Sub-projects vs. simplicity
Some users have suggested adding the ability to create sub-projects to Nirvana. Others however prefer to keep Nirvana as simple as possible and use tags to simulate additional folders or sub-projects. Following post was originally an answer to martin.tyler's and Elurven's posts about this issue (see posts 15-17 at: http://help.nirvanahq.com/discussions/suggestions/321-areas-of-focus). So as not to derail the original thread I'm starting a new discussion about this topic here.
About more levels/sub-projects: I have mixed feelings about this
issue. I used to work with Bonsai (for Palm OS) for many years and
liked it because it offered so many levels. However, what I
realized after a while was because it offered so many levels, there
was a tendency for me to get lost in the thick of thin things. When
I abandoned Palm and started working with RTM I was surprised about
how well I could do without sub-projects. For me the key to more
productivity was simplicity. However, this is what I think the
issue is really about. It doesn't really matter if your organizing
system as such is simple, it's your work-flow (including planning
and organizing) that should be simple. Tada List, for example, is
super simple in structure, but working with it would make things
more complicated for me. On the other hand, colleagues find that
since I started implementing GTD in my office I have way too many
files and folders. However, this has really simplified my work-flow
because I'm better organized. So to me my system is simple (even
though it looks complex). So I guess once again it all boils down
to the question of what works for you, i.e. what do you need to
simplify your work-flow.
Personally I find that using tags to "simulate" folders or
sub-projects works reasonably well (and that it would work even
better with batch edit - sorry to bring this up again, just wanted
to point out that sometimes the best way to solve a problem is not
to add something new but to make it less effort to work with what's
already there). But if you find that you're constantly tweaking the
existing system to make it work for you, then adding a little more
"complexity" (e.g. by adding additional levels to projects) could
simplify your work-flow.
To sum things up: I find that a reasonably simple structure (i.e.
not having too many functions) forces me a little to keep things
simple (and I like that). That's why I wouldn't want Nirvana to
become too complex. However, I've also noticed that if things are
too simple it can take more effort to do things right. For example,
I've noticed that I'm less inclined to make a task a project (and
thus to define the steps needed to accomplish it and to decide on
the next action) if it means that my list of projects becomes so
long that it's more difficult to keep track of things or that I'll
have to work with tags so much that it gets messy. Being able to
simply make something a sub-project would sometimes be less effort,
would help me to really follow GTD and thereby simplify my process
of planning and organizing.
So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, let's add another level (after
all, hierarchy in itself is a simple concept). I think it could be
done in a way that using it would be simple and self-explanatory
(i.e. Nirvana wouldn't really become more complex - after all it's
only one more level of what's already there) and in a manner that
those who don't need or want this function wouldn't even notice
that it's there. But considering that people want Nirvana to work
on their mobile devices, too many levels would make using Nirvana
on a smartphone messy. So let's keep Nirvana as simple as possible
but make it as complex as necessary.
Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.
2 Posted by DC Clarke on 14 May, 2010 02:56 PM
I consider the ability to create hierarchical sub projects a core function of any program that purports to be based on GTD methodology. The definition of a project alone, two or more tasks, suggests the need to break down projects into bit size chunks.
One of the problems I am usually faced with in "GTD based" software is adequately defining the project within the program. With a linear, non-heirarchal project structure, I simply cannot properly define projects because the list of projects would be far too unwieldy. Instead, I create a project for each of my clients using the client name or client/case name. Then I use tasks (and the checkbox/list feature within the task's notes) to further refine the specific projects for each client. I am an attorney by the way, so the quantity of projects as defined in GTD terms can be huge, even for one case. So it doesn't make sense to create three, four or even five projects for the same client in a linear fashion. A far better approach is a heirarchical project structure.
The top level project is the case itself which can last a long time (months, years). Sub-projects are created for each part of the case as they come up. This just makes sense to me.
In terms of workflow, I usually handle one case at a time, not one task at a time. For example, I might receive a phone call from a client. After the call, I might now have new tasks to complete: several additional phone calls, review a document, write a letter, wait for comments on the document, make further revisions, etc. The document itself may be a subproject with tasks involving legal research, making revisions, telephone calls and waiting for's.
If the projects in the software I use are all linear (like Nirvana is presently), then finding the document project for that client becomes a pain. It is so much simpler to go directly to the client master project and then to the subproject within to locate, check off or add a task.
I give this example of my workflow because it is the easiest way for me to exemplify why sub projects are so necessary. I hope I have not made this too convoluted.
Finally, on implementing sub projects generally into Nirvana, I don't see why there has to be any limit on the levels of projects at all. I never like other software that seems to hard-code one sub project level. Why not an infinite number of sub project levels where the user can simply drag sub projects in and out o other projects and sub projects as necessary. That way, Nirvana flexibly adapts to the level of complexity desired by the user.
To me, this whole topic is a no brainer. And allowing the user to determine the level of complexity without hard-coding restrictions on the number of sub project levels will keep Nirvana simple to use (as it ought to be!)
3 Posted by Terminado on 14 May, 2010 06:17 PM
@DC--I agree completely. Let the user decide. There are some projects/areas where I need many levels of sub-projects and would welcome the option.
I've had the same issue with having to define (in advance) all of the tasks for a project in a linear fashion. I practiced law for 20 years and "feel your pain". While my work and workflow are very different now, I still have this issue. Your set-up has given me some ideas, in particular, making the client the project.
I also like the idea of being to drag tasks to other projects and projects to other Areas of Focus.
Thanks for your contribution.
4 Posted by DC Clarke on 14 May, 2010 07:06 PM
@Terminado: Great to see fellow lawyers using GTD! Before GTD, I couldn't find see the surface of my desk for five years. Now, everyone thinks I'm not busy!
5 Posted by martin.tyler on 14 May, 2010 07:38 PM
As I already said on the other thread a folder structure would be really useful to me.
As @Lasse has said, it's about simplicity - it may appear to complicate the software to some - but it simplifies my workflow, and that is the aim.
I have seen some implementations of hierarchical tags/projects that just didn't cut it though. They shouldn't be folders like on a computer file system - where if you click on a parent you just see its children, here you need to see an exploded view of the children. The ability to then set that parent down hierarchy as your 'focus' would be ideal, so you are free to click around other views (today, next, whatever) and keep the filter on the hierarchy you selected.
It isn't trivial to implement - but the aim of software isn't to be simple, it is to simplify
6 Posted by Lasse on 14 May, 2010 07:52 PM
@martin.tyler: I'm not sure I got that. Do you mean that you'd want to be able to set the filter to, say, hierarchy level 3 of a particular project and then, if you click around, you'd only see tasks from that level within that project?
7 Posted by martin.tyler on 14 May, 2010 08:01 PM
@Lasse yep that's right.. simply navigating the hierarchical projects at review time is the main thing - but since there are also task states (today, next, waiting for etc) that are decoupled from the hierarchy it is useful to be able to click around the various views with the hierarchy filter you set.
Eg, Personal/House/TopFloor/NewCupboard is your structure, you might want to see next actions for House, or next actions for TopFloor, and keep either of those as a focus while you set tag filters or move to today or waiting for
8 Posted by DC Clarke on 14 May, 2010 08:36 PM
Eg, Personal/House/TopFloor/NewCupboard is your structure, you might want to see next actions for House, or next actions for TopFloor, and keep either of those as a focus while you set tag filters or move to today or waiting for
Ahh, I get it. Yes, of course. This is a significant change all around because currently, you cannot put a project in focus and still move around Today, Next and Waiting for while that Project is in focus. I can easily see how that would be helpful with a multi-tiered project hierarchy.
9 Posted by Mark Davies on 06 Aug, 2010 12:35 PM
Hi folks
Just to add my support for the ability for a multi-tiered hiarchy of tasks.
Best regards
Mark
10 Posted by metude on 06 Aug, 2010 12:38 PM
Sub-project will be good... I'm supporting it...
11 Posted by Jon Campbell on 06 Aug, 2010 02:30 PM
This is the first thing I was looking for.
I have multiple projects with smaller projects within those projects.
12 Posted by acraigbray on 06 Aug, 2010 02:35 PM
I would also like to voice support for a flexible implementation of hierarchical tasks. I love the interface and GTD focus of Nirvana but without this feature I would have a very difficult time adopting my todo workflow to fit the confines of the software.
13 Posted by Drew on 13 Aug, 2010 03:53 PM
Count me in as a vote for hierarchical projects.
Currently I use a #project tag for subprojects. It works, but is a little clumsy because I can't do drag and drop to a sub-project.
14 Posted by Andrew on 13 Aug, 2010 06:17 PM
I too would really like to see sub-project support. It is very difficult for myself to stay organised without it.
Having the feature to add a sub-project should not complicate things - people can choose to use the feature or not use it.
This is a make or break feature in deciding to stay with Nirvana.
David McLaughlin closed this discussion on 04 Feb, 2011 09:57 PM.