Waiting For Projects

Hi
I was wondering about a sequential project. When I apply ‘Waiting For’ to a task, the next action appears in the task list. But it should wait for the previous task to be completed. Can you explain ??

1 Like

It could be implemented like that - the whole project would be blocked by one Waiting For action. I understand that this is exactly what is desired in some cases. But there are also sequential projects that have non-blocking delegated (waiting for) actions, so it wouldn’t be appropriate to block the whole project just because there is a waiting for action. So both approaches are sub-optimal, but I think the existing one is good enough. It is simple and more flexible.

Thanks for your response.
I believe in that case it shouldn’t gain Focus and stay in the Next Action List.
Best

We are waiting so badly for improvements from the list A. Just wanted to say that :slight_smile:

2 Likes

You can move the entire project to waiting mode after you move the task there. This will remove the next action from your next list. When you move the project out of waiting the task you are waiting for will move back to it’s original position. You just have to make sure you move the project to waiting after you move the task. Otherwise the task will disappear until the project is moved out of waiting.

Example:
PROJECT
Task A
Task B
Task C

If you just move Task A to waiting Task B will show up in your next actions. This isn’t what you want.

If you move the project to waiting instead of Task A then Task A disappears. Not what we want.

If you move Task A to the waiting list it creates Task B. Then move the project to the waiting list, Task A remains in your waiting list and Task B will disappear from your next actions. When you move the project back out of the waiting list then Task A returns to your next actions without Task B.

Hope that all makes sense.

I think the waiting for state for projects is not supported. Are you sure it is working properly?

Yes, I tried it before posting. There isn’t a button option for it but if you go to the Projects list you can drag the project to the waiting folder.

I don’t think this is officially supported functionality

Thanks for your interest.
Yes, it kind of works. But I would expect that be the normal functionality. Remember you can’t change the Project property but you need to drag it back to PROJECT header to make it active again !

When the project is in Waiting you can also open it, click on active, and save it. Does the same thing as dragging it back to projects. The only time you have to drag and drop is when moving the project from projects to waiting.

Andrei had answered the existing function is good enough so I was showing a way for people to work within what we have. The code is there for what Anil wants to do, it’s just the button that’s missing. It’s possible adding that button is easy and it will be in an upcoming release.

At the moment, the fact that drag and drop of projects to Waiting For works is an accident / bug. Doing that shouldn’t cause any issues, but it’s clearly not completely supported I will try enabling Waiting For for projects now and see what happens in testing.

It would also be useful if subsequent tasks in a sequential project would be dependent on the prior task being completed before becoming next actions. I’ve tried scheduling the next action in a sequential project to a few days’ time, and the following action in the project becomes active which creates confusion.

Don’t parallel projects exist for this purpose? I thought the very definition of a sequential project was a project where each action must be completed before the next action can start.

As a new user, I found the existing behaviour surprising. It feels like it supports an edge case, whereas it’s far more likely a sequential project should be blocked.

2 Likes

I use Everdo in a busy office environment where it helps me stay on track with what I’m doing while juggling multiple projects and adding new ones on-the-fly as I take phone calls. Having a sequential project blocked by a prior task just seems to make sense to me.

Example sequential project:

  1. Check sales details with client
  2. Upload listing
  3. Check listing views
  4. Phone client about viewing figures

So on my next action list, the first task of the project is to contact the client to see that they’re happy with the listing (1). I phone the client, and they say they will check it over and get back to me. So at this point, I’d like to move the task to Waiting to effectively put the project on hold until I hear back from the client. This way, if I haven’t heard back from them, I can see that from my Waiting list along with how long I’ve been waiting, or if they call I can go to the Project itself and check it off.

The client is happy with the listing and I check it off. The project returns to my Next list. Now I upload the listing (2) and check it off. I would like to check the figures after a few days after people have viewed it online. I would change the task status to Scheduled and set it for 4 days’ time. Again, this would put the project on hold, clearing my Next actions list of anything related to this project until the time comes for me to deal with it.

4 days later, the project resumes, task (3) appears in my Next actions list. I check the listing views (3), check off the task, and proceed to call the client (4) and complete or add to the project.

This functionality would allow me to set up projects and then action them effectively based on the needs of individual tasks rather than having to make decisions about an entire project by changing its status, possibly several times if it was a particularly long project.

Hope I’ve made sense!

p.s - I’m looking forward to the front-end reminders on the desktop. This would be particularly powerful in this case, as say I called the client and they were on lunch, I could potentially schedule the task for an hour’s time and set a reminder for when to phone again.

Apologies if this is mentioned, I am jumping here because I asked a similar question just recently.

What about introducing an option on the waiting for action being blocking to any hext action as being blocking? To me if there are tasks in this order;

A
B
C (waiting on)
D

I can complete next actions A, then B but D would not show up in my next actions list. When I drag D above C I can complete it, because the order changed. The whole point of the sequential list is that actions cannot be completed in any order than sequential, and the waiting for task is blocking all others that follow as next actions. This is consistent behavior. The order of time or related tasks is honored this way.

If I choose to use a parallel approach for the project,

A
B
C (waiting on)
D

A,B,D will all be executable. C is still waiting on. This is close to how a next action works now. In a sequential project, the order of tasks should always be honored, otherwise what is the definition of sequential?

To me the current behavior is undesired, and forces me to put the whole project on hold, or not define next actions until the waiting on is completed, to avoid inactionable items in my next actions list.

Nirvana does this correctly. Here is an example of a project with a waiting action, where the action that follows is not actionable;

The project view:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CW0FqsRJR7Z172gvd8giEOxXdGUQxm93/view?usp=sharing

The next actions view:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H_j35VsdPXA4k5fG_rQn3B_OIrvXBbah/view?usp=sharing

1 Like

Just as a tip/workaround, I might move the project to Waiting for at this stage.

@JorgB
Thanks for a clear explanation. I have added this to the backlog, but it’s not easy to implement unfortunately, so will probably take a while.

2 Likes

Thank you Andrei for considering this!