Forum Posts Feed
GTD reflections
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Jack Crawford
Apr 2, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I thought it might be of interest to start a new discussion on this. I can’t recall us talking about it in any real detail before except in a purely software perspective. I’ve taken the liberty to quote selectively from a few comments in the earlier thread on task management. I hope the original authors don’t mind.
[Excerpts start]
Posted by Chris Thompson
I honestly think “GTD” is a liability, and software developers are in some sense chasing a false grail by trying to jump on that bandwagon. For instance, David’s notion that every task should have exactly one context is poorly thought out. For instance, what about an item I can buy either at the grocery store or at a drugstore? What context do I use for that. OmniFocus tries to stay within the GTD mindset by keeping the single context restriction but introducing hierarchical contexts, but that only partially solves the problem. Also, contexts are in some sense inherently counterproductive… a big part of the GTD approach is the idea that you should be able to dump items into your inbox as quickly as possible. Yet as soon as you introduce contexts into a program, you not only have to hit some hotkey, enter your task, then you have to tab to another field, decide what context this task should be in (is it “business” or “phone”?), type some more stuff, then hit OK. Too much work for no payoff.
Some of Allen’s ideas, like delegation, periodic reviews, etc. are useful though. But I’m skeptical of systems that aim too much to the GTD paradigm. The better systems are freeform like Ecco or Things.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Chris, re contexts—admittedly not for everyone.
However, the intention of contexts is to simplify and shorten task lists.
In your example, the context could simply be “Errands“—and you’d group your errands together. For me, I know right away what items I want from Safeway, what I have to go to the bank for, what I want to go to the drug store for. In the case of Safeway I might have a separate shopping list to make sure I buy everything I came for.
Without contexts, one can get a list of 20 or more items for the day, sometimes more. If you are like me, you go out and might come back with two of three things because you overlooked one item on the list. I find with long lists I overlook things unless I continually review the list.
Or I get overwhelmed, and then in my typical ADHD style start to spin my wheels.
So context is meant as a tool to simplify, to make sure nothing gets left out, and that everything gets done.
I`d agree that some people do better with more freeform systems—or are able to carry in their minds what they need to be doing. Allen`s idea, however, is that many of us don`t, so empty the mind of the stuff that can be put on paper or in software.
Posted by Graham Rhind
This is what I wrote in my GTD review:
“As the author admits throughout this book, it contains little more than good common sense. There’s nothing wrong with this - many people need common sense solutions to be spelled out to them. However, it’s a real slog to get through this book - the material is dry and it could have been better written and less repetitive.
The book is very USA-centric. It annoyingly uses local product names, for example, that won’t mean much to people outside the USA. Furthermore, despite Allen’s protests to the contrary, I would contend that his system needs tweaking to make it more useful for many people outside his own main area of experience (white collar higher management in Western societies). Understandably, Allen’s experience with those of us in other jobs and in other cultures and who wouldn’t dream of hiring a consultant to tell us how to organise ourselves, let alone be able to pay them, is limited, and though the main (common sense) approach is fine, it can be approached more flexibly than Allen suggests.
I do have to ask myself how Allen’s customers had managed to become top executives of large companies without being able to organise themselves, even with all the resources at their disposal ..
Posted by Chris Thompson
Graham, your impressions of the book are similar to mine. I found it quite a slog to get through, meandering and ponderously written, though there are a few useful ideas.
I think it’s interesting that when Allen wrote the book he was using a Palm Pilot, which only had very crude support for his ideas… all you could do with a todo on the Palm was put it into a single category, so you could either categorize by context or project, but not both (and using Palm categories for projects was pretty crummy since there was a maximum number of categories you could create). This suggests to me that the fancy software support for GTD that many people are seeking is basically “CRIMPing on steroids”. The core task management ideas in the book are common sense and could be implemented with any system.
[Excerpts end]
My take is that the GTD concept is much more powerful than some of the comments above may imply. Allen’s theories turned conventional time management theory on its head by building the system from the bottom up i.e. an initial focus on tasks, rather than vision and goals.
Yes it is common sense, but most people say that about breakthrough concepts and inventions anyway. “This is common sense. Why didn’t someone think about this before?”. And yes the book is mundane; it reads more like an operational manual or an audio script (which is quite successful by the way). It’s not a book for inspiration, but more for “how to”.
It seems undeniable that many people have found the GTD approach very practical and useful and actually feel good about what they have been able to achieve. It seems to be more popular now than it has ever been. The fact that it is not system dependent (paper, software, digital gizmos) is a strength not a weakness IMO.
Having said that, I still have some problems with GTD:
- Like Chris I think the context approach is limiting. In particular, the downplaying of priority as a driver is unconnected to reality. I’ve just finished a heavy budget planning commitment. In practical terms I had to drop everything and focus totally on that project for several days, irrespective of context and what was happening to my in-box. It subsumed everything else and made a context approach redundant.
- The messianic aspects of GTD (achieve nirvana by clearing your mind ..) wash over me. I think they are more connected to David Allen’s own value system and a degree of fanaticism I see occasionally in GTD devotees.
- I’ve yet to see a good software implementation of a working version of GTD. MLO is probably the best I’ve seen so far, but it still didn’t work for me. I’m always interested in developments in this area because I think many of the basic underlying GTD concepts are sound, practical and, yes, common sense. In one form or another I think it is here to stay.
Jack
Posted by Thomas
Apr 3, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I stopped following dedicated GTD websites and discussions years ago, but to me it seemed that way too many “GTD’ers” misunderstood what GTD actually is. Same is valid for software developers:
“hey let’s add the contexts and voila, we have new GTD software”.
Actually I like GTD, or what I think/grasp it is.
Posted by Sandro Perotti
Apr 3, 2008 at 01:53 AM
>- I’ve
>yet to see a good software implementation of a working version of GTD. MLO is probably
>the best I’ve seen so far, but it still didn’t work for me. I’m always interested in
>developments in this area because I think many of the basic underlying GTD concepts
>are sound, practical and, yes, common sense. In one form or another I think it is here to
>stay.
>
>Jack
I am far from being an expert, both in GTD and software, and reading the posts in this forum I realize that my needs are rather simple compared to most of the members here.
Having said that, I did a search for a good task manager that would support GTD, and for my needs the best I found is uOrganized (http://www.uorganized.com). It doesn’t have all the features mentioned here, but it does have most of them and -even better- the developers have been open to every single suggestion I’ve made so far.
I guess a disclaimer is on order: I have nothing to do with them. I am just a registered user. Of course I want them to do well and keep improving the product, but without any $tring$ attached… :)
Best regards to all
Posted by Sandro Perotti
Apr 3, 2008 at 01:58 AM
What was I thinking…
The URL for uOrganized is http://www.veetosoft.com
Sorry about that.
Posted by Hugh
Apr 3, 2008 at 09:51 AM
A really excellent post by Jack Crawford, which sums up most of what I’d want to say.
Three small additional thoughts:
- the spread of GTD isn’t just due to Allen’s work, but also the efforts of many others, top of the list of whom I’d put Daly and his Yahoo group
- there’s a risk for software firms in trying to produce the prefect piece of GTD software that plans your tasks to the nth degree, and for users in demanding it. That way lies bloatware and potential user dissatisfaction. I’d put forward Omnifocus as a possible manifestation of this. Personally I prefer simplicity and control over the ranking of my tasks. (I’m another fan of Things.)
- when GTD doesn’t work, it may not be merely a matter of personal taste, or of culture, as I think Chris Thompson has implied, but also of occupation. GTD is very occupation-specific - the sorts of occupations which, as I think Allen himself mentions, frequently leave you filling in time in airport-departure lounges (or somesuch) with a need for a list of appropriate to-dos. But I bet Stephen King doesn’t need or want GTD (except, maybe, at the fringes of his life, when doing his errands). He and others like him have great slabby tasks that may take many months to accomplish, and GTD is going to be of little or no help with them. Unfortunately the book on Getting Things Written hasn’t been published yet…
Overall my advice to anyone contemplating adopting GTD, is first examine your needs. Don’t be beguiled by the promises of the system, or of interesting pieces of software that may be totally inappropriate. Define the requirements of your life and your job first.