Difference between Groups, Projects and Folders
 

All three seem to group several actions. Now what is the difference? Groups and projects can beset to execute their actions in parallel or sequentially. When should you use which?

This is going to be very subjective.

Basically: Folders are for related (or similar) but destinct projects (example "Work", "Home", "Repairs", "Products")

Projects are the "Core" collection object, it is the goal for which you wish to track actions.

And action group is useful if you have several actions that either have more detail then you always want to see, or seem to belong bundled together (maybe you would do them in rapid succession).

Anyway, there is no right "Answer" to your questions. You could easily use OF without using Folders or action groups, both are enhancements to the primary tool which is projects.

-P

To what ptone wrote, I would add:

A project is something that takes more than one physical step (=action) but that has a definite "done" state. Example: review a book. (When I've sent the review to the magazine or journal that's publishing it, it's done.)

A folder is an area of responsibility that will never be done unless your life changes. For me, "Book Reviews" is an area of responsibility. I'll finish individual book reviews, but I'll never finish reviewing books until I retire (or I decide that the return doesn't compensate the investment, but I hope I never get there!).

An action group is like a lemma in a mathematical proof: it's a way of organizing related actions whose completion will move you toward finishing a commitment (project) but that won't get you there on their own. In my book review case, I might have an action group for "draft and revise review" with the various stages of writing and revising in it.

I hope that helps!

I find myself using action groups mostly when I need to invert the parallel/sequential setting of the broader project.

- in a parallel project, there may be a chunk that needs to be sequential (e.g. gathering all the necessary materials for a meeting, and one of them requires looking up a phone number, calling a request in, waiting for the response, and receiving the item.)

- in a sequential project, there may be a chunk that needs to be parallel (e.g. in building a website, we need approvals of the design from three different people before continuing, and there is no way of knowing in advance in what order those approvals will be received)

I find that it's this switching gears of the sequence logic that call for action groups for me, more often than just conceptual chunking of my planning.

So action groups would be to group subtasks of a larger project that are themselves more than one physical action.

Now, there's a nice view that shows me stalled projects. And that is helpful, because I may not know all steps of a project in advance. But there's no equivalent filter/view for action groups that would show me stalled actions or is there?

[QUOTE]A folder is an area of responsibility that will never be done unless your life changes. For me, "Book Reviews" is an area of responsibility. I'll finish individual book reviews, but I'll never finish reviewing books until I retire (or I decide that the return doesn't compensate the investment, but I hope I never get there!).[/QUOTE]

But those buckets are almost equivalent to folders in your definition, aren't they? They also can't reach a state of completion.

[QUOTE=netvisionary;28696]But those buckets are almost equivalent to folders in your definition, aren't they? They also can't reach a state of completion.[/QUOTE]

What they contain is different. A folder is an "uncompletable" container for projects, and a bucket is an "uncompletable" container for actions.

(I have a bucket for each folder, and I often wish that I could just throw those actions in the buckets directly into the folders - that would simplify my tree tremendously. But right now folders can't contain actions directly.)

[QUOTE=netvisionary;28694]So action groups would be to group subtasks of a larger project that are themselves more than one physical action.

Now, there's a nice view that shows me stalled projects. And that is helpful, because I may not know all steps of a project in advance. But there's no equivalent filter/view for action groups that would show me stalled actions or is there?[/QUOTE]

Right. That view doesn't exist. I have [URL="http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~clifton/software.html#VerifyNA"]a script that will detect and label projects and action groups that lack next actions[/URL]. I hope the functionality is built in someday, but for now I use my script on a daily basis.

So, I've found that the only way for me to successfully use OmniFocus is to treat projects like folders and put my real projects as groups.

I don't have an exact count, but I probably have somewhere around projects in OmniFocus right now. When I tried to do it the "right" way, I found dealing with that many items in the interface provided by the sidebar to be completely frustrating. Now, I have 3 folders and 12 projects in the sidebar and everything is [i]much[/i] more manageable. The 12 projects are all things that can never be complete, like "maintain car" or "finances".

The primary downside I've found with this approach is that I can't apply project-level statuses to action groups. For example, there is no way to put an action group "on hold" or simply drop it. Though this is annoying, I'm still using OmniFocus because of is support for start and due dates and repeating events, all things that are really useful to me as compared to OmniOutliner, which I was using before.

I am also struggling.

I really like the flippy triangle drilldown capability that folders provide, even for projects. But the process of creating a folder for each subproject is awkward (unless I've missed a quick way to do it, similar to indenting tasks inside a project in the outline view).

And I guess I don't understand why the software needs to make a distinction between Projects and Folders at all. It seems like they have all the same functionality requirements.

Folders are an organizing tool outside of the ability to complete the stuff within it. DA might refer to these as "areas of responsibility" (work/finances/etc) or "visions" (30-, 40- and 50-thousand foot views, e.g.).

A "project", in GTD terms, is "a desired result with more than one step to completion". "Call Bob re:painter" is a single action, unless you first need to find Bob's phone number, in which case it might become a project that includes "Search email for Bob's number".

NickM, are all your projects "active", i.e. they're all things you're actively working toward completing? Or do they include things you've put on hold, or are pending, or even already completed?

Also, how many projects are we talking about? (The number seems to have been lost in your post.) I have somewhere around 70 active projects, and the hardest part is finding a project in the list, as once the project is entered, I spend very little time in the project pane.

What has been frustrating you?

[QUOTE=jasong;30529]NickM, are all your projects "active", i.e. they're all things you're actively working toward completing? Or do they include things you've put on hold, or are pending, or even already completed? Also, how many projects are we talking about? (The number seems to have been lost in your post.)
[/QUOTE]

This is a complicated subject to talk about because I am abusing the notion of "project" in my database. My hierarchy has 4 levels. I have one level of folders (3 of them), a next level of projects-that-can't-finish (12 of them), a next level of action-groups-that-are-really-projects (about 60-70 of them) and then each of those has a small number of actions.

If I were going to implement this as recommended, I would promote my second level of projects to folders and my level of action groups to projects. I've been deleting completed items because they are cluttering up the interface for me when planning, typically.

[QUOTE=jasong;30529] I have somewhere around 70 active projects, and the hardest part is finding a project in the list, as once the project is entered, I spend very little time in the project pane.[/QUOTE]

So, I do spend a lot of time in the project pane. I don't find that I'm able to enter a project and forget about it. Usually, I need to re-prioritize things or restructure my plan as I move along. I just can't deal with having the 60 or so items in the project pane... but maybe I should and just never expand those folders... I think in the end it would be the same thing.

With your current setup, you'll find yourself fighting against OmniFocus on a semi-regular basis and you'll probably grow even more frustrated with it.

Why not have two levels of folders?

Also, if you use projects as projects, rather than action groups as projects, you don't have to delete completed projects, you just need to view only your "active" projects. This hides completed projects from view, but keeps them available for historical purposes.

Finally, I don't "forget about" my projects because I don't spend much time in the projects pane; I don't spend much time in the projects pane because I spend most of my time in Context mode. That's where I complete my actions. If I need to do any planning on a project, then I bounce to Planning mode. I also have perspectives set up to handle my project reviews, which, while in Project mode doesn't use the project pane.

[QUOTE=jasong;30604]With your current setup, you'll find yourself fighting against OmniFocus on a semi-regular basis and you'll probably grow even more frustrated with it.

Why not have two levels of folders?[/QUOTE]

As I said in my original post, the problem is that I find working with dozens of projects in the sidebar frustrating. Also, when I do it that way I'm not sure what to do with single-action projects... it seems silly to create a project that has a single action. I like having all my true projects and groups and then the single action ones can mingle along with the multi-action ones. It's one frustration or the other.

If the filled-up sidebar is really troubling you, what you could do is have folders where you've currently got projects, and projects where you've currently got action-groups. That way everything works as it’s designed to. However, what you can then do is collapse the folders so that all you see in the sidebar is the list of folders, and not the individual projects! If you click on a folder in the sidebar (whether it be collapsed or uncollapsed), the content pane displays the contents of that folder, in the same way as it would currently do when you click on one of your mega-projects…

You can set up a singletons project for each of the folders if you like, in which you can store single actions (duh). If you systematically call your singletons projects <folder name> single actions, it’s easy to find the right bucket to throw actions in when you’re using Quick Entry.

[QUOTE=Richard Flynn;30645]
You can set up a singletons project for each of the folders if you like, in which you can store single actions (duh). If you systematically call your singletons projects <folder name> single actions, it’s easy to find the right bucket to throw actions in when you’re using Quick Entry.[/QUOTE]

Just a bit of translation from the alpha version to today. The "singletons projects" are now called Single-Actions list. Their icon is a file/shoe box, as opposed to the index card used as a project icon.

[QUOTE=curt.clifton;30699]The "singletons projects" are now called Single-Actions list.[/QUOTE]

As an aside, what is the purpose of these? Are these projects that can't be completed because they're never done (i.e. there will always be single-actions that need to live somewhere)?

[QUOTE=NickM;30718]As an aside, what is the purpose of these? Are these projects that can't be completed because they're never done (i.e. there will always be single-actions that need to live somewhere)?[/QUOTE]

I view single action list as a collection of small often trivial (but not always) projects that require only one task to complete.

-P

[QUOTE=NickM;30718]As an aside, what is the purpose of these? Are these projects that can't be completed because they're never done (i.e. there will always be single-actions that need to live somewhere)?[/QUOTE]

In Canonical GTD™ you track outcomes in the form of actions. Take out the trash; call John about the widget; file bug against OmniFocus re: missing... you get the idea.

If you need more than one action to complete a particular outcome, you roll those up into a project. A project is nothing more than a set of related actions that together will lead to the completion of that outcome.

In OmniFocus, the assumption is most of what you track are these projects, and so the project is the focal point of OF. But many people still need to track these single-action outcomes.

Instead of treating these single-action outcomes like projects (i.e. listing them on the sidebar at the same level as projects, which may clutter up an already full list), Omni created a separate structure, called single-action items, which allow you to group your single, unrelated actions together.

There are some advantages and downsides to this. The primary advantage is that your sidebar isn't cluttered with dozens of these single actions. The primary downside is you lose all of the project-based management actual projects get (like dropping the action).

The functionality we have was a compromise. There are several threads on the topic if you feel like reading all of what went into the decision. Searches for "singletons" and "single actions" should find most of them.

Wow, very nicely put, jasong. That has got to be the best explanation of and reasoning behind the Single-Actions List I've seen yet. Thanks!

Folders and Projects
 

I'm new to OmniFocus, but have used GTD with Tinderbox for some years. I have RTF and read this forum thread.
I have (like most people) several master-buckets (school, grad students, business, home) etc. and hierarchies within those (e.g. school:graduate students:John:read thesis). I set up a folder for graduate students because as a group they represent a series of ongoing projects (read papers, meetings, theses, etc.). Within grad students, I have individual students a projects, and then actions under students. But the interface seems clumsy to me, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. The folder "graduate students" seems to have no status as a project folder. Which means I have had to create a project, "graduate students" within the folder of the same name, and then when I assign a project and try to use the project assignment field it reads "Graduate students: graduate students." If I have individual names, then I am proliferating projects like crazy, e.g. "Graduate students: Mark, Graduate students: John." Is there a way to use a folder as a project level assignment, and then have projects within, without proliferating individual projects in the assignment field?

An unrelated question: is there a way to hoist individual items besides dragging (e.g. control-arrow keys)?

[QUOTE=LewF;45312]An unrelated question: is there a way to hoist individual items besides dragging (e.g. control-arrow keys)?[/QUOTE]

Command-] and command-[ will indent and outdent items, if that's what you're looking for.

Thanks
 

That is what I am looking for horizontally. Is there a way to "lift" or demote an item vertically with key strokes?

In planning mode (or in the left pane), ctrl-command-up and ctrl-command-down work. You can't manually rearrange main-pane items in Context mode, IIRC.

[QUOTE=LewF;45312]If I have individual names, then I am proliferating projects like crazy, e.g. "Graduate students: Mark, Graduate students: John." Is there a way to use a folder as a project level assignment, and then have projects within, without proliferating individual projects in the assignment field?[/QUOTE]

What is your main concern with said proliferation? It would seem that each student is a "project" that gets completed on its own timeframe. Your folder "Graduate Students" isn't really a project because you never complete it, its an "area of work".

Dealing with this proliferation is not too bad with Omni's very good pattern matching algorithm. To jump to Grad Students:Mark in the column entry, you would just type "g-r-m-a" and it would highlight. (you don't need to finish typing the first part of the hierarchy)

Depending on how much detail you are tracking in your system. Each student may be a folder of their own with projects:

Grad students:Mark:PNAS Paper
Grad students:Mark:Poster for meeting
Grad students:Mark:Thesis

etc

I'm finding the more I use OF, the more I break things down into discreet projects. It is far easier to plan, review, and complete a project than an action group within a project.

-P

I've tried using OF several times, but each time the 'habit' has failed to stick, because I just cannot figure out how you're supposed to use the whole Folder / Project / Task structure in a meaningful, GTD way.

I would find it incredibly useful to have some [B]real[/B] examples of different OF set ups. The example data that comes with the application, and that is shown in the 'instructional' movies I've viewed, is fun but unhelpful.

Does Omni have [B]real[/B] examples of how OF has been set up by different users and for different uses? Showing effective usage of the Folders, Projects and Tasks structure?

I think sharing 'working practice' examples like this would be extremely useful -- to me at least!

A

[QUOTE=Asterion;45889]
Does Omni have [B]real[/B] examples of how OF has been set up by different users and for different uses? Showing effective usage of the Folders, Projects and Tasks structure?
[/QUOTE]

I think quite a few people have been posting their arrangements. You might want to look for the threads with paperclip icons. You'll almost certainly see planning & context screenshots.

Log in
 

where are paperclips icons ? Can you post a link?

If you're using the "Omni" view style for the forums, you'll see something like this (click graphic to enlarge):

[URL=http://img511.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture34xh2.png][IMG]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9290/picture34xh2.th.png[/IMG][/URL]

The paperclip can be seen on the right in the middle row.