Cynefin can help us manage uncertain projects in GTD.
One of the most useful practices in Getting Things Done is defining a successful outcome for each project.
What will be true when this is finished?
For many projects, the answer is reasonably clear:
- Submit my tax return
- Replace the broken washing machine
- Publish the new website
- Book accommodation for the holiday
A clear outcome helps us decide what ‘done’ means. It also makes choosing the next action much easier.
But the Cynefin framework reminds us that not every situation offers that degree of certainty.
Some outcomes emerge through action
Suppose you are exploring whether productivity coaching could become a viable part of your business.
You could invent a precise outcome:
Launch a profitable productivity coaching service within six months.
That sounds decisive, but it assumes that you already know far more than you do.
You may not yet know:
- who would benefit most from the service
- which problems they would pay you to help solve
- what format would work best
- whether you would enjoy delivering it
- whether the idea is commercially viable
These answers cannot always be discovered through analysis alone. Some become visible only when you begin interacting with real people in real situations.
Cynefin helps us recognise this as a complex situation. There may be a relationship between what we do and what happens, but we cannot reliably predict that relationship in advance.
Direction can be more honest than destination
In a complex situation, defining success too precisely can create false certainty.
Instead of pretending that we know the final destination, we can define a direction of travel:
Explore whether productivity coaching could become a viable and worthwhile part of my business.
This is not an excuse to be vague. A directional outcome still needs enough structure to guide action.
Record:
- the direction you want to explore
- the next small experiment
- what you hope to learn
- when you will review what happened
For example:
- Direction: Explore productivity coaching as a possible business service.
- Experiment: Speak with three experienced digital professionals about their productivity challenges.
- Learning: Identify which problems are common, important and poorly served.
- Review: Review my notes after the third conversation and decide what to try next.
The direction provides meaning. The experiment generates evidence. The review prevents the exploration from continuing indefinitely.
Keep the next horizon clear
There is a useful tension here.
GTD projects normally need a finish line. A direction such as ‘Explore productivity coaching’ may be too open-ended to function as a project by itself.
One solution is to define the immediate project as a completed learning cycle:
Complete three exploratory conversations and decide whether to test a coaching offer.
You now have both:
- a broader direction that may evolve
- a defined outcome for the current stage
You do not need to map the entire journey. You need enough clarity to take the next meaningful step and recognise when it is time to review what you have learned.
Try this in your weekly review
Look through your current projects and find one where the outcome feels forced, speculative or strangely difficult to define.
Ask:
- Am I dealing with a project whose outcome is genuinely knowable?
- Am I pretending to know more than I do?
- What direction am I trying to move in?
- What small action could help me learn more?
- When will I review the result?
Then rewrite the project using this pattern:
I want to move towards [direction].
I will try [small experiment] so that I can learn [question].
I will review what happened on [date or trigger].
A trusted productivity system should help us manage what we know. It should also give us a practical way to move forward when the outcome has not yet revealed itself.
Photo by Annie Spratt for Unsplash+
