“Is it actionable?”

Michael Ramone

Registered
Hi all,

I’ve been practicing GTD for a long time, but there’s always been this one area I’ve struggled with—namely, what the clarifying question “Is it actionable?” actually means.

Every other question in the clarifying process is clear to me, but that one is not. No answer comes to my mind when I ask myself whether something is actionable; the word “actionable” has never been part of my vocabulary, and its meaning is not ingrained in me at all. Sure, I’ve looked up the definition—both in a dictionary and in the appendix of Getting Things Done—but the word’s usage and meaning varies across all GTD materials, making this such a mystery for me.

This is really the bottleneck in my system, as I get anxious when clarifying, feeling as though no decision I make on whether an item is actionable is solid, thus leading me to avoid clarifying altogether. This is obviously an enormous problem, since clarifying is the most important of the five stages of gaining control. I just need a solid and, most importantly, a **final** understanding of what “Is it actionable?” means.

I’d like to note, as well, that in the past, I’ve resorted out of frustration to simply asking “What’s the next action?” about each item I’m clarifying, invoking the non-actionable categories when they naturally show up, avoiding “Is it actionable?” altogether. My reasoning behind this is that if asking “What’s the next action?” about an item evokes an answer, then the item is inherently actionable, and I can proceed in clarifying as if the answer to “Is it actionable?” had been yes. If I ask “What’s the next action?” about an item that is actually non-actionable, then the non-actionable category in which the item belongs immediately becomes clear to me, and I will organize the item accordingly.

While I’m nitpicking, I should bring up that when I pick up out of an inbox an item that I know already has a waiting-for attached to it, I can’t help but be confused at how the clarifying diagram was supposed to have lead me to that conclusion, had I not recalled that information on my own. There is a difference between items that still need to be delegated—which is what the “Delegate” category is for—and items that are already delegated. If I ask myself whether an item of the latter type is actionable, then my mind, without fail, responds with “No, that’s not actionable.” However, the issue with this is that if I simply continued following the clarifying diagram based upon that choice, all items of this type would be trashed, incubated, or filed as reference, when in reality, they should have become waiting-fors.

I understand this is a minor concern, but for me, it’s a rather large hole in the process. The Waiting For list’s precise place in clarifying and organizing continues to elude me many years into implementation, despite the fact that I know very well what it is. The category doesn’t strike me as actionable, as is always touted, since I never create any of my waiting-fors by following the clarifying diagram; instead, they always come about after I sit back and a few seconds later realize, “Oh, yeah, and on that thing, I’m waiting for…”

To be clear, Waiting For isn’t a traditional non-actionable category either. Many people keep projects they want to activate in the future on their Waiting For list, which I believe to be an error. It seems to me, however, that a group of reminders of the actions and deliverables of others that I care to track is not an actionable one, as I myself am not committing to do anything about any of the items in that category other than review them all, at least once a week, for potential actions for me to take. For an actionable category, it seems a lot like a non-actionable category.

Fundamentally, the issue with regards to the place of Waiting For is, unsurprisingly, the definition of “actionable.” If the definition revolves around you—i.e., “a thing I intend to act upon”—then you will never create any waiting-fors by using the clarifying diagram, since any item in your inbox that happens to already be delegated cannot simultaneously be
an item you are currently committed to take action on, hence the item’s inevitable arrival in the “non-actionable” category. If the definition of “actionable” focuses less on any specific agent of change—“a thing about which something is to be done”—then the decision becomes more a matter of whether anything is to be done by anybody in the world, and the classic “Delegate” category becomes accessible once again.

I’m open to anybody’s thoughts on this.
 

Gardener

Registered
To me, "actionable" means that I have the knowledge, and resources, and ability, to do the action. I don't have to do any prep or learning or acquiring before I can do it--and if I do have to do prep or learning or acquiring or anything else, THAT is the action.

But that's assuming that you're talking about actionable, well, actions. Are you instead talking about projects?

Random examples:

"Read all of Dickens' works" is, IMO, not actionable as stated. But it is a project, and it's possible to break it down to smaller actions that are actionable. So, "Get a copy of Oliver Twist" is actionable.

"Put in the spring garden" is not actionable.
"Prepare the lettuce bed" is actionable IF I have the necessary tools and amendments and I know which piece of ground is the lettuce bed. If I don't, then I write actions for those things.

On the other hand, if it's the middle of December, "grow bush beans" is not actionable, because the weather isn't suitable. I suppose I could send off for the bean seeds, which would make it a bit actionable, and then I'm waiting for warm weather, or at least weather suitable for preparing the bean bed.

On the other hand, "grow lemons" is not actionable, at all. They will not grow in my climate. Oh, sure, I could spend a bazillion dollars building a greenhouse, but I'm not going to. So it's not actionable.

Doing my taxes is not actionable before my W-2s come out.

"Make an angel food cake" is not actionable for ME. For me, that action would have to be broken down into actions to find a recipe, make sure I understand it, get the ingredients, blah blah blah.

However, "make a loaf of sandwich bread" is actionable for me, because I already have all those things; I make three or four loaves of sandwich bread every week. (Three or four? Two or three? When the last loaf is almost gone, it's time to make dough.)

But I don't know if any of this is relevant to your question.
 

larea

Registered
Great answer from Kelly and I think I'm going to save this. I would add one thing. Not sure if this is supposed to be part of actionable or not, but at the same time I am asking this I am also asking myself am I really going to do this at all. Sometimes I capture ideas that really aren't even someday items and just need to be deleted.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
I read the original post several times, and I am honestly not sure what the exact issue is. In such cases, I often look for the most simple, concrete examples I can find. So if you can provide examples, that would be great.

While I do not treat my Waiting For list exactly like I do my Computer list, it is not simply a list I review once a week. I look at items on it whenever new information comes in that’s relevant, or when I feel that something is stalled. I tend to look at it whenever I look at Agendas, for obvious reasons. Some items on the list have due dates, and some have question marks. Like a Tickler file (I use a digital tickler list), it often drives actions. I find Waiting For can be a very expressive and dynamic list.
 

dpsaroud

Registered
Huh, that's an interesting little conceptual challenge; English is not my first language so the word actionable initially wasn't part of my vocabulary either but I've never had to consciously define it for myself.

I would agree there are (at least) two completely different meanings in GTD:
  1. While clarifying: Is there something I currently want to do about this?
  2. regarding items on your next action lists: Is it a physically visible, finite action described in enough detail that you unambiguously know what to do when you read it?
Regarding the Waiting Fors: I would consider them Reference (just like your Calendar and Project Plans). So they are fine in the "non-actionable" branch. Of course you might still want to create a project while clarifying an already-delegated waiting-for so that does break the diagram but I can live with that imperfection ;-)
 

schmeggahead

Registered
I would agree there are (at least) two completely different meanings in GTD:
  1. While clarifying: Is there something I currently want to do about this?
  2. regarding items on your next action lists: Is it a physically visible, finite action described in enough detail that you unambiguously know what to do when you read it?
This is a keeper. Concise and clear.

Regarding the Waiting Fors: I would consider them Reference
I feel Waiting Fors are actionable in the future. David talks about puting a creation date so we know how long we have been waiting. I treat them more like incubate and put a follow-up due date, especially if I have impact if it isn't done by a particular date.

I can see myself following up with them, so to me, it is a visible action to be done in the future.

While I’m nitpicking,
When a key component (e.g. what does actionable really mean) is something I don't fully understand, I feel I must be very precise with the rest of the diagram because there is a gap in my understanding. If I don't follow the rest of the diagram to the letter, I won't fully understand the impact to my system.

So until my understanding of that key piece is completed, it really hampers my flexibility. I find that the nitpicking really is helpful to understanding in this situation.

Cheers,
Clayton.
How long will it take? Two weeks. Two weeks? - The Money Pit.
 

Sarahsuccess

Registered
Hi all,

I’ve been practicing GTD for a long time, but there’s always been this one area I’ve struggled with—namely, what the clarifying question “Is it actionable?” actually means.

Every other question in the clarifying process is clear to me, but that one is not. No answer comes to my mind when I ask myself whether something is actionable; the word “actionable” has never been part of my vocabulary, and its meaning is not ingrained in me at all. Sure, I’ve looked up the definition—both in a dictionary and in the appendix of Getting Things Done—but the word’s usage and meaning varies across all GTD materials, making this such a mystery for me.

This is really the bottleneck in my system, as I get anxious when clarifying, feeling as though no decision I make on whether an item is actionable is solid, thus leading me to avoid clarifying altogether. This is obviously an enormous problem, since clarifying is the most important of the five stages of gaining control. I just need a solid and, most importantly, a **final** understanding of what “Is it actionable?” means.

I’d like to note, as well, that in the past, I’ve resorted out of frustration to simply asking “What’s the next action?” about each item I’m clarifying, invoking the non-actionable categories when they naturally show up, avoiding “Is it actionable?” altogether. My reasoning behind this is that if asking “What’s the next action?” about an item evokes an answer, then the item is inherently actionable, and I can proceed in clarifying as if the answer to “Is it actionable?” had been yes. If I ask “What’s the next action?” about an item that is actually non-actionable, then the non-actionable category in which the item belongs immediately becomes clear to me, and I will organize the item accordingly.

While I’m nitpicking, I should bring up that when I pick up out of an inbox an item that I know already has a waiting-for attached to it, I can’t help but be confused at how the clarifying diagram was supposed to have lead me to that conclusion, had I not recalled that information on my own. There is a difference between items that still need to be delegated—which is what the “Delegate” category is for—and items that are already delegated. If I ask myself whether an item of the latter type is actionable, then my mind, without fail, responds with “No, that’s not actionable.” However, the issue with this is that if I simply continued following the clarifying diagram based upon that choice, all items of this type would be trashed, incubated, or filed as reference, when in reality, they should have become waiting-fors.

I understand this is a minor concern, but for me, it’s a rather large hole in the process. The Waiting For list’s precise place in clarifying and organizing continues to elude me many years into implementation, despite the fact that I know very well what it is. The category doesn’t strike me as actionable, as is always touted, since I never create any of my waiting-fors by following the clarifying diagram; instead, they always come about after I sit back and a few seconds later realize, “Oh, yeah, and on that thing, I’m waiting for…”

To be clear, Waiting For isn’t a traditional non-actionable category either. Many people keep projects they want to activate in the future on their Waiting For list, which I believe to be an error. It seems to me, however, that a group of reminders of the actions and deliverables of others that I care to track is not an actionable one, as I myself am not committing to do anything about any of the items in that category other than review them all, at least once a week, for potential actions for me to take. For an actionable category, it seems a lot like a non-actionable category.

Fundamentally, the issue with regards to the place of Waiting For is, unsurprisingly, the definition of “actionable.” If the definition revolves around you—i.e., “a thing I intend to act upon”—then you will never create any waiting-fors by using the clarifying diagram, since any item in your inbox that happens to already be delegated cannot simultaneously be
an item you are currently committed to take action on, hence the item’s inevitable arrival in the “non-actionable” category. If the definition of “actionable” focuses less on any specific agent of change—“a thing about which something is to be done”—then the decision becomes more a matter of whether anything is to be done by anybody in the world, and the classic “Delegate” category becomes accessible once again.

I’m open to anybody’s thoughts on this.

I think David Allen’s book Making it All Work answers your question.

I think the main idea is to determine “What does it mean to me?”

Chapter 6 of that book on Clarifying addresses your question I think. I have attached a photo of a two page spread of that chapter.

Making it All Work Clarify.JPG
 
Last edited:

ianfh10

Registered
Agree with others that "actionable" comes down to meaning as well as practicality. For me, the question "is it actionable?" ties together several questions:

Do I need to do anything about this?
Do I want to do anything about this?
Am I capable of doing anything about this?
What do I need to do about it to get it off my mind?
What would happen if I don't do anything about this?
 

gtdstudente

Registered
Hi all,

I’ve been practicing GTD for a long time, but there’s always been this one area I’ve struggled with—namely, what the clarifying question “Is it actionable?” actually means.

Every other question in the clarifying process is clear to me, but that one is not. No answer comes to my mind when I ask myself whether something is actionable; the word “actionable” has never been part of my vocabulary, and its meaning is not ingrained in me at all. Sure, I’ve looked up the definition—both in a dictionary and in the appendix of Getting Things Done—but the word’s usage and meaning varies across all GTD materials, making this such a mystery for me.

This is really the bottleneck in my system, as I get anxious when clarifying, feeling as though no decision I make on whether an item is actionable is solid, thus leading me to avoid clarifying altogether. This is obviously an enormous problem, since clarifying is the most important of the five stages of gaining control. I just need a solid and, most importantly, a **final** understanding of what “Is it actionable?” means.

I’d like to note, as well, that in the past, I’ve resorted out of frustration to simply asking “What’s the next action?” about each item I’m clarifying, invoking the non-actionable categories when they naturally show up, avoiding “Is it actionable?” altogether. My reasoning behind this is that if asking “What’s the next action?” about an item evokes an answer, then the item is inherently actionable, and I can proceed in clarifying as if the answer to “Is it actionable?” had been yes. If I ask “What’s the next action?” about an item that is actually non-actionable, then the non-actionable category in which the item belongs immediately becomes clear to me, and I will organize the item accordingly.

While I’m nitpicking, I should bring up that when I pick up out of an inbox an item that I know already has a waiting-for attached to it, I can’t help but be confused at how the clarifying diagram was supposed to have lead me to that conclusion, had I not recalled that information on my own. There is a difference between items that still need to be delegated—which is what the “Delegate” category is for—and items that are already delegated. If I ask myself whether an item of the latter type is actionable, then my mind, without fail, responds with “No, that’s not actionable.” However, the issue with this is that if I simply continued following the clarifying diagram based upon that choice, all items of this type would be trashed, incubated, or filed as reference, when in reality, they should have become waiting-fors.

I understand this is a minor concern, but for me, it’s a rather large hole in the process. The Waiting For list’s precise place in clarifying and organizing continues to elude me many years into implementation, despite the fact that I know very well what it is. The category doesn’t strike me as actionable, as is always touted, since I never create any of my waiting-fors by following the clarifying diagram; instead, they always come about after I sit back and a few seconds later realize, “Oh, yeah, and on that thing, I’m waiting for…”

To be clear, Waiting For isn’t a traditional non-actionable category either. Many people keep projects they want to activate in the future on their Waiting For list, which I believe to be an error. It seems to me, however, that a group of reminders of the actions and deliverables of others that I care to track is not an actionable one, as I myself am not committing to do anything about any of the items in that category other than review them all, at least once a week, for potential actions for me to take. For an actionable category, it seems a lot like a non-actionable category.

Fundamentally, the issue with regards to the place of Waiting For is, unsurprisingly, the definition of “actionable.” If the definition revolves around you—i.e., “a thing I intend to act upon”—then you will never create any waiting-fors by using the clarifying diagram, since any item in your inbox that happens to already be delegated cannot simultaneously be
an item you are currently committed to take action on, hence the item’s inevitable arrival in the “non-actionable” category. If the definition of “actionable” focuses less on any specific agent of change—“a thing about which something is to be done”—then the decision becomes more a matter of whether anything is to be done by anybody in the world, and the classic “Delegate” category becomes accessible once again.

I’m open to anybody’s thoughts on this.
When in doubt . . . its a Mind-Map preceded Project?
 

Sean Shea Songs

Registered
I'm still trying to get a handle on the GTD terminology and workflow. One fuzzy area in my mind is whether projects are considered "actionable" since they are not a single actionable task. Any insight as to how David Allen would approach this?
 

John Forrister

GTD Connect
Staff member
I'm still trying to get a handle on the GTD terminology and workflow. One fuzzy area in my mind is whether projects are considered "actionable" since they are not a single actionable task. Any insight as to how David Allen would approach this?
Hi and welcome!

The short answer is that you don't "do" projects, you only "do" next actions. The project defines what "done" looks like.

The longer answer is that next actions are at the ground level, and projects are at the next level up in the GTD Horizons of Focus model. That linked PDF will give you an overview of the horizons. For any project, you will want to have at least one granular next action. You can have more, but make sure they are truly next actions, and not actions that are dependent on something else happening first. Dependent actions can be stored with your project plan or project support materials/notes.

I think of the next action for a project as a bookmark. I'm currently reading Dave Barry's new comic novel, Swamp Story. When it's time to stop for the night, I bookmark the page I'm on. I can easily jump back in without having to flip through pages to find where I left off. As a project, the title is "Swamp Story donated to Little Free Library." That title tells me what "done" with the book would look like. The next action is "Read from the bookmarked page." The project isn't done when I finish reading. At that point my next action will be to write a brief review to include with the book.

Your next action for any project is an easy (no need for rethinking) way to jump back into the flow of the project.
 
Last edited:

larea

Registered
Another example is a project to lose 10 lb. I can’t just do that in a sitting (unfortunately). But I can do an action to plan my meals for tomorrow.
 
Top