Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas67
Hello,
I'am just switching from Things to OF. My english is awful, but I hope you can see what I mean :)
Things use Tags and OF use Contexts, so I have some questions about the way to use Contexts.
I'am working with agencies and have to order things, control that the things are ready at the right time, give feedback to the agencies, wait for feedbacks within my company etc.
At this time my contexts are like:
Give Feedback : Agencies : Agency X
Give Feedback : Agencies : Agency Y
Give Feedback : Departments : Department X
Give Feedback : Departments : Department Y
Wait for Feedback : Agencies : Agency X
Wait for Feedback : Agencies : Agency Y
Wait for Feedback : Department : Department X
Wait for Feedback : Department : Department Y
Is this the right way or is this to detailed?
|
Hi Andreas, and welcome on board!
So of course this should start with saying, have you taken a look at David Allen's books, at the White Paper on GTD and OmniFocus, etc., etc. (those are actually very helpful!).
Now since "YMMV", here's what works for me, but of course it may not apply to you at all:
I have "People" contexts for people I see/interact with very regularly. I use them to place reminders of things to ask them to do when I next communicate with them. If I've asked them to do something, it goes either in my Waiting For Reply context, or if I'm waiting for something else than a reply, in my general Waiting For context. I make ample use of start dates to block off things that I don't expect will be done in X time, but I don't use due dates.
I have an @Agendas context, with sub-contexts @one-on-one and @meetings, where I place stuff to be dealt with when I'm meeting with people that (sorry guys!) I do not interact with frequently enough to make my @People list.
I think you'll find the way that works for you is intimately related to the way you review your projects and contexts, and that the frequency of your reviews will likely affect how much detail you need to incorporate in contexts.
Hope this is (remotely) useful!
Cheers,