I am also a bit confused about how to manage next actions for projects. My instinct is that there is a difference between brainstorming and planning outcomes, milestones and such, and writing down every single action that is required to complete the project.

I have resolved to record the following for my projects:

. Name
. Purpose
. Outcomes / milestones / deadlines

I hope that, by looking at this information, I will be able to discern what the next action is every time I bring the project out for review. If that does not happen, then it may indicate that the project needs to be divided into sub-projects (perhaps each individual outcome could be viewed as a project in and of itself). One thing that stuck out when I read the book was that "brainstorm this project" and "plan this project" are legitimate next actions: if I am confused about a project, its purpose or its outcomes, then I should write down a next action to sit down and have a think about it.

On the other hand, if a next action for a project is in my head, then it is in the wrong place, so perhaps in that case I need to action myself to write down a checklist and store it with the project support material. My concern is that, by writing down lots of next actions that follow on from each other (effectively an old-fashioned todo list), I would be writing down actions that are not actually next actions.

As I said, though, I am still debating this with myself and I have not used this approach enough in earnest to know if it really works. One thing I do know - about my workplace at least - is that because we operate so much in interrupt mode and because so many important, urgent matters turn up unexpected, spending time writing detailed GANTT charts is time wasted. For that reason alone, I am very much in favour of David Allen's "natural planning" suggestions.

David

PS: Apologies for the massive number of edits I have made to this post: still on first coffee; brain not working.