NEW FEATURE REQUEST: Linking tasks | Groups

Folke (积分：2425)08/11/2014 18:37

1 floor

Yes, it would be practical, and has been suggested a number of times in the main forum.

In my own opinion, it is a bit too crude to just have the tasks be rigidly one-by-one sequential. There are often a few tasks that can be done first of all (now) in any order. A simple and efficient solution to all of this would be to have a "horizontal line" in the project. Above the line are those task that can be started now in any order, and below the line are those that will be started automatically, one at a time, when the first group has been done.

What Doit did do in v 4 was introduce manual sorting of the next actions and the option to Show One or Show All next actions from each project on the Next list. This was probably intended as a solution but really is not. It affects all projects equally and does not allow for the situation that some projects have more than one next action. It also does not allow for the fact that other people's next actions (on my Waiting list) can be either current or subsequent in exactly the same way as my own next actions.

MyBrainHurts (积分：80)08/12/2014 11:30

2 floor

I agree that the manual sorting is an inferior process to an automated system.

However, I disagree that having a sequential sequence would be a crude solution. While I only mentioned one-by-one in my example, I see no reason why you couldn't tie multiple tasks to a singular previous task.

To continue my construction example from above, there are many tasks in a project that may rely on a single task. Conversely, there may be multiple tasks that are waiting for one task to be completed.

In DoIt:

PROJECT- "FOUNDATION":

Have inspector sign off on forms - Arrange for cement delivery - Arrange for traffic control - Confirm cement crew will be on site.

POUR CONCRETE

Remove concrete forms - Concrete finishers on site - Confirm lumber delivery to begin framing.

---

In the above example, you cannot pour the concrete until all four tasks have been completed. You can do all four of those tasks concurrently but they must be completed before you can do the task POUR CONCRETE. All four tasks are linked to POUR CONCRETE and would be indicated as such somewhere in the task. (Maybe they show up as Sub Tasks?). Once all four tasks are complete, POUR CONCRETE would automatically be moved to Today. Nothing else can be done until the concrete is poured and cures, so all workers have to wait on that singular task. Once POUR CONCRETE is marked as completed, the last three tasks would automatically be moved to Today and the last three tasks could be worked on concurrently as well.

Think of it like a Gannt chart where you are applying the principles of GTD. The first four tasks are three phone calls and an appointment. You would have them all as a Today - High Priority (using your method) and marked as five minute phone calls. The appointment may be in Waiting, until the inspector arrives and signs off on the permit. Once you complete all of those tasks, POUR CONCRETE is automatically moved to Today and it was made High Priority when the project was created so it is at the top of your list.

I agree that there has to be more flexibility than a one-by-one sequence but I see no reason why the tasks couldn't be linked together and have to "rely" on other tasks.

Does anyone know what language DoIt was written in? I wouldn't mind researching how this could be accomplished if it would help.

Folke (积分：2425)08/12/2014 12:35

3 floor

I think we are probably trying to say the same thing. There needs to be flexibility as to the number of tasks, just as you and I both said. The reason I called the one-at-a-time approach "crude" is the fact that I have used apps that had this feature and decided to forgo the automation and use an entirely manual workaround rather than put up with its rigidity. I need to be able to have more than one task concurrently active (on the Next or Waiting or other list) and the rest "hidden". (In Doit I use another workaround to accomplish this manually.)

It seems the only difference - a minor one at the principal level - between you and me is that we perhaps picture the physical solution a bit differently. You (seem to) picture a solution where you establish predecessor links between the tasks (and where a task could have more than one predecessor). I picture a solution where you simply have two groups in each project - a first group where all tasks are active and a second group where all are one-by-one auto-sequential and where you can drag tasks between groups and into position. The predecessor solution is more powerful as it allows these dependencies to be pre-programmed for the whole project, but it requires a bit of "linking" work. The two-group approach requires less detailed initial work, but requires this work to be repeated whenever the project reaches a stage where more than one task can be contemplated concurrently. I'd be happy with either approach, as long as it gives me the option to have more than one task concurrently active (on the Next or Waiting or other list) and the rest "hidden".

MyBrainHurts (积分：80)08/13/2014 15:33

4 floor

I agree we are probably asking for the same thing.

While linking tasks together involves a little more work, it would definitely keep the sequence in order. If they were all in a group the system wouldn't know the next task to "push forward".

I'm not sure how difficult a drag and drop to link two tasks would be.

Maybe a simple field to type in a sequence number?

PROJECT FOUNDATION
Today
- Priority High
- Sequence 1
-- Have inspector sign off on forms

- Priority High
- Sequence 1
-- Arrange for cement delivery

- Priority Medium
- Sequence 1
-- Arrange for traffic control

- Priority Medium
- Sequence 1
-- Confirm concrete crew will be onsite

Next (Scheduled)
- Priority High
- Sequence 2
-- Pour Concrete

---
The logic would be that everything in Sequence 1 would need to be completed before your (hidden) Next item is automatically pushed to Today. It could obviously be manually changed but if you didn't change it would be assumed that the task in Next should advance.

I would think that would be fairly simple to implement as well. (Could swap "Sequence" for "Group" or "Phase")

Folke (积分：2425)08/13/2014 17:42

5 floor

I think it would be very easy to keep the tasks in sequential order as long as the sequential order is strict. In "my" scenario, the tasks in the second group (the sequential "later" group) would be activated automatically (i.e. moved automatically to the first group, the "active" group) strictly in the order listed (and the user could move additional ones from the second group to the first group as appropriate).

In "your" scenario I assume it could be the same thing - all tasks could be automatically activated sequentially in the same way unless the user declares any other dependencies. One of teh questions is how you would declare additional ones that will also be active first of all (right now)? One way would be to drag them to the top, to a "group 1), in which case our suggestions coincide thus far.

But if you want to be able to pre-program additional dependencies that will apply during later stages of the priject, then you'll need more. Take a look at Zendone. That is one way of taking a further step. Their approach is that the user can form any number a parallel groups placed within an overall sequence of tasks, i.e. like a boa constrict that has eaten a number of chickens, maybe :-)

Personally I think it is enough to have the overall strictly sequential approach ("my" group 2) combined with an option to leave as many tasks as I like in the parallel group ("my" group 1). I usually do not plan my projects all that far ahead, and if I do, I could easily insert a "meta next action" at step 36 (of group 2) saying "make 6 following tasks active in parallel" etc.

(积分：140)02/22/2015 22:49

6 floor

+1

Yes, current 'Sub-tasks' are not real Tasks, just a checklist within a Task. DoIt needs a genuine hierarchical structure Parent/Child relationships between Tasks.

This Topic is From

Navigation