What Makes Our Workflow Work
As the Director of Communications at QIP, I am constantly managing multiple projects that differ in scope, type, and size. At one point about eight years ago we had over 15 videos being developed at the same time. My inbox and brain were quickly running out of space. That is when we started using Asana to manage QIP’s video production process. Before Asana, we were tracking projects across long email threads, documents, and individual to-do lists—making it difficult to see the full picture or stay aligned as a team.
I needed something that allowed me to
- coordinate across creative, technical, and client teams;
- manage multiple drafts and review cycles; and
- keep production timelines on track.
But implementing a new workflow wasn’t just about finding a tool. What we were really looking for was a better way of working. Asana helped operationalize that shift, but the real work was defining what mattered most in how we collaborate and manage projects. First, we needed a better way of working.
At its core, our approach is built on a few key principles:
- Work should be visible. Teams need to understand what’s happening, who owns what, and when things are due—at a glance. This reduces time spent tracking down information and allows people to focus their energy on the work itself.
- Conversations should happen in context. Feedback and decisions are most useful when they live alongside the work itself, minimizing miscommunication and keeping everyone aligned.
- Information should be easy to find. Files, comments, and deliverables shouldn’t require digging through email threads, which helps reduce friction and keeps projects moving forward.
As we began applying these principles to our video work, we saw immediate shifts. Projects became easier to manage, timelines more predictable, and collaboration more seamless.
Over time, we expanded this approach beyond video production to support writing and editing, design and multimedia development, and communications planning. What started as a solution for one type of work became a shared system for how we operate across teams.
A key shift in this evolution was moving as much work as possible out of email. This reduced redundancy, minimized back-and-forth, and made it easier for teams to stay aligned without constant check-ins.
As QIP has grown, so has the complexity of our projects—often requiring coordination across communications, design, research, and technical teams. Having a consistent way of organizing work has allowed us to scale without losing clarity. Teams can move between projects more easily, onboard more quickly, and maintain consistency in how we deliver.
This approach has also made it easier to identify bottlenecks early, clarify ownership, and reduce the need for status updates. But the biggest impact has been less tangible—and more important.
It has created space.
When staff aren’t spending time searching for information or clarifying next steps, they can focus on what matters most: producing high-quality work, collaborating thoughtfully, and thinking creatively.
There’s no single product that solves every challenge; organizations don’t become magically more efficient by adopting tools or software. The real shift comes from stepping back and asking: what do our teams need in order to do their best work?
