Granularity of Project List for Complex projects

[Bill Myers]

I said I was going to steal some of @Eureka5280's AOFs. I think I'm gonna steal a couple from @Oogiem too.

Of course, that means I'll need to buy a farm. And get sheep. And figure out what to do with a farm full of sheep.

Hm. I have this nagging feeling I'm missing a couple of intermediate steps.

 

[10xrealtor]

Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't any list of actions greater than one create "an illusion of parallelism"? Even if I limit myself to only one next action per project, I'm still gonna have a list of multiple actions and I'm still gonna be limited to only being able to do one thing at a time.

The reason I've always liked David Allen's suggestion to go ahead and list multiple actions for a given project if you've identified more than one, and none of them are dependent on anything else happening first, is that it seems more efficient to me. Why go back to project support repeatedly if I already know I can make three phone calls, send two emails, run two errands, create a spreadsheet for that project now?

Also, when I'm working in a given context it sometimes makes sense to stay in that context. I can start with one phone call. Maybe the one I think is most important in the moment. But when I'm in "phone mode," sometimes it makes sense to keep making calls. Sometimes it's not much harder to make ten calls than it is one (especially since there's a good chance some will go to voicemail). If I'm working on @home tasks, sometimes it's actually easier to keep working on that list than it is to switch contexts to remain in a given project. If I'm running @errands, it's nice to know all of the errands I could run without having to go back to project support. Especially since I wouldn't be looking at project support while I'm out and about; if I ran a bunch of errands, went home and identified another I could have run, I'd have to go back out. I'd be kicking myself.

I'm not saying that's always the case for me. Sometimes I stay in "project mode" and switch contexts. Sometimes I stay in "context mode" and switch projects. I know some people in this forum have expressed the view that it should be one or the other. For me, it's situational.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong or start an argument. Like I said, playing devil's advocate. Or think of it as food for thought. Or something.

Hi Bill, thank you for this input. I am also using Nirvana, and I am wondering how you outline your next actions list? Are you going into the project document and selecting the next action on your list of subactions? or are you only adding a few next actions from the project at a time?

I find myself going back and forth and creating additional decisions that I feel don't matter, would love to know what you do, thank you!

 

[Bill Myers]

Hi Bill, thank you for this input. I am also using Nirvana, and I am wondering how you outline your next actions list? Are you going into the project document and selecting the next action on your list of subactions? or are you only adding a few next actions from the project at a time?

I find myself going back and forth and creating additional decisions that I feel don't matter, would love to know what you do, thank you!

First, I don't want to mislead you. I've been on and off about GTD. I believe the best practices Allen has documented are the best practices, but I haven't been great at sticking with them. It's why I haven't been great at managing projects.

Second, I don't have a set answer. The overwhelming majority of my projects don't require any project support; for them, I just add next actions as they become apparent. For projects that I have had that required planning to get them off my mind, I've generally just created "back of the envelope" outlines to avoid forgetting anything. My GTD system generally degrades before I can make use of them. I'd like to think I'd review those plans as needed to add things to my actions lists.

I'm a GTD work in progress. There are probably better people from whom to seek advice.

 

[mcogilvie]

First, I don't want to mislead you. I've been on and off about GTD. I believe the best practices Allen has documented are the best practices, but I haven't been great at sticking with them. It's why I haven't been great at managing projects.

Second, I don't have a set answer. The overwhelming majority of my projects don't require any project support; for them, I just add next actions as they become apparent. For projects that I have had that required planning to get them off my mind, I've generally just created "back of the envelope" outlines to avoid forgetting anything. My GTD system generally degrades before I can make use of them. I'd like to think I'd review those plans as needed to add things to my actions lists.

I'm a GTD work in progress. There are probably better people from whom to seek advice.

Bill’s advice is in fact good advice. One of the things David Allen says that I took a long time to come around to is the idea of separating project support from next actions. I think this often manifests in outlines in the following way: outlining is an important skill, but outlines as formal documents are usually obsolete immediately after their completion. Plannning is important, but plans are not. What is important is to get your current thinking externalized. The other relevant thing David Allen says is that no two projects need the same form of project support. And that’s what Bill is telling you.

 

[Y_Lherieau]

I've read the book multiple times and this is something that's never really been clear to me - how many "sub-projects" and "sub-sub-projects" do you normally put on your Projects list all at once? Let's use the example of selling my house this year as my complex project. Within the final outcome of selling and moving there are a number of subprojects I need to complete, such as:

• Get fireplace repaired and in working order
• Get kitchen sink replaced
• Repaint baseboard trim
• Get carpets shampooed
• List house for sale
• Pack and Move

In reality, each of those includes multiple projects underneath them, for example getting the kitchen sink replaced will require:

• Choose plumber (research local plumbers, call each to request a quote, choose the one that fits best)
• Choose and purchase replacement sink (take measurements, research options, purchase the sink and hardware)

How many of those projects, subprojects, and sub-subprojects go on your list typically? Do you list "Sell House" on your Projects list in this case, AND "Replace Kitchen Sink", AND "Choose plumber", AND "Choose and purchase replacement sink"? Do you put "Sell House" on a different list of large projects and then only the subprojects go on the active list? Some other approach?

Thanks!

I add as many child projects as required to get it off my mind. In Todoist, it’s very easy to do.

 

[FocusGuy]

In Omnifocus I have created one global project then subproject
I begin each subproject with the main name of the global project followed by a dash

In Omnifocus you just create a folder eg (project name) then subproject. It may look like
Renovate the kitchen / Renovate kitchen_Vizualize(...), Renovate kitchen_Find an electrician, Renovate kitchen_Find a painter ....

Bill’s advice is in fact good advice. One of the things David Allen says that I took a long time to come around to is the idea of separating project support from next actions. I thinks this often manifests in outlines in the following way: outlining is an important skill, but outlines as formal documents are usually obsolete immediately after their completion. Plannning is important, but plans are not. What is important is to get your current thinking externalized. The other relevant thing David Allen says is that no two projects need the same form of project support. And that’s what Bill is telling you.

I recently understand this main point looking again at a fantastic video from MEG EDWARDS (Gtd focus) See here on Youtube about Omnifocus (manage the actionnable : How a gtd coach use OF) and mostly the second about how she manages non actionable items. She has two folder the first one is about the project it self it contains tasks actionnable or not (only actionnable are tagged) all reference material such as notes ... Is reference material she wants to have at hand goes into the second folder. Later on when the project will be over, if she wants to keep and historic of what she did she put it in Evernote (I put it in my Mac in archives)

This way of doing (separating project support from next actions) totally changed the way I use Omnifocus. Since I do like she does I work so well with Omnifocus and stick to it. Thanks you so much Meg ;-) I encourage everyone to see GTD focus video it's a gold mine.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

Very interesting GTD discussion

Thank you very much

On this end it would be great to be able to 'simply' move forward to completions from one 'holistic' Mind Map/Sweep, from one . . . yes one, however, again on this end, 'mind numbness' is what prevents that as a GTD solution

Thus, need to make as many distinctions as necessary without excess in order to mitigate any 'mind numbness' that sabotages Mind Like Water

Meanwhile, if Mind Like Water is one's ultimate reason practicing GTD, then depending on one's 'sensitivities' perhaps Mind Map/Sweep without --- immediate lines --- and without going bananas; a very stingy-&-strategic highlighter use for easy Focusing, might be an easy, efficient, and worthy GTD means to Mind Like Water:

Yellow for Projects
Red for Next Action(s)
Lines for/to Sub-Projects, Support, etc.?

Making the Intrinsic . . . Extrinsic as readily as possible without being subject to Mind [Confusion] Numbness by what has been made Extrinsic upon one's proximate Engagement(s) / Review(s) of what one has made Extrinsic/Internal from one's Intrinsic, Extrinsic/Internal, External sources ?

As you see GTD fit. . . .

If need be, any clarification(s) to anything above is always welcomed, thank you very much

Ps. By chance, if anyone were to suggest the above is make-believe GTD, then perhaps one might also consider a following GTD litmus:
Anything that appropriately accomplishes-&-facilitates Mind Like Water is an element of GTD ?