Another request for task dependency | Help Center | Doit.im

Sign In | Sign Up

Another request for task dependency

joecbloom 11/06/2014 14:37

Platform:All

Like many others, I am using Doit for GTD, and a continual frustration is the absence of task dependency. When I view Next, the whole purpose is to have a list of tasks that can be addressed immediately. However, if a task cannot be undertaken until another task is complete, currently I still see it.

The default reply to this complaint seems to be to use "Waiting" and then manually move tasks to Next when the task they rely on is complete, but this is a) cumbersome and b) in conflict with the intent of the Waiting status in GTD methodology.

Here's an example.

I currently have a project to consolidate, archive, and store various household clutter. This includes a task to estimate the cost of paying to have paper files digitized by a scanning service. To accomplish this task, first I have to estimate the number of pages in my files.

So, the feature I would like would enable the two tasks to be in the same project, and have "Estimate cost" dependent on "Estimate number of pages". So when I create the project, "Pages" is placed in Next and "Cost" is not. Then, when "Pages" is marked as complete, "Cost" automatically moves to Next.

The dependent "Cost" task is not truly Waiting. It would be waiting if, for example, my wife was tasked with compiling a list of possible vendors prior to me estimating the cost based on their pricing. Different thing entirely: I can't directly cause Waiting tasks to be available Next Actions, but I can cause dependent tasks to become available next actions by completing the task they depend on.

If this feature is delivered in a similar way to what I have described, it will be an outstanding addition to an already solid product.

I know I am rehashing a need that has been expressed by others, but as a mostly satisfied user, and an enthusiastic evangelist of your software (I have recruited multiple other regular users), I wanted to voice my frustration with this particular shortcoming.

Thanks!

Joe

Folke post on 11/06/2014 15:27#1

PRO

I agree with every word you are saying.

In GTD these tasks are neither Waiting nor Someday (these statuses are often gravely misunderstood). These tasks are "nothing" in GTD; they are kept totally outside the main lists in what DA calls "project support material". One possible solution (my preferred solution) would be to have an inactive state into which you could drag tasks that are of this dependent type. Ideally, you should still be able to pre-classify them as Next or Waiting depending on whether it will be you or someone else that will need to do the task eventually (and there could even be automatic progression of tasks). (Another solution, preferred by some, is to have "No Focus" as an option - neither Next nor Waiting nor anything).

My current workaround for all this is to use No Priority for these dependent tasks. A bit ugly, but it works for me because I always assign a real priority to all my "active" tasks.
tjharrell post on 11/06/2014 20:52#2

PRO

I'm 100% in agreement with Joe on this. 'Waiting' is nothing to do with dependent tasks for the same person.

I feel that this is the biggest thing missing in Doit.im and it would be a truly great product if they could implement a proper Next Actions.
At the moment, 'Next' acts like a bucket which stores everything unassigned to a given date but, as Joe says, there's no point in seeing a bunch of tasks which are functionally dependent on prior tasks being completed.

This is the one major area where Doit.im seems not to be in sync with GTD philosophy and I believe they should seriously think about addressing this issue.

PS: I also use the kludge that Folke does - assigning No Priority. There's no way I'm going to use Waiting for this.. that's just wrong!
wendy_only post on 11/07/2014 08:57#3

PRO

@tjharrell @Folke @joecbloom
Hi,

Thank you for your feedback.

Some tasks are dependent. So we offer a feature in Doit.im called One/All in Next box. You could manual sort tasks one by one. When you are in One mode, the second will be showed when the first task is completed or some other ways moved away from the list.

We can improve this feature to make it more convenient for you to progress the dependent tasks. Doit.im will be more smart. :) For example,Tasks can be in different boxes, but they are dependent.

Best regards,
Doit.im Team
joecbloom post on 11/10/2014 13:38#4

Thanks for the reply, but your suggested work-around once again will fail to capture the complexity I have in my projects (and I imagine this is true of most users).

Your suggestion implies that for a given project, there should only be one task that is a Next Action (in GTD terms). But, in nearly all of my projects, there is more than one task that can be undertaken at any time in the future, as well as multiple tasks that can be completed only when one of these first order tasks is completed.

To use my original example, I have Next Actions for my "Consolidate, Store, Declutter" project including "Estimate pages to digitize" (as I mentioned previously), as well as "Purchase external hard drive." I'll need the external hard drive to store the digitized files, but will purchase one with as much storage space as I can afford, so there's no need to know the number of pages prior to purchasing the drive.

So in this example, I have three tasks: 1) Buy HDD, 2) Estimate pages, 3) Estimate cost.

My ideal would be that when I go into Next in Doit.im I see my project, with tasks 1 and 2 listed. Later, when I mark 2 as complete, 3 would automatically appear in next. This dependency of 3 on 2 should not be affected by the incomplete/complete status of 1.

Thinking this all the way through, the true ideal would be that a task could
A) be dependent on multiple tasks that all must be complete before the dependent task is moved to Next ("many to one") and
B) have multiple other tasks dependent on it so that when marked complete, all dependent tasks are moved to Next ("one to many").

Thanks,

Joe
wendy_only post on 11/11/2014 08:44#6

PRO

@joecbloom
Hi,

Thank you for your further description.

I agree that there may be more than one task that can be undertaken at any time in the future, as well as multiple tasks that can be completed only when one of these first order tasks is completed. We will take your suggestion into consideration.

Best regards,
Doit.im Team
joecbloom post on 11/13/2014 16:56#7

I appreciate the response and the consideration. Thank you very much.
Japhir post on 11/14/2014 08:51#8

PRO

Very cool idea! NirvanaHQ, I believe, has this feature on a per-project base. Their projects are always either linear or parallel or something, allowing the user to add a lot of tasks that are not in Next (or Waiting). The solution you propose would be much more ideal.
Folke post on 11/14/2014 10:22#9

PRO

@Japhir @joecbloom @wendy_only

Yes Nirvana and MLO offers the choice - on a per-project basis - to set up the projects as either sequential or parallle, i.e. either one at a time automated or all visible. In my opinion this is not good enough. When I used Nirvana I gave up on the automated one-at-a-time feature, because too many of my projects had more than one current action (either next actions for me to do, or waiting for actions for someone else to do, or a mix).

Better examples are Zendone and GTDNext, who have no mandatory options and allow you to have additional current (now visible) actions. But I do not like their default that new actions land among the inactive actions, where it is easy to miss them. This has been the source of user complaints, and personally I find would not want to use those apps for that reason.

I think the safest and best would be to have no mandatory options (parallel vs sequential) but to simply have all tasks visible by default and to allow the user to drag not-relevant tasks to an inactive sequential section of the project from which they are fed one at a time into the active section if it gets empty. But the user could always drag additional tasks into the active section.

I also like joecblooms suggestion. It sounds even more powerful. (But I am not sure I would need all that power.)

I think it is also very important to note @wendy_only's observation that tasks can belong in different "boxes". Most notably, some project can have lots of Waiting For actions, especially if you delegate a lot or depend on external suppliers etc. It is essential in an automated system to have the sequentially dependent tasks pre-marked with the intended "box".
Folke post on 11/14/2014 10:22#10

PRO

@Japhir @joecbloom @wendy_only

Yes Nirvana and MLO offers the choice - on a per-project basis - to set up the projects as either sequential or parallle, i.e. either one at a time automated or all visible. In my opinion this is not good enough. When I used Nirvana I gave up on the automated one-at-a-time feature, because too many of my projects had more than one current action (either next actions for me to do, or waiting for actions for someone else to do, or a mix).

Better examples are Zendone and GTDNext, who have no mandatory options and allow you to have additional current (now visible) actions. But I do not like their default that new actions land among the inactive actions, where it is easy to miss them. This has been the source of user complaints, and personally I find would not want to use those apps for that reason.

I think the safest and best would be to have no mandatory options (parallel vs sequential) but to simply have all tasks visible by default and to allow the user to drag not-relevant tasks to an inactive sequential section of the project from which they are fed one at a time into the active section if it gets empty. But the user could always drag additional tasks into the active section.

I also like joecblooms suggestion. It sounds even more powerful. (But I am not sure I would need all that power.)

I think it is also very important to note @wendy_only's observation that tasks can belong in different "boxes". Most notably, some project can have lots of Waiting For actions, especially if you delegate a lot or depend on external suppliers etc. It is essential in an automated system to have the sequentially dependent tasks pre-marked with the intended "box".