How important do you think having an automatic (one) Next Action per Project is?

[Ship69]

Hello

Although I appreciate that in GTD, having a list that shows one Next Action for each Project is important, nonetheless I have noticed that I haven't been using the view that generates the Next Action per project very much in practice. This is probably a mistake I suspect, but fwiw, instead what I have been doing is using Stars to manually give focus to Project's each Next Action, and then just work from the Stars / Focussed view. This does sort of work but it's slightly clunky...

- How important do you think it is to have the Next Action for each Project generated automatically?

- Also how important/useful would you say the ability to have what GTDNext calls "Forced" next actions is - i.e. the ability to manually tag certain additional Actions so that they appear on any Next Actions per Project views. (e.g. On larger projects you may want more than one task on the focused / "Do Today" list.)

Either way, can you suggest any software which supports Next Actions per Project? (And if possible "Forced" next actions as well)

J

 

[Oogiem]

- How important do you think it is to have the Next Action for each Project generated automatically?

- Also how important/useful would you say the ability to have what GTDNext calls "Forced" next actions is - i.e. the ability to manually tag certain additional Actions so that they appear on any Next Actions per Project views. (e.g. On larger projects you may want more than one task on the focused / "Do Today" list.)

I think it is really helpful to have my projects planned well enough that the next action is ready to become active and available as soon as I have finished one. Most of my projects are sequential, that is, actions cannot be completed until the previous action is finished so I usually set my projects to that status and plan as best I can. If I get to the next action I planned and it isn't the right one I can easily change it or work on something else.

I also do like the occasional flagged items, where I can flag either an entire project or a single next action and then switch to a view that shows me all of those no matter what the context is. It's especially helpful in busy times when I I may inadvertently forget to move into a specific context. Since I can choose what context to go to because I work and live in the same place I can occasionally find myself not going into a specific context for a while and actions stack up in there. Flagging critical items and also a quick 2-3 minute daily review help keep me on track especially when I am really busy. When things are slow I have more time and don't need the flagged option.

Omnifocus supports both of those functions very well.

 

[Ship69]

Unfortunately Omnifocus STILL doesn't support Windows very well. :^[

I have recently been having a look at Nirvana. I am (as previously noted elsewhere in the forum - and took some heat for it!) a hard man to please, but so far I am moderately impressed with Nirvana. It does Next (One) Action per Project, in fact you can even choose how many next actions per Project you want to see.

ut as far as I can tell there is no Forced Next option. It does allow Sadly It doesn't do sub-projects though, nor multi-levels of sub-task, but maybe I can live with that if I try. (Maybe I'll just have to use tags for tying together projects that are part of a major project ?? I'm not sure...)

I like the look of Time Required and Energy level, and the ability to move tasks from GTD List states directly (Next, Waiting, Scheduled, Someday). I find it slightly irritating not to be able to invent my own GTD List state but you can't have everything I guess.

All in all Nirvana is the best I've seen yet for Windows. And no I'm not going to buy an Apple computer just to run OmniFocus.

 

[Oogiem]

Unfortunately Omnifocus STILL doesn't support Windows very well.

You could look at just running OF on an iPad or iPhone. With better custom perspectives the issues I had with review on the iPad are now gone and so it's possible to have that as your only GTD list system.

 

[bcmyers2112]

How important do you think it is to have the Next Action for each Project generated automatically?

To me, not at all. My projects, particularly the more complex ones, tend to be too unpredictable. Are you doing weekly reviews regularly? If not I would suggest starting there before turning to automation.

 

[Ship69]

To me, not at all. My projects, particularly the more complex ones, tend to be too unpredictable. Are you doing weekly reviews regularly? If not I would suggest starting there before turning to automation.

Quick question - when running GTD on paper, are we supposed to have a list of our Projects (all on one sheet of paper, presumably) and then have a separate sheet of paper for each Context (with multiple actions on it) where the list of Next Actions for said Projects is to be found?

If so, presumably this would mean that there is no obvious way to tie each Project to its Next Action (which is buried somewhere on one of the sheets of paper!) Possibly one could use colour for certain project but that would be it!

Or should we have one sheet of paper per project so that they can be sorted manually into order of priority?
And one sheet of paper for each action too so that they can be sorted similarly?

Either way how does one know for each Project whether there is a Next Action?

 

[bcmyers2112]

Quick question - when running GTD on paper, are we supposed to have a list of our Projects (all on one sheet of paper, presumably) and then have a separate sheet of paper for each Context (with multiple actions on it) where the list of Next Actions for said Projects is to be found?

If so, presumably this would mean that there is no obvious way to tie each Project to its Next Action (which is buried somewhere on one of the sheets of paper!) Possibly one could use colour for certain project but that would be it!

Or should we have one sheet of paper per project so that they can be sorted manually into order of priority?
And one sheet of paper for each action too so that they can be sorted similarly?

Either way how does one know for each Project whether there is a Next Action?

I think I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were asking whether it's important to have software that can "promote" something from project support to next action status for a project automatically. If that's the case, I don't have a use for that. I think regular reviews are better for keeping my lists current.

If by "generate" you mean linking a project to a next action, it's not necessary for GTD and I've learned to do without it. I've found that if I do the weekly review in the order DA suggests, I review my calendar, next actions lists and waiting for list prior to reviewing my projects. So by the time I get to reviewing that list, I can pretty much remember whether there is an action recorded for each one. I didn't think I'd be able to do that, because I have ADHD and my brain can be wonky at times. But it turns out a regular review is all I need to keep my projects current.

Nevertheless, some people find linking next actions to projects useful. If you're one of them, the good news is that there are plenty of software solutions that have that feature.

Only you can decide how important linking is in your world. Your opinion about your lists is the one that matters most.

I hope one of those interpretations of what you're asking is correct. If not, I doubt the above will have been much help.

 

[Ship69]

Yes, the original question was about software, but I extended the scope during the thread.

My problem is that I seem to feel the need to put quite a lot of next actions in for a my larger projects in order to clear my mind. Some of those actions on my larger projects can be done in parallel some can not.

I am semi dyslexic and read only with slight difficulty. This makes me *extremely* visual and so shapes of indents / layout / colour etc are extremely important for me as the enable me to quickly skip around lists of stuff without laboriously reading things time and time again. In this way the shape of task/project hierarchies is extremely helpful for me, and I guess is one reason why I have gravitated towards "multi-level" task managers (GTD, GTDNext) thus far.

However I know I also have a tendency to "over-complicate" things, and this tendency needs to be resisted! And I know I also have a tendency to get caught up in details and not focus enough on the high level stuff (which fwiw strikes me as being a distinct risk with GTD in general, although I am most probably doing GTD incorrectly in that respect ??)

However given that GTD is "supposed to be flat" (or so I think someone on this site said) this makes things a little difficult for me. But I am migrating to Nirvana which essentially *is* flat (no sub-projects, no sub-tasks - but at least there is an easy way to convert between tasks and projects - unlike many of the other tools out there) so this should improve my GTD habits.

Hmm... OK in parallel with moving to Nirvana, I'm going to get back into doing more Mind Mapping, as thinking about it, one of the great joys of mindmaps / concept maps is that they help you see what areas you haven't covered in your thinking, and this given one a nice feeling of being back in control.

For now I am resisting the urge to do actual Gantt charts as well on my larger project, although that said I intend to do my mind maps slightly like a Gantt chart in as much as they will contain an approximate left-right time line, as well as detailing breaking down towards going away from the middle (i.e. going towards the the top and bottom of each map. Hence my interest in "Concept Mapping" tools like Scapple...

 

[Gardener]

Hmm. This seems to belong in another thread. I'll go post it there.

 

[aderoy]

Quick question - when running GTD on paper, are we supposed to have a list of our Projects (all on one sheet of paper, presumably) and then have a separate sheet of paper for each Context (with multiple actions on it) where the list of Next Actions for said Projects is to be found?

If so, presumably this would mean that there is no obvious way to tie each Project to its Next Action (which is buried somewhere on one of the sheets of paper!) Possibly one could use colour for certain project but that would be it!

Or should we have one sheet of paper per project so that they can be sorted manually into order of priority?
And one sheet of paper for each action too so that they can be sorted similarly?

Either way how does one know for each Project whether there is a Next Action?

I keep an index at the beginning of my paper planner that has the complete is of projects with start date, if completed the end date. In alpha order I will then have my project info sheet (with details of scope, major milestones) followed by next action lists. The Project information sheet is a full sized letter folded in half with the next actions papers within the fold. This way the project and action lists are kept together.

 

[Ship69]

I keep an index at the beginning of my paper planner that has the complete is of projects with start date, if completed the end date. In alpha order I will then have my project info sheet (with details of scope, major milestones) followed by next action lists. The Project information sheet is a full sized letter folded in half with the next actions papers within the fold. This way the project and action lists are kept together.

I only half understand this, but it sounds clever.
So this is all on paper and all written by hand, yes?
Are your papers held together in some removable way - e.g. are you using a ring binder in order to insert new project sheets in alphabetic order?

I don't quite understand the folding of sheet. Is it folded vertically or horizontally? Either way what is the advantage of this?

Finally are you not creating lists of actions by Contexts somehow?

 

[aderoy]

So this is all on paper and all written by hand, yes?
Are your papers held together in some removable way - e.g. are you using a ring binder in order to insert new project sheets in alphabetic order?

I don't quite understand the folding of sheet. Is it folded vertically or horizontally? Either way what is the advantage of this?

Finally are you not creating lists of actions by Contexts somehow?

The paper is from Time/System and held in a A5 ring binder. The tasklist form is printed landscape allowing it to be folded from the right little less than halfway. There is approx 1/2 inch room on the left side for ring holes. One task list for each context required for project.

As for benefits of folding of the project information sheet, front as project info, on the foldout rightside I have dated milestones that need to be met, backside is a mindmap for my overview.

Then I have the tasklists contained within the fold keeping them together. For my work I have remote transmitters (work as broadcast tech) so I keep each site as a project. I can only do the tasks while onsite so this helps to separate from daily. Weekly review checks the projects and if I am heading out to the site I do a quick review of project to see if any support material should be brought out.

Do have normal tasklists that are the basic setup from David Allen.

i.e.: currently on the WaitingFor tasklist there is a complete list of parts I am waiting for, in the column for 'Delegate' I have the equipment ID so I know the part is from cam1623, or BulkHead 8-1 plus about 24 more items.

Yes can be electronic on a laptop, but at remotes there is poor cell signal (high RF environment) or slow network connectivity to corp servers. Have been using paper now since the mid 1980's and works for me. Little appointments, many tasks to track. Repairs are tracked in databases, with AutoCAD, wordprocessing or spreadsheets as required. All documents are printed and placed in the 'book of knowledge' in case I get hit by a bus or lost of network/power and need the disaster recovery procedure.

Hopefully this helps in understanding the setup.

 

[TesTeq]

One task list for each context required for project.

So if you have two Projects and each has actions in the @office context, you have two @office context lists (one for each project)? You must have a huge number of lists! And when you're in the @office context you have to check in EACH Project if there is an @office list with a Next Action to do?

 

[aderoy]

So if you have two Projects and each has actions in the @office context, you have two @office context lists (one for each project)?

I have many project lists is true, for the remote sites [each a project] I will have tasklists for each yes, remembering the on the waitingfor list for Project:wheatley will be only items I am waiting for that can only be done when offsite at the location. These are reviewed weekly, or if there is a problem and I need to travel I will check the list and the file folder for any items to bring out.

Or say while out at site notice I need a new air filter and low in stock there, place on the to order list for the office. Once order is placed it will then be completed on the orderlist and now placed on the waitingfor for wheatley list. The items for vpp can only be done there, can not do anything about them when in the office, wheatley, etc. The office lists currently have over 700 open items, not including projects which I consider outside day to day tasks.

It may be a little more work, could place on one total list with the 'delegate' being the project, but found the list was too large on paper. Was easier to see when on the list for wheatley. I consider the remote sites as projects, due to ongoing Preventive Maintenance, upgrades to software or hardware (transmitters/HVAC/microwave tx/rx) or even trim the grass/trees/weeds.

Could just make a tasklist wheatley:waitingfor, wheatley:call, wheatley:HVAC just found it cleaner to think it as a project and keep lists that would support the 'project' or remote site together. Remembering the project is yearlong for most with some items taking 2 years from start to completion (upgrade from analog to digital transmission).

If lists were digital form (database) could be easier, yet there are challenges even in digital form. wrote a database using in dBase/Clipper back in the mid 1980's or in askSam through the early 2010 or so but the paper version worked best. Less resistance to add or review, digital have to run a report, printout if heading offsite, paper the 'report' is already at my fingers. Works if no power, network or when at home (could be reviewed when not on corp network).

Not for everyone, works for me over the last 30 years. If I ask 'Do I trust paper or digital?' answer would be paper.

 

[Jodie E. Francis]

I am semi dyslexic and read only with slight difficulty. This makes me *extremely* visual and so shapes of indents / layout / colour etc are extremely important for me as the enable me to quickly skip around lists of stuff without laboriously reading things time and time again. In this way the shape of task/project hierarchies is extremely helpful for me, and I guess is one reason why I have gravitated towards "multi-level" task managers (GTD, GTDNext) thus far.

Ship69, have you looked at Workflowy? Super simple yet versatile outliner, so might be useful for your multi-level lists... https://workflowy.com/demo/embed/

 

[Ship69]

Ship69, have you looked at Workflowy? Super simple yet versatile outliner, so might be useful for your multi-level lists... https://workflowy.com/demo/embed/

Yes I had a look a while ago. Yes I quite liked it as an outliner. And amazingly good as far as it goes. The trouble is from memory it doesn't go far enough!
e.g. Re this thread's title I don't think that it gather all the next one actions for each project. Also I can't find an easy/quick way to move a task from GTD Action list to GTD Action list (e.g. Active / Someday / Waiting etc)... Maybe one could do something clever with tags (??) but following my experience with MLO I'm a bit fed up with doing complicated workarounds!

 

[Gnopps]

Both are very important to me (Automatic Next & Possibility to override). Though I can understand the case of having just one Next Action per project it practicality it isn't good enough for me: What if the the next action takes 1h and I only have 30 min? Then it is good to have all the possible next actions in a project so that I can find a possible task to work on (right energy, context and time).

Software that support Automatic next actions are (incomplete list):

• Zendone
• FacileThings
• GTDNext
• MyLifeOrganized
• Nirvana
• IQTell (semi-automatically)

 

[Ship69]

Both are very important to me (Automatic Next & Possibility to override). Though I can understand the case of having just one Next Action per project it practicality it isn't good enough for me: What if the the next action takes 1h and I only have 30 min? Then it is good to have all the possible next actions in a project so that I can find a possible task to work on (right energy, context and time).

Software that support Automatic next actions are (incomplete list):

• Zendone
• FacileThings
• GTDNext
• MyLifeOrganized
• Nirvana
• IQTell (semi-automatically)

Any chance you could tell us which of those allow the possibility to override?

Possible types of over-ride:
A) Serial/Parallel proejcts
Nirvana has an interesting thing of defining the entire project to be serial or parallel.

B) Choose how many Next Actions
Nirvana also permits a view where you can choose how many next actions you want to appear on your master list at once, which is also slightly interesting, although this is set globally not at the projects level, which I feel might be slightly more powerful. (e.g. If a project has lots of momentum and needs lots of attention, it can be helpful to have say 2 or 3 next actions visible not just the one).

C) Forced Next Actions
GTDNext has what I think is a particularly nice feature whereby you can flag up individual actions to make sure that they appear on the Next Actions (across projects) list.

J

 

[Gnopps]

Any chance you could tell us which of those allow the possibility to override?

Don't know really. GTDNext allows it, as does Zendone (albeit a bit differently). Facilethings as well by defining a project with a kanban method instead of sequential. MLO, Nirvana and IQTell I don't know.