> If I do the weekly review, and only write the "NEXT STEP"
> in my actual list, then, I may do that Monday morning, but, surely I
> would not wait till next week Friday's review to write the next step.
Correct. You would normally write a next action as soon as you complete the previous action--or, alternatively, as soon as you pause in working on the project. You may go well beyond that first next actions and do hours' worth of work on the project, and in that case you're not obligated to write down each and every action. Instead, when you stop working, you write your next action then, while the status is fresh in your mind.
Sometimes you may fail to do this, which is why you *also* ensure, every week, that every project has a next action. At least, that's how I understand it. You write next actions during the weekly review, but not *only* during the weekly review. You're writing them all week.
> Is there any sensible way of structuring a project
>... BUT, if I don't write them down, I may forget/loose them.
I would consider this to be project support material. I wouldn't put all of those actions in your main GTD system, where they'll clutter up all of your action lists. I'd have them on a separate piece of paper, computer file, file folder, whatever. When you pause on a project and you're not positive of what your next action is, consult that support material and use it to guide your choice of next action.
If you have a lot of projects like this, you could make a habit of always having a file folder for every project, and whenever you have a thought for a preexisting project, you could stuff it into that folder. You could add a step to your weekly review, in which you go through each project folder to familiarize yourself with it and tidy it up, and create project folders for any projects that don't yet have them.
> Take this project as example: Pan first StageIt concert:
> "projects', but some dependent upon each other, and some steps that I
I see this as a project with a couple of related projects. I'd probably start it as:
Project: Plan first StageIt concert.
Next Action: Brainstorm all tasks needed for concert.
(Edited to note: I notice that below I keep saying "you'd..." do whatever. I don't know what you would do; this is what I would do. But I'm too lazy to edit that sentence by sentence. )
Here you'd create a folder and write down your ideas and your initial view of what you need to do. That's where you'd have things like, "Don't forget to set up tickets!" that you don't want to forget, but you absolutely can't work on yet. When that's done, you check off the brainstorm action and add some new projects. The related part of your system would then look like:
Project: Plan first StageIt concert
Next Action: WAITING FOR Schedule Concert, Plan Advertising, and Plan Program
(This is how I handle projects that have logical subprojects--I add a "waiting for" bookmark for the subprojects. I don't allow more than one level of subprojects.)
Project: Schedule Concert for first StageIt concert
Next Action: Create sorted followers lists by time zone.
Project: Plan Advertising for first StageIt concert
Next Action: Spend one hour designing ad email.
Project: Plan Program for first StageIt concert
Next Action: Spend one hour brainstorming on possible songs and topics.
The above three projects seem like a useful division of the work--much more division and you're working on too many tracks simultaneously, much less and you may be unnecessarily neglecting things that you could have progressing. There is no optimal structure that ensures that everything will be done with maximum efficiency, so you just have to pick a happy medium.
You notice the "spend one hour" tasks. This is what I usually do for tasks that are unlikely to be done in one sitting. The "spend one hour" acknowledges that fact, so I'm more willing to sit down to what looks like a big task if I've already cut it into bite-sized pieces.
> I use a very simply online list system...
I use OmniFocus. I think it's great, but I think that it tends to appeal more to programmers/engineers.