What do you think if I would split 20,000 ft Level into 2 separate horizons?
From GTD book:
"Your job may entail at least implicit commitments
for things like strategic planning, administrative *support, staff
development, market research, customer service, or asset management.
And your personal life has an equal number of such focus
arenas: health, family, finances, home environment, spirituality,
recreation, etc. Listing and reviewing these responsibilities gives a
more comprehensive framework for evaluating your inventory of
projects"
Areas of Responsibility would be more granular, for example health, family, finances, home environment, spirituality, recreation, etc.
And Areas of Focus would be more general, for example Work, Personal, Maintanence etc.
Let's say I have 15 Areas of Responsibilty and I would connect/group them to 5 Areas of Focus... So I would connect projects not to 15 different Areas of Responsibilty but to only 5 Areas of Focus. And use those Areas of Focus as an additional criteria(context) for choosing Next Actions. And I'll use Areas of Responsibilty for creating or accepting most of
my projects. Does this make sense?
Also From the book:
"These altitude analogies are somewhat arbitrary, and in real
life the important conversations you will have about your focus
and your priorities may not fit exactly to one horizon or another.
They can provide a useful framework, however, to remind you of
the multilayered nature of your "job" and resulting commitments
and tasks."
The bottom line is:
Would it be a good idea to group projects by something more general than 15 areas of responsibility, for example like work, personal and etc and still use areas of responsibility.
I actually like the idea because it makes it a lot more convenient but want to know what others think.
Also how often do you review and update your 20,000 ft Level and do you actually connect/link it with projects or just use as a checklist? I know some people don't even link actions to projects
From GTD book:
"Your job may entail at least implicit commitments
for things like strategic planning, administrative *support, staff
development, market research, customer service, or asset management.
And your personal life has an equal number of such focus
arenas: health, family, finances, home environment, spirituality,
recreation, etc. Listing and reviewing these responsibilities gives a
more comprehensive framework for evaluating your inventory of
projects"
Areas of Responsibility would be more granular, for example health, family, finances, home environment, spirituality, recreation, etc.
And Areas of Focus would be more general, for example Work, Personal, Maintanence etc.
Let's say I have 15 Areas of Responsibilty and I would connect/group them to 5 Areas of Focus... So I would connect projects not to 15 different Areas of Responsibilty but to only 5 Areas of Focus. And use those Areas of Focus as an additional criteria(context) for choosing Next Actions. And I'll use Areas of Responsibilty for creating or accepting most of
my projects. Does this make sense?
Also From the book:
"These altitude analogies are somewhat arbitrary, and in real
life the important conversations you will have about your focus
and your priorities may not fit exactly to one horizon or another.
They can provide a useful framework, however, to remind you of
the multilayered nature of your "job" and resulting commitments
and tasks."
The bottom line is:
Would it be a good idea to group projects by something more general than 15 areas of responsibility, for example like work, personal and etc and still use areas of responsibility.
I actually like the idea because it makes it a lot more convenient but want to know what others think.
Also how often do you review and update your 20,000 ft Level and do you actually connect/link it with projects or just use as a checklist? I know some people don't even link actions to projects