Difference between Level 1 (projects) and Level 3 (objectives)

[Cpu_Modern]

Here is an impossible task for you: try to explain the difference between Level 1 / 10,000 ft projects and Level 3 /30,000 ft objectives in such a way that even I can understand it.

Is there a difference other than a) the timeframe of either longer or shorter than a year and b) Level 3 items don't have a Next Action item somewhere?

What is the purpose of maintaining a list for the Level 3 items?

 

[mcogilvie]

As I understand things, Levels 3, 4, and 5 can all give rise to projects and next actions, so I don’t think your point b) applies. Let me turn your question around: why are you comfortable with Levels 4 and 5 but not 3?

 

[TesTeq]

In the GTD ecosystem there are also some amoebas like me that have never climbed above the AoF level.

 

[mcogilvie]

In the GTD ecosystem there are also some amoebas like me that have never climbed above the AoF level.

The GTD police are not coercing anyone to use every feature of GTD, as far as I know. I only have a little bit at levels 3, 4, and 5 myself, and I’m ok with that.

 

[Gardener]

I don't have a problem with the distinction between 1 and 3/4. As I see it, 1 is a project, and 3/4 are goals that require multiple projects.

I do have a problem with the distinction between 3 and 4. I'm sort of seeing it as the distinction between an epic (analogous to 4) and a sprint (analogous to 3) in Agile--they're both sort of working toward the same goal, but there's no point in planning ALL the sprints from the beginning, because things are likely to change as you go along.

Yes? No?

So, for example, it's probably going to take 5 years to redesign my vegetable garden to fit my minimum inputs/maximum benefit vision. I can see that vision as Horizon 4. On the other hand, this year's plan to cut the number of edible crops below a dozen, maximizing perennial crops, could be seen as one Horizon 3 objective. Revamping irrigation to allow for a few high-water crops in a mostly-dryfarm situation could be another Horizon 3 objective. Filling some of the idle space with fairly low-care, low-water ornamental perennials could be another. Each of those objectives will require several projects.

So as I go on, with what I've learned from those objectives, I plan more Horizon 3 objectives, but they're all aimed at that Horizon 4 goal.

Maybe. Again, not sure if I get it.

 

[Jared Caron]

Here is an impossible task for you: try to explain the difference between Level 1 / 10,000 ft projects and Level 3 /30,000 ft objectives in such a way that even I can understand it.

Is there a difference other than a) the timeframe of either longer or shorter than a year and b) Level 3 items don't have a Next Action item somewhere?

What is the purpose of maintaining a list for the Level 3 items?

As you go up the levels, the degree of abstraction is greater. So it's not immediately obvious how these two levels are different. It's subtle, and often doesn't become necessary until you've had more experience with GTD and there is more content in your system.

The reason the various levels become necessary is that as you start to capture and track all the outcomes you're committed to, your list could get pretty long and not all the items require the same cadence and type of focus.

It does basically come down to the timeframe and the degree to which they are immediately actionable.

For example, I am in grad school.

I have a project to complete the course I'm currently in (level 1)
Projects for the bigger assignments (also level 1)
all with various next actions (ground)

Completing the degree is not exactly a project I can immediately take action on, but it is an outcome I am committed to (Level 3) which would be distracting to review each week or more.

The goal of the degree is related to a larger vision of what I want to be doing professionally (level 4/5ish)

These are all tied into my Professional area of focus (Level 2)

When I first started with GTD I probably would have put most of those outcomes on my project list.

Eventually, it becomes apparent that some of those outcomes don't need to be reviewed every week (the level 3 stuff), and some aren't even outcomes (level 2).

That's when it becomes helpful to separate them. It provides the ability to focus on a different perspective of your commitments.

All of that being said, GTD isn't about forcing you to have these levels; it just gives you a framework to organize what's on your mind. Different people will have varying degrees of material for levels 3 through 5, if at all (as shown in this forum).

 

[Cpu_Modern]

Let me turn your question around: why are you comfortable with Levels 4 and 5 but not 3?

Levels 4 and 5 are distinctive concepts, whereas Level 3 seems to be the same concept as Level 1, except for the timeframe. With each item you have an outcome that you want to reach. This is not so with the other Levels.

At Level 4 all outcomes form one single picture together, one item. At Level 5 you have the "always running" mode like on Level 2, except again like at Level 4 everything in one all-encompassing item.

It is not clear to me, what functionality Level 3 adds, that is not already covered by either Level 1 or Level 4.

 

[Cpu_Modern]

In the GTD ecosystem there are also some amoebas like me that have never climbed above the AoF level.

You may be an amoeba (I would disagree!), but you are a special amobea. You are surfing the Warshaw Lake and visited the Grand Canyon. All on those 20,000 ft! I did neither.

 

[Cpu_Modern]

As you go up the levels, the degree of abstraction is greater. So it's not immediately obvious how these two levels are different. It's subtle, and often doesn't become necessary until you've had more experience with GTD and there is more content in your system.

The reason the various levels become necessary is that as you start to capture and track all the outcomes you're committed to, your list could get pretty long and not all the items require the same cadence and type of focus.

It does basically come down to the timeframe and the degree to which they are immediately actionable.


Eventually, it becomes apparent that some of those outcomes don't need to be reviewed every week (the level 3 stuff)

That's when it becomes helpful to separate them. It provides the ability to focus on a different perspective of your commitments.

That was very helpful! Okay, so L1 and L3 are the same in kind in that they are 'outcomes', it's just that there is that qualitative difference as stated above.

 

[Gardener]

Levels 4 and 5 are distinctive concepts, whereas Level 3 seems to be the same concept as Level 1, except for the timeframe. With each item you have an outcome that you want to reach. This is not so with the other Levels.

At Level 4 all outcomes form one single picture together, one item. At Level 5 you have the "always running" mode like on Level 2, except again like at Level 4 everything in one all-encompassing item.

It is not clear to me, what functionality Level 3 adds, that is not already covered by either Level 1 or Level 4.

Do you use subprojects? I don't. If I did, I would regard Level 3 as totally redundant with the parent of a subproject--it's a sort of umbrella that holds together several efforts, some of them parallel, aimed at the same conclusion.

 

[Cpu_Modern]

I use subprojects the way DA uses the term on p. 58 in the original edition of the book. I understand that this section is often overlooked, so it wouldn't surprise me if others use the term differently. To be clear, those subprojects live on the project plan only, not on the @projects list.

Gardener, what do you have in mind when you use the term "subproject"?

 

[mcogilvie]

Levels 4 and 5 are distinctive concepts, whereas Level 3 seems to be the same concept as Level 1, except for the timeframe. With each item you have an outcome that you want to reach. This is not so with the other Levels.

At Level 4 all outcomes form one single picture together, one item. At Level 5 you have the "always running" mode like on Level 2, except again like at Level 4 everything in one all-encompassing item.

It is not clear to me, what functionality Level 3 adds, that is not already covered by either Level 1 or Level 4.

As I read your reply, I was struck by the words “functionality” and “except for timeframe.” David Allen associates explicitly time horizon with frequency of review, and that is a key distinction between the levels. For me, my level of uncertainty rises substantially as I go from 1 year out to 2 to 5, so I have more clarity and confidence at level 3 than level 4, but less than level 1.

 

[Gardener]

I use subprojects the way DA uses the term on p. 58 in the original edition of the book. I understand that this section is often overlooked, so it wouldn't surprise me if others use the term differently. To be clear, those subprojects live on the project plan only, not on the @projects list.

Gardener, what do you have in mind when you use the term "subproject"?

Well, I don't use subprojects, but if I did, subprojects would be separate lines of activity all intended to achieve the same higher-level goal.

Project: Upgrade Widget app to DatabaseMonolith v1.6

Subproject: Identify deprecated commands, perform risk analysis.
Subproject: Eliminate high-risk deprecated commands.
Subproject: Fix report wrapping issue.

Or...something like that. But I wouldn't organize it like that--all of those subprojects would be projects, aimed at the goal of getting Widget up to v1.6.

Now, getting Widget up to 1.6 feels rather small for a Horizon 3 goal, but "Get application portfolio up to supported versions of software" feels like a potential 1-3 year goal for a so-far-underfunded programming group, a goal that might have a few dozen projects under it.

 

[John Forrister]

Now, getting Widget up to 1.6 feels rather small for a Horizon 3 goal, but "Get application portfolio up to supported versions of software" feels like a potential 1-3 year goal for a so-far-underfunded programming group, a goal that might have a few dozen projects under it.

@Gardener, have you considered writing a book about the grand unification theory of gardening and programming? I will buy it and put it at the top of my reading list.

 

[sil01]

try to explain the difference between Level 1 / 10,000 ft projects and Level 3 /30,000 ft objectives in such a way that even I can understand it.

Goals are strategic and aspirational, they tend to have much higher impact over time for people.
In practice, I found situations where goals identified in my level 3 were duplicated on my level 1, to ensure I act on it. But most of the time, my project list will include smaller sized projects that will tactically lead to achieving my level 3 goals.