Parallel or sequential by default?

[michelle]

Which do you create more often, parallel or sequential projects? In a sequential project, the tasks must be done in a specific order. In a parallel project, they can be done in any order. We are going to have a preference for this, but we need to decide on a default setting for the preference. Our office is split right down the middle on this issue and people have strong opinions. Help?

Michelle

[duodecad]

Well, this is probably not what you want to hear, but my answer is "both". I'd say my projects are split about 50/50 between parallel and sequential.

Maybe this can be a preference that the user sets individually for each project, when they create it?

I suppose if I was really forced to choose, I'd go for "sequential"-- my logic here is that a parallel project can be set up and worked on as a sequential one (by simply cranking through one task at a time), but a sequential project can't really be done as a parallel one at all-- the dependencies wouldn't allow it. So if I really had to choose only one, I'd go with sequential.

[bluebaltic]

Typically, I want some control over the order in which tasks appear. Making some really wild assumptions based on other posts, I understand that there will be manual prioritization within projects (drag and drop, slide, something).

So, I suppose I'll be expecting my "priority" to be of some importance. I'd rather, I guess, have sequential for this reason.

However, if parallel means they can be done in any order, and I'm setting the order, then I want parallel.

If we're talking totally random without any user control, I don't really like parallel.

[Ken Case]

Maybe this can be a preference that the user sets individually for each project, when they create it?

You can change this setting on each project (or even each task group), we're just wondering which way it should usually be. (We'll have a preference so each person can decide which way they prefer for most of their projects, we're just wondering which preference is more common so we can pick an appropriate factory setting for that preference.)

Typically, I want some control over the order in which tasks appear.

Definitely. In OmniFocus, tasks are arranged in an ordered outline (just like in kGTD).

[michelle]

Yes, I didn't mean to make it sound like you would be stuck with one or the other. I was just curious which you use more often so we could determine the default setting.

[JasonI]

First off, I view Projects and Tasks completely differently. Tasks are what you need to accomplish for a given project and a project is a collection of tasks. Projects usually do not have any tie-in to other projects, so they should be set to parallel. The tasks, for me, are what I would like to determine are either parallel or sequential. I think that I would rather have tasks be parallel by default (just me) because many of my tasks in a given project can be done "out of order". Then for the ones that would need to be done in sequence I could just change it over when I needed to.

Now, if you are talking about sub-projects, that is a different story. I think sub-projects should be sequential by default but the tasks, again, would be parallel by default.

Hope that this makes sense and is in line with what you are asking.

[mitchellm]

I'd vote for sequential. I think that would be more sensible as a starting point.

As long as a person has the ability to easily designate parallel or sequential then that's the main thing.

This may be a silly question, but wouldn't it be possible in the general Preferences for the program to set what each person's general preference is (sequential/parallel)? Then they could change from their designated preference as needed when working on new projects?

[michelle]

Yes, we'll have a general preference and we'll make it very easy to switch between sequential and parallel.

[Terry]

Sequential. Most of everything I do is sequential.

[vocaro]

Parallel. Most of everything I do is parallel.

[mountainsun]

Hello Michelle,

Thank you for your request for feedback about the ordering of tasks. In your question you limit our options to parallel or sequential. I feel that neither of the options under this duality meet my needs.

I would like to be able to organize tasks so that we can show all dependencies among tasks through drag and drop and the program should automatically shift the structure to reorganize the tasks so that tasks that are now next actions are identified as such and the dependencies are respected when a task is marked off as done.

To illustrate this please consider the following example, a set of project tasks all in the same context, where indentation indicates dependency of a task on the task above.

task 1
task a
task b
task c
task 2
task d
task e
task f

The next actions at this point are; tasks 1 and 2.

In this arrangement tasks a and b are dependent on task 1, task c is dependent on task b, tasks d, e and f are dependent on task 2.

Or in other words, tasks 1 and 2 are in parallel as are tasks a and b, and d, e and f. Tasks a and b are sequential to task 1, c is sequential to b, and d, e and f are sequential to task 2.

When task 1 in completed I would like the task list for the project to automatically become;

task a
task b
task c
task 2
task d
task e
task f

and the list of next actions to automatically become;

task a
task b
task 2

When task b is completed I would like the task list for the project to automatically become;

task a
task c
task 2
task d
task e
task f

and the next action list for the project to become;

task a
task c
task 2.

For me this ability to show all dependencies, to show all sequential and parallel actions in one screen is absolutely necessary. The automatic reordering of the tasks and the automatic recreation of next action lists when a task is checked off as completed is also necessary for the GTD program to support me rather than get in my way. I would like to be able to reorganize tasks through drag and drop functionality.

I guess in conclusion I do not see any project being composed of only sequential or parallel tasks.

I hope this ability, as described above, can be integrated into your program.

Thanks,

Paul

[HERMAN]

I have both sequential and parallel task dependencies, yet I'd vote for parallel tasks as default rule.

Since we all have "!Single Actions", perhaps the best default setting is parallel. Ordering tasks, for me, is part of project planning and management, not what I want to do on a daily basis.

My main concern is: open OmniFocus, see what is scheduled for today, what tasks are still open and should have been closed or are still running by tomorrow as well. And what I'll add during the day in the inbox, will be reviewed - and if they belong to a project that has already been defined, I'll take time to plan it better.

I mean: parallel takes less concentration time, and will suit single actions very well. Sequential tasks require more concentration and planning. I'll be adding more parallel tasks than sequential ones, and will dwell on sequential ones longer. Since tagging tasks as sequential is something that requires extra time, shifting from parallel to sequential seems to me to be a logical move. I wouldn't want to change settings on a parallel task because the default setting is automatically set to "sequential". That would be taking time without adding anything specific or benefits.

Best,
Herman

[pjb]

I vote for the factory default to be sequential (but reserve the right to change my app preference to parallel).

With regards to mountainsun's note above, in the video demo the active task list did not show the collection of parallel tasks in the grocery list but only the first one. I agree with mountainsun and think all the grocery list items should appear in the list of Next Actions and not just the first one (unless one wants to order them by location in the grocery store and check them off as they wheel the cart around so they can see what to buy next). If a user finds the list too long, then perhaps that's a clue that some items really should be sequential.

-Paul

[BwanaZulia]

Paul, that looked like a filter setting. From what I saw, you could have projects have either parallel or sequential and the next action in the squential was there, just grayed out.

How will it handle sub projects I wonder?

Project One (sequentional)
Sub Project (parallel)
Sub Project (sequetional)

BZ

[curt.clifton]

I have super "projects" that represent my major life roles (mixing in a little Covey here). Within each I have a Misc. Tasks project that is parallel and several other projects that are typically sequential. The Misc. Tasks project never ends, while the other projects begin on a regular basis and occasionally end :-).

I'd personally use sequential projects as the default setting. But I wonder if new-to-GTD users might be surprised by that: "Hey, I entered all the items on my To Do list but only some of them are showing up!"

[Brazuca]

I agree with mountainsun completely. I watched the video and the first thing that really got me thinking was the parallel/sequential issue. I will definetely want a combination of the two within a project. I might need to buy more than just lightbulbs (maybe a ladder) before I can fix the light in the hallway. You should be able to specify a group that is parallel and a task (or set of tasks) that is sequential to it.

mountainsun has a good logic for this, and I'm sure good UI would make it very powerful.

[HiramNetherlands]

Sequential.