I also have moved from digital to analog (paper). Two main tweaks in my system are that I track everything via contexts. (1) Every context first page is to track single non-project items (a dedicated inbox if you will ). (2) All projects are tracked via context. Here is where the system shines, I move the project pages from one context (Calls, Errands, Computer etc) to another depending on the next action that I have decided to work on. I also use a Daytimer Today ruler to pick the project that I want to work on first. I too feel like I lose perspective via the electronic screens of phones, tablets and pcs. I like being able to track my progress via the history of my completed tasks.kewms;40672 said:A little while ago, I posted that I'd trimmed out a lot of the hierarchy in my GTD system. I'd realized that it was too hard to find things, and so I wasn't maintaining the system well, with predictable consequences.
I also realized that I had overcomplicated the context system by trying to split things too narrowly. I have basically two kinds of work: stuff that requires intense focus for long periods, and stuff that doesn't. The high-focus stuff is almost all project-based, and I think of it as "work on XYZ project," not as "@Read/Review" or "@Write" or @anything else. The low focus stuff is almost all context-driven: I plow through a list of @Phone or @Email or @Home stuff, without reference to any particular project.
And finally, I realized that an electronic system makes it easier for cruft to accumulate in my lists. I can merrily drag an electronic task along for months, or even years, without ever having to think about when I plan to do it, or even if I still care about it. A paper system forces me to engage with my tasks much more directly: why do I keep copying that over and over again?
I think that using projects as contexts will help avoid one of the biggest disadvantages of a paper system: having to copy the same items to more than one place. It also simplifies the problem of verifying that each project has at least one NA. The risk is that project-related stuff that is not an NA will creep onto these lists, but the one-page limit should help me catch such problems quickly.
Comments welcome, especially from other retro-paper folks.
This isn't really specific to paper, but it is interesting that GTD is so silent about what happens to tasks after their completion. Like you, I find it useful to keep them around for a while.Pablo;86941 said:I like being able to track my progress via the history of my completed tasks.
That strong link is my best argument for an electronic system. I can slice my data into contexts for doing but if I need to I can also easily pull out the entire project and see not only current actions but also past actions. I too want that strong linkage and that's probably why I never last more than a few days on a paper system. I can't stand the hassle of keeping the links current and I am too productive using contexts for doing to leave them off.Julia;86962 said:I've recently steered away from contexts because of feeling like I need the project/next actions to stay together.