Tracking a Project's next action(s)

[bishblaize]

I understood your point, but I'm actually making the opposite one, that you don't need to know the project, and I'd advise people that often ask how to manage 'linking' actions to their project (and it does come up on this forum quite frequently) to just not do it.

OP stated they currently used a paper system, so your option shown above (option 4 in your previous list) is not a possibility to them, but clarifying the action always will be. I think 'draft outline' is not a fully clarified action, and this wouldn't be useful for anyone sitting down to execute next actions whether on paper or digitally, and of course you'd need some context for this.

How would you manage this NA if it was a single, project-less action? You would still have to go somewhere for some context/further information to help you complete the action. 'Draft outline for board report' is clarified enough that's it's self contained and could be completed by anyone (relatively speaking) without any prior knowledge of the context, like a colleague on your team, for example. I'd say this is not the same as knowing the project it's related to, but a fundamental behaviour of GTD that applies to all actions.

'Buy vegetables for meal' is a useless action whether I know it's for a 20 person family celebration project or a two-person anniversary meal (or whether I don't know it's linked to either project.

'buy onions, peppers and garlic for Thursday's anniversary meal' is fully thought out and clarified, and it still doesn't matter whether I know what project the action relates to. In fact, the action is so clear that it's removed any ambiguity whatsoever about what project it relates to.

Look at the Next Action below

- Draft outline for board report

You've included a reference to the Project in your Next Action. You say "Draft outline" lacks clarity, and in order to gain clarity, what have you added? Reference to the project.

 

[ianfh10]

Look at the Next Action below

- Draft outline for board report

You've included a reference to the Project in your Next Action. You say "Draft outline" lacks clarity, and in order to gain clarity, what have you added? Reference to the project.

Yeah, because that happens to be how the action is clear; I'm not adding the reference to the project so I know what project it relates to, I'm adding information that allows me to complete the action without any other defining or thinking required.

If you have 'draft outline' on your next actions list, and there's no bigger project, how do you know what you're drafting an outline for?

 

[Gardener]

At the risk of sounding contrary and not at all helpful, why do you need to correlate actions back to the project?

An example for me:

In an ideal universe, every year I would clear, fork, and luxuriously amend every bed in my vegetable garden, and get that bed's irrigation perfect. In a real universe, that's not going to happen. There will be vegetable garden triage. So it's not as simple as "Fork vegetable garden." It's not even as simple as "Fork row 7, front" followed by "Amend row 7, front" and possibly, "Debug irrigation for row 7, front."

I want to know WHY I'm performing a task on that particular 144 square feet, so that if I run low on time or resources, I know which is the highest priority. Is it for peas? I can probably just do the forking. Is it for tomatoes? I'll dryfarm them anyway; I don't have to worry much about the irrigation. Is it for pumpkins? They need it all, or don't even bother.

Of course, I could fully specify all of my actions, so that the projects are irrelevant:

- Fork row 7, front, for 2023 pumpkins.
- Fork row 9, rear, for spring 2023 peas.
- Amend row 7, front, for 2023 pumpkins.

I don't want to do that. I would much rather have

Project: 2023 pumpkins (row 7, front)
NA: Fork
NA: Amend
NA: Check irrigation

The tie to the project saves me a bunch of typing. And it better supports triage, because not infrequently triage means putting the entire project On Hold, which hides all of its actions.

 

[benedikt]

I have been wrestling with this for sometime and I cannot locate information giving me a clear direction on how to handle tracking next actions of a project if I follow the GTD methodology. For example, if my project is to buy a new bicycle and one of my first actions is: "research the available features, e.g. suspension, saddle type, etc." and this action is listed in the respective contexts of my next actions list how to I correlate it back to the project. Mind you, there are other next actions for other things in my contexts lists as well.

Appreciate any guidance, and I understand there may be a simple solution, I am fixated at the moment on how to keep this organized and clear. I know there are app solutions that can easily do this, e.g. Omnifocus, things, Todoist; however, my process is paper and pen at the moment.

Thanks in advance.

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread, so maybe this was already mentioned.

The easiest way is to define a project code for each project that is easily memorisable. E.g. "bike repair" could have a code "BR". You attach that code each time you write down the next action (app- or prepend.)

As it was already mentioned, doing the weekly review will make the project codes stick very easily. Especially when doing this on paper*, writing that code multiple times will make it stick for sure!

___
* I switched away from paper because exactly of this – the redundant efforts. However, I print out my next actions regularly. I still see the benefits of paper.

 

[bishblaize]

If you have 'draft outline' on your next actions list, and there's no bigger project, how do you know what you're drafting an outline for?

 

[mcogilvie]

An example for me:

In an ideal universe, every year I would clear, fork, and luxuriously amend every bed in my vegetable garden, and get that bed's irrigation perfect. In a real universe, that's not going to happen. There will be vegetable garden triage. So it's not as simple as "Fork vegetable garden." It's not even as simple as "Fork row 7, front" followed by "Amend row 7, front" and possibly, "Debug irrigation for row 7, front."

I want to know WHY I'm performing a task on that particular 144 square feet, so that if I run low on time or resources, I know which is the highest priority. Is it for peas? I can probably just do the forking. Is it for tomatoes? I'll dryfarm them anyway; I don't have to worry much about the irrigation. Is it for pumpkins? They need it all, or don't even bother.

Of course, I could fully specify all of my actions, so that the projects are irrelevant:

- Fork row 7, front, for 2023 pumpkins.
- Fork row 9, rear, for spring 2023 peas.
- Amend row 7, front, for 2023 pumpkins.

I don't want to do that. I would much rather have

Project: 2023 pumpkins (row 7, front)
NA: Fork
NA: Amend
NA: Check irrigation

The tie to the project saves me a bunch of typing. And it better supports triage, because not infrequently triage means putting the entire project On Hold, which hides all of its actions.

Interesting. I would probably have a checklist of all rows, front and rear, in project support. There would be a single project for all the bed prep. Only the currently in progress rows would have next actions, and they would probably have a form like “Row 7, front (pumpkins): Fork” or something equivalent. As each next action completed, I would add the next step. The app I use makes it very easy to duplicate. Or I might just change “Fork” to “Amend” although I have no clue what that is (@Gardener, please explain). This is essentially the way I wrote a two-volume set of textbooks over the last three years.

 

[bishblaize]

I have found, to my real surprise, that 3) is consistently faster than 4). This is true for Collection, Organization and Processing, which I think you are discounting, and for Doing as well. I don’t really care to rehash all the mistakes I’ve made while ignoring David Allen’s clear, straightforward advice. I understand that many people find value in practices (and software) I have ultimately discarded. We’re all different, and our practices change with time.

Do you mean collection, organisation and processing are quicker using paper vs digital? Or still referring to linking Projects and Next Actions?

 

[mcogilvie]

Do you mean collection, organisation and processing are quicker using paper vs digital? Or still referring to linking Projects and Next Actions?

Still referring to linking. I have never used paper for GTD.

 

[bishblaize]

Still referring to linking. I have never used paper for GTD.

Apologies, I don't understand what you mean then. Maybe you could expand?

 

[ianfh10]

View attachment 1408

I'm not familiar with the system you've screenshotted here, so a couple of questions may help me understand:

Your highlighted area is the project, yes? If so, where is this information coming from? I'm guessing you had to do some manual plugging in or linking of this to the action?

And if you have an action that doesn't have a project, I'm assuming that nothing appears here?

 

[bishblaize]

I'm not familiar with the system you've screenshotted here, so a couple of questions may help me understand:

Your highlighted area is the project, yes? If so, where is this information coming from? I'm guessing you had to do some manual plugging in or linking of this to the action?

And if you have an action that doesn't have a project, I'm assuming that nothing appears here?

Yes thats the project. It comes from the Project List. You can view the Project List in various ways, but the two most common ways are in the sidebar, or in the main window, as below.



When you click on a Project you then get the following view, where you can add next actions and choose your context. Excuse the typo.



If you choose a context from the sidebar, it shows you all the next actions with that context. (Apologies for the crude redaction, I have staff members' names in there).



In terms of your specific questions, no there's no manual linking. Simply creating the Next Action makes the link happen.

As for what happens if you create a Next Action with no project, it just sits in the Context List with no project.



However best practice in OF is to create a single action list rather than leaving them in your contexts. This is just a place to put all your NAs with no Projects. Otherwise, you have to go hunting through your context lists during the weekly review. This way you can just review your Project List and know that it will include every Next Action in all your lists.

 

[mcogilvie]

Apologies, I don't understand what you mean then. Maybe you could expand?

I don’t have to put a next action within a project, and I don’t have to think about placement within the project. I only have to write something that makes sense to me, and put it on a context list. An additional benefit is that I don’t have to look at the project support material in the moment, which can derail my getting things done.

 

[bishblaize]

I don’t have to put a next action within a project, and I don’t have to think about placement within the project. I only have to write something that makes sense to me, and put it on a context list.

But you do add the project to the project list too?

 

[mcogilvie]

But you do add the project to the project list too?

Of course, if there is a project. In fact, that is where I store most project support material. Most of the time the project already exists.

 

[bishblaize]

Of course, if there is a project. In fact, that is where I store most project support material. Most of the time the project already exists.

I don't see where you save any time doing it your way then.

 

[mcogilvie]

I don't see where you save any time doing it your way then.

You use Omnifocus, right? When you add an item to a project, you must either navigate to the project or look up the project in a list. Now Omnigroup tries to make that easy, but its‘s extra work. And there’s more. Most people who use it do not have only next actions under each project, but also other stuff, and the order of that stuff matters, and when it is visible. So you probably end up going to the project anyway to get the new action to where it belongs. I have stopped doing any of that. It not only saves time and reduces cognitive load when managing next actions, it helps promote an action orientation, moving review to its rightful place as a separate, high-level activity. Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[bishblaize]

You use Omnifocus, right? When you add an item to a project, you must either navigate to the project or look up the project in a list. Now Omnigroup tries to make that easy, but its‘s extra work. And there’s more. Most people who use it do not have only next actions under each project, but also other stuff, and the order of that stuff matters, and when it is visible. So you probably end up going to the project anyway to get the new action to where it belongs. I have stopped doing any of that. It not only saves time and reduces cognitive load when managing next actions, it helps promote an action orientation, moving review to its rightful place as a separate, high-level activity. Your mileage may vary, of course.

In Omnifocus, its the same number of clicks if you're in a different app entirely, the only difference being that your project list is longer than your context list. So you might save one or two swipes? (I use Alfred so it takes the exact same amount of time in my case, but I appreciate not everyone uses it)

However this would only count when you weren't already in the app and looking at the Project. Since this is what you do during the weekly review, and (at least in my case) a majority of NAs get created during the weekly review, what you're talking about only applies in a minority of cases anyway. And of course if you had two NAs to add to two contexts, that would also take longer than just adding them both in the same place.

But then consider how much more time you then lose thereafter.

a) Every Next Action you type out has to be longer to include some reference to the project it relates to.
b) Every time you're reviewing a Project and want to see its actions, you have to manually find every Next Action to check it. Given that you review every Project during your weekly review, this means manually finding every NA at least once a week! For ~100 projects and ~150 NAs, that is a lot of work.
c) If you're looking at a NA and need to see its project support material (which you mentioned you keep in the Project), that's yet another search/trawl instead of a click.

The time you gain is outweighed manyfold by the time you lose down the line.

 

[mcogilvie]

a) Every Next Action you type out has to be longer to include some reference to the project it relates to.
b) Every time you're reviewing a Project and want to see its actions, you have to manually find every Next Action to check it. Given that you review every Project during your weekly review, this means manually finding every NA at least once a week! For ~100 projects and ~150 NAs, that is a lot of work.
c) If you're looking at a NA and need to see its project support material (which you mentioned you keep in the Project), that's yet another search/trawl instead of a click.

The time you gain is outweighed manyfold by the time you lose down the line.

a) I find this to be a non-problem, and a little detail to be helpful.

b) David Allen suggests reviewing Next Actions before Projects so one has a clear picture of those actions. When I do this, I don’t need to do as you suggest.

c) I have a little trick that typically keeps projects and next actions close. However, Things has an excellent search (you just type- it’s light years better than OF3) and that’s easy too. In the vast majority of cases, I do not need to look at support material.

In all honesty, OmniFocus and I never meshed well. I had hopes for better usability In OF4, but the beta is progressing slowly. I know many people use OmniFocus with great success though.

 

[Gardener]

Interesting. I would probably have a checklist of all rows, front and rear, in project support. There would be a single project for all the bed prep. Only the currently in progress rows would have next actions, and they would probably have a form like “Row 7, front (pumpkins): Fork” or something equivalent. As each next action completed, I would add the next step. The app I use makes it very easy to duplicate. Or I might just change “Fork” to “Amend” although I have no clue what that is (@Gardener, please explain). This is essentially the way I wrote a two-volume set of textbooks over the last three years.

My "Amend" task is amending the soil, usually with a standard per-square-foot amount of compost/manure and fertilizer and sometimes greensand, though it may vary depending on the crop or the condition of the soil.

I have considered a checklist, but things vary often enough that I suspect I'd make so many exceptions that I'd lose the advantage of the standardization of the checklist. On the other hand, I am actively working to standardize a lot of practices across the garden, so in a year or so a checklist might work just fine.

 

[FocusGuy]

reading this all post made me thinking about 2 things.
1) There seems to be 2 ways of practicing GTD
- one is to make list of next action => You have to be very precise about the way you write this NA and have a part a project list.
This way suits for people very oriented action who dont look at their project list very often
- One is have a project list + relative next action. This suits for people who needs to be very project oriented and needs to see the very next action.

Both works for GTD. It is just a question of feeling.

The only difference is about reviewing. When you make your weekly review it can be complicated to link the very next action to the projects

Personally Omnifocus gives me the 2 ways of seeing things
I can see my results to obtain (Project view)
I can see my next action and control if on my list I really get the very next action about a project

Sometime I am more oriented project, sometime I am more oriented action.

But what is sure is that when I make my WR it is easy to choose what project I must work on the very next week. I can focus on a project and quickly see with my reference material if it is still worth working on or not.

Omnifocus is not perfect but it does the job, very well.