Areas of Focus: Do you allow them to overlap, or keep them separate?

[Folke]

What I have in mind is a list of high-level goals that I have for myself, under which I'd list my projects--and, as discussed, one project is likely to be in more than one list.

That sounds exactly like the thought I have been playing with. It's just that I see them as exactly the term you used - high-level goals (30k-50k), not as AoRs. AoRs, to me, is something at a more "practicaI" level (20k).

Those high-level goals do in fact influence your choices at the lower levels (whether we like it or not), and I'd be interested in finding out how such classification and tracking could be implemented. The classification as such should be reasonable straightforward - goal tags or something of that nature. The mystery is more in how to use them in a way that makes it worth the effort to even apply those tags.

 

[Oogiem]

And apparently it has some value for you to do it that way. What do you actually use it for?

I originally collected projects by AOF (and BTW what is an AOR? It seems like we are talking about something different) because I wanted to be sure that I had projects in all areas of my life that I considered important. So an AOF without a single project needed to either get some or be re-evaluated to see if it was still something I cared about. With practice I've learned that as long as I review the AOF list on a regular basis, for me that is quarterly on the equinoxes and solstices, and fine tune my projects then I am comfortable.

I am probably looking at it from a different angle than you, perhaps because I want something different out of it? I have about a dozen AoRs. They do not overlap. This is because I have deliberately defined them so that they won't. And this is because I want to use them for something that I find useful, where overlap would be an annoyance. When I review lists of tasks and projects I want to deal with them in a way that makes sense to me and my gut and my whole sense of inspiration and responsibility. It does not make any sense to my gut to even try to review a list for completeness etc if it is organized alphabetically or randomly or by context. When I review the list I want to go one "purpose" at a time, i.e. one role or single project within that role at a time. This is because that is how my inspiration and imagination works. I cannot see what is missing or could be done differently if I do not see the related things together. See?

Part of it is the tool. I can see maybe 30 or so projects on a single screen. Because of how I add them to my single large current projects folder I can sort of group them if I chose to but it doesn't really matter to me. I work from context lists not projects for 99% of the time. The remainder is usually during review. Having them grouped isn't necessary for me because I review first by projects with no action, then by projects that are pending or going to come up soon, the tickled or start later projects, then I look at all active projects and finally a review of all my projects on hold. The only time I really care about whether they are associated with an AOF or not is during my deeper reviews. Even then I only need to make that connection 4 times a year.

Many of the examples you mentioned in your last post sound like something that I had actually thought of, but as a different kind of thing, that I have never tried to implement. I would probably have labeled those long term goals (30k - 50k), e.g. maintain my health, develop hunting skills etc, or proficiency in some language. Those kinds of "benefits" could obviously overlap a lot. Talking a walk with a French customer could improve my health (exercise) and improve my understanding of French, as well as serve a more concrete and immediate purpose within a particular project or business area. It would of course be possible to keep track of the longer-term (secondary) purposes, and maybe even use this classification to guide decisions to some extent, but I never really quite saw how to implement it in an energy-efficient way in an app. Is that what you do? How?

I tend to blur the 30 and 40K levels a lot because for me they don't really separate easily in my mind. I have projects that can span a decade or more and goals that are defined, projects to support them created, worked and finished and the goal attained all within a few months. The timing is irrelevant in my world. What I do is make sure that for each AOF that I have defined as important for me that I always have one or more projects that support that AOF. Like Gardener says later if I have 2 projects that I am considering and one supports more AOFs and there is noting to choose between them I'll probably pick the one that gives me more bang for the buck so it is important to review how projects relate to AOFs but completely irrelevant to ensure that a project only relates to a single AOF. In fact that is a bad thing nota good one IMO.

 

[Oogiem]

In fact--and this may be one of the uses--if a project ISN'T in more than one list, that project may not be pulling its weight. I'm not talking about some inflexible rule like "every project must support at least three Areas of Focus." But if a project supports just Sewing and another one supports Sewing, Learning, and Creativity, and I'm not sure which one is more appealing, I may as well go for the one that supports more areas.

Similarly, if I realize that there's nothing supporting a particular area of focus, that's something to think about. Maybe I just accept the fact that I don't have time for that area right now. Maybe I realize that it's not relevant any more. Or maybe I need to add something that supports it, and possibly Someday something to make room for that addition.

So, again, I don't see Areas of Focus as "who does what I've decided to do?" but "what shall I decide to do, and why?"

Exactly AOFs are things I think I should be working on and that support my life so I need to be sure they reflect my values and purpose. Projects that cover more areas are in generall "better" than projects that only reflect a single AOF. I only have a limited capacity to do things. I need to be sure that whatever I do is moving me the furthest along my reason for being alive here at this time and place. I see AOFs as a way to support that rather nebulous primary purpose for being here.

In fact the whole issue of projects supporting more than one AOF is why I eventually just canned trying to sort them into buckets with a primary AOF. It became too cumbersome to manage because nearly every single project could fit in more htan one AOF bucket. I found my self wondering where to look put a project and then second guessing myself and moving it from major bucket at review. Eliminating the buckets eliminated a lot fo time because it doesn't really matter, I can see the connections by reviewing my AOF list, which is a DEVONThink note when I do a deeper quarterly dive into my projects, which are in Omnifocus. It's part of the simplification of my system that I am working on and so far its working very well.

 

[Oogiem]

That sounds exactly like the thought I have been playing with. It's just that I see them as exactly the term you used - high-level goals (30k-50k), not as AoRs. AoRs, to me, is something at a more "practicaI" level (20k).

ok I'm confused by terms again. What is an AOR? I consider AOF to be an Area of Focus, a high level description of what I can work on. A role or a skill or an area I need to maintain. I don't understand what you mean by AOF (don't understand the abbreviation) and if it's a role I don't understand the difference between area of focus and a role as they are different ways of saying the same thing to me.

 

[notmuch]

ok I'm confused by terms again. What is an AOR? I consider AOF to be an Area of Focus, a high level description of what I can work on. A role or a skill or an area I need to maintain. I don't understand what you mean by AOF (don't understand the abbreviation) and if it's a role I don't understand the difference between area of focus and a role as they are different ways of saying the same thing to me.

AOR = Area of Responsibility. In the original printing, DA uses both terms interchangeably... AOF/AOR is clearly defined as the 20,000 ft level. FWIW, he cites "self-development" and "creative expression" as possible examples. In other words, whatever you want it to be.

 

[Folke]

AOR = Area of Responsibility. In the original printing, DA uses both terms interchangeably... AOF/AOR is clearly defined as the 20,000 ft level.

Yes, that is my understanding, too.

He does use them interchangeably, but I find it interesting and intriguing that he starts out describing it as concrete "job responsibilities" and "hats" and "roles" and then gradually starts to generalize it into more "vague" examples and predominantly uses the term focus. He says that it is common to have four to seven areas in you work sphere and just as many in your private sphere.

Anyway, Oogie and Gardener, it is apparent that we are talking about different things. I prefer to interpret and use AoRs as a concrete role (hat) that I can emotionally identify with and which serves as a practical instrument for me to review my stuff, which is something I not only do in the weekly review, but also in between, often just before I decide to "attack" or double-check a particular business area or other "area". Seeing my stuff area by area helps me see if anything is missing or no longer necessary etc; I find that much harder to judge if everything is mixed up. It also helps me find individual items easier (a folder structure.)

It seems the way you use the things that you call AoFs is something I would intuitively have described as "benefits", but which in view of GTD terminology I would instead call 30k-50k goals, e.g. happiness, tolerance, compassion, health, strength, love etc. You seem to be using this as a measurement of a project's general worth. This is not a use I can recall hearing from David, in connection with AoR/AoF. I think he described AoRs/AoFs as comparable to a checklist that helps you check whether anything is missing.

 

[Gardener]

Looking at the newer version of the book, I see a little section in chapter 15 called "Assessing and Populating Your Projects List from Your Areas of Focus" that refers to an area of focus of "health and vitality", another one of "family relationships", and so on.

Another section in chapter 9 refers to "areas of focus such as parenting, partnering, spiritual community, health, volunteering, home management, personal finances, self-development, creative expression, and so forth"

So while I see nothing actually wrong with your "role" model if it works for you, I just see it as one possible way to think of areas of focus, and not really the way that reflects the examples that I see in the book.

 

[Folke]

So while I see nothing actually wrong with your "role" model if it works for you, I just see it as one possible way to think of areas of focus, and not really the way that reflects the examples that I see in the book.

Yes, it is just one way. But he did indeed say "role" and "hat" and "area of responsibility" in version 1. If he has taken that away it is a great pity, because those terms are very illustrative, IMO.

The new examples you refer to are also perfectly valid AoRs in the same sense as in the original book - and they are nothing like the kinds of "benefits" kind of aspect I thought I heard from some people earlier in this thread. How and why would you have a given project in multiple areas such as "home management", "personal finances", "self-development" and "creative expression" and consider the project more valuable just because it belongs to more such areas? That certainly has never been part of the teaching. AoRs/AoFs are meant as a checklist.

As notmuch said:

In other words, whatever you want it to be.

I have always liked to keep my stuff orderly filed into buckets etc.simply because things then are easier to find, and I can look at related things in a natural way. But I was never totally happy with my buckets, no matter how I tweaked them. They were similar to AoRs, so when I became acquainted with GTD in 2011 I found no improvement, because I interpreted AoR pretty much as everybody else seems to interpret these "buckets" or "folders" or "areas" (e.g. personal finances, home management etc.)

Then one fine day, perhaps in 2013, I decided to take the word "job responsibility" very literally - can't remember where I got the idea - then magic happened. It becomes so much clearer what is in the area and what is not, and to totally identify with that area in an intuitive, emotional way rather than just have it as an abstract classification. Imagine an area that you may want to call either Cleaning or Cleaner. What would the difference be? Subtle but enormous! I suggest you try it for yourself as a thought experiment!

 

[Folke]

I'm having a little trouble identifying with the benefit of reviewing in chunks organized by AoF/AoR -- sure, all of my projects can be categorized into different areas, but they are all unique in their immediate goals and action steps. When I review a project, I am focusing on that project in isolation, and I don't see too much benefit in reviewing a set of "similar" projects one after the other.

Well, what can I say. We are all different. If I am running a cheesecake business, a plumbing business and a law firm, it does make sense to me personally to review all the cheesecake related projects and actions together, with no "clutter" from plumbing or cheesecake. Other people maybe do not care, but I do; I do not like clutter.

For me, this is largely about "mental context switching" while reviewing. Some people apparently do not mind jumping back and forth, whereas I think it is much easier to go through all the plumbing stuff while I am in the "plumbing manager" frame of mind, and then totally switch to the cheesecake manager's mental context when I am done with all the plumbing stuff. It is no extra work for me. On the contrary, it saves me work (mental context switching work while reviewing). It also makes it easier for me to spot weaknesses in the "plumbing action plan" etc if I can see all the plumbing stuff together in one picture.

EDIT: Perhaps needless to say, this whole approach assumes you are using a computer. On paper or with the simplest computer list apps you cannot change perspectives, so your best bet is to stick with a context based organization. But with a medium-to-high level computer app you do not have to choose just one way to organize your stuff. You can organize it both by context (most useful during the execution phase, i.e. most of the time) AND and by AoR/project (most useful when you review your stuff or want to get your bearings.)

 

[Oogiem]

Yes, it is just one way. But he did indeed say "role" and "hat" and "area of responsibility" in version 1. If he has taken that away it is a great pity, because those terms are very illustrative, IMO.

Yiou see those terms as very different I see them as different ways of say ing the same thing. I see roles overlapping as well as focus areas, they are interchangeable terms to me.

I have always liked to keep my stuff orderly filed into buckets etc.simply because things then are easier to find, and I can look at related things in a natural way.

I used to think that as well. Now, with over 6 years of using GTD under my belt I consider them an uneccessary distraction. It's as if they were training wheels to get me thinking about things differently that are no longer needed.

Then one fine day, perhaps in 2013, I decided to take the word "job responsibility" very literally - can't remember where I got the idea - then magic happened. It becomes so much clearer what is in the area and what is not, and to totally identify with that area in an intuitive, emotional way rather than just have it as an abstract classification. Imagine an area that you may want to call either Cleaning or Cleaner. What would the difference be? Subtle but enormous! I suggest you try it for yourself as a thought experiment!

Interesting, for me I don't see GTD as all about responsibilities. In fact the best benefits I get from my GTD practice are not in handling my myriad of responsibilities, the day to day things that I have to do to keep life functioning, but the way to structure and manage the possibilities and big goals that allow me to feel fulfilled at the end of the day.

I also don't see a big difference in using the terms cleaner and cleaning. Cleaning may be more generic but that is about it. Instead I see an area of focus that would encompass cleaning things described like this: "I keep a clean, neat and orderly house that provides enough structure so we can find things but isn't so rigid as to stifle creative activity." I might try to turn that into a single word, housekeeper, but that is a bit limiting.

 

[Folke]

Yiou see those terms as very different I see them as different ways of say ing the same thing, they are interchangeable terms to me.

No difference at all. I too see them as interchangeable terms for the same thing. But I like the term responsibility better than the term focus, and you prefer the term focus.

nteresting, for me I don't see GTD as all about responsibilities. In fact the best benefits I get from my GTD practice are not in handling my myriad of responsibilities, the day to day things that I have to do to keep life functioning, but the way to structure and manage the possibilities and big goals that allow me to feel fulfilled at the end of the day.

I have a feeling that a lot of people, not only you, are in fact turned off by the term responsibility and that this may have been one of David's reasons to gradually replace it. But that's just a guess. For me personally, the term responsibility has a clearer ring to it than focus, which I find next to totally non-descriptive.

I see roles overlapping

Yes, I know you do. And I want mine to be non-overlapping, as you also know. So here we have a more real difference, a difference that has practical implications.

I used to think that as well. Now, with over 6 years of using GTD under my belt I consider them an uneccessary distraction. It's as if they were training wheels to get me thinking about things differently that are no longer needed.

We are both much older than the term GTD. How did you manage before? For me, I lived without the training wheels for about thirty years (just context lists and separate project support files). Then, in about 1998, I decided to move onto a computer, envisioning the ability to be able to shift perspectives at will from the per-context perspective to an area/project perspective and back. Now after 17 years of using these "training wheels" I still love them, and would recommend them to anyone. If they are childish, well, what do I care ;-)

I also don't see a big difference in using the terms cleaner and cleaning.

I didn't think you would. That kind of tallies, I believe, with your attitude towards the term responsibility, because that's where the key difference lies. Let me give you a silly-simple example (nothing that either you or I would write a task for, but still perhaps a clear illustration): Say you spill some milk on the floor when serving tea to a potential customer, and you have to wipe it up, is that a cleaning task? Yes, definitely. But is it the cleaner's task? Would you expect the cleaner to come rushing 24/7 at a moment's notice? Not likely. You would have a hard time finding a cleaner who would accept such an open-ended responsibility on reasonable terms. It would have to be the salesperson (or whoever spilled the milk) who would have to wipe it up herself.

Now you probably ask "so what"? And for you that is a very reasonable question, since you like overlap (and like to use areas as "areas of benefit" rather than "areas of responsibility"). But for a person who wants to avoid overlap between his/her areas this provides much of the solution. It allows you to see more clearly which single role you will consider responsible for it (and hence in which bucket you will place it). It does not list the whole range of roles that are somehow indirectly involved or impacted by the spilled milk. It reduces clutter. Simple and effective, IMO.

 

[Oogiem]

I have a feeling that a lot of people, not only you, are in fact turned off by the term responsibility and that this may have been one of David's reasons to gradually replace it. But that's just a guess.

No, the issue is that term responsibility is very limiting and too restrictive and doesn't capture the entire breadth of stuff I feel comes under the whole AOF term.

We are both much older than the term GTD. How did you manage before?

Poorly, using a combination of Covey methods, and massive lists that were always hard to handle.

But for a person who wants to avoid overlap between his/her areas this provides much of the solution. It allows you to see more clearly which single role you will consider responsible for it (and hence in which bucket you will place it). It does not list the whole range of roles that are somehow indirectly involved or impacted by the spilled milk. It reduces clutter. Simple and effective, IMO.

The problem with your example is that it is far too simplistic. In my world there are way too many things that are directly the responsibility of various roles or areas of focus. Think of it in your world as if every task requires a team to do not a single person. Take today's tasks for an example. The actual project is evaluate and rank all the adult ewes. I had to coordinate with the shepherdess to have the sheep close to the gates so we can move them to the handling corrals. I had to coordinate with the irrigator so that there is no water going where they have to walk because sheep hate walking over wet ground. I had to arrange for some additional help as we've got 88 to do in less than 2 hours and will need some people pushing them through the sweep. I had to work with the LambTracker programmer to make sure the bugs found during the ram evaluations were corrected before we try to do this one as it's over twice as many sheep to do. I had to talk to the database manager to be sure the current database was backed up and ready for new inputs/testing. I had to talk to the grazing manager to be sure that the sheep would be hungry as we are taking weights and we need their rumens less than full. I had to arrange for the data input person to be ready to send the data we collect off to Australia for EBV calculations. I had to arrange for the same data to be delivered to the person doing testing on a new EBV calculation program. Now those cross a bunch of my areas of focus but it's just one project. So which bucket should the project go into? Multiply that by the typical 200 or so projects I have going at once and you see why, for me, trying to tie the projects to a single AOF became difficult to use.

That was where I was getting frustrated. Having projects in separate AOF buckets meant I was never sure where to look for the project. It didn't help me manage the various things I am doing at all, it got in the way. It was useful for quite a while and I resisted changing my system even though it was suggested to me several years ago. I finally decided to give it a try, now with that level of complexity removed I find I am much faster at creating, completing and finishing projects. I can do a review more quickly, I never have a nagging feeling that I am missing something.

 

[Folke]

Oogie, I understand and respect your point of view, and am not trying to change your opinion. But FWIW let me explain my take on your "ewes" project (please bear with me for not understanding the actual business and if there are errors of that nature in my description.)

My starting point is this:
1) I want only ten or so areas in total, because otherwise I get dizzy and feel like I am drowning. I want to know the areas all by heart (even in my sleep), and have an intuitive feeling and full understanding for each of them and their overall missions.
2) I want them to NOT overlap, because overlapping would defeat the main purpose I have with having areas (but I sure do understand that other people can have entirely different purposes)

So if I had multi-faceted farm and family, perhaps with sheep and cows, fruit and vegetables, land and tenants, buildings, family life, community activities, non-profit research work etc., I would:
3) Split all that into 10 or max 15 areas all in all, for all if it. Among those I might perhaps have a "Sheep business manager" and a "Plantation business manager" etc.
4) Assign the "ewes project" to a role whose mission would be in line with ensuring progress and results (and "staffing" and everything) for this ewes project. If I had a "Sheep business manager" role I probably would place it firmly under her wings (and I would not document all the specialists that she needs to use)
5) In the event of a collision or ambiguity, say if this project overlaps or collides with the responsibilities of my "Corral Manager" or "Regulatory Affairs manager" etc (if I had such roles), I would decide, on the same principles as before, who is most suited to run the ewes project overall. Most likely, it would still be the Sheep business manager (and she would have to coordinate with everybody else and make sure she does not sabotage their efforts.)

What this gives me, and what it does not give me, is this. It does NOT give me a complete rundown of all the work that will involve the "Corral manager", so if that is what you want then my kind of area implementation is not the solution (you'd probably need a project management app). What it does give me, though, is a very clear view of what the Corral manager must remember all by herself and ensure adequate momentum in, stuff that will fall to the ground if she does not keep them moving, stuff that she needs to "drive" (not just follow orders). Whatever the corral manager needs to drive will be derived from her written or intuitive understanding of what her job is ultimately all about. This sense of what the "mission" is for each role then becomes a kind of mental context for me to get into when reviewing, in order to unsure that my project portfolio in that area is complete and well rounded. Such context switching takes time, which is a further reason why I want to review by area.

I hope that helps you to understand what I mean, but I totally understand if you have other preferences or priorities.

 

[TesTeq]

1) I want only ten or so areas in total, because otherwise I get dizzy and feel like I am drowning. I want to know the areas all by heart (even in my sleep), and have an intuitive feeling and full understanding for each of them and their overall missions.
2) I want them to NOT overlap, because overlapping would defeat the main purpose I have with having areas (but I sure do understand that other people can have entirely different purposes)

I like the "TAo limit" (C)2015 Folke. "TAo limit"? Yes, "Ten Areas of" limit! ;-)

I can see occasional problems with "non overlapping". Let's assume I'm learning HTML to create my freelancing landing page. Is it the "General Learning AoF" or the "Business AoF"?

 

[Folke]

I can see occasional problems with "non overlapping". Let's assume I'm learning HTML to create my freelancing landing page. Is it the "General Learning AoF" or the "Business AoF"?

Some people would have lots of such problems, I can imagine. I have no difficulties.

First of all, I would never define an area such as learning, walking, using Excel, making phone calls, traveling etc. Those kinds of "type of work" can be part of any or all your roles. I simply would not set these up as areas. They have no value to me in their own right; they are just means to an end. (And I would not use them as goals, either.)

Second, if I did have a true overlap between say "Business Area 1" and Business Area 2", e.g. an investment that would be of benefit to both areas and could be initiated and managed by either I would;
- either simply define the areas more clearly, e.g. that general investments of certain type will always go in bucket two etc
- or have a general area for "ground service & infrastructure for the other areas". For example, in my own Business sphere of areas I have one such "general manager" area called MGR, which is responsible for the underlying "corporate platform" for my five specific business areas. In this general area I place matters such as company registration, directory listings, bookkeeping, auditing, taxes, computers, office space, stationery, furniture etc. So if something serves the purposes of several business areas I often put it in the general MGR area.
- or if it can serve many areas but serves one area in particular, this one area being the main reason why I even consider doing this, then I put it in that area (and I will "simply know", when reviewing the other areas, that these areas now have access to a new extension to the "corporate platform".)

In your case, I'd say the answer seems simple (i.e. I would have chosen to make it simple): "Create freelancing landing page" goes squarely into your "Freelance Business" area (especially if that is the predominant area you will need it for). There would not even be a "Learning" area in my case. (You will most likely have an element of learning in all your areas.)

 

[notmuch]

- or if it can serve many areas but serves one area in particular, this one area being the main reason why I even consider doing this, then I put it in that area (and I will "simply know", when reviewing the other areas, that these areas now have access to a new extension to the "corporate platform".)

in other words your AoRs sometimes overlap.

 

[Gardener]

First of all, I would never define an area such as learning, walking, using Excel, making phone calls, traveling etc. Those kinds of "type of work" can be part of any or all your roles. I simply would not set these up as areas. They have no value to me in their own right; they are just means to an end. (And I would not use them as goals, either.)

Hmm. This may point to part of the issue with understanding each other here. I don't see "learning" as a type of work, I see it as a goal. Yes, it's also a tool and an activity, but when it appears in my Area of Focus, it appears there in its role as a goal. It's not analogous to "walking" but more to "health".

And as I say that, I see that "learning" is a little fuzzy--I'm seeing it as both an activity and a goal. I'm using the same word for two moderately different meanings. If I force myself to tease those meanings apart, I could make the following analogies:

Walking is a specific form of exercise, and exercise, among other things, supports the goal of physical fitness.
Learning Ruby on Rails is a specific form of learning, and learning, among other things, supports the goal of mental fitness.

So the real high-level goals may be physical fitness and mental fitness, but at any given time I may support those goals with sub-goals of exercise and learning. And any number of activities may support those sub-goals.

I DO see walking, using Excel, making phone calls, etc, as types of work, and that's why they woudn't be Areas of Focus for me, any more than they would for you.

I think that my Areas of Focus are high-level or mid-level goals, while yours, as well as I can understand them, seem to be a sort of modeled entity that has responsibilities--a "hat", as I think you've put it more than once.

 

[Folke]

I don't see "learning" as a type of work, I see it as a goal.

Yes, Gardener, that's how I see it too. Learning could well be a person's goal (30k-50k), if the person defines it as a goal.
It will also usually be an integral aspect of any regular activity (0k-10k).
Personally I would not use it as an AoR/AoF (20k) as it seems to belong "everywhere" and I therefore have difficulty seeing its use as a categorization?

in other words your AoRs sometimes overlap.

Yes and No. Yes, there may sometime appear to be more than one reasonable alternative, but, No, I always choose just one.

I think maybe one difference between my approach and the overlap approach is that I am not at all trying to depict how the project affects or impacts various things. All I am trying to do - not only trying, actually doing - is decide together which what other stuff (i.e. in which bucket) do I want to review this item. I want to keep it together with other projects that serve the same overall mission, such that I can make use of the same "frame of mind" while reviewing and can easily see if there are superflous projects listed, or are projects lacking..

 

[Gardener]

Yes, Gardener, that's how I see it too. Learning could well be a person's goal (30k-50k), if the person defines it as a goal.
It will also usually be an integral aspect of any regular activity (0k-10k).
Personally I would not use it as an AoR/AoF (20k) as it seems to belong "everywhere" and I therefore have difficulty seeing its use as a categorization?

I think that fairly often, something that "should" be in someone's life, but that for some reason isn't, may be an Area of Focus. For example, someone with ADHD might have an Area of Focus of "being on time", while for other people that's just the most ordinary of everyday obligations; to them it would look silly as an AoF. Hopefully they'd conquer that and build some habits, so that eventually that goal would fall off the AoF list. I realize that it could of course also or instead be a project, but I could see a scenario where it would be an Area of Focus.

A college student or a new hire right out of college probably wouldn't need an AoF of "learning" because he couldn't avoid learning if he wanted to. Someone who's been doing the same job, same hobbies, same everything, for several years, might want to kick learning up to an AoF for a while, or permanently.

One of my focuses for the past few years has been something that I call Being a Girl. This sounds illogical, since I AM female; how can I need an Area of Focus for that? But all my life I've avoided "girly stuff"--fashion and other aspects of feminine appearance, female friendships, modes of thought that I see as stereotypically femiine, and so on. I made the decision that there are some things there that appeal to me, so I'm doing some remedial "being a girl" work.

Similar but not the same, something may be a high priority in someone's life, so that they always want to keep an eye on it and push it, even if they don't feel that they've fallen behind. So they may always and forever want to consider, for example, "Which of these choices gives me the greatest opportunity for learning?"

 

[Folke]

I totally understand, and I have also been playing around with various thoughts about how to implement something for that type of thing.

In GTD terms I myself would think of such things as personal character goals somewhere at the 30k-50k level (being feminine, being fluent in French, being tolerant/compassionate, whatever). Some actions on the list lend themselves better than others for practicing or promoting your movement in such a direction, and it would be nice to able to find them easily or spot them easily in the list. In technical terms, tags come to mind. Unfortunately, Omnifocus does not have tags, I believe, so you need to use something else.

I know that in Omnifocus there is a layer above projects called Folders. Are you saying that you have a folder for "Being a Girl"? Side by side with other folders called perhaps Mother, Gardener, Programmer etc? Whenever an action in one of these other folders strikes you as a particularly good opportunity for practicing "being a girl", do you move that action from where it originally belonged into the "Being a Girl" folder?

If that is the case, I think, if I were you, I would much rather either get an app that has visible overlapping tags (e.g. Nirvana has tags that you can even color - you could, for example, make a pink tag for "being a girl). Or I would just keep an eye on my girlishness without using any tools - asking myself from time to time (maybe weekly) how well I have managed being a girl. You could make it a special item on your weekly review checklist to assess that, and base that assessment on your recollections only; you may not even need a journal; in other words it would be a 10-20 seconds a week exercise! That is how I handle that kinds if goals today (Doit has a very poor tagging feature; otherwise I might consider using that to help me see the prime candidates for practicing a given character trait.)

But to make an AoR Folder for such goals has the major disadvantage that all your Programmer tasks will be split up between different folders, depending on whether you should behave girlishly or not. This sounds "messy"; it gets very difficult to review your Programmer role if its actions are separated in that way. Also, to have miscellaneous actions from all kinds of roles - Programmer, Gardener, Mother, all mixed up in one place just because they all happen to have the shared characteristic that you want to remember to act girlishly, is also not very practical for review purposes.