[Janice]

From what I've gathered from the forum, I have only two options. I can view my tasks either via projects or via contexts. But I need a third category, status. Status could encompass categories such as delegated, pending/waiting for, scheduled, ASAP, reference, prospective/someday/maybe. The idea of creating contexts @delegated or @reference seems silly given the GTD meaning of context (environment(s) and/or resource(s) required to execute the task). And if I use a context to assign a status, I then can't assign a true context. For example, if my follow-up of a delegated task requires a phone call, I'm forced to make a choice as to whether I'll see it under @phone or under @delegated. Frustrating.

The other alternative is to create projects with status categories. But again, ultimately, I'm relegated to a similar compromise. I can (a) see a bunch tasks, unrelated, but for having a simiar status of, for example, delegated, in a "project" that is counter to the GTD definition. Or, (b) see the related tasks in the project to which these tasks belong. But I can't do both. Frustrating.

Thinking Rock is the only app I've seen that allows for one to filter according to status, context and project, simulateously. Unfortunately, it's UI is impossibly cluttered (especially in comparison to the clean UI of OmniFocus).

And so, I continue to live with hope that one day, an upcoming screencasts will have a third view mode next to projects and contexts that will read status.

Am I the only one?

I'd be interested to hear from the Omni Ninjas what the road map is to address issues re status...

[Mario.Batz@cern.ch]

Well,

In the case you describe I decide on what the next action will be when I enter the the task that I have delegate. Then, if I need to call it becomes e.g.: call John to check that car is ordered. When I need to discuss this with the person I choose for two alternatives: either I file a task in @John, or in a @PurchaseMeeting.

Can also just simply be that I delegated something to someone I am only occasionally working with or a foreign person. Then I define a next action and file it in @WF (Wating For). This is not a real context, but the only one I use like that. For me this is not a problem.

Personally, I think that it is important to decide on the next action for me to be done, when I delegate something. the context where to file it is then clearly identified.

Using an additional thing like status will make it in my opinion more complex to enter taks and to follow them up.

Cheers

Mario

[Janice]

Originally Posted by Mario.Batz@cern.ch

Well,

In the case you describe I decide on what the next action will be when I enter the the task that I have delegate. Then, if I need to call it becomes e.g.: call John to check that car is ordered. When I need to discuss this with the person I choose for two alternatives: either I file a task in @John, or in a @PurchaseMeeting.

Can also just simply be that I delegated something to someone I am only occasionally working with or a foreign person. Then I define a next action and file it in @WF (Wating For). This is not a real context, but the only one I use like that. For me this is not a problem.

Personally, I think that it is important to decide on the next action for me to be done, when I delegate something. the context where to file it is then clearly identified.

Using an additional thing like status will make it in my opinion more complex to enter taks and to follow them up.

Cheers

Mario

What do you do when you've delegated several tasks to several different persons (some occasional, some not), and you want to review all of your delegated tasks in one glance?

[joelande]

Everyone say ... tags ...

[pjb]

Allen wrote about separate piles for "waiting for" and "pending" and "reference" (that one's not really a pile but a filing system) and "someday/maybe" and there have been comments on these boards that at least "waiting for" should be a special box like Inbox but some are using Context for this. That might be "Waiting for...
---John
---Purchase Meeting
---etc as the dependencies arise"

which would allow you to Focus on that list.

Tags such as Flags, ASAP, priorities, interest are considered impediments to GTD. Janice lumped a few of these piles and tags together.

If it's scheduled, it's off your task list and into your calendar (processed).
If it's reference it's off your task list and in your file system (processed).
If it's delegated that's the same as pending/waiting on someone.
If it's ASAP then you've given yourself a stumbling block that's bound to create conflict and unhappiness (as Allen would say, as I understand him).

So we're back to having a special category for "Waiting for..." and processing everything else to either an un-prioritized action you are going to do or sending it off the task list altogether. You might send it to a tickler in the calendar to remind you to pester the person you're waiting for on some future date. "Waiting for..." can be an active task but one that doesn't allow next actions (I was tipped off to this approach elsewhere in the forum).

Sorry if this comes across as to righteous. I've been listening to the Allen audiobook in the car lately. I'm trying to grok it myself.

[joelande]

Originally Posted by pjb

Tags such as Flags, ASAP, priorities, interest are considered impediments to GTD. Janice lumped a few of these piles and tags together.

They may be impediments to GTD, but that doesn't mean they have to be impediments to OmniFocus.

If you don't want to use tags, don't.

As a sys admin and manager of an IT department, all of my life is on the computer. And much of it is spent delegating tasks, and following up with them to make sure it has actually been done.

There needs to be another way to organize things besides @Computer, @Email, and there need to be a mechanism to follow up with delegated tasks.

And even the piles you reference ARE GTD.

There is a great thread on tagging here:
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=2546

[Janice]

Originally Posted by pjb

Allen wrote about separate piles for "waiting for" and "pending" and "reference" (that one's not really a pile but a filing system) and "someday/maybe" and there have been comments on these boards that at least "waiting for" should be a special box like Inbox but some are using Context for this. That might be "Waiting for...
---John
---Purchase Meeting
---etc as the dependencies arise"

which would allow you to Focus on that list.

Tags such as Flags, ASAP, priorities, interest are considered impediments to GTD. Janice lumped a few of these piles and tags together.

If it's scheduled, it's off your task list and into your calendar (processed).
If it's reference it's off your task list and in your file system (processed).
If it's delegated that's the same as pending/waiting on someone.
If it's ASAP then you've given yourself a stumbling block that's bound to create conflict and unhappiness (as Allen would say, as I understand him).

So we're back to having a special category for "Waiting for..." and processing everything else to either an un-prioritized action you are going to do or sending it off the task list altogether. You might send it to a tickler in the calendar to remind you to pester the person you're waiting for on some future date. "Waiting for..." can be an active task but one that doesn't allow next actions (I was tipped off to this approach elsewhere in the forum).

Sorry if this comes across as to righteous. I've been listening to the Allen audiobook in the car lately. I'm trying to grok it myself.

I won't argue your preferences or process (to each her own interpretation), but I would encourage you to look at David's suggested Workflow Diagram. ASAP is my shorthand for the tasks that take longer than two minutes and are deferred as "Next Actions" - to do as soon as one can.

[LizPf]

Originally Posted by Janice

What do you do when you've delegated several tasks to several different persons (some occasional, some not), and you want to review all of your delegated tasks in one glance?

You could nest contexts:

@Delegated
Abel
Baker
Charlie

Then focusing on Delegate would show all delegated tasks, grouped by name.

--Liz

[Janice]

Originally Posted by LizPf

You could nest contexts:

@Delegated
Abel
Baker
Charlie

Then focusing on Delegate would show all delegated tasks, grouped by name.

--Liz

Thanks, LizPf, for the recommendation. If you reference my first post in this thread, you'll note my frustration that by using contexts in the way you suggest, I'm precluded from using the contexts as defined by GTD.

In other words, any tasks listed under your suggested context of Delegated, wouldn't appear under phone, email, server. This means I'd have the status of the tasks, but I wouldn't be able to access them according to my current environment or available resources.

[Ken Case]

Originally Posted by Janice

Status could encompass categories such as delegated, pending/waiting for, scheduled, ASAP, reference, prospective/someday/maybe. The idea of creating contexts @delegated or @reference seems silly given the GTD meaning of context (environment(s) and/or resource(s) required to execute the task).

OmniFocus does have a notion of project status: a project can be active, on hold, completed, or dropped, and you can filter the project list using these states. You can also set start dates on projects and actions (giving you a "scheduled" state), and you can create different top-level folders for projects and use those to create your own arbitrary groupings of folders (such as a someday/maybe list, which might be a bunch of projects in an inactive folder).

I have to confess to a certain puzzlement over the whole notion of "delegated" as a context or separate state for an action. If I delegate an action, it's off my plate: that action is not really my action any longer. Instead, my action is to check to see if my designated delegate is progressing appropriately on the action, which usually implies adding a new action to an Agenda context (along the lines of "Review Jane's progress on plans for t-shirts") and scheduling it (say, for next week). When I look at my action list, I now see something concrete and specific that I can do at an appropriate time and place to keep that project moving forward.