Why a Maximum Hierarchy Depth of 3 Creates a Clean, Usable Project Structure.

Understanding Maximum Hierarchy Depth in Relativity Project Management

Let me explain a little something that might seem ordinary until you feel its impact in real work. When you’re juggling a dozen projects, a tidy structure isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity. The thing that helps keep that structure clean is something called the maximum hierarchy depth. In Relativity’s project settings, this often translates to how many levels you can nest within your projects and tasks. The default value is three, and that tiny number does a lot of heavy lifting.

Three levels that actually feel right

Think of a family tree. You have grandparents, parents, and children. Now translate that into project work: you start with a parent project (the big umbrella), break it into sub-projects under that parent, and then drill down further into tasks or milestones within those sub-projects. That’s three levels, more or less, and it’s a sweet spot for many teams.

Why three? Because it’s enough to capture meaningful organization without turning your project map into a labyrinth. If you go too shallow—only one or two levels—you might wind up with sprawling, noisy lists where it’s hard to see relationships or gauge progress at a glance. If you push too deep—four, five, or more levels—navigation becomes a headache, reporting gets murky, and decision-making slows as folks hunt for the right layer of information.

Here’s the thing: depth isn’t just about pretty diagrams. It affects how you report status, roll up numbers, assign responsibilities, and even how you set permissions. A three-level structure tends to offer clear accountability while keeping the interface approachable. You can see the forest and the trees at the same time, which is exactly what most teams need to stay aligned.

What does three levels actually look like in practice?

Let’s map it out in practical terms:

• Level 1: Parent project or program. This is the broad mission, the big bucket that covers the whole effort. It’s the umbrella under which everything else sits.

• Level 2: Sub-projects or deliverables. These are the major components that make up the parent. Each sub-project has its own scope, milestones, and teams.

• Level 3: Tasks or milestones within each sub-project. These are the actionable bits—what someone must do, by when, to keep the sub-project moving.

With this layout, teams can clearly see what’s owned by whom, how progress flows from one layer to the next, and where to focus attention when something slips. It’s not about micromanaging; it’s about making sure the right people see the right level of detail.

The upside of that tidy depth

You’ll notice a few tangible benefits when you work with a three-level hierarchy:

• Clarity in responsibility: People know where their work fits, and managers can see dependencies without wading through endless lists.

• Lean navigation: The interface isn’t overwhelmed with nested layers. You can jump between levels without losing context.

• Smooth reporting: Rollups from tasks to sub-projects to the parent project tend to be straightforward, which makes status updates and dashboards more reliable.

• Consistent names and labels: A predictable structure helps everyone learn the system quickly and reduces miscommunication.

• Better scaling for teams: More people can contribute without creating chaos—each person understands where their input belongs.

And here’s a subtle point: depth doesn’t always equal complexity. You might hear people equate more levels with more control, but in reality, too many levels can paradoxically reduce control by fragmenting visibility. Three levels tend to preserve both oversight and agility.

When you might adjust the depth (and when you shouldn’t)

Defaults exist for a reason, but not every project is the same. In some scenarios, you might feel a different depth would fit better:

• Smaller portfolios: If your workspace handles only a handful of related efforts, two levels could be enough to keep things uncluttered.

• Highly detailed operational work: In rare cases, you might want more levels to mirror intricate work breakdowns with many layers of deliverables. In those situations, you’d want a careful plan to ensure reporting remains coherent.

• Very large, multi-country programs: Some organizations find that three levels still works, but they split by region or business unit within the top tier to preserve clarity.

If you’re considering changing the depth, weigh the user experience. Will the team benefit from more layers, or will navigation become a burden? Will dashboards still roll up cleanly, or will you need extra mapping and filters to keep the numbers meaningful?

Practical tips to keep it clean and useful

A three-level structure works best when you couple it with smart practices. Here are some ideas you can adopt without turning the project space into a maze:

• Use consistent naming conventions: A straightforward pattern like “Parent: Sub-project: Task” helps people scan and understand at a glance. Simple, clear labels beat clever jargon in the real world.

• Color-code or tag by level: Assign a distinct color or tag to each level. That visual cue makes it quicker to identify what you’re looking at, even in a crowded list.

• Keep milestones distinguishable: Treat milestones as explicit checkpoints rather than vague deadlines. They’re the signposts that tell you, “We’re on track—or not.”

• Build light rules for rollups: Decide in advance how progress is calculated at each level. For example, a milestone on Level 3 might feed directly into the Level 2 status, which in turn informs Level 1. That consistency saves headaches later.

• Document the structure for new team members: A short, clear guide on how levels are used helps new folks hit the ground running. It’s a tiny investment with big payoff.

• Use templates: Create a few starter templates for different project types so teams don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time. It’s speed and consistency in one package.

A quick analogy to keep it human

Picture planning a vacation with a group chat. The first message sets the grand trip—your Level 1. Then you draft a rough itinerary for each city you’ll visit—your Level 2. Finally, you book specific activities for each day—your Level 3. If you tried to plan every minute in the first message, chaos would follow. If you left it all at the city level, you’d miss the day-by-day texture. The right depth gives you a map you can actually read.

Relativity Project Management in the real world

In many teams using Relativity’s project management settings, the default three-level framework helps people collaborate across departments and geographies without stepping on each other’s toes. It supports efficient governance, since leaders can review progress at a high level or dive into a particular sub-project when needed. And because the structure aligns with how most teams naturally think about work—big goals, major components, actionable steps—it tends to feel intuitive rather than forced.

If you’re curious about tailoring the setup for a specific workflow, start with a pilot. Pick a modest, contained program and experiment with the two- vs. three-level approach. Gather quick feedback, watch how information flows, and adjust. The goal isn’t to chase perfection; it’s to create a system that helps people do good work with less friction.

Common pitfalls to watch for

Even with a sensible default, you can trip over a few familiar snags:

• Over-naming: If every sub-project gets a long, unique name, the list becomes hard to skim. Short, meaningful labels beat cleverness here.

• Too many tasks under one sub-project: If Level 3 gets crowded, you lose clarity. Split work into separate sub-projects or lift some tasks to Level 2 where appropriate.

• Inconsistent ownership: If two teams share a level but don’t agree on accountability, tracking progress becomes messy. Define clear ownership per level.

• Inadequate documentation: If the team forgets why a structure exists, adoption slows. A quick guide helps lock in the habit.

The bottom line

Maximum hierarchy depth might feel like a small technical detail, but it shapes how teams see, discuss, and deliver work. A default of three levels tends to strike a practical balance—enough layers to reflect meaningful divisions, not so many that the map becomes a maze. When you keep the structure clean, you reduce friction, improve communication, and make it easier for everyone to move together toward shared goals.

If you’re setting up or refining a Relativity project workspace, start with three levels and see how it feels for your team. Use consistent naming, keep milestones explicit, and build simple rollups so leaders and contributors alike can read the health of the project at a glance. And remember, the goal is smooth collaboration, not perfect structure. A well-organized project space should feel almost invisible—like a dependable roadmap you forget you’re even using because it’s just helping you get where you’re going.

A closing thought

Projects aren’t static—they evolve as teams learn, priorities shift, and new information comes to light. The depth you settle on should be a living choice, something you revisit after a few sprints, a quarter, or whenever your organization’s needs change. Three levels are often enough to stay clear and agile, yet flexible enough to grow with you. That balance—clarity with room to breathe—that’s what makes a Relativity project space genuinely useful.

If you’re exploring different structures or reflecting on how your current setup supports your work, take a moment to map your own day-to-day tasks against those three levels. You might discover a tiny tweak here or there that makes collaboration smoother and decisions faster. And sometimes, that small adjustment is all you need to keep your team moving with confidence.