shiver (and creates "pre-anxiety"...).

I feel like I benefit from fast processing (spending less energy thinking about contexts) and focusing more on indicating the sequence of actions. What should I tackle first? What should be my focus now? And what's next?

@Longstreet comment about energy and time estimated to complete a task clicked with me and I think I wasn't giving too much attention to this way of grouping next actions to help my decisions. I'm still thinking about it. I could live with only 3 contexts: @calls, @home and @errands, as long as I can see separate lists for Work and Personal (that's what I have in Nirvana for Areas and the global filter is perfect for that). All of my work is done at the computer or making phone calls, anyway.

I also took the Kairos cognition assessment and I'm predominantly a Sequential Thinker, so I think that explains my need to have actions in sequential order. Long lists with next actions from too many projects at once distract me, I work better if I see a curated list to work from.
 
mcogilvie said:
If I’m understanding correctly, people are interpreting a “sequential” preference as preferring to work sequentially on context lists, and an “associative“ preference as doing next actions associated with the same project, but on different context lists. That seems to me to be an artifact of how you look at your.contexts and projects. If I am using Omnifocus, Todoist or Nirvana, I have the option of working either way. If I’m working sequentially through a project, that’s sequential, right? But if I do the same thing by thumbing through context lists, it’s associative? This all seems a bit facile. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Well, the part that I care about is whether I'm changing projects--whether I'm dumping all the thoughts and ideas flying around my head about one project, and shoveling in the thoughts and ideas about another project. I don't like to do that if I don't have to.

Let's say that I'm writing a scene in my novel. I start out in Scrivener, typing away--we could call that a context. I reach a point where I need to know whether something is possible in my kinda-18th-century-technology setting. I Google--we could call that another context. That doesn't work out, but I have a faint memory that an episode of that great series, Connections, by James Burke, might be relevant. I go hunting for the old videotapes. I watch half of one. That's another context. That gives me a mishmash of tantalizing ideas--some of which are actually about the problem, some about other things that can enrich the scene in other ways--so I go take a walk to let those ideas dance around and listen to my characters talk to each other. That's another context. I get home and settle back in front of Scrivener and finish the first draft of the scene.

Now, I could instead have stayed in the Scrivener context. When I got stalled in my scene, I could have entered an action, "Research (whatever) in 18th century," in my lists and, since that would require changing contexts, look for something else to do in Scrivener. Maybe I have an idea for a blog post, so I dump the entire context of the novel out of my brain and pull in the context of my blog. But that, to me, would be a waste of a lot of useful mental marinating.

(Edited second paragraph slightly.)
 
I took the survey and am an Associative Processor. I also was diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive). I’m curious how this style maps to those with ADHD as many of the characteristics seem to be the same.
 
ckennedy said:
I took the survey and am an Associative Processor. I also was diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive). I’m curious how this style maps to those with ADHD as many of the characteristics seem to be the same.
Click to expand...
Please don’t be offended, but I first thought that you were an “Associative Professor.” :)
 
I wish someone at GTD would create a detailed demo project, a text file with bullet points, and GTD veterans would implement it in their systems and post screenshots. It may not even need to be a multi person project But it should have subprojects, contexts, next actions and whatever other elements where different nuances can be applied.
 
It seems to me this is once again the situation were the distinction of conventional versus existential can come to the rescue.

Suppose I have three projects. All of them require emails, phone calls and an occasional visit to Home Depot.

Having the shopping at Home Depot actions/tasks show up altogether as the context of shopping is useful because shopping is a conventional task ... it is more about doing than being.

That is, unless you need to do the shopping in-person, wit another person involved with each project, there’s a lot less mental gear switching than with a Pomodoro to do emails for multiple projects.

Emails for different projects is a more existential task because each phone call or email involves communicating with different parties, likely in different contexts. That would be like a 25 minute one person show where you had to switch characters three times. The trip to Home Depot is one character even though it’s on the behalf of multiple parties.

(Yes, technically making a phone call is also a conventional action, but the existential aspect of the phone calls is where the bulk of the mental energy is spent.)
 
Reviving this older thread because it raises good points that are still relevant.

In reference to @Longstreet and @Gardener's posts, I too have struggled with contexts, which I have found to be an obstacle to deep work within a given project. I find the "pile of gravel" produced by contexts and next actions defined in strict GTD terms, and the project-switching it encourages, to be counterproductive. Most of my work (and the work of others, I would guess) centers at any given moment on one or two large projects that need no reminder. For example, I do not need to be reminded to prep for an upcoming lecture class that I need to give next week. Creating a next action for that is pointless. It's all the other little things that need reminders.

I have recently addressed this by treating major projects **as contexts**. Using Things 3 as my platform, I maintain a small number of context lists (@desk, @home, @errands, etc) for ad hoc actions, as well as 1-3 major projects, which like contexts are containers for actions. When I work on ad hoc tasks, I switch to a context list and work from there. When I work on a major project, I switch to the "project" list (i.e. the single project that contains actions that pertain to that project) and work from there, entirely focused on that project. Actions in the major project list do not have to be cleanly defined next actions... they are sometimes only quick scratch pad reminders, but that doesn't matter since the main point is getting work done on the project, not worrying about whether I have cleanly defined my next actions.

In short, I have found the binary question of whether actions should be stored in contexts or projects somewhat unhelpful. Just like GTD contexts, major projects are places where work gets done, while minor projects are merely reminders of commitments that trigger ad hoc actions. There is no one universal type of project.

Edit: I also use a crucial #quick tag for processing the "gravel" (e.g. actions such as short emails or calls that cut across contexts and projects)
 
Last edited:
Jared Caron said:
Caveat - at work, I cannot do this, since I'm using outlook as my list manager and we do not have MS todo​
Click to expand...
This is a divergence from the main point of the thread, and you've probably looked into it thoroughly, but just in case:

I work for a large government organisation that uses Office 365. MS To Do was initially not available by default but I was able to access it by contacting the department's central IT help desk. Since then it has been enabled on my user account for years without any issues.
 
Very interesting topic. Thank you for this. I still wonder if I "do well" GTD, but for me there are to ways of working about defined work

As I work in corporate real estate it can be sometime complicated.

(1) One is sequential thinking. My Omnifocus usualy has a project plan (project note) and next actionable tasks associated to context and reference material on my google drive or sometime to evernote. I notice that when I work like this I go fast and it doesnt take too much energy for me as I feel in my project focus mode. The danger of this approach can be that it may take half a day to really do as much as I can about a project. So my choice about the chosen project is crucial.

(2) The secont way of working is a kind of time blocking. I work by contexts. I want to do all my email as a batch or all my search on the internet or all what is about my computer. Of course there may be some actions about (1). This way of working is very tiring for me. It consumes a lot of energy for me because I change of project one by one even if I have the very next action I often need to see a global view of my project

I never solved this about GTD. I work "by context" when I want to get rid of my stuff fast. I work by "project" when I need to advance on a project and close it ass soon as possible.

Happily GTD autorize these two options.
 
For what ever it might be worth also having success mind-mapping 'cleanly rigid' Project: Outcome center and necessary quadrant factors needing fulfillment (Accuracies, Persons, Props, Provisions) on standard landscape Copy Paper with trusty Clipboard then inversely turning it over for the following: Upper Left Corner: Next Action(s) dated list, Center Top: Project Label/Name, Lower Right Corner: Support Information (Phone Numbers, Names, Critical Information, ect.) thus allowing this recorded all inclusive' Project/Next Action Sheet of Paper 'float/flow' from one @context file to the next @context file . . . in the event that it lacks a Next Action, perhaps after Inbox, causing it to go into Someday/Maybe mode moves it's to its appropriate Area-of-Focus Support or Area-of-Focus Reference File/Holder telling one its gone 'dormant' and will receive a Next Action 'kick' during the next Weekly Review.

Hope this is GTD clear . . . if unclear, please post for further clarity, thank you
 
Last edited:
gtdstudente said:
For what ever it might be worth also having success mind-mapping 'cleanly rigid' Project: Outcome center and necessary quadrant factors needing fulfillment (Accuracies, Persons, Props, Provisions) on standard landscape Copy Paper with trusty Clipboard then inversely turning it over for the following: Upper Left Corner: Next Action(s) dated list, Center Top: Project Label/Name, Lower Right Corner: Support Information (Phone Numbers, Names, Critical Information, ect.) thus allowing this recorded all inclusive' Project/Next Action Sheet of Paper 'float/flow' from one @context file to the next @context file . . . in the event that it lacks a Next Action, perhaps after Inbox, causing it to go into Someday/Maybe mode moves it's to its appropriate Area-of-Focus Support or Area-of-Focus Reference File/Holder telling one its gone 'dormant' and will receive a Next Action 'kick' during the next Weekly Review.

Hope this is GTD clear . . . if unclear, please post for further clarity, thank you
Click to expand...
I think I follow you. Perhaps a photo of both sides of your landscape paper with a sample project would be of assistance
 
Project Name
(Project name is stably written in one of five General Areas-of-Focus' color: Divine, Persons, Engineering, Utilities, Fiscal)​




Accept, Accuracies, Actualability, Adapt,
Adjust, Analysis, Assess, Awareness, etc. as Required
< can be an admixture of objective [extrinsic] and subjective [intrinsic] realities >​
Healthy Persons / Skills
Required​
Project Name
with Outcome
realized through five stably colored
Particular Areas-of-Focus
Accuracies, Healthy, Overcome, Props, Provisions​
below are always objective [extrinsic] realities​
Obstacles / Persons / Institutions
to Overcome
Props (Decorations-&-Tools)
are 'usually' best when clean, empty, and friction-free​
Provisions
are 'usually' best when full​

​






​
​
------------------------------------------------------Inverse Top of Other 8 1/2" x 11"Landscape-Side---------------------------------------------------------Next Action(s) flows > found in appropriate @Contexts List Folder

  • Action with Date



















___________________________________________________________
SUPPORT INFO CAPTURING Date________________
1. Empty, 2. Fill, 3. Figure-Out/Find, 4. Finish, 5. Fix
'80%-ish actions seem to get done through the five above action-verbs aimed at Easier​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top