How to manage a lists of sub projects on paper?

M

Mike Simms

0
I've seen in this forum many posts on the urge to change one's list management system to another! I find myself really trying to get back to a paper system, but where it gets awkward is where an action sounds like an action (so I write it on the action list) but once I sit down to do it, it turns out not to be so simple and becomes a sub-project.

(N.B. I'm not just talking about something that *could* be broken down but where it must be, e.g. maybe I can do some initial calculations but then I need to confirm some figure or other piece of data but whoever it is is in a meeting, so the sub-project is 'stuck' until I can get that figure.)

You may say that I should use a computer-based tool to get the benefit of flexibility, but I would love to hear from any paper-based GTD practioners if you have any techniques to keep projects, sub-projects and actions orderly and tidy. The goal is to keep the action list with a 'high turnover' and all the lists tidy. There's nothing more demotivating than a list of actions which don'tget quite *done* because they are really sub-projects that have not been conciously recognised as such.

Thank you!
 
I gave up on paper lists about 20 years ago, but as I recall it I tried to keep both my action lists and my project plans as "high-level" as possible in order to minimize the need for rewriting. For example, a project plan might contain sub-projects, but these may not always have been fully populated with a complete set of actions, just those that was afraid I might forget later on. If I needed additional actions or subactions on my current lists I think I would usually just write them down as separate actions (and, yes, lose perspective of which of the current actions belongs to which project - I would be too lazy to write down the relationship by hand, even though I would have wanted it.)

It is perfectly workable to use paper, but I do appreciate the computer's ability to view the same stuff from different perspectives (by project,/area, by context or whatever). I have never so far seen any one perspective that is the ultimate one and only. But If I was forced to select only one perspective and stick to it forever, I would probably still settle for keeping it listed by context - that's what I used to do with most of the current stuff.
 
Mike Simms said:
I've seen in this forum many posts on the urge to change one's list management system to another! I find myself really trying to get back to a paper system, but where it gets awkward is where an action sounds like an action (so I write it on the action list) but once I sit down to do it, it turns out not to be so simple and becomes a sub-project.

(N.B. I'm not just talking about something that *could* be broken down but where it must be, e.g. maybe I can do some initial calculations but then I need to confirm some figure or other piece of data but whoever it is is in a meeting, so the sub-project is 'stuck' until I can get that figure.)

You may say that I should use a computer-based tool to get the benefit of flexibility, but I would love to hear from any paper-based GTD practioners if you have any techniques to keep projects, sub-projects and actions orderly and tidy. The goal is to keep the action list with a 'high turnover' and all the lists tidy. There's nothing more demotivating than a list of actions which don'tget quite *done* because they are really sub-projects that have not been conciously recognised as such.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

I used a paper-based system for 3 years in law school, and then moved to OmniFocus, then to a plain-text-file system, and now back to OmniFocus. ;)

I'm not entirely clear on the situation you're describing, so forgive me if this isn't directly responsive.

If I had an action on one of my NA lists, e.g., "Type up first draft of document X," but when I sat down at my computer I realized I couldn't do that until speaking with Jeff first, I would just cross that off my NA list, maybe rephrase it, and move it to my Projects list (it could also be indented under a larger project if you want to organize it as a "sub-project"). The new NA would be "Schedule meeting with Jeff re first draft of document X." What's wrong with that?
 
where it gets awkward is where an action sounds like an action (so I write it on the action list) but once I sit down to do it, it turns out not to be so simple and becomes a sub-project.
Click to expand...

When I write (or type) my next actions I try to imagine myself doing it. It has to be physically actionable. It's like you were delegating the next action to another person that don't know much about the project.

If, when you are doing the action, you realize that something else has to be done beforehand, then adjust your action list
 
When I develop sub-projects, I treat them as parallel projects, all projects (including the original project) at the same level, and I leave a "WAITING FOR" in the original project that refers to the sub-project. (At least if the sub-project really does stall the original project.)

This is purely preference with software, but if I were using paper, it would be mandatory for me. That doesn't mean that it's mandatory for you, but I wouldn't want to deal with visually representing hierarchical relationships on paper.

As an example, let's say that I had a project:

Project: Fabulous Jacket.

I progress through various actions:

- Buy wool.
- Treat wool.
- Adjust pattern fit.

I get to "adjust pattern fit" and I realize that there's some fatal flaw with the pattern that I intended to use. I THOUGHT that it was fine, dandy, all fitted and tested from past projects, but I realize that, no, it won't work.

So now I need to not only select, but fit and test a new pattern. This is a multi-step item--I don't want to use the expensive wool for the Fabulous Jacket until I've actually made, and worn, at least one other jacket made with the new pattern and less expensive fabric.

So now there's a piece of paper (in the scenario where I have a paper system) with:

Project: Fabulous Jacket.
Next Action: WAITING FOR Develop New Jacket Pattern. Context: WAITING FOR.

And a piece of paper with:

Project: Develop New Jacket Pattern.
Next Action: Post to PatternReview asking for pattern recommendations. Context: ONLINE

That's how I'd do it.
 
Thank you for your replies!

Folke, I may well end up with computer-based system but I will give paper one more go!

Jenkins, My hook into the scenario you describe about 'Type Draft' would be, having learned the hard way, that this should sound to me like a subproject rather than an action. The true first action may be to 'Review Notes on project X', and I'm much more likely to sit down and get on with it.

Popoye, your metaphor there about "It's like you were delegating the next action to another person that don't know much about the project" is fantastic! It consolidates how I've been thinking of actions as "imagine you had an employee and you were handing off a portion of the work to them".

I think in my case the best is a slightly slimmed-down version of what Gardener is suggesting:
- One piece of paper with Project: Fabulous Jacket, which I will maybe add a very short Wild Sucess comment, but otherwise keep blank.
- Actions, as ever, on actions or context list
- WHEN it dawns on me that I need to 'Develop a new jacket pattern', that goes on the original Project: Fabulous Jacket page, and I can tick it off when done.

Perhaps the way not to have too may untidy project/sub-project lists it to keep each item on a separate piece of paper. Actions, if they are real actions, should 'turn over' quickly and it doesn't matter if the papers get messy. Once the project pages are tidy one can have a nice focussed weekly review.

As happens very often: it's all there in the book but you've just got to read it again until some tiny aspect clicks with you!

Thanks again,

Mike
 
Hey, Mike,

I meant to reply sooner, but I think that's probably OK because you got some great feedback above.

I just wanted to say that I use a paper system not because it's necessarily more efficient (most times yes, sometimes no) but because there's some connection that my brain creates when seeing my handwriting that makes my lists much easier for me to scan than a typed list. Go figure, right?

To keep the lists moving, though, I use 1/2 sized sheets (in the U.S. that's 5.5" x 8.5") that only hold about 25 items per page, and I only write on the front, not the back. (Yes, it's wasteful but... sigh... it keeps the system clean.) When 80% or so of the items are checked off, I'll start a new page, transferring the remaining items. This seems like extra work but usually there's a reason there are stragglers. Maybe they're not really the next action, maybe they belong on a different context list... so it's like doing a mini review on a regular basis.

As many times as I've switched to OmniFocus or other device-based solutions I always come back to paper. I use some tools for specific activities (Wunderlist for defining a project's actions, MindNode for mind mapping, Evernote for storing the rest of my brain) but paper rocks my world for lists.

Dena
 
Dena, very timely! I have been drifting back to a paper system over the past few weeks for the very reason you mention. My struggle is that a full letter size sheet of paper has too much room and inhibits what I'm doing. How to you store/carry your half sheets? Are you using a binder or disc bound system?
 
TMac said:
How to you store/carry your half sheets? Are you using a binder or disc bound system?
Click to expand...
I use the disc system with dividers for each context. Levenger has some great styles but I use the Arc system from Staples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top