[JorBru]

Originally Posted by henry

No, actually I think he would disagree. Nothing I have ever read by David Allen has mentioned this level of formal task planning. The only mention of when a task is to be completed is what he calls "hard landscape", tasks that absolutely must be completed at a certain time. And these are generally imposed by outside forces NOT our own desire to do the action at a particular time.

hmmm. I'll have to re-read some DA. It is, to me, so obviously a part of planning to give some thought to when certain tasks (not all) will be worked-on that I can't imagine not doing it.

Originally Posted by henry

As it stands OF (and GTD) can never create for you an "impossible plan" because the system doesn't impose it's will upon you, it merely offers suggestions on what you might do next based a a few criteria, context, time available, etc. You are asking for the addition of a "Do date" which could lead to plans that are impossible to achieve and is going to need the addition of a conflict resolution system.

Did I say OF could create an impossible plan for me? I meant it would allow me to create an impossible plan.

It certainly permits that now. I can add lots of Action Items with Due dates for this Friday. I can add many more than can be accomplished in the remaining time. I can even tell OF the Estimated Completion of each of these, and it will not give me any indication that I am over-extended.

So, yes. I am asking for an additional data field - but more importantly I am asking for a more complete solution.

And, as you say, conflict resolution will require extra tools because no tool can guess which tasks can be deferred even with the addition of prioritization (please no!). You will ultimately spend more time administering your lists than actually doing the work. Something David Allen points to as a failing in other systems.

This is polar opposite to GTD.

But this is exactly my complaint. OF does not currently provide a list of work to be done now. A major tenant of GTD is that there is no point in seeing lots of items on a to do list that have no prospect of being completed now. OF only eliminates from view those items that have an uncompleted pre-requisite or are not yet "available". What about letting me exclude other items that I know I don't what to think about today?

So because of a seemingly simple addition like a Today List we have opened ourselves up to additional work of pre-planning our tasks, while trying to avoid impossible plans, and then having to re-plan everything due "inevitable disruptions" ("Inevitable disruptions to the plan" are one of the reasons David Allen argues against Today lists.). None of which is actually doing work. Doesn't sound like stress free productivity to me.

I'm not suggesting more work. You already do some sort of Daily and Weekly review. I just want more benefit from that time.

No need to pre-plan your tasks if you don't wish to. In fact, since the "Today" list would be a perspective that you could delete, there is no need for you to see it at all.

DA also argues against a tech solution more sophisticated than what could be done with paper and pencil. With OF, we have a computerized system that could be eliminating some clerical work. It would be nice to see more creativity in its design so it did more than just present filtered lists.

By avoiding the issue, OF forces us to maintain off-line lists - a much greater inefficiency. There is much info that the system could gather from us (during a regular review) that would help with those disruptions. The person that isn't planning ahead isn't being as effective as possible. The person that plans ahead with a different tool is doubling-up on some data-entry/maintenance.

Just as a screw driver will disappoint as a tool to hammer in nails.
Omnifocus isn't a planning tool, it's a personal productivity tool. You should take a look at OmniPlan instead.

OmniPlan is great for managing more resources, but we are talking about personal productivity.