Michael Ramone
Registered
David Allen jokes in the old seminars about the lack of depth involved in questions like "Is it actionable?", but I've long understood that this question in particular occupies the essential heart of GTD. The rest of the methodology is pointless if you cannot ascertain its scope.
@Sarahsuccess The problem is, you're now depriving the words of all meaning. What are you deciding?
It is not sufficient to say, "David Allen calls categories X, Y, and Z 'actionable', and categories A, B, and C 'nonactionable'." You're just arbitrarily grouping and renaming different organizational structures without justifying or explaining their use.
Recognition of the existence of these organizational categories follows validation of a clarification process required to clear the mind; the organizational categories, while evergreen and older than GTD, are validly used only for storage of analyses and their products.
David Allen recognises the existence of a clarifying stage prior to organising. GTD is not a system we can take on faith; it must represent real work flow. I'm certain he meant something when he wrote and shared "Is it actionable?" The sticking point is that, as far as I can tell, his use is so far removed from the conventional, easily defined renditions that it's painstaking, if not impossible, to understand.
"Clarifying" as it's now called does not amount to "choose which of a number of predefined 'GTD' organizational categories something seems to fit in." What is the significance of the categories? Where'd you get them from? Why are you using them? What is their value? ("I use them and they work in clearing my mind" is a step in the right direction, but pursuit of this line of thinking is reminiscent of investing in brilliant ideas discovered by accident: You didn't know they were valuable until you observed some derivative effects, and you don't know how to harness them in total; you run the risk of investing in what may turn out to be worthless ideas.)
THE VALUE OF THE FLOW CHART
If you were trying to navigate unfamiliar territory with a map, would you treat the map as though its marks meant whatever you wanted them to mean? I don't think so. You'd treat the marks as though each one probably refers to real landmarks or other real, physical features in the world. (It's possible to question the validity of the map. But this is beside the point. If it truly is a map, then it refers to real territory.)
The flow chart is a map that illustrates the territory involved in processing. I'm trying to locate the real territory to which it refers; it seems a few here are trying to convince me the map is actually a cartoon.
@TesTeq I agree insofar as it appears ultimately a question like "Is it actionable?" can only come down to some such query as "Should I act on it?"
I'm still baffled by Allen's employment of the word "actionable", however. If you follow him through the years, he almost never stops to explain what he means by it. Is it just that he's predominantly speaking to business-savvy audiences that frequently hear the word "actionable"? I doubt it. He treats the question as though it's obvious on its face. For this reason I refuse to overlook his choice of wording.
I've thought about simply reaching out to the man to ask him what he meant and why he chose the word "actionable" instead of imaginable alternatives. That would inform the real meaning. I've held off because 1) I don't want to bother the guy, and 2) I anticipate that if in his 40 years working with this material he hasn't encountered this problem yet, it's likely a moot point.
I'm wondering if he actually meant "actionable", as in "activable"/"activatable". Look at the GTD software drawings from a number of years ago. Look at his original processing diagram in there.
1. He has crossed out his original writing, which reads, "Committed to do something about this?"
2. The replacement text reads, "Action on this?"
3. In the bottom left, he illustrates his vision for the software—that it offer an additional quick menu of options: "OR / ACTIVATE / INCUBATE / ELIMINATE".
4. He later added "Reference/Support" underneath the other two options, "Discard?" and "Someday/Maybe?", but didn't include it at the outset. This implies that he envisioned users dealing only with abstract "commitments" and not associated artifacts.
He uses the "Action on this?" wording in various forms throughout the materials—e.g., "Is there action on this?", "Is there any action [required] on this?", "There's no action on it, but you still need to keep it..."
The fundamental problem I'm coming to is this: Is "Is it actionable?" meant to represent a decision, or one's recognition of a fact that's already true at the time of processing?
What's the difference?
Recognition of fact: I've thought much about seeing the movie running tonight.
Decision: Go to movie tonight or not.
Recognition of fact: The door is red.
Decision: "I've always wanted to repaint this door. Do it or don't?"
(Any number of possible decisions apply to these factual circumstances. The idea is to illustrate the difference between "decision" and "recognition of facts".)
If "Is it actionable?" is purely a decision, then it certainly means "Do I want to act on it?" Many coaches and trainers advocate for this view: Refer to "Troubleshoot Your GTD Clarify" in Connect. "The Art of Choosing [Yes/No]" webinars also insinuate it's simply a choice.
Arguably more evidence exists in the corpus as to the opposite interpretation: that "Is it actionable?" is a simple factual inquiry, akin to "Is it red?" This one has to do with identifying commitments that already exist prior to one's acknowledgment of them—i.e., decisions one has already made.
Remember, the idea is that we're clarifying—we're taking our inputs and clarifying their meaning. We shouldn't lose sight of this. I don't think the concept of "clarifying" entails making decisions about items unless one is already committed to acting on them. Otherwise "clarifying" wouldn't be descriptive of the practice. I doubt the originators of GTD would end up advocating for "clarifying" if what they really meant was "decide." (Case in point: What if no decision is involved? "Deciding" that no decision is involved with an item is not a decision at all, but one's recognition of a fact like the others above.)
You may ask why I'm going to such lengths to validate the original wording of the question. The answer is simple: Software programs depend on other software packages to function. If such a dependency is unmet, the program may run, but behind the scenes it is crippled, and in some way poses a risk, however small and distant, to the user. Such a program harbours an inefficiency that the user must compensate for, perhaps unknowingly.
Ever discover a useful feature years into your use of a program? Ever find that it was installed all along? You didn't have to sustain this loss over years; you simply didn't know of a better way.
The "Is it actionable?" question is a flagship software package. But its deployment requires proper knowledge that one may or may not possess at the time of its installation. It is possible to limp along using an incomplete body of knowledge—a set of dependencies—that malnourishes the meaning of the question, sending practitioners off in wrong directions. Under such circumstances, one is unavoidably shortchanging one's practice, and life is suboptimal as a result.
Additionally, if you can ensure that your GTD practice be full and optimized, you can rest more easily, knowing you're doing all you can to maximize your life, and that nothing more on your part is required. This is "control."
But I don't know if anything is behind the curtain. Am I taking GTD on faith? No. Allen's success in life and his demonstration of his ability to live with a clear head amid all his activity are evidence enough.
@Sarahsuccess The problem is, you're now depriving the words of all meaning. What are you deciding?
It is not sufficient to say, "David Allen calls categories X, Y, and Z 'actionable', and categories A, B, and C 'nonactionable'." You're just arbitrarily grouping and renaming different organizational structures without justifying or explaining their use.
Recognition of the existence of these organizational categories follows validation of a clarification process required to clear the mind; the organizational categories, while evergreen and older than GTD, are validly used only for storage of analyses and their products.
David Allen recognises the existence of a clarifying stage prior to organising. GTD is not a system we can take on faith; it must represent real work flow. I'm certain he meant something when he wrote and shared "Is it actionable?" The sticking point is that, as far as I can tell, his use is so far removed from the conventional, easily defined renditions that it's painstaking, if not impossible, to understand.
"Clarifying" as it's now called does not amount to "choose which of a number of predefined 'GTD' organizational categories something seems to fit in." What is the significance of the categories? Where'd you get them from? Why are you using them? What is their value? ("I use them and they work in clearing my mind" is a step in the right direction, but pursuit of this line of thinking is reminiscent of investing in brilliant ideas discovered by accident: You didn't know they were valuable until you observed some derivative effects, and you don't know how to harness them in total; you run the risk of investing in what may turn out to be worthless ideas.)
THE VALUE OF THE FLOW CHART
If you were trying to navigate unfamiliar territory with a map, would you treat the map as though its marks meant whatever you wanted them to mean? I don't think so. You'd treat the marks as though each one probably refers to real landmarks or other real, physical features in the world. (It's possible to question the validity of the map. But this is beside the point. If it truly is a map, then it refers to real territory.)
The flow chart is a map that illustrates the territory involved in processing. I'm trying to locate the real territory to which it refers; it seems a few here are trying to convince me the map is actually a cartoon.
@TesTeq I agree insofar as it appears ultimately a question like "Is it actionable?" can only come down to some such query as "Should I act on it?"
I'm still baffled by Allen's employment of the word "actionable", however. If you follow him through the years, he almost never stops to explain what he means by it. Is it just that he's predominantly speaking to business-savvy audiences that frequently hear the word "actionable"? I doubt it. He treats the question as though it's obvious on its face. For this reason I refuse to overlook his choice of wording.
I've thought about simply reaching out to the man to ask him what he meant and why he chose the word "actionable" instead of imaginable alternatives. That would inform the real meaning. I've held off because 1) I don't want to bother the guy, and 2) I anticipate that if in his 40 years working with this material he hasn't encountered this problem yet, it's likely a moot point.
I'm wondering if he actually meant "actionable", as in "activable"/"activatable". Look at the GTD software drawings from a number of years ago. Look at his original processing diagram in there.
1. He has crossed out his original writing, which reads, "Committed to do something about this?"
2. The replacement text reads, "Action on this?"
3. In the bottom left, he illustrates his vision for the software—that it offer an additional quick menu of options: "OR / ACTIVATE / INCUBATE / ELIMINATE".
4. He later added "Reference/Support" underneath the other two options, "Discard?" and "Someday/Maybe?", but didn't include it at the outset. This implies that he envisioned users dealing only with abstract "commitments" and not associated artifacts.
He uses the "Action on this?" wording in various forms throughout the materials—e.g., "Is there action on this?", "Is there any action [required] on this?", "There's no action on it, but you still need to keep it..."
The fundamental problem I'm coming to is this: Is "Is it actionable?" meant to represent a decision, or one's recognition of a fact that's already true at the time of processing?
What's the difference?
Recognition of fact: I've thought much about seeing the movie running tonight.
Decision: Go to movie tonight or not.
Recognition of fact: The door is red.
Decision: "I've always wanted to repaint this door. Do it or don't?"
(Any number of possible decisions apply to these factual circumstances. The idea is to illustrate the difference between "decision" and "recognition of facts".)
If "Is it actionable?" is purely a decision, then it certainly means "Do I want to act on it?" Many coaches and trainers advocate for this view: Refer to "Troubleshoot Your GTD Clarify" in Connect. "The Art of Choosing [Yes/No]" webinars also insinuate it's simply a choice.
Arguably more evidence exists in the corpus as to the opposite interpretation: that "Is it actionable?" is a simple factual inquiry, akin to "Is it red?" This one has to do with identifying commitments that already exist prior to one's acknowledgment of them—i.e., decisions one has already made.
Remember, the idea is that we're clarifying—we're taking our inputs and clarifying their meaning. We shouldn't lose sight of this. I don't think the concept of "clarifying" entails making decisions about items unless one is already committed to acting on them. Otherwise "clarifying" wouldn't be descriptive of the practice. I doubt the originators of GTD would end up advocating for "clarifying" if what they really meant was "decide." (Case in point: What if no decision is involved? "Deciding" that no decision is involved with an item is not a decision at all, but one's recognition of a fact like the others above.)
You may ask why I'm going to such lengths to validate the original wording of the question. The answer is simple: Software programs depend on other software packages to function. If such a dependency is unmet, the program may run, but behind the scenes it is crippled, and in some way poses a risk, however small and distant, to the user. Such a program harbours an inefficiency that the user must compensate for, perhaps unknowingly.
Ever discover a useful feature years into your use of a program? Ever find that it was installed all along? You didn't have to sustain this loss over years; you simply didn't know of a better way.
The "Is it actionable?" question is a flagship software package. But its deployment requires proper knowledge that one may or may not possess at the time of its installation. It is possible to limp along using an incomplete body of knowledge—a set of dependencies—that malnourishes the meaning of the question, sending practitioners off in wrong directions. Under such circumstances, one is unavoidably shortchanging one's practice, and life is suboptimal as a result.
Additionally, if you can ensure that your GTD practice be full and optimized, you can rest more easily, knowing you're doing all you can to maximize your life, and that nothing more on your part is required. This is "control."
But I don't know if anything is behind the curtain. Am I taking GTD on faith? No. Allen's success in life and his demonstration of his ability to live with a clear head amid all his activity are evidence enough.
