How important to hav sub-projects within projects and sub-actions within actions?

[Ship69]

Hello

I am aware that GTD theory is uses very "flat" lists. After all originally GTD lists were originally just paper lists. And I know that I probably create more hierarchies that I should... however when you have some fairly large projects, you do need to be able to work on more than one thing at once during any given day.

I guess one can create sub projects manually by duplicating the top level project name
e.g.
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - ROOF FIXED"
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - BATHROOM FIXED"
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - SITTING-ROOM NEW CARPET"

Rather than say:

Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE"
Sub-project name: "ROOF FIXED"
Sub-project name: "BATHROOM FIXED"
Sub-project name: "SITTING-ROOM NEW CARPET"

But that feels rather clunky to have to create titles with repeating names in them, no?
Also if you want to get everything to do with repairing the house minimised (for now) the latter structure would be much more convenient, no?

Personally I quite like being able to see the tree structure of data as it helps me find my way around...

Any thoughts?

J

Personally I like to be able to convert between Project (or sub-project) and Task (and/or sub task) very easily too - because my brain often likes to change its mind about exactly what something actually is.

Both MLO and GTDNext allow you to do this. Do you know any other sofware that fulfils the above ?

 

[Oogiem]

I guess one can create sub projects manually by duplicating the top level project name
e.g.
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - ROOF FIXED"
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - BATHROOM FIXED"
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - SITTING-ROOM NEW CARPET"

Rather than say:

Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE"
Sub-project name: "ROOF FIXED"
Sub-project name: "BATHROOM FIXED"
Sub-project name: "SITTING-ROOM NEW CARPET"

But that feels rather clunky to have to create titles with repeating names in them, no?

I hate subprojects, If a project is big enough to have subprojects I always ned to be able to work on several things at once and subprojects get in my way. OTOH I also do not find any need to prefix the various projects with the overall project or goal name. I intuitively know that all the projects are related and I review them at my weekly review so why bother with the extra step in the title?

So for me your list would be
project name: Roof Fixed
project name: Bathroom fixed
project name: Sitting room New Carpet

In my world a current example is the overall project of preparing the winter corrals for the sheep. I've had projects like:
New gates on north corral fences
scrape manure from ewe corrals
scrape manure from ram corrals
get new water tanks to replace leaking ones

Also if you want to get everything to do with repairing the house minimised (for now) the latter structure would be much more convenient, no?

It might be more convenient, actually in my software I can quickly set a project to on-hold which hides it if I need to for whatever reason. I rarely do that, I love long lists and like a choice in next actions so I don't mind projects staying active even in a week I can't work on them. Because sheep happens, and life changes and I'd rather have more choice than less.

Personally I like to be able to convert between Project (or sub-project) and Task (and/or sub task) very easily too - because my brain often likes to change its mind about exactly what something actually is.

Both MLO and GTDNext allow you to do this. Do you know any other sofware that fulfils the above ?

I know in Omnifocus you can easily drag a project into or out of another project so that would make it a sub project or not. I rarely use that feature though.

 

[sandymoore64]

IQTELL allows subbing both projects and actions

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[jenkins]

Hello

I am aware that GTD theory is uses very "flat" lists. After all originally GTD lists were originally just paper lists. And I know that I probably create more hierarchies that I should... however when you have some fairly large projects, you do need to be able to work on more than one thing at once during any given day.

I guess one can create sub projects manually by duplicating the top level project name
e.g.
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - ROOF FIXED"
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - BATHROOM FIXED"
Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE - SITTING-ROOM NEW CARPET"

Rather than say:

Project name: "REPAIR HOUSE"
Sub-project name: "ROOF FIXED"
Sub-project name: "BATHROOM FIXED"
Sub-project name: "SITTING-ROOM NEW CARPET"

But that feels rather clunky to have to create titles with repeating names in them, no?
Also if you want to get everything to do with repairing the house minimised (for now) the latter structure would be much more convenient, no?

Personally I quite like being able to see the tree structure of data as it helps me find my way around...

Any thoughts?

J

Could you just have one project called "REPAIR HOUSE" with project support material outlining the various aspects of that project, e.g., a mind map? I like to keep Next Actions to a minimum, so I could imagine this project only having 2 or 3 Next Actions, such as "Call Jim for plumber reference" and "Talk to wife about carpet color options."

 

[Ship69]

Could you just have one project called "REPAIR HOUSE" with project support material outlining the various aspects of that project, e.g., a mind map? I like to keep Next Actions to a minimum, so I could imagine this project only having 2 or 3 Next Actions, such as "Call Jim for plumber reference" and "Talk to wife about carpet color options."

Hmm... I am gradually coming to the conclusion that you could be right - GTD can't cope very well with larger projects, so I suppose you just need to put the stuff that's coming up soon into one's GTD system and keep project overview & control (e.g. a mind map) elsewhere. :^/

One of these days someone will build some GTD-friendly software that includes mindmap, so that you could just bite off sections of a mindmap of your entire life at will and call them "Projects" that can the be moved between GTD status lists (Active / Sometime / waiting etc). That would be amazing... and I would pay good money for that. AFAIK, sadly I dont think anyone has written such a thing yet.

That reminds me, maybe it's time for me do do some mindmaps (or concept maps) of my entire life in any case. :^)
I have access to a colour A3 printer and could have some fun with that.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Hmm... I am gradually coming to the conclusion that you could be right - GTD can't cope very well with larger projects, so I suppose you just need to put the stuff that's coming up soon into one's GTD system and keep project overview & control (e.g. a mind map) elsewhere. :^/

I'm not sure by what you mean that "GTD can't cope very well with larger projects". I think it does so very well. GTD takes into account project planning (in fact, it devotes an entire chapter to it and addresses it in multiple other places in the book). But the GTD methodology encourages keeping project support material and next actions distinct, and with good reason. If you have to hunt through project plans and miscellaneous materials every time you need to determine the next action, you'll likely avoid it and get nothing done. Or at least not until things hit the fan and the project becomes a crisis.

I understand the desire to keep everything at every level of your life linked together; I once strove for that as you do now. I found it to be a waste of my time. When I'm in doing mode I don't need to relate everything I do back to the project plans. In fact, I found it to be a detriment; when I make a phone call or create a spreadsheet or hammer nails, I want to focus appropriately on that task. As long as I review the plans for my more complex projects at the right intervals (weekly at minimum), I can keep them moving along well and under control.

 

[Ship69]

I'm not sure by what you mean that "GTD can't cope very well with larger projects". I think it does so very well. GTD takes into account project planning (in fact, it devotes an entire chapter to it and addresses it in multiple other places in the book). But the GTD methodology encourages keeping project support material and next actions distinct, and with good reason. If you have to hunt through project plans and miscellaneous materials every time you need to determine the next action, you'll likely avoid it and get nothing done. Or at least not until things hit the fan and the project becomes a crisis.

I am at the limits of my GTD knowledge.
When one has a larger project are we supposed to break it down into lots of sub-projects, or just have one next action for the whole thing?
Likewise, what would seem to be a reasonable number of Actions per project to line up in one's GTD system?

 

[jenkins]

I am at the limits of my GTD knowledge.
When one has a larger project are we supposed to break it down into lots of sub-projects, or just have one next action for the whole thing?
Likewise, what would seem to be a reasonable number of Actions per project to line up in one's GTD system?

There is always intrinsically a limit to the number of "next actions" for a project (by definition, they must be able to be done immediately next, without something else happening first). You can break a project down into sub-projects if those sub-projects have "next actions." Those "sub-projects" can look like either of the examples you gave in your original post. I'm arguing it might be unnecessary to do that; since the number of next actions is probably small, I'm not sure what function the division serves that couldn't be accomplished with project support material.

As for a reasonable number of actions to line up, David Allen might say something like "as many as it takes to get it off your mind." Personally, I don't put much stock into "lining up" future actions, because I've found it to be a waste of time. Things rarely play out how I imagined. The biggest benefit to planning things out in advance is really just to get it out of my head -- to get my arms around the problem emotionally, so to speak. So I only turn to things like mind-mapping when a big hairy project is really nagging me. I usually feel better afterward. But I've found I rarely actually refer to those documents later on.

 

[Ship69]

...I'm not sure what function the division serves that couldn't be accomplished with project support material.

It's a question of what drives what. I mean looking at project support material is a good way to generate next actions, for sure. But so is just looking at the current list of Next Actions in the system and well, thinking!

Inside a GTD task management system one is generally FORCED into deciding what is a stand-alone task and what is a Project, and so they appear in very different places.

Fwiw, Nirvana interestingly has two types of project "Sequential" or "Parallel". If you choose the former, you then only the FIRST of the Action that you've got lined up will appear on the "Unified List", whereas if you choose "Parallel" the whole lot appear immediately (potentially overwhelming!)

 

[Oogiem]

I am gradually coming to the conclusion that you could be right - GTD can't cope very well with larger projects, ...

One of these days someone will build some GTD-friendly software that includes mindmap, so that you could just bite off sections of a mindmap of your entire life at will and call them "Projects" that can the be moved between GTD status lists (Active / Sometime / waiting etc).

I would say GTD excels at large complex projects. It forces you to think about what really has to happen next to finish something.

On teh mindmap stuff, I guess it depends on whether you like amind mapping. I don't at all. I rarely find any sort of mind map useful they are all confusing and frustrating for em to work with. I prefer straight text, outlines perhaps but nothing that resembles anything graphical.

 

[bcmyers2112]

When one has a larger project are we supposed to break it down into lots of sub-projects, or just have one next action for the whole thing?

Whenever you feel you need or want to.

Likewise, what would seem to be a reasonable number of Actions per project to line up in one's GTD system?

Do whatever is needed to get the project off your mind.

I think you're looking for absolutes where there can be none. Every project, every lifestyle, every person is different. What works in one circumstance may not work in another. Trial and error is your friend here.

If you're looking for something more concrete, DA suggests if there are multiple actions for a project that you can start on now because they're not dependent on another piece, list them all to get them off your mind. If a project has only one next action that can be moved on, then just list that one.

If a project is particular complex and tracking sub-projects helps you keep track of the moving parts, use sub-projects. Otherwise, don't.

I think what you'll find is that the demands of your projects will dictate how best to plan and track them, and what to put in your GTD system. Your intuition is the best guide. You seem reluctant to trust yourself, which is too bad because I think you know more than you realize.

 

[Gardener]

I posted this elsethread, but it seems to belong better here. In the context of my doubts about whether it has any value.

For me, GTD is supposed to be flat, but my project support material doesn't live in my main GTD lists, so it can be flat or not-flat or whatever I want. Each project's support material lives in whatever world works best for it, and then GTD just contains this week or month's slice of a small number of active projects.

The project support material for this year's garden, for example, lives in:

- The bed notebook, where the 120 beds of the garden each have their own page, plus some summary and sketch pages.
- The planning notebook, where I've filled 63 pages (roughly 8"X6" pages) with random lists and thoughts, most of those pages about the garden. Most of those pages are X'd out--I write thoughts, and then the thoughts change and I write the changed thoughts, Xing out the previous page.
- The BoxOSeeds, which is, of course, seeds, but in a way also serves asa a sort of physical list and a reference, as I go through the Ziplocs, read the packets, etc.

That's leaving out the countless garden books.

OmniFocus is mostly just an input and output for all that project support material. Right now, my Autumn/Winter Farm project has actions:

- Pick? (Weekly repeater)
- Water that bean bed
- Prep unused bean bed for carrots.
- Fix the broccoli soakers
- Shallots are coming! Plan!
- Prep Garden Day list
- Do Garden Day shopping

I'm studying them to work out my pattern of what lives in GTD and what doesn't.

"Pick" is just a weekly reminder to evaluate whether I need do do a good picking sweep to collect what we haven't eaten during the course of the week, probably to donate to the food bank. "Water that bean bed" is about an experimental bed of beans that seems to need more water than the other beans, so the automated watering isn't sufficient. I already chose between calling it a failure for that reason and letting it go, or watering, and I decided to water. It's on a three-day repeater so I don't forget.

So those all seem to be time-sensitive tasks. It seems logical to have them in OmniFocus, where they'll produce reminders.

"Prep...", "Fix...." and "Shallots..." are all tasks that will be moved out of OmniFocus and into the Garden Day list in my planning notebook. So I guess I'm using the garden project as a sort of Inbox for the gardening project support material.

The Garden Day list is the list of tasks that I want to do next time I have a chunk of several hours in the garden, which will be a week from this coming Saturday. It has a deadline of Wednesday of next week, as does Garden Day shopping, which is the reminder to get the stuff (gopher baskets, vermiculite, tiny soaker hose) for Garden Day.

Why am I writing all that? Frankly, for my entertainment and understanding. I could just delete it now. But just in case it's in any way useful, I'll post it.

 

[Ship69]

Gardener thanks - in truth I only half understand all that gardening stuff... but you've triggered a key thought.

If I'm correct, GTD is primarily focused on planning just the next week ahead. Hence the Weekly Review.

i.e. If I'm correct, longer term planning particularly larger projects that may require Gantt Charts & complex mind maps (particularly if they involve lots of other people) tends to happen in project support material.

In truth I've never completely got my head around how GTD is supposed to handle longer-term thinking & planning, and for sure I've not been getting my high level thinking done very well, and keep getting caught up & kept constantly busy in details - detailed stuff which in hind sight I probably should not nave been doing at all!

OK I think I need to re-read that section of the book!

 

[Oogiem]

I'm not sure I agree at all that GTD only looks at the week ahead. The whole point of the higher levels is to be sure that the things you are doing down in the weeds are those that will get you to the long term goal.

Plus there are those projects that are clearly defined projecs int eh GTD system that may take a lot longer than a year. In my case Iv'e had single projects I inherited from my mother that have taken a decade for me to finish. Still works well in GTD and yes they are complex with multiple people and other issues involves. Case in Point: Restore the Guest House. Was started by my mother before she passed away, basically went into someday/maybe for a while then got re-activated and took 3+ years from start to finish. Or Replace fencing. Simple easy project that took 6 years.

GTD handles larger or longer projects by a review of higher levels. In my case I actually start at the top, why am I here, and move down but you can also work from actions up.

 

[Ship69]

To get clear about what I meant, it's not the length of time that the project itself may run, it's about how soon you intend to execute anything to do with that project.

i.e. What I meant was that stuff is only made "Active" if you are planning to tackle it within the next week. Otherwise it gets put into the Someday pile, where it may well not happen (due to shifting priorities of life). So... as far as planning of when to do what and relative prioritizing of tasks competing for your attention, you only think 1 week out. And everything else "may not happen".

The clever bit is that there are only so many things that you can hope to pay attention to during one week, and that then becomes a manageable number of tasks, particularly if you divide them into Contexts.

 

[Oogiem]

To get clear about what I meant, it's not the length of time that the project itself may run, it's about how soon you intend to execute anything to do with that project.

i.e. What I meant was that stuff is only made "Active" if you are planning to tackle it within the next week.

Not for me, I keep active anything I might just possibly get to do in this 3 month season. Since most of my projects are seasonally restricted somehow that works to give me all teh choice I could work on in this season active in case I am able to move them forward.

 

[Gardener]

I think of Oogiem and I as being the extremes of tolerance/preference for complexity and number of tasks in the active GTD lists. (I may be wrong, but that's how I see it in my head.) I prefer fewer than a dozen active projects and no more than two or three actions per project, and I don't like the actions to look forward more than a week or three. I believe that Oogiem has...well, I can't remember, but I think that it's at least an order of magnitude larger.

 

[Oogiem]

I think of Oogiem and I as being the extremes of tolerance/preference for complexity and number of tasks in the active GTD lists.

I would agree. And that is the beauty of GTD. It can be made to fit either extreme.

And for reference just in my current active 137 projects I have 247 available actions and over 1500 remaining actions.