Hide table of contents

I am trying to pick a project management software to recommend for general adoption at MIT FutureTech

I am biased towards Asana but want to check what other people in the community are using and hear experiences/suggestions before I commit. 

Apologies if this question seems self-indulgent and of narrow interest. 

I imagine that choosing project management software for research groups/projects is a relatively common challenge for groups in the EA community. 

I therefore hope that this discussion may help others in similar situations now and in the future.

You can submit anonymous feedback here if you fear repercussions.[1]  I will post any anonymous feedback I get in the comments (if it seems sensible/reasonable etc).

Tagging a few people who I think might have good answers/insights:
@Peter Wildeford @david_reinstein @Davidmanheim @Vael Gates @David_Moss @John G. Halstead  @HaydnBelfield 

  1. ^

    For anyone wondering why some people might be slow to comment: Asana is widely used in the EA community and Dustin Moskovitz, the founder, is the largest funder of EA projects.

19

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


9 Answers sorted by

Just published this new writeup in our post sequence: How to Get More Important Things Done with the Eisenhower [Effort] Matrix - Inside the Mind of an Aspiring Charity Entrepreneur [Follow Along] #2 — EA Forum (effectivealtruism.org)

In short, after reading through Charity Entrepreneurship's handbook, I tried to implement CE's adapted Eisenhower Matrix on a few of the popular task/project management software.

You can see the Eisenhower Effort Matrix in action in both ClickUp and Notion, as well as my personal usage tips.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to implement the EEM on Asana.

Hope this helps.

(Commenting here in addition to your post)

Thanks for this! I appreciate the write-up. Just wanted to quickly share that tried the EEM but eventually moved to a 'Must, Should, Could' system like here. I use this on Google Tasks and other task management systems. Depending on the system I use a number or title to indicate the class of task. So far it has worked well for me. Of course different things will work for different people!

I like Notion quite a lot.

It looks very pretty and is very well-known, does most core "make an org go well" stuff in one place, doesn't feel bloated or frustrating to work with and integrates pretty well with other software.

If you have a small enough team, I think a combination of google sheets, google docs, and todoist works well. 

Asana is quite good, though I found some aspects of it annoying. I found todoist more intuitive on basic task prioritisation

I'm still in the early stages of this. We started with Airtable but wanted something more built for purpose.

We next started with Asana but it seemed to have too much overhead, I didn't like the default formatting, and it didn't seem easy to adjust things (like the names of different statuses).

We're now trying Clickup and so far it's looking good. Also the price seems good, and it seems to be very useable as an internal knowledge base as well.

I highly recommend Asana. I have used a few different options in my personal life, including Todoist, and like Asana better than them.

If FutureTech is going to be a Notion shop, then I would use Notion for task tracking as well. But if not, then I think your users will find Asana easier to grok.

We use Asana at Rethink Priorities

Hi there!

I know I’m a bit late to this thread, but I couldn’t resist chiming in, especially with the advancements in project management tools as we head into 2025. Having tried multiple project management software options for various research projects, I’ve gathered some insights that I hope will be helpful.

For research-focused work, the key is balancing structure with flexibility. Tools that allow you to track intricate dependencies, collaborate across teams, and centralize data are invaluable. Some platforms are now leveraging AI to suggest optimal timelines, detect potential bottlenecks, and even automate routine tasks like progress reporting. These features can save countless hours while ensuring your project stays on track.

Another critical factor for research projects is knowledge management. Tools with robust document repositories and seamless integrations with platforms like Google Drive or Notion are game-changers for centralizing references and research materials.

Over the years, I’ve learned that no tool is one-size-fits-all. Some are fantastic at resource management, while others excel at communication and collaboration. It’s worth exploring tools that are highly customizable so you can tailor them to your team’s unique needs. Platforms like Asana, Trello, Monday, and Wrike come to mind as great choices, depending on what exactly you're looking for.

That said, if you're after a solution for managing larger, more complex projects, particularly with a research focus, I highly recommend looking into Celoxis. It offers robust project tracking, resource management, and even time tracking, all powered by AI to streamline workflows. It’s scalable, which makes it a great fit for medium to large teams.

I hope this helps, and I’m happy to discuss any specific tools or share more detailed experiences if you’re interested! 😊

Hey! Choosing project management software is def tricky—I get where you're coming from. I once had to decide on software for a team project and found that hearing from others' experiences really helped. Asana is solid, but exploring options could offer unique features tailored to research and project management. Have you considered setting up trials for a few platforms to see what fits MIT FutureTech's needs best? It might give you a clearer picture before making a final decision.

Just commenting to note that I saw this, and don't know that much about the different systems that exist - there are trade-offs, but those are probably project specific, and I don't use any of them heavily enough, or have enough background in project management, to offer any useful opinions.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under