How to (quickly and efficiently) see if a project has a next action?

[mdtannet]

I have read all kinds of threads here and elsewhere about whether or not it makes sense to "link" next actions in your GTD tool. Apparently I am not the first to have consternation over this.

The consensus seems to be that you should not "link" next actions to a project directly. Instead, GTD would seem to say you just need to have a complete Projects list and a Next Actions list. If written clearly, it should be obvious what project you are moving along while completing a Next Action.

That all makes sense to me. Where I get confused is when my brain is trying to make the link in the other direction. In other words, if these are truly separate lists, how can I quickly and efficiently make sure that each of my projects has a next action during my Weekly Review?

I have 50-75 projects. Am I really supposed to read each one, then click over to my Next Actions list, scan it to make sure I see a Next Action, add one if I don't see one, then click back over to Projects and repeat?

I'm hung up on this and appreciate any suggestions on what I might be missing.

*I use Todoist btw.

 

[cfoley]

I usually put my project list and action list side by side.

I also use todoist and am aware that it only shows one list at a time. The way around it is to open two browser windows and arranging them side by side.

 

[bupkes]

I use a Python script that checks each project in Todoist and if it doesn't have at least one @next_action or @waiting_for tag then I get prompted to create one (or re-evaluate the project!)

 

[Gardener]

Do you have the impression that the objection to linking actions to projects is because it's inherently bad, or because it's an amount of work that might not pay off?

If it's the work thing, maybe the solution is a tool that gives you different views of your actions, allowing you to easily link them to a project but also easily view them without viewing the project link? OmniFocus is the only one I know for sure does that--are there others on the Windows side?

(Side note in the unlikely event that someone remembers,"Uh, didn't you stop using OmniFocus?" I spent a long time trying to stop using OmniFocus, because OmniFocus always ended up having too-long lists and all my complex strategies to reduce those lists failed. I'm back to it now, with a single much simpler strategy. Seems to be working.)

At work, where I can't use OmniFocus, I have tried prefixing my actions with a short string that represents the project. But that just tells me what project the action belongs to, not whether the project has an action. To see whether the project has an action, I have to search on the string. Plus, I don't reliably add the strings. So I don't have a good solution there. For me, the work GTD problem was solved coincidentally by the fact that I've changed assignments to one where I have fewer and larger projects.

 

[mdtannet]

I use a Python script that checks each project in Todoist and if it doesn't have at least one @next_action or @waiting_for tag then I get prompted to create one (or re-evaluate the project!)

I am not smart enough to do this, but that sounds truly awesome.

 

[mdtannet]

Do you have the impression that the objection to linking actions to projects is because it's inherently bad, or because it's an amount of work that might not pay off?

If it's the work thing, maybe the solution is a tool that gives you different views of your actions, allowing you to easily link them to a project but also easily view them without viewing the project link? OmniFocus is the only one I know for sure does that--are there others on the Windows side?

(Side note in the unlikely event that someone remembers,"Uh, didn't you stop using OmniFocus?" I spent a long time trying to stop using OmniFocus, because OmniFocus always ended up having too-long lists and all my complex strategies to reduce those lists failed. I'm back to it now, with a single much simpler strategy. Seems to be working.)

At work, where I can't use OmniFocus, I have tried prefixing my actions with a short string that represents the project. But that just tells me what project the action belongs to, not whether the project has an action. To see whether the project has an action, I have to search on the string. Plus, I don't reliably add the strings. So I don't have a good solution there. For me, the work GTD problem was solved coincidentally by the fact that I've changed assignments to one where I have fewer and larger projects.

I don't have an objection to linking next actions to projects personally, it just seems that what I've read it's not "true GTD" (an example here).

My current Todoist setup is to use Sections as my "Areas of Focus" (I have one for each client, business admin, etc,) and then underneath those sections are all the tasks associated. If a task is truly a "Project" in the GTD sense. Any Next Action tasks gets a label.

It's not perfect, but it seems to be working okay for now.

 

[mcogilvie]

Do you have the impression that the objection to linking actions to projects is because it's inherently bad, or because it's an amount of work that might not pay off?

If it's the work thing, maybe the solution is a tool that gives you different views of your actions, allowing you to easily link them to a project but also easily view them without viewing the project link? OmniFocus is the only one I know for sure does that--are there others on the Windows side?

(Side note in the unlikely event that someone remembers,"Uh, didn't you stop using OmniFocus?" I spent a long time trying to stop using OmniFocus, because OmniFocus always ended up having too-long lists and all my complex strategies to reduce those lists failed. I'm back to it now, with a single much simpler strategy. Seems to be working.)

At work, where I can't use OmniFocus, I have tried prefixing my actions with a short string that represents the project. But that just tells me what project the action belongs to, not whether the project has an action. To see whether the project has an action, I have to search on the string. Plus, I don't reliably add the strings. So I don't have a good solution there. For me, the work GTD problem was solved coincidentally by the fact that I've changed assignments to one where I have fewer and larger projects.

I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that linking projects to next actions is inherently bad, just that the overhead can be high, and people tend to get hung up with elaborate project plans. Todoist, TickTick and Nirvana have multi-platform support for both context and project views. Things has great support for projects, but relies on tags for contexts, which is only partially successful.

 

[Gardener]

I don't have an objection to linking next actions to projects personally, it just seems that what I've read it's not "true GTD" (an example here).

Ah, I see. That hasn't been my impression--my impression is that the debate is over whether it's worth the trouble, rather than any idea that it's actually wrong.

 

[Sally Rainbow-Ockwell]

I'm studying to be a GTD trainer, and part of that is looking at the Set-Up guide for Outlook, as a lot of corporates will use that. I raised precisely this question! I guess the issue very much depends on how many projects and actions you have. Personally I have almost 100 projects across a portfolio of businesses, so it's a significant point. I use a project and task management tool called Wrike, and it appears that I have been spoilt! I can tag my actions with multiple project or context tags. So when I go through my weekly review, it's easy. I just go down my Project List and can easily see if any of the actions that are associated with that project have one of my Next Action tags (eg. @office, @computer etc) associated with them. Equally on every action, I can see if there's an associated project.

 

[Oogiem]

The consensus seems to be that you should not "link" next actions to a project directly. Instead, GTD would seem to say you just need to have a complete Projects list and a Next Actions list.

I don't think there is any real consensus. I cannot fucntion without that link so for me for sure it's critical. I use software that support it easily.

my impression is that the debate is over whether it's worth the trouble,

Exactly. For me if I had to do it manually it would be difficult. But I find it extremely useful, so I selected a task manager that supports how I think and want to interact with my lists. One that fully supports easy viewing of things by project or by context. I use Omnifocus BTW. Yes I know it's Mac only but I am actually forbidden from using MS tools by some customres and have been on Mac and Linux for decades so no hardship there.

 

[Ariadne Marques]

Similar to @Oogiem I like having next actions linked to projects. It's an organizational thing for me (OCD maybe?) and the best digital solution I've found to do that seamlessly is Nirvana. You can see a unified list of all next actions across all projects or a list of next actions by projects, or even sequential next actions (if set up a project as "sequential" and not "parallel"). I think it's the best implementation I've seen for that.
Note: I've never tried Omnifocus because I'm a Windows user, so I can't compare.

 

[jmarsh]

I use a Python script that checks each project in Todoist and if it doesn't have at least one @next_action or @waiting_for tag then I get prompted to create one (or re-evaluate the project!)

This script sounds super useful! Would you mind sharing?

 

[AlexWinn]

To me, the advantage in NOT linking tasks to both projects and contexts is that it drastically speeds up processing time. This both reduces clutter and encourages ubiquitous capture — there’s less worrying that I won’t know what to do with a thing when there are less things I have to do with each thing. As far as the weekly review goes, I follow the checklist, in order. That means I look at the projects after having looked at action lists, calendar, and waiting for list. I’ll usually remember, for a given project, “Oh yeah, I decided to do such-and-such about that, it’s tracked on my @whatever list”. If in doubt, a quick search can usually clarify. Otherwise, I’ll need to re-evaluate, and this process can be useful in triggering me to do so. Linking each action to two things instead of one more than doubles my processing time, which given the amount of things (self-generated or otherwise) that land in my inbox, is prohibitively overwhelming for me.

 

[Gardener]

To me, the advantage in NOT linking tasks to both projects and contexts is that it drastically speeds up processing time. This both reduces clutter and encourages ubiquitous capture — there’s less worrying that I won’t know what to do with a thing when there are less things I have to do with each thing. As far as the weekly review goes, I follow the checklist, in order. That means I look at the projects after having looked at action lists, calendar, and waiting for list. I’ll usually remember, for a given project, “Oh yeah, I decided to do such-and-such about that, it’s tracked on my @whatever list”. If in doubt, a quick search can usually clarify. Otherwise, I’ll need to re-evaluate, and this process can be useful in triggering me to do so. Linking each action to two things instead of one more than doubles my processing time, which given the amount of things (self-generated or otherwise) that land in my inbox, is prohibitively overwhelming for me.

I think that this may depend on the software/system that you're using. Linking an action to both a project and a context doesn't add any significant effort in OmniFocus.

 

[mcogilvie]

I think that this may depend on the software/system that you're using. Linking an action to both a project and a context doesn't add any significant effort in OmniFocus.

Only on a Mac, I think. On an iPad with OF 3, setting context or project involves multiple taps in a not-great interface. OF 4 promises to be better, but the beta seems more alpha-ish to me.

 

[AlexWinn]

Yes, I think I see your point. To check my understanding, it’s that, given that I know which project and context a given action belongs with, organizing it according to both project and context is rather simple. How’d I do?

If this is in fact what you mean, my case still holds. It’s at the clarifying stage, where I have an opportunity to think about each item and decide which context (and potentially which project) it should be categorized with, that this is somewhat prohibitive for me. When I aim for a truly complete projects list (which I do, today — it’s good for my sanity), then i have upwards of 30 projects (often quite a bit more). So, mathematically, lets say I have 10 contexts and 30 projects (lower bound here). If I need to make a decision about both context and project on each item, that’s 10x30=300 possibilities for each item I’m clarifying, rather than 10. Moreover, my projects are much more fluid, whereas my contexts are relatively static. The difficulty in linking actions to projects scales as my project list becomes more complete and gets updated more regularly. This means that the better that I use such a system, the harder it gets to actually use it. This disincentives a “current & complete” state, at least for me.

So, in summary, what (“The better you get, the better you’d better get”) looks like for me today is letting go of the illusion of control that I can, with efficacy, link each task to some higher horizon, and instead make daily clarifying a relatively simple and painless process, and focus on actually reflecting back to my next action lists during the day, trusting the completeness of my projects list, and relying on the weekly review to bind it all together.

side note — I do actually have a Project called “BIG ROCKS”, which helps me trust that mission-critical things to move on don’t get lost in the cracks between weekly reviews.

 

[TesTeq]

side note — I do actually have a Project called “BIG ROCKS”, which helps me trust that mission-critical things to move on don’t get lost in the cracks between weekly reviews.

@AlexWinn As the GTD Police Officer on duty I have to ask:

• What is the successful outcome of your "BIG ROCKS" Project?
• How will you know that your "BICK ROCKS" Project is done?

 

[mcogilvie]

@AlexWinn As the GTD Police Officer on duty I have to ask:

• What is the successful outcome of your "BIG ROCKS" Project?
• How will you know that your "BICK ROCKS" Project is done?

It’s a Things project, not a GTD project. I can tell from the screenshot he’s using Things areas for Projects, Actions, Agendas, et cetera. That implies Things projects in the Actions area are probably GTD context lists. Very orthodox. “Big Rocks” is for some sort of goal reminders. Warn him that we will be watching him and let him go.

 

[Gardener]

Only on a Mac, I think. On an iPad with OF 3, setting context or project involves multiple taps in a not-great interface. OF 4 promises to be better, but the beta seems more alpha-ish to me.

Hmm. I checked my phone to see what I think, and was reminded that I'm using OF 2. I don't know if that version did it better, or if I'm just extra tolerant of the way it's done.

 

[Murray]

It’s at the clarifying stage, where I have an opportunity to think about each item and decide which context (and potentially which project) it should be categorized with, that this is somewhat prohibitive for me. When I aim for a truly complete projects list (which I do, today — it’s good for my sanity), then i have upwards of 30 projects (often quite a bit more). So, mathematically, lets say I have 10 contexts and 30 projects (lower bound here). If I need to make a decision about both context and project on each item, that’s 10x30=300 possibilities for each item I’m clarifying, rather than 10. Moreover, my projects are much more fluid, whereas my contexts are relatively static.

If you're just talking about cutting out the extra clicks required to create the links between actions and projects in your system, then that's totally understandable. However it sounds like you may also be talking about cutting out the need to *decide* whether an action is part of a project, and which one. Which to my mind would be a core component of the GTD process.

If this decision - "which, if any project is this action part of?" - seems complicated due to the number of choices, I would recommend just going step by step through the "Clarifying/Processing" workflow diagram from the book. I'm writing this on my phone otherwise I might be able to find a link to remind you what I'm referring to.

Ultimately this kind of decision making is just one of those mental 'muscles' that gets stronger and faster through consistent practice. I have also found over time I have become rather brutal about cutting down on unnecessary inputs (eg unsubscribing from almost all mailing lists.) That's a way of making the clarifying decision once rather than over and over again.