TL;DR: When ChatGPT introduced Space, I couldn't tell what it added to the setup I already had in Projects. More explanations didn't help, but looking at my own work did. Before changing a setup that works, understand what the feature does, where it overlaps, and whether it solves a problem you actually have. Then test it against one process you run on your own and one that other tools or people touch. My article process stays in its Project. My daily brief is a good fit to try in a Space.
Do I want it just because it's new and shiny?
I saw an ad the other day for the new Ninja Foodi. It has either one container or two, so if you use it to prepare a full meal, you can actually separate the space and use two different cooking methods.
I thought, that's cool. I could really use that.
But then I thought about the Ninja Foodi I already have. My children got it for me for Christmas one year because I needed a new crockpot. The Foodi allowed me to cook and prep better than just a traditional crockpot.
So it came down to this. Do I just want this because it's new and shiny and looks neat? Or will it really enhance how I use it? Will I really prepare two different things, or will I still use it the way I use the current one now?
Normally, this is the point where I test the curiosity. But testing it means buying something I may not need, and I really don't need another appliance.
So I asked myself a different question. What would the new one do that the one I have doesn't? And honestly, I wasn't missing anything. It was never a problem. So if it was never a problem, was I just creating one so I could have the new thing?
That's the same question I ran into when ChatGPT introduced Space. I could see what was useful about it. But I already had a working setup in Projects, and there is a lot of overlap between the two. What would Space add to what already works for me?
✳︎ ✳︎ ✳︎
Hi, I’m Lee. Welcome to DigiNav Compass Signal. Around here, I share what happens when AI and technology meet a real business—the useful parts, the messy parts, and what you can take into your own work.
Today, I’ll be showing you how to tell whether a new feature adds something to the work you already do, using my own back-and-forth over ChatGPT’s Space and Projects.
✳︎ ✳︎ ✳︎
A new feature, an unanswered question
When a new feature or change comes out, within minutes you see 100 articles and 50 videos on the best hacks and tips to use it. Okay, maybe not minutes. But close.
Space was no different. When it came out, I assumed there were useful things in there. And there are. The problem was that I already had systems in place using Projects.
So I created a Space, thinking that would help. But there was still a niggle in the back of my mind. What is better? Do they all need to be in that space? And again, what's the difference?
Every time I asked AI to explain it, I was led to documentation, which wasn't helpful at all. The explanations came all at once, and the advice kept changing. First, keep my article process in a Project. Then, Space could fit it.
At one point I said it plainly: "there's no clear division on what is what. Why use space versus a project makes no freaking sense to me." And then: "if I can't understand it, how am I supposed to have someone else understand it?"
This wasn't about changing course. Nothing was broken. I wanted to understand a new feature before deciding where it belonged in work that already runs.
Maybe you've been there. Everyone is talking about a new feature. It looks useful. And you're left wondering whether it adds something to what you already use, or just gives you another way to do the same work.
What to think about: What does this add to what I already use?
Before I could decide anything, I had to figure out what Space even was. Was it just the new version of Projects?
At least I think not, but I was a little confused. With the editable pages and the other things that came with it, there was a difference. I just wasn't seeing it, or I couldn't grasp it.
What finally helped wasn't another definition. It was looking at my own work.
One of my product builds had been refined so many times that the thread got really, really long. Sometimes I'd lose my place or forget why we did something. If I moved it into a Space, then as we refine, the version that's there would just get updated instead of a new version being added to the thread. More neat and tidy.
That was the first time I could see what Space would actually add for me.
So when a new feature shows up, here's what to think about:
Understand it. What does it actually do, in your work, not in the announcement?
Is there a difference? Is it new, or another way to do something you already do?
Is there an overlap? Where does it do the same job as a tool you already use?
Why use one as opposed to the other? What would make you reach for this one?
If the honest answer is "it's another way to do something I already do," that's worth knowing before you move anything.
What can go wrong: Look at the whole process before moving it
A new feature can take a working process and add some caveats to it.
My article process is where I felt that pull. Every article I write goes through the same phases, from picking the topic to publishing and closeout. My first thought was, why can't I just move it to Space? Doesn't that make sense? The working draft would be in a document, the conversations would be behind it, and I could add the images to it.
But updating the document was never the problem.
I work from two AIs on that process, Claude and ChatGPT. The process has clearly defined steps: what gets handled, and who handles it. The instructions, the phases, and the article records live in Obsidian, so both AIs work from the same place.
So my next questions were practical. Would I have to tell it to read the instructions every time I start an article? Or could the Space apply them to every article, the way my Project does? And how does that work when I hand off to Claude a few times along the way?
The answers I got couldn't confirm that. And moving the process would have isolated it from what I already have working, especially the instructions and the different phases.
That's what can go wrong. The part of a feature that looks useful, like an editable draft, can be one small piece of a bigger process. If you only look at that piece, you can pull something out of a setup that depends on other tools, other AIs, or other people.
What comes next: Try it against the way you actually work
The next time a new feature shows up, the first step is to understand the pros and cons. Is there overlap? Are there gaps it fills that support the other tools I use?
Then I'll probably do two different kinds of test cases, just like I did with this one:
One that's contained. A process that stays with one particular AI.
One that isn't. A process with multiple AIs or outside input, whether that's another AI, a team member, or someone else.
Looking at both shows where a feature fits and where it would add work.
You can do the same with your own setup. Pick one thing you run on your own and one thing that other tools or people touch. Then ask the questions from earlier about each one.
Different work, different fit
Once I looked at my processes side by side, it got clearer.
My email triage and daily brief is a more contained process. I only use one AI to gather the evidence, and that's ChatGPT, because it can connect my two Google Workspace accounts. It uses the information I already have and funnels it into one brief. The brief changes based on what has been addressed or not. When it updates, it's focused on that information, not a gigantic thread of changes.
It's just a record of what needs my attention or what doesn't. So once something doesn't need my attention, it doesn't matter if it stays visible. And it doesn't need the back-and-forth that my article process does.
Once that became clear, I understood what needed to stay in a Project and what could be given to a Space.
My article process stays in its Project. Two AIs, defined phases, and shared records in Obsidian.
My daily brief is a good fit to try in a Space. One AI and one current view of what needs my attention.
Neither of these is a rule about the products. They're choices about my setup.
And that's really the point. We don't need to jump on every feature. Just because everybody's talking about it doesn't mean that it's a good fit for us.
So here's my ask. Pick one new feature you've been curious about. Run it against one process you handle on your own and one that other tools or people touch, and see where it actually fits. Then reply and tell me what you found.
If you want help thinking it through, here's a prompt you can paste into your AI of choice:
I'm curious about [new feature] in [tool]. Before I change anything, help me understand whether it fits the way I already work. Use plain words and ask me one question at a time.
1. Ask me what I use now for this kind of work and how it runs.
2. Explain what the new feature does. Tell me what you are not sure about.
3. Show me where it overlaps with what I already use, and where it is different.
4. Help me test it against two of my processes: one I run on my own with one tool, and one that involves other AIs, tools, or people.
5. For each one, tell me what problem it would solve for me and what extra work switching would create.
Do not recommend a switch unless it solves a problem I actually have.If it was never a problem, the new thing can wait until it is.