20,000ft doesn't seem to fit in

[treelike]

The Areas of Focus/ Responsibility doesn't seem to me to fit in to the hierarchy and it's maybe misleading to put it at 20,000ft/ level 2. An imaginary example:

50,000ft Perfect your physical existence (i.e. the sort of life purpose an athlete or someone of that ilk might have)
40,000ft Perform an 80 mile hike without stopping
30,000ft Get ideal hiking kit
20,000ft ??????
10,000ft Get hiking shoes
0ft Research hiking shoes

Here we see an example where an item at a higher level leads directly down to the one below and the one below that and so on... except for the 20,000ft level. I can see related potential 20,000ft items-

Physical Health
Mental Health
Finances

- but they seem to be related to many levels in the hierarchy in complicated ways. The ideal hiking kit is related to physical health and finances (what's best for my particular body/ how much can I afford) but the finance and health AOF's do not directly lead from the 30,000ft goal. Furthermore, the health and finance AOF's don't go away when the hiking kit goal is achieved.

AOF's are to reviewed more than projects but less than level 3 goals which might explain it, but why put AOF in the hierarchy at all? Why not just have it to the side and say the AOF list needs reviewed every month or so? Maybe the AOF list belongs below 0ft as the items tend to be things that pull you back down to earth and force you to do things.

Am I missing something?

Reason for posting:
I am trying to rebuild my woefully inadequate higher level lists from the bottom up because I seem to derive most of my inspiration from Project/NA level.

 

[ArcCaster]

My take -- you have many areas of focus -- health, home, family, friends, work, work 'hats', etc.

I think of that hierarchy as being very narrow at the bottom, very narrow at the top, wider in the middle. So, a vision may have many goals, and even the goals could have many focuses. It would be nice if a next action buying the right running shoe contributed to focuses such as fitness, avoiding injury, networking with running friends and family, travel to various trails or events, and maybe even mental growth areas such as listening to podcasts stored in your shoe while you run.

 

[mcogilvie]

You are quite correct that the different levels interact in complicated ways. The 0-50K hierarchy (GTD, 1st ed.) is organized by frequency of review, not by some top-down, required flow. So in your example, I might start with

50K: maintain good health
20K: exercise

I decide I want to try hiking:
10K: R&D hiking (places to go, equipment)

then I tackle
10K: plan summer hikes

I decide I like hiking, it's good exercise, relaxing, I meet people:

20K: Hiking (maybe it replaces exercise, maybe not)
30K: work up to 25 mile day hike (an 80 mile hike without stopping is unrealistic)

The whole process is meant to be dynamic and personalized to you. Most of what we do is driven by our projects and current areas of focus, but the higher levels help sustain us and can drive changes in our lives.

 

[CamJPete]

This level has always seems out of place to me too. In David Allen's book, Making it All Work, even he mentions that areas of focus and responsibility can be considered either at 20K, or 50K (I think) depending on what it is. (I have the audiobook so I can't quote it verbatim.) He calls this level "things that you need to maintain" like relationships, health, skills, etc. that have no definable end point but from which flow other projects and perhaps goals and visions too. But it could also have implications when approaching them from the point of view of your purpose. I think he is saying it depends on what kind of a review you are conducting. Reviewing your purpose at 50K as it relates to family will create a different set of ideas compared to reviewing your maintenance list at 20K (areas of focus) as it relates to family. In reality, life is more like a spider web of associativity among these levels, rather than a strictly linear one, but I get that analogies can help. With that said...

I'm still not 100% sold (more like 75%) on the horizons analogy--even David Allen says they are somewhat arbitrary delineations. Maybe I would be a little more sold if they were called altitudes instead of horizons. I have yet to fly on an airplane where the pilot says that we are "cruising at a horizon of 40,000 feet". Altitude yes, horizon no. When I think horizon, it jumbles my mind as I associate the horizon with ground level. Anyway, the analogy is not THAT important in the end. I still have derived much value from his groupings and descriptions. Maybe he was just listening to the 90's band "Vertical Horizon" when he was devising the analogy.

Personally, my 50K purpose is a simple single statement that stands alone. Everything under it supports that one thing. My 40K vision is organized according to top level areas of focus: god, family, others, myself, money, interests, things, career. My 30K goals are currently nonexistent. I'm still not to the point of being able to flesh those out yet, which I'm comfortable with for now. My 20K areas list also includes responsibilities or stewardships under each major group. For example, under "family" I have a responsibility to maintain and build my relationship as a son, brother, uncle, husband, father; under "things" I have a responsibility to maintain my home, and my possessions. Under "others" I have a responsibility to maintain and build relationship with my community, friends, volunteer organizations, etc. Even my projects are grouped according to the top level areas of focus. For example, under "money" I have projects to "research health saving account options", "finalize 2016 tax deductions", "complete rental home improvements", "finalize budget setup", "sell existing product inventory for lean startup". The actions list is the only level besides purpose that is not organized by areas, but rather by contexts. Even my reference material and someday-maybe lists are organized by my eight top level areas of focus. It may change over time, and I might find that reference material doesn't need to be chunked up that much, but it works for me for now. Just a few examples of how I use it, even though you didn't really ask for it.

If you have an "altitude" structure that works better for you, by all means, I say go forward with it. To me, the ideas is that levels 20K to 50K serve as some semblance of structure to remind you during a review to do something. You might have a project that comes from reviewing your 50K level, or a vision items that comes from a 20K review, or an actions that comes from 30K review. The book Making it All Work goes into a lot more descriptions into these horizons that may help you out, if you are interested in exploring it more.

 

[treelike]

My take -- you have many areas of focus -- health, home, family, friends, work, work 'hats', etc.

I think of that hierarchy as being very narrow at the bottom, very narrow at the top, wider in the middle. So, a vision may have many goals, and even the goals could have many focuses. It would be nice if a next action buying the right running shoe contributed to focuses such as fitness, avoiding injury, networking with running friends and family, travel to various trails or events, and maybe even mental growth areas such as listening to podcasts stored in your shoe while you run.

The way I see it, the Areas of Focus level has equal interaction with all the other levels. The very long hike vision at 40,000ft in my example has implications for health and relationships with loved ones (they might worry). The focuses surely need considered no matter what level you are working at. I don't see that they are any more involved at 30,000ft or 10,000ft but being called 20,000ft suggests that they should be.

 

[treelike]

You are quite correct that the different levels interact in complicated ways. The 0-50K hierarchy (GTD, 1st ed.) is organized by frequency of review, not by some top-down, required flow.

(Snip good example)

Yeah I maybe need to stop getting hung up on the hierarchy of it and just follow the review frequency. I guess the problem is that I am being lazy and trying to discover the "higher levels" by some simple process when life is too complex for that. I was even toying with the idea of defining 30,000ft items as "things made up of more than one project", analogous to projects being made of things made up of more than one next action.

 

[treelike]

I'm still not 100% sold (more like 75%) on the horizons analogy--even David Allen says they are somewhat arbitrary delineations. Maybe I would be a little more sold if they were called altitudes instead of horizons.

I think in the latest edition he calls them "levels" (I haven't read it yet but it's on my birthday checklist )

Personally, my 50K purpose is a simple single statement that stands alone. Everything under it supports that one thing. My 40K vision is organized according to top level areas of focus: god, family, others, myself, money, interests, things, career. My 30K goals are currently nonexistent. I'm still not to the point of being able to flesh those out yet, which I'm comfortable with for now. My 20K areas list also includes responsibilities or stewardships under each major group. For example, under "family" I have a responsibility to maintain and build my relationship as a son, brother, uncle, husband, father; under "things" I have a responsibility to maintain my home, and my possessions. Under "others" I have a responsibility to maintain and build relationship with my community, friends, volunteer organizations, etc. Even my projects are grouped according to the top level areas of focus. For example, under "money" I have projects to "research health saving account options", "finalize 2016 tax deductions", "complete rental home improvements", "finalize budget setup", "sell existing product inventory for lean startup". The actions list is the only level besides purpose that is not organized by areas, but rather by contexts. Even my reference material and someday-maybe lists are organized by my eight top level areas of focus. It may change over time, and I might find that reference material doesn't need to be chunked up that much, but it works for me for now. Just a few examples of how I use it, even though you didn't really ask for it.

No I didn't but it was interesting. So it's almost like a table with your levels as rows and organised into columns of focuses. Or using focus as a "context" for higher levels.

If you have an "altitude" structure that works better for you, by all means, I say go forward with it. To me, the ideas is that levels 20K to 50K serve as some semblance of structure to remind you during a review to do something. You might have a project that comes from reviewing your 50K level, or a vision items that comes from a 20K review, or an actions that comes from 30K review. The book Making it All Work goes into a lot more descriptions into these horizons that may help you out, if you are interested in exploring it more.

I do have MIAW but maybe need to read it again. The problem is that I have an altitude structure that doesn't work. I need to remember the purpose- the lists are there to remind me where I need to do something and get stuff off my mind. If the higher levels didn't keep coming into my mind I wouldn't have a problem!

 

[treelike]

By the way, thanks for the replies folks

 

[TesTeq]

By the way, thanks for the replies folks

Oh, I see I am late for the discussion. 10 years ago I thought that there should be some kind of hierarchy between these Horizon of Focus levels. But now I wonder:

What hierarchy should we construct between looking at the ground from the Eiffel tower in Paris and from the plane flying over London? I suppose you can see both cities from this plane but there's no hierarchy between these two views at all.

 

[Gardener]

I've never assumed that the levels should have any sort of straightforward hierarchy where a lower item belongs to exactly one higher item. For example, going out jogging may trace up to health, and social life (maybe you tend to isolate yourself and you made a point of finding a group of people to jog with) and self-discipline, and career (maybe you want that eventual 10K to be on your list of extracurriculars when you apply to college--yes, suddenly my sample person got younger) and...who knows what else.

It can be a stretch for even a Next Action to clearly tie to one and only one project; I just pick a project for convenience. Expecting the bigger and more complex levels to have a one-to-one trace is, IMO, not productive.

 

[treelike]

Oh, I see I am late for the discussion. 10 years ago I thought that there should be some kind of hierarchy between these Horizon of Focus levels. But now I wonder:

What hierarchy should we construct between looking at the ground from the Eiffel tower in Paris and from the plane flying over London? I suppose you can see both cities from this plane but there's no hierarchy between these two views at all.

Yes I agree now that hierarchy is the wrong way to think about it. I guess the problem is that the horizons seem a bit arbitrary to me. Why six levels? Why not seven, or three? Why not review 35,000ft? etc etc. Maybe I just need to re-RTFM and accept the answer to these questions is "just because".

Thanks in advance for any future replies

 

[treelike]

It can be a stretch for even a Next Action to clearly tie to one and only one project; I just pick a project for convenience. Expecting the bigger and more complex levels to have a one-to-one trace is, IMO, not productive.

Which explains why I am finding it difficult to build the levels from the bottom up. It's easy to see when a Next Action is actually becoming a Project, when it turns out to actually be made out of more than one action before completion. It's much harder to identify a Project which is a product of more than one Next Action. Determining the relation of 30,000ft goals to Projects might actually require some effort (gasp!).

 

[TesTeq]

Thanks in advance for any future replies

One more thing: I think that Horizons of Focus can be redefined by everyone. The ultimate goal is to have a framework for finding your own "why" for doing Next Actions. For finding motivation for engagement in life.

I opened the MIAW book and found something strangely new: up to now I was thinking that the 20000 ft. level is a place to define your Areas of Life (or your roles). But in the MIAW book I see "50000 ft. - career, purpose, lifestyle (annually +)"

Probably 50000 ft. was always meant to be a level to define your roles in life (parent, business owner, windsurfer etc.). Not the 20000 ft. level which has a misleading name of "Areas of focus and responsibility". The 20000 ft. level is just about "important spheres of work and life to be MAINTAINED at standards to 'keep the engines running'".

 

[treelike]

One more thing: I think that Horizons of Focus can be redefined by everyone. The ultimate goal is to have a framework for finding your own "why" for doing Next Actions. For finding motivation for engagement in life.

The ultimate goal is to get everything out of your head so that you have the clear space required to listen to your intuition which tells you what to do next. I sometimes wonder if a higher level framework is even necessarily required to achieve this.

I opened the MIAW book and found something strangely new: up to now I was thinking that the 20000 ft. level is a place to define your Areas of Life (or your roles). But in the MIAW book I see "50000 ft. - career, purpose, lifestyle (annually +)"

Probably 50000 ft. was always meant to be a level to define your roles in life (parent, business owner, windsurfer etc.). Not the 20000 ft. level which has a misleading name of "Areas of focus and responsibility". The 20000 ft. level is just about "important spheres of work and life to be MAINTAINED at standards to 'keep the engines running'".

I have sometimes thought of 20,000ft as analogous to quality assurance in an organisation (I used to work in QA) in that it is somewhat independent of the higher levels, to make sure nothing dodgy (unethical or incongruous) is being planned further up. I suppose you could say 50,000ft is similar. Maybe the 20,000ft is a filter for the incongruous and 50,000ft is the filter for the unethical.

 

[TesTeq]

The ultimate goal is to get everything out of your head so that you have the clear space required to listen to your intuition which tells you what to do next. I sometimes wonder if a higher level framework is even necessarily required to achieve this.

IMHO it isn't necessary. You don't have to have a life purpose defined or multiyear goals to be a happy person bringing happiness to lives of people that surround you.

 

[Folke]

I use Areas (20k) in a very simple and pragmatic way. I use them for being able to review (and brainstorm) entire groups ("areas") of tasks (projects and actions) that are somehow naturally related and preferably considered together as a whole in order to make it easier to keep mental focus. (I get the impression it is quite similar to what CamJPete describes).

In my implementation, I always stick each task into just one single Area. In my own experience you can always, with a just little bit of thinking effort, define your areas clearly enough such that it becomes sufficiently clear to which one area a given task belongs; and doing so makes everything else a lot simpler. There is no need for any "multi-mapping" of tasks to multiple areas, IMHO - it's just the grouping I am after, not an immaculate analysis of the total truth.

I have always had the impression that many people seem to want to cram too many things into the 20k level. For example, things like physical health, mental health, finances etc are things I would regard as life aspects (50 k) - something you will always want to maintain and improve, from now until and until the end of your life. I would never use such things as 20k "areas". I am satisfied to have more concrete things like "job hats" or "pretend job hats" etc

 

[treelike]

I use Areas (20k) in a very simple and pragmatic way. I use them for being able to review (and brainstorm) entire groups ("areas") of tasks (projects and actions) that are somehow naturally related and preferably considered together as a whole in order to make it easier to keep mental focus. (I get the impression it is quite similar to what CamJPete describes).

In my implementation, I always stick each task into just one single Area. In my own experience you can always, with a just little bit of thinking effort, define your areas clearly enough such that it becomes sufficiently clear to which one area a given task belongs; and doing so makes everything else a lot simpler. There is no need for any "multi-mapping" of tasks to multiple areas, IMHO - it's just the grouping I am after, not an immaculate analysis of the total truth.

I like this and a quick glance at my Project list indicates that this is something I can do. For example I've got a number of projects that relate to camping (acquiring/ making equipment, learning techniques) and some relating to the kids (growing stuff in the garden, crafts, etc) so "camping" and "kids" naturally appear to be two of my areas. Seems kinda obvious now.

I have always had the impression that many people seem to want to cram too many things into the 20k level. For example, things like physical health, mental health, finances etc are things I would regard as life aspects (50 k) - something you will always want to maintain and improve, from now until and until the end of your life. I would never use such things as 20k "areas". I am satisfied to have more concrete things like "job hats" or "pretend job hats" etc

50k is defined as Purpose in GTD. While I fully accept that these things need to be considered they are a means to an end for me, not a purpose. I want to expend as little extra effort as possible to be financially solvent/ healthy so that I can fulfil my actual purpose (whatever that is....)

I sometimes feel stupid writing down and reviewing things in my higher lists. Things like "Be a loving husband", "Maintain physical health" , duh it's so obvious, do I really need to write that down? Well, yes. The problem is that maybe I don't want to admit that I could forget these things.

 

[Cpu_Modern]

Yes I agree now that hierarchy is the wrong way to think about it.

Yes, not 'hierarchy' but 'perspective' describes it better.

I guess the problem is that the horizons seem a bit arbitrary to me. Why six levels? Why not seven, or three? Why not review 35,000ft? etc etc.

They are arbitrary and David Allen never said otherwise. They tried to match the model with those inner conversations they could percieve most people are having. I think the "logic" flows from how you define what a project is. If GTD would work with another project definition, you would end up with another set of levels for the HoFs as well.

 

[Gardener]

They are arbitrary and David Allen never said otherwise. They tried to match the model with those inner conversations they could percieve most people are having. I think the "logic" flows from how you define what a project is. If GTD would work with another project definition, you would end up with another set of levels for the HoFs as well.

I remember reading somewhere that there are two major ways that most people make mental models. I've forgotten all of the other details, except that the less common way, the one used by a fairly small minority of people, is used by almost all computer programmers. (BTW, if anyone knows who said this, so that I can go read it again, I'd be delighted to know who it was.)

When I find that I don't think about something in the way that seems to make sense to most people, I remember that I'm a computer programmer, and I allow myself to use my own choice of mental model. In the context of this discussion, I think that the result is that I make a flatter hierarchy with a spiderweb of connections, rather than a deeper hierarchy where most things go neatly up and down.

As a side note, I also suspect that OmniFocus's interface appeals more to the programmer's mental model, and that that's why some people don't "click" with it at all, while those of us that do can't understand what the problem is.

 

[Oogiem]

I remember reading somewhere that there are two major ways that most people make mental models. I've forgotten all of the other details, except that the less common way, the one used by a fairly small minority of people, is used by almost all computer programmers. (BTW, if anyone knows who said this, so that I can go read it again, I'd be delighted to know who it was.)

When I find that I don't think about something in the way that seems to make sense to most people, I remember that I'm a computer programmer, and I allow myself to use my own choice of mental model. In the context of this discussion, I think that the result is that I make a flatter hierarchy with a spiderweb of connections, rather than a deeper hierarchy where most things go neatly up and down.

As a side note, I also suspect that OmniFocus's interface appeals more to the programmer's mental model, and that that's why some people don't "click" with it at all, while those of us that do can't understand what the problem is.

I seem to recall that same discussion of mental models but I can't find it. I know that I as a software engineer and programmer have a very different model of the interactions with software, the world and even mundane things like which way I put the shirts on hangers compared to my husband, the hardware engineer and EE. I did a bit of googling but couldn't find t e mental model reference but will look again tomorrow.

And I also agree that Omnifocus just fits, like a glove, and the problems are more from the changes between 1.0 and 2.0 that are ingrained in my muscle memory that I'm trying to re-train myself to handle.