Interpretations

[Sasha]

Hello to Everyone,

Long time visitor to this forum, posting for the first time - thanks to all involved for sharing your experiences and insight.

I have read the older GTD book, as well as the GTD Workbook, 52 Productivity Principles, and Making It All Happen (MIAH further in the text). I have also read pros and cons about the approach on the web, and played with various software implementations.

English not being my native language, I may have not correctly understood some of the finer points of the methodology, so I ended up with a few "open loops"...

1. Which is more precise definition of a PROJECT according to GTD?

a) An outcome that has more than one Next Action associated with it, or
b) Same as a) but adding: AND is estimated to be done within 12 months, or
c) Pick one of the above, BUT stay with it.

The first definition is found in the older books and the workbook, while the second one in MAIH. The third one is self-evident. Option a) suggests that you can ONLY have EITHER a project OR a single task as a result of the decision so then the dilemma is what happens if the "Stuff" is really a new Responsibility or a new Goal? Think linearly for a moment please when following the workflow block diagram.

The distinction above means we need to make a choice how to manage the higher outcomes: via long projects (option a) where each outcome regardless of how long it takes for it to be completed (so anywhere from Horizon 10k to 50k) would be treated as a separate project with the corresponding next actions tracked in the Project Support section, or via sequential, up-to-year-long projects (option b)where each outcome (this time from Horizon 20k to 50k) would contain a series of projects (let's assume there are no concurrent projects running along for simplicity) where the first one will be tracked in the Project list and the subsequent ones would be Tickled and then transferred onto the Project list one by one as they become due (or Trashed if circumstances changed).

2. Once a decision is made that something is actionable, do you FIRST determine the Next Action and THEN the Successful Outcome BUT IF AND ONLY IF there is more than one Next Action?

If so, then the single Next Actions will not have a written Successful Outcome (visualization, affirmation) associated with them. According to MIAH, the only Next Action Items treated as Outcome too are the Waiting For items. For consistency purposes (affirmation benefits too) and since all software solutions make it easy, for EACH "Stuff" I generate BOTH the Successful Outcome and the Next Action(s). For example, for each actionable item in Evernote, each title would show the Successful Outcome and tracked in a separate notebook for each horizon level, while the Next Action(s) are listed with a check-box in the body of the note and tagged as required for context, contact, etc. Similarly for OneNote, each section in the Actionable section group would be a horizon and each page would be a corresponding Successful Outcome. Then each Next Action(s) would be listed in the page tagged with the check-box style tags for each context. Something like that (this part should probably be further elaborated in Discuss Tools section of the forum).

Please note ALL answers and opinions are welcome.

Regards,

Sasha

 

[Geeko]

Hi Sasha,

As far as I know David actually switched from your first to your second definition because it is difficult to keep your attention on a project that takes longer than a year. Any “projects” that take longer to complete should be played on the higher horizons and will most certainly have some sub-projects that fit our definition.

For your second question I think that on most one-action-items the outcome is self-evident (like “call Mom for her birthday”). If it helps you to add an outcome to each action then do so but for me I think this would clutter up my system. Make your system as complex as you need it but keep it as simple as possible. If your system is too complex, you will be repelled from using it. But if your system is too simple it is too hard to keep an overview and you will be repelled as well. As always, the answer is somewhere in between

I hope, this helps.

Cheers,
Tristan

 

[Cpu_Modern]

Now the real nerds are coming out of the woodworks…

Welcome to the forums, Sasha!

Cool questions.

To the first one, regarding the projects duration…

I always was a fan of the original definition and still think it is the more accurate one. It certainly is the choice of the "purist."

It comes down to a question of what software and web designers call "usability." Precisely, where do you want to handle the complexity?

If you have a complex, say, five years long outcome defined as a project, then in practice, all the complexity of it, the milestones, the dependencies, all that sort of thing, this will then be dealt with within the project plan (which resides as a separate document in project support.)

If OTOH you have said outcome organized into your GTD system as a 40k-vision / Level 4 item, then invariably the complexity surfaces on the projects list, because you will probably have more than one roughly 1 year long project and maybe some shorter term smaller projects associated with the bigger outcome, living on the projects list.

I think this is a decision on pure practical terms, what would be better (more efficient, more fun) to having to deal with?

Another thing to consider is the fact that a very long-term outcome probably spans a few 20k / Level 2 Areas of Focus over the course of it's life time. It is then probably a smoother organization to not have it as a Level 1 project, but instead see it as a "higher level" item. But it depends of course, on wether this is the case at all.

The second question, if I understood this correctly, I would say that every single Next Action that doesn't pertain to a Level 1 project outcome, automatically pertains to a Level 2 Area of Focus outcome.

To use Geeko's example, the single Next Action phone call to your mum regarding her birthday would then be associated to a 20k Area of Focus called "family", "relationships" or "maintaining a top relationship with my parents" or some such. These areas have of course an intrinsic desired outcome which probably gets reflected at your 40k life vision in some manner.


Thanks for letting me be such a nerd!

 

[Oogiem]

1. Which is more precise definition of a PROJECT according to GTD?

a) An outcome that has more than one Next Action associated with it, or
b) Same as a) but adding: AND is estimated to be done within 12 months, or

Officially it changed to be less than 12 months. However, I am an outlier and I not only prefer the initial definition but also find that I have many if not most of my major projects are in fact multiple years long.

The distinction above means we need to make a choice how to manage the higher outcomes: via long projects (option a) where each outcome regardless of how long it takes for it to be completed (so anywhere from Horizon 10k to 50k) would be treated as a separate project with the corresponding next actions tracked in the Project Support section, or via sequential, up-to-year-long projects (option b)where each outcome (this time from Horizon 20k to 50k) would contain a series of projects (let's assume there are no concurrent projects running along for simplicity) where the first one will be tracked in the Project list and the subsequent ones would be Tickled and then transferred onto the Project list one by one as they become due (or Trashed if circumstances changed).

I work my higher horizons a bit differently. I have my major areas of focus fairly well defined. But projects, even long ones often span several areas of focus. So when I am doing my longer in-depth quarterly reviews like I am doing this week for the equinox I look at my purpose. My purpose statement has basically been unchanged for over 20 years.

Example of part of my Purpose and principles statement. I have 3 areas in mine, People, Environment and Technology.

"2. Environment
I develop & implement sustainable systems to breed rare & endangered livestock & plant species, breeds & bloodlines. I focus on my duty to the earth & the domestic species we are responsible for. I minimize my deleterious effects on the environment by choosing a simpler lifestyle whenever possible."

My Vision is also pretty clear. It gets new things added to it every few years and old ones are removed as the projects supporting them are realized.

Example for the above purpose:

"We implement long term sustainable farming systems to maintain genetic diversity in Black Welsh Mountain Sheep in North America.
We are known for breeding the best performance oriented Black Welsh Mountain sheep in North America.
We produce superior quality, healthy, food on our farm for ourselves, our neighbors and outside visitors.
Our farm provides educational opportunities for the public to learn about the environmental costs and benefits from farming activities."

That is the vision then there is the implementation. Horizon 3 is the fuzzy area because it gets bundled into my projects. My AOFs are pretty clear though.

Example related to the above

"I manage the sheep flock for increased performance and soil health by implementing a holistic management/MIG program."

A project within that AOF was to replace the old elk fence with new 75 year fences.

That project was a single thing that took 6 years to complete. We had to do it in pieces and there is a limited time during the year when fence building can happen so as not to interfere with lambing, irrigation etc. So it carried over for years but it still was in my mind a single project.

2. Once a decision is made that something is actionable, do you FIRST determine the Next Action and THEN the Successful Outcome BUT IF AND ONLY IF there is more than one Next Action?

No, for me I at least think about the successful outcome even for single next actions not related to a project. I may not write it out though but I still usually think about it.

For consistency purposes (affirmation benefits too) and since all software solutions make it easy, for EACH "Stuff" I generate BOTH the Successful Outcome and the Next Action(s).

I don't. I only write down the outcomes when I consider it important or I need to to get the project off my mind. Why do extra work? So Whether I have the outcome written down depends on how I feel about that particular project.

 

[Sasha]

Tristan, Cpu_Modern, and Oogiem,

Thanks for your answers. I will respond to Oogiem in a separate post about my understanding of how long projects are to be handled within the GTD process, as well as share some opinions I have about the usefulness of Areas in prioritizing tasks.

Regarding my second question - yes I can see the Successful Outcomes can by made built into the Next Action by formulating it as "Do A to achieve B", or "Do A re: B". Practical and elegant at the same time. And I agree with Cpu_Modern that even what we believe is a single action, is really just an as of yet un-allocated project step in the either an existing 20k project or yet to be devised 20/30k project.

As for my first question, the consensus is that project represents an outcome expected to be completed up to 12 months in the future. Then for consistency purposes, both the block diagram and the illustrated workflow map need to be slightly revised as follows:

- Block diagram: add the Areas, Goals, Vision, and Purpose squares above the Project square and have arrows point from the Successful Outcome square to each of the newly generated square.

- Workflow Map: Just add arrows pointing from the Successful Outcome text to each line describing the higher horizon levels (right now the arrow point just to Projects, while the Areas, Goals, Vision, and Purpose are grayed out and written on top of one another).

If you and anyone else reading this agree with this thinking, I would ask all to second the proposed changes above. If a great majority of readers agree, then maybe there is some merit to petition DA for such changes to be implemented. I hope I am not alone believing new readers/adopters of the GTD methodology would greatly benefit from this added clarity.

Regards,

Sasha

 

[Sasha]

That project was a single thing that took 6 years to complete. We had to do it in pieces and there is a limited time during the year when fence building can happen so as not to interfere with lambing, irrigation etc. So it carried over for years but it still was in my mind a single project.

Hi Oogiem,

As I wrote in my previous post, I would address the long projects and areas at this time. From what I understood, the shift to up-to-12-month duration of projects occurred because DA's experience was that people would tend to procrastinate with the longer/higher outcome projects (aka "Parkinson's Law). The approach is to convert the long projects specially on the 20k horizon into:

1. Building first an infrastructure/solution/plan via Projects and then
2. Implementing a maintenance plan via routines/recurring tasks tracked via say Tickler.

If 20k/Health/Exercise is the "stuff" then creating the right balance, timing, scope of exercising would be a project with a clear outcome, while actually exercising would be checking each exercise on the Tickler/Habits list. Something like that.

As for Areas, I have always felt that this is where all the criticisms about lack of prioritizing tools within the GTD approach should be addressed. There (to me at least) is a hidden step within the Clarify process when deciding whether something is actionable. Namely right after determining the Successful Outcome, one might think:

a) Is this "stuff" contributing to my Goal/Vision/Purpose (aka Ends) or to my Areas (aka Means). I am using the Ends-Means-Ways analogy here - Ways are Actions and Projects (or Roles in other schools of thought, but I digress). So there's the first prioritization done here. The second is this:

b) Knowing that "stuff" belongs to this or that area is not the key - rather which other areas will be affected if I go for this choice (aka cost/benefit analysis). To use the exercise example, yes my health will benefit, unless I don't do the exercises properly so I can hurt myself (and I have btw ) which may mean joining a club which affects the Wealth Area, Relationships Area (Spending quality time with spouse/kids), etc.

GTD is a really deceptively simple, seemingly vague, and yet powerful and dare I say addictive methodology. I believe it is so because it truly is a Personal Development Tool and not just a Time/Task Management Tool. In any case it's fun.

Regards,

Sasha

 

[Oogiem]

From what I understood, the shift to up-to-12-month duration of projects occurred because DA's experience was that people would tend to procrastinate with the longer/higher outcome projects (aka "Parkinson's Law). The approach is to convert the long projects specially on the 20k horizon into:

1. Building first an infrastructure/solution/plan via Projects and then
2. Implementing a maintenance plan via routines/recurring tasks tracked via say Tickler.

That may in fact be the reasoning but for me that doesn't work. First off I consider all recurring projects to be just that, recurring projects that happen over and over again and if they are in a different tool or system they won't get done. I need a single place to go to for all my tasks or nothing works for me. Similarly I consider checklists to be irregularly recurring projects. When I need to use one I "tear off" by duplicating, a copy and then work from that. Sort of like a pad of preprinted paper but all electronic.

In my mind the higher levels guide projects not the other way around. Plus there is the huge issue of that fact that many projects feed into multiple areas so it's almost impossible to sort them that way.

If you look at the Natural Planning model you first decide on the reason or purpose and standards, then the outcome or goal or mission and then in brainstorming you find potential ways to accomplish that that turn into projects and their actions.

If 20k/Health/Exercise is the "stuff" then creating the right balance, timing, scope of exercising would be a project with a clear outcome, while actually exercising would be checking each exercise on the Tickler/Habits list. Something like that.

I wouldn't do it that way. Not that it's wrong just that I don't think that way so it wouldn't work for me. I'd consider a project like Learning weightlifting with the outcome of being able to say, Deadlift 300 lbs, Bench Press 150 lbs and Overhead press 100lbs. The actions might be to hire a trainer to teach me proper form, and purchase suitable weight equipment or join a gym (if there was one) that has appropriate free weights. The going to work out dates/times would be in my calendar as an apt. not in a tickler file.

As for Areas, I have always felt that this is where all the criticisms about lack of prioritizing tools within the GTD approach should be addressed. There (to me at least) is a hidden step within the Clarify process when deciding whether something is actionable. Namely right after determining the Successful Outcome, one might think:

a) Is this "stuff" contributing to my Goal/Vision/Purpose (aka Ends) or to my Areas (aka Means). I am using the Ends-Means-Ways analogy here - Ways are Actions and Projects (or Roles in other schools of thought, but I digress). So there's the first prioritization done here. The second is this:

b) Knowing that "stuff" belongs to this or that area is not the key - rather which other areas will be affected if I go for this choice (aka cost/benefit analysis). To use the exercise example, yes my health will benefit, unless I don't do the exercises properly so I can hurt myself (and I have btw ) which may mean joining a club which affects the Wealth Area, Relationships Area (Spending quality time with spouse/kids), etc.

All of that happens BEFORE you decide on the outcome. You can't know where you want to end up until you evaluate the options with the lens of what you want to accomplish, your own sense of purpose etc. So no, I'd never do it in that order. I'd say process a note in my inbox about learn to lift weights. Then as I am processing I'd evaluate, is this something I want to do now? Yes, then what is the reason? Only after I'd gone through that would I think ok, now what is the actual successful outcome and then on to what is the action I can take now.

That's why for me the workflow processing diagram is accurate, Purpose, Vision and Goals all feed into the projects you choose to make active as shown.

 

[Jodie E. Francis]

All of that happens BEFORE you decide on the outcome. You can't know where you want to end up until you evaluate the options with the lens of what you want to accomplish, your own sense of purpose etc. So no, I'd never do it in that order. I'd say process a note in my inbox about learn to lift weights. Then as I am processing I'd evaluate, is this something I want to do now? Yes, then what is the reason? Only after I'd gone through that would I think ok, now what is the actual successful outcome and then on to what is the action I can take now.

That's why for me the workflow processing diagram is accurate, Purpose, Vision and Goals all feed into the projects you choose to make active as shown.

Yes! This <bold above> has taken me a long time to learn... plus "do I have the bandwidth to do it now or do I have to park it on Someday/Maybe or the Tickler to be reminded in future". Even if it is related to my Goal/Vision/Purpose, I can't do it all right now.

 

[Sasha]

Yes! This <bold above> has taken me a long time to learn... plus "do I have the bandwidth to do it now or do I have to park it on Someday/Maybe or the Tickler to be reminded in future". Even if it is related to my Goal/Vision/Purpose, I can't do it all right now.

We are getting closer to the point I am trying to make - once that we determine the reason why we want something done, we need to check how that decision affects other areas of responsibility. It's an iterative process until a final decision is made (so when I wrote "after" above, think of it AFTER version 1 of the Successful Outcome, until you reach final Successful Outcome). I was praising the usefulness of the 20k horizon to help us evaluate our choices better because it gives us that "wait a minute, wait a minute" moment before going ahead with the plan.

I will approach the Workflow Diagram from another angle. Assume you are building your system from scratch by following the block diagram to the letter using the BOTTOM UP approach. Let's ignore the Next Actions for a moment - let's also agree that Successful Outcomes is a GTD category that applies to Projects, Areas, Goals, Vision, and Purpose. Let's also have blank sheets of paper entitled with each of the outcomes i just listed. So when a certain "stuff" item comes up, we have it processed and let's say we determine that it is Actionable AND that it has MORE THAN ONE Next Action associated with it, THEN we describe the Successful Outcome AND THEN we determine is that a Project, Area, Goal, Vision, OR Purpose and write it down on the corresponding sheet of paper. Hence the need to have lines/arrows pointing from Successful Outcome box/text to the other levels, not just the Projects as it is currently done. It doesn't matter which definition of Project is used (one year only or multi-year too) as DA refers to higher outcomes in the original book. Just follow the diagram to the letter and let me know if the logic presented above has a flaw. It is possible to have a life changing moment in life that goes from Stuff to Purpose directly making you rethink your whole life and change your previous Purpose as a result. I am maybe missing some fundamental understanding of the GTD methodology - my aim is to learn and build on it.

 

[Jodie E. Francis]

We are getting closer to the point I am trying to make - once that we determine the reason why we want something done, we need to check how that decision affects other areas of responsibility.

Yes - although I wouldn't write it down, I would consider how committing to a new project would affect other areas of responsibility (which I call Areas of Focus -AoF). For example, I'd love to get some vocal coaching so I can become a more confident solo singer (Creativity AoF). But right now I'm already committed to volunteering/choral singing 2 nights a week, work outside the home, and have 2 kids. Adding another evening out each week would negatively affect my Husband AoF and my Children AoF... and probably my Health AoF since it would mean less free space in my schedule. So for now, that project sits in my Tickler, where it will pop up in June when my choirs are finished for the summer.

It's an iterative process until a final decision is made (so when I wrote "after" above, think of it AFTER version 1 of the Successful Outcome, until you reach final Successful Outcome). I was praising the usefulness of the 20k horizon to help us evaluate our choices better because it gives us that "wait a minute, wait a minute" moment before going ahead with the plan.

I will approach the Workflow Diagram from another angle. Assume you are building your system from scratch by following the block diagram to the letter using the BOTTOM UP approach. Let's ignore the Next Actions for a moment - let's also agree that Successful Outcomes is a GTD category that applies to Projects, Areas, Goals, Vision, and Purpose. Let's also have blank sheets of paper entitled with each of the outcomes i just listed. So when a certain "stuff" item comes up, we have it processed and let's say we determine that it is Actionable AND that it has MORE THAN ONE Next Action associated with it, THEN we describe the Successful Outcome AND THEN we determine is that a Project, Area, Goal, Vision, OR Purpose and write it down on the corresponding sheet of paper. Hence the need to have lines/arrows pointing from Successful Outcome box/text to the other levels, not just the Projects as it is currently done. It doesn't matter which definition of Project is used (one year only or multi-year too) as DA refers to higher outcomes in the original book. Just follow the diagram to the letter and let me know if the logic presented above has a flaw. It is possible to have a life changing moment in life that goes from Stuff to Purpose directly making you rethink your whole life and change your previous Purpose as a result. I am maybe missing some fundamental understanding of the GTD methodology - my aim is to learn and build on it.

No, for me this process isn't iterative or anywhere as complex as you describe.

Maybe this will help... When I began to implement GTD years ago, I followed the system as described in GTD book. I paraphrase:
1) Process all my 'stuff' into Next Actions and Projects, or at least into a Backlog that I have triaged so I knew nothing important was falling through the cracks. (in the book DA describes how projects are defined in terms of successful outcomes, and the natural planning model can be used to get very clear.)
2) Once I had the low level stuff organized and had a comprehensive list of all my commitments, my mind could relax! And could begin to think about the higher levels (Areas of Focus, 1-2 year Goals, 10 year vision, and Values are what I use so far)
I understand this sequence is intentional, since DA has found that most people can't leap to goals and life purpose when they are swamped by the minute details of life. (But if you can - go for it!)
3) THEN once I had a sense of my higher levels, I began to re-negotiate the Projects and Next Actions I created in the first step, dropping things that are not in alignment, and deferring things that are in alignment but that I don't currently have the bandwidth to tackle. This has been the most challenging step, but it is incredibly rewarding to know that I am living according to my values, rather than drifting through life.

 

[Sasha]

I understand this sequence is intentional, since DA has found that most people can't leap to goals and life purpose when they are swamped by the minute details of life. (But if you can - go for it!)

And therein lies the problem - the current model doesn't allow me to do that as I can't "jump" to Areas or Goals or Vision or even Purpose directly. The key word is "most people" but that can mean people who have a different approach or thinking process (top down, artists, nerds, , but also people who were using the methodology long enough and were able to clear most of the backlog from the early stages (not there yet myself).

I will start a separate thread to address this particular question as I got the answers to the initial questions when I started the thread. Thanks to all that participated in the discussion and the insight they provided.

Regards,

Sasha