Michael Ramone
Registered
Hi all,
I’ve been practicing GTD for a long time, but there’s always been this one area I’ve struggled with—namely, what the clarifying question “Is it actionable?” actually means.
Every other question in the clarifying process is clear to me, but that one is not. No answer comes to my mind when I ask myself whether something is actionable; the word “actionable” has never been part of my vocabulary, and its meaning is not ingrained in me at all. Sure, I’ve looked up the definition—both in a dictionary and in the appendix of Getting Things Done—but the word’s usage and meaning varies across all GTD materials, making this such a mystery for me.
This is really the bottleneck in my system, as I get anxious when clarifying, feeling as though no decision I make on whether an item is actionable is solid, thus leading me to avoid clarifying altogether. This is obviously an enormous problem, since clarifying is the most important of the five stages of gaining control. I just need a solid and, most importantly, a **final** understanding of what “Is it actionable?” means.
I’d like to note, as well, that in the past, I’ve resorted out of frustration to simply asking “What’s the next action?” about each item I’m clarifying, invoking the non-actionable categories when they naturally show up, avoiding “Is it actionable?” altogether. My reasoning behind this is that if asking “What’s the next action?” about an item evokes an answer, then the item is inherently actionable, and I can proceed in clarifying as if the answer to “Is it actionable?” had been yes. If I ask “What’s the next action?” about an item that is actually non-actionable, then the non-actionable category in which the item belongs immediately becomes clear to me, and I will organize the item accordingly.
While I’m nitpicking, I should bring up that when I pick up out of an inbox an item that I know already has a waiting-for attached to it, I can’t help but be confused at how the clarifying diagram was supposed to have lead me to that conclusion, had I not recalled that information on my own. There is a difference between items that still need to be delegated—which is what the “Delegate” category is for—and items that are already delegated. If I ask myself whether an item of the latter type is actionable, then my mind, without fail, responds with “No, that’s not actionable.” However, the issue with this is that if I simply continued following the clarifying diagram based upon that choice, all items of this type would be trashed, incubated, or filed as reference, when in reality, they should have become waiting-fors.
I understand this is a minor concern, but for me, it’s a rather large hole in the process. The Waiting For list’s precise place in clarifying and organizing continues to elude me many years into implementation, despite the fact that I know very well what it is. The category doesn’t strike me as actionable, as is always touted, since I never create any of my waiting-fors by following the clarifying diagram; instead, they always come about after I sit back and a few seconds later realize, “Oh, yeah, and on that thing, I’m waiting for…”
To be clear, Waiting For isn’t a traditional non-actionable category either. Many people keep projects they want to activate in the future on their Waiting For list, which I believe to be an error. It seems to me, however, that a group of reminders of the actions and deliverables of others that I care to track is not an actionable one, as I myself am not committing to do anything about any of the items in that category other than review them all, at least once a week, for potential actions for me to take. For an actionable category, it seems a lot like a non-actionable category.
Fundamentally, the issue with regards to the place of Waiting For is, unsurprisingly, the definition of “actionable.” If the definition revolves around you—i.e., “a thing I intend to act upon”—then you will never create any waiting-fors by using the clarifying diagram, since any item in your inbox that happens to already be delegated cannot simultaneously be
an item you are currently committed to take action on, hence the item’s inevitable arrival in the “non-actionable” category. If the definition of “actionable” focuses less on any specific agent of change—“a thing about which something is to be done”—then the decision becomes more a matter of whether anything is to be done by anybody in the world, and the classic “Delegate” category becomes accessible once again.
I’m open to anybody’s thoughts on this.
I’ve been practicing GTD for a long time, but there’s always been this one area I’ve struggled with—namely, what the clarifying question “Is it actionable?” actually means.
Every other question in the clarifying process is clear to me, but that one is not. No answer comes to my mind when I ask myself whether something is actionable; the word “actionable” has never been part of my vocabulary, and its meaning is not ingrained in me at all. Sure, I’ve looked up the definition—both in a dictionary and in the appendix of Getting Things Done—but the word’s usage and meaning varies across all GTD materials, making this such a mystery for me.
This is really the bottleneck in my system, as I get anxious when clarifying, feeling as though no decision I make on whether an item is actionable is solid, thus leading me to avoid clarifying altogether. This is obviously an enormous problem, since clarifying is the most important of the five stages of gaining control. I just need a solid and, most importantly, a **final** understanding of what “Is it actionable?” means.
I’d like to note, as well, that in the past, I’ve resorted out of frustration to simply asking “What’s the next action?” about each item I’m clarifying, invoking the non-actionable categories when they naturally show up, avoiding “Is it actionable?” altogether. My reasoning behind this is that if asking “What’s the next action?” about an item evokes an answer, then the item is inherently actionable, and I can proceed in clarifying as if the answer to “Is it actionable?” had been yes. If I ask “What’s the next action?” about an item that is actually non-actionable, then the non-actionable category in which the item belongs immediately becomes clear to me, and I will organize the item accordingly.
While I’m nitpicking, I should bring up that when I pick up out of an inbox an item that I know already has a waiting-for attached to it, I can’t help but be confused at how the clarifying diagram was supposed to have lead me to that conclusion, had I not recalled that information on my own. There is a difference between items that still need to be delegated—which is what the “Delegate” category is for—and items that are already delegated. If I ask myself whether an item of the latter type is actionable, then my mind, without fail, responds with “No, that’s not actionable.” However, the issue with this is that if I simply continued following the clarifying diagram based upon that choice, all items of this type would be trashed, incubated, or filed as reference, when in reality, they should have become waiting-fors.
I understand this is a minor concern, but for me, it’s a rather large hole in the process. The Waiting For list’s precise place in clarifying and organizing continues to elude me many years into implementation, despite the fact that I know very well what it is. The category doesn’t strike me as actionable, as is always touted, since I never create any of my waiting-fors by following the clarifying diagram; instead, they always come about after I sit back and a few seconds later realize, “Oh, yeah, and on that thing, I’m waiting for…”
To be clear, Waiting For isn’t a traditional non-actionable category either. Many people keep projects they want to activate in the future on their Waiting For list, which I believe to be an error. It seems to me, however, that a group of reminders of the actions and deliverables of others that I care to track is not an actionable one, as I myself am not committing to do anything about any of the items in that category other than review them all, at least once a week, for potential actions for me to take. For an actionable category, it seems a lot like a non-actionable category.
Fundamentally, the issue with regards to the place of Waiting For is, unsurprisingly, the definition of “actionable.” If the definition revolves around you—i.e., “a thing I intend to act upon”—then you will never create any waiting-fors by using the clarifying diagram, since any item in your inbox that happens to already be delegated cannot simultaneously be
an item you are currently committed to take action on, hence the item’s inevitable arrival in the “non-actionable” category. If the definition of “actionable” focuses less on any specific agent of change—“a thing about which something is to be done”—then the decision becomes more a matter of whether anything is to be done by anybody in the world, and the classic “Delegate” category becomes accessible once again.
I’m open to anybody’s thoughts on this.