Perpetual projects?
- Thread starter Uhyrer
- Start date
Longstreet
Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
These sound more like areas of focus rather than projects to me.
Oogiem
0
Agree with Longstreet, you don't have perpetual projects you have areas of focus that are perpetual. Move up a level and see if it makes more sense that way.
Now I do have repeating or recurring projects, things that happen every year or every month or every quarter but that is different from never done. This particular instance of the project is done but another one will be done in another . For example, shearing the sheep (which we are doing right now) happens every year. there are anumber of steps to that project and it reoccurs same time next year.
Now I do have repeating or recurring projects, things that happen every year or every month or every quarter but that is different from never done. This particular instance of the project is done but another one will be done in another . For example, shearing the sheep (which we are doing right now) happens every year. there are anumber of steps to that project and it reoccurs same time next year.
Hey, Chris!
I also agree with Longstreet... these are more areas than projects. But you can have a list of projects within the area (e.g. "learn to de-bone fish" "master five make-ahead meals") so that perhaps at some point in the future you can say, "OK, now I think I'm a good cook." based on having completed these projects. It doesn't mean you stop cooking, but you might not need to add more cooking skill projects to your list.
And there are oh-so-so-many skill levels in cooking, Tes! Good God, just the word "pastry" makes my palms sweat!
Dena
I also agree with Longstreet... these are more areas than projects. But you can have a list of projects within the area (e.g. "learn to de-bone fish" "master five make-ahead meals") so that perhaps at some point in the future you can say, "OK, now I think I'm a good cook." based on having completed these projects. It doesn't mean you stop cooking, but you might not need to add more cooking skill projects to your list.
And there are oh-so-so-many skill levels in cooking, Tes! Good God, just the word "pastry" makes my palms sweat!
Dena
Hi Chris,
As above with the areas of focus, in some other disciplines also called roles, e.g., golf player and cook. My thoughts on setting goals for improvements within those areas are that they can either be a specific achievement, like reaching a specific handicap, or they can be a process goal, by which I mean to do certain things, like play 30 rounds. They are both measurable and can be checked off, but some things are harder to set achievement goals for. Cooking is one of them, I’d say. For example, if you set the goal to make cheese soufflé, the results may be... disappointing, which probably won't feel like an achievement. However, it can also work to set an achievement goal that is not clearly measurable, but at least discernible. So you could set the goal to make a “good” cheese soufflé, where “good" could range from “reasonably OK” to “to die for!”.
Best wishes with the golf and the cooking
/Christina
As above with the areas of focus, in some other disciplines also called roles, e.g., golf player and cook. My thoughts on setting goals for improvements within those areas are that they can either be a specific achievement, like reaching a specific handicap, or they can be a process goal, by which I mean to do certain things, like play 30 rounds. They are both measurable and can be checked off, but some things are harder to set achievement goals for. Cooking is one of them, I’d say. For example, if you set the goal to make cheese soufflé, the results may be... disappointing, which probably won't feel like an achievement. However, it can also work to set an achievement goal that is not clearly measurable, but at least discernible. So you could set the goal to make a “good” cheese soufflé, where “good" could range from “reasonably OK” to “to die for!”.
Best wishes with the golf and the cooking
/Christina
I do have some "almost-perpetual" projects, but they are not of the self-development type. I separate my job into three areas of focus: research, teaching, and work (sometimes called "service" in higher ed). Work includes all kinds of things that are ongoing, such as committees I chair or organizing a public lecture series. Almost all of these are things I've taken over from someone else, and plan to pass on to someone else at later date. I think of them as "ongoing projects" that sit mentally just a bit above projects but below areas of focus. I don't want them to be areas of focus because they just aren't that important. I could break some of them into recurring projects semester-by-semester, but planning and scheduling is essentially continuous. I still get the happiness bump of completion when I can close out a semester, so I don't miss the act of checking off a project.
As for implementation, in Omnifocus, these ongoing responsibilities can be single-action lists. In programs with tags or equivalent, like Things, they can be simply tagged as "Ongoing."
Maybe this approach can be used for personal development as well, but I don't know.
As for implementation, in Omnifocus, these ongoing responsibilities can be single-action lists. In programs with tags or equivalent, like Things, they can be simply tagged as "Ongoing."
Maybe this approach can be used for personal development as well, but I don't know.
If you can agree that a project should be a temporary undertaking (e.g., with a defined start and finish) that produces a specific product, service or result, then the concept of a perpetual project isn't really logical. How would you define that it reaches a complete state? Try using the premise of SMART goals and define a result, such as reducing your average score in a golf game by 10%, and a clear end date, such as by the end of summer. You can always create a new project for the following summer.
As someone else mentioned above, you can also have a "project" that serves as a holding place for ongoing single action tasks like what you described, but I would argue that isn't really a project per se.
As someone else mentioned above, you can also have a "project" that serves as a holding place for ongoing single action tasks like what you described, but I would argue that isn't really a project per se.
I agree that these sound like Areas of Focus.
But I can also see how it might work better, for day-to-day functionality, to place them in the "projects" position in the GTD hierarchy.
For example, if I wanted to maintain a sustained but modest effort on some such goal, I might create a single project for it. That project would serve as a placeholder for Next Actions, it would ensure that I addressed the effort in the weekly review and made sure that it had a Next Action. The "placeholder project" might occasionally spawn other projects which came to an end, and then the placeholder would be there to make sure that I didn't let the overall effort go.
Of course, in theory I should be looking at my Areas of Focus during the weekly review to make sure that I always had something going, but if I find that I tend to slack off on that, then a placeholder might reduce the effect of that slacking.
So in a purist approach, it shouldn't be a project. And I might make it a project anyway.
But I can also see how it might work better, for day-to-day functionality, to place them in the "projects" position in the GTD hierarchy.
For example, if I wanted to maintain a sustained but modest effort on some such goal, I might create a single project for it. That project would serve as a placeholder for Next Actions, it would ensure that I addressed the effort in the weekly review and made sure that it had a Next Action. The "placeholder project" might occasionally spawn other projects which came to an end, and then the placeholder would be there to make sure that I didn't let the overall effort go.
Of course, in theory I should be looking at my Areas of Focus during the weekly review to make sure that I always had something going, but if I find that I tend to slack off on that, then a placeholder might reduce the effect of that slacking.
So in a purist approach, it shouldn't be a project. And I might make it a project anyway.
Folke
0
I have a "project" for every Area of Responsibility in which I keep single actions that belong to that particular AoR. I agree with Gardener that this ensures that I review that area on a weekly basis etc.
It matters very little to me that an area is not actually a project, because I can tell the difference easily enough from how I name the "area action containers" versus the "real projects". (The former are named with a short mnemonic consisting of just a few capital letters, and the latter have longer, self-explanatory project names.)
It matters very little to me that an area is not actually a project, because I can tell the difference easily enough from how I name the "area action containers" versus the "real projects". (The former are named with a short mnemonic consisting of just a few capital letters, and the latter have longer, self-explanatory project names.)