Default projects to sequential
I know the Nirvana team is gunning for launch and implementing the remaining items from N1 into N2, just read on blog. But could we please just get a quick n2 update to default projects to sequential instead of parallel, since 99.9% of projects will be sequential. I keep forgetting to change this on new projects, until I see a ton of actions in my UNL, then have to go back to the projects and change them all. Thanks!
2 Posted by Proximo on 11 Jun, 2011 01:34 PM
I have mentioned this in a previous discussion and I agree 100%
Parallel projects are actually not realistic at all because they provide Zero structure to a Project and a Project is never made up of all Next Actions.
I will go ahead and say it. Parallel projects as they are implemented today in Nirvana is another GTD breakdown like the Later list.
Because of this I agree that Sequential should be the default mode for all projects. Obviously the short term solution would be an option to choose which you prefer. I know some people will be using the parallel mode and it's only fair.
It's a pain to create a new project, build out it's structure and forget that it's in parallel mode by default. When I look at the Next list, I find all these task marked as Next Actions which is not true and then I must go back and change the mode to Sequential.
+1
3 Posted by dafyren on 11 Jun, 2011 05:11 PM
I agree with both of you that Parallel projects are a minority. I would not say that 99.9% of all projects are sequential. In my case, that would probably be around 90%.
Some examples of parallel projects where there is "no structure needed" as Proximo refers to it:
Project: Follow up on clients who purchased product X
Actions: call customer x, call customer y, call customer z
(no need to structure, I can call them in whatever order I want, but if I just place them as pure next actions it would be mess. I want them put in a project, but I don't wanna spend time creating some unnecessary structure or thinking who I should call first)
Project: Research for my next blog post Y
Actions: visit website x, call friend y, look up topic z in Evernote, etc.
(again, order does not matter but I like to see these in a project)
Again, I agree that this is a minority. Most projects do require a structure. But when I say Proximos "Parallel projects are actually not realistic at all" I had to react ;o)
Cheers
Dafyren
4 Posted by Proximo on 12 Jun, 2011 03:44 AM
@Dafyren
Many of my Sequential projects will have some Parallel task. I think a combination of Sequential and Parallel is probably the most realistic.
Most of my projects are sequential but many of them are sequential with some parallel task.
I would never have a project that is parallel only. You shared a great example of a parallel project but I would bet that there is still some structure to the project. That would make the project sequential with some parallel task.
I am sure having a mixture of sequential and parallel task in a project is the direction Nirvana is going to take and this is just a stepping stone in getting there.
I am not trying to be too hard on them for this like I was with the Later list. :-)
5 Posted by travis on 13 Jun, 2011 02:53 AM
I think the option globally on a project should be removed. If you have some tasks in a project that could be parallel, there should be a little paddle lock (chain link) icon in between the tasks that you can click and link certain tasks together in make them parallel.
I have attached a screen shot to show what I am taking about. I think this would be the easiest way to select a few tasks and make them parallel with each other. The screenshot is a bad example, because I would still put those in sequential order and not link them based on what they are. I didn't have any examples :)
@Dafyren I disagree, you should really think about who you want to call first and put them in order, if you don't do this thinking up front then you will have to do it later and that is not a GTD best practice. If you don't get a hold of the person and need to call them again, then just drag them to the bottom of the list after the call.
6 Posted by Elurven on 15 Jun, 2011 12:38 PM
I have to disagree. I have quite a number of projects that are parallel so for me, having Nirvana default to sequential projects, is not a good solution. That being said, I understand that many users (or at least those that are vocal in the forums ;-)) want the sequential default.
So in order to make everyone happy, why not have a setting for the default project type (parallel vs sequential) as a user preference along with so much else that has been suggested as a user preference. That way, everyone wins.
And since I can't resist.. #winning #tigerblood
7 Posted by travis on 15 Jun, 2011 12:58 PM
@Elurven I am very curious, could you provide an example of these parallel projects?
Support Staff 8 Posted by David McLaughlin on 15 Jun, 2011 03:33 PM
Just an FYI folks, from testing on build 230...
There is a user preference in the account settings for the default project type [sequential-parallel] in that build, as we had mentioned we were going to provide in the past.
David
9 Posted by travis on 15 Jun, 2011 03:45 PM
Thank you David! Exciting!
After that and my UNL searching issue fixed, Nirvana will be perfect in my opinion!
This Friday release?!?
10 Posted by Elurven on 16 Jun, 2011 08:35 PM
@travis Ok, not to go too much into detail since even though I really like my job, most others might not ;-). So anyway, I work as a project manager at a translation agency, and in the office, there is a constant move towards working more efficiently. And that includes regular reviews of processes that we have in place for certain types of projects. Let me give you an example. The other day, we had a meeting were we brainstormed about how a certain type of project is carried out. Not to determine how we think it might be carried out, according to previous experience, but how it is actually carried out. So we made a lot of notes during this session. I had, prior to the meeting, made other notes, and gotten input from other members in my team on how they viewed the workflow.
So the project here is "Improve the workflow for project A". And since I had made some notes previously in a checklist, there are a few tasks left. The first ones that I see are:
These are just the steps linked to the checklist that is supposed to go along with written instructions for this type of project, but you get the idea. So I COULD make the tasks sequential but I don't need to, since it does not matter what input I put into the checklist first.
And when we do translations, or proof readings, it does not matter what translator sends in a translation first (waiting for task) since they are not dependent on each other.
Another project would be a market review on a translation, where it does not matter in what order that we implement the various suggestions and requests from the market(s), as long as they are implemented.
This is just a few examples of parallel projects. And like I said, I could make them sequential, but there is really no need to.
11 Posted by travis on 16 Jun, 2011 10:02 PM
Thanks for the reply, very good information. I agree with you on the Waiting Ons, don't matter what order they come in on, I wish there was an option in Sequential to choose if you want the Waiting On to pause the project and not display the next action in the UNL or continue on. However, regarding your updating checklists tasks, yes I understand it doesn't matter what order, but you should decide up front which order you are going to do them in, you couldn't do all of them at the same time, not physically possible. If you were to work on it right now, which one would you do first? I wouldn't want them parallel because then all 3 actions plus more would show up in my UNL from the project. This is just my style of GTD, that's the beauty of GTD is the flexibility, nothing wrong with wanting to make them parallel and I respect your way, just curious.
12 Posted by Proximo on 17 Jun, 2011 05:24 AM
I respect anyone's method of productivity. I simply see a major benefit in having a clearly defined goal for all my projects and adding structure on what needs to take place and in what order. This is what David Allen teaches all the time but it's not to say you can't have a pure parallel project if you wanted too. You should do what works and if this works for you, by all means go for it.
I only have two types of Projects. Sequential Projects and Sequential Project with some parallel task. I simply could never see myself working on a pure parallel project with a long list of things that need to be done, but with no structure on how I wanted to tackle it.
I want to look at my Next List and simply focus on something that will move my project forward. For the projects I have that contain parallel task, they are in one form or the other structured within a certain goal that is executed in a planned fashion. This means that my parallel task are usually sandwiched between some sequential task that determine the structure.
We all work differently and I did mention on the previous post above that it should be a user preference. I just find it odd that parallel was the default when sequential are more widely used in general.
13 Posted by Elurven on 17 Jun, 2011 05:34 AM
@travis and @Proximo I see your points and like you pointed out, we all do things differently. But like you said @travis it may be a good thing for me to decide up front in what order to do things in a project, even though the tasks in themselves are not necessarily sequential. Hmm, I may have to think about that. I have a weekly review coming up, so there is some room for trying something new this week :-).
@Proximo Well, my projects could probably do with some more structure. They are not a disaster mind you but being sort of a productivity freak, I can always do better ;-). I think the lack of structure may have something to do with the fact that I have not been as devoted to doing weekly reviews as I should be. But then again, if everything was perfect, there would be no room for improvement, would there ;-)?
And I have to admit, seeing all of my tasks in the Next list has not really been a problem, since I mostly work off the Focus list. Which, in retrospect, may not be the right way to go. At least not exclusively. Aaaah, the things you discover in discussions with intelligent GTD:ers ;-).
14 Posted by Proximo on 17 Jun, 2011 05:44 AM
@Elurven
My GTD system is not perfect and neither am I.
One thing we need to be careful with is having too much structure as well. I find that some people want to control things at such a micro level that they create extra work and effort into their GTD process that is not needed.
So what I do is add enough structure to keep things in control but stay away from being a control freak.
How is that for confusing?
15 Posted by Elurven on 17 Jun, 2011 06:15 AM
@Proximo Sounds like a walk along the razor's edge to keep that in check. Exciting stuff ;-)!
16 Posted by Elurven on 17 Jun, 2011 07:15 AM
Weekly review finished and almost all of my projects have been made into sequential projects. Interesting how the weekly review makes you feel on top of your game again :-).
17 Posted by dafyren on 17 Jun, 2011 07:32 AM
Interesting input Elurven and Proximo. Maybe I should try to look at the 10-20% of my projects that are parallel and do the same :)
Actually, the key advantage for me for using parallel projects is that better allows me to move forward a project where I might be in a different energy level/context/available time space.
One recent example where parallel project worked great for me:
Project: Complete research for the sales presentation
Actions:
- call X to hear his ideas (context: phone, energy: high, time: 15 min) - research internet about company X (context: online, energy: low, time: 1 hour) - write email to Y and setup a meeting (context: online or phone, energy: low, time: 5 minutes) - buy book at the book store (context: errands, energy: n/a, time: n/a)
I did this as a parallel project (there were many more actions). Now, either if I was only able to use my phone, or if I was out running errands, or if I was at my computer, I could always do something to move this project forward. This is also the case if I had different energy levels.
Let's say that this was a sequential project, then the first item could be the next action, and it requires a high energy level. So, if I have a low energy level I would not be able to move this project forward.
Maybe there are some better solutions out there, so would be great to hear your comments about this. Can you effectively move forward your sequential project regardless of energy, context and time available?
Interesting discussion :)
Cheers
Dafyren
18 Posted by Proximo on 18 Jun, 2011 01:36 PM
@Dafyren
I have plenty of projects with parallel task in them, but I would never have a project that is completely parallel in nature. This is why a combination project mode is the most realistic.
All my projects will be sequential in nature with a set structure, but some of them will have some parallel task associated with them for the same reasons you described.
I hope in the future we can have both types in a single project is all.
19 Posted by dafyren on 18 Jun, 2011 02:28 PM
Agree Proximo, let's keep our fingers crossed and hope this gets implemented soon :)
20 Posted by Brett on 20 Jun, 2011 06:16 AM
Hi - New user
Can someone point me to where we find the option for changing a project from sequential to parallel?
Not sure if it will solve my issue but at the moment all items in a project are showing up in the Next list. My preference is to only show the items that truly are Next items. Does the Sequential/Parallel option take care of this?
My ideal setup would be if the Next list works similar to the Today list. I would drag an item (or items) in there and within the Project list it would be highlighted (perhaps with a blue star instead of the yellow Today star).
Maybe that's possible already and I've not set it up correctly?
21 Posted by Brett on 20 Jun, 2011 06:24 AM
Hi again - just realised the discussion is about N2 and I'm guessing I'm on N1. Can someone clarify if the feature I've described is available on N2? If so I'll probably opt to switch over.
Thanks
22 Posted by Jeff Maynes on 20 Jun, 2011 02:16 PM
Brett,
The feature as you describe it is not there on N2, though it has been suggested in a number of places, and may be a feature down the line.
There is a way to simulate the way you describe it though, and this is what some of us (including myself) did before sequential projects were added to N2. You can use the "Later" list as a storehouse for tasks which belong to a project but are not true next actions. You can then specify which tasks you want as next actions manually, and manage your Next list that way.
I no longer use this work around because I prefer using sequential projects to automatically show me the next action in a project (I spent too much time managing the later-next combination). The way it is currently implemented, a project can only be either purely sequential (no more than one current next action) or purely parallel (all actions show up as next if not marked as later or someday). A feature that a number of people have asked for is the ability to manually designate an action as a next action in a sequential project (and thus allowing more than one per project), but this is not yet implemented.
Hope that helps!
23 Posted by Brett Jarman on 21 Jun, 2011 12:37 AM
Jeff
Thanks for the tip. I think I'll set up an N2 account and have a play with
the content from my N1 account and see which works better for me.
Brett
24 Posted by Proximo on 23 Jun, 2011 02:21 AM
@Brett
Just remember than once you go to N2, you can't go back to N1 and then to N2. It's a one way switch and I suggest you consider just using N2 full time since N1 will be retired in a matter of weeks.
I don't recommend for anyone to use the Later list but I understand that some functionality is not available which causes people to hack the system a little. My hopes are that Nirvana adds all the things that would make GTD work without any hacks.
The later list is not GTD but I can understand why some people choose to use it anyway.
In my opinion, what we need is for all projects to be sequential with the ability to drag more than one task that could be a Next Action. This will allow for parallel task while maintaining structure for the rest of the project. Next actions have blue text in sequential projects and this can be used for the additional next actions you assign.
I make it sound easy but I am sure it's harder to code in reality.
The other idea is to have a parallel task section at the bottom of a project were you can drag task too and have them show up in the Next list. The main body of the project would work as it does today with sequential mode while the bottom section is a container for those task that can be done in parallel from the others.
Again, simple to explain but probably harder to code.
25 Posted by Brett Jarman on 23 Jun, 2011 04:12 AM
Thanks Proximo
Knowing that N1 is to be retired I'll definitely make the switch now.
26 Posted by travis on 23 Jun, 2011 01:07 PM
I dunno why so many complain about the migration or remigration between N1 and N2. It's not that hard to copy and paste your tasks between them. I have moved between so many GTD systems that is has become trivial for me. I usually do it during a weekly review, and even if you have 80+ tasks, it should only take 15-20 minutes of dedicated time, when you are done, everything is nice and up to date and your review is complete.
27 Posted by Proximo on 23 Jun, 2011 11:04 PM
@travis
We all have different amounts of things we juggle. This simple process would be hard for someone who has 300+task and 60 Projects.
I currently have 239 Next Actions, 10 Waiting for, 17 Scheduled, 24 Someday and 46 Projects.
This is why I mention it. It would be more difficult for some people than others.
28 Posted by travis on 24 Jun, 2011 02:29 AM
This is true, I guess I have not moved systems in a while cause Nirvana rocks. You got me beat by a little, 103 Next Actions, 18 Waiting Fors (Usually 30+), 7 Scheduled, 13 Someday and 37 Projects.
However, strange issue, I felt the next actions were actually kind of high compared to the number that showing all + count all was giving me, so I manually counted them and came up with 61, not sure why it is saying 103....
29 Posted by Proximo on 24 Jun, 2011 10:32 PM
I think the Next actions are counting the overall task in projects. Not sure about that, but maybe that's what is going on here.
I would love to have Zero everything but I guess that's not possible. :-)