Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiralOcean
|
As a teacher myself, it strikes me that I would treat many of your action groups as actions. For instance, the group "Handouts are ready for class" has two actions in it: "Prepare in-class handouts" and "Photocopy handouts," both of them in context Computer. I would make that a single action: "Prepare and photocopy in-class handouts." (I'd be especially inclined to do so because they all have the same context. If I had to prepare handouts on my computer and then turn them in to be photocopied at the office, I might make them separate actions, though I might not, for reasons explained below.)
Sure, from a strict GTD perspective, that's not a single action. On the other hand, Allen observes in GTD that tasks that are habitual might not need very much detail, while people who have taken on new responsibilities might need to break them down to a more granular level. I've been teaching for over a decade, so I've internalized a lot of routines that I don't need to track in my GTD system.
I've also taken on a new administrative job, and I find that I'm tracking that at a more granular level because the routine tasks aren't yet habitual. GTD expands to meet my needs there. But in a couple years, I expect that my actions for that job will be a lot more succinct than they are now.
If you need that level of granularity, far be it from me to criticize you. My own approach to GTD is to specify actions precisely enough that I know what goes without saying. But then, I'll put stuff in front of the door so that I don't forget it in the morning, so I know that "what goes without saying" varies a lot from person to person and project to project.
I also find that, fairly often, instead of marking an action complete, I'll edit its description and give it a new context. It works for me and, at least sometimes, keeps me from overplanning instead of doing! :-)