If you so GTD please. . . .

[gtdstudente]

If you so GTD please . . . just wondering . . . simple question . . . what 'Completed Project(s)' Requires No: Check-List, Maintenance, Up-Keep, etc.?

Whatever GTD suggestion(s) you GTD suggest might very well be a very favorite GTD project(s) . . . with all due respect . . . what say GTD you?

Thank you very GTD much!

 

[René Lie]

If I understand your question correctly:

If one of my projects is done, I can't think of a need to do any follow-ups, but it may generate new projects, e.g. I finsh my project to buy a new car, this becomes an area of focus and responibilities, which gives birth to projects concerning maintenance of the car, and eventually to get rid of it one way or the other.

However, I may keep the documentation of a finished project for future reference, but that depends on what kind of project it is!

 

[gtdstudente]

If I understand your question correctly:

If one of my projects is done, I can't think of a need to do any follow-ups, but it may generate new projects, e.g. I finsh my project to buy a new car, this becomes an area of focus and responibilities, which gives birth to projects concerning maintenance of the car, and eventually to get rid of it one way or the other.

However, I may keep the documentation of a finished project for future reference, but that depends on what kind of project it is!

Yes, that is also my GTD thinking as well, which 'completes' the outcome thinking and can actually stop a particular Project in its track. A car is more than enough and congrats of even including getting rid of the car. For instance, as enjoying sailing is 'owning' a boat doesn't even make it even to the Maybe/Someday list due to the maintenance and upkeep thereafter. As such, when a future completed Project becomes a future Means it needs to offer a multi-fold value more than its "Future Maintenance, . i.e., 'Future Projects'" will require.

Ps. The analysis might also have one thinking they are 'Procrastinating' when one is actually practicing, for lack of a better phrase, 'Unconscious Subconscious Reasoning'

 

[Quicksilver10]

Yes, that is also my GTD thinking as well, which 'completes' the outcome thinking and can actually stop a particular Project in its track. A car is more than enough and congrats of even including getting rid of the car. For instance, as enjoying sailing is 'owning' a boat doesn't even make it even to the Maybe/Someday list due to the maintenance and upkeep thereafter. As such, when a future completed Project becomes a future Means it needs to offer a multi-fold value more than its "Future Maintenance, . i.e., 'Future Projects'" will require.

Ps. The analysis might also have one thinking they are 'Procrastinating' when one is actually practicing, for lack of a better phrase, 'Unconscious Subconscious Reasoning'

If I interpret your comments correctly, the point you are making is that one should look at (in business terminology) through-life costs and 'can I afford these' before embarking on a project. This leads me to think that the Natural Planning Model for projects should allow one to recognise that it may be best not to do the project at all! Suppose I own a bicycle and am thinking of buying a car, I create a project "Buy a car". But maybe, when I look at all the costs and responsibilities involved in car ownership, I decide that making do with the bike is the best option for me. Or maybe using the bike and hiring a car when I really need it. The need is transportation and owning a car is just one means. This kind of "requirement scrutiny" is not part of the Natural Planning Model but I think it often needs to be done at some stage. To take a non-project example, if I have a Next Action "Call Jeff to ask if he would lend me his car", perhaps I should have first considered some options - call round to see Jeff to discuss this, send Jeff an email about it, meet Jeff down the pub and buy him some drinks and only then, when he is in a relaxed mood, raise the subject!
So, the "unconscious reasoning" then becomes explicit.
Looking at this again, something has occurred to me. David Allen often has what he calls "R&D" (research and development) projects e.g. an example from the book "R&D joint-venture video project". Maybe one should liberally use R&D projects to both research the topic and to evaluate the best means to achieve the ends.

 

[gtdstudente]

If I interpret your comments correctly, the point you are making is that one should look at (in business terminology) through-life costs and 'can I afford these' before embarking on a project. This leads me to think that the Natural Planning Model for projects should allow one to recognise that it may be best not to do the project at all! Suppose I own a bicycle and am thinking of buying a car, I create a project "Buy a car". But maybe, when I look at all the costs and responsibilities involved in car ownership, I decide that making do with the bike is the best option for me. Or maybe using the bike and hiring a car when I really need it. The need is transportation and owning a car is just one means. This kind of "requirement scrutiny" is not part of the Natural Planning Model but I think it often needs to be done at some stage. To take a non-project example, if I have a Next Action "Call Jeff to ask if he would lend me his car", perhaps I should have first considered some options - call round to see Jeff to discuss this, send Jeff an email about it, meet Jeff down the pub and buy him some drinks and only then, when he is in a relaxed mood, raise the subject!
So, the "unconscious reasoning" then becomes explicit.
Looking at this again, something has occurred to me. David Allen often has what he calls "R&D" (research and development) projects e.g. an example from the book "R&D joint-venture video project". Maybe one should liberally use R&D projects to both research the topic and to evaluate the best means to achieve the ends.

Yes . . . "I look at all the costs and responsibilities involved in car ownership" . . . ALL THE COST (No Rudeness Intended) seems to clearly go beyond financial. As such, going back to the boat thing . . . why else would a multi-billionaire rid themselves of their 'beloved' Super Yacht(s) when they can afford to keep them . . . the Oracle founder comes to mind. Likewise, when Bernie Madoff's wife was happy when the Palm Beach mansion was confiscated by the FED's in expressing the place was just a big hassle more than anything.

Thank you for the input regarding Natural Planning Model . . . my first piece of Project Support is a relatively easy Mind Map . . . which includes DA: "What does done like" which includes . . . Maintenance/Upkeep . . . and as part of, as you succinctly expressed, "through-life costs" which can readily 'kill' the Project and save myself a sequence of regrettable resource(s) misallocation(s)

Again, thank you very much for being such a good GTD sport!