Understanding the evolution from action to project to completed

Evan Siegel

Registered
I have posted about this topic numerous times and it's close to clicking for me but no one's explanation has gotten me there yet, though the responses are good and appreciated. My confusion stems from my profession as a consultant (ha ha go figure) and how I view a project versus GTD. Here's the thing...I'm good with the notion of the mind sweep, I'm good with the notion of the post its in buckets, I'm good identifying the very next action but the the connection to eventually becoming a project is not there yet for me. At the point of post its, all these are, are things to do or actions that are grouped into basic organizational categories. Even at the point of identifying the very next physical action there is still at this point no relation to larger outcome (via the notion of project).

I guess my confusion is stemming from that david literally says everything can be a project. First, what about those post its that have actions that do not have a second step. If those aren't projects but they do require actions where are they managed if they are 'deferred' meaning an action has to be taken that takes longer than two minutes. 'Buy Groceries' does not need to be categorized into a project, that is overkill, but it does take more than 2 mins and the action of buying groceries is something that can be tracked...but where? I don't see how this would go in a project list.

It seems the idea is that when you have post it and you identify the very next action you would then look at the larger outcome and identify the project. This is fine but IF this is the case the hole I see here is this...if the notion of identifying a thought or post it is meant to spur the larger identification of an outcome (via a project), it is not meant to identify ALL the steps to that project but rather the project itself.

for example...if you have a post it note titled 'find financial planner', you could say perhaps the project is 'develop family financial plan'. While find financial planner is indeed a step, it's only one of many that are needed to complete this project. If you're telling me the purpose here is just to identify the project (develop financial plan) then ok that's understandable. But, I'm not seeing how the notion of going from an action to a project accounts for the entire set of actions that need to be done to complete it. In other words, in his system you start with an action, you identify a project, but that alone does not provide accountability, there's other actions for that project that need to be identified and executed and it's unclear to me where/when/how this is done.
 

Dragon

Registered
I'm good identifying the very next action but the the connection to eventually becoming a project is not there yet for me.

It can be this way, but I think more typically identifying the project comes first, and identifying the next actions comes after.

I guess my confusion is stemming from that david literally says everything can be a project.

No, he says that a project is any desired outcome that will require more than one step to complete.

First, what about those post its that have actions that do not have a second step.

They're not projects, they're just lists of single actions.

If those aren't projects but they do require actions where are they managed if they are 'deferred' meaning an action has to be taken that takes longer than two minutes.

They're managed on your next actions lists, which are organized by context. Many items on your next actions lists at any given time will not be associated with any projects.

'Buy Groceries' does not need to be categorized into a project, that is overkill, but it does take more than 2 mins and the action of buying groceries is something that can be tracked...but where? I don't see how this would go in a project list.

It usually wouldn't. I'd never put such a thing on a projects list. Why do you think it needs to go on one?

But, I'm not seeing how the notion of going from an action to a project accounts for the entire set of actions that need to be done to complete it. ... there's other actions for that project that need to be identified and executed and it's unclear to me where/when/how this is done.

You periodically (at least every week) review your projects list and any associated project support material, cross off any projects that are complete or that you're not going to complete, and if your next actions lists don't contain at least one next action for each remaining project, then you add one or more.

For many projects, you aren't going to know the "entire set of actions that need to be done to complete it", so you typically don't try to identify them all. For example, if you're waiting for a potential client's response to a proposal, then the "entire set of actions that need to be done to complete" the project is going to be a very different set if the client accepts the proposal, than it would be if the client rejects the proposal. Trying to identify them all up front would be futile in the general case, so every time you review your project, you make sure to identify the next one or ones. The vast majority of projects are not particularly complex or difficult, so just having a reminder that the project exists is enough accountability in most cases.
 

Evan Siegel

Registered
Dragon...thanks for your detailed response. The thing about a separate actions list makes sense so that's good. As for projects well I come from a background where when you identify a project you identify all the tasks that are needed to complete that. Think project planning for software. You need to know your tasks and activities to assign resources and dates to delivery on time. For me, I use GTD only for personal matters so in that sense resources are irrelevant. To me, the larger challenge in GTD s accountability. If you're a project manager you are responsible for making sure a project gets done and thus need to know every task that is involved, top to bottom. You need to know it before the project starts so you can plan properly. The same logic should apply here but David doesn't call it out like that. My example of 'develop family financial plan' more or less has fixed steps. I see your point about identifying the next one or two but to me that doesn't allow you to see how much of the overall project you've accomplished. I guess it comes down to how you view things. I like to view projects from all the actions required where I guess David's point is don't do that, break it down into short term easily manageable steps and don't get caught up in actions that are perhaps a ways off from beginning.
 

Dragon

Registered
The same logic should apply here but David doesn't call it out like that.

Sure he does. He explicitly says that most projects will not require anything like the kind of planning that the kind of projects you describe would, and that he's not going to discuss that kind of project in the book, because the people responsible for such projects already have the tools and skills they need to do it, and they'll continue to use those tools and skills.

I see your point about identifying the next one or two but to me that doesn't allow you to see how much of the overall project you've accomplished.

OK, but in the many cases where you fundamentally can't list every task in advance, that's just the reality you have to deal with, there's no way around it. For other projects, most are simple enough that you don't need to see this, you'll just know it. For the minority of projects which do require such detailed planning, then by all means use actual project planning software and methods - GTD doesn't prohibit the use of such things.
 

Gardener

Registered
If you're a project manager you are responsible for making sure a project gets done and thus need to know every task that is involved, top to bottom. You need to know it before the project starts so you can plan properly.

This feels like a philosophical conflict that goes beyond GTD. An Agile programming project, for example, definitely wouldn't be planned that way. By definition, you don't know every task involved. So I certainly wouldn't say that GTD "should" do that.

One might say that it "should" support that preference. I don't really think that it should in the context of project and action and context lists, because I think that that belongs in project support material, not in the main GTD lists. But either way, it's not a universal goal.
 

Oogiem

Registered
I guess my confusion is stemming from that david literally says everything can be a project.
No, a project is anything that takes more than one step to complete.

First, what about those post its that have actions that do not have a second step.
Those are single actions, no worry, no need to ensure that a every action is part of a larger project. It may not be. But if the action is something bothering you then it still goes on your context lists.

'Buy Groceries' does not need to be categorized into a project, that is overkill, but it does take more than 2 mins and the action of buying groceries is something that can be tracked...but where? I don't see how this would go in a project list.
For me buy groceries goes as an action in a single action list called errands and the context is the town down the road where a grocery store is. Not a project per se but still an action I need to track.

for example...if you have a post it note titled 'find financial planner', you could say perhaps the project is 'develop family financial plan'.

So when you process that note from your mind sweep what does it mean? Your current financial planner died and you need a new one? You've got creditors hounding you? You just think it would be nice to plan more? What's the outcome you want? What's the problem you are trying to solve? THAT is your project.

While find financial planner is indeed a step,

For me "Find financial planner" is a project because my next action on that would be Phone accountant and get a recommendation for a financial planner. Or contact friends and ask for recommendations. I can't Find financial planner in a single step. I'll need a list of folks that might be suitable, I'll have to either call or e-mail them, perhaps talk to or interview several and then decide who to work with. So that note is a trigger that there is a much a larger project that is bothering me.

I'm not seeing how the notion of going from an action to a project accounts for the entire set of actions that need to be done to complete it. In other words, in his system you start with an action, you identify a project, but that alone does not provide accountability, there's other actions for that project that need to be identified and executed and it's unclear to me where/when/how this is done.
Why? Why do you have to plan it all out at the beginning? For many projects that will be a total waste of time. Programming is a prime one that rarely benefits from detailed planning but instead benefits more from rapid prototyping, solicit user input and the further stepwise refinement in a recurring loop. I have some projects that do require detailed planning. Create sheep breeding plan each year is a project that has been well planned. The actual steps repeat each year so I've turned it into a checklist that I reuse each year. As my needs change I may adapt and change the checklist but it's still how I use it and it's still a major project that took a lot of time to figure out the proper steps. Why reinvent the wheel so to speak, so I reuse the project planning each year.

Other projects need no planning at all. I may start out with a vague idea or problem but until I get the first step done I won't even know what the next one is. I may think I know but in practice there are some projects whose steps change dramatically based on the results of prior actions. Why waste time planning something only to throw the plans out when they don't work? If you have potential ideas then by all means, capture them into project support. You'll be review them when you do the weekly review and can decide if this project needs more planning or not.
 

bcmyers2112

Registered
@Evan Siegel, I think the problem is actually pretty simple: you are using the term "project" much differently than David Allen does. David Allen defines a project as any outcome that requires two or more next actions to complete. A next action is defined as a physical, visible activity that you can complete in one sitting. Using those definitions, "buy groceries" is a next action whereas "find financial planner" is a project.

That's why the logic you feel should apply to projects you manage as a consultant doesn't apply to personal projects as defined by GTD. Your use of the term is entirely different than David Allen's.

Before I go any further, have you actually read the book Getting Things Done? Because everything you're asking about is covered in the book.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not telling you "go away and read (or re-read) the book." But if you haven't read it yet, it's going to be difficult to understand any of the concepts we're discussing. I ask whether you've read it because you ask how David Allen recommends that you plan projects, and there's an entire section of the book devoted to that topic.
 
Last edited:

treelike

Registered
In other words, in his system you start with an action, you identify a project, but that alone does not provide accountability, there's other actions for that project that need to be identified and executed and it's unclear to me where/when/how this is done.
Identified
Where: Anticipated future actions for the project are kept in project support material.
When: Whenever you think of anything that you feel you will need to do to complete the project. This is usually when you're purposefully thinking about the project but can happen at any other time. This is why we carry a notepad/smart phone/ dictaphone/ etc with us all the time.
How: Your brain does all the thinking. GTD structures the results of that thinking in the most efficient manner. You do as much planning as necessary to "get the project off your mind".
Executed
Where, when, how: If the anticipated action becomes a next action then it can be executed in the appropriate context when you decide to work on that project.

Of course it is possible to identify and execute the next action immediately after completing the previous one and continue the project bypassing GTD altogether. This is probably the ideal but so often made impossible by the messy world we live in.
 
Top