L'uomo è mobile.

[sellaz32]

Really enjoying this discussion! This is something I've thought about quite a bit, especially given my work as a therapist. I heard recently the definition of anxiety is a "disturbed relationship with certainty." In my mind, GTD is about being prepared enough to be present or "appropriately engaged in moment." Planning, on the other hand has an expectation or maybe even a "desire for certainty" which can often lead to more thinking, more stress, and more tension.

Uncertainty is not a problem, it is trying to be certain that creates problems, especially given a world with unknown variables.

I like this quote from Oliver Burkeman in Meditations for Mortals: Four Weeks to Embrace Your Limitations and Make Time for What Counts: "What is worry, at its core, but the activity of a mind attempting to picture every single bridge that might possibly have to be crossed in the future, then trying to figure out how to cross it? The compulsive and repetitious character of worry arises from the fact that for finite humans, this goal is doubly impossible. Firstly, we can’t possibly think of every challenge we might end up facing. Secondly, even if we could, the solace we crave could only come from knowing we’d made it safely over the bridges in question – which we can’t ever know until we’ve actually crossed them."

It certainly doesn't hurt to identify some future next steps in planning a project, but be aware the further out you plan, the chances of extra work increase later. My sister n law is a notorious "pre-crastinator" and gets stuff done so far ahead that she often has to redo.

My point isn't that GTD is anti-planning—it’s anti-illusion of certainty. The "planning" exists to define the very next action, not to conquer the unknown future.

Given the infinite complexities of being a human being plus the various professions and contexts in which we want to get things done in the world, GTD provides the flexibility to meet you at whatever level to point you in the direction of clarity or a "mind like water" if you will.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

Really enjoying this discussion! This is something I've thought about quite a bit, especially given my work as a therapist. I heard recently the definition of anxiety is a "disturbed relationship with certainty." In my mind, GTD is about being prepared enough to be present or "appropriately engaged in moment." Planning, on the other hand has an expectation or maybe even a "desire for certainty" which can often lead to more thinking, more stress, and more tension.

Uncertainty is not a problem, it is trying to be certain that creates problems, especially given a world with unknown variables.

I like this quote from Oliver Burkeman in Meditations for Mortals: Four Weeks to Embrace Your Limitations and Make Time for What Counts: "What is worry, at its core, but the activity of a mind attempting to picture every single bridge that might possibly have to be crossed in the future, then trying to figure out how to cross it? The compulsive and repetitious character of worry arises from the fact that for finite humans, this goal is doubly impossible. Firstly, we can’t possibly think of every challenge we might end up facing. Secondly, even if we could, the solace we crave could only come from knowing we’d made it safely over the bridges in question – which we can’t ever know until we’ve actually crossed them."

It certainly doesn't hurt to identify some future next steps in planning a project, but be aware the further out you plan, the chances of extra work increase later. My sister n law is a notorious "pre-crastinator" and gets stuff done so far ahead that she often has to redo.

My point isn't that GTD is anti-planning—it’s anti-illusion of certainty. The "planning" exists to define the very next action, not to conquer the unknown future.

Given the infinite complexities of being a human being plus the various professions and contexts in which we want to get things done in the world, GTD provides the flexibility to meet you at whatever level to point you in the direction of clarity or a "mind like water" if you will.

@sellaz32

Great addition to the GTD discussion

While kindly did delivered a good chuckle, your good "pre-crastinator" sister-in-law sounds like a very caring women

On this end, "pre-crastinator", thank you very much for the Area-of-Focus contributors':

Increased saboteuring awareness for Health
Decrease Project planning for increased GTD proficiency practice

Thank you sir

 

[Oogiem]

Out of curiosity — how often do your multi-year sequences stay stable without major re-design? Genuinely asking, because if that’s still the case for you, it’s extremely valuable to understand what conditions make that possible.

um.. Nearly always.

I just did a quick review of my current projects. I currently have 112 active current projects. Of those there are 8 that are multi-year projects. I just pulled their project planning notes. None of them have had any changes in the basic structure or next actions since I originally planned them. The longest running one right now was started in July 2005. The last major update to the plan was done in 2019. It was to change the resolution of the files I am creating. So not a change in project structure or even in the next action but a change in the technology used to take advantage of improved computer hardware. That's the only one that has any major changes. The other long ones are short in years (start dates from 2010-2020) but have had no changes to anything since started. They just are moving very slowly to completion.

Conditions that make that possible:
1. If they are ones I initiated I spend a LOT of time planning the projects, doing a few prototypes to test my assumptions, structure and plan of attack before committing to a plan to do them. That works for everything from building fences to remodeling a house or a barn to writing code.
2. Then I DOCUMENT my findings. What worked, what didn’t, what I want to change, how that affects the overall plan and more. Those used to be all on paper. Then there is a batch of them that are hybrid, mostly paper some electronic pieces. All the new ones are now electronic.
2 If they are ones I did not initiate, I had the benefit of copious notes on what would or would not work from my mother before me so even though she never realized the long term plan for the farm based on trials and experiments and there was enough structure there that over the last 27 years we've been able to do most everything that was in the original plans from 1973-1977.
3. I keep vast volumes of notes, documents, books, and other info. For example I have over 160,000 archived emails going back over 20 years that provide good references for some of these projects. I have books from the late 1800's to 1940's that I refer to constantly and have notes from my mother and my own about those books that are still useful.
4. I have boxes and boxes of paper files and info. I do wish more of it was scanned or retyped into plain text digital form but they are well enough organized that I can usually find what I am looking for even if I have only a vague memory of it from 30 years ago. I can often recall the position in a box and get within 3 inches of the paper I need as long as I find the correct box. I have the boxes labeled by the years they cover so that helps.
5. When I make a change in technology I take the time to convert all my electronic files to the new format or operating system or whatever the change requires. That includes implementing better systems for storage, recall and access of digital files.
6. In the end farming is still at the pace of nature and that hasn’t changed in tens of thousands of years.

That said, I find that even computer projects, if properly planned, do not have drastic changes over their lifetime unless there is a drastic change in scope, requirements or available technology.

 

[Oogiem]

I don't believe that you've already planned @errands Next Action "Buy 10 pounds od nine inch nails" because you want to build a barn in 2033

Well actually, we have done things like buy 15 pieces of steel i-beam now when we only need 5 for the current project but we know we want to do this other project in 4-10 years. Some of it is sitting the shop right now. So yeah I DO have next actions that relate to very long term outcomes.

Everything beyond the “one true” Next Action lives safely in project support (the backlog).

That does NOT work for me. If I only put a single next action for a project on my lists I'd never get anything done. I put all actions that can be done in parallel on my action lists by context. I'm also ok with actions sitting there for days, weeks or months. I'm even ok with I never got in the right context dueing the season I could do that so at my quarterly reset they go out and I'll pick that project up in a year.

It certainly doesn't hurt to identify some future next steps in planning a project, but be aware the further out you plan, the chances of extra work increase later.

Not necessarily true. The more I plan in advance the faster and easier it is to get the project done. Often there is a huge cost savings too. Especially if the projects require raw materials.

 

[Y_Lherieau]

um.. Nearly always.

I just did a quick review of my current projects. I currently have 112 active current projects. Of those there are 8 that are multi-year projects. I just pulled their project planning notes. None of them have had any changes in the basic structure or next actions since I originally planned them. The longest running one right now was started in July 2005. The last major update to the plan was done in 2019. It was to change the resolution of the files I am creating. So not a change in project structure or even in the next action but a change in the technology used to take advantage of improved computer hardware. That's the only one that has any major changes. The other long ones are short in years (start dates from 2010-2020) but have had no changes to anything since started. They just are moving very slowly to completion.

Conditions that make that possible:
1. If they are ones I initiated I spend a LOT of time planning the projects, doing a few prototypes to test my assumptions, structure and plan of attack before committing to a plan to do them. That works for everything from building fences to remodeling a house or a barn to writing code.
2. Then I DOCUMENT my findings. What worked, what didn’t, what I want to change, how that affects the overall plan and more. Those used to be all on paper. Then there is a batch of them that are hybrid, mostly paper some electronic pieces. All the new ones are now electronic.
2 If they are ones I did not initiate, I had the benefit of copious notes on what would or would not work from my mother before me so even though she never realized the long term plan for the farm based on trials and experiments and there was enough structure there that over the last 27 years we've been able to do most everything that was in the original plans from 1973-1977.
3. I keep vast volumes of notes, documents, books, and other info. For example I have over 160,000 archived emails going back over 20 years that provide good references for some of these projects. I have books from the late 1800's to 1940's that I refer to constantly and have notes from my mother and my own about those books that are still useful.
4. I have boxes and boxes of paper files and info. I do wish more of it was scanned or retyped into plain text digital form but they are well enough organized that I can usually find what I am looking for even if I have only a vague memory of it from 30 years ago. I can often recall the position in a box and get within 3 inches of the paper I need as long as I find the correct box. I have the boxes labeled by the years they cover so that helps.
5. When I make a change in technology I take the time to convert all my electronic files to the new format or operating system or whatever the change requires. That includes implementing better systems for storage, recall and access of digital files.
6. In the end farming is still at the pace of nature and that hasn’t changed in tens of thousands of years.

That said, I find that even computer projects, if properly planned, do not have drastic changes over their lifetime unless there is a drastic change in scope, requirements or available technology.

Where your approach does shine:

Your documentation discipline is world-class. Your archives, your prototypes, the multi-decade continuity — that’s Horizon 3–4 excellence.

But GTD’s structure would simply place it differently in the map.

• H4 → “Multi-year restoration plan for the farm.”
• H3 → “Goals for the next 24 months.”
• H1 → “Projects I can actually complete in the next 12 months.”
• Next Actions → What I can physically do this week.

Nothing in your workflow breaks — it just becomes dramatically easier to review, sequence, and engage.

So no, nothing wrong with your system — but calling multi-decade initiatives “projects” places them at the “uncorrect” altitude in GTD terms.

And when horizons collapse into each other, clarity collapses with them. You’re obviously an outlier in how much long-term stability you can rely on.

But that doesn’t change the GTD definition — it just means your Vision (H4) is more detailed than most.

And that’s a strength… as long as it lives at the right horizon.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

Where your approach does shine:

Your documentation discipline is world-class. Your archives, your prototypes, the multi-decade continuity — that’s Horizon 3–4 excellence.

But GTD’s structure would simply place it differently in the map.

• H4 → “Multi-year restoration plan for the farm.”
• H3 → “Goals for the next 24 months.”
• H1 → “Projects I can actually complete in the next 12 months.”
• Next Actions → What I can physically do this week.

Nothing in your workflow breaks — it just becomes dramatically easier to review, sequence, and engage.

So no, nothing wrong with your system — but calling multi-decade initiatives “projects” places them at the “uncorrect” altitude in GTD terms.

And when horizons collapse into each other, clarity collapses with them. You’re obviously an outlier in how much long-term stability you can rely on.

But that doesn’t change the GTD definition — it just means your Vision (H4) is more detailed than most.

And that’s a strength… as long as it lives at the right horizon.

@Y_Lherieau


Thank you very much for to your good GTD post

On this end, all Horizons are 'embodied' through Organization in order to facilitate optimal dynamic adaptability development through perennial Principles for each Areas-of-Focus' particular Purpose with an all reality proportionately Clarified perspective for all appropriate Engagement(s) as understood through all reality of life parameters for a necessarily robust trustworthy GTD system absent of all doubt, while a partial GTD remains worthy, how else can any comprehensive GTD be truly trustworthy ?

Thus, Someday /Maybe are Remote realities, Projects are Proximate realities, Contexts for Next Actions are Immediate and Intrinsic realities:

All particular Areas-of-Focus are arduously Organized in the following parameters:

E X T E R N A L

E X T R I N S I C < Props ~ Provisions > I N T E R N A L

I N T R I N S I C


Some alphabetical SYSTEMS that might seemingly pertain to the above for organization:
Caring
Communications
Devotions
Digital
DIVINE
Enterprise
ETERNITY
Exercise
Family
Fiscal
HEALTH
Home
Land
Licenses
Opportunity (GTD)*
Nutrition
Passports
Product
PROPS
PROVISIONS
Relationships
Sacraments
Service
Sleep
Stewardship
Transportation

Further clarifications to the above are most certainly good and possible for increased GTD system control

*As in an autonomously controlled healthy Opportunity Management System for Mind Like Water

As you see GTD fit. . . .

 

[schmeggahead]

It certainly doesn't hurt to identify some future next steps in planning a project, but be aware the further out you plan, the chances of extra work increase later. My sister n law is a notorious "pre-crastinator" and gets stuff done so far ahead that she often has to redo.

I like your whole post.
This particularly in the aspect of looking too far out increases uncertainty; I trust the weather predictions for the next day or two but every day further is less reliable.

To address this, I capture all of the tasks I happen to think of and think relevant to a project and stash all but one in a list called future actions tagged for the project. In project planning, I move them to action lists and make sure they are clear and still relevant.

Uncertainty is not a problem, it is trying to be certain that creates problems, especially given a world with unknown variables.

Trying to be certain about something that is inherently unpredictable contributes to anxiety.
Making a best guess and knowing the relative margin for error seems to help me in these situations. I anticipate being partially wrong in some way so it isn't surprising when it happens and enjoyable when it doesn't.

Clayton.

Limbic Transfer - Ulysses, It's happening to you right now.

 

[Oogiem]

H1 → “Projects I can actually complete in the next 12 months.”

But, my "projects" can have a single Next Action that take can take years or decades. So that definition of project is inappropriate for farming tasks. And also inappropriate for many crafting tasks. If the project is to have enough handspun and hand woven fabric to make a cloak it may take me a year or 2 just to spin enough yarn. The next action is spin yarn for cloak. even spinning nearly every night it took me several years to get the yarn. Then years to weave the fabric, then years to get the courage to cut it and then only about 6 months to cut and sew the cloak.

 

[Sarahsuccess]

This conversation is bringing to mind page 5 in the GTD 2015 book. David Allen compares “knowledge” work to “self evident” work “fields…plowed, machines tooled, boxes packed, cows milked, crates moved”.

Is the application of GTD different for “knowledge” work than for “self evident” work? Does the GTD structure for those different types of work vary?

Edited to ask: Is the planning different for “knowledge” work and “self evident” outcome work?

 

[Y_Lherieau]

But, my "projects" can have a single Next Action that take can take years or decades. So that definition of project is inappropriate for farming tasks. And also inappropriate for many crafting tasks. If the project is to have enough handspun and hand woven fabric to make a cloak it may take me a year or 2 just to spin enough yarn. The next action is spin yarn for cloak. even spinning nearly every night it took me several years to get the yarn. Then years to weave the fabric, then years to get the courage to cut it and then only about 6 months to cut and sew the cloak.

I hear what you’re saying — but this isn’t a limitation of GTD.

It’s simply that you’re not operating in knowledge work, and GTD was originally designed for environments where outcomes can move week by week. Farming and craft work run on physical and biological constraints, not on human scheduling. So forcing GTD’s Horizon-1 project definition onto multi-year cycles will naturally feel off.

But here’s the crucial point: If something holds your attention throughout the year…

…it’s not because the entire outcome is one single “Next Action.”

It’s because there are micro-actions, even if they’re seasonal:

• check humidity levels
• manage drying or storage
• maintain tools
• measure fiber quality
• update inventory
• record production
• prep materials for the next phase

These are Next Actions.

They do change over time.

And they do belong in a GTD system.

Your “spin yarn for cloak” isn’t literally one action — it’s a repeating sequence of tiny steps executed over months or years. GTD already has a place for this:

• A Horizon 1 Project (what you can complete within ~12 months)
• Supported by a Horizon 3/Horizon 4 outcome (the finished cloak)

So the GTD model actually fits perfectly — the only thing that shifts is the granularity.

GTD doesn’t care whether you’re building software or shearing sheep.

It only cares about one question:

What is the very next observable physical action?

The cloak might take ten years.

But the Next Action rarely does.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

This conversation is bringing to mind page 5 in the GTD 2015 book. David Allen compares “knowledge” work to “self evident” work “fields…plowed, machines fooled, boxes packed, cows milked, crates moved”.

Is the application of GTD different for “knowledge” work than for “self evident” work? Does the GTD structure for those different types of work vary?

Edited to ask: Is the planning different for “knowledge” work and “self evident” outcome work?

@Sarahsuccess

Good GTD concern

Sorry the gold lettering is difficult to see, unable to find a preferred highlighter, Red signifies Corporeal and Gold signifies Spiritual
Blue and Green might be self-evident in this post

Perhaps one can suggest, in particular, Knowledge is subjectively Epistemological, while, in general, 'Self-Evident' is objectively Ontological ?

Perhaps the educational-industrial complex, especially 'higher', might consider offering appropriate refunds to bolster their prestigious reputations for integrity in preparing this student for life ?


On this end, for most appropriate Engagement, which parameter is 'asking' for Attention for Decreasing ~ Increasing is the dynamically engaging question depending on Context(s)

External < . . . > Extrinsic < Props ~ Provisions > Internal < . . . > Intrinsic < . . . > Divine

As you see GTD fit. . . .

 

[Stefan Godo]

After so many years of practicing GTD, after reading David Allen's book countless times, and thinking I understood everything, I realized I was making a mistake at the basic level.

This came to light after a conversation with Chat GPT, which made me realize that GTD is an "action-based" system (which I knew), but which consequently meant that my prior planning of a whole list of next actions (sequential, not parallel) in the project wasn't what David Allen recommended. I don't know why I didn't notice. However, GPT did provide me with the sources for these statements—including in the book, and indeed, they are—perhaps they weren't emphasized enough for me. GPT cites, among others, Kelly Forrister's quotes: "If you plan more than the next action, you're probably wasting time." from Q&A GTD Connect.

Am I the only "airhead" here who missed this principle, or is anyone else here also mapping out the entire project?

GTD is not an "action-based" system.
It is simply a system, which maps the many-thousand-year-old-process of "organizing any activity".
This ancient process will be here even when huminity will be replaced by robots and AGI - these will get information (maybe from the far side of the galaxy), decide whether anything needs to be done, and if yes, either they will do it immediately, or store the decision for later reconsideration.

GTD simply contains/describes the principles how to operate this process (up to the point of selecting the next action for execution). The same process was done by our ancestors - only they got just a few bits daily, their decisions were repeated, they had a few items stored for later - and were reminded by nature, hence had a few options = they could manage the whole process in their head. (and for millenia, they had to, as scribd was not yet available ).

concerning planning (which is, if you look on the Clarification map - its "actionable side"):
1. planning is not anout foreseeing the future, but to clarify our CURRENT thoughts about an imaginary future = it is simply a focusing aid.
2. you plan enough, when your mind can switch off. For somebody planning a trip to Paris needs to be on a minute-by-minute basis, for others a calendar reminder to call the travel agency is OK. (but none of them sees the future - see point 1 = they will replan 100x everything anyway)

 

[mcogilvie]

This conversation is bringing to mind page 5 in the GTD 2015 book. David Allen compares “knowledge” work to “self evident” work “fields…plowed, machines tooled, boxes packed, cows milked, crates moved”.

Is the application of GTD different for “knowledge” work than for “self evident” work? Does the GTD structure for those different types of work vary?

Edited to ask: Is the planning different for “knowledge” work and “self evident” outcome work?

That’s a very good question. I don’t think there is an inherent difference. I have two active physics research projects now in which I have a desired outcome, a provisional sub-goal, and a next action. That’s basically all the planning. In both cases, the sub-goal has changed a bit as we better understand te questions we need to answer, and of course the next actions are completed, modified or replaced. This is not atypical. Of course, this not so different from simple projects, which might have only a desired outcome and a next action. There are projects which have many subprojects, and for me the subprojects can usually be handled by a desired result and a next action. A good example for me is planning a vacation where we visit multiple destinations. So it seems to me the distinction is not the kind of work, but the number of components which can run in parallel. You can go beyond that simple structure of serial subprojects running in parallel to include some dependencies and delegated subprojects, but there is a point where personal list managers are inadequate, and you need groupware and/or large-scale project management tools.i think most of us don’t need this most of the time.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

That’s a very good question. I don’t think there is an inherent difference. I have two active physics research projects now in which I have a desired outcome, a provisional sub-goal, and a next action. That’s basically all the planning. In both cases, the sub-goal has changed a bit as we better understand te questions we need to answer, and of course the next are completed, modified or replaced. This is not atypical. Of course, this not so different from simple projects, which might have only a desired outcome and a next action. There are projects which have many subprojects, and for me the subprojects can usually be handled by a desired result and a next action. A good example for me is planning a vacation where we visit multiple destinations. So it seems to me the distinction is not the kind of work, but the number of components which can run in parallel. You can go beyond that simple structure of serial subprojects running in parallel to include some dependencies and delegated subprojects, but there is a point where personal list managers are inadequate, and you need groupware and/or large-scale project management tools.i think most of us don’t need this most of the time.

@mcogilvie

Nice point that has one also thinking, man has always been in the midst of extrinsic parallel and sequential systems that have seemingly become less self-evident over time; especially man made systems ?

Thank you very much

 

[Tom_Hagen]

GTD is not an "action-based" system.

Of course, GTD is a system that includes much more than just the immediate actions. "Action-based" is a kind of shorthand here. Generally, this message is about whether, for example, when planning to master a textbook, I should immediately write down all the topics to be mastered, or designate the next one, complete it, and designate the next one, etc. If I've understood the recommendations correctly, and if GPT is correct , the orthodox solution involves designating only the immediate action. For two reasons (subsequent actions can change, maybe not in the case of a textbook, but in the case of other projects, yes), and designating everything at once can be burdensome: first, because you have to plan the entire project at once, and second, because the sheer volume of work is immediately apparent, which can be discouraging for some.

 

[mcogilvie]

Of course, GTD is a system that includes much more than just the immediate actions. "Action-based" is a kind of shorthand here. Generally, this message is about whether, for example, when planning to master a textbook, I should immediately write down all the topics to be mastered, or designate the next one, complete it, and designate the next one, etc. If I've understood the recommendations correctly, and if GPT is correct , the orthodox solution involves designating only the immediate action. For two reasons (subsequent actions can change, maybe not in the case of a textbook, but in the case of other projects, yes), and designating everything at once can be burdensome: first, because you have to plan the entire project at once, and second, because the sheer volume of work is immediately apparent, which can be discouraging for some.

In the case of a textbook, or anything similar, I typically do whatever is simplest. If a book has 6 chapters and I need to have read it by a certain date, I start with a next action “Read book Ch 1/6” and update as I go. I’m doing it now watching the six-part TV series “The American Revolution”, which is only available streaming for a limited time. The next step up is a checklist. This is built-in functionality in Things, but it’s easy to mimic in any note field. After that, it’s projects, then projects with headings, then separate projects under the same area. I avoid such escalation, because simple is usually best, but it happens.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

In the case of a textbook, or anything similar, I typically do whatever is simplest. If a book has 6 chapters and I need to have read it by a certain date, I start with a next action “Read book Ch 1/6” and update as I go. I’m doing it now watching the six-part TV series “The American Revolution”, which is only available streaming for a limited time. The next step up is a checklist. This is built-in functionality in Things, but it’s easy to mimic in any note field. After that, it’s projects, then projects with headings, then separate projects under the same area. I avoid such escalation, because simple is usually best, but it happens.

@mcogilvie

"In the case of a textbook, or anything similar, I typically do whatever is simplest. . . . I’m doing it now watching the six-part TV series “The American Revolution”, which is only available streaming for a limited time."

Inspirational GTD opportunity management -- in action -- most worthy of aspiration while in the midst of Mind Like Water

Thank you very much sir

As you see GTD fit. . . .

 

[schmeggahead]

I’m doing it now watching the six-part TV series “The American Revolution”,

It's only six parts?
I thought it was ongoing.

 

[mcogilvie]

It's only six parts?
I thought it was ongoing.

Sh. The Second American Revolution is a Big Secret.

 

[Oogiem]

Your “spin yarn for cloak” isn’t literally one action — it’s a repeating sequence of tiny steps executed over months or years. GTD already has a place for this:

NO. It's a single thing not a series of steps Spinning is a single task. That it can be stopped and started DOES NOT negate that it is a SINGLE task!