[iNik]

Option 1: Have on context, "Computer", and be done with it.

Option 2: Consider when mode switches are significant.

Perhaps have a context for certain servers that require regular maintenance. So when I remote into "application server 1", I have a list of things it needs (e.g. virus update, clean up temp files, add blah blah blah to security list, open new file share, etc.) that I can just run right through. Since a lot of this stuff isn't terribly time-sensitive, it's okay if it stacks up a bit.

What about time-based contexts? You could have an "After hours" context for everything that needs to be done outside of regular working hours (system updates/reboots, backups, etc.) Meantime, your "manager" tasks could be broken up as during the workday (when your directs are available) and after workday (bureaucracy, paper shuffling, etc.)

As you point out, certain applications have some overhead or individually represent a mode switch. Certainly "Design" might represent Photoshop, Indesign, etc., but can be grouped together since those apps (and that mode of thought) all work together. Then a "Development" context contains those items that require detailed attention of a certain type and are best tackled when you can turn off the phone and email and concentrate for a few hours straight.

In the end, contexts are there so that you can focus on what's at hand and "crank widgets" by going from step to step and get things done without dithering over what to do.

With this sort of meta-categorization, you might find perspectives very useful so that you can zero in on a "Next actions at my office with my Mac" perspective, containing many contexts, and then pick one of those contexts to switch into by finding an important task within it.

(I have exactly such a context that I use each time I need to find something else to do -- i.e. when I stop cranking widgets)

Make sense?

[Trey]

I've been doing GTD for about two years now, and because i've had no single trusted app for project management, i've been using 3x5 cards ("hipster PDA") to keep track of my actions. When you use that style, you start to think about context a lot more than you think about projects—projects are something you only think about at review time.

Context in GTD is all about what resources are available to you. For example, cleaning up your desk at work is an action that requires you be at your desk at work. Making a phone call just requires you have a phone, wherever you are. Doing research online requires that you be online.

Perspectives, focus, and context can really work together nicely here. My contexts right now are:

• Errands
  • Grocery store
  • Housewares
  • Drug store
  • Community center
• Home
• Office
• MacBook Pro
• Mac mini
• Online
  • Email
• Windows
  • Work network
• Phone business day
  • Phone anytime
• People
  • Boss
  • Coworker 1
  • Employee 1
• Waiting
• Thinking

Notice that I have "Online", but then I also have "Work network". Things that just require I be online go into the former context, but things that require I be on my office network (whether because I'm at the office, or at home on VPN) go in the latter context. My company has apps that only work on Windows (gack), so "Work network" is a subcontext of "Windows". (If there were offline tasks I could only do on Windows, it would be a separate context rather than a subcontext, but I don't have any of those.)

This may seem backwards—surely being on the work network (which I can do on my Mac) is not a subcategory of "Windows". But the point is in winnowing down the resources available to me at any time. If I left my Windows laptop at home, but have some time to do some work, I can click "Work network" to see only those items I can do on the VPN without access to the Windows machine. If I do have the work Windows laptop, I click "Windows" and see everything I can do on the VPN too.

Similarly, note that instead of a generic "Phone" context, I have a "Phone business day context", and a "Phone anytime" subcontext. During the business day I click the "Phone business day" context and see all phone calls I could make, but outside the business day I click "Phone anytime" and then don't see the doctor's appointment call, but do see the 24x7 customer service call.

(If the backwards hierarchy bothers you, you can just create a "Phone" context with "Business day" and "Anytime" subcontexts, and not put anything into the "Phone" supercontext. It would work just as well.)

In my Library, I have folders for "Personal", "Non-profit work" (I'm a board member of a nonprofit) and "Work". If I were working as a consultant, I'd have folders for each of my clients.

Now, I can create Perspectives to give me exactly what I need. I have an "At Home" perspective where I've selected my "Home", "MacBook Pro", "Mac mini", "Online", "Phone business day", and "Thinking" contexts, showing available actions.

Then I have a "Working at Home" perspective that is focused on the "Work" folder, and has the same contexts as "At Home" plus the "Windows" context, since when I'm working at home I also have my work laptop and my VPN running.

My "At the office" perspective has nothing focused (sometimes I have personal actions, like printing a boarding pass for my vacation, that I'll actually do at the office), but has the "Office", "Windows", "Phone business day", and "People" contexts.

Then finally, my "Errands" perspective gives me a quick way to print off shopping lists for when I'm without my computer.

Contexts shouldn't be overly specific, but they should represent exactly what resources are available to you at any given time. (So why do I have an "Email" subcontext of "Online"? Just because I find it useful sometimes to just fire off all the emails I need to work on at one time.) If a context offers you an available action you can't do at a time when that context should be active, then you need to subdivide your context (perhaps by making a subcontext as I mentioned above).

Using these methods, I haven't found any need to have things in multiple contexts. The only exception is for People—some actions it would be nice to mark as things I can take care of either when I see my boss in person, or that I can do by phone. I could solve that by creating a separate heirarchy for "In-person people" for things I can only do face-to-face, and then creating a new perspective that would meld "Phone" and "People", but so far I haven't felt the need to do that.

[joelande]

Thanks for the help Trey (and others).

This gives me some good ideas, and (perhaps more importantly) shows that what I was already thinking seemed to be on the right track.

Here is my current list <significantly paired down from a much more specific/detailed list:

@Office
-----After Hours (for server maintenance when nobody is logged in)
@Calls
@Emails
@Agenda
-----CoWorker1
-----CoWorker2
@Waiting
-----CoWorker1
-----CoWorker2
Errands
Home
Reading
Training


My concerns so far:
1) Currently 95% of my actions fall into @Office - don't know if that is going to become an issue or not
2) Additionally I can do many (but not) all of my @Office items at home
3) There are some items that I could take care of in @Calls, @Emails, or possibly @Agenda (but I have ben reserving Agenda for face-to-face communication so far.
4) Reading and Training have some cross-over too, but I am trying to categorize Training as items that may ned more than a book - like a computer or video or audio source...

[Trey]

Originally Posted by joelande

My concerns so far:
1) Currently 95% of my actions fall into @Office - don't know if that is going to become an issue or not

Not really an issue, it just means that when you're looking for something to do and you don't winnow down some other way (say, by focusing), you'll see 95% of your actions. Is that a problem? If not, no issue.

2) Additionally I can do many (but not) all of my @Office items at home

Then your Office context isn't the right one for the actions inside it (which may explain why 95% of them are there; they're in the wrong context).

Right now, I have exactly two actions under Office: "Clean up desk at work" and "Get a stapler from the supply closet". I have dozens of work-related actions, however, it's just that none of them require that I be in the office, they just require that I have some time to devote to them (and in some cases a computer, or specific type of net access, or a phone, or access to my boss or a coworker). I think perhaps you're equating "context" with something it's not: "general project area" or "mindset" perhaps?

To reiterate: context is when the conditions required to work on an action are present. It often is a place, or a person, or a device, and those are good terms to use to name them. But if an action doesn't require you to be in that place, or with that person, or able to use that device, then you need a different context for the action.

3) There are some items that I could take care of in @Calls, @Emails, or possibly @Agenda (but I have ben reserving Agenda for face-to-face communication so far.

That's the either/or observation I made earlier. Short of either OF allowing actions with multiple contexts, the only solutions I see are to put the action in the most likely context, and create a perspective that includes all three, or create mirrored heirarchies of people in "Must be face-to-face", "Can be either face-to-face or email", "Can be either face-to-face, email, or phone," "Can be email or phone", etc. etc. Yuck.

I don't have too many actions under my People subcontexts, so I'm just clicking Command-clicking People whenever I click Email or Phone. It requires me to give a moment's thought as to whether I can do the communication in that mode (which is a moment of reflection GTD is supposed to avoid), but it beats the alternatives I think.

4) Reading and Training have some cross-over too, but I am trying to categorize Training as items that may ned more than a book - like a computer or video or audio source...

Reading and Training are contexts only insofar as you need specialized resources to do them. If you have paper matériel required for the reading action, is it at home? Then your context is Home. Is it at the office? Then your context is Office. If you need to carry around particular reference material from place to place in order to achieve the action, then yes, you have a separate context—but you need to make sure (through actions in other contexts) that the material gets carried to the place it needs to be before you can switch to that context.

It's the same thing as there being a "Phone" context as separate from an "Anytime" context, even if you might carry your cell phone around with you all the time. The necessary (and sufficient) thing about the context is the phone.

[joelande]

Originally Posted by Trey

Not really an issue, it just means that when you're looking for something to do and you don't winnow down some other way (say, by focusing), you'll see 95% of your actions. Is that a problem? If not, no issue.

That's what I am saying. Not sure if it will be a problem or not yet. Will have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by Trey

Then your Office context isn't the right one for the actions inside it (which may explain why 95% of them are there; they're in the wrong context).

I kind of agree with this.

I started out with context divided into certain applications (web development, database development, workflow development, systems integration, etc). But this didn't work out either, so I retrenched into a minimal set of contexts.

Originally Posted by Trey

Right now, I have exactly two actions under Office: "Clean up desk at work" and "Get a stapler from the supply closet". I have dozens of work-related actions, however, it's just that none of them require that I be in the office, they just require that I have some time to devote to them (and in some cases a computer, or specific type of net access, or a phone, or access to my boss or a coworker). I think perhaps you're equating "context" with something it's not: "general project area" or "mindset" perhaps?

Maybe.
I understand the concept of context, but I also need to find a balance of how to define them for my work style.
The big issue I have is how to divide and conquer these "borders" (because I often do "work" projects at home):
- there a definitely some things that I HAVE to do at the office (these are no problem defining)
- there are some things that can just as easily be done at the office or at home
- and there are many things that can be done at home as long as I grab a reference file first

Right now, all three of those items are in the same "Office" context, which is probably not right.
Maybe I just need to come up with three terms to fit the above scenarios, and use those as the contexts...

Originally Posted by Trey

Reading and Training are contexts only insofar as you need specialized resources to do them. If you have paper matériel required for the reading action, is it at home? Then your context is Home. Is it at the office? Then your context is Office.

Well I have an iLiad (http://www.irextechnologies.com/) and a MacBook Pro, so they are almost always with me...
Which brings me to the point of my original post - it is hard to define contexts in this modern world we live in, because often times, I can choose to do ANYTHING! (I always have my computer, I always have my phone, I always am online, etc).

Thanks again for the ideas!

[Trey]

Originally Posted by joelande

The big issue I have is how to divide and conquer these "borders" (because I often do "work" projects at home):
- there a definitely some things that I HAVE to do at the office (these are no problem defining)
- there are some things that can just as easily be done at the office or at home
- and there are many things that can be done at home as long as I grab a reference file first

Right now, all three of those items are in the same "Office" context, which is probably not right.

Definitely not right. Only the first of your three points above are in the "Office" context. What do the actions in the second one require? They may fall out into several different contexts, depending on what they require to be completed. Your third point above is in the "Reference" context—perhaps even a specific context for that particular reference file.

Maybe I just need to come up with three terms to fit the above scenarios, and use those as the contexts...

Mmmm.... I think you're trying to wrap contexts around "scenarios" or "use cases" or something that they're not. Once again, a context is: the circumstances necessary and sufficient for completion of a particular action (not including willpower and/or time). This, and no more. The three points above don't express what's necessary and sufficient for completion. They're too vague. Do you need a computer? A paper and pencil? Some peace and quiet to think? Those are contexts, not "things I could do at the office", "things I could do at the office or at home", "things I could do with a reference file". Those last things are expressions of characteristics of the action, but they aren't contexts.

Well I have an iLiad (http://www.irextechnologies.com/) and a MacBook Pro, so they are almost always with me...
Which brings me to the point of my original post - it is hard to define contexts in this modern world we live in, because often times, I can choose to do ANYTHING! (I always have my computer, I always have my phone, I always am online, etc).

Right. But you're expecting contexts to do something they won't. Notice above I said contexts were the necessary and sufficient circumstances for completion, "not including willpower and time"? Willpower and time are where you use filters and foci. Given d amount of time, you set a filter showing actions you can complete in d. If you just can't face dealing with a certain project right now, focus on something else.

It sounds to me like maybe you do have 95% of your actions in one place—but they're not in "Office", they're in "MacBook Pro". (Can they all be done offline? If not, there you go right there, make an "Online" context and winnow that way. Do some actions need peace and quiet too, and do you sometimes work in public? Add a "Thinking" context, and there's another avenue to winnow with. And so on....)

[iNik]

Originally Posted by joelande

The big issue I have is how to divide and conquer these "borders" (because I often do "work" projects at home):
- there a definitely some things that I HAVE to do at the office (these are no problem defining)
- there are some things that can just as easily be done at the office or at home
- and there are many things that can be done at home as long as I grab a reference file first

If you need a reference file and might work on it away from the office, consider adding a "Pack up xxx folder to take home" reminder to iCal or whatever. (Or just pack it up as soon as you think about it -- I generally carry six or seven folders containing support material for current projects as well as a couple pieces of reading that are on my read/review list)

If they can be done anywhere, and there's no real mode switch, consider a "Computer" context, or even sub-divide that into Computer:Online, Computer:Office, Computer:Home, Computer:General. The office/home sub-contexts split out necessary network access. (Or, in my case, let me know that I can only do that on the VPN) Or heck, maybe those categories are subsumed into "Office" and "Home" since the computer is, generally speaking, always available in those contexts.

I also HIGHLY recommend fidding with contexts as you continue to work. There's no need for a master plan up front. OF makes it easy to create contexts on the fly, and I use that ALL THE TIME.

If I'm going to Denver for a weekend, I'll set up a "Denver" context.

If I'm looking forward to a holiday and have things to remember to do regarding that holiday, I'll set up a Home: Thanksgiving Prep contexts to filter out those actions. (Yes, I had MULTIPLE Thanksgiving projects, so the context made sense to me as a means to focus)

[Trey]

Originally Posted by iNik

If I'm looking forward to a holiday and have things to remember to do regarding that holiday, I'll set up a Home: Thanksgiving Prep contexts to filter out those actions. (Yes, I had MULTIPLE Thanksgiving projects, so the context made sense to me as a means to focus)

Interesting. Why not a Thanksgiving Prep project you could focus on? As I've described it, context is about "the circumstances needed to get the action done", project is about "the goal/state/mindset you're trying to reach".

But a "Thanksgiving Prep" context definitely breaks the idea of contexts being about what's necessary to do the action—I'd assume that some of the prep work would require a car (shopping), some would require being in the kitchen (prep those veggies), etc. Wouldn't you need to remember "whenever I click my Errands context, also Cmd-click my Home:Thanksgiving Prep context, just in case I have some shopping?" (Or, of course, set up a perspective to do the same.)

Not criticizing, just trying to understand why it's a context. Maybe we just have different ways of looking at things.

[iNik]

Yeah, the Thanksgiving prep context is a total departure from GTD, but it worked well for me. I made it a sub-context of Home:, and it just contained everything I had to do at home that was Thanksgiving-related. Then I could just click on that context and work my ass off in the kitchen on Thanksgiving day.

My projects, meantime, had stuff like "Pie" which included a shopping list (@errands), figuring out who was going to bake it (@Agendum: Wife), and finally a "Make Pie" (@Home:Thanksgiving Prep).

Basically I made a one-click perspective without all that persnickety perspective fiddling.

[joelande]

Originally Posted by Trey

They may fall out into several different contexts, depending on what they require to be completed.

Some certainly may, but most definitely not. Most of them require my computer and to be online, which is pretty much all of the time for me. And again, in many of these forums (as well as other GTD-related forums) there has been a big push to not get carried away with contexts too much. And again, that is where I started - a long list of specific-contexts. It just didn't work for me, because realistically, they were all the same (computer, online).

Originally Posted by Trey

Your third point above is in the "Reference" context—perhaps even a specific context for that particular reference file.

Surely you are not siuggesting I create a context for every single reference material I may need...
a) that woudl be grossly unmanigeamle, even with software
b) it smacks of project labels and context labels being the same, which typically indicates the contexts are not correct.

Originally Posted by Trey

Mmmm.... I think you're trying to wrap contexts around "scenarios" or "use cases" or something that they're not. Once again, a context is: the circumstances necessary and sufficient for completion of a particular action (not including willpower and/or time). This, and no more.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. In fact, even in your reply above you say I am trying to wrap a context into a "scenario", yet then you define it as "circumstances necessary". Not sure there is a difference there.

I understand the concept of a context to be the physical environment needed to perform an action. Furthermore you are also supposed to consider time required, energy level, and priority; which in the GTD book are defined as part of the overall context. The book mentions that all of these together determines your actual context at the time. Of course he does not recommend that we mange our lists that way, because he also wants the system to not get unmanageable, or require sophisticated software.

Originally Posted by Trey

The three points above don't express what's necessary and sufficient for completion They're too vague. Do you need a computer? A paper and pencil? Some peace and quiet to think? Those are contexts, not "things I could do at the office", "things I could do at the office or at home", "things I could do with a reference file". Those last things are expressions of characteristics of the action, but they aren't contexts.

I'm not convinced of that (yet). As I started at the top of the post, I always have my computer and am online if I am at home or the office. So if it is Office, it is assumed I have comnputer, online. And I have seen many people move away from overly detailed context lists.

For me, office implies work-related projects. However, I work at home a lot. Most of (but not all) of my job can be done equally in either location, because I always have the tools I need available.

What is a pencil anyways?

Originally Posted by Trey

It sounds to me like maybe you do have 95% of your actions in one place—but they're not in "Office", they're in "MacBook Pro".

Could be. That is an assumption I just make, because my MacBook is always with me. I use the office context because they are work-related actions (as opposed to personal or pro-bono actions I do with my MacBook Pro).

Originally Posted by Trey

(Can they all be done offline? If not, there you go right there, make an "Online" context and winnow that way.

Not really. I find there is very little I can do productively offline. Not saying there is nothing. But very little. And I don't think (at this time) it is worth the effort to separate the two.

Originally Posted by Trey

Do some actions need peace and quiet too, and do you sometimes work in public? Add a "Thinking" context, and there's another avenue to winnow with. And so on....)

I'm not sure how I see that is different from what I have done:
- a office context (strict requirement of being in the office)
- a office MacBook context (office-related actions that can be done at home or the office)
- a office MacBook context (as above, but with a reminder to grab a reference file first)