Areas of Focus: H2 or H3?

[RomanS]

According to David Allen, the goals (H3) are hierarchically above the areas of focus (H2). Are there good reasons for this order or could the AOF also be raised to the higher level as the source of the goals? One of the criteria for the hierarchy of horizons is time: Next actions (up to about 1 week) > Projects (up to about 1 year) > Goals (up to about 2 years) > Vision (up to 5 years). In this respect, my AOFs fit between the vision and the goals.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[mcogilvie]

The ordering of the horizons are indeed based on time, but the basis is frequency of review, so higher horizons are typically reviewed less often. You can always review any horizon more often, but I have found that the ordering works well in practice. My Areas of Focus (H2) are where I look for balance and completeness in my projects and next actions. On the other hand, H3-H5 are more aspirational and can look unbalanced. For example, I may want to have a comfortable home throughout my life, but it’s not at H3-H5; it’s at H2. Because all the horizons interact with all the others, ordering by review frequency is just practical. You can change, for example, the ordering of the H2-H5 planner pages in a paper planner, but that doesn’t change the suggested minimum review frequency. Hope that helps!

 

[cfoley]

Yes, an AoF can absolutely inspire a goal.

I see a qualitative difference between AoF and goals. A goal is something that I am striving towards. I don't have it yet but I am aiming to get there. An AoF is something I am responsible for right now. In this sense, the AoF list is closer to the runway which might be the reason for its position.

As an aside, because you mentioned timescales, I don't consider timescales when considering vision or life purpose. For me, they are more about the equilibrium of my life. There are some aspects of my vision that I have not yet achieved but others I have and I just need to keep them on track.

 

[gtdstudente]

According to David Allen, the goals (H3) are hierarchically above the areas of focus (H2). Are there good reasons for this order or could the AOF also be raised to the higher level as the source of the goals? One of the criteria for the hierarchy of horizons is time: Next actions (up to about 1 week) > Projects (up to about 1 year) > Goals (up to about 2 years) > Vision (up to 5 years). In this respect, my AOFs fit between the vision and the goals.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

@RomanS

Thank you for your great GTD post

Hopefully without being too redundant to the very good @mcogilvie and the very good @cfoley GTD posted replies above

On this end Areas-of-Focus are defined and Organized with their Purpose as the ultimate life being Horizon(s) for all parameters [five on this end] of engaging in developing the most productively 'satisfying' life possible

The Areas-of-Focus 'parameters' appropriately* can appropriately spur on appropriate Projects and appropriately help prevent one suffering or perhaps mitigate: 'being all over the place syndrome' attributed to ADD, ADHD, sensitive temperament, etc. . . . since we all have something to intrinsically to overcome ?

On the Project level, the Areas-of-Focus can confidently become areas of immediate concern to complete while defusing any irrational 'doubts/hesitations/uncertainty' frictions that the imagination/memory can muster to self-sabotage since the GTD methodology/system can put the imagination/memory on 'overdrive' since the imagination/memory might be less inhibited from no longer needing to 'hold ideas' . . . idle hands, in this case the imagination/memory, are the workshop of the devil ?

Hope that makes sense while 'GTDing'

As you see GTD fit. . . .

*Appropriate is a very appreciated term that David Allen often uses that can be very efficiently helpful in dynamically clarify the mind to help check the emotions in the midst of life's incoming chaos and uncertainties for appropriateness':

Appropriate: balance, equilibrium, detachment, good habits, virtues, etc.

Inappropriate: attachments, bad habits, defects, excesses, toxicity, vices, etc.

After all, as a good friend expressed, the last thing anyone wants to be known for is someone who is "inappropriate for all occasions" ?

Ps. Again, as you see GTD fit. . . .

 

[mksilk2]

My perspective is that the AOF sits slightly adjacent to the other HoF. The way I see it is as per my simple attached list. I see Ground, Projects (2) Goals & Objs (3) Vision (4) and Purpose (5) as quite well suited in terms of flow. AoF doesn't, to me, fit the flow. They sit adjacent to the others and influence the others enormously, but not in a linear way. My perspective only, other perspectives are allowed ;-)

 

[schmeggahead]

My Areas of Focus (H2) are where I look for balance and completeness in my projects and next actions.

I really like this observation.

Out of balance in your life, review areas of focus.

AoF doesn't, to me, fit the flow.

This makes sense to me too.
All the horizons of focus appear to be hierarchical, vertical except the Areas of Focus. It feels more horizontal.

I realize not every project has a goal and not every goal has a vision and not every vision connects with purpose and principles (although if they don't, it might be a good idea to examine purpose and principles for completeness and your motivation for something that doesn't align). I realize I left out Areas of Focus in this. Any of these can connect to an AOF.

could the AOF also be raised to the higher level as the source of the goals?

I think @mcogilvie answered this for me: it's the review frequency that placing the horizon.
They all inspire and feedback on each other when my system is working well.

Good examination of the Horizons of Focus.
Clayton.

Just as the tumultuous chaos of a thunderstorm brings nurturing rain that allows life to flourish, so too in human affairs times of advancement are preceded by times of disorder. Success comes to those who can weather the storm. - I Ching

 

[Mike Taku]

According to David Allen, the goals (H3) are hierarchically above the areas of focus (H2). Are there good reasons for this order or could the AOF also be raised to the higher level as the source of the goals? One of the criteria for the hierarchy of horizons is time: Next actions (up to about 1 week) > Projects (up to about 1 year) > Goals (up to about 2 years) > Vision (up to 5 years). In this respect, my AOFs fit between the vision and the goals.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Hi there, I want to ask you can areas of focus be seen as more important than goals in David Allen's system, possibly even guiding the goals? How does this fit with the time-based hierarchy he suggests?
Thank You,
Mike Taku.

 

[mcogilvie]

Hi there, I want to ask you can areas of focus be seen as more important than goals in David Allen's system, possibly even guiding the goals? How does this fit with the time-based hierarchy he suggests?
Thank You,
Mike Taku.

All of the horizons interact with one another. If you think of a stack, goals, vision and areas of focus all drive projects and next actions (top-down), but projects and next actions can suggest changes to our areas of focus, goals and vision (bottom-up). It’s not a hierarchy in the sense of an outline. I think most people naturally think about our areas of focus, our roles, more frequently than our goals and vision. Our areas of focus represent our current responsibilities and interests, while goals are future-oriented. You need it all, and should try to be open to change at every level. If you let your current areas of focus too tightly guide you, you may miss opportunities that the future may bring. Associating different frequencies of review with different horizons is just a practical suggestion.