Keeping NA List in Sync with Projects [Archive]

dgorley

10-04-2005, 09:26 PM

I've only been using the GTD process for a few days now, but already I'm noticing an improvement in my comfort level with the things I'm doing. It's great to be able to see, at a single glance, all the balls I've got in the air, and all the things I could be doing right now.

I've got a question about how people manage "Next Actions" that are attached to projects. Having a next action for all of your projects seems like a great idea, but once I've completed that action, then what? It seems to me that ensuring every project has a next action is a task for the Weekly Review, but I find I don't want to wait until then to move forward.

Here's an example: one of my projects is "Create program X". The next action associated with that project is "Define potential inputs and outputs for program X". Once I complete that task, I find myself thinking if there's something else I should be doing on that project, and if there is, I add it to the NA list.

This process is functional thus far, but it feels kind of clumsy. Does anyone have any better suggestions on keeping my NA list in sync with my projects?

neil007

10-05-2005, 12:18 AM

Define the NA(s) at the point of completing the previous one. If its a priority now or takes less than 2 mins do it. Then define the next one. Think of an NA as a stake in the ground so you know where you are with your project next time you look at it.

Mark Jantzen

10-05-2005, 04:57 AM

How do you synch up or link projects & next actions? Your mind does that and no software or artificial intelliegence (yet) will do it for you. I'm paraphrasing David here and I believe it's true.

From my experience, most of the time the next action is obviously tied to the project. Example, if a next action is "Surf the web for new tire information" your mind will go "oh, yeah that's the 'New tires on car' project".

One technology solution is the Find feature - e.g. Palm or Outlook. For me, that synchs up projects & next actions well. Find "tires" and I've got my project and next action and maybe even a few other trigger reminders.

I've seen many thoughtful people describe more complicated (to me) solutions, but I really wonder if the effort vs. payoff is worth it. But I'm attracted to the GTD methodology largely because of the "lazy" aspect, "how to get as much done with as little effort as possible".

Mark

andersons

10-05-2005, 07:36 AM

dgorley, in my experience this is one of the most frequently asked questions about implementing GTD. The answer is dependent on what tool(s) you use to maintain your lists: your choice of tool will dictate a lot of what you have to do to keep actions and projects synced. There are many approaches that have been discussed at length on the forum, such as the projects-as-contacts (http://home.comcast.net/~whkratz/id3.htm) method which uses Outlook.

If you are not yet committed to a tool, you may want to search the forum to read about the many ways of syncing projects and actions with different tools. If you are committed to a tool, you may want to search on the name of the tool to read about how other people implement GTD with that tool.

I too find maintaining separate projects and actions lists clumsy. It is natural to think of actions as subordinate to projects, just as David Allen in the book describes outlining a project using Microsoft Word. There are much better outliners than Word, though -- including some specifically designed for projects and actions. I use an outliner that also shows the actions, which are at the bottom of the hierarchy, in a separate context-based NA-list view. There is no need to sync projects and actions since the NA lists are just a different view of the same data. The outlining tool for me eliminates the tedious aspect of syncing projects and actions, frees me to think of my projects at a higher level much more easily, and does not constrain me to have only one NA per project. Most importantly, it does not require me to maintain the connections between projects and actions in my head.

andersons

10-05-2005, 08:04 AM

How do you synch up or link projects & next actions? Your mind does that and no software or artificial intelliegence (yet) will do it for you. I'm paraphrasing David here and I believe it's true.
How can you know that "no software will do X" unless you have personally investigated every piece of software out there? And kept up with that investigation because software development is an constantly changing landscape. There is no logical reason to believe in universal negatives, especially in the constantly-changing landscape of software and technology development.

I have used at least two software products that will sync/link projects with actions for you so that you don't have to do it in your mind. I have read about a third here on this forum. Not everyone may want to use them, but they do exist.

jkgrossi

10-06-2005, 07:07 AM

The way that I overcame this very thing was I stopped associating Next Actions with "To Do's". I came to the realization that rather than To Do's, Next Actions were simply reminders of what the next physical action is to move something forward. I believe that is an important distinction, and once realized, will help you get past the need to "sync" in some sort of artificial fashion all of your projects and their related NA's.

Using your example: one of my projects is "Create program X". The next action associated with that project is "Define potential inputs and outputs for program X". Once I complete that task, I find myself thinking if there's something else I should be doing on that project, and if there is, I add it to the NA list.

The time that you would need to figure out what the next action is (the "something else I should be doing") is when you stop working on project "X" and need to put a stake in the ground to remind you where you left off, or you could just catch this at the weekly review.

You wouldn't necessarily, upon the completion of "Define potential inputs and outputs for program X", stop what you're doing, think of the NA, write that NA down and then keep working... Instead, you'd just keep working.

When you reach a stooping point, you'd either:

1) Put the project aside and move on to something else (and catch the NA at your weekly review), or
2) at that point think of what the NA is and write it in the appropriate list as a reminder for when you pick up the project again to start working.

At least, that's how I'd do it.

jkgrossi

10-06-2005, 07:12 AM

How can you know that "no software will do X" unless you have personally investigated every piece of software out there? And kept up with that investigation because software development is an constantly changing landscape. There is no logical reason to believe in universal negatives, especially in the constantly-changing landscape of software and technology development.

I have used at least two software products that will sync/link projects with actions for you so that you don't have to do it in your mind. I have read about a third here on this forum. Not everyone may want to use them, but they do exist.

Well, I think that what DA means is that he doesn't believe that the technology exists currently that can do the job as elegantly as the human brain.

Even though the software may exist that is capable of accomplishing the task, it's still more cumbersome that just using your brain to do the job...

I think that's the spirit of what Da was trying to say.

kewms

10-06-2005, 07:41 AM

Well, I think that what DA means is that he doesn't believe that the technology exists currently that can do the job as elegantly as the human brain.

Even though the software may exist that is capable of accomplishing the task, it's still more cumbersome that just using your brain to do the job...

I think that's the spirit of what Da was trying to say.

But DA has also said that you should get things out of your brain and into a trusted system whenever possible.

As I see it, "keeping NA list in sync with projects" means making sure that you know where you are with each project and what you need to do to move forward. But that's really two different tasks. The first is planning: actually deciding what the actions required to complete the project are. And you're right, the human brain is the best tool for planning.

But the second task is housekeeping: making sure that the results of your planning are captured somewhere that allows you to find them again. There are lots and lots of tools that can (and should, IMO) handle the housekeeping component.

So many, in fact, that I have trouble understanding why this question keeps coming up. IMO, if "syncing tasks and projects" is difficult, there is a serious problem with your system.

All you're doing, really, is creating an outline. The projects are the top level, subprojects are the second level, and next actions are the bottom level. Thus, you need a tool that lets you
* collapse the outline so that you only see the top level, also known as the project list
* expand each individual project so that you can see the actions associated with it
* sort the next actions by other criteria, such as context or date, without losing their association with their parent project

Note that I'm using the term "outline" in its most general sense. You can actually capture the structure however you want, from a formal outline in a word processing file to post-it notes stuck to a wall. The important point is that the entire structure, including the relationships between projects and actions, must be captured by your system. If it isn't, the system can never be trustworthy.

Katherine

jkgrossi

10-06-2005, 08:51 AM

The important point is that the entire structure, including the relationships between projects and actions, must be captured by your system. If it isn't, the system can never be trustworthy.

Katherine

I don't know if I agree.... capturing the entire structure in your system may make it easier to review, but I don't think that it necessarily makes it more trustworthy. I don't link them as you describe, and I trust my system completely (and rightfully so).

I know that at least once per week, I'll review my projects and make sure that each one has an action associated with it. If an NA gets completed during the week, and a subsequent NA isn't created on the spot, I don't fret over it (i.e. it's off my mind) because I know that a NA will be created at the very least during my weekly review.

So, I don't necessarily see the need to "link" projects and tasks via an outline. In fact, I think that I'd find this level of structure burdensome.

In my opinion, the more you try to structure something, the more you restrict it. My system would move way too slow for me if I had to maintain the links as you describe.

Jim

kewms

10-06-2005, 09:00 AM

I know that at least once per week, I'll review my projects and make sure that each one has an action associated with it. If an NA gets completed during the week, and a subsequent NA isn't created on the spot, I don't fret over it (i.e. it's off my mind) because I know that a NA will be created at the very least during my weekly review.

So, I don't necessarily see the need to "link" projects and tasks via an outline. In fact, I think that I'd find this level of structure burdensome.

I guess I wasn't clear, because it sounds to me like your system does *exactly* what I describe. You clearly are able to keep track of what your projects are, and the status of each. If you can do that, your system works, regardless of what the implementation actually looks like.

Katherine

jkgrossi

10-06-2005, 09:05 AM

Well, that's why I wasn't *sure* if I agreed ;-).

It *sounded* to me like we were saying the same thing... (and I had a nagging feeling in my gut that we were ). I just wanted to be clear that IMHO an actual hierarchy wasn't necessary.

Others mileage may vary...

Jim

pageta

10-06-2005, 01:36 PM

I think that projects have to be reviewed more often than just weekly in order to do the proper planning. There may be one next action, there may be simultaneous next actions. There may be next actions that you can do today that you couldn't do yesterday. Thus I try to review my projects at least as often as I progress on them. In other words, if I work on it every day, I review it once a day to make sure I'm doing everything I can be. But if I work on it once a week, then I only review it once a week. So I guess you could say, every time I finish taking action on a project, I do a quick review to make sure everything is in order for the next time I come back to it.

andersons

10-06-2005, 05:21 PM

So many, in fact, that I have trouble understanding why this question keeps coming up. IMO, if "syncing tasks and projects" is difficult, there is a serious problem with your system.

All you're doing, really, is creating an outline. The projects are the top level, subprojects are the second level, and next actions are the bottom level. Thus, you need a tool that lets you
* collapse the outline so that you only see the top level, also known as the project list
* expand each individual project so that you can see the actions associated with it
* sort the next actions by other criteria, such as context or date, without losing their association with their parent project

Beautiful post. Wow.

I think the syncing question comes up because the true hierarchical structure of actions and projects is not made explicit in GTD. If you follow the book, there's a list of projects. And several separate lists of NAs. So for a beginner, you look at your long list of projects and longer list of actions and don't see all the relationships. (Or at least, some people might, but other people don't.) You can even look at an individual NA on your list and wonder what the heck it's about, if its relationship to its parent project isn't immediately obvious in your mind. If the connection IS obvious, it's because you remember it -- it's in your head.

It's true that you can maintain these separate lists, which do not explicitly or visually show the structure, and if you keep reviewing them, your mind WILL create the structure for you. The brain's learning mechanism is essentially to create hierarchical structure. And you may help your mind out by using naming conventions, codes, symbols, etc. to create and remember that structure more easily. But the structure visualized in the expanded outline view Katherine described will exist only in your mind.

But if you make the structure explicit by writing it down, it doesn't restrict you. (If you don't like the word 'structure,' maybe think of 'relationships.') The structure already exists; you're only making it explicit and visual and therefore easier to remember. You're just writing it down.

So why write it down? Well, why write anything down? Writing down the structure has a similar benefit to writing down anything else, like a list of stuff that's on your mind. Writing things down actually encodes a stronger, more organized memory. And the written reminder serves as a trigger to recall the previously encoded memory. Without the encoding and trigger, you need a lot of rehearsal to remember stuff.

Therefore I think that the expanded outline view Katherine describes adds value to GTD and takes it to the next level (literally -- pun not intended!). If it's good to get all your commitments down in lists, rather than keeping them in your head or in scattered physical reminders, then why isn't it good to get the structure of projects and actions down visually in one place too.

And yes, there are many ways to visualize hierarchies. Outlines are just compact and familiar.

kewms

10-06-2005, 05:54 PM

Therefore I think that the expanded outline view Katherine describes adds value to GTD and takes it to the next level (literally -- pun not intended!). If it's good to get all your commitments down in lists, rather than keeping them in your head or in scattered physical reminders, then why isn't it good to get the structure of projects and actions down visually in one place too.

Thank you for the kind words, but please remember one of the points you deleted: it doesn't matter how you capture the structure, as long as you do. Any system that reliably captures and retrieves the information is fine. That includes stacks of index cards and other tools that don't look like hierarchical outlines, but turn out to capture the same information.

I emphasize this point because I've seen so many posts obsessing about tools. Though there are many excellent tools out there, the One Perfect System doesn't exist, and looking for it can easily get in the way of getting things done.

Katherine

andersons

10-06-2005, 08:48 PM

. . .please remember one of the points you deleted: it doesn't matter how you capture the structure, as long as you do. . .That includes stacks of index cards and other tools that don't look like hierarchical outlines, but turn out to capture the same information.
Yup. I thought I got it with the last line "there are many ways to visualize hierarchies. Outlines are just compact and familiar."

And my point was that you can capture and retrieve the structure entirely in your mind, without any external tools, but it's advantageous to write it down somehow. I'm making a case for the usefulness of visualization.

I agree that the most important thing is to capture the structure somehow, and that the traditional outline is not the only way. I might add that some people I have taught just don't see relationships when they look at an outline, but will see them readily if I use boxes and arrows. Many people are comfortable with outlines, but some people are not.

However, I don't agree that the how doesn't matter at all. In 10 years of teaching, I have seen huge differences in learning and memory of depending on the visual structure of information. In one class, I taught 6 different ways to organize information, as well as how to determine which way(s) worked best for which kinds of information. (I didn't invent those 6 ways, BTW. I'm sure there are many more.)

I emphasize this point because I've seen so many posts obsessing about tools. Though there are many excellent tools out there, the One Perfect System doesn't exist, and looking for it can easily get in the way of getting things done.
Yes. But not all tools help you do the 3 things you listed -- collapse the outline for a project list, expand the outline to see project-action relationships, and show you actions by context. Some tools really help with this housekeeping, others don't. The ones that don't, IMO, are not well suited to GTD and cause more obsessing than the ones that do. (Not to say they cannot be used and sometimes have to be.) People do have legitimate problems with tools not being suited for the information they want to track. For me, the value of changing my tool was immense. I really did get more done with less stress.

Obsessing about tools can surely be a means to avoid work, but don't people know that even while they obsess? Do people really believe that a perfect tool will help them get more done? Are we so in the dark about how unproductive our tools can make us? That would be ironic! If not obsessing about tools, wouldn't we be obsessing about something else or finding other means to procrastinate? (Like organizing other stuff, not just project and action information.) :-)

I kinda think of GTD as being a bit obsessive in general. Collect everything, process everything -- even if it takes you 2 days initially -- keep everything organized, review. . .

mcogilvie

10-06-2005, 09:55 PM

This is a general comment on this thread and a request for ideas. I have found that vanilla GTD with no explicit connection between Next Actions and Projects (on a Palm, say) can work very well for a large percentage of projects. Somewhere around 80% of my projects have, at any given time, a small number of NA's (often 1). The state of the project at any given time is easily described. Unfortunately, those are NOT the projects which are most important in my work. The most important projects are characterized by a large number of potential next actions, many moving parts, complicated state, large amounts of information, and shifting, tentative goals. What I don't see in any of the GTD material is how to handle these kinds of projects. These are not GAANNT and PERT chart projects, by the way. The issue is really not deadlines or resources, but the inherent difficulty of the problem. In other words, I see how the GTD system scales with volume, but I don't see how the system scales with complexity. So if anyone has tools, techniques, or words of wisdom for handling such projects, I would love to hear them.

jwarlander

10-07-2005, 02:42 AM

Being some 6 months or so into struggling with implementing paper-based GTD, I don't know how valuable my advice will be, but I'd like to describe my setup since the Project vs. Next Action tracking was something that I felt had to be dealt with..

I'm using a Filofax planner, with the calendar (of course) and then sections related to my GTD implementation: Next Actions, Projects, Agenda, Checklists.

Projects are divided into Work and Home, then numbered from 1 and up, like "W39 Write instruction for startup / shutdown of tape robot".
Next Actions are divided into contexts and have a description and a reference to the project, like "Take photos of tape robot controls (W39)".
Project support material is gathered into hanging folders that are numbered according to the project references, ie W1 - W61, H1 - H29. This way I never have to do any further folder labeling, except for extending the system in case of project overload of course.

I also have a small section in the planner for project planning material in case I want to do some of that "on the road", then I can just merge with the project support material when I get back home or to my office.

Recently I've abandoned the "pure" pen-and-paper approach in favor of keeping the actual lists as documents on my computer, then printing them on A5 paper for the planner. During the week I do write on the paper version of those lists for changes and additions, but the computer document gets updated and printed during the weekly review. Similarly I'm probably going to merge my contacts from the planner into Outlook and make printouts from there instead, though I haven't tested that yet.

Anyways.. this is how it works right now. It might change as I find that some things don't work or could easily be done in a better way.. but that's no different than for any other system, I guess :)

pageta

10-07-2005, 03:04 AM

I'm another paper person and I recently had an idea that helped not only sinc my projects with next actions but also with someday/maybe's. I'm a paper person who just uses blank notebook paper and blank tabs (different colors) so I have no clue how this might work in a computer program of some kind. Anyway...

I have one section in my notebook for each context. I have home, contacts, office, errands, etc. At the front of each section are the next actions for that context. Behind the next actions are projects - one page for each project. The projects with the most activity are in front, those that are still in the planning/brainstorming stages are toward the back. Then behind the projects are my someday/maybe lists.

For example: under Home, I have my next actions. Behind that, I have a page for a room I am currently re-decorating. On that page I have notes and ideas for what I want to do, as well as next actions. If the next actions are to buy something, it is also on the front page/next actions of my Errands section (buying the paint). If a next action is something that easily stands alone and can be accomplished in a generally short amount of time, the next action goes on my next action list in Home. If the next action is one that will lead to a bunch of others or require a large chunk of time, it stays on the project page because I will see it when I am working on that particular project and I don't want to have to think about it unless I have a large chunk of time to devote to it (like painting the walls). Behind this project (and others like it) are my lists of home improvement projects that we've talked about doing but haven't done anything more than talk.

The beauty of this system is that when I am at home, I can see what my next actions are, what projects I have going on currently, the things I want to do - all in one place (I'm not flipping between three sections to see the big picture). So I can easily determine if I have time to start another project I'm excited about at the moment or if it really needs to wait.

My wish lists of things to buy (toys for my son, clothes for each member of the family, things for the house) all go under Errands because it is when I am in town that I might see those things or have a chance to shop for them. My style of buying things is to do a lot of shopping before I actually buy something so having my lists of what I think I might want to buy is very practical for me. If I'm driving by a furniture store that's having a sale and I have the time and energy to stop by, I can glance at my list and know what items I might want to make sure I specifically look at (i.e. bedroom furniture).

With this system, it doesn't really matter that all of my next actions for a certain project are on my next action list. My next action list is basically a list of quick hits - things that can be done very quickly (less than an hour). If I have a larger chunk of time (like an afternoon), I can go back a few pages and look at my projects and just work on one of them for a while.

pageta

10-07-2005, 03:09 AM

jkgrossi

10-07-2005, 06:55 AM

And my point was that you can capture and retrieve the structure entirely in your mind, without any external tools, but it's advantageous to write it down somehow. I'm making a case for the usefulness of visualization.

I'm not sure I necessarily see those advantages... if anything, in my opinion it's just creating more "work".

However, I don't agree that the how doesn't matter at all. In 10 years of teaching, I have seen huge differences in learning and memory of depending on the visual structure of information. In one class, I taught 6 different ways to organize information, as well as how to determine which way(s) worked best for which kinds of information. (I didn't invent those 6 ways, BTW. I'm sure there are many more.)

I don't think that it matters because we're not talking here about learning or improving memory. If anything, we're trying to free up memory so that resource can be allocated to other things.

It doesn't matter at all because I don't care about improving my memory related to my projects and NA's. In fact, I want to forget about those things... until I'm at a time and place where I can do something about them.

IMHO, artificially linking projects and NA's just creates more work and makes the process that more cumbersome.

However, I do agree that it makes the review process easier, and it might be a good crutch for those just starting out.

Jim

kewms

10-07-2005, 07:06 AM

IMHO, artificially linking projects and NA's just creates more work and makes the process that more cumbersome.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If a particular NA helps move a particular project forward, than there's nothing "artificial" about the link between the two. You may or may not find it helpful to use tools that explicitly capture the link, but the link itself exists whether you record it in your system or not.

I'm also not sure why, say, assigning an Outlook category that contains the project name is cumbersome or work-creating. Certainly maintaining the link between projects and NAs *can* be cumbersome, but to me that means that the wrong tool is being used, not that the goal itself is undesirable.

Katherine

jkgrossi

10-07-2005, 08:02 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If a particular NA helps move a particular project forward, than there's nothing "artificial" about the link between the two. You may or may not find it helpful to use tools that explicitly capture the link, but the link itself exists whether you record it in your system or not.

By "artificial" I mean linking through software or some other tool, not that the nature of the link itself is artificial. In my system, the links exist, but they may not be easily discernible upon review by someone other than myself.

On the other hand, I'm gathering that much of the "linking" that is being discussed here would be easily discernible upon review by anyone (e.g. I could pick up your project list and NA lists and physically see them linked).

I'm also not sure why, say, assigning an Outlook category that contains the project name is cumbersome or work-creating. Certainly maintaining the link between projects and NAs *can* be cumbersome, but to me that means that the wrong tool is being used, not that the goal itself is undesirable.

Katherine

I don't disagree, however, using your Outlook category suggestion I could easily have more than 50 distinct categories (one for each project). I'm just drawing off of my own experiences with this when I say that it creates more work and tends to be cumbersome. For example, when I first started using the GTD for Outlook software, I noticed that the software accommodates links between projects and next actions. I *tried* to link them, and my first thoughts were:

1) This is going to take me forever to do; and
2) This is going to take me forever to maintain.

Same goes w/some of the outline software (such as Bonsai) that I've tried for my Palm. I simply move too fast, and find this type of linking to bog my system down.

Granted, come review time this "linking" would make it much quicker. I could simply scan my list of projects and ensure that there are NAs attached to each one. But, to me one of the inherent values of the weekly review is that I'm forced to sit down and evaluate each of the projects on my list. At this time, I think pretty throughly through each and every one of them, making sure that not only are there NAs, but that the NAs are still relevant.

I want the system to be quick, but I don't necessarily want my weekly review to be quick. I don't know if I want to be able to easily see each of the NAs linked to each of my project, out of fear that I might breeze through my projects list thinking, "OK... each one of them has a NA... I'm done" rather than give them the attention that they deserve. Make any sense?

Jim

andersons

10-07-2005, 08:25 AM

The most important projects are characterized by a large number of potential next actions, many moving parts, complicated state, large amounts of information, and shifting, tentative goals. What I don't see in any of the GTD material is how to handle these kinds of projects.
GTD does not address complex projects in great detail, but it does address project planning briefly (Chapter 10, Getting projects under control). The discussion is general, and the key tools mentioned are hierarchical, mind maps on paper and outlines in Microsoft Word. Following the ideas in the book, you might mind map a project on paper, identify NAs you came up with, and transfer these into your separate projects and NA lists.

I do whatever I have to do for a given project, but in the end it must be outlined somehow -- subprojects, subsubprojects, however many levels I need -- I don't want to be arbitrarily constrained; and NAs must be captured in a usable way. That is why I use a tool that integrates the hierarchical project planning with support for NAs, all in one place. I don't have to transfer NAs to another system; they are already there integrated with all the levels of the project. NAs can also have due dates, lead times, and be scheduled on the calendar (e.g., meetings). This integration is especially useful for dynamically changing projects. If you haven't tried any of these yet, I highly recommend you do.

I spend a lot of my time working on 3 projects right now that sound similar to this. One is writing a large-scale collaborative proposal for NSF. (As soon as a project is collaborative, the complexity seems to shoot up exponentially for me.) These projects are broken down into an outline. The most complex is 5 levels deep right now. The NAs are the leaves and show up on my context lists. It's a big outline with lots of subprojects. I review it and change it frequently; I know what actions need to be completed and what subprojects need more planning. I have a representation of the big picture of the project plus the NAs in my mind that I just would have a hard time achieving without this outline. I know what subproject needs to be complete a month from now, plus what I need to work on today.

I also have one complex project with which I have no prior experience. For this one, I started the project planning on paper because I didn't even know how to outline it. I didn't know what the subprojects should be. The paper got messy, so then I moved to a whiteboard and used different colored post-its that I could move around, to play with different dimensions of subprojects. Once I got a feel for a plan I thought would work, I outlined it as usual. The outline dynamically evolves throughout the week.

kewms

10-07-2005, 08:31 AM

On the other hand, I'm gathering that much of the "linking" that is being discussed here would be easily discernible upon review by anyone (e.g. I could pick up your project list and NA lists and physically see them linked).

Not necessarily. My system hides a lot of the links unless I'm explicitly reviewing them. For example, project links are not necessarily obvious in my context-sorted NA list. But the project links are there if I need them.

Granted, come review time this "linking" would make it much quicker. I could simply scan my list of projects and ensure that there are NAs attached to each one. But, to me one of the inherent values of the weekly review is that I'm forced to sit down and evaluate each of the projects on my list. At this time, I think pretty throughly through each and every one of them, making sure that not only are there NAs, but that the NAs are still relevant.

I want the system to be quick, but I don't necessarily want my weekly review to be quick. I don't know if I want to be able to easily see each of the NAs linked to each of my project, out of fear that I might breeze through my projects list thinking, "OK... each one of them has a NA... I'm done" rather than give them the attention that they deserve. Make any sense?

That makes sense, but I guess my experience is the opposite. Five minutes per project times 50 projects makes the weekly review more than four hours long, before I even get to long term planning and other weekly review type tasks. That's more time than I'm willing to commit to something I view as simply housekeeping, especially if I can find a software tool to do the same thing automatically.

Katherine

jkgrossi

10-07-2005, 08:52 AM

I'm with you...

And yes, my weekly review takes A LOT of time to complete, so in a sense I can understand why the links as you describe might be useful.

Can you recommend any software that you've found especially useful?

kewms

10-07-2005, 09:16 AM

I use ResultsManager (http://www.gyronix.com/resultmanager.php), which is a GTD-aware add-in for MindManager (http://www.mindjet.com). It's expensive, but very powerful. Lets you slice and dice tasks and projects every which way, tie essentially unlimited notes to each project or task, and (pro version) ship the whole shebang off to Outlook.

ResultsManager makes the project-action link automatically: each "action" node inherits the project (and subproject) name(s) from the levels above it. These become category names if you export to Outlook.

Katherine

Disclaimer: No connection with Gyronix or MindJet, just a satisfied customer of both.

andersons

10-07-2005, 11:47 AM

On the other hand, I'm gathering that much of the "linking" that is being discussed here would be easily discernible upon review by anyone (e.g. I could pick up your project list and NA lists and physically see them linked).
I see 2 distinct functions of the linking, the visual interface for the user and the functional links for data manipulation.

1) The visual interface. This is what helps the mind understand and remember information. For example, here are 2 visual representations of links:
D:\Anderson\My Documents\Research\Papers\anderson2004.pdf

-D:
++Other stuff
--Anderson
+++Other stuff
----My Documents
++++Other stuff
-----Research
+++++Other stuff
------Papers
++++++Other stuff
---------anderson2004.pdf

Both are visually useful. (Not absolutely necessary -- I get by with command-line UNIX without the second.) And obviously, with indentation, color, icons, fonts, and other visual aids, the visualization is even better. For a project, I have structure like

\Research\Music-language fMRI study is published\Create stimuli for Judy's fMRI project\Figure out how to export notation to vector graphics

-Research [goal/category]
--Music-language fMRI study is published [project]
----Create stimuli for Judy's fMRI project [subproject]
>>>>Figure out how to export notation to vector graphics [NA, @Computer]
>>>>Transcribe tunes in 4/4 [NA, @Computer]
>>>>Figure out how to enlarge notation [NA, @Lab]

This is just a nice visual picture of the links for me. Whether those links are clear to you or anyone else, I don't know. I don't have to have them; but they are really helpful. There are many other ways to represent the links. I can create them in my head, on paper, or with software. I can have
"Create stimuli" on one piece of paper, a projects list, and
"Figure out how to export. . ." on another piece of paper, a NA list
and visualize the same link in my mind in any number of different ways.

Incidentally, another view of those same NAs is useful, too, the context-sorted NA list. The same NAs above can be shown as

@Computer
---------------------------------
O Figure out how to export notation to vector graphics
O Transcribe tunes in 4/4
O other NAs from other projects in my outline

The NAs are the same data displayed along a different dimension - the place where they're done.

2) Functional links are maintained by software to allow you to manipulate data more easily. The software has to know about the structure of the data and provide operations to manipulate it.

For example, I care a lot about NAs. I would like to see them in relation to their parent projects and goals, as shown in the outline view above. And I would also like to see them filtered by context. Software that maintains appropriate data structures for NAs will do both more easily. I enter a single NA; I switch between the view with its parent project (outline view) and its association with a place to do it (context view) with a touch of a button.

Good software also lets you manipulate a bunch of related data at once. For example, with a file system, I can "drag" a whole folder to a new location on the hard drive. If the file system didn't maintain the links between folders and all the files in them, you'd have to move them individually which would be a pain. With a Word document, I can change the formatting of all Level 2 headings with one operation. (Hmm, I don't know about saying "good software" and "Word" in the same paragraph. . .but I guess it is better than a typewriter.)

With my projects, suppose Judy emails me that the scanner is down; we don't need the stimuli for at least a month. Suppose I have 8 NAs on various context lists, all to move that fMRI project forward. Because my software maintains the links and allows this manipulation, I can with a few taps get all 8 NAs off my lists for now and have them show up in a month. Doing it manually does not improve my project planning; it's just a chore to get done; I prefer to have it automated.

The first function of the links, visualizing, can be accomplished many ways, including only in your head. The second, automated manipulation of data, can only be accomplished with well-designed software. That's what computers are best for, manipulating information in ways that humans find tedious. It's this second function that makes well-designed software all but indispensable for me. (Of course, automation doesn't always pay off; it depends on the scale and complexity of the data. I don't use typesetting software to write a simple letter.)

Some software gives you the first - nice visuals - without the second - powerful manipulation. This is the kind that may seem like more trouble than it's worth, especially if you are good at visualizing structure in your head.

andersons

10-08-2005, 04:47 PM

1) This is going to take me forever to do; and
2) This is going to take me forever to maintain.

Same goes w/some of the outline software (such as Bonsai) that I've tried for my Palm. I simply move too fast, and find this type of linking to bog my system down.

Granted, come review time this "linking" would make it much quicker. I could simply scan my list of projects and ensure that there are NAs attached to each one. But, to me one of the inherent values of the weekly review is that I'm forced to sit down and evaluate each of the projects on my list. At this time, I think pretty throughly through each and every one of them, making sure that not only are there NAs, but that the NAs are still relevant.
I agree with all these things:
1) Setup of your data in a new tool can take a long time.
2) It can also be unclear initially whether that setup will pay off later.
3) Getting software to help you maintain links between projects and actions pays off big time in the Review stage of the GTD workflow model.

As far as setup, if you have a bunch of flat lists with the links between items in your head, you are faced with the task of making your implicit knowledge of the links explicit, or changing the way you visualize and represent them. Truth be told, this can be hard. Using your existing system feels as natural as riding a bike, while learning a new one can be like explaining how to ride a bike to someone who never has.

However, as much time as I spent setting up my data in software, it was a fraction of the time I spent initially setting up GTD. GTD requires more initial overhead than anything else I can think of -- the collecting, processing, and organizing everything was a huge project for me.

Of course, with GTD I went through the setup phase because I could tell it was going to help me enormously. With software, it might not be clear how the setup will pay off in day-to-day later use.

It helps to have a clear idea of the benefit a software feature will give you. But it's also necessary to give a tool the trial stage it needs in order to evaluate its benefits after the initial setup and learning phases. GTD itself has setup and learning phases. It doesn't seem quite fair to expect software to have zero learning and setup overhead.

As with GTD workflow, with the software I use to manage projects and actions, I had a phase of setting it up and a phase of learning how to use it more efficiently. I can say the same about every significant software application I use. Even switching from a Windows 98 machine to an XP machine (not sure that OS switch paid off).

After the setup and learning phase, though, I found maintenance to be far easier than what I had to do with my old, "simpler," unlinked data. You can't evaluate maintenance until you have gotten past the setup and learning phases. I wouldn't worry about not being "forced" to look at every project on your list. You will still be able to look at them as much -- or as little -- as you need to. If you still want to think about each project in a weekly session, you still can. But without having to check the project-action links, many of my GTD projects need no review. My quality of thinking about my most important projects is better since I'm not exhausted from a long session of necessary housekeeping overhead. Reviewing 70 projects used to exhaust me, and during the second half of a Weekly Review, the ideas I came up with were, well, idiotic.

When you evaluate the overhead of a system or tool, look at the whole picture, including the Review. If Weekly Review takes a long time, that's part of the system's overhead.

If you do decide to test a new tool for GTD, I highly recommend that you keep your existing system in place and continue to work from it as you gradually set up, learn, and test a new one in your "spare" time. If and when the new one is ready to work from on the runway, you'll know; you'll save yourself from the frustration of working with an unfamiliar, incomplete system. Don't ask where this advice came from. :-)

1drummergirl

10-08-2005, 06:54 PM

This has been a fascinating thread for me and one that couldn't have come at a better time for me. I have been a long time user of Bonsai and Datebk5 for my GTD system. Recently I took a position as the Business Administrator for a local homeless shelter that was - shall we say - not previously managed well at all. The new director and I are basically rebuilding the entire organization from scratch. We are constantly putting out fires and every day brings more challenges than we can anticipate. Slowly, things are coming under control and settling down.

When I started the job, I kept everything on paper, jotting most notes down in a frantic scribble. I contemplated ways to incorporate it into my system, but I didn't have the time nor energy to do it at home (the computers at the office were not setup at all for the first couple of weeks due to moving the offices to a new location). I gradually added next actions to my palm, but things were still moving too fast to keep up. I continued trying to manage things from a small legal pad. By the third or fourth week I decided my only hope was to move to the traditional "plain vanilla" setup - you know - keep it simple. I spent the better part of one evening converting my entire list to plain vanilla and deleting Bonsai from my palm. Over the next two weeks, nothing much changed. The pace was still on high speed and I had to revert to paper to keep up. I am not a palm newbie and I can input graffiti with the best of them, but things moved so fast and projects and next actions changed at too rapid a pace to even bother entering them in my palm. Most of what came across my desk was urgent and required immediate attention. Many urgent open loops were closed before I even had a chance to write them down. I continued entering personal items in my palm outside of work hours, but the plain vanilla setup did NOT make anything easier. The problem was just that I was in a crisis mode at work and a huge time crunch in my personal life. I had zero time to process anything. I did what I had to do to survive. And I learned that survival = capture.

I am now entering week six at my new job and we have finally been able to spend time this past week creating goals and objectives and the fires have died down for the most part. It is now time to focus on the new programs and procedures we will be implementing. On Monday, I will be expected to submit a report of all the projects we have discussed over the last several weeks. I have about 12-15 pages of notes to deal with. When thinking about this report and doodling some ideas about how to organize it, it dawned on me that I would just be creating an outline with focus areas, goals and projects - just like what my Bonsai outline would have looked like if I had kept it up to date. Ugh. :roll:

I knew immediately that I needed my old system back with all the data manipulation utilities and printing options, etc. I reloaded Bonsai and in less than 1 hour I had all of my current data back in order (thanks to mass manipulation of text and categories, etc.) All I have left to do now is input my notes, tidy them up and make sure I have a next action on them even if that next action means we have to clarify the next action in the next staff meeting. :wink: When I have all my notes entered, I will simply print out my outline, but keep all the next actions collapsed (easy to do with a single click). My outline will look like this:

Focus Area
-->Goal
---->Project

So not only did I learn that survival means just capturing the stuff, I learned that the ONLY system that will work is the one that you build yourself and feel the most comfortable with. And yes, my system is perfect. It is perfect for about the first 30 minutes after my weekly review when every task and project is neatly organized in my outline. Perfect until something hits my inbox and lays there unprocessed. And then my cell phone rings and then... but it's ok. I know I will get those items processed in the next few hours and keep things tidied up as best I can throughout the week. During my weekly review I will get everything in perfect order again...and life will go on. It's the habits, not the tools. :grin: And now I'm off to carve weekly review time back into my schedule...

dwspinks

10-10-2005, 12:47 PM

andersons

10-11-2005, 07:57 PM

I am a new member here, have been lurking and reading for months. I find this very informative. I am curious as to what software that you are using for outlining your projects?
My system is currently in Life Balance (http://www.llamagraphics.com/). A few years ago, I looked for a better ToDo app for my Palm PDA. I tested Bonsai (http://www.natara.com/Bonsai/index.cfm) and Progect (http://sourceforge.net/projects/progect) as well. I chose Life Balance because it is specialized for projects and actions and had several key features I wanted, like serial dependencies in projects, when a series of actions must be completed in order. I also liked the idea of getting help with prioritizing my long NA lists, and after I got the hang of using it, the algorithm works very well. There are also desktop versions for Mac OS and Windows.

I did not choose Bonsai because as a general-purpose outline tool, it seemed like a lot more work to set up the items in the outline to function as projects or NAs. Special-purpose tools are often more efficient than general-purpose ones. It has some nice features, though. Progect just seemed less mature at the time, but I can't remember specifically why I thought that.

I'm not at all affiliated with any of these products.

BigStory

10-14-2005, 07:29 PM

Greetings Gretchen,

I didn't have the time nor energy ... things were still moving too fast to keep up ... The pace was still on high speed and I had to revert to paper to keep up. And I learned that survival = capture.
Gretchen, Thanks for the detail, but I am a bit lost. Have you decided to capture on paper and transfer and organize when you process your inputs?

I would just be creating an outline with focus areas, goals and projects - just like what my Bonsai outline would have looked like if I had kept it up to date. Ugh. :roll: ... I knew immediately that I needed my old system back with all the data manipulation utilities and printing options, etc. I reloaded Bonsai I learned that the ONLY system that will work is the one that you build yourself and feel the most comfortable with. ..
But, didn't you switch away from Bonsai awhile back because entry didn't work fast enough? Does this mean that you are willing to live with a slower system, and capture primarily on paper, in order to be able to present your work to others in a particular way?

What was the system you had going that you moved away from when you switched to paper? Or did you just get overwhelmed and go to paper immediately with your new job, planning to organize later?

What was it about Plain Vanilla that didn't work for you? Was it only in the presentation, or was it data entry issues?

Regards,
Gordon

1drummergirl

10-19-2005, 07:27 PM

BigStory - you are correct that I did move away from Bonsai a while back because I *thought* it was tedious data entry. Now I'm finding that ANY data entry is tedious for me. I am entering week 7 of my "fire fighting" career and things have heated back up again. All I can do at this point is capture everything and put out fires as best I can. My capturing is still on the legal pad and on my palm (in the notepad app).

I process as much as I can every now and then, but I am not functioning at 100% yet. There is still a LOT to process. Plain vanilla has NOT helped me in any way and in fact it just makes me more nervous about my system. Being in an administrative role means I need to see the big picture. A flat projects list does not help me. An outline organized into focus areas and various goals is a much better tool for me to get things done. I can manipulate projects much faster with an outlining tool than I can with flat lists. And planning is a HUGE part of my job. The better the planning tools, the better I can do my job.

The biggest problem I have right now is the time crunch. Our offices are still in limbo (we are consolidating and moving them again tomorrow) and I have yet to have a full uninterrupted hour at my desk. The stress I feel right now is mainly because I came from a job where I had everything captured and processed and I had a schedule built to handle all the routine stuff. Now I am sorting through chaos daily and trying to organize on the fly. It is difficult. I have tasted the peaceful and stress-free world of GTD and my new job is worlds away from that environment. My comfort is knowing that I will eventually get everything processed and Iwill setup some lightening fast systems to ease the workload. I intend to teach the GTD process to our employees in the near future.

So for now, I will continue on with collecting on paper and palm notepad (and occasionally the voice recorder on my T3). Complete processing will get done in time, but for now I do pick and choose what I process for the sake of time and urgency. I can tell you this, tho, I feel a huge relief now that everything is back in outline form and linked into Datebk5. I have found the tool that works for me. Everyone is different.