Waiting for/from someone else - so confused!

[chris6h]

I have been using GTD for a couple of years and have the Outlook Add-in (which I love), but I am really confused when it comes to how to handle the following scenario.

E-mail #1 comes in from someone asking me for something. I need to get that answer from someone else to whom I send an e-mail (#2) and am now waiting for the response back.

Right now I am keeping e-mail #1 in my in box until I get the answer from person #2 back. Then I respond back to e-mail #1. I tried putting e-mail #1 in the waiting for bin with a reminder, but the reminder often pops up either too soon or too late before I have answer back from person #2.

My mind isn't like water because I am always reminding myself - oh yeah I need to respond to person #1 as soon as I hear from person #2. Haven't heard from person #2 yet....so I wait and wait...

This is driving me nuts! What do you do?

 

[SaddleSC]

Waiting For Clarification

I keep my email Inbox empty by using three email folders. The folders are labeled Action, Archive and Hold.

Action are emails I need to respond to or things I need to research. Archive is for saved emails. Hold is for things like tracking numbers for packages or meeting agendas that I will need within 7 days but do not require action on my part.

In your scenario I would drag Email #1 (from Person X) to the Action folder (thereby clearing your email Inbox). Then I would write, "Email Person X re: Research from Person Y" on my @Emails list. Finally, I would write "Waiting for email response from Person Y re: Answer for Person X" on my @Waiting For list. Simple as that!

Hope this helps. Good luck to you.

 

[chris6h]

This helps!

Where in Outlook do you keep these lists? Or are these handwritten lists?

The lists part in Outlook has always confused me.

 

[WebR0ver]

Then I would write, "Email Person X re: Research from Person Y" on my @Emails list.
Finally, I would write "Waiting for email response from Person Y re: Answer for Person X" on my @Waiting For list. Simple as that!

In the interests of only having actionable items on your NA lists, I believe you can only put on your @ WF list: Person Y - re answer for person x (and perhaps a reference that will help you find the original email from person x).

Until you get that response - or followup with person y to get the response, you can't reply to person x. If you can't reply, it's not actionable - yet. If it's not actionable, it shouldn't be on your NA list. Otherwise, every time you scan the @Email list, you'll say to yourself - Oh, but I can't do that until . . . (And you'll have a mind like muddy water).

 

[kewms]

First of all, if I expect the response from Person Y to take more than a day or so, I send Person X a note: "I need to check with Person Y on your query. I'll let you know the answer as soon as I can."

Then, I decide what a reasonable followup interval with Person Y is, and put a note in my tickler for that day: "Followup with Person Y re: X's issue? Sent email 2/5/07." I'll also create a similar reminder to keep Person X in the loop, especially if Person Y turns out to be unresponsive.

Finally, I either throw the original email away (if possible), or file it with the appropriate project support materials. Ditto my note to Person Y.

This indecisive vagueness is why I avoid the @Waiting For context in favor of listing *my* next action.

Katherine

 

[kelstarrising]

Handling dependencies like this

I often have things like emails to reply to that I can't do until I hear back from someone else. I tend to get creative with my waiting for list on these, especially if it's not part of a project and I wouldn't easily see the trigger anywhere else. For example, I might have a waiting for to reply to Bob and let them know an answer to something. However, I need to check and hear back from Mary first before being able to do that. My waiting for list would have detailed information about that such as:

Reply to Bob about Chicago client once I've heard back from Mary with budget figures

I would store Bob's email in my Waiting For folder in my email program and my review of the Waiting For list or when Mary replies to me would trigger the action to Bob.

If you're the kind of person who trusts using the email folder as the reminder, I would suggest editing the subject line of Bob's email to let you know what you're waiting on.

I did a blog post about this too, in case this helps:
http://www.davidco.com/blogs/kelly/archives/2006/11/tracking_the_wh.html#more

Hope this helps.

Kelly

 

[TesTeq]

Let's get rid of the WaitngFor context!

This indecisive vagueness is why I avoid the @Waiting For context in favor of listing *my* next action.

I totally agree with you. WaitingFor context is a strange passive exception in the proactive, action-based GTD world. I also tend to specify my dated follow-up actions instead of storing non-actionable items on the WaitingFor list.

Let's get rid of the WaitngFor context!

 

[Brent]

I totally agree with you. WaitingFor context is a strange passive exception in the proactive, action-based GTD world. I also tend to specify my dated follow-up actions instead of storing non-actionable items on the WaitingFor list.

Let's get rid of the WaitngFor context!

Heh. I sure hope you're being sarcastic!

For me, GTD is about getting stuff out of my head. If I have to wait for something, I put it on my Waiting For list and review it during my Weekly Review. I don't need to put in the effort of determining exactly when I need to check up with people. I know I'll check with them within seven days.

Putting in that extra effort (adding a reminder to check back with people) is unnecessary, and thus to me goes against GTD.

(Of course, that's just my GTD.)

 

[Clarkey]

Couldn't agree more with Brent. A weekly check on the WF list is usually good enough to keep things moving along otherwise sometimes you feel as though you spend your life chasing others instead of getting thing done. In addition, when my energy levels are low I seek solace in the WF list and take pleasure in chasing other people!

 

[TesTeq]

Let's get rid of the WaitngFor context! - non-urgent WaitingFors degrade productivity

I sure hope you're being sarcastic!

Not necessarily.

If I have to wait for something, I put it on my Waiting For list and review it during my Weekly Review. I don't need to put in the effort of determining exactly when I need to check up with people. I know I'll check with them within seven days.

You are right if the urgency of all your WaitingFors is aproximately the same and you do not have to follow up before the Weekly Review. But in my case some WaitingFors have a "tomorrow" deadline and some have a "next month" deadline. If I put them all on one WaitingFor list I would have to review daily the whole list including the non-urgent items. It would be a waste of time experienced daily.

 

[WebR0ver]

Suppose you have 50 things you are waiting for.
10 are physical things like mail orders, rebate checks, tax information.
40 are from individuals.
Items that are due on a specific date and require no follow up until that date can go into your tickler.
If the 40 items are from a small number of people, say 4-10, then you may be better off to put those items on agenda lists for those people.
If they're from nearly 40 separate people, you may want to have multiple waiting for lists, based on time. @WF Current Week, @WF February, @WF March, etc. If you have learned that you need to remind people of these deliverables, you may want to keep those on either an agenda list or have an action to remind the person (in addition to the @WF).
The ten physical things can either go on @WF lists, or if they are expected on a specific date can go in the tickler.

 

[Borisoff]

I agree that WF is a passive context. But if you put something in a Tickler you have no instument that allows you to check all that actions you're expecting from someone. For me, if I need an answer Tomorrow I put that to WF and to Tickler so I see what should be Tomorrow and have the whole picture of debts for the person. So I don't see any other ways to do that.

Regards,

Eugene.

 

[kewms]

I agree that WF is a passive context. But if you put something in a Tickler you have no instument that allows you to check all that actions you're expecting from someone. For me, if I need an answer Tomorrow I put that to WF and to Tickler so I see what should be Tomorrow and have the whole picture of debts for the person. So I don't see any other ways to do that.

I use the project support materials or the person's contact record, as applicable.

Katherine

 

[pixlz]

But in my case some WaitingFors have a "tomorrow" deadline and some have a "next month" deadline. If I put them all on one WaitingFor list I would have to review daily the whole list including the non-urgent items. It would be a waste of time experienced daily.

If I have a waiting for with a specific deadline I would put a note on my calendar to chase. If it happens before the deadline all well & good I would get rid of the calender item if not them I would chase on the relevant date.

I also use Mindmanager for my lists so I can filter by date, context and person.

Pixlz

 

[TesTeq]

WaitingFor not needed.

If I have a waiting for with a specific deadline I would put a note on my calendar to chase. If it happens before the deadline all well & good I would get rid of the calender item if not them I would chase on the relevant date.

So there is no need to use the WaitingFor list. Everything can go to your calendar as a follow up reminder. Why do you have to group all the WaitingFors on a yet another list?

 

[pixlz]

Waiting fors on the calendar

So there is no need to use the WaitingFor list. Everything can go to your calendar as a follow up reminder. Why do you have to group all the WaitingFors on a yet another list?

Only the waiting fors with a specific date prior to the weekly review are on the calendar the others are on the waiting for list. I could put all of the dated ones on the calendar but if something changes, the dates or the actions themselves could be wrong. With the weekly review I pick up on these and then apply the next week's worth of dated items to the Calendar

You could I suppose put the others on the calendar for the day you are planning to do your weekly review but that is the same list in a different place.

As David says you do what works for you, that is the power of this system you can adapt it to your environment. As a project manager I am always waiting for lots of actions from lots of different people and so I need to track them and be able to forget about them in between which the waiting for list helps me to do.

At home I am waiting for things like deliveries which could come any time during a period of a week or so but if it doesn't arrive by the end of that time I want to be able to follow up on it. There is not a specific date and so I wouldn't put this on my calendar as I find my system works best when I only have hard landscape items on the calendar.

Pixlz

 

[Borisoff]

I use the project support materials or the person's contact record, as applicable.

Katherine

Katherine, I think it's very difficult to scan through all project materials trying to find all related WFs for the person you can suddenly bump in. So for me WF now is a category that helps me to find all actions for all the projects I'm expecting from someone.

Regards,

Eugene.

 

[kewms]

Katherine, I think it's very difficult to scan through all project materials trying to find all related WFs for the person you can suddenly bump in. So for me WF now is a category that helps me to find all actions for all the projects I'm expecting from someone.

I agree, that would be difficult. That's not what I do at all.

Usually, I'm only working on one project at a time with a given person, and so all relevant actions can be filed with that project. Once I pull the project file, I'm done.

Sometimes this method doesn't work. Maybe there is no project file, since I've been swapping email with the person but we haven't actually committed to anything. Or maybe there are several, because I've got several potential projects stacked up. Or maybe my project file is back at the office and I run into the person at a conference. In these situations, I can stuff all "waiting" items into the person's contact record. (You could also use an @Agenda context here.)

Katherine

 

[Borisoff]

(You could also use an @Agenda context here.)

Katherine

I think it's easier to use WF for that purpose. In this case during WR I can see what could be reminded by email or phone call and what requires a meeting (@Agenda). So it's quite a different context I think.

Regards,

Eugene.