A well-kept context list can paralyse you just as much as chaos

Just for the opposite reason. In chaos you find nothing. On a well-kept @Computer list you find forty-eight things that are all doable, all sensible, and all not urgent enough to push themselves to the front.

That is not a flaw in the system. Context lists are sorted by resource, meaning by what you need in order to carry something out. They are storage and a menu of options. They are not sorted by what you intend to do today, because they cannot know that.

The intention for today is missing, and it has to come from you. A kanban board for the day is a usable place for it, provided you avoid the three mistakes that normally sink hybrid setups like this.

The objection first: GTD has no daily list

Anyone who knows the method has an objection ready here, and it is a fair one. A list of today’s tasks forces a decision in advance that can be obsolete by eleven. That is why GTD works with contexts rather than daily plans.

A daily board still stays clean if three conditions hold:

It is a window, not a copy. Whatever is on the board is not simultaneously somewhere else as a task.

It can be restocked at any time. When the day turns, cards come off and others go on. Without guilt and without the board turning into a list of failures.

It has no truth of its own. The weekly review goes over the system lists, never over the board. The board exists for one day and is empty by evening.

Hold to those three points and you have no second system, only a view. Break them and you have made yourself work instead of clarity.

The layout

Four columns, no more.

Today. What you set out to do on this day.

In progress. Exactly one card.

Waiting for. A holding bay for cards that will not move today because you are waiting on somebody.

Done. What you got through, visible until the evening.

That last column looks like decoration and is not. Knowledge work leaves no traces. Somebody who cannot see in the evening what they did will consider the day unproductive even when it was not. That is why tradespeople go home with that feeling less often.

The rule everything hangs on: no copies

This is where the majority of these setups break after two weeks.

If you transfer five tasks from your context list onto a second board every morning, every task exists twice. You then have to maintain both places, tick off every completion in two spots and enter every change twice. Nobody keeps that up, and when it breaks you no longer know which list is right. From that point you trust neither.

Two ways to avoid it:

Digital: filter instead of copying. Not a second board but a view onto the same data. A label “today”, a filter on it, and the columns as a status on the card itself. In Trello a label plus the board filter is enough; in other tools it is saved views. The task stays one object, you just look at it differently.

Analogue: move it physically. On paper or with cards, the card is the thing. It is either in the drawer or on the daily board, never both. That is exactly what makes analogue boards strong here, even though they are technically primitive.

What you should not do is a second digital board with tasks copied across. That is the route by which a magnifying glass becomes a parallel system.

WIP limit: the actual point of kanban

The columns are not the valuable part of kanban. The valuable part is the limit on how much may be in progress at once. Personal kanban can be reduced to two rules: make your work visible, and limit what runs at the same time.

One card in “In progress” is the hard version, and it is right. Not because multitasking is morally objectionable but because every switch between two tasks costs run-up time and you do not feel that cost. You only feel that the day was full.

Two clarifications, without which the rule fails in daily life:

Cards in “Waiting for” do not count against the limit. Otherwise you block yourself as soon as something sits with somebody else. Waiting is not work.

Interruptions are not a new card in “In progress”. When the boss calls and something comes up, the current card moves back to “Today” before the new one comes in. The detour takes three seconds and is the difference between a board that reflects the day and one that lies.

Waiting for is only a holding bay

There is a trap here that does not show up at first. The column on the daily board is not a substitute for the waiting-for list in the system. It is a place for “no further today, because I am waiting for an answer”.

By evening this column has to be empty. Every card sitting there moves to the real waiting-for list, with a date and a person. Skip that and delegated work disappears along with the board, and that is the most expensive way to lose trust in a system.

What arrives during the day does not go on the board

The whole point of choosing in the morning is that it was a decision. If everything new goes straight onto the board during the day, you have a reactive list again, just more colourful.

New things go into the inbox. Full stop. At the next processing block you decide what becomes of them, and if it has to happen today it goes onto the board — and something else comes off. That movement, having to take something down, is the real value of the limit. It makes visible that a day does not get bigger just because more arrives.

Capacity, not count

Three to five cards is a common recommendation and still the wrong measure, because it bears no relation to the time available.

Look at the calendar first. How many hours are left after meetings, travel and follow-up. On a day with six meetings maybe one hour is left, and then one card is the right number. Five cards on a day like that is not planning, it is a list that makes you look bad in the evening.

Closing the day, in two minutes

Empty the board. What is done disappears. What is not done goes back onto the context lists, not onto tomorrow’s board. Waiting-for cards move to the system list.

The reason for putting them back: a card that has sat in “Today” for three days is not a reminder, it is a reproach. And the decision about whether it is due tomorrow belongs to tomorrow, not to today.

Where it typically fails

Duplicate data. The classic, see above. Filter instead of copying.

The board becomes the system. As soon as the weekly review goes over the board rather than the project and context lists, the separation is gone and the completeness check is missing.

Too many columns. Add “Review”, “Blocked” and “This week” and you have a project management tool rather than a window on the day.

Cards without a concrete action. If a card holds a topic rather than an action, even the finest board will not help. The problem then sits one level down, in how the next actions are phrased.

The board does not get emptied in the evening. After a week “Today” is full of backlog, and the thing is more demoralising than the long context list it was meant to replace.

Common questions

How do I combine GTD and Kanban?

The system lists stay in GTD, meaning projects, context lists and waiting for. The kanban board is a daily view with four columns, stocked in the morning and emptied in the evening. What matters is that the board holds no copies but displays the same tasks differently.

What is a WIP limit?

The upper bound on how many tasks may be in progress at once. For individuals one task is the sensible limit, because every switch costs run-up time. Waiting tasks do not count.

Does a daily board not contradict the GTD method?

Only if it becomes a second task list. As a view onto the existing lists, restockable at any time and emptied in the evening, it complements the method rather than replacing it.

How many tasks belong on the daily board?

As many as fit into the time that is genuinely free. Look at the calendar first, subtract meetings, travel and follow-up, then decide. On full days one card is the right answer.

Analogue or digital?

Analogue enforces the card’s singularity, and with it the most important rule, by itself. Digital is more practical if you move between devices, but it needs filters rather than a second board.

---

Build the board for a single day and note in the evening what you learned. Usually it is the number: that less fits into a day than you believe in the morning, and that better planning does not change it.