Projects - allow a mix of parallel and sequential tasks
Hi, thanks for the latest update, unified next list is now really looking good. Also thanks again for putting task name / project name the right way round. Having been using sequential drill down I'm now swapping to this in my next view.
However... the new parallel / sequential option on projects, clearly a great step forward in functionality, but...
Most of my projects are a mixture of sequential or parallel. Know this has been mentioned before, but ideally I'd like some way of allowing the first 2 (say) tasks to be parallel, then the next sequential, then three in parallel and so on. I appreciate this may be tricky UI wise to come up with something elegant.
Just thinking off the top of my head, one option could be to allow us to insert a stage separator in the project. Tasks after each separator would not become active in the UNL until all was complete above it. ie.
.
Buy materials from builders merchant
Buy tools from hardware store
Build house
Move into house
The first two stages would initially appear in the UNL, build house would only appear after they were complete, move in only after the house was built. The separator would be draggable just like tasks.
I'm sure there are a thousand other possibilities here, but that was the first one off the top of my head that seemed simple enough.
Anyway, as it is I'll probably stick to sequential projects for everything for 90% of my projects for now otherwise I will get task overload in the next list, though that means I have 120+ projects to mark as sequential as they default to parallel :(
Showing the most recent page of comments. View the first page
32 Posted by Proximo on 22 May, 2011 01:46 PM
@Michael,
You are correct in that we have different work styles. I think ultimately we need to have both sequential and parallel task in a project.
David Allen teaches that a project must have structure and you can't do this with a parallel only project. At the same time we need to have the ability to add parallel task to a sequential project were it makes sense.
I use mind mapping to brainstorm ideas and future projects, but when it becomes a physical project, I plan out it's structure for proper execution. Many of my project would have some parallel task in them, but I would not switch the project to parallel mode and loose the structure of my project. We need both sometime down the road and I am sure Nirvana will find an elegant way of doing this.
I have mentioned before that although combo projects are needed, that it's no high on my priority list. I can get along just fine with sequential projects and just manage the few parallel task associated with some of them.
33 Posted by Lasse on 26 May, 2011 08:22 AM
So, I've mulled this over for a while and have come to the conclusion that trying to make Nirvana work with every possible combination of parallel and sequential tasks would make this too complicated and confusing. After all, an important goal of GTD is to make organizing your life simpler.
So I guess my favorite implementation would be the most basic one. If you want to have a mixed project, define the project as sequential and create parallel tasks by dragging them to Next (the tasks then change color).
I wouldn't want separator lines or seperate sections since this might not work well with nested projects and would make Nirvana's look less homogenous. As for linking tasks like @David describes, I'd suggest going without that feature for simplicity's sake (even though I would use it if it was there). If most people want this feature, though, I'd prefer a solution that doesn't add an additional icon (maybe a light grey box around the linked tasks. Just something unobtrusive).
A simple solution like this would mean that you might have to go back to your project occasionally to adjust it manually (maybe in the weekly review). But I think that's less of a hassle than having to perfectly tweak and adjust your project setup, which might get confusing. You might end up having a mind like muddy water. Basically, I'd like to keep Nirvana as simple as possible, especially for those who are new to GTD or task management in general. Now that I've realized that my original suggestion only seemed simple when it was just me thinking about it, I cast my vote against it. :)
34 Posted by Lasse on 26 May, 2011 08:24 AM
And let me add: If you really want or need more than one set of sequential tasks within a project, sub-projects would be a work-around.
Support Staff 35 Posted by David McLaughlin on 06 Jun, 2011 09:02 PM
@Lasse: Boy am I gald you said that -- the more I thought about the solution without using sub-projects, the worse it got.
While 'cleaner' in concept than sub-projects in a number of ways, it gets real ugly, real fast, when thinking about how to implement it. And there are times you'd want the 'container' effect of sub-projects - and we have to provide them for those who want to use them in a 'valid' sub-project scenario - so might as well use them anyway.
Sigh - I never did get that stroke of genius I was hoping for on this one.
David
36 Posted by Proximo on 09 Jun, 2011 07:33 PM
sub-projects would be just fine.
I can have the following Project structure.
XYZ Software Implementation
- Download latest build of software
- Determine installation date
+ Prepare Server
- Identify current version of license
- Modify launch script with new users
- Run test script to insure the license server runs
- Install latest license and run script
- Run XYZ Installation routine on Server
- Install sub-components of the system on Server
+ Setup which license each user runs
- List all users and their required duties
- Allocate correct modules for each user in script
- Setup floating modules for all user access
- Test launch script and verify it's correct
- Redirect launch icon to point to new launch script
- Launch software on users computer to verify success.
- Send email notifying everyone that the upgrade was complete.
This is the kind of stuff I deal with all the time and having sub-projects would be a life saver for some of my Projects. Many of my projects are simple and don't require this type of structure but others do require it.
37 Posted by Mark on 09 Jun, 2011 08:27 PM
I still really, really like Lasse's original idea ... it would be an extremely powerful and useful solution, and if well-implemented it would easily be Nirvana's killer feature.
But I also understand the challenge that would be involved in implementing it well ... and I agree that a task hierarchy of some sort is a reasonable substitute. Hopefully, that hierarchy can be multi-level, though ... that is, subtasks should be able to have subtasks of their own.
38 Posted by haeffb on 09 Jun, 2011 08:30 PM
What's the distinction between subtask and subprojects? Personally, I'd prefer that projects remain at top-level, then within a project have tasks with (potentially multiple levels of) sub-tasks.
39 Posted by Mark on 09 Jun, 2011 08:36 PM
Personally, I don't really care about the semantics, at all ... whether individual levels are labeled as "tasks" or "projects." I just want to be able to create a multi-level hierarchy of ... "stuff." :)
40 Posted by Proximo on 10 Jun, 2011 04:09 PM
@Mark
I agree with you. Don't care what it's called but just want the ability to create multi-level hierarchy of stuff too.
I also agree that Lasse's idea is simple. I would like to simply have a little button for projects that assigned the task as a Next Action. This way you can drag it to the Next list of just click on the button if you prefer.
It could be a little icon with a small letter "n" inside it. I don't care what it is, but If I am looking at a Sequential project which automatically makes my top most task a Next Action and colors it's text blue. I could go down 4 task and click on the little Next Action icon to turn that task into a Next Action and the text turns blue as well.
This way I have a sequential (Structured) project with some task that can be done in parallel or when time permits.
Just saying. I guess it's Lasse's idea with an added little icon option for lazy people like me that may not want to drag over 3 task to the next list to make them Next Actions. :-)
41 Posted by haeffb on 10 Jun, 2011 05:43 PM
I agree that in the end it doesn't matter what the sub-hierarchy is called, but remember, small differences in semantics seem to cause a lot of confusion and frustration when we get to discussing options/features (i.e. what is an Area?)... Might as well get it sorted out up front. :)
42 Posted by Proximo on 11 Jun, 2011 03:29 AM
@haeffb
You make a good point. I leave that to Nirvana Staff. I just want the functionality. :-)
43 Posted by Elurven on 16 Aug, 2011 12:00 PM
As we are on the issue of sub projects, I would like to give my +1 on that. In my job, there are a few bigger production cycles every year. Each production cycle contains several products and every product has several different projects associated with it. So I would like to be able to create something similar to this:
Production 2011:1
- Product 1
- Project 1 associated with Product 1
- Task 1
- Task 2
- Project 2 associated with Product 1
- Task 1
- Task 2
- Product 2
- Product 3
Production 2011:2
- Product 1
- Project associated with Product 1
etc.
Tags could possibly be used but I would lose the structure outlined above which is a drawback. Besides, since all production cycles are named differently, I would end up with a huge amount of tags.
And making things sequential or parallel can then be addressed for each sub project. That would at least make me satisfied.
44 Posted by Geert on 16 Aug, 2011 12:16 PM
+1 for multi-level hierarchy in projects.
What I would like is pretty similar to what Elurven describes.
45 Posted by Michael Gross on 16 Aug, 2011 08:45 PM
Michael
46 Posted by glerner on 29 Nov, 2011 05:59 AM
+! for multi-level hierarchy in projects
Defining an outline-structure for tasks in a project would be essential for me. I have many projects I work on, where multiple levels of sub-tasks would be common, including:
- web site development - posting ads for multiple affiliate products on many blogs, Facebook pages, etc. - real estate investing (finding property, finding buyers, negotiating deals, closing sales)
None of these are complex enough to require dedicated project management software, but being able to make sure I've planned everything is important, expanding and collapsing outline levels to see differing levels of details.
47 Posted by Folke on 29 Nov, 2011 05:41 PM
I also have a somewhat related idea that I might as well bring up in this thread - different problem, but maybe the same solution - and a bit of semantics ;).
In GTD (and I support this) any muti-step task is called a project. We do not want to mess with this definition. We want Nirvana to be GTD. For most people in the outside world, however, a project is usually a much bigger thing than just a multi-step task. And all these multi-step little things tend to clutter the project list so much that you cannot see the bigger ("real") projects. So this is the idea:
The project feature that is now in place in Nirvana is absolutely necessary for GTD and should be unlimited n the free version. The "real" projects, however, could be seen as an aggregate of such smaller GTD projects. Perhaps these bigger ones could be termed "super-project" or "program" or "project structure" ors omething like that . The are clearly an add-on to GTD, and could easily be charged for, and all the functionality that goes with it.
It would then also be nice to be able to filter the project list a bit more - not just "hide inactive" etc like today, but also "hide projects" (i.e. hide the small multisteppers that normal people would perhaps call sub-projects ) and keep only the "programs" visible in a condensed view.
48 Posted by Folke on 29 Nov, 2011 06:16 PM
As always I opened my big mouth before I had thought things through, properly. Of course the big projects can still be called simply "projects". What you do instead is make levels as such the paid feature. And the filtering could be achieved perhaps even more flexibly by having a checkbox etc in the project settings - "keep this project invisible in the condensed view".