Workflow Map/Diagram change - Yea or Nay?

S

Sasha

Registered
My previous thread "Interpretations" started as getting a clarification on the precise definition of a project and then it evolved into something else, which I felt deserved a separate thread. In addition to the opinions of fellow GTD enthusiasts, I would welcome and appreciate feedback from @kelstarrising or some of the participants here that are trained as instructors.

Here is the question:

Does the current workflow diagram/map need to be changed to allow processing stuff that have successful outcomes described as higher level outcomes? (in other words does it need to have arrows pointing from the successful outcomes box not just to Projects, but to Areas, Goals, Vision, and Purpose too?

Examples:

Area: Getting a phone call from your child telling you that you'll be a grandparent - that's a new AoF right there.

Goal: Boss delegates to you a company goal as follows: "Make your department increase sales by 20% by 2020 (or else)" :-)

Vision: Michelangelo standing in front of a block of marble and seeing an angel trapped in there (if we are to believe he said that) - but you get the picture. Then the purpose would be to set him free :-)

Purpose: Finding out your child has a lifelong disability and providing care for him/her becomes a sole purpose in your life right there and then.

Most of the stuff WILL be Projects and the arrow pointing to it is fine for those cases - but I think ading the arrows to the other horizons would make the model more universal.

Let me know what you think please.

Regards,

Sasha
 
Great question Sasha. I would process those as Reference under the “No” path. I consider all of my higher horizon lists a form of reference.
 
kelstarrising said:
Great question Sasha. I would process those as Reference under the “No” path. I consider all of my higher horizon lists a form of reference.
Click to expand...

Thanks! This sure requires a paradigm shift. :-)

Considering something as precise as a Goal to be a Non-Actionable item is very counter-intuitive for someone with my background. But I understand the reasoning now and I do now recall reading a line in one of DA's book or white pages where higher outcomes were tracked as Reference. What threw me off looking things in the direction I described above was that there was a Project/Goals section recommendation for the paper based system and the fact the higher outcomes on the Workflow Map were placed on the left side (above Projects which is an Actionable item), while the Reference was placed on the right side along with the other Non-Actionable items.

I would consider my dilemma resolved - thanks again.

One last question:

Is there a qualitative difference between a project listed on the Project list and a project reviewed at a 10,000ft level? In other words, is the 10,000ft level reserved just for the current projects, while the Project list contain ALL the 10,000ft projects plus those currently not being actively worked on?

Thanks,

Sasha
 
Is there a qualitative difference between a project listed on the Project list and a project reviewed at a 10,000ft level?

Projects list is 10,000 level (now called Horizon 1). They are one in the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top