• If you are new to these Forums, please take a moment to register using the fields above.


No announcement yet.

GTD Flowchart with natrual planing model

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GTD Flowchart with natrual planing model

    Hello I have tried to make a flowchart with the steps of the natrual planing model.
    To have a clearer defined outcome, but I'm not satisfied with the end result.
    Is there some who has a flowchart with this steps, ore is there some who would like to help me organize the current flowchart?

    Flowchart (wetransfer)
    Click image for larger version

Name:	GTD Flowchart.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	36.9 KB
ID:	846

  • #2
    Free diagrams

    Have a look at free diagram, rather than draw your own

    Or buy a set


    • #3
      I think it's a great idea to try to integrate the NPM and the workflow diagrams, and also simply to create a diagram for the NPM; it is a part of GTD that, in my view, does not get enough attention.

      Your NPM diagram is a good starting point, but I find some aspects that could perhaps be clarified, or expressed better in a different way.

      To start with, according to the diagram syntax, it looks as if the user had to choose between Purpose/Guiding Principles, Mission/Vision/Goal/Successful Outcome or BrainStorm, as mutually excluding options. Of course we all know how the NPM works and we know it is not like that, but the point of a diagram is that any person could find it in a million year's time and still make sense of it. Maybe those elements would fit better as a list of bullet points or reminders; to apply the NPM, one must go through ALL of them, although in no particular order.

      Also, a rotating arrow could be used to indicate that one can go through the categories upwards and downwards a lot of times (ex: an idea in the brainstorm phase leads you to redefine your purpose, etc...)

      In addition, after the brainstorm phase there is also a fourth stage, the process of elaborating all that stuff into action granularity, and grouping the elements by sequences, priorities and components.

      Of course, it is always easier to criticize something than to create it, so let me congratulate you again for your initiative, and I hope some of my suggestions come handy.


      • #4
        I have used the GTD processing and organizing diagram as basis and edit some steps I like to see in one graphic. But I am not skilled in making a diagram, maybe some has a idea how I can organize the diagram in a more orderly manner


        • #5
          I think of the Natural Planning Model like this:

          Decide on purpose/principles => Visualize the outcome => Brainstorm => Organize => Take action.

          As vic_lh says, one can also jump around among the steps, not necessarily doing them in order. Also, each step can be elaborated in more detail, as it is in your diagram, Milagro.

          The diagram seems to me to be mixing two things: how to process things in the inbox ("workflow"), and the natural planning model. I tend to think of these as two separate things, used for different purposes. However, maybe it's a good idea to apply the natural planning model to processing something from the inbox. I'm not sure whether that's what you're doing.

          As I understand it, the way a flow chart is normally used is this: when you've completed one step, you follow an arrow to another box to find out what the next step is. However, in your diagram, there are some boxes at the right-hand side that don't have any arrow coming out of them. What should the person do next after they do that step?

          How about applying the natural planning model to the project of creating this diagram? First: what is the purpose of the diagram? How do you want to use it after it's finished? What's an example of a situation where the diagram would be useful?

          Here's a possible purpose: You have the diagram on the wall near your inbox. When you pick something up from the inbox, if it's easy to decide what to do with it, you just do that; but if it's not easy to decide, then you look at this diagram and follow the steps to process it. What's your idea of how the diagram would be used?


          • #6
            My desired outcome of this diagram to extend the "What is it?" question.

            Sometimes I catch myself drifting of or starting a task that is not that relevant.

            By example; Yesterday I was looking for a program to block distracting programs. When searching for a program I also found other "useful" stuff an ending-up with unnecessary work. Or starting task that are not word the time like automating tasks I hardly use.

            I was thing to use a bullet list, but I need a more graphics reminder in the diagram.
            To force myself to answer the questions;
            1. How dos this effect my longterm goals?
            2. What is the purpose of the task?
            3. What is the desired outcome?

            But perhaps these are not the questions to use in a flowchart. But still I am looking for some kind of graphics way to remember myself to check off every item with these qualifications.


            • #7
              I try to remember to put my hands flat on my desk now and then, which gives me a feeling of being grounded (i.e. well-connected with the earth) and ask myself questions like "What do I want to be doing right now? What is the most important thing I want to get done today?"


              • #8
                you are overcomplicating things

                I always thought that the natural planning model already fits inside of the workflow diagram and the new workflow map set that David created.

                you can see it here


                If you look at the steps, here they are:

                1) Defining purpose and principles
                well this is a natural extension of the different levels of horizon. it could also be considered an action, something like, "define why I want to save up money for this car."
                It could be a project that has more than one action, it could even be a goal.

                2) Outcome visioning
                Again this can fit into the different levels of horizon. It could be how you define the outcome of a project. "What will this project look like when it's done?" it could be a way you define your goals, "Where do I see myself in three years?"

                3) Brainstorming
                This can be an action step. "Brainstorm ideas with carol about the new X project".

                4) Organizing
                Well once you have done the brainstorming, then the next step is to process those ideas, and orgainize them.

                5) Identifying next actions
                again like #4 you will have to process what you have brainstormed and this will allow you to come up with the next actions.

                If you look at "Making it all work" and see how David has setup the 5 stages of mastering workflow, and the horizons of focus, then you will see how the Natural Planning model allows you to move horizontally or vertically, either gaining control, and/or gaining perspective.

                But the way you have things setup it seems that you are overcomplicating things.

                But that's just my opinion. I feel that the Natural Planning model already resides within the diagrams that david has setup. So no reason to change them.


                • #9
                  I'm not sure, but I think David Allen said in one of his books that the Natural Planning Model can be used with various degrees of complexity. If it's a big project involving many people, then each of the steps of the Natural Planning Model can have many sub-steps, and organizing tools can be used to keep track of them. Also the steps are not necessarily done only in order: you can go back and spend time at an earlier step before proceeding, etc. In other words, it can be OK to make something complex and it isn't necessarily over-complicating, if the complexity is useful.

                  I notice the Natural Planning Model seems to be missing a step: fact-finding and/or agreeing on what the fact are.