Is a project/action link needed or not?

tominperu

Registered
There has been some recent discussion in another thread (Katherine's on paper implementation of GTD) on that old chestnut of the need or otherwise of a link between action and projects in one's GTD system.

You can read that discussion on http://www.davidco.com/forum/showthread.php?p=44269&posted=1#post44269 There's some good stuff in it about people whining about the need for a link (DAs words not mine) and anderson makes a good case for a need for a link.

I thought I'd start another thread as this issue tends to submerge others. So to get the ball rolling...

When I first started doing GTD I felt I really needed the link in my system otherwise it seemed almost impossible to check each project has a next action which is a fundamental way of avoiding leaks in GTD. However, now it seems I can abandon this link in the system. It seems that I can just look at my project list and I remember which project has a next action and which has not.

This also has the profound advantage in that projects can be easily created, merged, split in two and modified without having to spend time creating, revising and maintaining the various links.

This seems to concur with DAs insistence that a link in the system isn't necessary but rather is dealt with intuitively in the head. However, I'm still not entirely sure that a link isn't necessary for everyone and for all working conditions. Certainly when I started GTD, the link was necessary as I eased myself into the system.

A related issue is how software programs manage links and how easily links are to change and review within these programs.

So, what do other people think?

I don't know if I can get the stuff from the other thread on to this one in some way. If someone knows how feel free to do it.
 

Ruud

Registered
Following up on my comments in that thread...

You write;

tominperu said:
When I first started doing GTD I felt I really needed the link in my system otherwise it seemed almost impossible to check each project has a next action which is a fundamental way of avoiding leaks in GTD.

My Weekly Review is mostly project based. I go through my pages of projects. Sometimes I know that this or that NA has been done; I cross it off. Looking at the information I have listed on the project page I decide what the Next Action is. I put it on the appropriate list and, on the project page, write that list behind it.

"Mail contract @errands"

So in that sense I certainly have a link between the two. Between the projects and the NA's. Yet there is no formal link. As the review is project based I pass every project and am aware whether or not a project has a NA or not.

I do think that it works out either way. However, for me the whole back-and-forth coupling just takes up more time, creates drag and doesn't have a productive pay off.
 

kewms

Registered
At Weekly Review time, I review my NA lists first, then my Project lists. That way I'm current on what my NAs are, have crossed off everything that's been done, and so forth. That makes it relatively easy to verify that each project has an NA.

OTOH, I have a relatively short list of projects. If I had hundreds, it would be much more difficult to keep track of them all.

On the other other hand, if you have more projects than you can track, you probably also have more projects than you can do at any given time. Rather than worrying about NAs for a project that you're not going to work on anyway, maybe it would be better to trim down the list?

Katherine
 

Brent

Registered
I, too, started by linking Next Actions with Projects. I don't do that any more, and don't feel a need to.

During my Weekly Review, I approach my lists from both directions. I look at my Projects, and ensure there's a Next Action for each. Then, I look at each Next Action, and ensure there's a Project for it (if appropriate).

As I've used GTD more, I've gotten better at writing a new Next Action when I complete an Action. As I complete the action, I remember which project it's part of, and can more easily think of the next action.
 
H

Harrowdrive

Guest
I cheat a bit by using the Trimpath Next Action software. You can tie projects to actions there.

But I feel bad about it.
 

tominperu

Registered
Ruud;44272 said:
However, for me the whole back-and-forth coupling just takes up more time, creates drag and doesn't have a productive pay off.

That elegantly sums up what I wanted to say about my recent experience!

However, someone on Katherine's thread talked about having lots of "waiting for"s for lots of different projects. The projects are active in the sense of you might need to follow up the "waiting for" in the weekly review but not in the sense of having any other next actions. I concede that you might need a link for this type of situation.

Tom
 

andersons

Registered
Ruud;44272 said:
However, for me the whole back-and-forth coupling just takes up more time, creates drag and doesn't have a productive pay off.
tominperu;44281 said:
That elegantly sums up what I wanted to say about my recent experience!
If creating and maintaining project-action links is unproductively time-consuming, then that is a limitation of the tool(s) being used. It takes me no longer than about 3 additional seconds to create an NA that is automatically related to its project. And I spend 0 time later making sure that projects have NAs or vice versa. So for me capturing the relationship in my system is not time-consuming. In fact, it saves time.

Do I "need" to have the project-action relationship explicitly in my system? No, no more than I "need" to have an automatic dishwasher, washing machine, or dryer.
 

tominperu

Registered
andersons;44286 said:
If creating and maintaining project-action links is unproductively time-consuming, then that is a limitation of the tool(s) being used.

And I know you use Life Balance! I'm still getting round to trying it out properly. It may as you say, be the tools one uses. I've tried the Contacts as Projects method in Outlook and the GTD add-in and its too time consuming in both of these. For me anyway.

I'd be interested in the opinions of the benefit/disbenefits of linking from other people who use Life Balance.

Tom
 

Ruud

Registered
Which is my point: I do think that it works out either way and that for me it isn't worth it.

I use pen & paper so prepending a project name or label to an NA is trivial -- but for me most of the time it is also trivial it that it doesn't give me anything extra. I could write certain NA's in a different ink color. Doesn't take that much time to switch from pen -- but what does it give me?

Look, the vast majority of people here are not in a position where they have 300 active projects. We have, what, 50 to 60 or so? Yet how many people are struggling with trying to find the best way to link tasks and projects together in Outlook? How do to link subprojects back to projects?

Waste of time for the most part because we know what belongs to what.

If not... Well, if you look at a NA list and for the life of it, you cannot figure out where this or that NA comes from -- you have seriously miswritten that NA :) "upload file" or "sent letter" is not a well written NA unless there is just one file, just one letter. Otherwise, make your NA more descriptive.

But yes -- it works both ways. With a project link or without one.
 

darlakbrown

Registered
Life Balance user

I also use Life Balance. First, you have to set-up LB according to the instructions in a thread on this forum. Once you do this, there is no doubling up on writing actions. You either enter it under your Project list and assign it to the appropriate context or you simply enter it under the appropriate context in the outline if it has no attached project. Then, when you view that particular context, it magically shows up!

My weekly reviews are a piece of cake because I can very quickly see which projects need a new action.

Oh and another bonus... if I feel like it during Project Planning time, I can add a whole list of actions to a single project, assign a different context to each, and then choose for these actions to appear one after another or appear concurrently if they are not dependent on each other.

LB appears to be a fairly simple database implementation. It's all about how the database fields relate to one another. That tied in with dual views (outline vs. context) that you can easily switch between. Simple and elegant GTD solution IMHO.

I tried using Entourage and Outlook at work. Yikes! So laborious and confusing I had to go back to a simpler tool.

Best,

Darla

:mrgreen:
 

GTDWorks

Registered
Here's How I Link Projects with NA's

I'm the Lead Pastor of a church. Here's the system I use to "link" Next Actions to Projects:

1. I house my Projects and NA's in iCal Task List (could be any tool you choose). I use the task note section to record the Successful Outcome and Next Actions.

2. I list the Project, the Successful Outcome for the Project, and then list the very Next Action to move it forward. The NA ends with an “*” (asterisk)

3. I cut and past that Next Action into the appropriate context on my NA lists and include the "*".

4. When I complete a NA (which the “*” identifies as such), I go back to the Project and add another NA for the Project. I remove the * from the first one and add it to the very NA for the Project. I cut and paste that NA into the appropriate context. I do this with every NA until the Project is complete.

5. Sometimes I only have two NA’s so I don’t need to be so thorough, but most of my Projects are 4-8 NA steps, so this works great for me.

6. As I review my lists, I can quickly identify the very NA’s for all my Projects.

7. The Weekly Review keeps it all together and flowing smoothly.

Here’s What It Looks Like:

Project: Engage Sunday Runway Coordinator

Successful Outcome: Our Sunday morning workflow challenges will have disappeared and everything will work as required.

Next Action:

Inform Board Vice Chair on process and position need. (Done)

Update my Admin. Asst. on the process and have her book meeting with X (done).

TC Dana and secure her involvement (Done)

Have Gina schedule meeting with Dana to review position requirements (Done).

Outline meeting agenda* (this is now resting in my @Laptop NA list)

The system works extremely well for me and is a simple solution for “linking” NA’s to my Projects.
 

darlakbrown

Registered
How to set-up GTD on LifeBalance (link)

tominperu;44292 said:
Which thread are you referring to?

Tom
Woops Sorry Tom.. I was going to put a link in there.

It's actually not on DavidCo... or maybe it is but I can't find it now..

It's on the llamagraphics.com forums...

Try this...

http://www.llamagraphics.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2122&mesg_id=7215

I have tweaked mine a little once I got used to Life Balance but this is a good start. If I find other reference, I'll post it here, too.

Thanks,
Darla
 

tominperu

Registered
GTDWorks;44293 said:
The system works extremely well for me and is a simple solution for “linking” NA’s to my Projects.

There's lots of ways of linking tasks and projects. And thanks for detailing yours.

The question for me is whether for any particular method, the benefits (for example, in time saved in checking all projects have next actions) outweigh the costs in time of maintaining the links.

This method described for instance seems quite labour intensive for me, and I doubt that for me the benefits would make up for that. But, of course everyone is different and everyone's circumstances are different.

With Life Balance the method of linking seems relatively quick and straightforward and I hope to try it sometime (over a period of about a month, which is what is needed to really find out if it works for me). I do wonder however if the work required in establishing and maintaining links will be really worth it - even in Life Balance. For instance I regularly enter actions in Outlook without even having to think about what project they relate to, although when it comes to reviewing the project list, it is obvious.

I find that I also often merge different projects into one and sometimes decide to split a project into a number of smaller projects. Can the links be easily shifterd around in Life Balance or will I have to spend time at weekly review keeping the links current?

The great thing about keeping links just in our heads is that the links can be changed without having to input this into the system.

Tom
 

tominperu

Registered
GTDWorks;44293 said:
The system works extremely well for me and is a simple solution for “linking” NA’s to my Projects.

There's lots of ways of linking tasks and projects. And thanks for detailing yours.

The question for me is whether for any particular method, the benefits (for example, in time saved in checking all projects have next actions) outweigh the costs in time of maintaining the links.

This method described for instance seems quite labour intensive for me, and I doubt that for me the benefits would make up for that. But, of course everyone is different and everyone's circumstances are different.

With Life Balance the method of linking seems relatively quick and straightforward and I hope to try it sometime (over a period of about a month, which is what is needed to really find out if it works for me). I do wonder however if the work required in establishing and maintaining links will be really worth it - even in Life Balance. For instance I regularly enter actions in Outlook without even having to think about what project they relate to, although when it comes to reviewing the project list, it is obvious.

I find that I also often merge different projects into one and sometimes decide to split a project into a number of smaller projects. Can the links be easily shifterd around in Life Balance or will I have to spend time at weekly review keeping the links current?

The great thing about keeping links just in our heads is that the links can be changed without having to input this into the system. (not sure if this last sentence make sense but I think you'll understand what I mean).

Tom
 

BigStory

Registered
What David said...

In the Podcast interview that Merlin Mann and David created, David specifically stated that he has never had the question, "How do I link next actions and projects?" raised by someone who consistently did their Weekly Review.

So I guess David's answer is that your brain does the linking, and there is no software that even comes close to power and efficiency of your brain - and that, besides adding the drag of additional data entry.

You "program" you brain with a consistent Weekly Review, and the "linking" happens automatically. I can see however, that if your Weekly Review was a rare or sporadic thing, that the links would get broken and have to be "reset".

FWIW,
Gordon
 

jpm

Registered
Action-Project Linking is not needed

BigStory;44299 said:
I can see however, that if your Weekly Review was a rare or sporadic thing, that the links would get broken and have to be "reset".

This is exactly the point. If you aren't doing your weekly review, you aren't doing GTD.

In the pod-cast David may have been a little "undiplomatic", but there is probably several possible reasons for his response.

1. He's probably sick of people asking him this question in the same whiney voice and when he gives what he knows to be the correct answer, that it is not needed if you'd just do the weekly review, all he recieves is a blank stare.

2. His attitude may have been to intentionally provoke you into disproving his belief (and thereby discovering that he was right all along).

3. He may have been prompting you to a sort of "Wax-On/Wax-Off" productivity martial art training... (Do the weekly review).

The point is the link is not needed if you do the weekly review. And if you don't do the weekly review you're not doing GTD.

It took me a year to realize that David was right. Just before going to Road Map in SF last year I sat down to prove him wrong. I was certain I needed the link (I'd only been doing weekly reviews about every other week). I did a weekly review (over 200 projects and close to 300 Next Actions) and then went through every next action and instantly knew what project it was for...

I haven't really worried too much about the Action-Project linking since then. However, I did recently stumble on a similar challenge as I started to move up the altitudes. I was spending a lot of time linking projects to higher altitudes, and realized it wasn't really worth the overhead. It's the same issue. I wasn't reviewing the higher altitudes on a frequent enough basis. I've fixed that and now the Matrix is more or less complete. I know instantly, and intuitively that a Next Action is part of project X which is part of objective Y in support of long term Goal Z.

Would it be nice to have technology handle all of this for us? Sure. But it would need to be completely automated, zero-overhead feature to be of use... Even 3 seconds is too much overhead given the payoff. Over a year, 3 seconds x 200 Next Actions/Week x 52 weeks ~ 10 hours of overhead annually. I'd much rather have the 10 hours for something more productive...

In fact, I've come to believe that linking the next action to projects is actually destructive to the effectiveness of GTD. Your action lists are supposed to be actionable without thinking. If this is truely the case, why would you need to know what project you are linked to in order to make a phone call? Adding a project tag (IMHO) is a crutch that prevents you from accurately describing the Next Action in such a way that you can do it without thinking. This leads to procrastination.

For example:

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: [project]

vs.

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: confirm 12/13/06 9:30 EST meeting.

With the first example I have to think about the project before I make the call because I don't recall what I wanted to talk to Bob about. Because of that I may avoid making the call.

With the second, I don't have to think, I can just call. If I don't get Bob, I can either confirm with his admin, or leave a voice mail and change @Calls to @Waiting For...
 

tominperu

Registered
BigStory;44299 said:
In the Podcast interview that Merlin Mann and David created, David specifically stated that he has never had the question, "How do I link next actions and projects?" raised by someone who consistently did their Weekly Review.

Well, maybe people are just rather too polite!

I could have asked him that question a year and a half ago and I can honestly say I was doing the weekly review consistently. Now it may be true that I've got better at GTD and can now see that linking may not be necessary but that's something else.
 

BigStory

Registered
Why start handicapped...?

I guess my (personal) reponse to that Tom, is that if you had found a system that made physical linking "comfortable" you might have missed out on the far more efficient and powerful work that your brain has learned to do a bit farther down the stretch.

Aside from simply being faster, there are many other things that your mind can do once it is part of the loop, that software could not. Adjustments on the fly, taking new factors into consideration, creativity, spying and including new opportunities... all can be done "intuitively" if your mind is engaged at the right point in the process. I'm sure we could think of many more.

Part of David's frustration may be that people (me included) seem to go through this phase of wanting to take thinking almost entirely out of the process, when really it is the *type* of thinking that needs to change. I think it is in a way "harder" work to engage your mind creatively than to use it for connecting the dots - it's just not *really* harder when you see the exponential difference in results that comes from engaging your mind at a different level.

Best Wishes,
Gordon
 

mcogilvie

Registered
jpm;44302 said:
This is exactly the point. If you aren't doing your weekly review, you aren't doing GTD.
..
The point is the link is not needed if you do the weekly review. And if you don't do the weekly review you're not doing GTD.
..
I did a weekly review (over 200 projects and close to 300 Next Actions) and then went through every next action and instantly knew what project it was for.
..
In fact, I've come to believe that linking the next action to projects is actually destructive to the effectiveness of GTD. Your action lists are supposed to be actionable without thinking. If this is truely the case, why would you need to know what project you are linked to in order to make a phone call? Adding a project tag (IMHO) is a crutch that prevents you from accurately describing the Next Action in such a way that you can do it without thinking. This leads to procrastination.

For example:

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: [project]

vs.

@Calls: Bob 800 555-1111 re: confirm 12/13/06 9:30 EST meeting.

With the first example I have to think about the project before I make the call because I don't recall what I wanted to talk to Bob about. Because of that I may avoid making the call.

With the second, I don't have to think, I can just call. If I don't get Bob, I can either confirm with his admin, or leave a voice mail and change @Calls to @Waiting For...

This is one part of GTD that I no longer believe, at least for me. I am completely capable of doing a good weekly review, and forgetting any "invisible mind links" the next day. I can do ok this way if I do a weekly review every two or three days, but the overhead is too high. I have a lot of very different responsibilities, and many different types of projects going on at all times. Alas, many of them do require thinking.:) So some form of linking is a requirement for me.

I also believe that project connection is not only beneficial, but sometimes crucial. Let's take the example of that phone call. Bob (in my case he's the dean of our graduate school) may very well want to discuss that upcoming meeting with me, or bring up something unrelated but important. So I need to be on top of the issues before I make the call.
 
Top