Connecting Projects to Areas of Responsibility

[Roger]

Lots of people talk about relating Next Actions to Projects. Lots has been written about it, and I don't really have anything to add to that discussion.

I don't think I've seen much about moving in the other direction -- relating Projects (10,000 foot level) to the next higher level of Areas of Responsibility (20,000 foot level).

I only recently got around to drafting up my Areas of Responsibility, which was a useful process. But I thought it might be more useful to connect it back to the Project level.

In short: it was. I made a page for each Area of Responsibility. Then I churned through all my Projects (and then my Someday/Maybe folder) and wrote the relevant projects on the Area of Responsibility pages. I broke each page down into three parts: Active Projects (things I'm actively working on right now), Inactive Projects (projects that are technically alive but that I'm not really working on, sometimes due to delegation or scheduling), and Someday/Maybe.

It's interesting. Some projects covered more than one AoR, and I think those are the sorts of projects I need more of. A few projects didn't really fall into any AoR, which gave me a pretty good reason to think about why I was doing them at all.

From the AoR perspective, some areas had lots of Active Projects. Some had lots of Someday/Maybes, which made me think about whether I shouldn't activate some of them, or at least think about what was happening with the balance. And some AoRs had very few projects at all, which was also a wake-up call.

Of all the things I've done with GTD, I found this one the hardest on an emotional level. It's just hard to take an objective look and see that, yep, being a Good Husband is one of my Areas of Responsibility, and nope, I'm not really doing anything to make that happen. So if you're trying this at home, be ready for it.

Just thought I'd share my experiences with everyone. If you've tried this yourself, please let me know how it went.



Cheers,
Roger

[humblepie]

I would normally map Area's of Responsibilities as a big project in my Appigo ToDo and sub-projects will fall in these big projects list (http://www.productiveorganizer.com/to-do-list/gtd-series-how-to-plan-for-projects-and-sub-projects/).

But i do agree its abit strange deciding thinks like being responsible to your family those sort of stuff.

[GTDinExcel]

I also found that some areas of responsibility had no projects or next actions associated with them. But what I realized is that I was still fulfilling my responsibilities in those areas. So I made a separate list of things that I am already doing in each area of responsibility. That made it more balanced and realistic.

[Marcelo]

I make a plan every year starting by reviewing my areas of responsability, deciding my goals for the present year on each of these areas, and deriving my projects from those goals. So the link is very clear to me.

[Brent]

I don't recall where, but I believe DA recommends a monthly review of Areas of Responsibility, connecting them with Projects in a similar way that the weekly review connects Projects to Actions.

[HappyDude]

I don't recall where, but I believe DA recommends a monthly review of Areas of Responsibility, connecting them with Projects in a similar way that the weekly review connects Projects to Actions.

Whoa, so Areas of Responsibility, AKA Levels of Focus, The 5 Horizons?

I've been writing/updating in each level much more frequently..

10K FT: Weekly
20K FT: Every 2 Weeks
30K FT: Every 3 Weeks
Etc....

What sucks about doing this is that not too much can be added when updating and thinking about each level. This doing it Once a month thing seems like I'd enjoy better.

Recently I've been putting off writing on the horizons of focus cause it seemed overwhelming to write in 5 different documents on my computer. It became one of those repetitive actions that you automatically somewhat-subconsciously ignore.

[Oogiem]

I don't think I've seen much about moving in the other direction -- relating Projects (10,000 foot level) to the next higher level of Areas of Responsibility (20,000 foot level)........If you've tried this yourself, please let me know how it went.

Last weekly review I did a very careful review of the higher levels as well as projects. I was expecting to uncover a few that were slacking but in reality I have projects in all my areas, the number of projects corresponds to the importance I give to those areas and all seem in line with larger goals and purpose.

One factor may be that I set up my organization tool to include folders for each major area of focus so I always have a view of what areas have projects and which ones don't. I usually catch that at weekly review but without thinking about it much.

[Brent]

Whoa, so Areas of Responsibility, AKA Levels of Focus, The 5 Horizons?

I've been writing/updating in each level much more frequently..

10K FT: Weekly
20K FT: Every 2 Weeks
30K FT: Every 3 Weeks
Etc....


Yeah, I don't think it needs to be that frequent.

But it should be done regularly, at least.

[Cpu_Modern]

I think the OP sumarizes very well what 's going on with the 20k-level list. Thanks go to the OP for that. Secondly I want to add a few tokens.

1. The 20k-level is the first representation of the horizontal level. Than there is a repetition of that on a broader scale at the 50k-level.
The 40k-level is somewhat horizontal. The 0k, 10k and 30k a strictly vertical.

2. The 20k-list proved to be a helpful tool for me to decide if a project really is a 30k-goal. It acts like a scythe that cuts projects that grew rampant in a similiar fashion like the definition of when an action becomes a project.

3. Some projects cover more than one 20k-level item. That makes it complicated to always keep projects sorted by Areas of Focus. Also such a grouping, while helpful as a tool (like OP describes), is not rpresentation of reality because life is interconected. For example if you complete your fitness goals regularly it also will help you with endurance on your job.

4. For me the well-defined and refined 20k-level helped me to stabilize my self more than any of the other lists. It is the answer at least for me to de big what-to-do question. Somehow I tend to think on that level more than on others. I am interested in thougths on that.

[sdann]

I think the OP sumarizes very well what 's going on with the 20k-level list. Thanks go to the OP for that.

What is the OP?

[Cpu_Modern]

OP == Original Poster or Original Post

[Marcelo]

3. Some projects cover more than one 20k-level item. That makes it complicated to always keep projects sorted by Areas of Focus. Also such a grouping, while helpful as a tool (like OP describes), is not rpresentation of reality because life is interconected. For example if you complete your fitness goals regularly it also will help you with endurance on your job.

Definitely, some projects (or habits and even single actions) serve more than one area of focus (or goal or project). I call these "multi-purpose" and in my system they get high priority.

An example: In the city, I use only my bicycle as a means of transportation. 1. This ensures me a daily cardiovascular workout (health), 2. I get everywhere faster than by car (time-saving), 3. I save money (finances), 4. As an environmentally conscious person, I contribute to reduce air pollution and noice in the city, giving thereby expression to my values and assuming responsability for the community (values, self-expression) and last but not least 5. It gives me joy :D (no special AoF here, some things remain out of the box).

[Roger]

Thanks for your comments.


2. The 20k-list proved to be a helpful tool for me to decide if a project really is a 30k-goal. It acts like a scythe that cuts projects that grew rampant in a similiar fashion like the definition of when an action becomes a project.
I haven't run into this too much myself, but I also haven't really taken a good hard look at the 30K level either. It wouldn't surprise me if I run into it.


3. Some projects cover more than one 20k-level item. That makes it complicated to always keep projects sorted by Areas of Focus.
Yep. I haven't really been using it as an organizational or categorizing sort of thing -- more like a "tag cloud", I guess.


4. For me the well-defined and refined 20k-level helped me to stabilize my self more than any of the other lists. It is the answer at least for me to de big what-to-do question. Somehow I tend to think on that level more than on others. I am interested in thougths on that.
I think I'm finding a similar sort of pattern in my own life. I tend towards the CrazyMaker quadrant and it helps keep that under control.


Cheers,
Roger

[Cpu_Modern]

I think I'm finding a similar sort of pattern in my own life. I tend towards the CrazyMaker quadrant and it helps keep that under control.
Interesting way to describe it. Yes, I guess I have my own CrayzMaker tendencies. I think part of it is the fear to miss out on something if one has not "a project" running there. Or having "a project" as a language for absorbing new things in ones universe.

[mijones]

does anyone link next actions to an area/horizon of focus rather than to a project?

i'm finding that i have many tasks that are single-step, thus don't belong as a project, and they belong to the 20,000 ft level, and I want to track all of those items that belong to that level.

For example, I want to buy a treadmill at XYZ store, it is part of my 20,000ft level responsibility of 'keep healthy'. i'd like to be able to quickly review all the individual next actions that are part of the 'keep healthy' level responsibility, the ones which are not part of a project.

to draw my question graphically:

next actions -> projects -> responsibilities
next actions -> responsibilities ?

i'm also wondering if this would be overkill, and if it isn't overkill, how would you manage all of this?

one idea i have is to create a 'project' called "keep healthy - Tracking nonproject nextactions"

thoughts?

[Roger]

If that's the level of resolution you're using on your Next Actions and Projects, yeah, linking them up to Responsibilities is probably fine.

In my system I'd probably have two dozen Next Actions or more for a project like "Buy Treadmill" but everyone's different.


Cheers,
Roger

[aaronj]

mijones -- That's an interesting and provocative question that I'm going to dwell on some more. My gut reaction is that having an area of focus tied to each action would create too much drag for the way that my system is currently set up. But perhaps you have a system that could more easily accomodate this approach.

Today, I tie each project to an area of focus. And for me, your next action would probably be a project, because I really like to granulate anything that looks even a bit substantial or potentially complex. For instance, Buy treadmill at XYZ store would require the next action "go to XYZ store to research different models." So on my project list that would be: "Keep Healthy: Buy Treadmill at XYZ store." Then, the next action is @ Errands: Go to XYZ store to research.

Sometimes, I trick myself with this issue by making my project bigger; it might look like: "Keep Healthy: Reduce resting heart rate to X." Then buy treadmill at XYZ store could be a next action to realize a larger but specific successful outcome.

Aaron

[kelstarrising]

We just covered this in detail in today's webinar for GTD Connect members on "Developing your Higher Levels." There are some best practices that David talks about around this that we shared on the webinar.

It will be up on Connect for replay in a few days. (If you're not a member, consider joining!....or the free trial (https://secure.davidco.com/connect/).)

[GTDinExcel]

does anyone link next actions to an area/horizon of focus rather than to a project?

i'm finding that i have many tasks that are single-step, thus don't belong as a project, and they belong to the 20,000 ft level, and I want to track all of those items that belong to that level.

I do that because it is easy to do in Excel (just create another column!). So far, I only look at it when doing the higher-level review.

[mijones]

your next action would probably be a project, because I really like to granulate anything that looks even a bit substantial or potentially complex. For instance, Buy treadmill at XYZ store would require the next action "go to XYZ store to research different models." So on my project list that would be: "Keep Healthy: Buy Treadmill at XYZ store." Then, the next action is @ Errands: Go to XYZ store to research.

Aaron

I can agree with that. The example I chose possibly doesn't highlight the scenario I was trying to make. How about this one?:

20,000 ft level: 'household responsibilities'
next-action: - wash the inside of the fridge; it is dirty

the action is basic enough that it doesn't need a project. you could possibly create a project out of it though if you wanted to say that the multiple actions are: 'fill bucket with water', 'take groceries out of fridge', 'scrub inside of fridge', 'put groceries back into fridge', 'put bucket away'.

But i wonder if those steps are too small. isn't there a certain point where you can say "i need to keep track of the open loop of having to clean the fridge, and just by being reminded of that open loop I will automatically know the basic elements of how to get that done, so It would be an inefficient use of my time to write down all the basic automatic steps.". I have the feeling that GTD methodology would probably say that it's okay to write down all the smallest most basic steps. I imagine it's easier to get started on a task if my next actions says "get a bucket of water" versus "clean the fridge"...

[mijones]

We just covered this in detail in today's webinar for GTD Connect members on "Developing your Higher Levels." There are some best practices that David talks about around this that we shared on the webinar.

It will be up on Connect for replay in a few days. (If you're not a member, consider joining!....or the free trial (https://secure.davidco.com/connect/).)

that's great news, I'll definitely take a look at the Connect trial to see if it helps give me more clarity on this topic

[Marcelo]

I can agree with that. The example I chose possibly doesn't highlight the scenario I was trying to make. How about this one?:

20,000 ft level: 'household responsibilities'
next-action: - wash the inside of the fridge; it is dirty

the action is basic enough that it doesn't need a project. you could possibly create a project out of it though if you wanted to say that the multiple actions are: 'fill bucket with water', 'take groceries out of fridge', 'scrub inside of fridge', 'put groceries back into fridge', 'put bucket away'.

But i wonder if those steps are too small. isn't there a certain point where you can say "i need to keep track of the open loop of having to clean the fridge, and just by being reminded of that open loop I will automatically know the basic elements of how to get that done, so It would be an inefficient use of my time to write down all the basic automatic steps.". I have the feeling that GTD methodology would probably say that it's okay to write down all the smallest most basic steps. I imagine it's easier to get started on a task if my next actions says "get a bucket of water" versus "clean the fridge"...

LOL, come on guys, you are making this ridiculous. Every physical action can be subdivided infinitely, because it happens in time and space and also these can. "Call John" may start by "raise index finger one inch" (that might be the case if you were rehabilitating your hand after an accident BTW). The perception of what a discrete action is is subjective, and depends on the subjectively perceived complexity and effort necessary to perform that action, which in turn is relative to the subject's degree of proficiency at performing it, his level of focus, etc. I think Merlin Man said he likes to think of actions in terms of 5 minutes duration activities. Someone with a greater span of focus may think of 30 minutes duration, etc.

GTD gives a general outline, based on common sense, on how to get your act together . What you define as an action, a project or a goal remains a subjective decision. At least so it seems to me.

[aaronj]

Marcelo, completely agree that how you granulate next actions is totally subjective. Granulate as much as it takes to clarify and motivate the physical next action and no more. That's going to be bigger for some and smaller for others -- for me pretty small relative to the average I'd guess. Although, I haven't needed to get to micro movements of my individual fingers yet ;) However, I find discussions about levels of granularity useful in refining my approach. So, I think it's a helpful discussion point for me.

mijones, to your original question about linking each next action with the area of responsibility, what value are you hoping to get from that?

Aaron

[Marcelo]

Granulate as much as it takes to clarify and motivate the physical next action and no more.
I like that.

I find discussions about levels of granularity useful in refining my approach. So, I think it's a helpful discussion point for me.
Yes , you are right.

[pxt]

I think the OP sumarizes very well what 's going on with the 20k-level list. Thanks go to the OP for that. Secondly I want to add a few tokens.

1. The 20k-level is the first representation of the horizontal level. Than there is a repetition of that on a broader scale at the 50k-level.
The 40k-level is somewhat horizontal. The 0k, 10k and 30k a strictly vertical.

2. The 20k-list proved to be a helpful tool for me to decide if a project really is a 30k-goal. It acts like a scythe that cuts projects that grew rampant in a similiar fashion like the definition of when an action becomes a project.

3. Some projects cover more than one 20k-level item. That makes it complicated to always keep projects sorted by Areas of Focus. Also such a grouping, while helpful as a tool (like OP describes), is not rpresentation of reality because life is interconected. For example if you complete your fitness goals regularly it also will help you with endurance on your job.

4. For me the well-defined and refined 20k-level helped me to stabilize my self more than any of the other lists. It is the answer at least for me to de big what-to-do question. Somehow I tend to think on that level more than on others. I am interested in thougths on that.

I think it's interesting how you linked the 20K level to the 50K level.

I tend to think of my 20K areas as being key success factors for my 50K purpose.

I can survive quite well without goals and visions, just on my areas, and then add in goals and visions as ways of adding extra focus to certain topics.

So your breakdown of the six horizons into more-vertically-oriented and more-horizontally-oriented matches a pattern I was half aware of.

[Suelin23]

I mapped out my HOF in one word document. For AOF I found it useful to have a bulleted indented list
-AOF
*responsibility
>projects

I also realised that some responsibilities have associated next actions and also checklists/habits, but chose not to put them in this document as I couldn't come up with a neat format, it just started cluttering up my list with things that weren't really important. Next actions for a responsibility can go straight on my NA list, there's no need to link them to the responsibility. Checklists go into my checklists app or my reference filing system.

[pxt]

I mapped out my HOF in one word document. For AOF I found it useful to have a bulleted indented list
-AOF
*responsibility
>projects

I also realised that some responsibilities have associated next actions and also checklists/habits, but chose not to put them in this document as I couldn't come up with a neat format, it just started cluttering up my list with things that weren't really important. Next actions for a responsibility can go straight on my NA list, there's no need to link them to the responsibility. Checklists go into my checklists app or my reference filing system.

How active a role does your HOF document play and how often ?

I.e., what do you use it for?

[Suelin23]

Not very often. At higher levels maybe only quarterly. But whenever I'm thinking of making a new project, I like to check that the new project aligns with my areas of focus and responsibilities, just to make sure that I should be doing it, and doing it now, rather than putting it on a someday/maybe list or suggesting someone else take it on.

[pxt]

My areas of focus have taken on a life of their own.

Each acts like a funnel, gathering ideas for new projects and then spitting out Next Projects.

Each of my projects ends with an action I call [CLOSE] in which I re-clarify the project back into its area of focus and then choose a new project of the same area of focus to replace it. So I visit my areas of focus frequently and maintain a balance of project count across my fifteen areas.

The names of the fifteen have been carefully crafted such that if I have 2 projects each, then my life is 100% covered and completely in balance - all in support of my Purpose. Hence the relevance to this thread in which they discuss the vertical links versus horizontal links through the horizons.