hierarchical tasks and relative priorities?

rlwrlw
edited February 2012 in TRO General Discussion
Since I encountered LifeBalance first, and MyLifeOrganized next, I'm kind of hung up on the idea that creating hierarchical project/task trees is important, and that doing what I call relative prioritization - Importance of task to its immediate parent rather than absolute prioritization (A,B,C etc.) is valuable to me since I have trouble deciding priorities anyway.

How valuable are these attributes really to task management? (Has anyone started with this stuff and moved to something else?)
What other products do hierarchical task trees and relative prioritization?

TIA,
-Robert

Comments

  • edited February 2012
    Robert,

    Great question. First, let me say that I generally discourage hierarchical task lists. Second, the fact that you like the hierarchical task list means that it's doing something good, and we want to make sure that whatever you do, in the end, still gives you that. Let me start with the good things and move on to my reasons for avoiding hierarchical tasks.

    The Pros

    A hierarchical task list encourages you to completely clear your mind. If you've been keeping track of tasks in your head, if you haven't been planning, if you are constantly forgetting things, getting it all out feels fantastic. Your mind is free. You can see all of your work and plan for it all at once. 

    You also get to see shorter lists of similar tasks. As you also observed that it's easier to pick something to do when you see a shorter list. Easily finding the right thing to do is important. You're doing this partly to avoid the simplistic A, B, C prioritization.

    The Cons

    Listing every step takes a lot of time. Organizing those steps takes a lot of time. Most projects (multi-step tasks) change while you're doing them, with new or unanticipated steps. Getting an appointment with the dentist, you discover yours is on sabbatical. Filing quarterly tax returns, you discover the accountants still needs to finish their reports. In addition, about half of the projects you plan will never actually happen. The time you spend planning is very often wasted.

    Worse, in a heirarchical task list you cannot simply see a list of all the steps you need to get done by today. You also cannot compare the relative priority of steps in Project A to Project B. These two problems create a situation where you need to open every parent every day in order to plan and make sure you aren't missing important tasks. In all likelihood, you won't open every task every day, and you will occasionally fail to complete important steps on time. 

    Solution

    Your stress will diminish when you know 1) exactly what you are going to do next, 2) when you are going to do it, and 3) it has a place to wait in the meantime where it won't bother you. And you don't want to waste a lot of time getting there.

    How to do that is taught, in detail, in the Processing portion of the TRO training. Here are some examples:
    1. Use "Project - Next Step" to focus on your next action. All tasks in your list can be sorted/compared against each other. You are essentially comparing the highest-priority step from all your different projects. The way we teach you to use TRO task managers, you're usually picking among the top three tasks (a short list). 
      Your lists won't fill up with actions you can't do yet.
    2. You can always use the notes to record other steps you don't want to forget, though it's generally unnecessary, and most TRO trainees stop doing it after a few days. Completing one step usually suggests a natural next step.
    3. You can use tags (or contexts or categories or whatever your task manager has) to group similar tasks. You can see everything for work, personal, family, calls, errands, a particular project, etc. just by viewing the smaller list of "Calls" you need to make (a subset of your larger task list). 
    4. "Prioritization" is taken care of with the Smart Dates taught in the training. The value of Smart Dates is that they are flexible, integrating new tasks (and new priorities) without extra work spent reorganizing priorities.
    We're trying to make you efficient. That means spending less time to do more. 

    So which task list should I use?

    Donedesk will do this for you and is a great option for people working with teams, because it links the communication, the accountability, and the tasks so that everyone can see them together. Toodledo is a great option for individuals or people whose teams are opposed to using new task management software. Outlook can also work, but it's less reliable than the other two.

    In your case, I would recommend against Remember the Milk, Things, or Nozbe. In order to prioritize tasks in any of those three lists, you need to use a more coarse approach (This Week, Next Week, etc.). The larger your task list gets, the less helpful broad categorizations will be in prioritizing your tasks.

    And there you have it. Don't use hierarchical tasks, because they will cost you time. Focus instead on next steps, prioritization-by-date, and categorization. 
  • @  Coach_nate

    Thanks for a detailed response and for laying out your thoughts.  Like Rob, I came from LifeBalance (easily 5+ years, on the Palm OS platform + Windows, maybe closer to 7 or 8..) and I am currently [still] looking for a replacement on the Android platform.  I'm currently demo'ing MLO.

    While I agree with most of your assertions about a hierarchical listing I think they don't really apply to either MLO or LifeBalance for that matter - In these apps much of your concern is mitigated by intelligent features of the software.  If we were discussing a straight 'outliner' app you might be right (like e.g. ShadowPlan), but I'm curious if your answer is simply unfamiliarity with these particular apps or if you know them well and still maintain that view?

    For example, you say
    "Worse, in a heirarchical task list you cannot simply see a list of all the steps you need to get done by today."

    Not applicable imo - Both LB and MLO keep dates on tasks (in addition to being able to push a task out to my Calendar).  MLO keeps both a start date (date when the item will FIRST appear on task list) and due date (task MUST be COMPLETED by) the difference of which is my Lead Time on a task.  MLO further adds a separate reminder (alarm) time/date which can be set independently of start/end date and even in absence of a start/end date (getting a haircut may not have a deadline for example, but I'd like to be reminded every third tuesday at 3pm because on tuesday afternoons I can usually make time for it..)

    Additionally, MLO has a few mechanisms (Stars, various 'Flags', contexts/tags) that could be used to call out/call attention to certain manually selected tasks at a given time.  Many users have said they use this for 'Today' attention lists or for, e.g., daily/weekly goal type items.  Personally, I never had a need for such under LB and, for my usage of MLO, I still find it unnecessary (though good to know it's there if I ever find need for it)

    You go on to say "You also cannot compare the relative priority of steps in Project A to Project B."
    Again, both LB and MLO excel here imo as the priority of any task can be/is set manually and that priority is relative to it's parent.  This concept cascades all the way up the tree so, for example, I'm in the process of running five construction projects (which are somewhere down in the tree in my "succeeding at building my business" AoF branch of my overall system (my whole life)).
    If project #4 is getting out of hand or fast-tracked, or if the client calls me bitching about x y and z or if during a weekly review I feel it just needs to be focused on and brought to the forefront more for this week, I can simply bump up the prio of that project AT THE TLI of the PROJECT, and that priority bump cascades down throughout that whole project/branch.  This bumps is relative to the other 4 work projects (as they are at the same 'level' in the tree), but is also weighted so for example, it likley won't push it up so high that it supersedes my 'Foster family and friendship bonds' AoF so long as 'Foster Family' is (set by me to be) relatively equal or more important than my "succeeding at building my business" AoF.  I can easily push my work focuses higher for a period by moving that slider higher (or I can de-emphasize my personal life by moving those AoFs lower).  Since it's so easy, I can rearange priorities just as easily for small projects as I can for huge projects or whole areas of my life on the fly or for short periods and without moving a single item's position in the outline/heirarchy.

    There's a lot there so I hope that made sense.

    "These two problems create a situation where you need to open every parent every day in order to plan and make sure you aren't missing important tasks. In all likelihood, you won't open every task every day, and you will occasionally fail to complete important steps on time."

    See my answers above.  I think that neither of those problems manifests here and so negates your conclusion of having to open anything everyday to keep from falling through cracks.

    The outline form allows me to freeform plan as much or as little as I want/can for any given project/item, either on the fly, during processing, at weekly review or any other 'as-needed'.  I have the ability just 'hang' a single item on the tree, which might be just the starting flag for a construction project managing/installing a 2 year/$150,000 automation project or I can flesh out any or all parts of the design and or rough-in phases of that project or (if this isn't the first time) I can copy a whole branch (with all it's many sub-branches) and use it as a template. I can even create whole branches with the sole purpose of using as templates (I'll exploit this if I choose to make the investment in MLO) With the dates features I mentioned, I can have a thousand tasks 'in-que' on a project (with or without due dates/times and alarms, relative priorities, and/or dependencies already set on them) and nothing that isn't actually *pertinent today and right now* will show in my task list (which is not the outline view, but a separate view where the results of the app's calculations and 'intelligence'  wind up)

    Again, I'm really curious about your thoughts here as, from my perspective, these two apps (also quoted by the OP) seem to mitigate completely your concerns so I wonder what I'm missing.

    To be sure, LB wasn't perfect but in many many years of searching for perfection, it was able to get damn close (before hitting a wall and falling apart) and, imo, closer than anything else I've seen or encountered at almost any price.  MLO is not perfect in many more ways either but has tremendous potential imho and the devolopers may yet pull out the hat-trick.  There IS ui redesign in progress which will hopefully address much of it and after that I'm hoping that they will stay responsive so I might bend their ears a bit (as needed).

    I'm also prepared that MLO may not pan out for me, in which case I'm SOL and I'll be combing Priacta (yet again) for alternate candidates.  I don't see many peers to apps like LB or MLO and I feel that the category is under-represented at Priacta and even in general.  Not everyone needs a swiss army knife for a todo list.  Truth be told, this is no todo list, it's a life manager.  Then again, if all I needed was a todo list, I could probably get by with a pencil and paper or something as crayon simple as Google Tasks.  I just don't think I'm managing 50-150 active (at any given time) tasks with that, and I see no way to accommodate long term thinking and planning there either.  For me the 'crayon' solutions mean I need an 'other' solution as well, sometimes known as a project managment app or mindmap, or some other such.  For me, LB encapsulated this all into one and kicked but doing it.  My hope is that I can get MLO close enough.

    So I guess my final question to you is: is this category of software under-repp'd because you (Priacta) aren't aware of this (obscured and admittedly very power-user-ish) category or is it because you just don't believe in or ascribe to it?

    This post has gotten quite longer than I intended so I thank for your time and thoughtfulness and look forward to reading your response.

    Kind regards,
    J.

  • Hi Coach Nate, and J,

    Thanks for your posts!! I have to admit, I am a little confused about Coach Nate's 'Cons', because of two things that are not clear from either response: A) Both LB and MLO have a hierarchy view for planning and a separate ToDo list view, and B) the ToDo list is filtered by DueDate and context, and ordered by a priority algorithm that takes into account the priority ratings and 'lead times/due dates' from a given task up through all of its parent nodes. So the things that need to be done today, ought to be at the top of the ToDo list automatically, and I don't need to open every project every day because if I set the DueDates and LeadTimes properly in the first place they'll be on my ToDo list when I need them.

    @J, what sort of limit did you hit with LB? What are you seeing with MLO? I'm trying it on my PC and Android phone. Do you have any suggestions for 'getting started'? My experience is that getting MLO/LB started (initial load of tasks and prioritization) is harder to do than other tools, but that once things are setup it works very well. I'm just having trouble with the 'get started' phase.

    I'd really like to hear from other former LB/MLO users. I do think Priacta's list of tools does not adequately distinguish between LB/MLO's prioritization method and other tools' 'auto-prioritization' feature. Finally, are there GTD coaches with direct experience with LB/MLO out there?

    -Robert

  • Hi Robert,

    No software is perfect and LB is no exception.  LB had a few shortcomings (for my usage) like no alarms of it's own (needed to push to calendar for an alarm) no real nesting of contexts (which MLO seems to suffer similarly but slightly differently)  but mostly LB sunk because it stagnated.  The devs ignored to a large extent their installed [rabid] fan base on the Palm OS and concentrated on the iPhone platform and then the iPad.  They apparently assumed, incorrectly, that all would follow to the walled garden of the iCrapple and that just wasn't the case.  They had, from what I could tell, little following on the i platform and further couldn't adequately distinguish themselves in the land of 99 cent disposable software and they never did make a port for Android (where most of there serious users appear to have gone, myself included) so LB is a non-starter in this brave new world for me.

    To be sure, even with the stagnation on the Palm and the dated UI on the PC the software was so kick-ass for me that it was my lynch-pin to the Palm platform, holding me there way longer than I should have stayed, but w/o an LB replacement my life would fall apart and when I moved to Android and lost LB it pretty much did just that. I did at first try carrying both devices but that created it's own set of headaches so I *voluntarily* treaded into the world without LB.  I lost control, slowly, of everything over the course of 6 or 8 months while trying to find an alternate and to this day (just under 2 years later) I'm still looking.  Though I've gotten things somewhat under control using 'crayon' methods, I've pinned a lot of hopes on MLO and if it doesn't pan out, I have NO idea where to look next.  I think I'm out of options and may end up in 'crayon hell' as I call it.

    As for getting LB/MLO started it's only harder in that there's a ton more forethought you can put into it and if I was jumping into MLO blindly (w/o my LB experiences under my belt) I might be tempted to sit and eval every single template and GTD 'system' made/discussed for MLO however I think the natural progression I walked through LB serves better.  Even though I've mimicked much of my LB system in MLO it will evolve a bit to take new features (and lost features) into account.

    With that said, here's what I'd probably suggest to myself if I had to start from square 1 with MLO:

    Set up a few basic contexts.  If you already GTD with anything, pencil and paper even, you have an idea of your contexts.  If not the GTD book's are probably a good starting point.  Don't go over the top and only create/change your contexts if you can prove to yourself that it's truly needed/valuable.  Be critical and ruthless in these decisions (I'll advocate ruthlessness again, be sure).  Too many contexts leads to too much thought about where it goes.  KISS principle all the way.

    Next, use it for a basic outliner and just start capturing things.  Hierarchically organize things if the structure immediately strikes you (ie. GTD definition of Project(s) with its/their subtasks).  Again, effing RUTHLESS!  Do NOT over do structuring things with levels and sub-levels ad naseum!  The structure/sub-structure should be crystal clear to you and if not, just leave it as part of the higher up list.  You can add structure to it at any time.  Sometimes you have to add 2 or 3 or 40 or 50 items for a true structure to emerge.  Let it happen, don't force it.  This is being ruthless as it pertains to structure.

    Add contexts as you add items to the system (at least one if not more!) and be RUTHLESS (ONLY exception would be in your Inbox where things can hang for later processing).  Add due dates and/or start dates if appropriate.  Set alarms if desired and push it to the calendar if warranted/part of hard-landscape.  If you're not able/wanting to set all of these things now, LEAVE IT IN THE INBOX for later when you WILL set them.  Better to not set any than to not set all that's needed.

    At this point, DO NOT adjust any priorities (or importance and urgency in MLO).  Enter everything at default prios for now. Until you get a good grasp and until you have a relatively full and primed system it won't make sense to start assigning priorities to things as they are relative to each other and the outline as a whole.  Also, heavy-handing this now (eager, zealous, inexperienced) will lead to weird ordering in your task list that will be hard to track and fix to say the least.  The auto priorities features are a god-send for sure, but use sparingly and wisely for maximum impact. 

    All of this is just my opinion of course and ymmv.

    Over time this should/will evolve.  For me (carrying forward from LB) I have major life areas/goals at the top of the tree and things naturally cascade down.  Examples:

    'xyz (my primary business' name) is the premiere home automation company in the U.S.'
      |__ 'I have all the tools to operate my business at peak efficiency'    (e.g. learning/training acquisition of knowledg/specialty tools, etc)
      |__ 'Impress every client with outstanding service'
         |__'xyz project 1
         |__'xyz project 2        <-- these are the actual 'in-the-field' projects for my biz.  The ones that pay money ;)
         |__'xyz project 3    
      |__ 'Business development'
        |__ 'Meet more Architects'
          |__ ....
          |__ ....
          |__ ....
        |__ 'Launch new website'
          |__ ....
          |__ ....
          |__ ....
        |__ 'Monthly newsletter'    <-- recurring, deadline date, etc..
          |__ ....
          |__ ....
          |__ ....
    'My Family and Friends are dearest to me and my relationships are strong with them'
      |__ ....
      |__ ....

    etc.etc. and so on and so forth.

    My MLO Inbox also has a trick up it's sleeve for speed collection into the system.  It helps to make on-the-fly items a part of my task lists immediately (as appropriate) but still keep it so that it needs processing later (if not already completed.  A lot of times these tasks never get to the outline because they're done already.  Examples are 'Call back Pete', 'Pick up Milk', etc.  These get knocked out usually before the end of the day.

    So here's the trick in MLO.
    MLO chooses a special folder for it's Inbox and you must use it.  Set a context on it (I called it @inbox).  Then within the Inbox I created a bunch of folders.  These have names that correspond to contexts I use, e.g. Calls- Biz (corrsponds to @Calls-Biz), Email (@email), Errands (@errands), Shopping list (@errands also, but I can look at that branch by itself if I want), etc.  and I've assigned the appropriate context to each of them and allowed them to inherit @inbox as well.
    Now, when I'm on the fly, I can add something to, eg, business calls by long press the Calls-Biz folder in Inbox and type 'call frank'  the context @Calls-Biz is inherited (immediately shows in my calls todo list) and the @inbox context is inherited (so I can filter for later processing).  So far this works well and I stole the idea from LB where I did something similar but straight into the main outline (as there is no "inbox" in LB).
    This speed collection inbox is a crucial aspect for me and is one of the keys that kept me tied to LB and the Palm as long as I was.

    Hope this helps you Robert.
    Just writing it out has helped me :)

    J.

  • edited February 2012
    Let's bring it back to the the original question:

    How valuable are these attributes [hierarchical tasks] really to task management? (Has anyone started with this stuff and moved to something else?) 

    The simple answer: Hierarchical task management is not very valuable, because it wastes time. However, people like it for a reason, and my answer above differentiates between the problems to avoid and the good things to seek. Bottom line: a task hierarchy looks and sounds good, but there are better ways.

    You can get all of the benefits of a hierarchical task system (a clear mind, shorter lists, clear direction, good planning, etc.) in a fraction of the time. Following the systems in the TRO training will give you that.

    In the last six years of time management coaching, we've watched a lot of TRO trainees start with a strong need to list all the steps in their projects. Most stop doing so after just a few days, because the system gives them everything they need. Solid personal systems based on good principles outperform intriguing software features, every time.

    ~coach nate
  • RE: MyLife Organized.

    There's been a lot of discussion about MLO here, which we might want to relocate on another thread. My comments above were focused on principles, not specific task managers.

    Strictly speaking, MyLive Organized doesn't use a parent/child hierarchy, but rather a "nexus" of connected tasks. It's TRO capable, though it requires you to use the tool creatively.

    ~coach nate
  • Thanks Coach_Nate.

    So do I understand correctly:  you don't consider a tool like MLO or LifeBalance to be a hierarchical task manager and your comments don't strictly apply?

    I'm curious how a system like TRO would address my needs without hierarchy.  My projects (work projects in particular) can get highly complex and while some of higher level tasks are repeatable, much of it is unique to each project.  At any given time I may have a portion of a project fleshed out for the next day or through the next year.  In some other 'flat' or tagged schemes I've looked at (GTD on Evernote, Nozbe, NirvanaHQ, if memory serves) a next item for a given project won't be 'moved' to next action status unless I do so.  That means I won't see it till I do a review.  That means I now not only need to (without fail) do a daily review, but as best I can tell, I need to fish out a next action every time I check something off.
    To me this seems like a lot of unnecessary overhead to me, hearkening back to a pencil paper model but using a keyboard and a monitor.

    For whatever reason (personal preference, delusion, placebo effect..) I don't feel that overhead with a system like I had on LB.  Once I've processed an item (Contexted/tagged, moved into the hierarchy, set dates, times, alarms..) I never have to touch it ever again until I complete it or unless some material change happens that makes me edit it (change of dates, add notes, etc.)

    So how does a system like TRO (or any for that matter) address that for me when the tool is DoneDesk or Nozbe, RTM, Trello or Toodledo or any non-hierarchical (and auto-promoting) tool? 

    My weekly review consists mostly of scanning the list and/or staring at a given item that catches my eye for about 2/3 of a second for a next action (or slew of next actions) to emerge and then I add it in it's hierarchy to the project in question.  (not accounting for collection and inbox processing etc..)
    I can drill down to a project's starting 'branch' and survey that project and only that project, in it's entirety (contexts, dates, whatever, be damned) or I can use the contexts/tags to filter further this project focused 'view' or I can climb up the tree and use those tags to filter my whole world or any portion thereof.

    Somehow I've never been able to recreate this type of clarity of view in a tags-only based system (like Nozbe or Nirvana or Evernote, etc..  At first glance, DoneDesk appears to fall here too)

    If you can show me that this TRO can address these for me in a decidedly effective manner, then I'm open to know more and I'm open to any tool you'd suggest.

    Short of that, I have to base my decisions on the category that has a proven track record with me and that's something like LB or MLO (and I'd love, love, love to know what else exists in this vein that is Android and PC or Web).

    Kind regards, and thanks for your time Coach Nate.

    J.



  • I'm sure Nate will reply later, but I just wanted to inject my two cents on Donedesk. Donedesk allows rich notes, including hyperlinks to other tasks in the system. This makes it possible to emulate something very close to what Nate called a "nexus" earlier. We've managed some monstrously complex group projects this way. I'd be shocked if this sort of power can't be made to work with your environment.
  • rlwrlw
    edited February 2012
    Coach Nate, 

    Thank you for your thoughtful answers. Reading between the lines, I see now that your comments (probably) apply to strictly heirarchical task list tools - tools that only have one view of the tasks - heirarchical. Heirarchical views only would definitely suffer from all the 'cons' you described. I blithely assumed that since I started with LB/MLO, which have heirarchical and 'todo list' views, that any reasonable tool implementing heirarchical would also have a 'todo list' view as well.

    I'm very curious about your definition of parent/child versus 'nexus' heirarchy. Right now I don't have any idea how to differentiate between them. I'm also very curious about MLO's shortcomings that require 'creative' solutions in MLO to implement TRO.

    I'm considering signing up for the online TRO training but am hesitant since I am still not sold on alternatives to LB/MLO, and MLO is not explicitly supported by that online training. I understand that other tools can be made to work as well as MLO for task management (and I recognize that it is 'the system', not the software features that make someone successful at task/time management), but I'm not seeing how the other tools are better, or how MLO has shortcomings nor am I seeing how MLO is not superior for supporting heirarchy in planning, relative prioritization, and sophisticated algorithms for ordering the todo list view.

    If you want to move the discussion of MLO to a different thread please do so and 'post a redirect' here.

    Thank you,
    -Robert

  • rlwrlw
    edited February 2012
    @J - your description of how to get started is fantastically valuable to me - Thank you!!! Your other comments are also very valuable and keep this discussion informative.

    I am beginning to think that LB and MLO are the only examples of tools that combine heirarchy, relative prioritization and algorithmic 'todo list' ordering. Perhaps many other people want to have precise control of the order of a todo list, and with LB/MLO one has to surrender control to, and trust the algorithms.

    -Robert

  • edited February 2012
    @Robert: The Trog Bar also uses algorithms to control/sort your tasks, taking into account relative priorities and your calendar for the day. It has a task nexus feature you can enable (in preview features). Donedesk does something similar, though the task nexus is still under development. 

    @All: We really have looked into this, in great depth over the last 6 years, as we've worked to build the best solution. We've discovered a few core principles:

    The purpose of getting organized is to accomplish more in less time. That's the core philosophy of TRO. Time spent getting organized comes out of your efficiency:

    [Time saved by being organized] - [Time spent organizing] = [Net efficiency]

    People who train with TRO report a net 1.5 to 2 hours per day and keep the benefit long-term (years). That is the starting place to gauge how modifications to the system are helping or hurting. Better, faster tools result in more saved time.

    Time spent organizing is time you don't spend working. The aim is not maximum organization (everything lined up neatly), but rather maximum productivity. I often steer people away from parent/child task managers is because of the natural tendency to organize everything. Planning projects to the nth degree is usually inefficient (you put more in than you get back). Large or collaborative projects are common exceptions.

    Most people and projects only need a certain level of organization:
    • A clear direction for what to do next.
    • One calendar, used as a time budget.
    • Few collection points.
    • Tasks all in one place. 
      • Most important tasks automatically come to the very top, even as new tasks are added.
      • Easy to see small lists of similar tasks
      • Nothing gets lost
    • A place to store resources (papers, documents, emails).
    • The ability to find things when you need them.
    • A clean work environment.
    • Habits to help you maintain order.
    J, you asked about fishing out a next step each time. Truth is, 50% of your projects will become irrelevant before you do them. 25% will be completed when you do the first step, because its's just easier to keep going. 95% of all projects change mid-stream. If you already planned everything, you have to adjust your plans. The TRO recommendation for "Project - Next Step" saves time by not planning more than is helpful right now.

    Time spent on additional organization is time not spent accomplishing things.

    ~coach nate

  • Also, I've posted a link to my careful review of both Life Balance and MyLife Organized:
  • “Nexus” means that child tasks are not trapped beneath a single parent.
    The essential thing here is that they can be managed as part of your
    overall task list. If the task gets hidden inside a parent high priority
    items can get lost.


    Nate is correct about both the risks associated with strict hierarchical
    (parent/child) task structures, as well as the very appealing trap of
    organizing things into the ground. It is very rare to have a project (in the GTD/TRO sense of the word)
    that needs every detail listed up front. For most moderately complex
    multistep tasks all you really need is to know what you are doing next,
    and to be able to get any extra things off your mind as they occur to
    you.


    The exception to all of this is collaborative team projects. When
    multiple people are working on a single project you need a deeper level
    of planning and it is critical to be able to drill into a single
    project, which is why we’re adding nexus style projects to Donedesk :)
Sign In or Register to comment.