Another thing I'd like to add:

The only one next actions lists put the importance on actions, not on projects. And isn't that what GTD is essentially about? Managing actions?

As long as you are acting up on your actions, that's fine, the need to check the projects is not that frequent, in my opinion.

When you have actions below projects, you end up by thinking too much if the action really fits on this project or if it belongs to a different project/outcome. At least that's what happens to me. When I have a single project list, I feel more freedom to just list outcomes and related actions in the actions lists, then I check the project lists and eventually find out that some outcomes have been reached. Good!

For example, when I get to the point that I decided that there is a next action that results from a piece of data I'm processing, I might just add it to the next actions lists, well written, or add it to its corresponding project.

Of course, I could use remember and set it up to fill from the existing project maybe (like, remember, tasks, type, choose the project from the project list), but it is much more keystrokes than just saving it in the Next Actions list. It's a more organic way to work, has less structure.

On the other hand, most of this could be achieved by using the agenda view and other org filtering features, and still keep a list of projects, sub-projects and next-actions, all in one, like:

(Always ordered by priority)

* Projects and Next Actions
** A project/outcome :PROJECT:
*** TODO Do something :HOME:
*** A subproject :PROJECT:
**** TODO Do something! :HOME:
*** TODO Do something else :OFFICE:

Then, in the agenda, I can filter by HOME / OFFICE or TODO and would have a flat list of actions too.

More configuration, but more you get, when you view the Projects and Next Actions list, the information of to which project this next action belongs, which might not be that important, as I'm interested on doing, not reviewing the landscape all the time, but could be useful sometimes (when the action is not specific enough you can't tell the related outcome).

What do you guys think?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celoserpa@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the replies.

I can see the value of having project lists with its actions beneath (and sub-projects), but I don't have the discipline or maybe not enough org skills to use it efficiently.

Having one project list that *lists only projects* (outcomes that require more than one action to be considered a reality) and another single stack of Next Actions has its benefits. The first one, being a cleaner list and simplicity.

In the process phase, you process your blob of "stuff", and when you get to the point in the workflow where you have to decide if its a project or an actual next action, then you can decide where to put it, *two lits to choose from*.

The next actions can have the context tags, and the project list all have the PROJECT tag. No more, no less.

Later on, in the planning phase, you can then generate more actions to crank up in the list of actions.

So, you need to act on, just check the Next Actions list. Review the projects lists whenever you feel to, to check for completed outcomes, need to filter by context, use the agenda view. In the weekly review, check the inbasket and someday/maybe, project lists and next actions, process, organize, rise and repeat. Project lists and next actions lists refreshed and ready to rock again. That's all.

As a side-benefit, having a cleaner text-file is good.

The other option, of having a Projects list, with projects then next actions mixed up, has its benefits, since when using tagging properly you can differentiate between Next Actions and Projects using org search features. However, in the agenda view I won't have any clue of to which project the TODO belongs, so, I lost the project information there, unless I turn follow mode on or follow this item (<enter>, mouse-click), then I find that there are too many items and hierarchies when I follow the items, it just gets too cluttered for me, too confusing.

Also, one of the reasons I tried to simplify was that I was spending too much time adjusting it and little time actually using it :S

I haven't stopped and I will keep studying better ways to do GTD and automate more of my system, but this will be in the someday/maybe now.

I will create a section on Worg on different implementations of systems with org based on the GTD model, then we could list the pros and cons, relate to other productivity models and make a good menu to serve as reference for us or as a great menu for new users.

Anyway, two different approaches that are both good, depends on how your mind works and your level of knowledge of GTD/org.








On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> wrote:
Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> This is for the GTD orgers out there. I've taken the article written by
>> Charles as a basis for my GTD implementation. In the end, it's all about
>> what works for you, but I'd like to get some insights/opinions from you: For
>> Next Actions, are you using a single list OR you organize them
>> hierarchically under each project (in the projects list)?
>>
>> I started with the second one, putting each next action (TODO) item under
>> its correspondent project, however, it quickly became too bloated, and a mix
>> of projects, sub-projects and next-actions. Of course, org helps there with
>> sparse trees and other functions to filter trees, but still, I found it was
>> too complex, albeit more specific and I did felt I was more "organized",
>> even though I was getting lost.
>>
>> So, I just let go of my obsession about the perfect thing and decided to try
>> a single Next Actions list, together with a Projects list. The next actions
>> is a single list with all the actionable items from all the projects. I've
>> lost the relationship between a next action item and a project, but I can do
>> this easily by just looking at the action, having the system tell me is not
>> that important.
>
> Usually, you define all actions for a project under the same hierarchy.  You
> can decide how you want actions to be designated "next" (and projects to be
> designated "project") -- using keywords or tags and have a custom agenda
> command collect the next actions for you from all agenda files in a single
> list.

I define NEXT actions as a tag on some TODO item under the project
hierarchy.  I then pick NEXT actions off of the custom agenda view for
NEXT actions using agenda filtering to limit the total number of things
I'm looking at.

-Bernt