You know, I continue to do it both ways, and it really doesn’t matter much. I tend to add a new item if there’s a big-ish change in the wording. Some very basic things like processing email are set to repeat upon completion, so it works either way.
What's the max time for a "Next Action"
- Thread starter densteed
- Start date
Maybe it’s the times and maybe it’s me, but I do less tracking of stuff than I used to. Simpler behavior for a complicated world.
gtdstudente
Registered
@mcogilvie
Awesome . . . appropriate personal GTD systems for "Simpler behavior for a complicated world."
Thank you very much, sir
Oogiem
0
I no longer use Omnifocus.
In my current system I'd set it up as a repeating task. So when I click one done it would repeat after some period of time. (Like a day or 2 I can’t imagine I'd want to see it every single day on my next actions list.
Interesting thoughts from all of you.
Like putting something in front of the door is a sufficient reminder to take it when you go out, leaving a bookmark on the book I'm reading, set by where I do my reading, is a good enough cue for me to finish reading the book. Or, as I just experienced, I started a book I'm not interested in finishing. Done!
And, indeed, a next action does not need to be short. Just no prior activity required to continue with it.
David
Like putting something in front of the door is a sufficient reminder to take it when you go out, leaving a bookmark on the book I'm reading, set by where I do my reading, is a good enough cue for me to finish reading the book. Or, as I just experienced, I started a book I'm not interested in finishing. Done!
And, indeed, a next action does not need to be short. Just no prior activity required to continue with it.
David
At the risk that I (as a German speaker) have not understood you correctly and have also deviated somewhat from the original topic: I find this an interesting question.
Not everyone in my team works with GTD and I can't assume that everyone knows the difference between a project and a next step and interprets the terms in the same way. We have therefore pragmatically agreed that we formulate tasks that we assign to each other in Planner as the LAST step. It is then up to the assigned person to understand this as a project and to define the NEXT step in addition, or directly as the next step (if there is no project).
In my personal GTD system, I also find that it is often easier for me to describe the last step rather than a project result (feel, taste, look). This goes so far that if there is only one step left, I move the last step from the project list to the appropriate context list and make it the next (and now only) step.
To come back to the topic here: For me, the project could be “Last pages of the book are read” and the next step would be “Read next pages (according to bookmark) of the book”. At some point I check these off and take the project to the next and last step (I do not need an entry in the project list any more).
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
I don't really understand exactly what you have expressed. Some projects don't have a last next step explicitly defined at that moment, other than "complete your research about XYZ". And there would be a next action about that, for whomever owns the project. Who knows what the last next action might be about that?
I agree that most people are not that conscious about what a "project" can be. So if your technique works for them, great.
My criterion about all of this is: what do you need to do, to get that project off your mind? Could be many things.
David
I agree that most people are not that conscious about what a "project" can be. So if your technique works for them, great.
My criterion about all of this is: what do you need to do, to get that project off your mind? Could be many things.
David
The last next step would be here: "Research results presented (or e-mailed) to Roman"
Yes, if that were the case. Might not be. Could be on your own about it.
Bill Myers
Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny
I have many projects that are a variant on "Read XYZ" because I'm a slow reader. I usually create an action like "Read up to pg whatever in XYZ" but that sometimes feels a little repellent to me.
Do you think there is a potential pitfall in simply listing a one-off action like "Read XYZ"? The idea being that I'm considering it a single next action even though I probably can't do it in one sitting.
gtdstudente
Registered
@DavidAllen
"a next action does not need to be short. Just no prior activity required to continue with it."
Clear linchpin regarding Next Actions: . . . no prior activity required. . . ."
Thank you very much sir
Last edited:
I'm going to ramble:
As I get older, I find that I have a much smaller number of things simultaneously active, and as a somewhat unexpected and quite recent result, I can cope with much larger and more complex Next Actions without bothering to detail them or, usually, bookmark them.
I'm creating a new raspberry bed. Due to my schedule and dry soil, this took me about six weeks. Five or ten years ago, that would have been a project:
Create new raspberry bed in Row 6, back, plus adjacent paths.
- Clear irrigation tubing.
- Clear landscape fabric.
- Clear weeds.
- Irrigate the first 6 feet.
- WAITING FOR water to soak in.
- Fork first 6 feet.
- Irrigate the next 6 feet.
(continue for 24 feet total)
- Buy amendment and fertilizer.
- Incorporate amendment and fertilizer.
(Then there would be a zillion more actions for planting, infrastructure, blah.)
I would have been working on five or ten similar projects, so these actions would pop up along with others.
Now? I'm focusing all my garden attention on the raspberry bed until it's done. So this all collapses down to:
- Fork, amend, and fertilize new raspberry bed.
with a parallel project for the whole garden, to simplify planning by keeping the garden perpetually stocked with supplies--soil amendment and fertilizer and U-posts and seeds for various cover crops and "filler" crops and wire and irrigation sprayers and and and.
For six weeks, when I went to the garden, it was to fork the new bed. A few times I couldn't make progress on that (SOIL TOO DRY STILL ARGH!) and I did obvious maintenance tasks elsewhere--pulling out dead bean and kale plants, forking some of the irrigated soil that had been beneath them, etc.--but I didn't have projects for those. I just know as a general fact that the soil beneath a finished crop needs forking. (Sure, it's possible that I'll abruptly go no-till and regret that forking, but, meh. Unlikely.)
Now that the raspberry bed is ready, the next action will be:
- Transplant raspberries from old raspberry bed to new.
This will include running string to mark the center of the new bed, measuring the spacing for the plants, pruning the old plants, transplanting them into the new bed. It's probably going to take a few more weeks. But I really only need the one action.
Then will come:
- Complete infrastructure in new raspberry bed.
This will include putting in U-posts and wires, drip irrigation for the raspberries, temporary spray irrigation for my planned (possibly a disastrous plan) green mulch under the raspberry and on the paths. Also a few more weeks. Also one action.
As I get older, I find that I have a much smaller number of things simultaneously active, and as a somewhat unexpected and quite recent result, I can cope with much larger and more complex Next Actions without bothering to detail them or, usually, bookmark them.
I'm creating a new raspberry bed. Due to my schedule and dry soil, this took me about six weeks. Five or ten years ago, that would have been a project:
Create new raspberry bed in Row 6, back, plus adjacent paths.
- Clear irrigation tubing.
- Clear landscape fabric.
- Clear weeds.
- Irrigate the first 6 feet.
- WAITING FOR water to soak in.
- Fork first 6 feet.
- Irrigate the next 6 feet.
(continue for 24 feet total)
- Buy amendment and fertilizer.
- Incorporate amendment and fertilizer.
(Then there would be a zillion more actions for planting, infrastructure, blah.)
I would have been working on five or ten similar projects, so these actions would pop up along with others.
Now? I'm focusing all my garden attention on the raspberry bed until it's done. So this all collapses down to:
- Fork, amend, and fertilize new raspberry bed.
with a parallel project for the whole garden, to simplify planning by keeping the garden perpetually stocked with supplies--soil amendment and fertilizer and U-posts and seeds for various cover crops and "filler" crops and wire and irrigation sprayers and and and.
For six weeks, when I went to the garden, it was to fork the new bed. A few times I couldn't make progress on that (SOIL TOO DRY STILL ARGH!) and I did obvious maintenance tasks elsewhere--pulling out dead bean and kale plants, forking some of the irrigated soil that had been beneath them, etc.--but I didn't have projects for those. I just know as a general fact that the soil beneath a finished crop needs forking. (Sure, it's possible that I'll abruptly go no-till and regret that forking, but, meh. Unlikely.)
Now that the raspberry bed is ready, the next action will be:
- Transplant raspberries from old raspberry bed to new.
This will include running string to mark the center of the new bed, measuring the spacing for the plants, pruning the old plants, transplanting them into the new bed. It's probably going to take a few more weeks. But I really only need the one action.
Then will come:
- Complete infrastructure in new raspberry bed.
This will include putting in U-posts and wires, drip irrigation for the raspberries, temporary spray irrigation for my planned (possibly a disastrous plan) green mulch under the raspberry and on the paths. Also a few more weeks. Also one action.
Last edited:
I am going to restate your questions as best I understand them:
I do not believe David ever explicitly makes the calculation or calls it out but alludes to the concept in many different ways. We can reason about the result pretty easily with common general knowledge. We only have 24 hours a day, we all need to sleep around 8 hours a day, we have a number of things we have to do every day (i.e. eat, shower/hygiene, commute/drive, attend events, do basic life tasks (take out trash, clean house/dishes/etc., talk to family, etc.)) which is probably no more than 8 hours a day (at the most).
This is all stuff that is essentially general common knowledge that is a given and is an approximation easily deduced through reasoning and life experience. I don't think anyone would really dispute this beyond having slightly different numbers based on their individual circumstances (i.e. some folks may need more or less than 8 hours of sleep a night, some may not have a commute for their job so they save maybe 2 hours or so a day in travel time, etc.).
No. Logically, there is no way for that to make sense since for GTD since we have an unstated premise that we are implying: we can do next actions. Therefore, the following is the only valid logic for GTD:
> We cannot do a project.
> We can do a next action.
> Therefore, a project is not a next action (and the transitive property holds as well)
Projects and next actions are mutually exclusive.
David touches upon this in GTD in a few different ways. However, I would simply say: as much as you need but as little as you can get by with. Ideally, one is not spending any significant time "doing GTD" but "doing their actual work".
If too much time is being spent "maintaining GTD and the system" then odds are good things are being broken at too granular of a level and could benefit from being less detailed/in-depth.
Conversely, if things are not progressing enough and there's not clarity on what to do or it's not clear how to progress, inputs likely need more clarification and granular details to get "unstuck" and progressed upon.
These are all a case-by-case basis for each individual and their particular needs/circumstances.
Aside: I hope you take this feedback well and in the spirit it is intended (help you communicate more clearly and effectively since you are an active member). I find your posts difficult to understand since you tend to use the term "GTD" in various places where it doesn't make sense or fit. It's a proper noun that refers to a specific thing: the GTD book/the GTD methodology practices. It should only be used when referring to that particular thing.
Using it in places where it doesn't fit, makes your posts significantly more difficult to understand and interact with; ultimately leading people to just ignore it since they don't really understand what you are trying to say. I am sure this is a language barrier issue, and I hope this helps since you have a perspective, valuable input, and something we want to read/hear but we cannot really understand what you are saying/it's not clear. You have improved a lot over the past year or so and I want to encourage you to continue.
Last edited:
Since I think Roman and I are on the same wave length philosophically, at least I believe so. I think he is saying that he titles his projects in such a way that they describe or start from the exact end state of the project that must be true if they are actually done. Not necessarily the last next action or step.
Rather, explicitly describing them from the perspective "What does done look like?" ... precisely, exactly, and verifiably to be considered "done" at the most accurate degree possible.
For the examples given thus far, he would probably title his projects such that they describe/are the state of the world when the project is empirically done.
- Have read all pages, cover to cover, in "War and Peace"
- Emailed research report findings to Angela (accounting) by Monday 3 PM
- Collected & interpreted enough research to decide which headphones to purchase
- Purchased flight, hotel, and related accommodations for vacation upon reviewing time off, air fare costs, and fun places to visit in summer 2025
That's how I would, and do, describe my projects (more or less). Extremely clear, decisively precise, and empirically falsifiable (either it's done/true or it's not) to the point of being proved as a fact in a court of law. It's a personality quirk, for me at least.
Disclaimer: I do not mean to put words in his mouth. This is based on my understanding and interpretation. Apologies to him if I have misunderstood and/or misrepresented him in anyway.
Post-Disclaimer: I do not presume to explain to you, David. That would be insolent, not my intentions. Rather providing additional details for others/clarity.
It's been fascinating for me for the last forty-three years (when I discovered "next action" thinking) to see how challenging it has been for some of the best and brightest people on the planet to understand what became the GTD descriptions and definitions of "project" and "next action." Though it seems simple enough to apply the fundamental productivity thought process--What does "done" mean and what does "doing" look like, it still remains a challenge for most people who haven't trained that cognitive muscle yet. A while ago I realized that it might be because those two questions involved different parts of the brain to answer. One applies the forebrain's visioning aspect, and the other applies the limbic part that is action-oriented. Marrying the two seems often to block the whole thought process. That's why in our one-on-one coaching over the years, we found it easier for clients to create their action lists first, and then mine from them the real projects driving them, separately. The opposite was true, too, though less often. In one rare occasion, a client couldn't even start to do a mind sweep until he had defined all his areas of focus. Our minds are great servants but terrible masters. Sometimes we have to give them some tips about how best to serve us.
Bill Myers
Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny
If the GTD Workbook has taught me anything, it's that GTD is something you do, not something you theorize about. Therein probably lies the answer to my question. Try it one way. If it works, great. If not, try it another way.
gtdstudente
Registered
@bcmyers2112
While much better expressed above . . . like; appropriate Engagement between Projects (phantasm [imagination-&-memory] 'visioning') and Next Action(s) (limbic doing habits/behaviors) ?
On this end, while it would seem optimal to 'focus'* on either/or, consciously-or-subconsciously, might have to humbly admit to the '80/20' as best as possible given one's humble understanding GTD as a personally objectified dynamic life control system amidst life's predictable and unpredictable realities ?
*abhor stupidly attempting to do 'two-things at the same-time' even if only in the head . . . a work in progress
Last edited:
TesTeq
0
@bcmyers2112 Since the question is about the max time of the Next Action it may be impossible to try another way if you begin with a very long Next Action. For example "Find the meaning of life!" and "Find the car keys!" may take a lifetime…
SteelcaseGTDr
Bob Hendriksen
Agree. If you are commited to completing it, then it is a goal (30K ft horizon) and mybe your vision (40K) is to be an avid reader of massive classics? I would also recommend that you think about how best to systematize reading. For me, the only thing in my trusted system is "Select next month's book & let Tyler know" Tyler is my reading accountability partner & we each try to read 1 book / month. I get my book and divide the total pages by days of the month and come up with my page target per day. I have a bookmark that i move to that "goal line" each day. I have also played around with the time, setting etc. Now i have a high functioning "reading system" that works for me, and my work / joy is to execute to this nicely-designed system.
Tom_Hagen
Registered
In my opinion, you've touched on a sore spot in GTD. The entire system is well described in the context of obvious cases where the next steps of a given project are atomic in nature, e.g. Project - Changing tires: Look for a mechanic's phone number on the Internet, Call a mechanic, etc. It's worse when it comes to using GTD in a deeper sense. In the GTD system, there is an obvious tension between flexibility and direction. If we were to approach it literally, when deciding what to do, it is first the context that decides, then time, energy and finally priority. Contexts have clearly become blurred for us. They made more sense at the beginning of the 21st century, but today they have shrunk or expanded significantly - as you prefer. On the one hand, 80% of the average person's affairs can be crammed into the computer context or even online, so some use a more detailed division within the computer context, i.e. according to the tool.
GTD is like a hammer. It is a tool (here a framework). And most often on the pages there are instructions on how to use this hammer: collect, clarify, etc. However, there is very little information on what can be built with this hammer. David Allen was probably the most specific in his first book. Now, when I listen to his statements, I have the impression that they are so general that they are sometimes on the edge of some philosophical considerations.
Honestly, e.g. @Oogiem can be more inspiring here.
Back to your question. A lot depends on why you want to read War and Peace. If it's just for fun and without any deadline, then you can write down your next action as a bookmark, for example, as "Read War and Peace from page NN/1500". Time is irrelevant here, energy is also irrelevant, and if you always have this book with you, for example in digital form, then honestly, the context is also irrelevant. The disadvantage of this solution is the lack of any direction. Nothing guarantees you that you will ever read this book.
It remains to be hoped that you regularly review all your lists during the day and at the same time you will feel like reading.
The second option is that you want to read this book for pleasure but, for example, in 3 months you have to return it to the library. In my opinion, a flexible approach is not the best. This is where you need direction. Dividing the book into chapters seems to be a good idea because a chapter is a coherent concept. You also need to plan your reading in time, for example using timeblocking. Here, the reading time will definitely come into play, for example 30 minutes per chapter.
To sum up: the more direction we need, the more we need to use external techniques. The model of context, time, energy, priority + intuition that Allen talks about when describing the process of making decisions about what to do - is not enough to guarantee "success". In many cases, you simply have to plan your work.
PS. I wrote on this forum once before that GTD currently needs a deeper look, but not so much philosophically, but more in the spirit of: study cases. All these websites, blogs, or interviews (even those conducted with Allen by Dave Edward here) practically - in my opinion - do not add anything new. It is like going around in circles.
I recommend, for example, Cal Newport's book - "Deep Work" (I am translating the title from Polish, maybe it is a bit different in English) to see how you can convey something fresh and practical. Of course, this book does not solve everything - it deals more with the deeper content of what we do and requires supplementation with some system such as GTD, timeblocking etc.