Quote:
"Next" would use the algorithm I suggested (which mirrors GTD's use of "Next" more closely).
|
The basic planning tools in GTD are (1) a list of actions by context and (2) a list of projects (open loops that can't be done in one physical action). For each project, one should identify the single physical action ("next action") to move that project forward and put it on the appropriate context list.
That's what the OmniFocus "next" filter identifies.
Now, OmniFocus allows us to go further by defining some projects as parallel and letting us brainstorm other actions that we'll need to do. Since those actions are, in principle, available to be done, they can be included on context lists of actions that can be done. That does not change the fact that we should have identified one action as the next one to be done to move toward closing the loop.
Though David Allen doesn't say so in his book, it seems to me that the idea behind this single next action approach is to ensure that, as we do things, we make progress on all our open loops, rather than getting bogged down by obsessively planning a handful of them. The idea that next actions are equal to the first available action in a given context will lead users to do more on the projects that have been meticulously planned, not to give equal attention (given constraints of context, time, energy, and priority) to all projects.
That's my brief for retaining the current behavior. As I said, it will be my last word on the subject. I hope it gives a good sense of why I think this proposal would be counterproductive. I realize others, with different workflows, might disagree. But it seems simply wrong to claim that the current OF implementation is anti-GTD.