What do you think of this reformatting of contexts ?
These are not contexts in the strict sense. What he does is, instead of contexts, the 1st criterion, he uses the 2nd and 3rd criteria (time and energy) to divide (sort) the
Next Actions list by.
This idea is not new. It came up countless times on this forum and other places almost as soon as the (online) discussion about GTD begun.
I can see purpose in some of these ideas. For instance, if you have a list of NAs that will for sure take you more than an hour (or another measure of prolonged time) to do, then I can see how that makes sense.
If you use "energy available" however I see a conceptual problem. Usually a good measure of the energy you need for a given task gets activated when you start working on that task. In other words, the energy is only there once you started working.
I fear that a list based on "energy level" will only inhibit productivity. It will stifle your courage and not inspire it.
I like some other of his ideas. Routine
Next Actions could go on a separate list, because you maybe don't want to be reminded of them every time you scan your main list. Routine items are probably better put into the tickler, but you may also want to keep the option to be reminded of them during "context" time.
In regards to his premise, that context disappeared for many of us. Well, this is a bit too much his cultural bubble, I would say. But, nevertheless, coming from there I could see a
@thinking / brainstorming list a feasible idea. You have your cell phone with you all the time and on it your list? You can always record your thoughts. It's something that doesn't need anything else. No project support materials have to be at reach.
Some other
contexts are still current for the majority of us, namely
@errands, and probably
@work vs
@home.
What comes up in these discussions on a regular basis is the fact, that for some
@software_app (ie
@photoshop) is a real
context because the tool is only available mentally when one is "geared up" to work in that tool. To have a batch of tasks that are similar in that they happen inside the same mindset and tool-chest as well becomes a staple of productivity then.
Another issue could be
@device, even in a fully synced world a lot of software is not available in all sizes or you generally just don't want to type your email on a phone.
Finally, a question that arises from his observation of how we do choose our next task (which I share):
The decisions we make today in terms of the next action we engage in is determine by time and attention available. Whereby attention is a combination of energy and priority. Priorities are either imposed on us, but more often they are also a choice we make: “What is important to me?”
It is this: how does it help me to make my choice, if my tasks are sorted by energy-level? If something bigger is also much more important right now, wouldn't that override the "energy" descriptor and just make me tackle that task?
And if not, if I postpone that more important task by dashing to another, less daunting one, didn't we have that problem already?
