There is a quiet cost to a workflow that requires constant maintenance. A task list may begin as a helpful map, then gradually become a second job: rewriting dates, sorting priorities, moving unfinished items, and adjusting categories. The system still looks organized, but more attention goes to tending it than using it.

Notice the upkeep between work sessions

Imagine finishing a late meeting with three follow-ups and a report to revise. Before you can leave, you open several lists to place every item in the right project, tag its urgency, estimate its duration, and decide which day it belongs to. Some of that care is useful; commitments should not disappear. Yet if capturing an action takes longer than clarifying what it is, the workflow is asking for too much at precisely the wrong moment.
This is not an argument against planning. A team coordinating deadlines may need owners and dates, and a complex project can become risky if its dependencies stay informal. The strongest case for detailed systems is visibility: other people need to know what is happening, and future-you may need a reliable record. The issue is not the presence of structure but whether each part of it earns its maintenance cost.

Reduce duplicated representation

One common source of drag is recording the same commitment in multiple places. A task appears in a project board, a personal list, a calendar, and perhaps a note. Each copy seems reassuring until one changes and the others do not. A leaner approach is to define what each place is for. A calendar can show time-bound commitments; a task list can hold actions; notes can preserve context. The exact tools vary, but the boundary matters.
It is also reasonable to keep a temporary rough list when work is moving quickly. The demand for a perfectly categorized system can make capture fragile: people postpone recording something because they cannot decide where it belongs. A low-friction inbox or a brief note may be less elegant, but it can protect the actual work from administrative interruption. The system can be reviewed later, at a time set aside for that purpose.

Measure the workflow by its return

Try noticing how much time is spent maintaining a process across a normal week. If a recurring step prevents missed handoffs or helps you start, it may be worth keeping. If it mostly duplicates information or provides the feeling of control without changing what happens, simplify it. This is a small experiment, not a demand to delete every category.
My position is that workflows should be maintained in proportion to the coordination they provide. A minimalist system is not merely sparse; it returns attention to the work. Where does your own process pay for itself, and where does it mostly ask to be serviced?
iOS: https://apps.apple.com/se/app/focus-timer-desk-clock/id6762793543?l=en-GB Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.focus.timer.desk.clock