[colicoid]

Do you have any best practices or recommendations for using either:

1. Lot's of projects organized into folders.
2. Fewer projects but with lots of actions organized into groups.

What are the pros and cons?
Just something to think about...

[sfkeydel]

I, for one, am eagerly anticipating the responses to this thread. Recently, I moved to a model in which I use several levels of subfolders to categorize projects. To give a very basic example, I might have the following hierarchy:

Personal (folder)
Home Improvement (folder)
Recycle paper, aluminum, and glass (project)

From the standpoint of keeping things organized within OmniFocus, this works really well. However, the one area where it falls a little short, in my opinion, is in using the Quick Entry window, since it becomes pretty much impossible to add a new project directly to the correct level of the hierarchy. For example, I wouldn't be able to add a new project directly to the "Home Improvement" folder using Quick Entry, since "Home Improvement" isn't a project. If I made "Home Improvement" a project, rather than a folder, I'd be able to add a new *action* to it using Quick Entry, but not a new project, since a project can't have sub-projects. I guess it becomes a question of semantics at some point...

What would be cool is if one were able designate a folder in the Quick Entry window into which to send a project. As it is now, I just send everything to the Inbox, which is acceptable; would be nicer, however, to be able to file effectively from the Quick Entry window.

[yucca]

I would suggest thinking about how you want to do your reviews.

If you have dozens of projects (and certainly if you have more than 100) and if you want to do everything in related to GTD project and task management in OF, then I don't see how you can get away from using project folders. If you needs are more modest, then you may not need them.

I've seen mention of its uses elsewhere, but I use Action Groups primarily to cover those tasks that need can proceed in a manner different from the default that I set for the project as a whole (i.e. sequential vs. parallel). However, this also applies to other attributes where you want the default for a group to differ from the project as a whole (e.g. default Context, repeat cycle).

I also use Action Groups for tracking and reporting purposes - especially when I want OF to mirror the work breakdown structure (WBS) for a project at the office. Also, it can be helpful when delegating portions of a project to different team members.

[Lizard]

For me, a project is the highest thing I can call "done". My "Family & Friends" folder might have a "Christmas Gifts" project, with action groups like "Make Lisa's scarf". If Christmas Gifts was a folder, Lisa's scarf could be a project, and I could check it off, but I'd never get to check off "Christmas Gifts" and watch it disappear (and a new one created due next December 24th).

[abh19]

My general strategy is to keep projects as small as possible, organized into many folders. One of OmniFocus's best features is the "focus" capability, and it can focus on any project, folder, or group. It cannot, however, focus on anything less than a complete project.

This strategy allows for ease of focus, but there are benefits to making larger projects composed of subprojects (action groups). With projects that must be completed in order, you need to mark the first action of each one as a "waiting for" action, to be reassigned a context manually after the prerequisite project has been completed. In this case, the action group model works more efficiently, because there's no need to manually navigate to the next project and remove the "waiting for" condition. This is a very useful functionality for organizing projects... I need to re-evaluate some of my projects and see if it's more appropriate to combine them into a single project with action groups... at least those projects that are 1) related and 2) have a definite order required for completion.

Very good topic. I'm looking forward to hearing more ideas... you can go too far in either direction, I think.

[colicoid]

Very good discussion. Now I will complicate things a little by throwing in the:
"Single Actions List".

Anyone actually using them?

Another thing.
Why do we have folders and groups? Why not just have Projects and sub projects? So everything is a project or action.

[yucca]

Since I have a modest number of top level folders, I don't have a problem with maintaining Single Action Lists in each of these folders. The reason for using them is the same as the reason for having top level folders (with no top level projects at all) - it helps with reviews. Also, it keeps all the single action tasks from over running the actual projects in the top level folders.

I maintain top level folders on the basis of review cycles. I have many projects - too many to review at one sitting, and it wouldn't even make sense to do so anyway. I lied, there is actually one top level project called Weekly Review that prods me to do my weekly and reviews, and reminds me to empty each of my in-boxes every day.

One top level folder is for Personal projects that I like to review on Sunday, and includes the personal projects and tasks that I tackle throughout the week. There are two other top level folders: Work (that gets its review on Monday when I hit the office) and Home (reviewed on Thursday or Friday that covers my chores and home improvement projects as these items tend to get done over the course of the weekend).

I may add another top level folder for a monster project that I'm starting at work. I'll need to review all the projects related to it several times a day, and it may also simplify exports to Excel and OmniPlan.

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by colicoid

Very good discussion. Now I will complicate things a little by throwing in the:
"Single Actions List".

Anyone actually using them?

Are you kidding? How could you not use them? ;-)

I have most of my items planned as projects, but I still have a sizable collection of single-actions, broken down into about a half dozen single-action lists covering different areas of responsibility. Some of those single-actions later end up graduating to full-blown projects, but many are completed and dutifully checked of as single-action items.

The thing that I'm still wrestling with is why single-actions live only in single-action lists? Why not let them float freely as single-actions among all the projects? I understand some kind of organizational container is needed for them so they don't pollute your view, but why not just use folders? Am I just missing something here?

Originally Posted by colicoid

Why do we have folders and groups? Why not just have Projects and sub projects? So everything is a project or action.

Folders are simply an organizational tool that give you greater flexibility in managing your tasks.

I think most people, including me, use folders for areas of responsibility (things that are never really completed). They allow you to group different projects and single-action lists (things that can be completed) into a collapsable, focus-able, hierarchical container that makes it much easier to manage large numbers of items.

All the stuff inside the folder might have to do with your home (as an area of responsibility), for example, but painting the kitchen, fixing the roof, and planting a garden are all very different projects and wouldn't necessarily make good sub-projects of a single, larger project. But they could all be considered home improvement projects and should be grouped together.

[dancingbrook]

Originally Posted by Lizard

For me, a project is the highest thing I can call "done". My "Family & Friends" folder might have a "Christmas Gifts" project, with action groups like "Make Lisa's scarf". If Christmas Gifts was a folder, Lisa's scarf could be a project, and I could check it off, but I'd never get to check off "Christmas Gifts" and watch it disappear (and a new one created due next December 24th).

Thanks Lizard,
That is a very helpful way to think about it (and makes sense too).

Omni,
You might want to take note for tutorial and conceptual purposes.

[indygreg]

I am new to this app, but not totally new to GTD.
So far, I have just a few folders - work and personal are the main 2. I have a one-offs project in each that will never be completed. This is my single action list as others have.

I started to create a bunch of folders just because I could. I was demo'ing Things too and you cannot do it there, so I think I went a little crazy when I first put stuff into OF. However, I have since moved everything back out to a much more flat structure. Here is why, and I am open to being changed or educated to other ways. When I got all the logical folders in place with projects under them it was nice and organized - IF it were a reference folder. It is not of course. I lost site of prioritizing and ranking projects. As it stands in my flat world I can move projects up and down with a quick drag to keep my focus on what is more important. When nested, I might have a key project in this folder, but maybe 10 much less important projects in that folder. If I move that main folder up then that other noise comes with it.
I do not want to date all my projects.
This way my review process is sort of built into my ranking and moving process.

Or short answer - in a nested world I lose site of projects.
Thoughts?