Generic areas of responsibility

[Greyone]

I see from the forum there is much discussion of what out AOR's should be.

Question 1 - Does GTD yet have any Generic areas of responsibility ?

I ask because I know the original GTD book had helpful suggestions, but as we are all the same under the skin, wouldn't a generic set be the best starting point. After a great deal of effort , I came up with the following: Career, Family, Finance, Myself , Health and Relationships. I realise that some may see over lap and others have more personalised names for Career etc., but I think these are a good starting point. What does the team think ?

Family can obviously be divided into House, Home and various family members, but I find this list good because it groups similar projects together.

My only concern though is that I have many projects under family. Under the House subdivision I have all the projects for my family house such as mend guttering & paint outdoors. under the Home sub-division I have buy new cooker, fridge, decorate kitchen etc., under the mother sub-division I have arrange day care, help with will etc. So I may subdivide this as part of my standard set of AOR's.

Under Myself though its bigger because at the moment I have many projects under the following sub-divisions: Myself, Audio, Computer and Cooking projects.

My dilemma is that although I am happy to sub-divide Family and think of those sub-divisions as AOR's in their own right , I'm not happy to do the same with Myself.

What does the world at large think ?

 

[cfoley]

I can see why some of them don't appeal to you. "Audio, Computer and Cooking" could be several things. Let's take "cooking". If this is just about fuelling yourself then I wouldn't list it as an AoF. It wouldn't have to rise any higher than action level (or occasionally project level). If you like, you can think of it as coming under Health.

However, if cooking is your calling in life (mine is computer programming) then it could well be important enough to raise to AoF. Even then, I would consider listing it as something more general. Personal/professional development might be too all-inclusive but you get the idea.

 

[Folke]

Yes, I agree. Even if we all have many things in common there can be wide variations in how much attention we give each of those areas and how we prefer to structure it.

I would also like to add that the way David Allen describes it, and I agree completely, AoRs are typically quite "small", e.g. Husband, Father etc, and that it is good to group them systematically such that you have related AoRs together, e.g. Personal vs Work or whatever is appropriate for you.

A further thing I would like to add - but many people take a different approach - is that it is best to let each AoR represent a "responsibility" (i.e. a "role", a "quasi job title"), such as Family Finance Manager rather than a "type of activity", such as Financial. Even though in most such cases the results are similar they can sometimes be vastly different, and the "role" interpretation (as if the area were a contracted job) also makes it easier to identify at an intuitive level with the area and its edges. For example, if you need to negotiate a refund for a poor vacuum cleaner, does that belong to Financial (because it relates to money) or to Housekeeping (because the vacuum cleaner serves a housekeeping purpose)? Maybe you would put it down as Financial, I don't know. But if instead you have a choice between a ("pretend contracted") Finance Manager and a ("pretend contracted") Housekeeping Manager, it becomes much more obvious that the Finance Manager will flatly refuse to get involved in this negotiation. The Housekeeping Manager will simply have to sort out his own mistakes, and he is also the one who bought the vacuum cleaner in the first place and knows everything about what is wrong with it.

 

[Oogiem]

I don't think there can be a generic set, we each have too different a life. For some people health is an AOF others don't really care about it or it's on cruse control so they have no projects or issues to deal with about it.

My biggest issue with AOFs is that many overlap. For example. I have an AOF of Manage the Orchard but it also affects the sheep flock because that is their pasture. Sometimes I can't quite figure out where a project belongs and that can cause issues when I go to add more actions during processing of my inbox.

 

[Folke]

My biggest issue with AOFs is that many overlap. For example. I have an AOF of Manage the Orchard but it also affects the sheep flock because that is their pasture. Sometimes I can't quite figure out where a project belongs and that can cause issues when I go to add more actions during processing of my inbox.

Don't you think the "role" perspective could help here? I know it probably sounds schizofrenic, but if you look at a potential new project, say "Install a water sprinkler in the orchard", WHO would be the initiator and driver of that project, i.e. who wants a sprinkler and should "own" the project? Would it the Flock Manager or the Orchard Manager? I suppose the sprinkler is for the fruits, not for the sheep, so the Orchard Manager would be the one responsible.

(All responsibilities also imply a secondary responsibility not to sabotage for their peers etc, so if in doubt about the sprinkler the Orchard Manager may need to ask the Flock Manager if a particular position would be good or bad for the sheep, but that does not change the ownership of the project; it just affects some of the details of how it is carried out.)

 

[Oogiem]

Don't you think the "role" perspective could help here? I know it probably sounds schizofrenic, but if you look at a potential new project, say "Install a water sprinkler in the orchard", WHO would be the initiator and driver of that project, i.e. who wants a sprinkler and should "own" the project? Would it the Flock Manager or the Orchard Manager? I suppose the sprinkler is for the fruits, not for the sheep, so the Orchard Manager would be the one responsible.

It's not that simple. Water nourishes both the trees and the grass under the trees. So is it a pasture improvement (trees are shade) or an orchard improvement? Could be either or both so that's how things can get lost.

 

[Folke]

It's not that simple. Water nourishes both the trees and the grass under the trees. So is it a pasture improvement (trees are shade) or an orchard improvement? Could be either or both so that's how things can get lost.

Most things in this world are interconnected in many ways, and I am sure this applies in your business as well. But let's not get further than necessary into all those details. If you have to choose one, how will you decide, based on what?

In this case, if you had two real people on your payroll, a Flock Mgr and an Orchard Mgr, who would you give the project to, and why? I doubt that you would bother to keep a whole orchard just to give the animals some shade. It is rather the other way around. The orchard is a business in its own right and the shade and moist for the sheep is just a beneficial side effect. If all you wanted was to give your sheep some shade and moist you would probably just have put up something simpler (screens or a big roof etc that does not require any watering, or more resilient trees, perhaps, I don't know) . But in this case you do need to sprinkle those very fruit trees in order to get good fruit to sell, and that's the whole point. This makes the Orchard Mgr the natural driver of this project (and the Flock Mgr will benefit indirectly).

The point I am trying to make here is that it can be much easier and clearer to understand the AoRs as "people" ("roles") than as "types of work". And that each project belongs most naturally to the "role" who initiates and "wants" this particular project to happen than to any one of all those others who can benefit indirectly from this or other projects.

 

[notmuch]

....Could be either or both so that's how things can get lost.

I'm guessing the enormity of your projects list has more to do with things getting lost.

For me, this problem can pop up in AoFs, projects and contexts. Like so many of the problems discussed around here, the answer often depends on the system or software you are using. Most of the time I just declare a winner and go, but if it's really nagging me, I will create a linking entry in the loser... something like See: "Copied text of linked item so I can search for it".

 

[mcogilvie]

DA is pretty explicit about higher level goals overlapping, so a 3-5 year goal may drive a project that belongs to an area of focus, but also is connected to other goals and maybe other areas of focus too. I agree that sorting by responsibilities or intentions is helpful, but the whole structure should just drive projects and next actions, and not necessarily be a comprehensive, hierarchal life blueprint. Life is too complicated and confusing and rich for most people for that to work. I think the key recommendation from David Allen is how often to review the different levels.

 

[Oogiem]

I'm guessing the enormity of your projects list has more to do with things getting lost. ... I will create a linking entry in the loser... something like See: "Copied text of linked item so I can search for it".

So very true, but farms are huge multi-connected businesses. I do best with really small well defined projects but that means I have lots of them. I like the linking idea, I may give that a try, thanks for the info.

 

[Greyone]

cfoley
I see what you mean about cooking. But I have two projects Making Chutney and Spiced Vinegar (for truly home made pickles) are both projects for myself... Hobbies. . Like all of my computer projects. So as my Myself AOR, i also have Computer, Audio (may expand to be Entertainment to include my interest in Film Festivals (just thought of that)), Myself is usually easy to manage because i only have two types of project . But thinking about all my Myself projects , I'm wondering now if my Buy a new mattress project and Tidy-up project both belong under Home as that's what they relate to, except for the fact that they are personal, so i remain undecided.

Folke
I appreciate what you say that AORs are typically small. I could think of family as a responsibility, but also Mother ,sister, house and home as individual areas of responsibility ,but to be fair ,mother, sister, house and home appear to be the small like you mention. I may try using them instead of my current AOR's because Family and Myself have over 80% of my projects. I Should say that i chose these 5 labels so that i would only be working on one project from each at any one time.

Incidentally I would put the refund for the vacuum cleaner under home, because that is where the purchase of the vacuum cleaner would be and the refund for me is part of the purchase as the cleaner must have failed user acceptance testing.

Oogiem
My reason for starting with a generic set is that although everyone is different , i think everyone could start of at the same point and just use Generic AOs as a starting point or template. At the moment Finance, Relationships and career are important but have very few projects, whereas Myself
and family have the vast majority of projects. For the moment i may acknowledge my 5 template AOR's but split up Myself and Family and see if they
become more manageable.

Folke
I appreciate what you say about overlaps. I use my 5 AOR's to decide where a project goes:

House: Everything to do with the fabric of the house. Roof, walls, gutter, gas supply, electricity supply and water supply etc.

Home: Furniture, cooker, fridge, microwave, hoover etc.

Finance: My own personal finance - For buying an expensive item such as double glazing may have a finance component but would be the responsibility
of house.

Myself: Everything i do for myself. My computer, my audio esp hobbies.

Relationships: To do with my relationships with everyone whether close, formal, informal, family, friends.

At the moment i have just been thinking about my AORs.I think I'll need to start thinking about my AOF's

My projects by AOR with some sub-divisions

AOR	Sub AOR	Projects
Career	Career	1
Family	Home	7
	House	3
	Mum-Gen	2
	Mum-Health	3
	Outdoor	3
Finance	Finance	2
Myself	Audio	8
	Computer	7
	Cooking	2
	Myself	6
Relationships	Relationships	1
		45

Incidentally , I chose my 5 AOR's from my Life chart. which I complete every 3 months. For that I find this breakdown useful, so it makes a good starting point. I think my AORS will change over time, but I hope they will still be based on my template.

 

[cfoley]

I see what you mean about cooking. But I have two projects Making Chutney and Spiced Vinegar (for truly home made pickles) are both projects for myself... Hobbies. . Like all of my computer projects. So as my Myself AOR, i also have Computer, Audio (may expand to be Entertainment to include my interest in Film Festivals (just thought of that)), Myself is usually easy to manage because i only have two types of project . But thinking about all my Myself projects , I'm wondering now if my Buy a new mattress project and Tidy-up project both belong under Home as that's what they relate to, except for the fact that they are personal, so i remain undecided.

You may be overdoing it. You're making chutney and going to film festivals to amuse yourself. Do they really correspond to areas of responsibility? Should they? They're certainly things to do (probably valuable too) but they aren't responsibilities. Maybe someone who is too focused on their job or on others may need a structure like this to ensure they spend some leisure time on themselves. For all I know you could be this person, but that's not the impression you give.

On my own project's list, I have "Arrange travel for a friend's stag do" and "Put Linux on laptop". Allocating them to areas of responsibility that would be a bit contrived: the former is just an event I've been invited to and the latter is really just to amuse myself. It's OK that they stand apart from my areas of responsibility. In fact, it's better that way in case I mistake installing linux for something that would actually improve my skill at something.

 

[Greyone]

Let me clear something up. The cooking projects (chutney etc) and entertainment projects (I-POD, Film Festivals ) are all hobbies that I do for myself. So they are part of the area of focus I call myself, which contains just that. I don't have them as AOR's or AOF's specifically. They are all part of one AOF called MYSELF. But my Family AOF contains the family house and home and each member of the family. I was thinking of elevating those to Horizon 2 specifically so they could get appropriate attention. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Gardener]

I've always been a bit fuzzy on the value of Areas of Responsibility. I see them potentially useful as a sort of diagnostic tool when flowing down, as in:

"I set Author as an Area of Responsibility, but there's not one thing in my current projects that serves that area."

For that purpose--a sort of clarification of the large goals and responsibilities in your life--they seem useful.

But I see substantially less value in them flowing UP, as in:

"Does this book that I'm reading fit in the Author Area of Responsibility, because it might provude useful information for my writing, or does it fit in the Relaxaction Area of Responsibility, because I'm enjoying reading it?"

Does it matter?

Yes, I realize that "flowing down" and "flowing up" both require that you tie many tasks/projects to Areas of Responsibility. But I see that as different from needing to tie the nebulous ones. If eighty percent of your probjects have obvious ties, why worry about the confusing ones? And if thirty percent of that eighty percent tie to more than one Area of Responsibility, why bother to pick just one?

I suppose one reason for "why bother" is if you organize your projects in a hierarchy under Areas of Responsibility. I don't do that; I organize them however I please in the moment, but that tends to be based on the work activities rather than their goal.

For example, I might want to make:

- a Halloween costume, AOR Personal/Creativity
- a dark grey pencil skirt, AOR Work/Ambition (because it will give me a more professional appearance)
- a harvest apron, AOR Hobbies/Food or Hobbies/Gardening

But in my project lists, those are all going to be hierarchically listed under Sewing.

 

[Folke]

But in my project lists, those are all going to be hierarchically listed under Sewing.

Interesting that you, too (just like me) would regard a "type of activity" like Sewing to be a different kind of thing than an "area of responsibility" like Author.

I wonder, though, could the "types of activity" that you group your projects by (Sewing etc) also be seen as contexts (or amalgamated contexts)? Sewing does require a certain set of tools and materials, and perhaps also a suitable location and frame of mind etc. Do you have similar folders for, say, Excel work, shopping, etc?

As for the organization, I actually organize by AoR, because I find it helps make my review work feel appropriately focused. Apart from that, I would tend to agree with you about "why bother".

 

[Oogiem]

You're making chutney and going to film festivals to amuse yourself. Do they really correspond to areas of responsibility? Should they? They're certainly things to do (probably valuable too) but they aren't responsibilities.

AOFs do not have to be things that are only responsibilities at all. AOFs are areas of focus. So important hobbies can be AOFs as well as responsibilities.

I have AOFs for weaving, knitting, scrapbooks, spinning and sewing. Doesn't mean that they are necessarily responsibilities but they are areas in which I have projects an want tofocus some time.

 

[Gardener]

Interesting that you, too (just like me) would regard a "type of activity" like Sewing to be a different kind of thing than an "area of responsibility" like Author.

I wonder, though, could the "types of activity" that you group your projects by (Sewing etc) also be seen as contexts (or amalgamated contexts)? Sewing does require a certain set of tools and materials, and perhaps also a suitable location and frame of mind etc. Do you have similar folders for, say, Excel work, shopping, etc?

I'm inclined to say no, because sewing can have a lot of contexts. For me, sewing involves:

Planning and Design
Shopping
Patternmaking
Fabric Wrangling
Cutting
Serging-and-sewing-and-pressing
Hand work

Most of them happen at home, and Patternmaking and Cutting both involve the same big table, but there's not a whole lot of crossover. If I were to group by needed resources, Fabric Wrangling, for example, would probably be grouped with Laundry--they both involve washer, dryer, ironing, and folding.

I don't use Excel, but I use OmniOutliner for planning sewing and gardening and other things, and I'd put any OmniOutliner tasks ("Catalog buttons", say) under the activity they support, rather than with other OmniOutliner tasks.

So I'm not sure why Sewing is Sewing. Am I grouping by large skills? (Sewing, Gardening, Cooking.) I dunno.

 

[cfoley]

AOFs do not have to be things that are only responsibilities at all. AOFs are areas of focus. So important hobbies can be AOFs as well as responsibilities.

I have AOFs for weaving, knitting, scrapbooks, spinning and sewing. Doesn't mean that they are necessarily responsibilities but they are areas in which I have projects an want tofocus some time.

Yes, but I was working from the OP's language which was "areas of responsibility". I also have AoF's which are not responsibilities. However, my main point was that you don't have to create AoF for everything you want to do, and you don't have to shoehorn everything into existing AoF's.

 

[Folke]

I think there are at least three different discussions going on in this thread. All of these discussions try to relate back to what David Allen has said about areas of responsibility aka areas of focus, but all three discussions go into more detail than David Allen has ever done. David Allen seems to primarily encourage having a list of areas as a checklist for triggering new thoughts about new possible projects etc and also as a status check. David recommends that we list the areas in natural groups, such as Work areas and Private areas etc. Anything beyond that would be GTD++.

1. The original post asks whether it would be possible to define areas generically in a way that would suit everyone. Most answers here express skepticism. I am skeptical, too.

2. Cfoley points out that every action and project does not necessarily need to belong to any particular area at all, and you do not need to have areas for everything. It seems no one is arguing against that. Gardener seems to agree, and so do I.

3. I myself have tried to demonstrate that clarity can be enhanced if we consistently use a "person/role"-based definition of what an area is (rather than a "type of activity" or "type of thing"). That idea does not seem to catch on here. I also like to keep my stuff organized by these "roles" (AoRs and groups of such), and I have goals etc for each of them. I am sure many would call this overkill, but I like it.

 

[cfoley]

That's a nice overview of the thread.

I actually liked the roles based thinking. I use that in some areas of my work already but had not thought of applying it when choosing how to classify things within GTD.