How to Track a Multi-Step Project's Progress

Of all the topics that I’ve seen on the GTD boards, the one that seems to give everyone difficulty is tracking multiple-step projects.  This is due to the apparent contradiction of having many next actions in a project and the “Getting Things Done” commandment that our systems should only list the next physical action needed to move a task forward.  The question always seems to be, “What if I have 25 next actions?”  Here is a wonderful system to deal with that dilemma.

First, David, over at his blog, The Salon, shared a strategy for tracking projects that have multiple steps.

His strategy, which works with repetitive projects that have a set list of next actions, calls for the list of tasks to be given a descriptive title.  When putting the next actions into his context lists, instead of listing the actual next action, he would simply write the project title with two carats (>>) after it.  This indicated that it was an on-going project and, after checking off the present day’s completed next action, the entry would be continuously moved forward until it is complete.

This strategy is very similar to one found in the book, To Do, Doing, Done. This book was recommended to me by one of my readers and I purchased it quickly.  Being an INTJ, I immediately fell in love with the practical advice, processes, and procedures.  Some parts of the book, which was written to promote the Franklin Quest (now Franklin Covey) planner system, were very familiar, as I had used similar systems in the past.  In fact, the book is similar to Time Power, written by Charles Hobbs, who wrote his book to promote the Day-Timer system.  The authors of To Do, Doing, Done, G. Lynne Snead and Joyce Wycoff, recommend the same system of giving the list of tasks that make up a project a descriptive name.  The project name and the list of associated tasks, each of which is given a due date, are put on a planning sheet that is placed in a support file.  The project file name, the location of support materials, and the designation, “TAF” (time activated forward), is placed in one’s system as the task/next action.  When a scheduled task is completed, the item is checked off and then simply moved forward to the next due date.

Here is a merged system in action (Let’s make this extremely simple):

My project:  Evaluate Jane Smith

Support materials are kept in my action file under “S”.

The associated tasks with this project:

• Gather all related notes on Jane  Due: 1 July, 2005
• Draft evaluation  Due:  2 July, 2005
• Revise evaluation  Due:  3 July, 2005
• Meet with Jane and discuss  Due:  5 July, 2005

Procedure

Remember, David states that if a next action is date specific, it goes on the calendar, not the next action lists.  So, on the July 1 page in the calendar, I write:

• Evaluate Jane Smith (S)/>>
  This is the title, location of materials, and the carats, a la David, that tell us it is an ongoing project (Snead and Wycoff recommend using the initials “TAF” instead of the “>>”).
• On July 1, I gather my notes and check it off.  Then, in the calendar, I turn to July 2 and write:  Evaluate Jane Smith (S)/>>  (Looks familiar, doesn’t it?).
• On July 2, I draft my evaluation and check it off.  I then turn to July 3 in the calendar and write:  Evaluate Jane Smith (S)/>>  (Again).
• On July 3, I do my revision and, again, check it off.  I then turn to July 5 in the calendar and write:  Evaluate Jane Smith (S)/>>.
• On July 5, I complete my meeting with Jane and check it off.  Done!

It sounds like a lot, but it’s actually very simple, especially if you use the form suggested by Snead and Wycoff.  If I planned my due dates correctly on the planning sheet, I will complete my project on time.

The merged system gathers the next actions, puts support material in one place, and also provides a simplified notation that turns many tasks into one next action for your context lists.

I love it when a plan comes together!  —Hannibal from The A-Team

Sources:

• David Allen’s The Salon: Tracking Rote Projects vs Complex Ones

Related Information:

• GTD Posting Boards
• Franklin Covey
• Day-Timer

Bonus!

• Project Task Map from To Do, Doing, Done! (in Word)

Comments

[Tim]

In reading the post from David, it seemed to me the procedure his client used was to write "next action >> outcome" not "outcome >>".

[Bert]

David was talking about a project, which is a list of non-changing tasks that are grouped under a heading. The project title was the heading and he gave, "Set up baseball game event with the kids", and "Call the service department" as examples of that. He said the client put the project title "as" the next action, not that it was the next action. He went on to state that the carats are put "at the end" of the notation. The word, "with", does not necessarily imply a sequence.

[JayeRandom]

"Projects" by definition, in GTD, are multiple-step. If they weren't, they would simply be Next Actions.

By "multiple-step projects" you perhaps mean something more like "superprojects" or "projects composed of projects"? I have a hard time tracking those. I eventually settled on keeping the parent project on the Projects list along with the child projects. At Weekly Review I consider the parent project and decide if I need to add/change/delete any child projects.

I'd have to agree with Tim on his reading of David's post; David's post appears to be describing "pigpog" style list making (see the comments to David' blog entry), where you keep the outcome listed adjacent to the next action on one list, rather than keeping separate Next-Action and Project lists.

I find David's spin on pigpog intriguing-- rather than use pigpog notation for all projects, use it just for familiar projects where you don't need to reconsider that project during the Weekly Review. Keep your project list for more complicated, non-obvious projects that do need to be reviewed during Weekly Review.

The approach you're describing, where you write all the action steps up on a list, file the list in a project support file, and then track each action step on your calendar, seems a bit too over-structured for me. If I'm describing this wrong, I apologize. But the important thing is, "does it work for you?" That's all that matters, really.

And now that I think about it, the way that I write down and annotate projects and next actions really doesn't matter. (As long as I'm doing all that writing and annotating in one single system, rather than several systems scattered around.)

What matters is that after I've written it down, I will come back to it the next week, reread it, reconsider it, and rewrite it if necessary.

Clever methods of annotation and filing will not save me if I do not do a weekly review, every week. They are only useful if they make it easier to do the weekly review.

[Bert]

Wow! So many things! Let's give it a go:

First, the term "multi-step projects" was used, although I admit it is redundant, due to many people not being aware of David's definition of what a project was. I guess I should have stuck with the GTD nomenclature and let the chips fall where they may. :)

As for the system itself, after I put the steps on the task map, I don't write them over in my calendar. I simply write the project name, location of materials and the ongoing project indicator. For example, I've been working on a project of developing a new inventory management system that will be implemented in the coming fiscal year. My working project title is "Dev Inv Mgmt". In my calendar, on the days where tasks must be done, I write "Dev Inv Mgmt (PF-5)/>>". When I begin working on the project tasks for the day, I pull out the task map (not my calendar) and check off the day's tasks as they're completed, and then move the project entry, "Dev Inv Mgmt (PF-5)/>>" to the next day when, according to the task map, an action must be completed. This is so easy to do, but so difficult to explain in a blog context. I wonder if David finds the seminar format a better place to explain his processes. By the way, his Getting Things Done--Fast CD's are fantastic!

You've intrigued me by your concept of a super project. I envision task maps for each sub-project being tracked by a master task map. Now that sounds challenging to track!! Sounds like a job for project tracking software when the tracking takes longer than the execution of the next actions!

Finally, I find I'm like you, in that I find that when I review and rewrite, it forces me to come back to it time and time again.

[DanButler]

Could the super-project could fall into a Mind Map with each of the sub-projects being their own map or list depending on your preference? I've used MindManager software in this way in the past successfully. You can focus on the large picture or a subset.

[Bert]

Mind Manager would be an excellent alternative to the task map! I didn't mention it because not everyone has Mind Manager. Plus, I find the price way too high for people who want to use it in their personal lives. MindJet used to have an education version that was very inexpensive. I am in need of an upgrade myself!

[DanButler]

I'm using version 4.5 of MindManager. There is another product out called Concept Draw MindMap Professional. I have a review copy here but haven't really run it through the paces.

Somewhere I saw a mention of Ecco Pro. This is getting very far afield but still relevant. If you copy an Ecco Pro outline and paste it into Mind Manager you get an instant Mind Map of the information. Very slick.

MindJet had a version called eMindMaps that was only like $25 or so. Pretty scaled down but more than sufficient for most uses. Wonder what ever happened to that. I just used the Wayback Machine on their site and found eMindMaps in the October 2000 version of the site along with a review I wrote of Mind Manager 3.5.

There is an opensource Mind Map tool, the name escapes me right now. It isn't real fancy but it gets the job done and it is priced right.

[Sammy]

Dan,

I think the open source application you're thinking of is FreeMind. You can find more information about it at http://freemind.sourceforge.net.