Having trouble to link this project to an AoF

[loik]

Here is my area of focus list:

Personnal :

• health
• beauty
• kids
• wife
• friends
• finance
• personal development
• professional development (career)
• recreation
• organization (GTD)
• house
• car

Work :

• X
• Y
• Z

My understanding of the areas of focus is that these are areas where I set up projects to be done to achieve the goals I have previously defined to succeed in my life (30k, 40k and 50k goals).

So each project should be linked to an area of focus. But I have a project that I can't really link to any of these areas which mean that I probably didn't capture all my areas of focus...

This project is "Obtaining the XXX (country) nationality". Couple of years ago I had to move in an other country for work and now I would like to stay for longer in that new country but I need government paper to be able to stay.

The outcome for this project is "I got the xxx (country) passport".
A 30k goal could be "Live few more years in xxx (country)".

I can't completely link this project to "Career". It's more for personal preference that I want to stay in that country. This project could fit partly in many of my areas of focus (wife, career, finance, recreation).

 

[Folke]

No grouping (classification) is ever perfect

No matter how to you break a given totality into buckets there will generally be things that fit in more than one bucket or fit none at all. The same goes for context, for example, or for classifying costs and revenues etc etc etc etc. It is like this in all parts of our lives. The general rule is - since you usually do not want to keep copies (duplicates) - that you choose the least inappropriate alternative. Or you change/redefine your setup - and then face similar problems with other items instead.

In your case, I think I would put it down as "personal development" (and, if necessary, redefine that class a bit).

As for the areas as such, I know different people have very different preferences, but for me personally it becomes much clearer if I define them as roles (quasi "job titles"). Then I am able to much more easily, more intuitively, answer the question who would be responsible (the initiator/driver) for a particular effort. (And you can also define who the "customer" is for each such role, if that makes it even clearer, but don't get lost there, if you run into trouble).

And another thing: I have a last resort area called Man, where I put everything that does not fit anywhere else and which I will do anyway for my own personal benefit or satisfaction.

 

[mcogilvie]

If personal preference is the primary driver, put your project in a personal area of focus. You don't say much about WHY you need or want this linked hierarchy. It's not a strict GTD requirement. Not all next actions have projects, and not all projects fit neatly into an area of focus. What you want is for your goals and areas of focus to suggest projects and actions, not the other way around. Some people just have a need to have some very structured hierarchy, where all projects are in an area of focus, and driven by some goal. Other people lock themselves into some software structure that similarly constrains them. IMHO, both are mistakes that miss out on the true freedom that gtd can open up.

 

[cwoodgold]

It's more for personal preference that I want to stay in that country.

If you want to find an AOF, you could ask yourself: Why do you want to stay in that country? Explore the reasons. You might even end up adding several AOFs. "personal preference" could be an AOF (a bit like "recreation") but there are probably better ways of putting it.

 

[bcmyers2112]

So each project should be linked to an area of focus.

I think you're experiencing some of the same confusion I was when I first encountered GTD. I saw it as a system of rigid requirements and I thought I need an extremely sophisticated system to keep track of what was linked to what. I can tell you from experience that doing so sets one up for failure.

The higher-level horizons of focus (areas of focus, goals, and life's purpose) are there to act as triggers for projects you need to take on. There is no reason, however, why every project should relate to an area of focus. If one of the toilets in my house breaks, I don't need to worry about what area of focus it belongs to. I just know I need to fix the toilet! That's good enough for me.

Nor is there a "requirement" that every area of focus should have a project. There may be times in your life when certain things are going well and are on "cruise control." There's no need to force yourself into a taking on unneeded projects just because you've got an "empty" area of focus on your list.

The other purpose for the higher-level horizons is to help you to trust your intuition about your priorities from moment-to-moment so you can avoid wasting time with priority coding. In my experience priority codes just create a false sense of security and get in the way of making intuitive judgments about what to do -- or not do -- in any given circumstance.

While I think these forums are great I would caution you that some people waaayyy over-complicate GTD. If you have to think too hard about your lists, you'll resist updating and using them.

GTD is a framework, not a cage. If you turn it into a burden you'll defeat the purpose. Loosen up. Ultimately all you need are simple, flat lists. Lists of calls to make, emails to send, things you're waiting for, etc. Because no matter how complex the projects are on our lists (and some can be very, very complex), the only way to move a project forward is to do something. And that something will always be a physical, visible action. When you take that action, do you really want to be worried about what area of focus it belongs to? Just do the thinking you need at those higher levels at appropriate intervals, capture the results, and then when it comes to your day-to-day activities trust yourself and your intuition. You'll be a lot better off.

 

[Folke]

It's not a strict GTD requirement. Not all next actions have projects, and not all projects fit neatly into an area of focus.

The higher-level horizons of focus (areas of focus, goals, and life's purpose) are there to act as triggers for projects you need to take on.
...
GTD is a framework, not a cage.

This is all very true. And if you choose to work on paper you will see that GTD really boils down to plain good old-fashioned common sense.

It becomes a bit more difficult if, for one reason or other, you choose to use a computer app, as I have. Computers obviously have their strengths, but often also introduce rigor and limitations that you simply do not have with paper - and may induce an urge, perhaps, to make the best use of what little functionality there is, since it does not quite have what you wanted in the first place.

I encode ALL my tasks with the project to which they belong, and for tasks that do not actually belong to a project I have a "phony project" for each area (using the app's project feature). This is not because I have to, or because it is the most "correct" way, but simply because this at least makes the lists a bit tidy and is one of the few ways available in the app to allow me to focus on different areas at different times. If you use a computer app you'll see that you have to invent all kinds of workarounds to make your life simple (and if you work on paper you'll probably invent other tricks and shortcuts that suit you).

 

[bcmyers2112]

It becomes a bit more difficult if, for one reason or other, you choose to use a computer app, as I have.

Really? I use a computer app. In fact I've used many, from the very basic to the very complex. It still all boils down to this: to get things done you have to do things. Anything that facilitates doing with minimal stress is useful. Anything that gets in the way of doing is not.

Computers obviously have their strengths, but often also introduce rigor and limitations that you simply do not have with paper - and may induce an urge, perhaps, to make the best use of what little functionality there is, since it does not quite have what you wanted in the first place.

Depends on what you want. Like you I once had a list of high-tech "must haves." I realized they were providing me with a false sense of security while simultaneously sabotaging my efforts. You can fool around with linking this next action to that project to thus and such AoF which is nested in that HoF, and tear your hair out searching for an app that provides some other features you're sure you "must have," and wind up no better than where you started.

My experience has taught me that ultimately it all comes down to this: once you've done the thinking you need to do to define your projects and next actions, you have to do something. Make a call, write a draft of a report, pick up a part to repair that broken toilet, start drafting character studies for the novel you want to write, compile budget figures, whatever. If you're distracted by where everything fits into the gestalt, your mind isn't on that thing you're trying to do right now. You're not present in the moment.

Once you've done thinking at the appropriate levels and intervals, all you need are flat lists. Yes, computers are theoretically capable of more -- but just because a capability exists doesn't mean it is useful.

I also would dispute your assertion that GTD was written for the paper age. GTD is about principles and habits that can be implemented in low, mid, or high tech fashion.

I would also dispute that having flat lists digitally is like doing GTD "as on paper." I use Evernote and there are lot of ways it's different than using paper. I can forward an email to Evernote and create a note with the next action as the subject and the email in the note body, complete with all links and formatting intact. For me this eliminates the need to have the email in one place but the next action in a separate system. You can't do that on paper. But I still maintain flat lists.

I don't think the issue is paper vs. digital. GTD is still GTD. The issue is an appropriate level of complexity vs. unnecessary complexity. Some of my project plans are pretty involved because the projects they're for are complex. But my next actions lists don't have to be, because ultimately a next action is still a physical, visible action. If I have to make a phone call, I just need a list item that tells me who to call and about what.

I used to try to do GTD like you do. But I learned that it's OK to loosen up and trust my intuition.

 

[bcmyers2112]

It becomes a bit more difficult if, for one reason or other, you choose to use a computer app, as I have.

I've always used digital list managers. It all comes down to this: anything that facilitates doing with minimal stress is useful. Anything that hinders doing is not.

At one time I thought much like you. I believed I needed to link things together into a seamless whole, and searched for functionality to do what I could just as easily have done in a low to mid-tech kind of way. I found it to be a waste of time, producing a false sense of security at the cost of unnecessarily heightening my stress.

It's as simple as this: eventually once you've done all of your thinking you have to do a physical, visible action to make progress on the fronts you've identified as the ones you want or need to make progress on. No matter how big or complex the project or goal, the next action always boils down to something as basic as making a call, sending an email, compiling budget figures, doing a character study for the novel you want to write, looking up something online, reading a chapter in a book, writing a draft of a report, or whatever.

If your mind is saddled with where that physical, visible action fits into the complex tapestry of your life then you aren't present in the moment as you do that task. That leads to unnecessary stress and diminished effectiveness in my experience.

What's more, I've found that personal organizational systems that are excessively complex are brittle. They don't hold up to the ever-shifting realities we now face, day-to-day, moment-to-moment. Such systems in my view require more care and feeding than they're worth.

To me, it is tremendously freeing to have liberated myself from such unnecessary complexity. My career and my life are complex enough without introducing complications I don't need. Once I've done the thinking needed to clarify what's actionable and what's not, I want a system that allows me to input the results of that thinking without having to do even more deep thinking about the system itself. My life's purpose isn't to fiddle with lists. That much I know.

 

[Folke]

I've always used digital list managers. It all comes down to this: anything that facilitates doing with minimal stress is useful. Anything that hinders doing is not.

You are right about practically everything you say, but:

For me it has been the opposite. I have always used paper based lists, except for the last 15 years. I know exactly how simplicity with paper works. It is excellent. The intuitive system I used to use was near-identical to the system that David Allen describes (except for Waiting For, which I had never at that time thought of having as a separate list; I had those among my ordinary actions, i.e. next actions). Very intuitive. Worked beautifully. And I think most people with their feet on the ground did it roughly like that - except those who fell for the time management stuff and started to try to turn their lives into living Gantt charts ;-)

Now (15 years ago) I have chosen to use a computer for a few simple reasons, and I am very stubborn. What I see, though, is that perhaps at least 99% of all development goes into providing all kinds of "cool gadgets" that are of minimal use to me. All I really wanted of computerization, primarily, was to be able too offload my mind of tasks only once (not have to move tasks from a project plan to a different paper, but to enter them once and have them conveniently out of the way until I need them) and be able to see ("review") the stuff from different angles (which I know is easy with computers; and which I actually manage to get to some reasonable extent).

And then it dawned on me that situational task selection (multiple contexts etc) really should be a piece of cake using computers, and would simplify the list management tremendously. Situational decision making, as I see it, is the very essence of GTD, and it could be made so much simpler than having stuff organized crudely into flat, rigid classes.

But, I also agree with something else you said before, that some people make things waayy too complicated.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Situational decision making, as I see it, is the very essence of GTD, and it could be made so much simpler than having stuff organized crudely into flat, rigid classes.

I'm doing my best to understand you -- and will rely on you to help me understand if I don't. When you refer to flat, rigid classes, does that mean next actions sorted by contexts as defined by DA (the person, place or tool needed to do the job) but not linked to projects or anything else?

If that's what you mean (and that may be a big "if"), I don't see such contexts as rigid. I am in sales and phone calls are a big part of my life. Unless I need to send someone a proposal, generally the best way to communicate with customers or prospects is with a call rather than an email. So a lot of my next actions are calls. That's pretty objective. I know what I need to do.

Some of the other ways you tend to group things into buckets (and I'm writing this in a hurry without adequate time to refer to the other thread where you wrote about this, so I hope I'm not getting it wrong) are to me the sorts of intuitive judgments I'll make on the fly without thinking too much about it. Time available, energy available, emotional state, and everything else you articulated are the kinds of things I'll leave to my gut, and I find that works.

Mind you, I'm not solely a salesperson. As board president of a non-profit I sometimes spearhead projects with lots of moving parts involving the efforts of many people besides me. Again, I still find that DA's concept of contexts is enough sub-sorting for me. I'll make all the other judgment calls intuitively.

When I've tried to formalize these things, that's where I get into trouble. That's what I find too rigid.

 

[Folke]

When you refer to flat, rigid classes, does that mean next actions sorted by contexts as defined by DA (the person, place or tool needed to do the job)

Thanks for trying to understand. Yes exactly. That's the only sensible way to do it if you use paper, and it is quite good - much better than having it all on one single list. I always had a few separate lists like that (errands, office/desk, office/walkingabout etc, and also office/projectA, office/agendaX etc) when I used paper in those days.

But if you have a computer there is really no reason to force you to make a one-dimensional structure like that. It would be much simpler to start with, and to maintain, if you could just keep adding the contextual aspects you think you may want to look at later. For example, if you want to try encoding an energy aspect or a timing aspect (e.g. afternoons only) or a new person, then just add one. And if you don't want to add one, then don't. Or if you did add one but found you had no use for it, just delete it - without having to revise your whole structure.

From a software point of view, all it would take for the developer is to allow tasks to have more contexts than one (and many actually allow that, and call them tags) and then allow some simple and/or/not filtering (which most do not have at all, and when they do it is way too cumbersome to use ad hoc; you must define saved searches etc).

And if you want to have a fixed default list grouping by context, then that would still be simple enough - just define which contexts should be used for that grouping; it would not need to be all of them.

That's all. Very, very simple. Then users then could suit themselves, keep it as flat or as multi-contextual as they see fit.

And as for using the gut, there is no contradiction. I often use my gut without even looking at my list at all But that does not mean that you should be forced by somebody else's lame software to adopt an unnecessarily rigid and imprecise structure - necessary when using paper, yes, but not necessary (or even wasteful) when using a computer.