When I was first working in Asana and taking all sorts of training, I was completely gung-ho for using all of the bells and whistles: fields, rules, AI Studio. Our Asana was a plethora of information and automation. It was beautiful. Then, over time, my team and I came to realize that we had too many bells and whistles going, and rather than being useful, they were creating noise and some friction.
That triggered me to complete an internal audit. In doing so, I considered the feedback I’d received from my team, some of which was valid. Change is hard. Change for change’s sake is harder. And that, in my excitement, is what I had created… change for change’s sake.
In response, I developed a minimalist approach to our Asana environment. I simplified our Workflows. I condensed three custom fields into one. I discarded others. I refined our rules to the bare essentials. And what a difference it has made! The team is happier. There’s way less noise. It’s clean and lean. And what is left is relevant in monitoring and controlling the work being done.
I’m wondering if anyone else has had this experience as they’ve developed more skills, knowledge, and time with Asana.
10 Likes
Thank you so much for sharing this @Virginia_Mowery! I think you’ve perfectly captured the “Asana Maturity Curve”.
We often start with the “Can we?” (Can we automate this? Can we track this niche data point?) before we ask the “Should we?” It’s easy to mistake complexity for sophistication, but as you’ve discovered, true sophistication is usually found in simplicity.
I’m curious, was there one specific rule or field that was the “tipping point” for your team’s frustration, or was it just the cumulative weight of it all?
1 Like
I think our team is going through this growth phase right now as well! It is a tough change at times, but so worth it in the end. Thanks for sharing to help me know that this is actually a pretty “normal” part of the Asana journey!!
2 Likes
I’ve had almost the exact same experience, and I think you hit on the key point at the end.
What I’ve found is that overbuilding in Asana usually comes from a good place, trying to anticipate every need and edge case. But the reality is, the people actually doing the work experience those “helpful” systems very differently. What looks like structure to a builder can feel like friction to a user.
Including the team in the process is what turns optimization into adoption.
When I’ve taken a step back and asked what slows them down, what they ignore, and what they actually rely on, the solutions tend to get simpler, not more complex. And more importantly, they are more likely to stick. There’s a big difference between a system that works in theory and one that people consistently use without thinking twice.
The tricky part is recognizing when you’ve crossed that line from “useful structure” into “unnecessary noise.” For me, a good signal is when people start working around Asana instead of inside it, and they’re not always going to tell you when they do!
Audits are an important step to ensure your workflow acheives what you’ve intended it to do!
2 Likes
It was a combination thereof. The primary friction came from rules which moved tasks from one section of our personal workflows to another, based on a priority custom field, or due dates, or start dates, etc. But it was also the cumulative weight of it all. It left team members feeling like they weren’t in control of their work. The AI was. It was a definite learning experience in “what works for me doesn’t always work for we!”
1 Like