This is absolutely still a needed feature. scrolling through the activity feed when there are 30+ comments and hunting for a line that identifies other tasks that are linked is not optimal.
A QoL feature that could be done - if adding customizability to dependencies isnāt an option. Would be to have any mentions of other tasks show up in their own subsection. Perhaps at the very top of the comments. That would essentially mimic having a list of related tasks/projects that are officially designated in the task. Not a perfect solution but one that would work and be better than the current option.
1 Like
awesome!!
This would be so handy!
this way i could create a project with customer-data (adress, phone etc.)
1 Like
Exactly, @Alexander_Ritter , the ultimate CRM! 
This feature would unlock sooo much potentialā¦ Iām still praying for the day! 
Similar to how the custom fields allow for a āPeopleā type, I would like to have a āProjectā type. This would automatically filter the values to be an asana āprojectā. I also want the ability to limit the field to a āsingle selectā, so unlike the implementation of the āpeopleā field it can be restricted to one and only one project.
This would allow tasks that are multi-homed to have a custom field that identifies a āMaster-Projectā.
As for the single select option: This seems that it would be a useful feature for the āpeopleā type field as well. Another way this could be looked at is a change to the āsingle-selectā and āmulti-selectā types to allow asana objects to be added to the list of āavailableā values.
Voted! Implementing this relational field type would significantly enhance our Asana CRM data management. Because of this missing functionality, weāre exploring options to either transition to a comprehensive CRM solution or give Monday a try if it already includes it. But Iād rather continue using Asana as our CRM.
1 Like
I would like to related 2 tasks (or more) which are similar (but not identical).
Besides, there is a possibility to work on these 2 tasks in parallel.
Thus, I would suggest to have ārelated toā (or something like that in addition) of āBlocked byā and āBlockingā
2 Likes
Hi @Jordan38 ,
Welcome to the forum! I hope you donāt mind, but Iāve merged your post with a similar one about lookup/reference fields. Please make sure you vote for it with the purple button at the top!
1 Like
I would like to add my voice to the many asking for a Related to relationship between tasks, but I think this should be a small feature change on its own and not linked to this discussion about customised relationships.
We should not have to wait for a long process to implement an advanced customisation feature like this when there is strong demand for a very simple-to-implement, basic feature like Related to. I mean, this is literally the simplest relationship that you can have between two entities and I would have implemented it first before Blocked by and Blocking, which are more specific implementations.
3 Likes
and again.
everytime im thinking āok this automated workflow could workā, there is ALWAYS a last peace missing.
every time, the features reveal to be only superficial.
I mean goddamn, we pay at least 60$/ā¬ a month, how about some features are actually usefull and are demanded by the users ā¦
your luck asana, that the competition is even worseā¦
I want a many to many relationship for the purpose of relating tasks to a milestone without making them subtasks or dependencies. For example, I have two related user requests. I want to link them together so that I can see the related request on the other card. These requests donāt block each other and theyāre not subtasks of each other. Theyāre simply related to each other and that helps me see a group of tasks together. Eventually, theyāll likely aggregate to other requests to become their own project. Currently, I need to manually add the card link on request A to request B in the description box. And then go to request B and add the link to request A. This is time consuming.
It seems this could be available within the Dependencies field if we had more options then block or blocked by.
I want to +1 @Jordan38 's request to expand task dependencies to include related tasks.
Consider two Asana tasks that point to the same Github PR, and the same Figma file. Task A isnāt blocking nor blocked by Task B, but they are closely related. It would be very helpful to be able to use the dependency to mark the relationship between these two tasks.
1 Like
+1 for this feature. We only need a reasonably simple CRM and so weāre using Asana, but itās definitely got some limitations that doing this would cleanup and make so much simpler!
3 Likes
This is very much so needed if Asana is to keep pace with monday.com.
2 Likes
Hi there. I was looking to do this myself and found this thread. I see another thread with asks for this as old as June 2022. Donāt know if Asana is reading this but Iād just like to point out that this feature is available in other tools and itās fundamental to making the tool work for you, rather than working around the tool. If you have to work around the tool, itās the wrong tool. Iām now actively pushing my org to move to Notion because of this limitation.
The wrong tool for you, for sure 
If you think Notion is a better alternative, seeing how different the apps are, then maybe Asana wasnāt indeed the right choice!
You say that like Iām an isolated case. Iād contend that itās wrong for anyone trying to make the tool fit their needs. This is not a strange request. Not all relationships between tasks are dependencies. Often teams need to define their own workflows and business rules. Jira is another good example of a tool that has acknowledged this and supports it.
My comment was pointing out that a tool, whatever tool it is, doesnāt have to do everything you specifically need. This is indeed an interesting feature, but one could argue it would make the tool more complex, harder to learn, harder to teach, more confusingā¦
Having taught Asana to hundreds if not thousands of users, I can tell people get confused very very easily. Dependencies are really powerful, and I like how simple they currently are. Even the recently added āFinish to Startā brings some confusion to most people who arenāt project managers.
The constant battle between simplicity and feature set
