I am with djsdjsdjs on this one. To my mind there is a significant gap in the market between the MS Project project planning tool and something that allows an individual to plan/sketch out their work over the next few weeks to a) put in place reminders to do things and b) get some sense of whether you are overloaded or not. (If there is anything out there that helps with this, then I would be delighted to know)
I use MS Project quite a lot and it just doesn't work for this near term planning. MLO starting to get there,I think, in filling this gap. I have partially adopted some of the Pomodoro techniques and I am now flagging major tasks as Key Tasks, allocating Pomodoro's to them (= 30 min chunks) - just by adding to the caption eg [10] = a 5 hour task and allocating these to particular days in the future (using a 'Calendar' view which just shows Key Task). What I would like is to be able to actually have a field which I can enter this figure and to then have MLO add up the number of Pomodoro's I have allocated to each day and show this as a total for each day so that I can see the days that I have over/underloaded. The ability to link tasks along the lines outlined by dj would then be an added bonus so that if I have a series related tasks and I push back the starting task, it then pushes back all the following tasks by the same amount. For me, once you have linked the tasks, you should be able to adjust the lead/lag time simply by changing the date of the successor task. MLO/GTD and all the other time management schemes that I have seen are useful for helping you identify what you need to be doing next and helping you focus on that but useless for helping you work out what you can get done in the next two weeks (happy to be told otherwise). The Pomodoro Technique does offer some helpful, lightweight ideas in that area and I would very happy to see Andrey take MLO in that direction because I think there would be a good market for such a product. PS: A true calendar view would also be very useful. On Mar 7, 3:18 am, djsdjsdjs <googlegroups.servi...@sanoys.com> wrote: > I couldn't disagree more. > > I work as a one-person company and MS project would definitely be > complete overkill. > > This isn't a complex or unusual concept - but the requirement is not > frequently articulated by users. I have also included implementation > suggestions that respects the desire of everyone (myself included) not > to turn MLO into MS Project. > > I suspect other users have similar projects scheduling needs, but > perform a variety of work-arounds to make this type of scheduling work > within their GTD systems. > > D. > > On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, pottster <kenwarren...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think the problem here is that you are looking for functionality > > which is beyond the scope of personal task management software such > > as MLO. > > > All the functionality you want (and more) has been available for a > > long time in programs such as MS Project. I know Project is expensive > > but there are also far cheaper alternatives. > > > MLO is superb at handling small intra-day tasks (what GTD people call > > "widget-cranking" tasks) with basic dependencies (start task A when > > task B finishes, sub tasks in order) and recurring task patterns. > > Although there is provision for "Projects" this is more in the GTD > > sense of a related series of low level tasks in support of personal > > goals. > > > The scenarios you describe with variable and fixed lead times and > > rescheduling calculations would, I suspect, be difficult to implement > > and, more importantly, may have consequences for the speed/ > > responsiveness of MLO. There are a number of development requests > > pending which would enable a great product do even better what it > > already does well. I think it would be a mistake to succumb to "scope > > creep". > > > Put another way, you could easily make Notepad a better text editor > > but you wouldn't want to try and turn it into a tool for writing a > > novel - you would use Word or similar. > > > On Mar 6, 11:37 am, djsdjsdjs <googlegroups.servi...@sanoys.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Mar 5, 5:20 pm, nschm873 <nschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > + 1 on relative dates... > > > > > Note Ken's reference to "lag" for even more previous requests... > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized/browse_thread/thread/8... > > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:26 PM, djsdjsdjs > > > > <googlegroups.servi...@sanoys.com>wrote: > > > > This is actually different than the discussion of lag in that > > > particular post in that: > > > *) I want to see the due dates displayed in outline view and on my > > > calendar, rather than have them depend on gaps recorded within the > > > tasks. Otherwise I have to calculate in my head and mentally project > > > the schedule. > > > *) The task dates relationship is actually fixed, not floating with > > > previous task completion - so even if I don't ship courseware by the > > > right date, the class will still be held on the target date and I need > > > to compensate with rush shipping. The concept of lag would loose this > > > hard fact because if things get late, MLO would not be communicating - > > > through missed due dates - that a bunch of other stuff is also getting > > > crammed up. > > > > So I think "T-Minus" task relationships are different to "Lag" in that > > > the top level task dates are completely fixed and I would like MLO to > > > be making that very evident. > > > > D.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To post to this group, send email to mylifeorgani...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mylifeorganized+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized?hl=en.
