Keeping NA List in Sync with Projects

[kewms]

IMHO, artificially linking projects and NA's just creates more work and makes the process that more cumbersome.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If a particular NA helps move a particular project forward, than there's nothing "artificial" about the link between the two. You may or may not find it helpful to use tools that explicitly capture the link, but the link itself exists whether you record it in your system or not.

I'm also not sure why, say, assigning an Outlook category that contains the project name is cumbersome or work-creating. Certainly maintaining the link between projects and NAs *can* be cumbersome, but to me that means that the wrong tool is being used, not that the goal itself is undesirable.

Katherine

 

[jkgrossi]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If a particular NA helps move a particular project forward, than there's nothing "artificial" about the link between the two. You may or may not find it helpful to use tools that explicitly capture the link, but the link itself exists whether you record it in your system or not.

By "artificial" I mean linking through software or some other tool, not that the nature of the link itself is artificial. In my system, the links exist, but they may not be easily discernible upon review by someone other than myself.

On the other hand, I'm gathering that much of the "linking" that is being discussed here would be easily discernible upon review by anyone (e.g. I could pick up your project list and NA lists and physically see them linked).

I'm also not sure why, say, assigning an Outlook category that contains the project name is cumbersome or work-creating. Certainly maintaining the link between projects and NAs *can* be cumbersome, but to me that means that the wrong tool is being used, not that the goal itself is undesirable.

Katherine

I don't disagree, however, using your Outlook category suggestion I could easily have more than 50 distinct categories (one for each project). I'm just drawing off of my own experiences with this when I say that it creates more work and tends to be cumbersome. For example, when I first started using the GTD for Outlook software, I noticed that the software accommodates links between projects and next actions. I *tried* to link them, and my first thoughts were:

1) This is going to take me forever to do; and
2) This is going to take me forever to maintain.

Same goes w/some of the outline software (such as Bonsai) that I've tried for my Palm. I simply move too fast, and find this type of linking to bog my system down.

Granted, come review time this "linking" would make it much quicker. I could simply scan my list of projects and ensure that there are NAs attached to each one. But, to me one of the inherent values of the weekly review is that I'm forced to sit down and evaluate each of the projects on my list. At this time, I think pretty throughly through each and every one of them, making sure that not only are there NAs, but that the NAs are still relevant.

I want the system to be quick, but I don't necessarily want my weekly review to be quick. I don't know if I want to be able to easily see each of the NAs linked to each of my project, out of fear that I might breeze through my projects list thinking, "OK... each one of them has a NA... I'm done" rather than give them the attention that they deserve. Make any sense?

Jim

 

[andersons]

The most important projects are characterized by a large number of potential next actions, many moving parts, complicated state, large amounts of information, and shifting, tentative goals. What I don't see in any of the GTD material is how to handle these kinds of projects.

GTD does not address complex projects in great detail, but it does address project planning briefly (Chapter 10, Getting projects under control). The discussion is general, and the key tools mentioned are hierarchical, mind maps on paper and outlines in Microsoft Word. Following the ideas in the book, you might mind map a project on paper, identify NAs you came up with, and transfer these into your separate projects and NA lists.

I do whatever I have to do for a given project, but in the end it must be outlined somehow -- subprojects, subsubprojects, however many levels I need -- I don't want to be arbitrarily constrained; and NAs must be captured in a usable way. That is why I use a tool that integrates the hierarchical project planning with support for NAs, all in one place. I don't have to transfer NAs to another system; they are already there integrated with all the levels of the project. NAs can also have due dates, lead times, and be scheduled on the calendar (e.g., meetings). This integration is especially useful for dynamically changing projects. If you haven't tried any of these yet, I highly recommend you do.

I spend a lot of my time working on 3 projects right now that sound similar to this. One is writing a large-scale collaborative proposal for NSF. (As soon as a project is collaborative, the complexity seems to shoot up exponentially for me.) These projects are broken down into an outline. The most complex is 5 levels deep right now. The NAs are the leaves and show up on my context lists. It's a big outline with lots of subprojects. I review it and change it frequently; I know what actions need to be completed and what subprojects need more planning. I have a representation of the big picture of the project plus the NAs in my mind that I just would have a hard time achieving without this outline. I know what subproject needs to be complete a month from now, plus what I need to work on today.

I also have one complex project with which I have no prior experience. For this one, I started the project planning on paper because I didn't even know how to outline it. I didn't know what the subprojects should be. The paper got messy, so then I moved to a whiteboard and used different colored post-its that I could move around, to play with different dimensions of subprojects. Once I got a feel for a plan I thought would work, I outlined it as usual. The outline dynamically evolves throughout the week.

 

[kewms]

On the other hand, I'm gathering that much of the "linking" that is being discussed here would be easily discernible upon review by anyone (e.g. I could pick up your project list and NA lists and physically see them linked).

Not necessarily. My system hides a lot of the links unless I'm explicitly reviewing them. For example, project links are not necessarily obvious in my context-sorted NA list. But the project links are there if I need them.

Granted, come review time this "linking" would make it much quicker. I could simply scan my list of projects and ensure that there are NAs attached to each one. But, to me one of the inherent values of the weekly review is that I'm forced to sit down and evaluate each of the projects on my list. At this time, I think pretty throughly through each and every one of them, making sure that not only are there NAs, but that the NAs are still relevant.

I want the system to be quick, but I don't necessarily want my weekly review to be quick. I don't know if I want to be able to easily see each of the NAs linked to each of my project, out of fear that I might breeze through my projects list thinking, "OK... each one of them has a NA... I'm done" rather than give them the attention that they deserve. Make any sense?

That makes sense, but I guess my experience is the opposite. Five minutes per project times 50 projects makes the weekly review more than four hours long, before I even get to long term planning and other weekly review type tasks. That's more time than I'm willing to commit to something I view as simply housekeeping, especially if I can find a software tool to do the same thing automatically.

Katherine

 

[jkgrossi]

I'm with you...

And yes, my weekly review takes A LOT of time to complete, so in a sense I can understand why the links as you describe might be useful.

Can you recommend any software that you've found especially useful?

 

[kewms]

I use ResultsManager (http://www.gyronix.com/resultmanager.php), which is a GTD-aware add-in for MindManager (http://www.mindjet.com). It's expensive, but very powerful. Lets you slice and dice tasks and projects every which way, tie essentially unlimited notes to each project or task, and (pro version) ship the whole shebang off to Outlook.

ResultsManager makes the project-action link automatically: each "action" node inherits the project (and subproject) name(s) from the levels above it. These become category names if you export to Outlook.

Katherine

Disclaimer: No connection with Gyronix or MindJet, just a satisfied customer of both.

 

[andersons]

On the other hand, I'm gathering that much of the "linking" that is being discussed here would be easily discernible upon review by anyone (e.g. I could pick up your project list and NA lists and physically see them linked).

I see 2 distinct functions of the linking, the visual interface for the user and the functional links for data manipulation.

1) The visual interface. This is what helps the mind understand and remember information. For example, here are 2 visual representations of links:
D:AndersonMy DocumentsResearchPapersanderson2004.pdf

-D:
++Other stuff
--Anderson
+++Other stuff
----My Documents
++++Other stuff
-----Research
+++++Other stuff
------Papers
++++++Other stuff
---------anderson2004.pdf

Both are visually useful. (Not absolutely necessary -- I get by with command-line UNIX without the second.) And obviously, with indentation, color, icons, fonts, and other visual aids, the visualization is even better. For a project, I have structure like

ResearchMusic-language fMRI study is publishedCreate stimuli for Judy's fMRI projectFigure out how to export notation to vector graphics

-Research [goal/category]
--Music-language fMRI study is published [project]
----Create stimuli for Judy's fMRI project [subproject]
>>>>Figure out how to export notation to vector graphics [NA, @Computer]
>>>>Transcribe tunes in 4/4 [NA, @Computer]
>>>>Figure out how to enlarge notation [NA, @Lab]

This is just a nice visual picture of the links for me. Whether those links are clear to you or anyone else, I don't know. I don't have to have them; but they are really helpful. There are many other ways to represent the links. I can create them in my head, on paper, or with software. I can have
"Create stimuli" on one piece of paper, a projects list, and
"Figure out how to export. . ." on another piece of paper, a NA list
and visualize the same link in my mind in any number of different ways.

Incidentally, another view of those same NAs is useful, too, the context-sorted NA list. The same NAs above can be shown as

@Computer
---------------------------------
O Figure out how to export notation to vector graphics
O Transcribe tunes in 4/4
O other NAs from other projects in my outline

The NAs are the same data displayed along a different dimension - the place where they're done.

2) Functional links are maintained by software to allow you to manipulate data more easily. The software has to know about the structure of the data and provide operations to manipulate it.

For example, I care a lot about NAs. I would like to see them in relation to their parent projects and goals, as shown in the outline view above. And I would also like to see them filtered by context. Software that maintains appropriate data structures for NAs will do both more easily. I enter a single NA; I switch between the view with its parent project (outline view) and its association with a place to do it (context view) with a touch of a button.

Good software also lets you manipulate a bunch of related data at once. For example, with a file system, I can "drag" a whole folder to a new location on the hard drive. If the file system didn't maintain the links between folders and all the files in them, you'd have to move them individually which would be a pain. With a Word document, I can change the formatting of all Level 2 headings with one operation. (Hmm, I don't know about saying "good software" and "Word" in the same paragraph. . .but I guess it is better than a typewriter.)

With my projects, suppose Judy emails me that the scanner is down; we don't need the stimuli for at least a month. Suppose I have 8 NAs on various context lists, all to move that fMRI project forward. Because my software maintains the links and allows this manipulation, I can with a few taps get all 8 NAs off my lists for now and have them show up in a month. Doing it manually does not improve my project planning; it's just a chore to get done; I prefer to have it automated.

The first function of the links, visualizing, can be accomplished many ways, including only in your head. The second, automated manipulation of data, can only be accomplished with well-designed software. That's what computers are best for, manipulating information in ways that humans find tedious. It's this second function that makes well-designed software all but indispensable for me. (Of course, automation doesn't always pay off; it depends on the scale and complexity of the data. I don't use typesetting software to write a simple letter.)

Some software gives you the first - nice visuals - without the second - powerful manipulation. This is the kind that may seem like more trouble than it's worth, especially if you are good at visualizing structure in your head.

 

[andersons]

When is the overhead too much work?

1) This is going to take me forever to do; and
2) This is going to take me forever to maintain.

Same goes w/some of the outline software (such as Bonsai) that I've tried for my Palm. I simply move too fast, and find this type of linking to bog my system down.

Granted, come review time this "linking" would make it much quicker. I could simply scan my list of projects and ensure that there are NAs attached to each one. But, to me one of the inherent values of the weekly review is that I'm forced to sit down and evaluate each of the projects on my list. At this time, I think pretty throughly through each and every one of them, making sure that not only are there NAs, but that the NAs are still relevant.

I agree with all these things:
1) Setup of your data in a new tool can take a long time.
2) It can also be unclear initially whether that setup will pay off later.
3) Getting software to help you maintain links between projects and actions pays off big time in the Review stage of the GTD workflow model.

As far as setup, if you have a bunch of flat lists with the links between items in your head, you are faced with the task of making your implicit knowledge of the links explicit, or changing the way you visualize and represent them. Truth be told, this can be hard. Using your existing system feels as natural as riding a bike, while learning a new one can be like explaining how to ride a bike to someone who never has.

However, as much time as I spent setting up my data in software, it was a fraction of the time I spent initially setting up GTD. GTD requires more initial overhead than anything else I can think of -- the collecting, processing, and organizing everything was a huge project for me.

Of course, with GTD I went through the setup phase because I could tell it was going to help me enormously. With software, it might not be clear how the setup will pay off in day-to-day later use.

It helps to have a clear idea of the benefit a software feature will give you. But it's also necessary to give a tool the trial stage it needs in order to evaluate its benefits after the initial setup and learning phases. GTD itself has setup and learning phases. It doesn't seem quite fair to expect software to have zero learning and setup overhead.

As with GTD workflow, with the software I use to manage projects and actions, I had a phase of setting it up and a phase of learning how to use it more efficiently. I can say the same about every significant software application I use. Even switching from a Windows 98 machine to an XP machine (not sure that OS switch paid off).

After the setup and learning phase, though, I found maintenance to be far easier than what I had to do with my old, "simpler," unlinked data. You can't evaluate maintenance until you have gotten past the setup and learning phases. I wouldn't worry about not being "forced" to look at every project on your list. You will still be able to look at them as much -- or as little -- as you need to. If you still want to think about each project in a weekly session, you still can. But without having to check the project-action links, many of my GTD projects need no review. My quality of thinking about my most important projects is better since I'm not exhausted from a long session of necessary housekeeping overhead. Reviewing 70 projects used to exhaust me, and during the second half of a Weekly Review, the ideas I came up with were, well, idiotic.

When you evaluate the overhead of a system or tool, look at the whole picture, including the Review. If Weekly Review takes a long time, that's part of the system's overhead.

If you do decide to test a new tool for GTD, I highly recommend that you keep your existing system in place and continue to work from it as you gradually set up, learn, and test a new one in your "spare" time. If and when the new one is ready to work from on the runway, you'll know; you'll save yourself from the frustration of working with an unfamiliar, incomplete system. Don't ask where this advice came from.

 

[1drummergirl]

This has been a fascinating thread for me and one that couldn't have come at a better time for me. I have been a long time user of Bonsai and Datebk5 for my GTD system. Recently I took a position as the Business Administrator for a local homeless shelter that was - shall we say - not previously managed well at all. The new director and I are basically rebuilding the entire organization from scratch. We are constantly putting out fires and every day brings more challenges than we can anticipate. Slowly, things are coming under control and settling down.

When I started the job, I kept everything on paper, jotting most notes down in a frantic scribble. I contemplated ways to incorporate it into my system, but I didn't have the time nor energy to do it at home (the computers at the office were not setup at all for the first couple of weeks due to moving the offices to a new location). I gradually added next actions to my palm, but things were still moving too fast to keep up. I continued trying to manage things from a small legal pad. By the third or fourth week I decided my only hope was to move to the traditional "plain vanilla" setup - you know - keep it simple. I spent the better part of one evening converting my entire list to plain vanilla and deleting Bonsai from my palm. Over the next two weeks, nothing much changed. The pace was still on high speed and I had to revert to paper to keep up. I am not a palm newbie and I can input graffiti with the best of them, but things moved so fast and projects and next actions changed at too rapid a pace to even bother entering them in my palm. Most of what came across my desk was urgent and required immediate attention. Many urgent open loops were closed before I even had a chance to write them down. I continued entering personal items in my palm outside of work hours, but the plain vanilla setup did NOT make anything easier. The problem was just that I was in a crisis mode at work and a huge time crunch in my personal life. I had zero time to process anything. I did what I had to do to survive. And I learned that survival = capture.

I am now entering week six at my new job and we have finally been able to spend time this past week creating goals and objectives and the fires have died down for the most part. It is now time to focus on the new programs and procedures we will be implementing. On Monday, I will be expected to submit a report of all the projects we have discussed over the last several weeks. I have about 12-15 pages of notes to deal with. When thinking about this report and doodling some ideas about how to organize it, it dawned on me that I would just be creating an outline with focus areas, goals and projects - just like what my Bonsai outline would have looked like if I had kept it up to date. Ugh. :roll:

I knew immediately that I needed my old system back with all the data manipulation utilities and printing options, etc. I reloaded Bonsai and in less than 1 hour I had all of my current data back in order (thanks to mass manipulation of text and categories, etc.) All I have left to do now is input my notes, tidy them up and make sure I have a next action on them even if that next action means we have to clarify the next action in the next staff meeting. :wink: When I have all my notes entered, I will simply print out my outline, but keep all the next actions collapsed (easy to do with a single click). My outline will look like this:

Focus Area
-->Goal
---->Project

So not only did I learn that survival means just capturing the stuff, I learned that the ONLY system that will work is the one that you build yourself and feel the most comfortable with. And yes, my system is perfect. It is perfect for about the first 30 minutes after my weekly review when every task and project is neatly organized in my outline. Perfect until something hits my inbox and lays there unprocessed. And then my cell phone rings and then... but it's ok. I know I will get those items processed in the next few hours and keep things tidied up as best I can throughout the week. During my weekly review I will get everything in perfect order again...and life will go on. It's the habits, not the tools. :grin: And now I'm off to carve weekly review time back into my schedule...

 

[dwspinks]

dgorley, in my experience this is one of the most frequently asked questions about implementing GTD. The answer is dependent on what tool(s) you use to maintain your lists: your choice of tool will dictate a lot of what you have to do to keep actions and projects synced. There are many approaches that have been discussed at length on the forum, such as the projects-as-contacts method which uses Outlook.

If you are not yet committed to a tool, you may want to search the forum to read about the many ways of syncing projects and actions with different tools. If you are committed to a tool, you may want to search on the name of the tool to read about how other people implement GTD with that tool.

I too find maintaining separate projects and actions lists clumsy. It is natural to think of actions as subordinate to projects, just as David Allen in the book describes outlining a project using Microsoft Word. There are much better outliners than Word, though -- including some specifically designed for projects and actions. I use an outliner that also shows the actions, which are at the bottom of the hierarchy, in a separate context-based NA-list view. There is no need to sync projects and actions since the NA lists are just a different view of the same data. The outlining tool for me eliminates the tedious aspect of syncing projects and actions, frees me to think of my projects at a higher level much more easily, and does not constrain me to have only one NA per project. Most importantly, it does not require me to maintain the connections between projects and actions in my head.

I am a new member here, have been lurking and reading for months. I find this very informative. I am curious as to what software that you are using for outlining your projects?

Thanks

 

[andersons]

I am a new member here, have been lurking and reading for months. I find this very informative. I am curious as to what software that you are using for outlining your projects?

My system is currently in Life Balance. A few years ago, I looked for a better ToDo app for my Palm PDA. I tested Bonsai and Progect as well. I chose Life Balance because it is specialized for projects and actions and had several key features I wanted, like serial dependencies in projects, when a series of actions must be completed in order. I also liked the idea of getting help with prioritizing my long NA lists, and after I got the hang of using it, the algorithm works very well. There are also desktop versions for Mac OS and Windows.

I did not choose Bonsai because as a general-purpose outline tool, it seemed like a lot more work to set up the items in the outline to function as projects or NAs. Special-purpose tools are often more efficient than general-purpose ones. It has some nice features, though. Progect just seemed less mature at the time, but I can't remember specifically why I thought that.

I'm not at all affiliated with any of these products.

 

[BigStory]

Greetings Gretchen,

I didn't have the time nor energy ... things were still moving too fast to keep up ... The pace was still on high speed and I had to revert to paper to keep up. And I learned that survival = capture.

Gretchen, Thanks for the detail, but I am a bit lost. Have you decided to capture on paper and transfer and organize when you process your inputs?

I would just be creating an outline with focus areas, goals and projects - just like what my Bonsai outline would have looked like if I had kept it up to date. Ugh. :roll: ... I knew immediately that I needed my old system back with all the data manipulation utilities and printing options, etc. I reloaded Bonsai I learned that the ONLY system that will work is the one that you build yourself and feel the most comfortable with. ..

But, didn't you switch away from Bonsai awhile back because entry didn't work fast enough? Does this mean that you are willing to live with a slower system, and capture primarily on paper, in order to be able to present your work to others in a particular way?

What was the system you had going that you moved away from when you switched to paper? Or did you just get overwhelmed and go to paper immediately with your new job, planning to organize later?

What was it about Plain Vanilla that didn't work for you? Was it only in the presentation, or was it data entry issues?

Regards,
Gordon

 

[1drummergirl]

BigStory - you are correct that I did move away from Bonsai a while back because I *thought* it was tedious data entry. Now I'm finding that ANY data entry is tedious for me. I am entering week 7 of my "fire fighting" career and things have heated back up again. All I can do at this point is capture everything and put out fires as best I can. My capturing is still on the legal pad and on my palm (in the notepad app).

I process as much as I can every now and then, but I am not functioning at 100% yet. There is still a LOT to process. Plain vanilla has NOT helped me in any way and in fact it just makes me more nervous about my system. Being in an administrative role means I need to see the big picture. A flat projects list does not help me. An outline organized into focus areas and various goals is a much better tool for me to get things done. I can manipulate projects much faster with an outlining tool than I can with flat lists. And planning is a HUGE part of my job. The better the planning tools, the better I can do my job.

The biggest problem I have right now is the time crunch. Our offices are still in limbo (we are consolidating and moving them again tomorrow) and I have yet to have a full uninterrupted hour at my desk. The stress I feel right now is mainly because I came from a job where I had everything captured and processed and I had a schedule built to handle all the routine stuff. Now I am sorting through chaos daily and trying to organize on the fly. It is difficult. I have tasted the peaceful and stress-free world of GTD and my new job is worlds away from that environment. My comfort is knowing that I will eventually get everything processed and Iwill setup some lightening fast systems to ease the workload. I intend to teach the GTD process to our employees in the near future.

So for now, I will continue on with collecting on paper and palm notepad (and occasionally the voice recorder on my T3). Complete processing will get done in time, but for now I do pick and choose what I process for the sake of time and urgency. I can tell you this, tho, I feel a huge relief now that everything is back in outline form and linked into Datebk5. I have found the tool that works for me. Everyone is different.