Replacement for Contexts in 2022. Are Energy, Time, and/or Projects the new driving force?

[ivanjay205]

I have loved GTD for a long time, I am using OmniFocus. However, I am finding that contexts just do not make sense. I have written in here a lot about replacing contexts in 2022 and gotten a lot of good advice. but at the end of the day I feel like I am forcing next actions into contexts because that is how the book was written in 2001. In today's world.... in my opinion time and energy are really the only limited factors. Except for maybe home and errand. Even errand gets tricky (thanks online shopping) but the reality is time is certainly a limiting factor as is energy.

I also feel that projects are now more of a context than let's say computer or office is. For me, there is so much work done electronically that switching the context of one project to another is more expensive on me mentally than staying within the same project start to finish (or at least a sizable chunk to a practical stopping point).

I am curious if anyone has tried developing a gtd style system with a mix up. Where time, energy, and even projects are the new selection criteria and how that would go?

 

[Oogiem]

For me, there is so much work done electronically that switching the context of one project to another is more expensive on me mentally than staying within the same project start to finish

Just want to note that for some of us it's almost no effort to switch projects as long as I am in the same software package or toolset but immense effort to switch applications or tools to do something on the same project but with a different set of tools.

It's like working with the tractor vs the mini-x vs the skid steer. Projects may require all 3 machines but it's far easier to do all the mini-x jobs no matter the project before switching. You can even go further and decide that changing implements (mower, vs blade, vs rock rake vs disk etc) make it more important to do al the mowing or all that need sone implement before moving to another one

Which is why even in the edigital world I still find contexts based on the software package I need very important.

 

[Matt_M]

In my experience, this is one of the biggest "gotchas" with GTD that trips people up. I feel like tools such as OmniFocus have confused what the original intention and spirit of contexts was when they provide a showcase or overview of their product.

A context was never meant to be just tools or locations but rather whatever "context" (i.e. the original word) you need to have (i.e. be in, around, aware of, etc.) for the item to get done. Too many people focus on context as meaning "a tool I need to have", "a location I need to be at", "an energy level I need to have", "a relative duration of time", etc. when really it's the combination of all of those and general frame of mind/reference.

There is little point in doing creative or personal writing when you are in a bad mood, need to leave in 30 mins to take your child to a dentist appointment, are waiting in line at the DMV, or on a conference call with your team for this year's marketing campaign. A "Creative Writing" context, for example, should be a term that would mean to you that you have the appropriate amount of time (probably several hours), are in a mood conducive to being creative, have your preferred writing tool (computer, book, etc.), are in the correct location for creative writing (maybe that's home, maybe that's in a coffee house, maybe it's in a library, etc.), etc.

Contexts should be very personal terms that you understand the total gestalt of what you are like, where you are, what you feel like doing, and what kind of time you have. I harken to the term being emotionally intelligent about yourself such that you know when you are best able to tackle certain things and when not. I could list numerous examples of some and what they mean to me but that is precisely just the problem: they are meant for me and how I operate. You are not me and I am not you therefore what terms work for me (and mean to me) will likely not work for you (or mean the same).

Now this doesn't mean that you cannot have some contexts that are specific to tools, locations, etc. but they don't need to be your only contexts or the only way to classify contexts. Use what is appropriate for you based on your circumstances.

• If you need a lot of relevant project information open and available to work on things then create a context that reflects that such as "When deep diving into a project".
• If you have a lot of items that are not terrible difficult, relatively short, on your computer, etc. then maybe a "Quick computer wins".
• If you find that you need to have your bank accounts opened, financial planning software, and various budget spreadsheets open to balance your checkbook/etc. then perhaps "When financially planning".
• If you are attending meetings where you are not really contributing and don't really need to be there but have to be but could be doing something productive, then perhaps creating a context "In non-essential meeting".

For example, rather than "Home" you may instead benefit from using a context of "Working around the house" to indicate when you're in a "context" where you have a large swath of time where you have energy/desire to do common household tasks that require you to have the time and space to appropriately engage with them (e.g. Clean kitchen cupboards, Dust picture frames, Replace air filter in furnace, etc.).

• If you don't make a lot of phone calls, then you don't need a "Calls" context.
• If you don't have an "Office" in the traditional sense then maybe you don't need an "Office" context.
• So on and so forth.

Of course, this all my opinion and perspective. I found that once I stopped thinking so rigidly about contexts and less dogmatic about what was in the GTD book as "the one true way" a lot things just clicked. David is a productivity consultant meaning he talks to people more often ("@ Calls"), travels often (or used to) ("@ Travel", "@ Home", "@ Online/Offline"), etc. so his contexts will never match those of mine, a software engineer. I have a coding context, an investigation/debugging context, a design context, a research context, an administrate context, etc. because those make sense for me but won't for David or you.

David's GTD book was just some sample suggestions to start from but you should absolutely customize things to your specific needs and cases. Same goes for how you reflect on/engage with your system: if looking at things by projects makes sense for you then do it., if by certain context(s) then do that, etc. Don't feel constrained by what was written in the GTD book as the only way to do GTD. GTD is about the phases of getting what has your attention out of your head and into a trusted system to then help you define what your work is and engage with it appropriately. Not to completely sound like David but it is hard not to

I hope any of that helps or makes sense.

 

[ivanjay205]

Just want to note that for some of us it's almost no effort to switch projects as long as I am in the same software package or toolset but immense effort to switch applications or tools to do something on the same project but with a different set of tools.

It's like working with the tractor vs the mini-x vs the skid steer. Projects may require all 3 machines but it's far easier to do all the mini-x jobs no matter the project before switching. You can even go further and decide that changing implements (mower, vs blade, vs rock rake vs disk etc) make it more important to do al the mowing or all that need sone implement before moving to another one

Which is why even in the edigital world I still find contexts based on the software package I need very important.

I do completely agree this idea is very case dependent. I am sure for those context switching in software is a very big deal. For me personally I find context switching in subject is harder. To go from finance to business development to HR. And in the GTD sense to not view my "projects" where traditionally the thoughts between next actions are connected and to stay in tool context might be cumbersome.

For example, let's say I have my HR hat on and I am processing an employee raise at their anniversary. My next action template for this is:

Review Employee Performance to Determine Raise - Thinking
Add Recommended Raise to our Board Meeting - Computer (it goes on the PPT we use for agenda's)
Meet with employee to offer raise - Computer (as I normally schedule the conversation)
Update Payroll Software - Computer / Web
Update HR App - Computer / Web
Email Employee Written Confirmation - Computer / Email
Notify Company (if a promotion) - Computer / Email

So this is a pretty typical event for me. First off majority of the next actions fall into the computer category. In Omnifocus I have subdivided that with subtasks with the specific tool. but in this case once I meet with the employee to offer the raise even though there are 4 different computer next actions after it they all pertain to the same information. I find it easier to do all of those while I remember the new salary and effective date vs do the web next action, look for other web actions, and get to the email next actions only when I get in my email context. Clicking on outlook and a quick email is a pretty easy thing to do. plus the satisfaction of 100% finishing the project to me is better than leaving it half open.

I personally would rather tackle those last 4 next actions in the 10 minutes I have between meetings as one block.

 

[Gardener]

I do completely agree this idea is very case dependent. I am sure for those context switching in software is a very big deal. For me personally I find context switching in subject is harder. To go from finance to business development to HR.

But you could define your contexts with that goal.

I do feel that "computer" is not all that much more specific than "indoors" or "at work" or "awake."

But to me, that just means that "computer" is no longer a meaningful context, not that contexts are no longer meaningful.

Looking at your example, you already have "thinking" for an action that, at least at my company, would be performed at the computer.

Most of the other actions mentioned would be in my "paperwork" context. I wouldn't do the web part with other web tasks or the email part with other email tasks--I would, as you say, do them all at once until that employee was done or I got stalled on them for some reason.

Alternatively, I might have a "Reviews" context, because even when one employee is done, I would probably want to move on to another employee, rather than do some other paperwork task like requesting software. I can imagine that doing reviews would involve spinning up review thoughts and comparisons between employees, maybe bringing up files of boilerplate for those emails, maybe ensuring privacy in the office, and so on.

To me, that makes "Reviews" or "HR Work" or some other such name, a context. Yes, I realize that it also kind of feels like a project. I'm trying to think of similar types of contexts that lack that ambiguity.

One set:

Debugging: It's at the computer, and it's programming, but it's a specific mindset.
Development: At the computer, programming, but a different mindset.
Documentation: At the computer. Yet another mindset.

Now, to move to my ever-present gardening, there ARE contexts that involve enough setup that I may jump from project to project rather than change context. If it's a day that's warm enough and not too warm, and the soil is a good moisture level, and I've already pulled out the broadfork and the hula hoe and the fertilizer bucket and the leaf rake and the soil rake and the landscape staples and I'm wheelbarrowing compost...yeah, that's a context, and I'm going to keep doing soil prep until I run out of energy or daylight.

However, a whole bunch of other gardening tasks just go in the Farm Work context, because they don't involve a lot of prep. When I finish weeding the raspberries, I'll probably then prune them, and go get that volunteer that I noticed in the strawberry bed, and fix that detached bit of wire (the wire that restrains the raspberries from flopping in the path), and so on.

So I think that contexts have a sort of circular definition--for me, a context is defined based on how much trouble it is to get into or out of that context.

 

[mcogilvie]

I returned recently from a sabbatical in Seattle where my wife and I shared a small apartment. This gave rise to a major collapse of contexts. @Out, @Uni, Agendas and Waiting For still made sense, but the rest not so much. I experimented with various new lists reflecting time, energy and priority. Empirically, lists for time-critical and significant actions combined with lists for lower priority items seems to work best for me. I’m continuing to refine this set of lists, based on experience.

 

[ivanjay205]

But you could define your contexts with that goal.

I do feel that "computer" is not all that much more specific than "indoors" or "at work" or "awake."

But to me, that just means that "computer" is no longer a meaningful context, not that contexts are no longer meaningful.

Looking at your example, you already have "thinking" for an action that, at least at my company, would be performed at the computer.

Most of the other actions mentioned would be in my "paperwork" context. I wouldn't do the web part with other web tasks or the email part with other email tasks--I would, as you say, do them all at once until that employee was done or I got stalled on them for some reason.

Alternatively, I might have a "Reviews" context, because even when one employee is done, I would probably want to move on to another employee, rather than do some other paperwork task like requesting software. I can imagine that doing reviews would involve spinning up review thoughts and comparisons between employees, maybe bringing up files of boilerplate for those emails, maybe ensuring privacy in the office, and so on.

To me, that makes "Reviews" or "HR Work" or some other such name, a context. Yes, I realize that it also kind of feels like a project. I'm trying to think of similar types of contexts that lack that ambiguity.

One set:

Debugging: It's at the computer, and it's programming, but it's a specific mindset.
Development: At the computer, programming, but a different mindset.
Documentation: At the computer. Yet another mindset.

Now, to move to my ever-present gardening, there ARE contexts that involve enough setup that I may jump from project to project rather than change context. If it's a day that's warm enough and not too warm, and the soil is a good moisture level, and I've already pulled out the broadfork and the hula hoe and the fertilizer bucket and the leaf rake and the soil rake and the landscape staples and I'm wheelbarrowing compost...yeah, that's a context, and I'm going to keep doing soil prep until I run out of energy or daylight.

However, a whole bunch of other gardening tasks just go in the Farm Work context, because they don't involve a lot of prep. When I finish weeding the raspberries, I'll probably then prune them, and go get that volunteer that I noticed in the strawberry bed, and fix that detached bit of wire (the wire that restrains the raspberries from flopping in the path), and so on.

So I think that contexts have a sort of circular definition--for me, a context is defined based on how much trouble it is to get into or out of that context.

I saw this last night but did not yet want to reply so I can take this all in. I really do appreciate your post and it opened my eyes a bit.....

Reading between the lines here it sounds like the concept I really need to hone in on is not thinking about the physical tool set for all purposes. So at a high level as I start to think of this I probably still need calls (although that is tricky as a text is often as good), home, and office, errands, because there are times when we need things in a physical place. The office one is rare but it does happen for me as again 90% computer work but it does happen.

It sounds like I need to take computer and break those more into mental energy / place of mind not physical tool type of things. I am the President of a my company, a family business with 40 employees. As such I can immediately think Review is a good tag as I have to review a lot of material. That is a pretty low energy activity as I am not doing the work, just ensuring it is up to our standards. I could also see Follow Up being helpful as there is often time when I need to go through my delegated projects and just run through some quick follow up notes to people to see how they are doing. Again pretty low energy there. I could see Focus Work being a good one for that heavy lifting type of work. I could also see Quick hits being the quick low level tasks that are not really related to anything else. The good things to knock off as a one off between meetings. Strategy for those deep thinking and mapping out projects for long term initiatives, annual business plan, etc. Maybe I really need to sit down and look at my project mix and see what makes sense in that regard. I just think I need to be very careful they dont start replicating the Areas of Focus as I know that is a no no.

One debate in this areas would be my routines. I think a separate context for Routines would make sense although in some examples even though they are are a routine they might fall into a strategy category for example as well. But it would be good to have them separate as that allows for a strong perspective setup in OmniFocus. And most of the time routines are mid level to low energy level tasks in my mind depending on what the specific routine is.

What will probably get very tricky for me is trying to find a selection of tags that make sense for me in the personal and business world together as those dont necessarily always correlate. But that is certainly doable.

 

[ivanjay205]

As I am starting to think about contexts in this new idea here is what I am starting to think of and wondering if anyone would be willing to provide some general feedback. I know this is highly personalized but perhaps this gets me started. I wonder if I have too many but we will see.... I included a brief explanation of what I am trying to do with these

• Call/text: Pretty self explanatory.
• Collaborate: This one I don't think I would create at the onset but it is an interesting idea. Those things which are best done with others. I could see a lot of co-use between this and Agenda's. But it might be unnecessary.
• Developer
  • I know this sounds far away from everything else but we built an ERP system for work in Quick Base (I did this). I am the one that creates new items and maintains it. I do have a passion for IT and computer programming so this gives me an opportunity to get my fill at work. Quick maintenance tasks and fixes would not go in here. However, this would be for the more thoughtful big picture ideas that go into our system. So when I need to develop it and think about what I am doing they would go here.
• Focus Work: For that deep work that requires high energy and minimal interruptions.
• Follow Up: Items that are delegated to others that I need to follow up for status OR items that are requested of me and I need to follow up on. So if a client asked for a modification to a report that is a simple thing to do, maybe the update to report and send of it goes here.
• Home Tag Ideas (this one I need some help on). I currently have a Home Tag where I put all the things I can do at home. However, these are all over the place. Some are projects like clean out garage or trim bushes or build shelving in garage. Much more high energy long duration. Some are really low hanging fruit like replace filter in kitchen refrigerator. That takes a minute to do and super low energy. So I broke out some thoughts and curious on feedback for potential tags to replace this one
  • Home-Inside
  • Home-Outisde
    • If I break out the tags into inside/outside it at least gets the context of can I do this in my PJ's sitting in my house or do I need to be in a work mode typically outside.
  • Home Maintenance or Projects? Perhaps I need to create a separate list for the larger "work" items. That require higher energy. Not quite sure if maintenance or project or improvement is the right word but something to that effect
  • Home - leisure
    • This is another tricky one. My first instinct was to create a separate leisure tag. But I am learning piano, I can only do that at home. Again need to be in a specific mindframe for that. So is there a home leisure, does that just go into home-inside? Is there a separate leisure tag outside of home and I just deal with some things cant be done given my location?
• Quick Hits: Tasks that are maybe less than the 5-10 minute range but more than 2 minute. The list I would go to when I have some time between meetings to knock off some things. In my thinking though I would not put every next action that is less than 10 minutes on this list if I felt it should be done in sequence with other tasks in the same project. this is really for isolated next actions I can do at any time.
• Review: Items that are pending my review. Proposals or drawings that my team put together, marketing, etc.
• Routines: I have mixed feelings on this..... On one side of the spectrum placing all of my routines (I have A LOT of them) in here would be nice as typically it is low to mid range energy and I also know that these are things that are pseudo date dependent. In GTD terms the world does not burn down if I miss a date. But they are maintenance items and should be a higher priority in my world to keep them moving. However, some of these could more better be placed in Strategy or other areas such as my quarterly business plan review or something like that. So I am having an inner debate on separating vs not or choosing what goes into routines even if something is a routine.
• Shopping: In lieu of errands in 2023 I think shopping makes more sense. I need to buy something. It could be at a store, could be on Amazon, etc.
• Strategize: I think this should be different than Focus Work but I am not 100% sure on that yet. I think Strategizing might be a different mindset than Focus Work. While it requires the same focus and lack of interruptions it also requires the creative side of my brain to be engaged.
• Web Surfing
  • I am thinking this is a good separate tag for those nights where I have my iPad open and I am watching tv just browsing the web endlessly. Super low energy, brain is fried. But I can look up some things
• Waiting For
• Someday/Maybe

Curious as to your thoughts? I feel like it is too many but maybe there is something to be said for this as right now I just looked and I have about 3-4 tasks in each tag except for my computer areas which has north of 70 making it really unusable.

 

[mcogilvie]

I’ve tried granular contexts like @house-inside and @house-outside and they did not work well for me. The problem I had: when to go outside. Similarly, conceptual contexts like @routines offered no help in choosing between routine and non-routine next actions. On the other hand, @out and @actual_place-of_employment are well-defined, significant changes in context. Somewhat similarly, @spousal-unit requires both of us to stop what we are doing. I seem to handle small changes between micro-contexts well, and time and energy considerations seem well-internalized too. So organizing more or less by priority is what’s left for the majority of my time. It helps that changes are just easy drag and drops.

 

[Matt_M]

As I am starting to think about contexts in this new idea here is what I am starting to think of and wondering if anyone would be willing to provide some general feedback. I know this is highly personalized but perhaps this gets me started. I wonder if I have too many but we will see.... I included a brief explanation of what I am trying to do with these

...

Curious as to your thoughts? I feel like it is too many but maybe there is something to be said for this as right now I just looked and I have about 3-4 tasks in each tag except for my computer areas which has north of 70 making it really unusable.

To me, this seems a bit complex to use and maintain. However, if it works for you then by all means use them. There seems to be a slight desire to over groups things here. I'd simplify greatly by avoiding nebulous contexts like "Focus Work" vs "Strategize" as well as "Waiting For" and "Follow-Up". You might consider not giving everything a context as you may have items that are just simple tasks (e.g. "Replace filter in refrigerator") that could probably just be on a simple checklist of "Home Maintenance" items that you do every weekend much like grocery shopping, vacuuming, dusting, etc.

I think an important thing to remember that David mentions throughout his work is that not everything needs to be in your GTD system as there are a lot of things that life intrinsically reminds you of: laundry, cleaning the dishes, getting gas in your car, etc. Be careful of over organizing. Maybe instead of having a list of "Web Surfing" just have a folder in your web browser bookmarks that are links to various sites/searches that you want to come back to. Same thing for having a "To Watch" list on your media entertainment streaming platform of choice. There are a lot of things that are never going to be in my GTD system because those items don't need to be and the list/contents are parked at a place where they will be intrinsically available when I am in that context.

Try starting very simple (less than 10 contexts ... I want to say I remember reading this somewhere in the GTD book or in one of David's interviews but I am not sure) and naturally tweaking as your system grows. Organically develop your GTD system versus trying to design and impose a cathedral of taxonomy on it up front. I think this will suit you much better in the long-run.

I hope that helps.

 

[bishblaize]

I've decided to have a play around with this over the next few weeks, like many people my @computer list wasn't really viable anymore given how much it applied to. I had been separating a few out a few different contexts like @outline, which worked well, but then @computer ended up being a bucket to chuck things into. So I've ditched @computer altogether and gone with either the tool (@Word) or the type of work (@outline, @R&D). I fully expect to tweak things up, but it is at least nice to have context lists with an sensible number of tasks in it again.

I've also had another go at adding predicted time to my NAs, so I can filter by that. I've always resisted doing this given that a) it adds more time at already busy weekly reviews and b) the actual time taken to complete a task is so unpredictable anyway. I've tried it before and found that the cost:benefit ratio didn't work, but who knows, maybe it'll work out better this time.

For me personally I find context switching in subject is harder. To go from finance to business development to HR.

Amen to this, this is one of my biggest challenges and something that defines my work a lot. If I'm speaking at a big event in the afternoon and have to do lots of schmoozing and networking and generally being outgoing and friendly, I can't spend the time before it dug down deep into the minutiae of financial spreadsheets. I find that once I get my mind into a specific "mode of thinking", for want of a better phrase, its much easier to stay in that kind of thinking. I haven't built this into my contexts because I couldn't obviously see how, but its an interesting idea.

 

[cfoley]

I also feel that projects are now more of a context than let's say computer or office is.

You could create a context for that project then.

I work in software and thought a lot about what a piece of software is in GTD terms. It could be a project because creating the software will take more than one action. It could be a context because coding on one piece of software is substantially different from coding on another piece of software. It could be an area of focus because maintenance could be an ongoing responsibility.

What I've settled on is that the nature of a piece of software in GTD terms can change over time, and that I shouldn't worry about it.

• New software creation is usually a project for me.
• If a major update is planned, that entire update is usually a project for me.
• In maintenance mode, each feature request or bug report is a project.
• I used to create explicit contexts for software projects, but I don't do that any more. Instead, I shift the burden of tracking to my project plans and just put one next action into my @Code context. That said, I'm not ruling it out! As soon as I think a new context will be useful, I will create one!

What I just realised is that I don't have anything to do with software maintenance on my areas of focus, so I just added it. This is why I like the forums so much. They make me think about my own system, especially when I am replying to others' questions.

 

[ivanjay205]

I've decided to have a play around with this over the next few weeks, like many people my @computer list wasn't really viable anymore given how much it applied to. I had been separating a few out a few different contexts like @outline, which worked well, but then @computer ended up being a bucket to chuck things into. So I've ditched @computer altogether and gone with either the tool (@Word) or the type of work (@outline, @R&D). I fully expect to tweak things up, but it is at least nice to have context lists with an sensible number of tasks in it again.

I've also had another go at adding predicted time to my NAs, so I can filter by that. I've always resisted doing this given that a) it adds more time at already busy weekly reviews and b) the actual time taken to complete a task is so unpredictable anyway. I've tried it before and found that the cost:benefit ratio didn't work, but who knows, maybe it'll work out better this time.


Amen to this, this is one of my biggest challenges and something that defines my work a lot. If I'm speaking at a big event in the afternoon and have to do lots of schmoozing and networking and generally being outgoing and friendly, I can't spend the time before it dug down deep into the minutiae of financial spreadsheets. I find that once I get my mind into a specific "mode of thinking", for want of a better phrase, its much easier to stay in that kind of thinking. I haven't built this into my contexts because I couldn't obviously see how, but its an interesting idea.

I use OmniFocus and I tried making a parent tag for computer and subtags for each of my tools. This way I could choose on the fly how granular how detailed I want to get. I found it effective for some and not effective for others. let's say I just finished a big strategic report. Well just because emailing it to those that need to receive it is a separate context didnt mean I want to not do that right now. Once I did all this work I wanted to flip into email context and check that off. And some emails are fine to write anywhere and some are better on a laptop. So I give myself mixed reviews on it.

I do use predicted time extensively but dont find it useful. because I find that if I properly break down my next actions in detail like DA suggest I would say 75% of them are in the 15 minute or less mark.

This "project" context switching or AOF context switching however you want to see it is I think what I am trying to solve. I set up my tags last night and I am going to start trying to reallocate them into these new systems to hit the ground running tomorrow. I am also going to simplify my perspectives in Omnifocus. In theory I should only need Next Actions, Work Next Actions, Personal Actions, waiting for, and someday maybe as my perspectives now. Whereas in the past I needed a lot more to break down my task lists.

I did snap a photo of my old tags just to make sure I have them in case this is an epic failure lol

 

[John Forrister]

I've also had another go at adding predicted time to my NAs, so I can filter by that. I've always resisted doing this given that a) it adds more time at already busy weekly reviews and b) the actual time taken to complete a task is so unpredictable anyway. I've tried it before and found that the cost:benefit ratio didn't work, but who knows, maybe it'll work out better this time.

I am interested to learn how it works for you this time. I'm usually too optimistic or pessimistic when predicting time. Still looking for a pattern for how the misses show up.

 

[ivanjay205]

I am interested to learn how it works for you this time. I'm usually too optimistic or pessimistic when predicting time. Still looking for a pattern for how the misses show up.

i have been diligently estimating my duration for next actions for years. I have found other than for less than 5 minute tasks I can grab before a meeting it has not worked.

I did create a Quick Hits for context. These are for single actions not linked to a string of activity I can do very quickly. This way I can avoid more complicated duration estimates I get wrong anyway

I spent a lot of time today re engineering my system based on my post. It is about 85 percent there and I feel sooooooooo much better about it. Instead of 85 percent of tasks on computer my next actions are now pretty evenly distributed. My view on my iphone is soooooooooo much clearer. I feel really excited about this and like I am in a much better place.

Maybe a few adjustments I still need to make plus we will see how day 1 goes tomorrow. Only big thing I have to work out is if quick hits should be an independent list or if next actions can be on that list and another.

As I said we will see how it goes but I feel really excited to give it a go.

 

[dtj]

I have loved GTD for a long time, I am using OmniFocus. However, I am finding that contexts just do not make sense. I have written in here a lot about replacing contexts in 2022 and gotten a lot of good advice. but at the end of the day I feel like I am forcing next actions into contexts because that is how the book was written in 2001. In today's world.... in my opinion time and energy are really the only limited factors. Except for maybe home and errand. Even errand gets tricky (thanks online shopping) but the reality is time is certainly a limiting factor as is energy.

I also feel that projects are now more of a context than let's say computer or office is. For me, there is so much work done electronically that switching the context of one project to another is more expensive on me mentally than staying within the same project start to finish (or at least a sizable chunk to a practical stopping point).

I am curious if anyone has tried developing a gtd style system with a mix up. Where time, energy, and even projects are the new selection criteria and how that would go?

Since you've chosen OmniFocus, which has a rich set of functionality, you can have multiple tags for contexts. That, along with perspectives and such, unleashes alot more crafting of your task landscape. You can add energy, priority, phase of the moon, or Eisenhower Matrix quadrant tags and then slice'em and dice'em the way that works best for you. It gives ability to construct the highly personal layers on top of GTD, where David fears to tread.

 

[bishblaize]

I am interested to learn how it works for you this time. I'm usually too optimistic or pessimistic when predicting time. Still looking for a pattern for how the misses show up.

Its a tempting idea. The whole point in contexts is to try and reduce the number of unsuitable options shown to you, to reduce mental load. Historically, contexts were pretty much black and white and therefore it made sense to have them as your primary filter. But in a world where mobile computing makes contexts much more blurred, might time be another filter to use?

You already consider time when choosing what to do next of course - how long til your next appointment is one of the 3 factors David Allen identifies along with context and energy when figuring out your options, as alluded to in the thread title. The question is whether deciding upfront at the weekly review is more useful than deciding when you pick a Next Action.

I originally went with times of 5 mins, 15 mins, 30 mins and 60 mins for my durations. However I figured afterwards that the difference between 5 mins and 15 mins is too slight, so I've merged those to give me three options a) ~15 mins or under b) ~30 mins c) 60+ mins. I felt like that would give me a decent split of my NAs without worrying too much about exactly how long things might take, but it still felt a bit more specific than just saying "Short, medium and long". I had just over 100 NAs after my last weekly review. I had roughly 60 x sub-15 actions, 30 x 30-min ones and about 10 x 1hr ones. So it turned out to be a decent split.

The time taken wasn't so awful. Because this was the first time, I went back and added them after I completed my normal review. Ordinarily, I would do it at the same time as I created my Next Actions. It probably took a good 7 or 8 minutes to do them all. Given that I often struggle to fit in my weekly review as it is, it may not sound that long but it's definitely going to push me. Some weeks Im flying through the Weekly Review just trying to make sure every Project has at least one NA. On the other hand, it might have taken longer with it being the first time I'd tried.

There's no doubt it's satisfying to see all my NAs nice and ordered by time, but at the moment it's hard to judge how useful it actually is, mainly because I have a quiet spell with it being the period after New Year, with lots of time at my desk. Over the coming weeks, it gets back to normal, and I'll end up with those weird windows of time David Allen loves to talk about. When I'm killing 20 minutes in a cafe at a train station waiting for a delayed train to come, having a filtered list of quick tasks might become a lot more useful.

 

[TruthWK]

I agree that thinking in terms of how hard it is to switch certain contexts is a good way to go. Also, I have found its easier for my mind if I'm looking at a list of similar tasks as much as possible. That is why I still split home tasks from computer in addition to the context switching issue. So another clue to look for is if you find certain tasks get lost or fuzzier when they are amongst others. Finally, I think prioritization should be considered here. In GTD, it is sometimes assumed that we have to keep a ton of next actions on various context lists. This is not the case. If you find you have a bunch of computer tasks, the question you should ask too is whether some of those should really be in someday/maybe lists. If I decide on the front end that certain tasks and projects are lower priority or urgency than others, I don't have to keep making that decision over and over again when I look at my next action lists. If you like to dip into and out of various projects naturally or others control those priority decisions frequently then you should keep more items active to give you flexibility. However, your case seems like the opposite. You are a president and can make those priority decisions. The priority for many projects is likely determined by you and won't change in a short window. Think of a time in your mind from 1 week to 1 month and push anything that you don't think you will do in that time to various someday/maybe lists. The key is you must do a review often enough to feel safe putting things on someday/maybe. For me, having more than 10 items on a list is bad but others like more or less items. So I try to keep anything past that on someday/maybe if i don't feel any hesitation towards that.

 

[ivanjay205]

I can share with everyone that yesterday was Day 1 on my new system and I found it to be MUCH more effective. Especially since I had a very lengthy morning meeting that sucked all the energy out of me. It was the type of detail that I would wonder back into my email. I went into my review tag for things that required a little mental energy but not a lot and checked off quite a bit. Kept things moving along!