Disconnect between Projects and Next Actions

[Oogiem]

My reasoning behind separating next actions and project actions is as follows:
1. Often you won't know all of the next actions, as they may change.

2. If you define next actions with the right level of granularity as required by GTD - i.e., so that you don't need to even think about them - your project plan (list of project actions) will become too detailed and cumbersome if you use NAs to represent it.

I think that all depends on the types of projects you work with and the time frames.

Relating to your number 1:
In my world next actions hardly ever change once they are determined. I've been working a single project and its associated next actions for over 10 years now. The initial planning and project documentation I did has stayed basically the same through that whole time.

I will agree that for some projects the actions will change as I do them. For example I had an idea that I'd like to do a 5-7 year rotation of crops on our 2 main fields. However 3 years into the rotation it became obvious that every time we plowed we plowed up more rocks so the project got stopped and we put both fields back into permanent pasture. Crop rotation is inappropriate for our farm but we'd have never known that until we tried. That sort of change is very rare in my world. For me the critical part of that project was the full documentation of why it got stopped and scrapbooks of the issues. No reason for the farmers who come after me to have to re-learn the lesson I just learned. Unless I document it they are likely to make the same mistakes over and over again.

For number 2:
In my world next actions to move projects forward can be separated in time by months or years or can take months or years to complete. Once you have done the thinking about the project during the natural planning model you have to capture it. Most of that thinking is actually a clean next action and no they don't take up much space in project support. In fact it's critical that they be stored there so that someone else can pick up the projects where you left off.

Examples are a project to clear and re-plant the lower front field. Actions include burn brush pile from clearing dead trees, move rocks to rock wall from between trees, a sub project of plowing, land planing, planting and marking the new field where the detail actions are not defined yet and so on. In that case some are well defined and some are just mini-projects waiting for us to move forward. Now we haven't moved forward on this project for several years because the combination of time, weather and help avail to burn the brush pile hasn't been there. But there is no reason to lose the thinking that went on even to the description of the new plants to use so that once we do get this going we can move forward faster.

Even my most complex projects can typically fit all the next actions and mini-projects on 2-3 sheets of paper. That is not too much to keep in a project plan at all.

 

[jengagne]

I find a huge disconnect, between the Projects and the child Next Actions. I having trouble getting into having the Next Actions sitting there on their own with no real big picture of what they are for.

I've been struggling with this same concept myself. I just posted a similar question, but as a separate thread since our situations seem to differ.

In your case it seems like you're mapping out as many Next Actions as possible ahead of time, instead of taking this approach:
1) There's one action defined. Do it.
2) Analyze next action based on the current situation, list it.
3) Go to step 1.

But as others have pointed out, trying to plan with that much granularity so far ahead must reduce your flexibility -- or force you to rewrite your planned actions list frequently.

Have you been using this system or is this just the planning stage? If you've been using it, how would you say that approach helps? (if it does?)

 

[rdgeorge]

Oogie:

In your estimation, how has the ability of Omnifocus to "see" NA's by both Context and Project helped in this area?

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am contemplating testing Omnifocus on an iPod Touch and (soon) on an iPad. Meanwhile (and for now) I am using Outlook 2007 and a Blackberry, in conjunction with a small, Junior-sized Levenger Circa notebook (which I would still use, even if I switched digital applications.

rdgeorge

 

[Oogiem]

In your estimation, how has the ability of Omnifocus to "see" NA's by both Context and Project helped in this area?

As I work my lists I can easily flip back and forth between seeing the action in context, and also seeing where that action fits within my entire project plan. If I'm at my mac it's a set of hot keys to see where an action is in the project view and vice versa. I can keep track of projects more easily and also see what's coming up. Working by context reduces the time to re-think when I switch gears but there I times I really have to work by project and for that seeing the actions in order in project helps.

Again though, I put nearly all my project planning into Omnifocus. There are very few where I have outside OF support materials.