The GTD Times recently posted a list of key definitions used in the GTD approach. The list starts with this entry:

What is a Project?

A project is any outcome that will take more than one action step to complete. As a list, the Projects list will represent an index of the current outcomes on your plate.

Seems simple enough. Anyone see a problem?

How about the fact that it’s not correct? That it contradicts itself?

It seems reasonable to say that “As a list, the Projects list will represent an index of the current outcomes on your plate.” But if you define a project as “any outcome that will take more than one action step to complete,” then your project list may be missing a lot of things: namely, outcomes that will take only one action to complete.

This highlights a problem in GTD. Why should I track a “project” only when an outcome requires two or more steps? For an approach that is built of applied common sense, this always struck me as an arbitrary distinction.

It also may be one of the remarkably few things that mark GTD as a system that began its evolution in the days when paper planners still ruled the landscape. If I were implementing GTD on paper, I could sympathize with the impulse not to track one-action outcomes as “projects.” A project is kept on a projects list, and an action is kept on a context-based action list. Tracking a single-action outcome as a project means writing it down in two places when one would do. For goodness sake just put it on the action list and do it as soon as you can.

But if you’re managing GTD electronically — using the mighty OmniFocus or another tool — this reasoning evaporates. In OmniFocus it is practically effortless to associate an action with a project as well as a context, even if the project has no other actions. (If you are using a digital tool that makes linking actions to projects difficult, that’s weird. I’d consider it a serious flaw in the tool.)

So today I see no reason not to track all outcomes as projects, regardless of how many actions they may take to complete.

But are there any positive reasons you would want to track one-action projects?

You bet there are:

Better outcome-based thinking.
Thinking about outcomes is key to any success. Tracking outcomes as distinct from actions forces us to make sure we know why we are doing whatever it is we are doing.

To make that distinction clear, it helps to have different ways of naming actions and projects. Where possible, start your action name  with a verb so you can see immediately what you need to do. In contrast, make your project names a positive description of the outcome you want. Polishing your shoes may be a one-action thing, but the action “Polish cordovan shoes” can be associated with the project “Cordovan shoes are polished and look sharp.”

If you can’t think of a descriptive name for the desired outcome, there’s good chance you should just forget about the action. Nothing identifies useless busywork better then the question, “Why?”

Complete lists make for better reviews.
If you use the definition from GTD Times, you won’t have any one place to see all of the outcomes you’ve committed to bringing about. Most of your outcomes may be on the project list, but other outcomes will be embedded in your action lists as one-shot actions you haven’t yet completed. If one of the points of GTD is to think once and then capture that thought in the right place, it makes sense to capture — and review — all of your outcomes on one list.

Projects grow and projects shrink.
Until an outcome is complete, you can never be sure how many actions it really will take. If “Cordovan shoes are polished” is a desired outcome, that may just require “polish cordovan shoes” as an action on my At Home/TV Time list. But what if I discover that I’m out of polish? Suddenly my shoes being shined also requires a stop at the shoe store. And magically it becomes a “project.” Better to just treat it as a project from the beginning.

Even more important than the prospect of a project growing is that every project will shrink. Every single desired outcome you’re tracking will have fewer and fewer actions as time goes on. Unless you’re doing something wrong, every target outcome will eventually become a single-action outcome when all that remains is one more task. Does the outcome suddenly stop being a project at that point? I don’t see why it should.

Track those wins!
One great thing about tracking projects to completion is that it generates a record of what you have accomplished. Actions come and go, but a list of completed projects represents a collection of successes — outcomes you have envisioned, planned, and implemented. That makes it a list of things to feel good about.

Single-action outcomes absolutely deserve to be on that list, and you deserve to give yourself some credit for them. An outcome is not necessarily less valuable because it took fewer steps to achieve. When you are counting your wins, make sure you count all of them.