(Not) linking actions with projects - more familiarity with the system?

manynothings

Registered
Hello,

This has been the topic of countless other gtd posts, but I think there is something about it that isn't delved deeply into.

I use GTD digitally, so I have the convenience of linking actions with projects while being able to put actions in context lists. However, I see proponents of not linking actions with projects often talk about how doing so makes their system more familiar to them through the Weekly Review. This could seem like something I could implement into my system (for Project in Project List, think about next actions before going to the list of actions for project, rather than directly going to that list), but I'm not quite sure what doing so offers. May someone who doesn't link actions with projects please explain what this "increased familiarity" means and implies?

Thanks,

manynothings.
 

ianfh10

Registered
I suppose it depends what you mean by 'linking' actions to projects.

I assume you mean your app allows your actions to essentially live in two places - in context lists and in your projects support/plan/material. I think this is a useful function to allow you to see the same information as it relates to both context and the parent project that generated the action, but at the same time for me this kind of duplication is inefficient.

I don't link actions to my projects in this way, or have them affiliated in any with my project list. I know some people want to list out their next actions as subtasks beneath their projects, but I find this results in having to do more thinking instead of already having the thinking done by the time you come to do.

However, I think it's fine to have plans laid out separately in project support material, but I don't rummage through this to use the work as reminders to do the stuff.

I wouldn't say not linking actions to projects increases familiarity with my system. Is this somewhere in the GTD media as a benefit of not linking projects to actions? I haven't heard this phrase really used anywhere. I suppose it means I have to rely more on my weekly review than just checking project actions, but if I didn't do my weekly review, my system would fall apart generally, anyway.
 
Last edited:

mcogilvie

Registered
I can only tell you my own experience. Most of my projects have one or two next actions at at a time. Project support, including possible future next actions, can easily become a junk drawer mix of information, thoughts, possible future actions, et cetera. Seeing all this is usually not helpful in addressing the two central questions of GTD project thinking: “What’s the desired outcome” and “What’s the next action?” On the other hand, reviewing next actions by context is always helpful. It gives me a handle on what I actually need to do, and a poorly formed next action may really stand out.
 

TesTeq

Registered
I think this is a useful function to allow you to see the same information as it relates to both context and the parent project that generated the action, but at the same time for me this kind of duplication is inefficient.
@ianfh10 What's inefficient in linking each Next Action to a Project AND to a Context? Many applications provide Project/Action hierarchy and you can assign a "Context" tag to each Action. With no effort you have two views: "Actions in Project" and "Actions in Context". For example you can use "Actions in Context" view in a hardware store without browsing Projects. And you have "Actions in Project" view for your weekly review or project planning.
 

ianfh10

Registered
@ianfh10 What's inefficient in linking each Next Action to a Project AND to a Context? Many applications provide Project/Action hierarchy and you can assign a "Context" tag to each Action. With no effort you have two views: "Actions in Project" and "Actions in Context". For example you can use "Actions in Context" view in a hardware store without browsing Projects. And you have "Actions in Project" view for your weekly review or project planning.
I've tried it and it simply doesn't work for me. I don't think it's inefficient per se; I said I find it inefficient, but that doesn't mean it won't work for others. Even if I consciously know the data is dynamic and will be updated in both places, I know how I work, and I just find having two views or instances of the same action adds bloat to my system and adds no value to the work. It's the same reason I no longer use the functions that often come with list manager apps: tags, due dates, reminders, priorities etc etc.
 

RomanS

Registered
I've tried it and it simply doesn't work for me.
Similar for me. Until recently, I linked projects to actions via hashtags in Microsoft To Do. But the more I understand listed projects just as anchors, as David Allen explains them, I mostly only look at them during the weekly review. And if I update the next action list and waiting fors before the projects, then I still know very clearly if each project has a next action. So the hashtags have no benefit anymore and doing without it saves me the effort of assigning and maintaining the hashtags.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 

RomanS

Registered
I no longer use the functions that often come with list manager apps: tags, due dates, reminders, priorities etc.
I only use due dates in the sense of the tickler file. Everything else is unnecessary for me in a trusted system, too.
 

manynothings

Registered
@ianfh10 @RomanS @mcogilvie Some more questions, as I want to understand more of your approaches:
  • How many projects do you have?
  • During your Weekly Review, does the link between actions and projects just occur to you?
  • How do you handle moments when you just want to work on one project exclusively?

@TesTeq How do you handles actions that accidentally aren't affiliated with its project?
 
Last edited:

mcogilvie

Registered
@ianfh10 @RomanS @mcogilvie Some more questions, as I want to understand more of your approaches:
  • How many projects do you have?
  • During your Weekly Review, does the link between actions and projects just occur to you?
  • How do you handle moments when you just want to work on one project exclusively?

@TesTeq How do you handles actions that accidentally aren't affiliated with its project?
I have 41 active projects right now. This is a little low for me, but some projects will reappear during the summer. i Have more than twice as many someday/maybe projects.

I’m not carrying an invisible outline in my head linking projects and next actions. If you follow David Allen’s checklist for the weekly review, you review all next actions before all active projects, which makes sense. The weekly review maintains a sense of the state of all those projects. When I look at a project, I want to think “what more could I do” and “what’s up ahead.” In other words, I don’t want to focus on what I’m supposed to do and haven’t done, but on the desired outcome and steering towards it. This may cause me to change or even delete a next action and add others. If you think of your current next actions as immediate directions like “Head west on US 64 until exit 26” then you see that linking may not be the best word to describe the relationship. If you think of next actions as bookmarks, then you should realize that books are not made of bookmarks either.

Typically I work on the project. If I know there are current constraints on time and energy, I will check my calendar and lists to make sure it’s ok before getting focused for any great length of time. If I’m in a meeting or otherwise engaged, I will record my sudden urge to do xyz for the abc project and throw that in my inbox.
 

ianfh10

Registered
@ianfh10 @RomanS @mcogilvie Some more questions, as I want to understand more of your approaches:
  • How many projects do you have?
  • During your Weekly Review, does the link between actions and projects just occur to you?
  • How do you handle moments when you just want to work on one project exclusively?
Couldn't have put it better than @mcogilvie in answer to your latter questions.

In answer to your first, I currently only have 11 projects, but this is because I'm currently in the process of buying a house, with the imminent project of packing and moving, so since I know I won't have the capacity or energy to even do the clarifying or organising on them, I've moved virtually all my projects to an incubate list to reactivate later. I typically have between 30-50.
 

Oogiem

Registered
I assume you mean your app allows your actions to essentially live in two places - in context lists and in your projects support/plan/material. I think this is a useful function to allow you to see the same information as it relates to both context and the parent project that generated the action, but at the same time for me this kind of duplication is inefficient.
I'm curious about this. I can't imagine NOT linking my projects and actions together. But it's also not inefficient. When I add an action I just place it in the project and add the context tags to it. I also now use a tag to show projects and actions by AOF and look at my stuff in that way fairly frequently. So there is no friction to adding the data at all.

Also to answer
  • How many projects do you have?
  • During your Weekly Review, does the link between actions and projects just occur to you?
  • How do you handle moments when you just want to work on one project exclusively?

@TesTeq How do you handles actions that accidentally aren't affiliated with its project?
I currently have 172 projects. I do not use subprojects at all.
I review by project so no for me it's explicit that the link is there.
I have 2 "projects" that are essentially single action lists. One is for misc things that aren't part of a larger project and the other is for stores and errands to do when we are down the hill. As we add things to the shopping list I add a note to go to a particular store. Since we only do shopping once a month or so and it's a 75 mile one way trip so an all day task it's important for me to know which stores we have to get to once we get there.
 

ianfh10

Registered
I'm curious about this. I can't imagine NOT linking my projects and actions together. But it's also not inefficient. When I add an action I just place it in the project and add the context tags to it. I also now use a tag to show projects and actions by AOF and look at my stuff in that way fairly frequently. So there is no friction to adding the data at all.

Also to answer

I currently have 172 projects. I do not use subprojects at all.
I review by project so no for me it's explicit that the link is there.
I have 2 "projects" that are essentially single action lists. One is for misc things that aren't part of a larger project and the other is for stores and errands to do when we are down the hill. As we add things to the shopping list I add a note to go to a particular store. Since we only do shopping once a month or so and it's a 75 mile one way trip so an all day task it's important for me to know which stores we have to get to once we get there.
Yep. Agree it may not generate friction for some, but I've tried it and it does for me. I tried tagging next actions with their project tag which lived in my project list, and I've tried your way of tagging actions within a project with their context tag. I found that even doing consistent weekly reviews, I just stopped tagging things, and my system was only partially working this way. I removed all tags and found they weren't adding any value for me or the way I work and define work.
 

mcogilvie

Registered
I'm curious about this. I can't imagine NOT linking my projects and actions together. But it's also not inefficient. When I add an action I just place it in the project and add the context tags to it. I also now use a tag to show projects and actions by AOF and look at my stuff in that way fairly frequently. So there is no friction to adding the data at all.

Also to answer

I currently have 172 projects. I do not use subprojects at all.
I review by project so no for me it's explicit that the link is there.
I have 2 "projects" that are essentially single action lists. One is for misc things that aren't part of a larger project and the other is for stores and errands to do when we are down the hill. As we add things to the shopping list I add a note to go to a particular store. Since we only do shopping once a month or so and it's a 75 mile one way trip so an all day task it's important for me to know which stores we have to get to once we get there.
In principle, Omnifocus should let me do what I want, which is pretty standard GTD, without too much friction. But I now find the OF 3 UI very cluttered and distracting. I had hopes for OF4, but those hopes are fading. When I look at the iPad screen of the OF 4 beta, there are doodads and thingamajigs al around the boundary.
 
Top