Work with Horizons of Focus

Maximilian

Registered
Hello,

I have a question about how to deal with the horizons of focus. David Allen suggests working from the bottom (Ground) up (Horizon 5).
Do I interpret it correctly, that this approach refers exclusively to „Capture“?

Capture:
When I collect things, I work from the bottom up.
  1. First I collect all the stuff that is in my head, my physical environment,… (next steps, projects).
  2. Then I make myself aware of my areas of responsibility and focus and collect everything I can think of. That means, that I connect the projects to the areas of responsibility and focus. At the same time new projects could be created, because some new ideas come to my head.
  3. Then I think about, which goals I have. This time I connect all the areas of responsibility and focus to the goals. Through becoming aware of the goals maybe new areas of responsibility and focus could be created.
  4. Then I think about my vision and connect the goals to the vision.
  5. And finally I think what comes to mind for my purpose.

Clarify and Organize:
When I process the things I have collected, I work from top to bottom. That means I think about which goals follow from my vision, which areas of responsibility in turn follow from the goals and which projects and next steps follow from the areas of responsibility.

What is your opinion about this?
Do you also work this way or differently?

All the best!
 
Last edited:

mcogilvie

Registered
When I capture, I try to capture each thing as it occurs to me. Most people think associatively most of the time, not hierarchically. GTD aims to provide a framework for thinking about our lives that accommodates the many different ways people see connections and find meaning. While what you are proposing is not wrong, it seems limiting to me.
 

Maximilian

Registered
When I capture, I try to capture each thing as it occurs to me. Most people think associatively most of the time, not hierarchically. GTD aims to provide a framework for thinking about our lives that accommodates the many different ways people see connections and find meaning. While what you are proposing is not wrong, it seems limiting to me.
Thank you for your answer.
I think I understand your approach. So if you think only associatively, then it can be limiting is your opinion?
That means, that if I capture something that belongs e.g. to Horizon 4, then I should not force to create a relation to the lower Horizons? Rather, if the captured idea feels right to me, I can directly create next steps/projects.

(I'm sorry for my English, I hope it's clear)
 

Cpu_Modern

Registered
I wouldn't see the Levels as a strict hierarchy. One might think that, presumably because every project has at leas one runway-level item attached to it. But then, not every runway-level item pertains to a project. And Areas of Focus are not subordinate to Goals the way Next Actions are to projects.

IMHO, the HoFs really work best when you treat them as distinct perspectives from which you look at your life.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
Thank you for your answer.
I think I understand your approach. So if you think only associatively, then it can be limiting is your opinion?
That means, that if I capture something that belongs e.g. to Horizon 4, then I should not force to create a relation to the lower Horizons? Rather, if the captured idea feels right to me, I can directly create next steps/projects.

(I'm sorry for my English, I hope it's clear)
Correct, but it’s not just that. Maintaining a coherent hierarchy is extra work, even with software that supports it, and distracts from more important things. (Your English is fine, by the way.)
 

Maximilian

Registered
I wouldn't see the Levels as a strict hierarchy. One might think that, presumably because every project has at leas one runway-level item attached to it. But then, not every runway-level item pertains to a project. And Areas of Focus are not subordinate to Goals the way Next Actions are to projects.

IMHO, the HoFs really work best when you treat them as distinct perspectives from which you look at your life.
Thank you, I think now I got it. The Horizons are not meant to be used as strict implications, but rather as different perspectives on my life, business etc.
It's like watching a painting in museum: you can stay very close infant of it or you step back, to the right, left... to see it from different perspectives.
 

Maximilian

Registered
Correct, but it’s not just that. Maintaining a coherent hierarchy is extra work, even with software that supports it, and distracts from more important things. (Your English is fine, by the way.)
I'm glad that you mentioned the software opportunity. Because I also saw this approach on the internet, but to me it seemed over-structured, which may limit your freedom and spontaneity. And it also seemed for me a bit cumbersome to work like this.

Maybe the hierarchy thinking is good, in case a project feels very bad to me. Then I could ask me: "Why do I do this project? Is it coherent to the bigger Horizons? Or is it incoherent to one or more of them?"
 

mcogilvie

Registered
Thank you, I think now I got it. The Horizons are not meant to be used as strict implications, but rather as different perspectives on my life, business etc.
It's like watching a painting in museum: you can stay very close infant of it or you step back, to the right, left... to see it from different perspectives.
Good analogy! The higher levels are "further away" from the projects and next actions, but give you a different perspective.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
I'm glad that you mentioned the software opportunity. Because I also saw this approach on the internet, but to me it seemed over-structured, which may limit your freedom and spontaneity. And it also seemed for me a bit cumbersome to work like this.

Maybe the hierarchy thinking is good, in case a project feels very bad to me. Then I could ask me: "Why do I do this project? Is it coherent to the bigger Horizons? Or is it incoherent to one or more of them?"
Right again! Or maybe you realize that there is something missing in your projects or next actions that you want or need to act. Different lenses, to continue the optical analogy.
 

gtdstudente

Registered
Maximilian, I might be far from answering your question, however, here is my GTD "16 Matrix": I use Four Areas of Focus: DIVINE, FISCAL, UTILITY, and VITALITY [Health]. Under the Four Areas of Focus, the Four Available/Potential Project Categories are: PERSONS, PROFICIENCIES [Skill Development], PROPS [usually their best when Empty], PROVISIONS [usually their best when Full]. Lastly, as bonus from the school of hard knocks for hard edges, despite any possible interruptions, only that that which is going to truly be a "Start-to-Finish" task can be worthily deemed as a "Next Action." Thank you. Since DIVINE might seem to be the most abstract here is timely example: DIVINE > PROPS > Set-Up plastic Christmas Candle [=prop] Lights [bulbs=provision] > Next Action > 00 (basement) Fetch Christmas Candle Lights for Set-Up. Feedback from you and/or others are always welcomed. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

John Forrister

GTD Connect
Staff member
Thank you, I think now I got it. The Horizons are not meant to be used as strict implications, but rather as different perspectives on my life, business etc.
It's like watching a painting in museum: you can stay very close infant of it or you step back, to the right, left... to see it from different perspectives.
I like that analogy! The first time I saw Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" in person I was stunned by its size. (363 cm × 437 cm, or 11.91 ft × 14.34 ft.) At first I stayed quite far back to get -- please pardon the cliche -- the big picture. After a few minutes I got closer and looked at more detail on smaller sections. One small section has a story to tell, and as I back up I can see how that fits with other stories and the overall painting.
 

TesTeq

Registered
I like that analogy! The first time I saw Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" in person I was stunned by its size. (363 cm × 437 cm, or 11.91 ft × 14.34 ft.) At first I stayed quite far back to get -- please pardon the cliche -- the big picture. After a few minutes I got closer and looked at more detail on smaller sections. One small section has a story to tell, and as I back up I can see how that fits with other stories and the overall painting.
John, if you like huge pictures with a lot of details come to Warsaw to see Battle of Grunwald. It's 426 cm x 987 cm. Or come to Wrocław to see Racławice Panorama - 15 m x 114 m cyclorama!
 
Top