Is a project/action link needed or not? [Archive]

tominperu

12-13-2006, 06:09 AM

There has been some recent discussion in another thread (Katherine's on paper implementation of GTD) on that old chestnut of the need or otherwise of a link between action and projects in one's GTD system.

You can read that discussion on http://www.davidco.com/forum/showthread.php?p=44269&posted=1#post44269 There's some good stuff in it about people whining about the need for a link (DAs words not mine) and anderson makes a good case for a need for a link.

I thought I'd start another thread as this issue tends to submerge others. So to get the ball rolling...

When I first started doing GTD I felt I really needed the link in my system otherwise it seemed almost impossible to check each project has a next action which is a fundamental way of avoiding leaks in GTD. However, now it seems I can abandon this link in the system. It seems that I can just look at my project list and I remember which project has a next action and which has not.

This also has the profound advantage in that projects can be easily created, merged, split in two and modified without having to spend time creating, revising and maintaining the various links.

This seems to concur with DAs insistence that a link in the system isn't necessary but rather is dealt with intuitively in the head. However, I'm still not entirely sure that a link isn't necessary for everyone and for all working conditions. Certainly when I started GTD, the link was necessary as I eased myself into the system.

A related issue is how software programs manage links and how easily links are to change and review within these programs.

So, what do other people think?

I don't know if I can get the stuff from the other thread on to this one in some way. If someone knows how feel free to do it.

Ruud

12-13-2006, 06:34 AM

Following up on my comments (http://www.davidco.com/forum/showthread.php?p=44271#post44261) in that thread...

You write;

When I first started doing GTD I felt I really needed the link in my system otherwise it seemed almost impossible to check each project has a next action which is a fundamental way of avoiding leaks in GTD.

My Weekly Review is mostly project based. I go through my pages of projects. Sometimes I know that this or that NA has been done; I cross it off. Looking at the information I have listed on the project page I decide what the Next Action is. I put it on the appropriate list and, on the project page, write that list behind it.

"Mail contract @errands"

So in that sense I certainly have a link between the two. Between the projects and the NA's. Yet there is no formal link. As the review is project based I pass every project and am aware whether or not a project has a NA or not.

I do think that it works out either way. However, for me the whole back-and-forth coupling just takes up more time, creates drag and doesn't have a productive pay off.

kewms

12-13-2006, 06:55 AM

At Weekly Review time, I review my NA lists first, then my Project lists. That way I'm current on what my NAs are, have crossed off everything that's been done, and so forth. That makes it relatively easy to verify that each project has an NA.

OTOH, I have a relatively short list of projects. If I had hundreds, it would be much more difficult to keep track of them all.

On the other other hand, if you have more projects than you can track, you probably also have more projects than you can do at any given time. Rather than worrying about NAs for a project that you're not going to work on anyway, maybe it would be better to trim down the list?

Katherine

Brent

12-13-2006, 07:59 AM

I, too, started by linking Next Actions with Projects. I don't do that any more, and don't feel a need to.

During my Weekly Review, I approach my lists from both directions. I look at my Projects, and ensure there's a Next Action for each. Then, I look at each Next Action, and ensure there's a Project for it (if appropriate).

As I've used GTD more, I've gotten better at writing a new Next Action when I complete an Action. As I complete the action, I remember which project it's part of, and can more easily think of the next action.

Harrowdrive

12-13-2006, 08:40 AM

I cheat a bit by using the Trimpath Next Action software. You can tie projects to actions there.

But I feel bad about it.

tominperu

12-13-2006, 08:59 AM

However, for me the whole back-and-forth coupling just takes up more time, creates drag and doesn't have a productive pay off.

That elegantly sums up what I wanted to say about my recent experience!

However, someone on Katherine's thread talked about having lots of "waiting for"s for lots of different projects. The projects are active in the sense of you might need to follow up the "waiting for" in the weekly review but not in the sense of having any other next actions. I concede that you might need a link for this type of situation.

Tom

andersons

12-13-2006, 11:00 AM

However, for me the whole back-and-forth coupling just takes up more time, creates drag and doesn't have a productive pay off.

That elegantly sums up what I wanted to say about my recent experience!

If creating and maintaining project-action links is unproductively time-consuming, then that is a limitation of the tool(s) being used. It takes me no longer than about 3 additional seconds to create an NA that is automatically related to its project. And I spend 0 time later making sure that projects have NAs or vice versa. So for me capturing the relationship in my system is not time-consuming. In fact, it saves time.

Do I "need" to have the project-action relationship explicitly in my system? No, no more than I "need" to have an automatic dishwasher, washing machine, or dryer.

tominperu

12-13-2006, 11:17 AM

If creating and maintaining project-action links is unproductively time-consuming, then that is a limitation of the tool(s) being used.

And I know you use Life Balance! I'm still getting round to trying it out properly. It may as you say, be the tools one uses. I've tried the Contacts as Projects method in Outlook and the GTD add-in and its too time consuming in both of these. For me anyway.

I'd be interested in the opinions of the benefit/disbenefits of linking from other people who use Life Balance.

Tom

Ruud

12-13-2006, 11:24 AM

Which is my point: I do think that it works out either way and that for me it isn't worth it.

I use pen & paper so prepending a project name or label to an NA is trivial -- but for me most of the time it is also trivial it that it doesn't give me anything extra. I could write certain NA's in a different ink color. Doesn't take that much time to switch from pen -- but what does it give me?

Look, the vast majority of people here are not in a position where they have 300 active projects. We have, what, 50 to 60 or so? Yet how many people are struggling with trying to find the best way to link tasks and projects together in Outlook? How do to link subprojects back to projects?

Waste of time for the most part because we know what belongs to what.

If not... Well, if you look at a NA list and for the life of it, you cannot figure out where this or that NA comes from -- you have seriously miswritten that NA :) "upload file" or "sent letter" is not a well written NA unless there is just one file, just one letter. Otherwise, make your NA more descriptive.

But yes -- it works both ways. With a project link or without one.

darlakbrown

12-13-2006, 11:30 AM

I also use Life Balance. First, you have to set-up LB according to the instructions in a thread on this forum. Once you do this, there is no doubling up on writing actions. You either enter it under your Project list and assign it to the appropriate context or you simply enter it under the appropriate context in the outline if it has no attached project. Then, when you view that particular context, it magically shows up!

My weekly reviews are a piece of cake because I can very quickly see which projects need a new action.

Oh and another bonus... if I feel like it during Project Planning time, I can add a whole list of actions to a single project, assign a different context to each, and then choose for these actions to appear one after another or appear concurrently if they are not dependent on each other.

LB appears to be a fairly simple database implementation. It's all about how the database fields relate to one another. That tied in with dual views (outline vs. context) that you can easily switch between. Simple and elegant GTD solution IMHO.

I tried using Entourage and Outlook at work. Yikes! So laborious and confusing I had to go back to a simpler tool.

Best,

Darla

:mrgreen:

tominperu

12-13-2006, 11:51 AM

I also use Life Balance. First, you have to set-up LB according to the instructions in a thread on this forum.

Which thread are you referring to?

Tom

GTDWorks

12-13-2006, 12:09 PM

I'm the Lead Pastor of a church. Here's the system I use to "link" Next Actions to Projects:

1. I house my Projects and NA's in iCal Task List (could be any tool you choose). I use the task note section to record the Successful Outcome and Next Actions.

2. I list the Project, the Successful Outcome for the Project, and then list the very Next Action to move it forward. The NA ends with an “*” (asterisk)

3. I cut and past that Next Action into the appropriate context on my NA lists and include the "*".

4. When I complete a NA (which the “*” identifies as such), I go back to the Project and add another NA for the Project. I remove the * from the first one and add it to the very NA for the Project. I cut and paste that NA into the appropriate context. I do this with every NA until the Project is complete.

5. Sometimes I only have two NA’s so I don’t need to be so thorough, but most of my Projects are 4-8 NA steps, so this works great for me.

6. As I review my lists, I can quickly identify the very NA’s for all my Projects.

7. The Weekly Review keeps it all together and flowing smoothly.

Here’s What It Looks Like:

Project: Engage Sunday Runway Coordinator

Successful Outcome: Our Sunday morning workflow challenges will have disappeared and everything will work as required.

Next Action:

Inform Board Vice Chair on process and position need. (Done)

Update my Admin. Asst. on the process and have her book meeting with X (done).

TC Dana and secure her involvement (Done)

Have Gina schedule meeting with Dana to review position requirements (Done).

Outline meeting agenda* (this is now resting in my @Laptop NA list)

The system works extremely well for me and is a simple solution for “linking” NA’s to my Projects.

darlakbrown

12-13-2006, 12:14 PM

Which thread are you referring to?

Tom
Woops Sorry Tom.. I was going to put a link in there.

It's actually not on DavidCo... or maybe it is but I can't find it now..

It's on the llamagraphics.com forums...

Try this...

http://www.llamagraphics.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2122&mesg_id=7215

I have tweaked mine a little once I got used to Life Balance but this is a good start. If I find other reference, I'll post it here, too.

Thanks,
Darla

tominperu

12-13-2006, 12:41 PM

The system works extremely well for me and is a simple solution for “linking” NA’s to my Projects.

There's lots of ways of linking tasks and projects. And thanks for detailing yours.

The question for me is whether for any particular method, the benefits (for example, in time saved in checking all projects have next actions) outweigh the costs in time of maintaining the links.

This method described for instance seems quite labour intensive for me, and I doubt that for me the benefits would make up for that. But, of course everyone is different and everyone's circumstances are different.

With Life Balance the method of linking seems relatively quick and straightforward and I hope to try it sometime (over a period of about a month, which is what is needed to really find out if it works for me). I do wonder however if the work required in establishing and maintaining links will be really worth it - even in Life Balance. For instance I regularly enter actions in Outlook without even having to think about what project they relate to, although when it comes to reviewing the project list, it is obvious.

I find that I also often merge different projects into one and sometimes decide to split a project into a number of smaller projects. Can the links be easily shifterd around in Life Balance or will I have to spend time at weekly review keeping the links current?

The great thing about keeping links just in our heads is that the links can be changed without having to input this into the system.

Tom

BigStory

12-13-2006, 01:13 PM

jpm

12-13-2006, 03:42 PM

I can see however, that if your Weekly Review was a rare or sporadic thing, that the links would get broken and have to be "reset".

This is exactly the point. If you aren't doing your weekly review, you aren't doing GTD.

In the pod-cast David may have been a little "undiplomatic", but there is probably several possible reasons for his response.

1. He's probably sick of people asking him this question in the same whiney voice and when he gives what he knows to be the correct answer, that it is not needed if you'd just do the weekly review, all he recieves is a blank stare.

2. His attitude may have been to intentionally provoke you into disproving his belief (and thereby discovering that he was right all along).

3. He may have been prompting you to a sort of "Wax-On/Wax-Off" productivity martial art training... (Do the weekly review).

The point is the link is not needed if you do the weekly review. And if you don't do the weekly review you're not doing GTD.

It took me a year to realize that David was right. Just before going to Road Map in SF last year I sat down to prove him wrong. I was certain I needed the link (I'd only been doing weekly reviews about every other week). I did a weekly review (over 200 projects and close to 300 Next Actions) and then went through every next action and instantly knew what project it was for...

I haven't really worried too much about the Action-Project linking since then. However, I did recently stumble on a similar challenge as I started to move up the altitudes. I was spending a lot of time linking projects to higher altitudes, and realized it wasn't really worth the overhead. It's the same issue. I wasn't reviewing the higher altitudes on a frequent enough basis. I've fixed that and now the Matrix is more or less complete. I know instantly, and intuitively that a Next Action is part of project X which is part of objective Y in support of long term Goal Z.

Would it be nice to have technology handle all of this for us? Sure. But it would need to be completely automated, zero-overhead feature to be of use... Even 3 seconds is too much overhead given the payoff. Over a year, 3 seconds x 200 Next Actions/Week x 52 weeks ~ 10 hours of overhead annually. I'd much rather have the 10 hours for something more productive...

In fact, I've come to believe that linking the next action to projects is actually destructive to the effectiveness of GTD. Your action lists are supposed to be actionable without thinking. If this is truely the case, why would you need to know what project you are linked to in order to make a phone call? Adding a project tag (IMHO) is a crutch that prevents you from accurately describing the Next Action in such a way that you can do it without thinking. This leads to procrastination.

For example:

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: [project]

vs.

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: confirm 12/13/06 9:30 EST meeting.

With the first example I have to think about the project before I make the call because I don't recall what I wanted to talk to Bob about. Because of that I may avoid making the call.

With the second, I don't have to think, I can just call. If I don't get Bob, I can either confirm with his admin, or leave a voice mail and change @Calls to @Waiting For...

tominperu

12-13-2006, 03:45 PM

In the Podcast interview that Merlin Mann and David created, David specifically stated that he has never had the question, "How do I link next actions and projects?" raised by someone who consistently did their Weekly Review.

Well, maybe people are just rather too polite!

I could have asked him that question a year and a half ago and I can honestly say I was doing the weekly review consistently. Now it may be true that I've got better at GTD and can now see that linking may not be necessary but that's something else.

BigStory

12-14-2006, 03:21 PM

I guess my (personal) reponse to that Tom, is that if you had found a system that made physical linking "comfortable" you might have missed out on the far more efficient and powerful work that your brain has learned to do a bit farther down the stretch.

Aside from simply being faster, there are many other things that your mind can do once it is part of the loop, that software could not. Adjustments on the fly, taking new factors into consideration, creativity, spying and including new opportunities... all can be done "intuitively" if your mind is engaged at the right point in the process. I'm sure we could think of many more.

Part of David's frustration may be that people (me included) seem to go through this phase of wanting to take thinking almost entirely out of the process, when really it is the *type* of thinking that needs to change. I think it is in a way "harder" work to engage your mind creatively than to use it for connecting the dots - it's just not *really* harder when you see the exponential difference in results that comes from engaging your mind at a different level.

Best Wishes,
Gordon

mcogilvie

12-14-2006, 04:28 PM

This is exactly the point. If you aren't doing your weekly review, you aren't doing GTD.
..
The point is the link is not needed if you do the weekly review. And if you don't do the weekly review you're not doing GTD.
..
I did a weekly review (over 200 projects and close to 300 Next Actions) and then went through every next action and instantly knew what project it was for.
..
In fact, I've come to believe that linking the next action to projects is actually destructive to the effectiveness of GTD. Your action lists are supposed to be actionable without thinking. If this is truely the case, why would you need to know what project you are linked to in order to make a phone call? Adding a project tag (IMHO) is a crutch that prevents you from accurately describing the Next Action in such a way that you can do it without thinking. This leads to procrastination.

For example:

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: [project]

vs.

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: confirm 12/13/06 9:30 EST meeting.

With the first example I have to think about the project before I make the call because I don't recall what I wanted to talk to Bob about. Because of that I may avoid making the call.

With the second, I don't have to think, I can just call. If I don't get Bob, I can either confirm with his admin, or leave a voice mail and change @Calls to @Waiting For...

This is one part of GTD that I no longer believe, at least for me. I am completely capable of doing a good weekly review, and forgetting any "invisible mind links" the next day. I can do ok this way if I do a weekly review every two or three days, but the overhead is too high. I have a lot of very different responsibilities, and many different types of projects going on at all times. Alas, many of them do require thinking.:) So some form of linking is a requirement for me.

I also believe that project connection is not only beneficial, but sometimes crucial. Let's take the example of that phone call. Bob (in my case he's the dean of our graduate school) may very well want to discuss that upcoming meeting with me, or bring up something unrelated but important. So I need to be on top of the issues before I make the call.

tominperu

12-14-2006, 06:32 PM

I guess my (personal) reponse to that Tom, is that if you had found a system that made physical linking "comfortable" you might have missed out on the far more efficient and powerful work that your brain has learned to do a bit farther down the stretch.

It's a fair point that I was quite confortable with my system when actually a system link was being used but probably wasn't necessary.

Aside from simply being faster, there are many other things that your mind can do once it is part of the loop, that software could not. Adjustments on the fly, taking new factors into consideration, creativity, spying and including new opportunities... all can be done "intuitively" if your mind is engaged at the right point in the process. I'm sure we could think of many more.

Not sure that the system link really stopped me thinking or being intuitive as if I'd stopped thinking I don't think I'd have realised the system link wasn't really necessary and then adjusted.

I agree that just having linking in your head means that you can have more flexible linking that means quicker adjustments are possible, for instance, adjustments in the project list.

kewms

12-14-2006, 07:07 PM

I also believe that project connection is not only beneficial, but sometimes crucial. Let's take the example of that phone call. Bob (in my case he's the dean of our graduate school) may very well want to discuss that upcoming meeting with me, or bring up something unrelated but important. So I need to be on top of the issues before I make the call.

But how does having an explicit project-NA link in your GTD system help you do that? And in particular, how does having an explicit project-NA link for *every single action* help you do that?

That's the real question, as I see it. Yes, of course there will be some calls for which I need to have related materials handy. But it's a trivial matter to note that in the NA as needed, while setting up a system that creates and maintains such links *all the time* is not nearly so trivial.

Put another way, don't fix it if it isn't broken. Structure your system to handle the typical case, and add exceptions as needed.

Katherine

Cpu_Modern

12-15-2006, 07:00 AM

Great discussion! I enjoyed reading it so far, and some postings highlighted spots in my brain wher light was due.

how does having an explicit project-NA link for *every single action* help you

Like I wrote in another thread I am of the "write NA well, do your review, no links are needed"-school as well.

while setting up a system that creates and maintains such links *all the time* is not nearly so trivial.

This notion disturbs me because of it ungeekyness. It is so dead simple to set up an outliner-based system that automates the process for you. Even in this thread somebody else said the linking would come him/her at no cost. Another fellow GTDer described how LifeBalance does it automatically. Heck, I am sure, MS Word could do it. My word processer (GNU Emacs) does it for me with excactly zero overhead. I had such an outliner on my Palm, they are just ubiquitous. Sorry for the rant. I just think with the interweb one has the chance to aqucire the software that does what one expects from the servant your computer.

Having said that, consider doing the work on paper, manually? No way I would do that...

kewms

12-15-2006, 07:47 AM

This notion disturbs me because of it ungeekyness. It is so dead simple to set up an outliner-based system that automates the process for you. Even in this thread somebody else said the linking would come him/her at no cost. Another fellow GTDer described how LifeBalance does it automatically. Heck, I am sure, MS Word could do it. My word processer (GNU Emacs) does it for me with excactly zero overhead. I had such an outliner on my Palm, they are just ubiquitous. Sorry for the rant. I just think with the interweb one has the chance to aqucire the software that does what one expects from the servant your computer.

In principle, I agree with you. There are lots of pieces of software that claim to do exactly this, and I'm a firm believer in the idea that there's no reason to bother with inadequate tools.

And yet, maintaining the project-action link is the single most common topic in this forum, and the single most common complaint that people have about their GTD tools, both paper and electronic. No matter how good the solutions out there are in principle, clearly users continue to have trouble with them in practice.

That says to me that perhaps the software is attempting to solve the wrong problem, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the software users are not expressing their requirements clearly, perhaps because they aren't sure what their requirements are. It also suggests that the attention paid to this particular problem is misplaced: if you need a strong project-NA link, perhaps there is something more subtle wrong with your system.

(The latter appears to be DA's view, FWIW. He seems to think the whole question misses the point.)

Katherine

mcogilvie

12-15-2006, 08:27 AM

But how does having an explicit project-NA link in your GTD system help you do that? And in particular, how does having an explicit project-NA link for *every single action* help you do that?

That's the real question, as I see it. Yes, of course there will be some calls for which I need to have related materials handy. But it's a trivial matter to note that in the NA as needed, while setting up a system that creates and maintains such links *all the time* is not nearly so trivial.

Put another way, don't fix it if it isn't broken. Structure your system to handle the typical case, and add exceptions as needed.

I claim that my typical next action requires some sort of context (project context, not DA place context). I understand that some people have jobs where "call Fred re contract and answer any questions" is a routine follow-up courtesy call, but I don't have much of that. If my next actions are atomic, I typically need to immediately shoot back up to the project level once the next action is done anyway. As I juggle end-of-semester stuff with holiday stuff, I am also acutely aware of numerous short deadlines that are not handled well by the GTD reference model, i.e., DA on "How I use my palm." This is not a refutation of the GTD approach, nor is it a plea for more unusable software. I have bounced between two kinds of systems: outline-based systems like Kinkless and Life Balance with multiple views, and systems where the project is embedded at the end of each Next Action. Both involve some overhead, but both are workable.

Rainer Burmeister

12-15-2006, 08:31 AM

Doing my daily review daily I don't need that NA-Project-link.

But I don't review everything during my daily review, but only today's and tomorrow's work. Everything else can wait until the weekly and monthly reviews.

Rainer

Jamie Elis

12-15-2006, 10:20 AM

Maybe I just don't get certain parts pf GTD.

I think that the need for linkage between actions and projects cannot be addressed with a simple yes or no. Links can very in the degree to which they are implicit (held mentally) or explicit (portrayed in an external system). they can vary in how information laden they are and the nature of the information Links can vary in how they are accessed and from where they are accessible.

The kinds of links we need may vary with the nature of the project, how experienced we are with the type of project, our own workstyle and the work environment.

My three biggest problems in implementing GTD are that I need links between n/as in the Doing stage. in the Processing stage, and in the Weekly Review.

Why I need links while Doing:

1. I can't always do the n/a as I have initally specified it but I am in the right context and have the time. For example, a part that I want is no longer made in the size I need, I misjudged my ability to do something a certain way, I can't get hold of the exact person or data I specificed in my n/a. But, I am a great improviser, if I can easily link back to a description of the project and a list of the the key actions, specifications or suboutcomes, I can readily revise my approach and often do needed actions in some form.

3. I often have a real enthusian for a certain project and am mentally ready to work as far as I can go in the context I am in or to even put myself in the various contexts because the project is feeling really do-able at that time. I need to readily link back to all the key points.

4. I often can't really complete a n/a without a real picture of the whole in my mind while I am doing the n/a.

5. The exact way I complete an n/a may depend on what the next one could be. As a simple example, which of the tools and materials should I put away?

6. Completing a n/a often gives me insight into how to adjust the project's design or how I conceive the outcome or timeline or even sud-divide the project. I need to make those notes right away, keep them with the project description or they will be forgotten.

Why I need links during Processing:

1. Stuff comes in that I know is relevant to a project or I discover something that I think could be relevant. When I process it, I need to ensure first that I have not already included it, or conversly excluded for some reason. If it is a SDMB, I can just put it in the project file but even then I would rather add it to a on on-going outline.

2. I need to make sure that I have not done it already.

With regard to the Weekly Review, I need to link back from n/a lists to projects because:

1. Sometimes I decided that a n/a I specified is not what it should be and that is why I did not do it, and I need to remember why.
2. I can't remember if I have done the n/a.
3. Doing the n/a resulted in new information or a new plan.

Finally, it is a husge boost mentally, when I can complete an n/a and go bavk to my rpoejct description immediatly and see that I only have one or two more to go

What I think I need are small outlines of my projects that will fit in my Palm and synch to my desktop. I need these so that I can check off actions that have been done, refer to specifications and comments and readily reveiw the status of the project.

Brent

12-15-2006, 01:12 PM

Somewhere recently, I read David Allen mention that he's becoming increasingly focused on the Projects list as a key ingredient to Getting Things Done,.

I may be wrong, but I wonder if more frequent reviews of the Projects list would decrease peoples' need for an NA-Project link. If you're aware of your Projects, you won't need to be reminded of them as often.

kewms

12-15-2006, 01:37 PM

Paul@Pittsburgh

12-15-2006, 01:52 PM

The Project List itself is just a list, and doesn't inherently contain any project support information.

This is true. Although for some people, especially those that may need to report on the status of a project, the ability to quickly identify current next actions or waiting for's are clearly beneficial. It is true that this could be put into a project support area, but the linking of the current next action to the project would still have to be made by those individuals.

As with many things related to GTD, the system is highly flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of different types of individual requirements.

Paul

tominperu

12-15-2006, 07:05 PM

It occurs to me that this thread may be conflating two issues.

Katherine

Yes, in fact, reading through all the posts so far there may be more than two. In terms of function/needs I can identify five.

1) To check whether each project has a next action during the weekly review.

2) To review a project and see the next action/s associated with it together with project support materials (plans, reference info etc).

3) To know an actions associated project so that it can easily be done.

4) To easily see a project's existing next actions such that one can process stuff from the inbox (ie to know whether its already in the system)

5) To report the status of a project.

I have to say that 2) 3) 4) and 5) are definitely not a problem for me.

For two I can just look at the project support materials and I remember what next actions I already have and don't have (as Katherine suggests).

Three is not needed if the next action is adequately written (I think it was Ruud who mentioned that)

and for four, I just look at my action list.

I'm not really qualified to comment on 5) as I'm self employed, so don't report to anybody, but I imagine I could just look through my project support materials for this.

I do sometimes wish I could look at my project list and quickly see which projects lack a next action (1). But as I've said before, I can usually remember easily anyway by quickly scanning the list. The effort of keeping the links up to date is more than that of quickly scanning lists when I need to. I'm still keeping an open mind but that's how it is at present with the tools I'm using.

Tom

jpm

12-15-2006, 07:49 PM

In principle, I agree with you. There are lots of pieces of software that claim to do exactly this, and I'm a firm believer in the idea that there's no reason to bother with inadequate tools. ...

Katherine is right... as usual. I think there are a couple of related thoughts about the state of the existing tools that are out there. (And I have tried all of them... before I finally came to the conclusion that I didn't really need an implicit link...

To Katherine's points:

1. The existing tools don't work very well. In theory hierarchical outliners seem to be okay, but once you get to the 150 projects/200 next action level the UI just isn't good enough to get the job done. At least that has been my experience.

2. These tools don't address the problem well because we as the user community have failed to express the "requirement" well. More to the point, many believe that a NA-project link is necessary, but I've yet to read a compelling use case that describes why its needed. While requirements get you part of the way, without a use-case no programmer can give you what you really want.

3. David clearly believes that there are more important an subtle challenges with implementation that the very question brings about. That's the conclusion I've eventually come to.

4. There is a lot to be said for not over-engineering a solution. Google is pretty succesful with a pretty basic home page... Clean & Simple. A clean and simple implementation works pretty well. At least for me...

5. Architectural challenges. Many are trying to use a mixed bag of tools to get outlook to sync with palm and have a project tag on the palm. These systems just weren't designed for that kind of integration. In fact, I'd argue that Microsoft probably went to great lengths to make sure it was difficult to do so they could force us to buy Windows based hand-helds .... sorry, that's a diffferent rant entirely....

So the next acton seems to be what is a compelling use case for having next actions tie to projects?

jpm

12-15-2006, 08:14 PM

I'll take Jamie's great list as an example and give my thoughts on each as possible use cases.

My three biggest problems in implementing GTD are that I need links between n/as in the Doing stage. in the Processing stage, and in the Weekly Review.

Why I need links while Doing:

1. I can't always do the n/a as I have initally specified it but I am in the right context and have the time. For example, a part that I want is no longer made in the size I need, I misjudged my ability to do something a certain way, I can't get hold of the exact person or data I specificed in my n/a. But, I am a great improviser, if I can easily link back to a description of the project and a list of the the key actions, specifications or suboutcomes, I can readily revise my approach and often do needed actions in some form.

Several thoughts here:
i.) If you are in the right context, have time and energy, and still can't do the next action then it wasn't really a next action. It had an unknown prerequisite. Still you should have enough information in the next action notes to be able to now quickly identify what the next action might be. if you can do it in the existing context simply do it. If not then simply add it to that context next action list.

ii.) In some contexts it may make sense to go back to the project support materials and get additional information. In those contexts (@Office, @Computer, @Networked), it probably makes sense to have your project support materials out and about when you are working on the next action anyway... @Calls or @Errands for example, I'm not sure what good the additional information would really do for you...

iii.) The mind is intuitively just as fast as the computer in making this link (at least that's what I've found.) I can typically while working on a next action, immediately identify the correct project and if necessary bring up my projects list in the to do application. I usually keep a back-of-the-envelope project plan and historical notes in the notes section for the project. This is about as easy as it gets.

3. I often have a real enthusian for a certain project and am mentally ready to work as far as I can go in the context I am in or to even put myself in the various contexts because the project is feeling really do-able at that time. I need to readily link back to all the key points.

i.) Where did #2 go?

ii.) What context are you typically in here? I would think @Office, @Computer, @Networked. In any of these cases your project support material should be sitting on your desk open in front of you. Not sure why you need an explicit link?

4. I often can't really complete a n/a without a real picture of the whole in my mind while I am doing the n/a.

This indicates one of two things to me; possibly both:

I would think the following might be true:
i.) You are not writing out your next actions specifically enough.
ii.) You are not doing your weekly (project) review as frequently as you need to be.

5. The exact way I complete an n/a may depend on what the next one could be. As a simple example, which of the tools and materials should I put away?

I don't see the issue here. You look at your next action lists and select the next action. It may or may not be part of the project you are currently working on. Doesn't matter. Select the next action to work on and then put your tools away... and get out the project support materials for the next project.

6. Completing a n/a often gives me insight into how to adjust the project's design or how I conceive the outcome or timeline or even sud-divide the project. I need to make those notes right away, keep them with the project description or they will be forgotten.

By opening the project list and making a notation on the project notes?

Why I need links during Processing:

1. Stuff comes in that I know is relevant to a project or I discover something that I think could be relevant. When I process it, I need to ensure first that I have not already included it, or conversly excluded for some reason. If it is a SDMB, I can just put it in the project file but even then I would rather add it to a on on-going outline.

As I read GTD, this is handled by putting this material in your project support materials.

2. I need to make sure that I have not done it already.

This should be intuitively obvious if you are doing your weekly reviews.

With regard to the Weekly Review, I need to link back from n/a lists to projects because:

1. Sometimes I decided that a n/a I specified is not what it should be and that is why I did not do it, and I need to remember why.

If you realized this at some point during the week then you should have captured the information and fed it into your system. If not then it should be handled during the weekly review.

2. I can't remember if I have done the n/a.

Again a sign that you are not doing your weekly reviews often enough...

3. Doing the n/a resulted in new information or a new plan.

Again this should have been updated on the project support materials as soon as the change occured.

Finally, it is a husge boost mentally, when I can complete an n/a and go bavk to my rpoejct description immediatly and see that I only have one or two more to go

Or an overwhelming crushing feeling if you go back and find 10 more things to complete on this goal than you had when you woke up last week.

What I think I need are small outlines of my projects that will fit in my Palm and synch to my desktop. I need these so that I can check off actions that have been done, refer to specifications and comments and readily reveiw the status of the project.

I've tried several of these, and could never get one to work to my satisfaction....

mcogilvie

12-15-2006, 08:52 PM

It occurs to me that this thread may be conflating two issues.

The first is ready access to project support materials. When I pick up the phone to make a call, do I have the information I need handy?

The second is the format of the Next Action and Project lists. Does a Next Action clearly indicate the Project to which it belongs? Does the Project list provide a clear indicator when a Project does (or doesn't) have an Action associated with it?

I do keep basic project information (desired outcome, likely next actions, perhaps key issues and information) as notes associated with project list items on handheld and computers. This is by far what I need most often to move a project forward, along with files on my computers (which are synced between home and work). Honestly, I think nothing else makes sense for me. Why have such small snippets of information (usually less than 2K- a page of text) buried in a file folder which can only be in one place? I do want to see that project information fairly often when I do the next action, and the action after that.

While a well-written next action may point me to appropriate project entry, that is in fact linking. If I write a next action as "Translate Large-N PT MS into LaTeX" ( a real next action for me), I have essentially embedded the project name, which is "Write Large-N PT MS" into the Next Action. In my experience, this sort of linking does not scale well. Of course, neither do drop-down list of projects. It's fine for a drop-down list to have 10-20 contexts (@Home, @SpaceStation,..), but a drop-down project list of 50 or more items is not easily used. And then there is the question of easily determining when a project needs a new next action.

I therefore have a challenge for those people who feel that lists plus weekly review are completely sufficient for their long lists of projects and next actions. Show the rest of us how it's done. Show us your lists (or a convincing simulation or a subset) and explain how you maintain it all. Any takers?

Borisoff

12-16-2006, 01:28 AM

I need the link between NA and Project first to lighten the choice between to NAs. For example I have Call Bill and Call Jim. What's more important? Having project tag allows to choose by priority. So I put project tag: Call PRJA Bill and Call PRJB Jim. Second I use it during WR to make sure I have something somewhere in my system that relates to this project and that could remind me of any other actions I should put into.

Regards,

Eugene.

kewms

12-16-2006, 06:40 AM

I therefore have a challenge for those people who feel that lists plus weekly review are completely sufficient for their long lists of projects and next actions. Show the rest of us how it's done. Show us your lists (or a convincing simulation or a subset) and explain how you maintain it all. Any takers?

Well, the first challenge everyone mentions in this context is scalability. "Sure, that's fine if your project lists are short, but when you get to 150 or 200 projects, it breaks down."

To which my response is what the heck are you doing with 200 projects? I've expressed my belief in vigorous list pruning elsewhere, so I won't bore everyone again, but I would argue that scaling limitations can be seen as a warning that you are overloaded. Perhaps the answer is to trim the list, not change the tools. If you can't review everything in a reasonable amount of time, chances are you can't do it all anyway.

My own list has 32 current projects, ranging from short ones with a handful of actions to massive year-long endeavors. Future projects and Someday/Maybes add another couple dozen. A different breakdown of subprojects would probably take the count up into the 50s, but this works for me. I list 65 NAs total across all contexts, ranging from standalone phone calls and errands to tasks that require an hour or more of focused attention. These numbers are pre-Weekly Review and will probably go up (it's been a busy week), but not by more than 10% or so.

As described elsewhere, I keep a paper system. Context lists are in a Junior size Circa notebook, Project lists are in a Letter size Circa notebook. For small projects, I'll just list any obvious future actions (need to be done, but not the Very Next Action) in the main project list. Larger projects will have their own page of future actions, along with whatever plans and support materials seem necessary.

I try to write Next Actions so that they provide whatever context information I need, or at least a pointer to the appropriate project when support materials are needed. So that takes care of the Next Action -> Project link.

In the other direction, well, it just works. Sometimes the project plan explicitly includes the Next Action, sometimes it's simply a list of subprojects. Either way, it takes just a moment to remind myself what the next action should be, and then another moment to verify that it's on the appropriate context list. It's just not that hard.

*shrug* I guess that's the point. People advocating for an explicit linking system talk about the overwhelming difficulty of keeping track of things without such a link, and my response is basically "Huh?" It's just not a problem I have, which suggests that there's some other difference between people who worry about links and people who don't.

Now, I guess you could argue that my system *does* include links, I'm just not admitting it. And in a way it does. I have Next Actions like "@Email April re: Project deadline schedule." I have lists of future actions in my project support materials. But the point is that that's enough. I don't have "project codes," I don't have macros that walk through my project outlines and pull out actions, I don't have Outlook categories and views to sort things by project or context as needed. (Although at various times I've used all of those methods.) I just have a handful of paper. And it works fine, and I don't tear out my hair trying to remember where I put stuff. *shrug* YMMV.

Katherine

Brent

12-16-2006, 07:30 AM

Howard

12-16-2006, 11:28 AM

Fascinating thread - especially for one so new to GTD like me.

I don't want to sound glib but surely, a way to ensure that any given project always has a n/a is to make a quick review of the project immediately you complete that n/a. Immediately determining the NEXT next action might be a solution - or, if time is short, make a note that one is required.

Howard

jpm

12-16-2006, 08:18 PM

Well, the first challenge everyone mentions in this context is scalability. "Sure, that's fine if your project lists are short, but when you get to 150 or 200 projects, it breaks down."

To which my response is what the heck are you doing with 200 projects? I've expressed my belief in vigorous list pruning elsewhere, so I won't bore everyone again, but I would argue that scaling limitations can be seen as a warning that you are overloaded. Perhaps the answer is to trim the list, not change the tools. If you can't review everything in a reasonable amount of time, chances are you can't do it all anyway.

I don't know if you were referring to my previous post or not. My project list ranges from about 50 to 150. I currenlty have 81. These include projects that I have delegated to direct reports.

I don't disagree that pruning your project list is certainly advisable. Fewer projects = greater focus = better results faster. However, its not something I always have the ability to do. My boss seems to like it when my team is overly busy...

Delegated projects are pretty easy to track and move forward. Most likely the next action is an @Waiting For. I check in with my people regularly and each week I've got an hour set aside to go through their 8-10 projects each. If they need help with something, I may have a next action (often a call to grease the skids for them...) Otherwise I will just have a waiting for of the next project milestone. Since we review these weekly during 1:1 meetings, my weekly review on these projects is very fast.

Sometimes its necessary to keep a large number of projects moving, and this can be done if you can leverage sufficiently. Even a half hour on each of 100 projects will move them forward, though not as much as 2 hours each on 25 projects...

There probably is an upper limit, and I don't think I've ever hit 200, but 100+ is pretty common for me.

tominperu

12-16-2006, 09:02 PM

1. The existing tools don't work very well. In theory hierarchical outliners seem to be okay, but once you get to the 150 projects/200 next action level the UI just isn't good enough to get the job done. At least that has been my experience.

2. These tools don't address the problem well because we as the user community have failed to express the "requirement" well.

Jpm,
this is interesting, you are saying that hiercarchical outliners don't work with lots of projects while I was thinking that's when they might come into their own! I have few projects and so have little need for a project/action link but I was thinking this might be different if I had loads of projects. But you're saying the opposite.

I assume something like Life Balance is a hiercarchical outliners. Why didn't it work for you with lots of projects? (also, incidently, what is UI? - I have no idea)

Your idea that we as GTDer users have not made our needs clear on what we want from software tools is also interesting.

Anyone willing to say exactly what they would like?

I'll have a go now:

If I did want a project/action link, the tool could work like this. I just want to see the two lists side be side on the screen: project list and action list. Projects that don't have a next action show up in red. If I want to make a link I just click on the project and then click on an action, and that's it. When the curser is over a project, the next action should also appear. If it was that simple I MIGHT go back to a project action link!

Tom

jpm

12-17-2006, 07:06 AM

Jpm,
this is interesting, you are saying that hiercarchical outliners don't work with lots of projects while I was thinking that's when they might come into their own! I have few projects and so have little need for a project/action link but I was thinking this might be different if I had loads of projects. But you're saying the opposite.

I assume something like Life Balance is a hiercarchical outliners. Why didn't it work for you with lots of projects? (also, incidently, what is UI? - I have no idea)

UI is User Interface. I've found tools such as Life Balance and other hierarchical outliners difficult to use for several reasons. I think the most prominant is that with larger numbers of Next Actions and Projects it is difficult to assign the next action to a project. Most tools use a drop down box and picking from 150 items doesn't work nearly as well as picking from a dozen.

I don't know that drop down boxes are really the problem, I think it is really more a matter of screen real estate... I just can't see all 150 projects on the list...

Remembering what I named a project can also be difficult. When I look at a next action, I intuitively know what it is about but I don't necessarily instantly recall what I named (tagged) the project. So finding the name in the list can be a pain sometimes.

When I've played with these tools they've made my weekly review run about 50% longer as I fiddle with putting in all the links... It just seems like wasted time to me so its something I don't worry about anymore...

I'm not saying it's not possible to develop something that would be useful but so far I haven't seen it.

Your idea that we as GTDer users have not made our needs clear on what we want from software tools is also interesting.

Anyone willing to say exactly what they would like?

I'll have a go now:

If I did want a project/action link, the tool could work like this. I just want to see the two lists side be side on the screen: project list and action list. Projects that don't have a next action show up in red. If I want to make a link I just click on the project and then click on an action, and that's it. When the curser is over a project, the next action should also appear. If it was that simple I MIGHT go back to a project action link!
Tom

Actually a side-by-side view would go a long ways toward making this easier. So far, I haven't seen an app that does this... But it would make doing the weekly review much easier...

I'd prefer speed keys to mouse clicks however...

Ivy

12-18-2006, 10:12 AM

One more thought:

I don't need the link when I'm "cranking" so my NA list has no reference to projects apart from clear titles "Call Bob re TA travel" versus "Call Bob" or "Finish XYZ report conclusion" versus "Finish report." I started with references to projects in the NA list and it just slowed things down (because I'd always end up THINKING about the project instead of DOING the NA).

However, I do like to see the link when I'm doing a weekly review of my project list. I like to see the NAs I've completed, the NAs I'm working on, and the items I came up with as possible next NAs. It's a good reminder for me of project scope and gives me ideas for by inbox (more stuff to do). And I can easily make sure that all the projects are working. I'm notorious for "forgetting" or "losing" projects that aren't in my face so this helps me double-check that each of my active projects are working.

The tool I use allows me to do that with no duplication and very little overhead. I did have to come to terms with the idea that not all NAs will be under their project. Something quick and dirty I come up with during the week might not get filed under anything... but it does get accomplished (or if it doesn't, I'll pull it under its project during the weekly review).

moises

12-18-2006, 01:25 PM

I look back at the evolution of my use of GTD and I have to chuckle at some of the objections made to linking projects to NAs, because they are so much at odds with my own personal experience.

When I first started my GTD implementation, I did it in Excel and I had a tab for each context, as well as one for Waiting For, and another for Someday/Maybe. Note, I started at the runway level. I didn't have a projects list.

Then I graduated to Outlook. I still didn't keep a projects list. And I didn't have project plans for anything except the most massive projects like moves and real estate acquisitions.

Eventually I migrated to the GTD Add-In for Outlook. I started creating projects with NAs under them. But I was never comfortable with the way projects worked in Outlook. I would resist creating a project, precisely because of the objections raised here: it was too costly in terms of time and too cumbersome for me to make the effort.

Now I use a hierarchical outliner. Only now do I implement GTD as David Allen himself recommends. Now, if there is the possibility of my needing more than one NA, I will create a project. There is virtually no cost. And the effort of answering the question, "What is the desired outcome?" forces me to formulate a clear project title, e.g. "November bank account reconciled." If I can achieve the desired outcome with a single NA, I won't create a project but otherwise I find it very helpful to write this desired outcome down in a clearly stated phrase.

How many people create a project when there are 2 NAs? I never did until I used an outliner program. It was too much trouble. Now I create a project in my outline and then put a NA under it.

Using my outliner application, I can filter my system by context, by contact (person I am waiting for), or by due date. I can view NAs only and I can view my project list only. But my favorite view is the outline view, where I see all the NAs lined up under my projects.

I don't conceive of myself as "linking my NAs to projects." Rather, I am creating a project list and ensuring that there are NAs attached to all the projects.

Most of my projects do not have project plans. But if they need them, they are in the attached notes of my project.

Yes, I do my Weekly Review regularly and yes, I agree that the Weekly Review is essential to my GTD implementation. But I still don't want to keep my project list one place, my NA list another place, and the connection between them in my head. David had a good idea: get it out of your head!

My outliner application has the capability to tell me which NA I should be working on right now. I never look at this. David's right: my world changes much too quickly and suddenly for me to follow some algorithm based on inputs I made last week. I don't want to put in the overhead assigning values to all my NAs so the machine can spit out an ordered list of NAs. Like David says, I use my intuition to figure out which NA I am going to do next.

I would like to pose a question. If you see on your list the NA, "Buy kumquats," do you assign it to a context like Errands? If you're doing GTD, the answer is an emphatic, "Yes!" Why? Is it because otherwise you're going to try to buy kumquats when you are working out at the gym or when you are sitting at your desk at the office? You know in your head that buying kumquats occurs when you are doing errands. But you still tolerate the overhead of assigning "Buy kumquats" a context because when you are in your Errands context you want to have a system that can filter your Errands and see them all nicely listed.

I know that "Buy kumquats" falls under my project "John's party successfully completed." In the same way that I want to see all my Errands NAs when I am doing Errands, there are times when I want to see all the NAs related to John's party. Especially when I am doing my Weekly Review, I want to see my project and all the NAs that are still open for it. Like a mind map, this enables me to think clearly about other NAs that I need to add.

I use contexts to keep my data organized. I use projects to keep my data organized as well.

br4978

12-18-2006, 01:39 PM

Which outliner do you use? I'm interested because the filtering capabilities sound like a feature I could use....

TIA -

MB

Jeff K

12-18-2006, 03:51 PM

Yes, I do my Weekly Review regularly and yes, I agree that the Weekly Review is essential to my GTD implementation. But I still don't want to keep my project list one place, my NA list another place, and the connection between them in my head. David had a good idea: get it out of your head!

Well said!

jamie007

12-18-2006, 09:28 PM

This is a great thread. Tom has made some great points at the Propel'r blog (http://blog.propelr.com/2006/11/28/an-invite-to-voice-your-requirements) and I would encourage others to bombard us with as many ideas as possible so that we can try and deliver the ultimate GTD / project management app.

The reason I always mention project management is that we are trying to push the use of GTD as part of a team. We even use the GTD methodology with clients i.e. client requests (tickets in Propel'r). These are just another part of the "collection" process and Propel'r gives you ways to easily convert requests/tickets into projects and actions.

I would love to give more information on the specifics of Propel'r (http://www.propelr.com), however I don't want to make any empty promises. Please keep an eye on the site for further developments and we'd love to hear peoples suggestions.

StuGib

12-19-2006, 01:22 AM

I know that "Buy kumquats" falls under my project "John's party successfully completed." In the same way that I want to see all my Errands NAs when I am doing Errands, there are times when I want to see all the NAs related to John's party. Especially when I am doing my Weekly Review, I want to see my project and all the NAs that are still open for it. Like a mind map, this enables me to think clearly about other NAs that I need to add.

I agree with all your previous points I snipped about what an outliner can offer, and have written about how I use Bonsai to do those very things, but this last point is the hurdle that usually causes my system to break down and why I'm now looking at less informal, or no links between projects/actions.

The problem is searching for the project when I'm processing my inbox. So I see 'buy kumquats' and then have to search for 'John's party...'. Individually that doesn't sound like a big deal, but it's another overhead which builds up a resistance to processing my inbox.

The other issue I've found is that I slip into making my outline a project planner rather than a list. It's too easy (for me) when I add 'buy kumquats' to add a sub-project of 'All food bought' and before I know it I've got a 2-3 level structure per project which makes the search and maintenance even more difficult.

My other idea is to try and limit myself to one level per project (one top-level project item with only one level of NA(s) underneath) and then keep project plans/subprojects (e.g. bought food, invited guests) in a separate outline and just bring NAs across to the main list when needed.

Have you found any of these problems, and if so, how do you overcome them?

moises

12-19-2006, 05:23 AM

To br4978:

I use something called Achieve Planner produced by effexis software. The user base is not heavily oriented towards GTD but I find it works well with GTD and the developer, Rodger Constandse, has been quite responsive to my feature requests.

To StuGib:

The issues you raise are quite significant and need to be addressed.

1. I have the NA "Buy kumquats" in my inbox. How do I find the project denoting John's party so I can get the NA organized into my system?

This was something I did not like about the Outlook GTD Add-In. The drop down lists were cumbersome. In my current application, I don't find this to be a problem. Typically, I use Ctrl-F to search for "John" or "party." We are talking about less than a second. Once the cursor is in located in the correct project, I hit Ctrl-Insert and type "Buy kumquats."

My personal experience has been that this is a non-issue.

2. An outliner is a great tool for planning projects. Isn't the temptation there to use the outliner as a project planner? But if you succumb to that temptation, you are violating the principles of GTD. You are clogging your system with actions that are not NAs but future actions that are dependent on NAs.

This is a very real issue. My outliner allows me to create task dependencies, so I could have "Buy kumquats," and then its successor actions, "Wash kumquats," etc.

My outliner has the functionality that permits me to enter all these tasks, with their dependencies. My outliner would then generate an ordered task list. On that list, "Buy kumquats," would appear above "Wash kumquats."

But I do not use this functionality. My world moves too quickly and my priorities shift rapidly. So I adhere to the GTD discipline of listing only nondependent NAs.

If I want to create a project plan, typically, I will create it in the "notes" part of my project description.

Originally, I was attracted to outliners because I knew that LifeBalance would generate an ordered list of tasks and that sounded like the Holy Grail. I would truly enter GTD nirvana and only have to think once a week, during my Weekly Review. The rest of the week I would merely execute. I am sorry to say that, given my constitutional makeup and given the nature of my job, I can't work that way. So I practice good old-fashioned GTD and use my intuition to decide what I am going to work on next.

So much for nitty-gritty detail. My larger point is that I have found an outliner to be an essential tool for doing GTD as David Allen recommends. Pre-outliner, I resisted creating a project when my desired outcome had two NAs. I would rely on my intuition to remind me, after I completed the first NA, to start the second NA. Now that I have a more effective tool, I create projects at the drop of a hat. Once I check off a NA as complete, I look at my project name, if the desired outcome has not yet been achieved, I add a new NA. Because I am more inclined to create projects, I reap more of the benefits of what David Allen, in the last chapter of his GTD book, calls "the power of outcome focusing."

Longstreet

12-19-2006, 05:41 AM

Hi Moises,

I would love to see how you have adapted Achieve Planner to GTD. I also have this program and think it is great. Would you be willing to share with me your setup?

Thanks,
Longstreet

moises

12-19-2006, 10:33 AM

Longstreet,

Welcome, fellow APer.
I will try to write up my AP configuration in a different thread. I don't want to hijack this thread. I'll put it in the "Gear, gadgets, . . " forum in the next day or so.

moises

Ivy

12-19-2006, 12:48 PM

I use Bonsai as well and have some of the same issues...

The problem is searching for the project when I'm processing my inbox. So I see 'buy kumquats' and then have to search for 'John's party...'. Individually that doesn't sound like a big deal, but it's another overhead which builds up a resistance to processing my inbox.

The other issue I've found is that I slip into making my outline a project planner rather than a list. ...

My other idea is to try and limit myself to one level per project (one top-level project item with only one level of NA(s) underneath)...

Have you found any of these problems, and if so, how do you overcome them?

First, finding projects. I currently don't have that many active projects, so I simply open the project filter (basically everything except super long-range stuff is in one giant outline with multiple filters) and search or sort by text. I have my defaults set to always create new items like siblings (this helps both for adding NAs to projects as well as loose NAs to context lists).

Second, level limits. I rarely have more than three levels: Goals, Projects, and NAs (and I'm thinking that that's too many and the goals/project thing is just pointless and just complicates stuff). There are very rare exceptions (for example a project that has several parts that happen over various weeks... I create them as sub-project items but then promote them to the top level during my weekly review).

Third, inbox processing. I've resigned myself to having NAs that might be under a project, but that are just floating loose in my NA list. It might be something I type in quickly on the fly or that came in quickly. But so what? I typically know what it's for and can move it under the project later if I want. Since I work from flat NA lists, I don't see the projects while I'm working anyway.

Paul@Pittsburgh

12-20-2006, 05:02 AM

This continues to be an interesting discussion.

Currently I am using a Projects as Contacts method (or a hybrid of this). There is an overhead in terms of time in making the link between the NA and the Project, although I have found that creating the project in the first instance takes longer than making the link.

There are clearly diverse opinions as to whether a hard link is needed or not. My thought having read the replies and thought about this more myself is that it probably depends on the degree to which we each feel comfortable having that link or not, and whether the time taken to create the links is time well spent. For me it is, since it offers me peace of mind that I can review my projects whenever I want to and see what actions or waiting for's I have on that project.

To those that consider 150, 180, 200+ projects too many to have on the go at any one time - again this depends on your circumstances and definitions. Is a project truely actionable if it has a waiting for and you don't want to move it to a someday/maybe? That would easily account for about 100 of my projects before I even begin to consider the actionable ones. Sure I could move them to another list, but that just creates another overhead for me and having to decide when to move them back on the list etc. So it depends on our circumstances and comfort factor I think.

I feel comfortable with 200 projects because I have the NA links. The few seconds in establishing the link saves me more time (and feelings of discomfort) later than not creating the link and having to figure it out at the review stage.

Also, I don't know about others, but a lot of my projects tend to be action driven/created. By this, I mean that they first appear at my runway. So I create a NA for a WF if I reply straight away. My first inclination is not to create the project although I am getting better at this because I don't know if it will lead to another action or not - e.g. send a prospect info creates a WF and they may answer they are not interested - no action needed! So actually having a Project-NA link helps me make sure that my projects have NAs and also that NA's and WF's where appropriate have Projects too.

I can work from either my NA list or my Projects list as I choose.

As a curiosity I am going to try and estimate how much this costs me in overhead time each day for a week - just to give myself a more measured feel for it.

Paul

kewms

12-20-2006, 05:09 AM

Paul@Pittsburgh

12-20-2006, 05:26 AM

When the only action is a Waiting For or a followup phone call, I put the item in my tickler file for the followup date. These usually don't count toward my project total and do not appear on my project list.

Whatever works...

Katherine

DO you track the follow up date anywhere Katherine?

I am interested in this because this is an area I want to improve on. Some of my prospects take 1-2 years to get their funds together - so I have a WF, but not a clear follow up date with them - too soon puts them off, too long and I lose touch and feel less proactive. So I tend to think in terms of 3-6 months ahead and just contact them with a newsletter or something. But unless I track the follow up date and know which Tickler its in when it does come in, I have to potentially search through half a dozen files. Well maybe that is not so onerous but you get the idea.

I should add - another benefit I do see of keeping them as a project, is that if a piece of info comes across my path, I think they are interested in, then I can pass that across because they continue to be in my mind at each WR. I don't know if that would happen if I put them in a tickler.

Paul

andersons

12-20-2006, 11:38 AM

I find that I also often merge different projects into one and sometimes decide to split a project into a number of smaller projects. Can the links be easily shifterd around in Life Balance or will I have to spend time at weekly review keeping the links current?

Splitting projects is natural because the new subprojects should become new levels in the outline.

If you define a project by its successful desired outcome, that should rarely change. Under the project should come all the actions, subprojects, whatever is needed to complete the project. It shouldn't matter how many items it takes or how many levels. Just throw everything under that parent project. The "link" is automatic and should take no time to "keep current."

If you complete every item under a parent project, the project itself will show up on your ToDo list. If the project is not done, you know that you need to define another action to move it forward. The childless project catches you; you do not need to catch it.

This feature is a major time-saver, believe me.

Stuff in the outline generally takes the format

> Highest level = organizing category of projects
--> Successful project outcome is completed?
-----> NA A
-----> NA B
-----> NAs that have to be completed in order (only one at a time shows on ToDo)
--------> NA 1
--------> NA 2
--------> NA 3

A successful outcome is a successful outcome. I have a hard time imagining why I would need to merge or split project successful outcomes in a project outline. (Merging or splitting would roughly be the same as moving file "folders" on a computer's hard drive, visualized in an outline view, like with Windows Explorer Folder pane.) But instead, I urge you to specify your project as an outcome, which will rarely change, and throw everything needed to complete that outcome underneath it.

tominperu

12-20-2006, 01:20 PM

If you define a project by its successful desired outcome, that should rarely change. Under the project should come all the actions, subprojects, whatever is needed to complete the project. It shouldn't matter how many items it takes or how many levels. Just throw everything under that parent project. The "link" is automatic and should take no time to "keep current."

If you complete every item under a parent project, the project itself will show up on your ToDo list. If the project is not done, you know that you need to define another action to move it forward. The childless project catches you; you do not need to catch it.

This feature is a major time-saver, believe me.

Stuff in the outline generally takes the format

> Highest level = organizing category of projects
--> Successful project outcome is completed?
-----> NA A
-----> NA B
-----> NAs that have to be completed in order (only one at a time shows on ToDo)
--------> NA 1
--------> NA 2
--------> NA 3

Thanks for that andersons. I intend to start trying Life Balance this weekend. I think I need to use it over a period of time to get used to the new way of working and give it a fair trial.

Many of the recent posts on this thread seem to be from people who use outliners and say they like them.

Tom

andersons

12-20-2006, 03:01 PM

In the Podcast interview that Merlin Mann and David created, David specifically stated that he has never had the question, "How do I link next actions and projects?" raised by someone who consistently did their Weekly Review.

So I guess David's answer is that your brain does the linking, and there is no software that even comes close to power and efficiency of your brain - and that, besides adding the drag of additional data entry.
From the viewpoint of rationally analyzing the methodology of GTD, this answer leaves a lot to be desired.

First, the Weekly Review as described in the book is a long process that many people find difficult to do. Compliance is a big problem with this stage of the GTD process.

If anyone following any system of productivity (or no particular system at all) were to spend two hours each week (the number mentioned in the book) thinking about and reviewing everything he needs to do, he'd be organized and quite on top of things.

This is like Dr. Atkins saying that he has never seen a person follow the Induction Phase of his diet and not lose weight.

Second, "your brain does the linking" does not fit very well with the "get everything out of your head" message drilled elsewhere. And it is not a good line of reasoning. Why keep a Projects list at all? My brain knows what project each action belongs to! Keeping a separate Projects list is a lot of extra data entry and maintenance overhead that definitely creates a lot of drag in the system -- as compared to a basic ToDo list.

Third, "there is no software that even comes close to the power and efficiency of your brain" is a ridiculous statement. Well-designed software routinely does certain tasks many orders of magnitude faster and more efficiently than any human brain can -- which is why computers exist.

For me, if software can link related pieces of information together, I am not going to spend any time linking them with my own brain during a Weekly Review. Why should I?

andersons

12-20-2006, 03:25 PM

This is exactly the point. If you aren't doing your weekly review, you aren't doing GTD.
Hmm. Well, maybe so, but then I guess GTD is not the only way to get things done, or even necessarily the Best Way.

It took me a year to realize that David was right. Just before going to Road Map in SF last year I sat down to prove him wrong. I was certain I needed the link (I'd only been doing weekly reviews about every other week). I did a weekly review (over 200 projects and close to 300 Next Actions) and then went through every next action and instantly knew what project it was for...
If you had been linking them previously, and reviewing them every other week, then of course you should be able to identify the correct project for each action, given a list of actions.

The real question is how well your brain would know your projects and actions if you had never, ever organized them with external links.

The act of organizing information by somehow visualizing relationships changes the way your brain represents and recalls the information -- even after you stop visualizing the relationships externally.

But it would need to be completely automated, zero-overhead feature to be of use... Even 3 seconds is too much overhead given the payoff. Over a year, 3 seconds x 200 Next Actions/Week x 52 weeks ~ 10 hours of overhead annually. I'd much rather have the 10 hours for something more productive...
For me, 3 seconds is a worst-case, not the typical case. And no, 3 seconds is not too much. It saves much more time during Weekly Review, when it probably takes more than 3 seconds to make sure your project has a NA.

Your action lists are supposed to be actionable without thinking. If this is truely the case, why would you need to know what project you are linked to in order to make a phone call?
This is not the only reason, or even an important one, to link projects and actions.

The main reason is that because projects and actions ARE REALLY linked -- the actions are steps to complete projects -- you will have to do the linking sometime, somehow. The GTD way is in one lengthy Weekly Review.

Another reason is that it is often desirable to catch projects with no NAs more often than once a week.

Another reason is that if you can instantly switch to a project-context view of an NA, you can sometimes more intelligently complete that NA. Or even see a better way to make progress on the project. Or get into a "flow" of progress on that project.

andersons

12-20-2006, 05:06 PM

And yet, maintaining the project-action link is the single most common topic in this forum, and the single most common complaint that people have about their GTD tools, both paper and electronic. No matter how good the solutions out there are in principle, clearly users continue to have trouble with them in practice.

That says to me that perhaps the software is attempting to solve the wrong problem, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the software users are not expressing their requirements clearly, perhaps because they aren't sure what their requirements are. It also suggests that the attention paid to this particular problem is misplaced: if you need a strong project-NA link, perhaps there is something more subtle wrong with your system.

I see several possible reasons for having trouble maintaining a project-action link.
1) Using tools ill-suited to do so (e.g., Outlook, paper).
Outlook and paper are probably the most widely used productivity tools. With these tools, I probably wouldn't use a link.

2) Using tools suited for the data, but not using them to their best advantage.
For example, as a long-time Life Balance user I have seen many new users (including myself) struggle with using the software because they attempt to continue to do manually what they have always done in the past, instead of letting the software do the work. This is like washing the dishes by hand before putting them in the dishwasher, and then saying that the dishwasher adds more work to the process of getting the dishes clean.

3) But there is a third reason for complaint that is the fault of the software. Even for software designed for the structure of the data, usability can suffer because of the interface. I can think of possible interface improvements for just about every tool I have tested.

But there are some that are already very good.

kewms

12-20-2006, 07:20 PM

I am interested in this because this is an area I want to improve on. Some of my prospects take 1-2 years to get their funds together - so I have a WF, but not a clear follow up date with them - too soon puts them off, too long and I lose touch and feel less proactive. So I tend to think in terms of 3-6 months ahead and just contact them with a newsletter or something. But unless I track the follow up date and know which Tickler its in when it does come in, I have to potentially search through half a dozen files. Well maybe that is not so onerous but you get the idea.

First, let me say that my prospect list is much shorter, and so is my horizon. A potential client who takes 6 months to get things together is moving very slowly by my standards. What works for me may not work for you.

Second, this sounds like the sort of thing that is a core competency of software like Act! Is there a reason why you're not using full-scale contact management software? (Note that I've never used it, and can't talk intelligently about the pros and cons.)

But with those two caveats, your question doesn't actually make sense to me. When I put an item in my tickler, *all* that is in the tickler file is a slip of paper that says something like "June 17: Call J. Doe re: Frozzbozz project. Ready to move? We talked March 3." Everything else related to J. Doe or the Frozzbozz project is filed elsewhere. If he calls me, I don't have to search through my tickler file, but through my action support materials. (Exactly what materials depends on the situation. It might be a note in his contact record, a saved email, whatever. Mostly these materials are filed electronically, and are therefore easy to search quickly.)

So no, I don't track followup dates, but I find I don't need to. YMMV.

Katherine

kewms

12-20-2006, 07:52 PM

Third, "there is no software that even comes close to the power and efficiency of your brain" is a ridiculous statement. Well-designed software routinely does certain tasks many orders of magnitude faster and more efficiently than any human brain can -- which is why computers exist.

And humans routinely do many tasks that still baffle the fastest computers, which is why most of us still have jobs. Humans can read my handwriting, for instance. :-) In general, humans are far better at pattern recognition, and particularly at finding connections and drawing inferences from seemingly disparate pieces of incomplete information. *Any* human vs. computer comparison is "ridiculous" unless you first specify the task.

I can't emphasize this point enough, because the human vs. computer comparison is at the heart of statements like this one:

For me, if software can link related pieces of information together, I am not going to spend any time linking them with my own brain during a Weekly Review. Why should I?

What is the link for? Heck, what is the Weekly Review for? Is it meaningless clerical busy work? If so, then sure, automate it out of existence if you can. Or is it "capturing, reevaluation, and reprocessing time to keep you in balance?" (GTD, ch. 8 ) If so, then even if you could automate it, should you?

Yes, failure to do the Weekly Review is a big problem for many people trying to use GTD. Failure to eat less is a big problem for many people trying to lose weight, too, but complaining about it isn't going to change the fundamental biology of weight loss.

If you can achieve "Mind Like Water (tm)" without the Weekly Review (or something like it), go for it! Tell us how! But make sure you re-read Chapter 8 in GTD first, because as I read it the whole "project-action-link" question is a pretty trivial part of the Review. It gets one sentence in a five page discussion.

Katherine

kewms

12-20-2006, 08:05 PM

The real question is how well your brain would know your projects and actions if you had never, ever organized them with external links.

The act of organizing information by somehow visualizing relationships changes the way your brain represents and recalls the information -- even after you stop visualizing the relationships externally.

Right. But that's true regardless of whether the "external link" is a section of a hierarchical outline, or a sketch scribbled on a cocktail napkin. I'm not sure it's even possible to *have* a complex project without *ever* organizing it with some form of external link, and I don't think anyone here is claiming that you should try. The question at the heart of this thread is how closely that link needs to be intertwined with the day-to-day mechanics of your GTD system.

The main reason is that because projects and actions ARE REALLY linked -- the actions are steps to complete projects -- you will have to do the linking sometime, somehow. The GTD way is in one lengthy Weekly Review.

Another reason is that it is often desirable to catch projects with no NAs more often than once a week.

Another reason is that if you can instantly switch to a project-context view of an NA, you can sometimes more intelligently complete that NA. Or even see a better way to make progress on the project. Or get into a "flow" of progress on that project.

All of these are worthy goals. I just don't find any of them particularly difficult in my clumsy, paper, weakly-linked system. Easier, in fact, than in my former slick, sophisticated electronic wonder.

*shrug* I guess that's why GTD is tool-agnostic, huh?

Katherine

gtderik

12-21-2006, 07:25 AM

my $.02, keep it simple... if projects and next actions have clear distinctions, you should have no problems going down and defining next actions for 50 projects and know what all of them are for when you go through them on your next actions lists....

andersons

12-21-2006, 08:09 AM

And humans routinely do many tasks that still baffle the fastest computers, which is why most of us still have jobs. Humans can read my handwriting, for instance. :-) In general, humans are far better at pattern recognition, and particularly at finding connections and drawing inferences from seemingly disparate pieces of incomplete information. *Any* human vs. computer comparison is "ridiculous" unless you first specify the task.
After I became friends with a bunch of computer scientists, I learned that computers are not as baffled as I once thought. There are excellent pattern recognition systems and handwriting recognition systems. There are amazing systems that draw inferences from seemingly disparate pieces of incomplete information. They are extremely expensive, though, so they are not commonplace desktop applications. In any case, though, I have learned not to say "computers can't. . ."

The task in question here, though, is linking projects and actions. More than once on this forum it's been said that David said that no computer can do this as well as your brain can. That's just not true. This is a simple task of relating two pieces of information.

It may be true that with some software applications, in practice, linking those two pieces of information might take more time than it is worth. But that does not mean that no computer software can make the effort worthwhile.

What is the link for? Heck, what is the Weekly Review for? Is it meaningless clerical busy work? If so, then sure, automate it out of existence if you can. Or is it "capturing, reevaluation, and reprocessing time to keep you in balance?" (GTD, ch. 8 ) If so, then even if you could automate it, should you?

Yes, failure to do the Weekly Review is a big problem for many people trying to use GTD. Failure to eat less is a big problem for many people trying to lose weight, too, but complaining about it isn't going to change the fundamental biology of weight loss.

If you can achieve "Mind Like Water (tm)" without the Weekly Review (or something like it), go for it! Tell us how! But make sure you re-read Chapter 8 in GTD first, because as I read it the whole "project-action-link" question is a pretty trivial part of the Review. It gets one sentence in a five page discussion.

The Weekly Review as described in the book is getting caught up. "It's going through the five phases of workflow management--collecting, processing, organizing, and reviewing all your outstanding involvements. . ."

Steps listed in the book include collecting and processing loose papers and notes.

Evaluating the status of projects one by one, ensuring that each has a NA, may be described in one sentence, but can nonetheless be time-consuming to do. In fact, any one sentence in that list of steps to do during Weekly Review could take a long time. "Process your notes" could take a long time for someone who spent the whole week in various meetings.

I have noticed that when the Weekly Review is discussed on this forum, it sounds like few do the review described in the book. Maybe the concept has officially evolved, I don't know. But the comprehensive review described in the book is a big task, and most users seem to streamline it as much as possible. I personally decided to do away with it altogether, and found I generally don't need it at all.

I just offer a different experience. Many on this thread have complained that it is time-consuming and cumbersome to create and maintain a project-action link. In my experience, it's just not that hard. And it can all but eliminate the need for review. I don't think that people who prefer to rely on automatic project-action links should feel like they are GTD losers or something. There are legitimate, reasonable alternatives to keeping the links in your head and reviewing them every week.

Brent

12-21-2006, 08:34 AM

I'm curious. How long does it take people do a Weekly Review, assuming:

You're doing Weekly Reviews regularly
You don't keep explicit Project/NA links

I have 30-35 active Projects, and it takes me about 20 minutes. This includes cross-checking Projects with NAs (and orphaned NAs), reviewing Waiting Fors, and reviewing Someday/Maybes.

kewms

12-21-2006, 08:54 AM

Brent

12-21-2006, 10:17 AM

Half an hour, give or take. Maybe as long as an hour if I skipped the previous week, or if I have some high level thinking to do.

Thanks! How many active Projects do you have?

kewms

12-21-2006, 10:20 AM

Thanks! How many active Projects do you have?

30-40, maybe the same number of Someday/Maybes.

Katherine

kewms

12-21-2006, 10:39 AM

The task in question here, though, is linking projects and actions. More than once on this forum it's been said that David said that no computer can do this as well as your brain can. That's just not true. This is a simple task of relating two pieces of information.

That's literally true, and obvious. Verifying that every item in column A has a counterpart in column B is trivial for a computer. Verifying that every Project has *the best possible* Next Action, and that the Projects are in fact the ones you need to be doing is not trivial at all. That was the point of my previous post: if you automate the Weekly Review out of existence, what have you lost?

The Weekly Review as described in the book is getting caught up. "It's going through the five phases of workflow management--collecting, processing, organizing, and reviewing all your outstanding involvements. . ."

It's also "whatever you need to do to get your head empty again."
We can quote GTD at each other all day, but since DA is tool agnostic I'm not sure what purpose that would serve in this particular conversation.

Evaluating the status of projects one by one, ensuring that each has a NA, may be described in one sentence, but can nonetheless be time-consuming to do.

If it is, your system is broken. I think we can both agree on that. the debate is about whether a technological fix is needed.

I have noticed that when the Weekly Review is discussed on this forum, it sounds like few do the review described in the book. Maybe the concept has officially evolved, I don't know. But the comprehensive review described in the book is a big task, and most users seem to streamline it as much as possible. I personally decided to do away with it altogether, and found I generally don't need it at all.

As noted elsewhere in the thread, I think mine usually takes about half an hour, and I don't see any steps that I'm skipping. Staying on top of things day-to-day helps keep the Review from being overly onerous. If I skip it, things start to drift, but the reasons have nothing to do with project-action links, and everything to do with mentally taking a step back.

Katherine

tominperu

12-21-2006, 10:56 AM

First, the Weekly Review as described in the book is a long process that many people find difficult to do. Compliance is a big problem with this stage of the GTD process.

I agree with Katherine that the issue of the project/action link has little relevance to the time taken for the weekly review. The project/action link has relevance to the time taken to check each project has a next action but this is a very small part of the weekly review for most people. In fact, this is the point that those that question the need for a project/action link are making. As a test I've just timed how long it takes me to check all projects have a next action and it took me exactly 1 minute. Okay, I have probably half the projects of most people and I did a weekly review 5 days ago (rather than 7) but I would say it takes a maximum of 3 minutes.

I take the point made my andersons that checking the project list for actions is easier with tools like Life Balance etc. With these tools I guess it takes a few seconds and then one might then do this more regularly which can be a good idea for some projects.

I'm hoping to test out Life Balance in the next few weeks to see if its advantages makes up for any added workload that might be involved in using an outliner rather than a simple action list and project list (a la Outlook). I will do this because I'm curious to the answer to this debate and also because I enjoy playing around with new tools.

I think the reason this discussion gets so heated is because people spend a lot of time getting the hang of new tools and then either feel annoyed by the idea that this is a waste of time, or annoyed because they themselves later decide that a very simple list system was the best implementation anyway.

I certainly agree with andersons that people who use tools that make the project/action link explicit should not feel like "GTD losers". That would be totally ridiculous and I assume DA would be against that.

Eleazar

12-21-2006, 11:36 AM

This has been a great discussion!

Everyone has had great points that have really helped me to better understand how to work with projcts in general.

I'm just getting started and this has been some of the best outside info I've gotten yet.

Thanks

jpm

12-22-2006, 08:01 AM

Hmm. Well, maybe so, but then I guess GTD is not the only way to get things done, or even necessarily the Best Way.

Well I suppose that is a reasonable hypothesis, but it's not one I think most people on this board (all about implementing GTD) would agree with.

If you had been linking them previously, and reviewing them every other week, then of course you should be able to identify the correct project for each action, given a list of actions.

The real question is how well your brain would know your projects and actions if you had never, ever organized them with external links.

The act of organizing information by somehow visualizing relationships changes the way your brain represents and recalls the information -- even after you stop visualizing the relationships externally.

This is exactly David's point, I believe, that the act of doing the weekly review and getting it all out of your head and on to your lists is the process by which you achieve the sense of mind-like-water or creative flow or whatever. There is so much more that comes from the weekly review than embedding the project-next action link into your brain that it makes sense to focus on doing the weekly review and not spending time fiddling with software bits to embed an explicit project-next action link in your system.

Those additional benefits include:

1. Visualizing every one of your projects completed every week. This makes you much more likely to achieve those results.

2. Going down what David calls "Constructive Rabbit Trails", and by this I believe he means identifying critical next action steps that will allow you to achieve your results faster and with less effort. I find this happens much more frequently now that I'm doing my reviews at least weekly....

3. Identifying elements in the matrix (from next action to 50,000 feet) that should be either dropped or added in order to align your next actions with your total life goals.

Oh and you'll be able to instantly recall what project a next action goes with too... but that's just a side benefit.

For me, 3 seconds is a worst-case, not the typical case. And no, 3 seconds is not too much. It saves much more time during Weekly Review, when it probably takes more than 3 seconds to make sure your project has a NA.

And it's not really the 3 seconds per next action that is the real time killer, its the hours spent looking for a solution to this problem that would be better spent focused on doing the weekly review. How many hours did you spend twiddling with software before you found your current system? Does it give you all the same benefits as the weekly review? If it does, great, but I think David's point is that the systems he's seen are so over-engineered as to nullify the small benefit early on of linking next actions to projects.

Doing the weekly review is a fundamental of GTD. Work on the fundamentals first before trying to do the advanced stuff and you'll gain more benefit from it than you will if you try to bring in more complexity before you've mastered the fundamentals....

....

The main reason is that because projects and actions ARE REALLY linked -- the actions are steps to complete projects -- you will have to do the linking sometime, somehow. The GTD way is in one lengthy Weekly Review.

Actually 52 lengthly reviews a year... "You'll have to think about your stuff more than you thought you might, but not as much as you're afraid you'll have too."

More to the point, just because they are linked, why do I need an explicit link to crank the widget?

Another reason is that it is often desirable to catch projects with no NAs more often than once a week.

Why do I need a link to do this. Since I've completed my weekly review recently it is enteirely natural for me to instinctively think "what's the next action" when I complete the previous one. I simply enter it in my vanilla palm implementation without a project link and I'm good to go.

Another reason is that if you can instantly switch to a project-context view of an NA, you can sometimes more intelligently complete that NA. Or even see a better way to make progress on the project. Or get into a "flow" of progress on that project.

I've never understood this. When in the thick of quickly cranking widgets I am much less likely to "sometimes more intelligently complete that NA. Or even see a better way to make progress on the project." I'm too busy cranking widgets to do that. I'm much more likely to go down these constructive rabbit trails when I'm doing my weekly review.

As for being in a flow on progress on a project that may happen, but generally for me it only occurs in the @Office or @Home project or when I've blocked out an hour or two (Hard Landscape) to really focus on that project. In that instance, I'm really doing a mini-weekly-project-focused review; which reinforces the system and the fact that I don't really need an explicit link.

I think David's point is that doing the weekly review is fundamental. That it helps you in lots of ways that a project-next action link doesn't, and that in fact, such a link is a crutch that actually prevents you from making the kind of progress you'll need to make in order to master this stuff.

In fact I wonder if it would be a reasonable hypothesis to state that it may take less than 2 years for someone to "really get" this stuff if they didn't go down the destructive project-next action link path?

wowi

12-23-2006, 07:24 AM

The discussion which goes along the line "you should have either a link between projects and NAs or you have to do your weekly review" does not reflect my experience: The weekly review has much more in it than just to check the next actions for a project (as stated in a number of posts) . And it can help in many respects: Among others, it may help to overcome the problem of finding the right place for a new next action in the system:

I'm using an outliner (MLO). I like to see the context of a NA and the context of subprojects (and you may tell me, that's not necessary - but it helps me to trust the system when I can see all these connections very easily). But I used to struggle with the additional overhead which is necessary to keep everything in place. This was particular difficult with Result Manager because the idea is to spread the projects over different files, it was easier with an hierarchical outliner but still more than the 3 seconds which were mentioned somewhere. But I discovered that one reason for that was my lack of continuity in the weekly review. For a few month now I managed to do the weekly review weekly - and now the handling of NAs and their incorporation into the system gets much easier. Just because I know its internal structure better and know where to go for incorporating new NAs - regardless from where they are triggered.

Thus, for me, both is important: Having the whole picture outside of my brain and connecting to it through the weekly review.

Wolfgang

LJM

12-23-2006, 11:06 AM

The most important part of the weekly review for me is, as others have pointed out, the "higher level" thinking.

If there's an "active" project I haven't been making progress on, I ask myself whether I should be honest with myself and nix it, or move it to deferred, or whether I really need to stop procrastinating on it and make time by moving some other things to deferred until I've made progress. There's no way to automate that decision! I also review my areas of responsibility (do I have a "current" or "pending" project for each?) and my long-term goals (ditto).

ETA: if there's an NA I've been procrastinating, then at the weekly review I ask myself whether it's because 1. it's not really a NA, but actually a small project that needs to be broken down 2. Theres a more appropriate NA that should be there instead 3. I'm just not going to do it, and should cross it off 4. It's something I have to do despite not wanting to, and perhaps I should either do it now, or remove some distractions from my lists until it's done.

I don't have an explicit link between projects and actions in my (paper-based, despite being a technophile geek) system, but i don't find it takes long at all to make sure every active project has a next-action.

Additionally, during my daily review after glancing at all my NA's, I scan my current projects list. If there's something both important and time-sensitive, seeing it on the projects list will remind me to make sure that particular project has a next action. So one or two key projects get checked for NA's almost daily, and the rest get checked at least weekly.

(I do have an unconventional "pending" area conceptually between "active projects" and "someday maybe". This is because I've found that I will let my "active" projects list grow out of control if I'm scared a project will get lost in my cauldron of someday maybe ideas. The "pending" list, which I review weekly, has things which I need/want to start, resume, or consider starting sometime in the next couple of months. The "someday-maybe" area is for things further out than that, or things that are more tenative. I only review the someday-maybe cauldron monthly. The managably-sized "pending" area allows me to be ruthlessly honest each week about what will really be an "active project" in the next week or two, thus allowing me to keep my project and next action lists focused, rather than scattering my energy across things that are just cluttering up the list.)

Oh, and my entire weekly review is generally about a half-hour. Plus an additional half-hour once a month to sort through and organize the volumous someday-maybe file.

packmatthews

12-26-2006, 06:31 AM

Why are we having this meeting? Or, why are we perpetuating this thread? If I had spent as much time clarifying my projects and NA's as I've spent following this thread would I even care whether the link needs to be automated or not?

What is "done" gong to look like when we've found the perfect Project-NA linkage system? Would I be spending the extra time contributing to this thread? Are we talking about a three minute per week gain, or an hour per week gain in productivity or what? Are those in favor of automation of the link offering a replacement to the weekly review? It's already been demonstrated that the point of Weekly Review is to make the decisions that are a pre-requisite to cranking through the widgets of Next Actions. I confess, I'm not quite to that stage yet. I still look at a lot of my Next Actions and go numb. More defining needed I suppose.

Because I can't physically see any of the contributors to this thread actually getting more done with My Life Organized, or Outlook contacts as projects etc., compared to folks with simple paper based systems, I have no way to verify that it would be worth my while to follow their lead. It's just opinions at this point. David Allen seems to be the only one whose seen it all in all sorts of different contexts. Anyone have data?
Pack Matthews

mcogilvie

12-26-2006, 07:14 AM

Why are we having this meeting? Or, why are we perpetuating this thread? If I had spent as much time clarifying my projects and NA's as I've spent following this thread would I even care whether the link needs to be automated or not?
...
Because I can't physically see any of the contributors to this thread actually getting more done with My Life Organized, or Outlook contacts as projects etc., compared to folks with simple paper based systems, I have no way to verify that it would be worth my while to follow their lead. It's just opinions at this point. David Allen seems to be the only one whose seen it all in all sorts of different contexts. Anyone have data?
Pack Matthews

Just a wee bit cranky the day after Christmas, are we? Did Santa not bring you the GTD gear you wanted? :)

After much research and hard-won experience, also known as flailing around, I have come to believe that these tool-related issues are mostly matters of style, personal psychology, and aesthetics. DA says our next actions and projects either attract or repel us. If that's true, then how much more so the tool we use to track those projects and next actions. I like to have a clear snapshot of a project available when I am working on it. Not much information, typically a page or less. Linking next actions to projects can be a way to get this overview- or not, depending on the software. With all the software I've tried, and I've tried plenty, there are subtle features that attract or repel. Your preferences are undoubtedly somewhat different, and that's fine.

Now one could take the attitude that some tool at hand, e.g. Outlook, is probably adequate, and with sufficient effort, one can acquire the habits to make it work well. In extreme cases, this leads to people programming themselves for the program's convenience, rather than the other way around. There's obviously a balancing act, and everyone's center of gravity is different.

1drummergirl

12-26-2006, 08:11 AM

I've been following this thread with much interest over the past couple of weeks. It seems we are mainly discussing tools here, not methodology. Tools will not do GTD for us. It's the habits that we develop, not the tools we use.

However, tools can (as posted above) either attract us or repel us. A paper system would drive me crazy. I prefer a digital system and I also prefer to use an outliner. That works for me. I have been using an outliner to do GTD for three years now. My personal GTD system has evolved over the years and it still periodically goes through changes to adjust to my ever changing lifestyle. By "changes" I mean minor things like adding a new context or blocking out time in my hard landscape for tasks that are not yet "automatic" for me.

I have a friend who uses a different digital system without an outliner. It's his personal system and he has modified it to fit his needs. He has shown me his "system," but I don't really care what tool he uses for GTD as long as he is keeping any commitments he made that affect our relationship.

The bottom line is that the tools don't matter as long as the user is getting things done. Personalities and lifestyles are a huge factor in the types of tools we will use and the amount of time we are willing to spend with those tools. My personality type is INTJ which is a "systems builder" and I am driven to see the big picture and think about my current reality. An outliner allows me to build that picture and assist me with my analyzation. Other personality types may see this as a waste of time and that is why threads like this pop up. I actually enjoy discussions of this nature because I pick up odd little bits of info that I find useful or eye-opening. :cool:

plapointe

01-01-2007, 10:31 AM

I actually enjoy discussions of this nature because I pick up odd little bits of info that I find useful or eye-opening. :cool:

I completely agree! I have enjoyed following this thread and the details that others have shared. Thank you for all the tidbits I have learned!

Pamela

tominperu

01-01-2007, 09:19 PM

I've been trying out Life Balance the last couple of weeks because I was interested in the claim that it makes linking projects and actions very easy.

I think I can confirm it makes linking easier and quicker than the Outlook add-in and Outlook Contacts as Projects. Using a hierarchical system of Focus Area>Project>Action, it is easy to find a project, which I think is the key. It is also really easy to see which projects have no next action. I can also see that Life Balance would really come into its own if you have lots of repeating projects, as the associated repeating actions also repeat themselves (in order).

However, although the linking is very quick, I will still go back to Outlook and a simple list system with no link. I just like to be able to input next actions as quickly as possible and even though the extra time is minimal, it's still more. And as I've said before, I have little problem checking all projects have next actions in the weekly review (or whenever). Also another problem I have with a hierarchical system is that you can't have two projects having the same next action, which does happen in my world.

In conclusion my own answer to my original question of this thread is something like "the link is not really necessary for most people but if you feel you need or want the link, it's no big deal". Really, using an outliner like Life Balance we are talking about a very small amount of time and effort either way. I suppose I most agree with mcogilvie that:

these tool-related issues are mostly matters of style, personal psychology, and aesthetics.

In a sense I'm saying that the issue is not so important, which is ironic as I was the one who started the thread. Although I initially felt this might be my final conclusion, that’s still slightly embarrassing!

But to try and redeem myself I'll say this: I posed the question because I think I should have read a thread like this when I started GTD about a year and a half ago. I myself was one of those people who immediately assumed I must have a link. I spent lots of time trying out different tools, learning how to use them and then perfecting their use. Also most of my initial postings concerned this issue. Now I've started using a simple system with no link and find it much easier, quicker and "automatic". And I hope I'm now addressing some of the more important issues of GTD, such as how to best define a next action and project, how to avoid procrastination, how to use my calendar better. Stuff that I should have spent more time on earlier on. And so, I suspect that there are more people like me who are perhaps using a link when it's not really necessary, because that's how they initially assumed it would have to be.

And I would say to people starting GTD, make sure you don't get diverted from other more important issues by your need for a link.

I could recommend that people starting GTD should just use a very simple system and then try a project/action link and fancy tools after say six months. But, I think that's patronising and anyway, people's needs are different and tools like Life Balance have other things going for them.

I would say though - also try out a really neat tool that other people have used to powerful effect- it's using no link at all.