Am I project planning correctly?

assdfd513213

Registered
David allen says do 'Define Purpose/Principles' as first
But I think principle is the outcome that I have to achieve too.
So I define purpose first and Principles/outcome second.

For example
Project : Set up curtain in office

Purpose
-The Wall is too dirty, I have to blind
-Summer is too hot
-Dazzling when sitting at the desk.

Principles/Outcome
-Feeling clean and tidy
-under $100
-Curtain shoud blind sunset perfectly


At this example 'Under $100' is the Principle but also it's Outcome that I have to aim.
Do you think I'm doing well?
 
Last edited:

mcogilvie

Registered
In the example you give, it probably doesn’t matter, but principles are generally not outcomes. Imagine you and your spouse desperately want to adopt a child. This is the successful outcome. You are told that your chance of success with one organization will improve dramatically if you offer bribes. Your principles determine what you do. Principles may not be constraints, but may also be affirmative: I support healthy lifestyles, therefore the event I am organizing will offer only organic food. Principles come from our core values in a way that desired outcomes may not. For small projects, principles may not need to be articulated, but they are always with us.
 

RobertWall

Registered
For small projects, principles may not need to be articulated, but they are always with us.

I'd say this applies for projects of pretty much any size. You don't need to re-articulate the principles unless something about the project is causing you to re-evaluate the course of your life. :)

Principles silently inform everything you do.

Same with purpose. "Purpose" in DA-speak is typically "why you're here", not the purpose of a given project.

So if your "purpose" is "to make a difference in the world by helping small business entrepreneurs be successful", that probably requires you to maintain an office, which requires either a home or an office space. In that office space, you have a desk where you work, and a window with light that interferes with what you're trying to accomplish at your desk. Your purpose therefore indirectly drives your need for a curtain.

Your *principles* informing this decision are already defined, but the ones that impact *this particular decision* might be that you prefer to support small companies, you prefer local businesses, and that you insist on fair trade and ethical sourcing. So eBaying a curtain from a sweatshop overseas is out of the question.

The budget, size, style, material weight, etc. are all very practical considerations, and they're great notes to have for your project - but they're not purposes or principles.

The project outcome is now "Curtain on window that covers the dirt and blocks the sunset", with a logical first action of something like "research to find a curtain made by an ethically-run small business". Maybe also a parallel task of "find local handyman to install curtain rod", if you're not handy yourself. :)
 

assdfd513213

Registered
In the example you give, it probably doesn’t matter, but principles are generally not outcomes. Imagine you and your spouse desperately want to adopt a child. This is the successful outcome. You are told that your chance of success with one organization will improve dramatically if you offer bribes. Your principles determine what you do. Principles may not be constraints, but may also be affirmative: I support healthy lifestyles, therefore the event I am organizing will offer only organic food. Principles come from our core values in a way that desired outcomes may not. For small projects, principles may not need to be articulated, but they are always with us.
Can you give me some example of outcomes?
Now I'm thinking outcome is Requirement that I can call Success.
At above example, if I buy curtain above 100$ I can't say project was successful even if it blocked sunset and dirt.
In this case 'Under 100$' can be the outcome?
 
Last edited:

RobertWall

Registered
Can you give me some example of outcomes?
Now I'm thinking outcome is Requirement that I can call Success.
At above example, if I buy curtain above 100$ I can't say project was successful even if it blocked sunset and dirt.
In this case 'Under 100$' can be the outcome?
I think you're over-thinking this.

"Outcome" in your case is "light-blocking / dirt-blocking curtain installed on window". "Outcome" for a project describes what your world looks like when the project is done. In the adoption example @mcogilvie gave above, "outcome" could be "child legally adopted and home with us".

"Under $100" is almost certainly not an outcome, especially not by itself - unless your *sole objective* was to find a way to burn about $100.

And I would caution you to not consider a project successful or not successful because you missed a predetermined constraint. For example, let's say you go to the curtain store. You discover that the wall in your building is going to require special stuff to mount the curtain - and it's going to cost you $120 for the curtain rod, curtain, etc.

At that point you could abandon the project (if that $100 really was a hard limit), or you could decide to spend the extra $20. But getting the curtain installed for $120 that solved all your light-blocking and dirt-blocking problems - and then saying "I failed at this project, because I missed my defined outcome" - would be completely nonsensical.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
Can you give me some example of outcomes?
Now I'm thinking outcome is Requirement that I can call Success.
At above example, if I buy curtain above 100$ I can't say project was successful even if it blocked sunset and dirt.
In this case 'Under 100$' can be the outcome?
You are assuming that the desired outcome does not change over the lifetime of the project. Many projects are constrained by considerations of time, money and quality, and it is not unusual for project goals and scope to change. Here I am using the language of bigger projects, as non-GTD’ers know them. In the case of the curtains, you always and at all times are responsible for your desired outcomes. If I had a project like the curtain like this and ended up spending $110 to get what I wanted, I would be happy AND I would be done. Someone who doesn’t revise desired outcomes in light of new information is setting themselves up for feelings of failure and unhappiness. GTD emphasizes the iterative nature of all its processes. In the specific case of curtains, I would not try to set a budget until I had gathered information about how much curtains cost.
 

RobertWall

Registered
GTD emphasizes the iterative nature of all its processes. In the specific case of curtains, I would not try to set a budget until I had gathered information about how much curtains cost.
This, 100%.

And if you've set "light-blocking curtain installed on window" as your desired outcome, and you discover during your initial research that you really just can't afford it, you don't count it as a personal failure - you just decide that you're not committing to that project right now, remove it from your list (or defer it 6 months to revisit then), and move on.

"Success" in GTD isn't as much about "met the project objectives exactly" as much as it's about "the results you have reflect what you've committed to". "Completing the project" and "renegotiating your commitments" are both perfectly valid ways to get there.
 

assdfd513213

Registered
This, 100%.

And if you've set "light-blocking curtain installed on window" as your desired outcome, and you discover during your initial research that you really just can't afford it, you don't count it as a personal failure - you just decide that you're not committing to that project right now, remove it from your list (or defer it 6 months to revisit then), and move on.

"Success" in GTD isn't as much about "met the project objectives exactly" as much as it's about "the results you have reflect what you've committed to". "Completing the project" and "renegotiating your commitments" are both perfectly valid ways to get there.

You are assuming that the desired outcome does not change over the lifetime of the project. Many projects are constrained by considerations of time, money and quality, and it is not unusual for project goals and scope to change. Here I am using the language of bigger projects, as non-GTD’ers know them. In the case of the curtains, you always and at all times are responsible for your desired outcomes. If I had a project like the curtain like this and ended up spending $110 to get what I wanted, I would be happy AND I would be done. Someone who doesn’t revise desired outcomes in light of new information is setting themselves up for feelings of failure and unhappiness. GTD emphasizes the iterative nature of all its processes. In the specific case of curtains, I would not try to set a budget until I had gathered information about how much curtains cost.

Thank you.
I think I missed the meaning of "success".
To summarize the advice of the two first I should decide the main purpose then outcome that contain purpose.
I'll apply this phrase when I deciding outcome "What kind of look, what kind of mood, what kind of feeling, What kind of results can you say that you have achieved the above purpose?"
I think it can solve my problem.
 

RobertWall

Registered
Just noting that your use of the word "purpose" is still out of kilter with how David Allen uses it. Not a problem as long as you realize that what you're talking about by "purpose" isn't the same as what DA means when he says "purpose". But if you're confused, this is from the GTD book:

Horizon 5: Purpose and principles
Horizon 4: Vision
Horizon 3: Goals
Horizon 2: Areas of focus and accountabilities
Horizon 1: Current projects
Ground: Current actions

These are in *reverse order*. "Purpose & Principles" are the highest horizon of focus, and are talking about *your entire life*. David describes this as, “Why does your company exist? Why do you exist? What really matters to you, no matter what?”

When you're defining "outcomes", you're down on Horizon 1. Those are individual projects that you're expecting to get done within the next year. Horizon 2 can be thought of as broad categories of Horizon 1 projects. I have "work", "health", "relationships", etc. on Horizon 2. Anything that has more than a few projects is probably an area of focus.

Horizon 3 is goals for the next few years. Horizon 4 is long-term thinking about the next 3-5 years, or possibly longer.

For a given project you *only need an outcome*. Anything else is over-complicating the situation, and will lead to a ton of extra work that will - ultimately - be frustrating to you. And if you're just getting started, getting control on Horizon 1 is more than sufficient.
 

assdfd513213

Registered
Just noting that your use of the word "purpose" is still out of kilter with how David Allen uses it. Not a problem as long as you realize that what you're talking about by "purpose" isn't the same as what DA means when he says "purpose". But if you're confused, this is from the GTD book:

Horizon 5: Purpose and principles
Horizon 4: Vision
Horizon 3: Goals
Horizon 2: Areas of focus and accountabilities
Horizon 1: Current projects
Ground: Current actions

These are in *reverse order*. "Purpose & Principles" are the highest horizon of focus, and are talking about *your entire life*. David describes this as, “Why does your company exist? Why do you exist? What really matters to you, no matter what?”

When you're defining "outcomes", you're down on Horizon 1. Those are individual projects that you're expecting to get done within the next year. Horizon 2 can be thought of as broad categories of Horizon 1 projects. I have "work", "health", "relationships", etc. on Horizon 2. Anything that has more than a few projects is probably an area of focus.

Horizon 3 is goals for the next few years. Horizon 4 is long-term thinking about the next 3-5 years, or possibly longer.

For a given project you *only need an outcome*. Anything else is over-complicating the situation, and will lead to a ton of extra work that will - ultimately - be frustrating to you. And if you're just getting started, getting control on Horizon 1 is more than sufficient.
you're right I confused with Horizon of focus
Thank you!
 

Jared Caron

Nursing leader; GTD enthusiast
Same with purpose. "Purpose" in DA-speak is typically "why you're here", not the purpose of a given project.

So if your "purpose" is "to make a difference in the world by helping small business entrepreneurs be successful", that probably requires you to maintain an office, which requires either a home or an office space. In that office space, you have a desk where you work, and a window with light that interferes with what you're trying to accomplish at your desk. Your purpose therefore indirectly drives your need for a curtain.

Your *principles* informing this decision are already defined, but the ones that impact *this particular decision* might be that you prefer to support small companies, you prefer local businesses, and that you insist on fair trade and ethical sourcing. So eBaying a curtain from a sweatshop overseas is out of the question.

The budget, size, style, material weight, etc. are all very practical considerations, and they're great notes to have for your project - but they're not purposes or principles.
This is not necessarily true. The natural planning model (NPM) applies the Horizons of focus to a specific project, so Purpose and principles can apply to projects.

It looks like this:
Purpose - why do the project at all?
principles - what constraints/rules of engagement to follow?
vision/outcome - what does "done" look like?
Brainstorm - mind sweep on how to get this thing done
Organize - turn that mind sweep into logical components, order, and milestones
Next actions - what do you need to do next to get started?

So I would consider a budget for a project with principles. But it is definitely separate from the outcome.

The NPM is particularly useful in clarifying and planning large and group projects.

Remember, GTD is not rules, just best practices. There isn't a "right way" to plan a project in GTD, but there are tools in GTD to help you plan projects. So don't feel like you have to apply the NPM to every project.

The rule of thumb is - what has your attention? If you need some clarity on the direction of a project, use the NPM to flesh out the purpose and principles. If you know why you're doing the project but aren't sure where to begin, use the lower horizons to generate ideas on how to move toward action.
 

RobertWall

Registered
This is not necessarily true. The natural planning model (NPM) applies the Horizons of focus to a specific project, so Purpose and principles can apply to projects.

It looks like this:
Purpose - why do the project at all?
principles - what constraints/rules of engagement to follow?
vision/outcome - what does "done" look like?
Brainstorm - mind sweep on how to get this thing done
Organize - turn that mind sweep into logical components, order, and milestones
Next actions - what do you need to do next to get started?

So I would consider a budget for a project with principles. But it is definitely separate from the outcome.

The NPM is particularly useful in clarifying and planning large and group projects.

Remember, GTD is not rules, just best practices. There isn't a "right way" to plan a project in GTD, but there are tools in GTD to help you plan projects. So don't feel like you have to apply the NPM to every project.

The rule of thumb is - what has your attention? If you need some clarity on the direction of a project, use the NPM to flesh out the purpose and principles. If you know why you're doing the project but aren't sure where to begin, use the lower horizons to generate ideas on how to move toward action.
Fair points, and I stand corrected on the use of the terminology in NPM.

I just popped into the GTD book to double-check whether I was thinking through things correctly, and I ran across this as a short summary in the NPM disucssion:

“Choose one project that is new or stuck or that could simply use some improvement. Think of your purpose. Think of what a successful outcome would look like: where would you be physically, financially, in terms of reputation, or whatever? Brainstorm potential steps. Organize your ideas. Decide on the next actions. Are you any clearer about where you want to go and how to get there?”

I think this summarizes the way I approach projects like this just about perfectly. For the curtain, "outcome" could be "a curtain installed that covers the dirty wall and keeps the sun off my computer". Project-level principles and purposes are baked in at that point, and the brain is almost certainly providing them naturally.

I think that's what I was trying to get at with OP - I find a lot of these things coalesce in practice, especially with projects the size of installing a window curtain. This why you don't inherently do something like NPM top-down for a project. Very particularly, you don't have to do "purpose" and then come up with something different *under* purpose that's "principles", then something different under that that's "vision", then something different under that that's "outcome". Trying to do that for every project - especially small projects - will drive you crazy. And it will lead to forum posts about how GTD makes things take too long. :D

A good, clearly-defined outcome will almost certainly encompass those things. At the point you have that, the stuff above it is superfluous.

And as @mcogilvie brought up, this isn't top-down - it's more iterative, so the things you find out in your research (a "next action") might change principles, vision, etc. as the Real World gets a vote sometimes. :D As you mentioned, these aren't rules, but rather tools. Per David Allen, "If greater clarity is what you need, shift your thinking up the natural planning scale. ... If more action is what’s needed, you need to move down the model.”
 

Gardener

Registered
I'm going to ramble.

I have a project "Plant raspberries".

If I did outcome-based project names, it would probably have no more information--"Raspberries successfully planted" or maybe "Raspberries successfully planted and established", if I decide that the project is only done when the plants start showing significant new growth.

There's a bunch of purpose informing that project, but I'm not documenting any of it in project planning for that specific project. Those are purposes at a higher level.

For example, I want to minimize water use and maximize plants' tolerance for low water. But I already have standard practices for that. I'll automatically use those for the raspberries.

I want to support good local businesses. But I already know who those are, and I already buy my plants and supplies from them.

I want to minimize maintenance and harvesting effort. But I already have practices for that.

Admittedly, this specific planting could have had a little extra project planning, because it's happening because I noticed last year that my old raspberry bed was not coping with the heat and water conditions. That's the reason why I'm planting a new raspberry bed.

But the problem was obvious--I had planted those raspberries at the narrowest recommended spacing, and I didn't keep up with weeds, because the way they were planted made it hard to get at the weeds. Both of those violated dryfarm principles that I automatically use now, several years after planting the old bed.

So the project was really, "Plant raspberries, and do it right this time." That narrowed down to "Plant raspberries."

Done rambling.
 

RobertWall

Registered
I'm going to ramble.

I have a project "Plant raspberries".

If I did outcome-based project names, it would probably have no more information--"Raspberries successfully planted" or maybe "Raspberries successfully planted and established", if I decide that the project is only done when the plants start showing significant new growth.

There's a bunch of purpose informing that project, but I'm not documenting any of it in project planning for that specific project. Those are purposes at a higher level.

For example, I want to minimize water use and maximize plants' tolerance for low water. But I already have standard practices for that. I'll automatically use those for the raspberries.

I want to support good local businesses. But I already know who those are, and I already buy my plants and supplies from them.

I want to minimize maintenance and harvesting effort. But I already have practices for that.

Admittedly, this specific planting could have had a little extra project planning, because it's happening because I noticed last year that my old raspberry bed was not coping with the heat and water conditions. That's the reason why I'm planting a new raspberry bed.

But the problem was obvious--I had planted those raspberries at the narrowest recommended spacing, and I didn't keep up with weeds, because the way they were planted made it hard to get at the weeds. Both of those violated dryfarm principles that I automatically use now, several years after planting the old bed.

So the project was really, "Plant raspberries, and do it right this time." That narrowed down to "Plant raspberries."

Done rambling.
That's great. :D

I remember David Allen saying once that you don't need to write down things that are basically ingrained. So if you have a habit of x, you don't need to write it down as a task. "Brush teeth" *IS* a high-priority next action at certain times, but you don't need to note it in your system unless there's a reason you don't think you'll do it without the note.
 

assdfd513213

Registered
That's great. :D

I remember David Allen saying once that you don't need to write down things that are basically ingrained. So if you have a habit of x, you don't need to write it down as a task. "Brush teeth" *IS* a high-priority next action at certain times, but you don't need to note it in your system unless there's a reason you don't think you'll do it without the note.

In this video David allen says "You should write down ideal scenario of when it's done looks like then think what it means to be successful."
Does it mean choose what I've picked? or Pull out succesful meaning?


 
Last edited:

assdfd513213

Registered
This is not necessarily true. The natural planning model (NPM) applies the Horizons of focus to a specific project, so Purpose and principles can apply to projects.

It looks like this:
Purpose - why do the project at all?
principles - what constraints/rules of engagement to follow?
vision/outcome - what does "done" look like?
Brainstorm - mind sweep on how to get this thing done
Organize - turn that mind sweep into logical components, order, and milestones
Next actions - what do you need to do next to get started?

So I would consider a budget for a project with principles. But it is definitely separate from the outcome.

The NPM is particularly useful in clarifying and planning large and group projects.

Remember, GTD is not rules, just best practices. There isn't a "right way" to plan a project in GTD, but there are tools in GTD to help you plan projects. So don't feel like you have to apply the NPM to every project.

The rule of thumb is - what has your attention? If you need some clarity on the direction of a project, use the NPM to flesh out the purpose and principles. If you know why you're doing the project but aren't sure where to begin, use the lower horizons to generate ideas on how to move toward action.

Thank you
I think same as you think.
NPM should also be applicable to Horizon of focus. Because it's natural.
Even if I bring it to the project, there are cases where certain projects have limited budgets or require specific manuals.
And when it comes to imagining the outcomes, it's right to think of the most ideal conditions.
 
Top