As I sit here doing my weekly review, the following question came up. Does OF presently integrate planning a project too closely with listing actions?
In the past I used iCal with simple "contexts". Since all of my actions were visible at the same time, I tended to keep only next actions or maybe 2-3 next "parallel actions" on my lists for each project. This kept them to a reasonable size and I felt like I had a good handle on what things needed to be done and that I could see them when needed. I kept my project planning materials written down (mostly just brainstorming or general list of non-ordered tasks) on the inside of the project folder or in a memo in my Palm. During my weekly reviews, I would spend a few minutes on each project and review my "brainstorm" list and transfer next actions to iCal.
With OF, I find myself planning in OF since it is so easy. However, there are sometimes a mix of parallel and sequential tasks for my projects. Without making the entire project parallel and creating task groups, which feels forced, I am often missing out on the chance to do actions which I really could be doing (and that really could be next actions). This is especially aggrevated by the fact that I rely heavily on my Palm, but the the unavailable tasks of course don't get synced to it, thus I don't know about the tasks I really could be doing (e.g. an Errand task that I really could be doing, but it is being held up by a Phone task for no real reason, other than I didn't make the project parallel and create basically all other tasks in the sequential task group). During my weekly reviews, I find myself fiddling with the action order (to force a sequence of tasks) rather than figuring out what remainting tasks need to be done that I have not listed.
So my question, again, is planning too integrated with the "listing"? For example, should there be a way to plan a project but not actually put them on the Tasks view (I consider the Tasks list the current Projects list)? Then as part of your weekly review you simply move tasks to the Tasks view from the Planning view (which is always parallel)?
I see it as a way to brainstorm ideas and tasks for projects, but not worry about assigning the correct order at that time. Then, during the weekly review, you transfer tasks to the Task view which contains all actionable items (not items waiting on other actions to be done). Then of course the Context view simply picks up tasks from the Tasks view and presents them in contexts. So basically, I have available for view (and on my Palm) all available tasks for a project for all contexts as appropriate. My dependencies live in the Planning view which I manage as part of my weekly review.
Perhaps I am thinking too hard and complicating things even further. What are your thoughts? Do you find yourself fiddling with the task order so that you don't miss things (especially Palm/iCal users) or try to get tasks to appear when they feel like they should?
In the past I used iCal with simple "contexts". Since all of my actions were visible at the same time, I tended to keep only next actions or maybe 2-3 next "parallel actions" on my lists for each project. This kept them to a reasonable size and I felt like I had a good handle on what things needed to be done and that I could see them when needed. I kept my project planning materials written down (mostly just brainstorming or general list of non-ordered tasks) on the inside of the project folder or in a memo in my Palm. During my weekly reviews, I would spend a few minutes on each project and review my "brainstorm" list and transfer next actions to iCal.
With OF, I find myself planning in OF since it is so easy. However, there are sometimes a mix of parallel and sequential tasks for my projects. Without making the entire project parallel and creating task groups, which feels forced, I am often missing out on the chance to do actions which I really could be doing (and that really could be next actions). This is especially aggrevated by the fact that I rely heavily on my Palm, but the the unavailable tasks of course don't get synced to it, thus I don't know about the tasks I really could be doing (e.g. an Errand task that I really could be doing, but it is being held up by a Phone task for no real reason, other than I didn't make the project parallel and create basically all other tasks in the sequential task group). During my weekly reviews, I find myself fiddling with the action order (to force a sequence of tasks) rather than figuring out what remainting tasks need to be done that I have not listed.
So my question, again, is planning too integrated with the "listing"? For example, should there be a way to plan a project but not actually put them on the Tasks view (I consider the Tasks list the current Projects list)? Then as part of your weekly review you simply move tasks to the Tasks view from the Planning view (which is always parallel)?
I see it as a way to brainstorm ideas and tasks for projects, but not worry about assigning the correct order at that time. Then, during the weekly review, you transfer tasks to the Task view which contains all actionable items (not items waiting on other actions to be done). Then of course the Context view simply picks up tasks from the Tasks view and presents them in contexts. So basically, I have available for view (and on my Palm) all available tasks for a project for all contexts as appropriate. My dependencies live in the Planning view which I manage as part of my weekly review.
Perhaps I am thinking too hard and complicating things even further. What are your thoughts? Do you find yourself fiddling with the task order so that you don't miss things (especially Palm/iCal users) or try to get tasks to appear when they feel like they should?
Threaded Mode