The Truth About GTD Software Tools

[GTDgeekette]

I just found a David Allen email newsletter I received on this topic back on 7/3/19. Subject line: David Allen on the Best Software for GTD. Here’s the link to that newsletter piece, in which he posts his actual handwritten notes on his ideas, and even invites potential developers to contact his CTO directly via email:

David Allen on the Best Software for GTD

 

[achieve]

I’ve applied Lean Six Sigma principles to my GTD setup and reached something quite close to what I’d call a personal airtight system.

I'm really curious about what materials you used to learn Lean Six Sigma principles, as I'm not very familiar with it yet. Could you recommend any books or videos?

Maybe like these?
《The Machine That Changed the World》 – James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones, et al.
《Toyota Production System》 – 大野耐一（Taiichi Ohno）

Thank you!

 

[Y_Lherieau]

I'm really curious about what materials you used to learn Lean Six Sigma principles, as I'm not very familiar with it yet. Could you recommend any books or videos?

Maybe like these?
《The Machine That Changed the World》 – James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones, et al.
《Toyota Production System》 – 大野耐一（Taiichi Ohno）

Thank you!

I actually went through a full Lean Six Sigma Black Belt curriculum at GE Healthcare—it ran over the course of a year and concluded with a rigorous exam. That experience really shaped how I approach process improvement. Toyota House of quality was part of the curriculum.

From where I sit, Lean is quite intuitive—it’s largely common-sense principles around eliminating waste and optimizing flow. Six Sigma, by contrast, leans heavily into probabilities and statistics, which can feel quite dense at first.

If you’re just embarking on this journey, a great place to begin is a quick read of the Wikipedia entries on Lean and Six Sigma—they’re concise, free, and provide a solid conceptual foundation.

I also used an Excel-based toolkit called Systems2win, which provided a suite of Lean Six Sigma templates to support DMAIC projects—from SIPOC charts and Pareto diagrams to FMEA, control charts, and more. It’s especially useful for visualizing and managing process improvement workflows right inside Excel. You can explore it here: Systems2win Lean Six Sigma tools - https://www.systems2win.com/solutions/SixSigma.htm

 

[achieve]

I actually went through a full Lean Six Sigma Black Belt curriculum at GE Healthcare—it ran over the course of a year and concluded with a rigorous exam. That experience really shaped how I approach process improvement. Toyota House of quality was part of the curriculum.

From where I sit, Lean is quite intuitive—it’s largely common-sense principles around eliminating waste and optimizing flow. Six Sigma, by contrast, leans heavily into probabilities and statistics, which can feel quite dense at first.

If you’re just embarking on this journey, a great place to begin is a quick read of the Wikipedia entries on Lean and Six Sigma—they’re concise, free, and provide a solid conceptual foundation.

I also used an Excel-based toolkit called Systems2win, which provided a suite of Lean Six Sigma templates to support DMAIC projects—from SIPOC charts and Pareto diagrams to FMEA, control charts, and more. It’s especially useful for visualizing and managing process improvement workflows right inside Excel. You can explore it here: Systems2win Lean Six Sigma tools - https://www.systems2win.com/solutions/SixSigma.htm

Wow, I'm really impressed and genuinely admire your learning journey!
I'll definitely start by reading the Wikipedia entries you mentioned.
As for tools like Systems2win and some of the terms you brought up, I’m not fully familiar with them yet—they’re new to me, and I’ll need to take some time to learn and understand them better.
Thank you so much for sharing!

 

[Y_Lherieau]

Wow, I'm really impressed and genuinely admire your learning journey!
I'll definitely start by reading the Wikipedia entries you mentioned.
As for tools like Systems2win and some of the terms you brought up, I’m not fully familiar with them yet—they’re new to me, and I’ll need to take some time to learn and understand them better.
Thank you so much for sharing!

Thanks a lot for your kind words!
Yes, you’ll bump into a few acronyms at the start — but they’re really just shorthand for structured thinking. For example:

• DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) — the classic cycle you’d go through when working on an existing flow.
• SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output, Customer) — a great way to step back and see the high-level interactions between entities.
• FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) — a structured toolkit to tackle problems and risks; often complemented by techniques like the fishbone (Ishikawa) diagram.

And ultimately, the north star of all this is DFSS (Design for Six Sigma). That’s when companies design products or services from scratch with quality in mind, ensuring that from input to output, the process is so robust that the number of defects is driven down to the famous “six sigma” level — about 3.4 defects per million opportunities.

Now, just imagine if we were running our GTD workflows at Six Sigma levels. That would mean that for one million opportunities for error in our ecosystem (every capture, clarify, organize, review, execute step), we’d tolerate no more than 3.4 defects. Be my guest!

With this in mind, that’s exactly why I’ve been developing supporting tools around my GTD setup — to systematically reduce friction and eradicate defects. One concrete example is the delegation flow I’ve been building, which I’ve copied below to give you a sense of how this plays out in practice.

 

[achieve]

I actually went through a full Lean Six Sigma Black Belt curriculum at GE Healthcare—it ran over the course of a year and concluded with a rigorous exam. That experience really shaped how I approach process improvement. Toyota House of quality was part of the curriculum.

From where I sit, Lean is quite intuitive—it’s largely common-sense principles around eliminating waste and optimizing flow. Six Sigma, by contrast, leans heavily into probabilities and statistics, which can feel quite dense at first.

If you’re just embarking on this journey, a great place to begin is a quick read of the Wikipedia entries on Lean and Six Sigma—they’re concise, free, and provide a solid conceptual foundation.

I also used an Excel-based toolkit called Systems2win, which provided a suite of Lean Six Sigma templates to support DMAIC projects—from SIPOC charts and Pareto diagrams to FMEA, control charts, and more. It’s especially useful for visualizing and managing process improvement workflows right inside Excel. You can explore it here: Systems2win Lean Six Sigma tools - https://www.systems2win.com/solutions/SixSigma.htm

After reading your post, I took the time to seriously explore the philosophy of Lean Six Sigma—especially the DMAIC framework. I then spent over half an hour discussing this topic with Gemini 2.5 Pro.

I’ve made a preliminary discovery: DMAIC, in simple terms, starts with clearly defining a problem or need, then uses data for objective analysis to identify the root cause, implement improvements, and establish control to sustain the results. What I found is that this is an excellent approach for seriously tackling any issue. By combining data analysis with problem-solving, it connects seemingly unrelated data points, transforming previously underutilized lagging indicators into meaningful insights.

For example, I’ve decided to use DMAIC to start with my sleep—I want to understand what truly affects it. This feels like exactly the kind of situation where the concept of "leading indicators" you mentioned can really shine. I’ve had years of sleep data from my smartwatch, but until now, that data just sat unused, not delivering real value. With DMAIC, however, I started looking at it differently. I began correlating my sleep data with other factors like my body temperature and room temperature before bed, and the time I stop using screens each night. This could allow me to discover insights such as: “Every 30 minutes earlier I stop using my phone before bed, my deep sleep increases by about 10 minutes.” Just thinking about it gets me excited!

Last night, I pulled out a notebook and created a simple paper table. Each row records one day’s pre-sleep conditions: whether I stopped screen use before 10 p.m., my body temperature, room temperature, total sleep duration, and the next evening, I’ll rate my energy level that day on a scale from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best).
Right now, this table format hasn’t been fully integrated into my GTD yet. But I’ll keep experimenting over the coming days to figure out the best way to weave it into my existing system.

Do you think I’ve at least grasped the basics of DMAIC? Thanks so much for explaining the key concepts of Six Sigma and giving me great advice on how to learn them.

 

[achieve]

SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output, Customer) — a great way to step back and see the high-level interactions between entities.

Maybe I can use SIPOC this way：

• Suppliers: My smartwatch and I (tracking behaviors)
• Inputs: Body temp, room temp, screen time before bed
• Process: Collect data → Analyze patterns → Adjust habits
• Output: Better sleep quality and higher daily energy levels
• Customer: Myself the next day

I find DMAIC, SIPOC, and FMEA (along with its SOD and RPN) quite elegant and insightful. Their combination is worth exploring slowly and thoughtfully.

 

[Y_Lherieau]

After reading your post, I took the time to seriously explore the philosophy of Lean Six Sigma—especially the DMAIC framework. I then spent over half an hour discussing this topic with Gemini 2.5 Pro.

I’ve made a preliminary discovery: DMAIC, in simple terms, starts with clearly defining a problem or need, then uses data for objective analysis to identify the root cause, implement improvements, and establish control to sustain the results. What I found is that this is an excellent approach for seriously tackling any issue. By combining data analysis with problem-solving, it connects seemingly unrelated data points, transforming previously underutilized lagging indicators into meaningful insights.

For example, I’ve decided to use DMAIC to start with my sleep—I want to understand what truly affects it. This feels like exactly the kind of situation where the concept of "leading indicators" you mentioned can really shine. I’ve had years of sleep data from my smartwatch, but until now, that data just sat unused, not delivering real value. With DMAIC, however, I started looking at it differently. I began correlating my sleep data with other factors like my body temperature and room temperature before bed, and the time I stop using screens each night. This could allow me to discover insights such as: “Every 30 minutes earlier I stop using my phone before bed, my deep sleep increases by about 10 minutes.” Just thinking about it gets me excited!

Last night, I pulled out a notebook and created a simple paper table. Each row records one day’s pre-sleep conditions: whether I stopped screen use before 10 p.m., my body temperature, room temperature, total sleep duration, and the next evening, I’ll rate my energy level that day on a scale from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best).
Right now, this table format hasn’t been fully integrated into my GTD yet. But I’ll keep experimenting over the coming days to figure out the best way to weave it into my existing system.

Do you think I’ve at least grasped the basics of DMAIC? Thanks so much for explaining the key concepts of Six Sigma and giving me great advice on how to learn them.

Cool stuff. Absolutely, with this approach we can be parachuted anywhere there is a process to scrutinize, be at work, at home…

 

[Stefan Godo]

Good discussion on (part of) an old video.
I suggest to go back to the basics to see what is possible, what not and why.
(some philosophical intro before the SW stuff)

1. there was (is and will be) a universal organizing process behind EVERY doing. It was so before scribd was invented, and it will be so when robots will (eventually replace humans).

2. The sequential process: 1. getting input - 2. evaluating it, if something needs to be done, then (3. postponing it, 4. selecting it, and then) DOING it.

3. until recently (last 50 years) this process was of low intensity, DOING was the limiting factor/bottleneck of human existence, nobody cared much about the org process, it was done intuitively (mostly during doing - manual- work). it was mostly clear what needs to be done next.

4. But progress made DOING less tedious AND intensified the first step of organising process (and forced people doing at least the second)

5. "Organizing doing" became the bottleneck. the intuitive way of organizing became insufficient.

time management came about. Usually targeting PARTS of the org process (nobody saw the whole process...)

then came David A. and described the WHOLE org. process and added a fifth step (if there is moch stuff deferred, much will become obsolete, and regular review is necessary). Hence GTD is simply the complete set of principles of "organizing life".

Please note that despite of the popular notion, GTD is NOT ABOUT DOING.
It is about Getting to doing (the ENGAGE step is only SELECTING the best option to be done...)
GTD never deals with how to garden, make surgery or plumbing. It deals with the common, organizing part of ALL these.

Now to the SW:
1. Capturing is best aided by tools, the question is only whether ALL sources can be automatically routed to a reasonable set of Inboxes (if you have seen Black Mirror - it might come - as a "life recorder"). Not yet there.

2. Clarifying is done by our brain, with our COMPLETE context in mind. If AI will know myself better that I do - it can do my clarification.
(and for simple things it can try even now, under my supervision. It can suggest an action for the email, but is does not know that I met my boss at the cofee machine and that chenged context). For now, I would not TRUST it the full Clarification.

3. This is the easiest part - calendar and lists can be implemented in plenty of tools since decades - but with the limitations given in point 2

4. review - AI can give suggestions, or open ended questions to facilitate stuff

5. engage (= select) can be partially facilitated by proper questions and supprted with checklists.

6. All higher horizons ("my map of life") can be included in a SW as reference (mindmaps, lists, whatever personal format preference you have, even a simple word doc is OK). AI/SW can aid with questions - but I think the THINKING about these will happen in our brains for a long time

maybe you have seen the so far best attempts on "full GTD systems": IQTELL and ctrlAlpha - unfortunately both discontinued for the same reason.
Money and
Data Privacy - routing ALL possible inputs into its universal inbox (plenty of APIs, access rights to everything, etc...)
there are ongoing attempts too - will fail similarly.

-----
this is the state of stuff now (as I know of).

 

[achieve]

Cool stuff. Absolutely, with this approach we can be parachuted anywhere there is a process to scrutinize, be at work, at home…

I have tracked my sleep for 15 days using a method inspired by Six Sigma DMAIC for monitoring and analyzing sleep data, with exceptionally good results—the patterns I discovered are incredibly valuable.

I identified my optimal room temperature and body temperature before sleep, as well as the ideal emotional state (which significantly affects my deep sleep duration). I found that using my phone before bed has minimal impact on my sleep; the key is maintaining a positive mood before bedtime.

I also uncovered the operating rhythm of my biological clock: I always wake up at a specific time (for privacy reasons I won’t disclose the exact time ), regardless of whether I go to bed early or late. Thus, my previous concern—that going to bed too early would cause me to wake up too early—turned out to be unfounded. Based on this, I pinpointed my optimal sleep window. Additionally, I discovered that exercising can significantly increase my deep sleep, sometimes by as much as 45 minutes to over an hour. I also learned that I must avoid consuming any caffeine after 4 p.m., otherwise both my deep sleep and total sleep duration will be shortened.

Over these 15 days, I’ve essentially cracked the “sleep code” of my own body—far more meaningful than reading countless books or attending numerous lectures on sleep.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

Good discussion on (part of) an old video.
[...]

The misunderstanding in this thread likely stems from the fact that there are two perceptions of what a GTD application would do. The first concept—one I find familiar—is external to me, supporting me but not replacing me. The second would involve replacing humans, meaning predicting their preferences, way of thinking, and so on.

This second concept is utopian. Some schools of economics, from socialism through Keynesianism to today's interventionism, have succumbed to this same utopianism. These schools, in worse or worse ways, attempt to introduce a centrally planned "government" that supposedly predicts people's preferences. Meanwhile, economics—as taught by the Austrian School (Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and others)—is a field of praxeology and is inherently subjectivist, meaning that at its core there is an acting human with variable preferences that cannot even be measured in absolute terms. Furthermore, such a person can only assign ordinal values to their preferences, and these values change over time.

Based on the above, if anyone expects that AI will one day replace us in our choices, they are as mistaken as Marks, Keynes and current mainstream economists were.

 

[DavidAllen]

To all of you involved in this thread--I just say "show me the money." If I've been so wrong, in simply describing my own thought processes for dealing with what has my attention, and suggesting the supporting questions I often should (and don't) ask have not been built into any software yet, howcum there ain't one out there yet? Would love to hear your answers to that.

 

[mcogilvie]

The misunderstanding in this thread likely stems from the fact that there are two perceptions of what a GTD application would do. The first concept—one I find familiar—is external to me, supporting me but not replacing me. The second would involve replacing humans, meaning predicting their preferences, way of thinking, and so on.

This second concept is utopian. Some schools of economics, from socialism through Keynesianism to today's interventionism, have succumbed to this same utopianism. These schools, in worse or worse ways, attempt to introduce a centrally planned "government" that supposedly predicts people's preferences. Meanwhile, economics—as taught by the Austrian School (Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and others)—is a field of praxeology and is inherently subjectivist, meaning that at its core there is an acting human with variable preferences that cannot even be measured in absolute terms. Furthermore, such a person can only assign ordinal values to their preferences, and these values change over time.

Based on the above, if anyone expects that AI will one day replace us in our choices, they are as mistaken as Marks, Keynes and current mainstream economists were.

At the risk of taking us further into the weeds, there is a big difference between personal productivity and macroeconomics: even if you assume each individual has rational preferences, there may be no paradox-free collective ordering, I.e. voting paradoxes exist. However, it is very likely true that some (most?) AI funding comes from people who ultimately want to deprecate the human element. They may not care about what AI can do for your personal productivity because they are interested in you for their purposes, not yours.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

At the risk of taking us further into the weeds, [...]

Praxeology deals with acting humans and their goals, but it doesn't assume any objective rationality for these goals. Praxeology merely assumes that humans set goals and don't evaluate them. Therefore, praxeology is not a normative science. The connection with the productivity system is such that, here too, humans make decisions that are subjective by nature and unpredictable. This is an inescapable limitation to the creation of AI-based GTD systems.

 

[gtd solo-studente]

From a different post:

"Wondering to all in the world of computer programing, is "almost always"-&-"almost never" possible in programing ?"

 

[Tom_Hagen]

To all of you involved in this thread--I just say "show me the money." [...]

There's a big difference between an application not being developed because it won't find buyers and not being developed because certain solutions can't be implemented.

Please provide these processes and details so I can address something specific. For now, we're talking on a very general level. Too general.

Have you ever even attempted to create a formal specification? For example, an application should implement an inbox, or at least one inbox. You write in your book that notes should be analyzed from top to bottom, so we write: each inbox should have the ability to sort notes by creation date. You could clarify: the default sorting – unless the user sets it otherwise – should be by creation date, etc.

If it turns out that not everything can be formalized, will that be the fault of the application or perhaps imprecise theory?

Have you tried something like that? Because if not, it's no wonder existing programs do things "their way." If you haven't formalized your expectations, why do you expect anyone else to implement them?

 

[FocusGuy]

I think there is a new one in the classroom eg IA. Ia can help for clarifying organizing stuff. The quantic computer which will happen later will also change the game. However the way our brain works is still mysterious. I hope there will still be a place for human. From my own experience about simplicity at the present time, it is an illusion to try to put in the same software everything. Some try like notion or others. It is still complex and takes a lot of time and energy. Make it simple, make it simple and make it simple that's my credo !

 

[Matt_M]

To all of you involved in this thread--I just say "show me the money." If I've been so wrong, in simply describing my own thought processes for dealing with what has my attention, and suggesting the supporting questions I often should (and don't) ask have not been built into any software yet, howcum there ain't one out there yet? Would love to hear your answers to that.

Excellent reply. I laughed so hard at this. I just love a good Jerry Maguire reference! Remember to yell it, say it with feeling

 

[Y_Lherieau]

There's a big difference between an application not being developed because it won't find buyers and not being developed because certain solutions can't be implemented.

Please provide these processes and details so I can address something specific. For now, we're talking on a very general level. Too general.

Have you ever even attempted to create a formal specification? For example, an application should implement an inbox, or at least one inbox. You write in your book that notes should be analyzed from top to bottom, so we write: each inbox should have the ability to sort notes by creation date. You could clarify: the default sorting – unless the user sets it otherwise – should be by creation date, etc.

If it turns out that not everything can be formalized, will that be the fault of the application or perhaps imprecise theory?

Have you tried something like that? Because if not, it's no wonder existing programs do things "their way." If you haven't formalized your expectations, why do you expect anyone else to implement them?

Indeed a solid starting point would be a proper list of CTQs, for example a simple table describing —> Required functionalities, to achieve what?, in which part of the GTD flow.

 

[Tom_Hagen]

I think there is a new one in the classroom eg IA.[...]

The same statements over and over again. Here we go again:
- Praxeology rules out completely replacing humans at the level of their decisions based on preferences – this is impossible; we've seen this with the example of central planning in the economy; I and TesTeq have seen this firsthand.
- The GTD application is intended to be a tool for GTD, not GTD in its own right. Just as Word/Write isn't a book, but it can contain a book in its content.
- Talking about putting everything into an application is such a nice, rounded statement that de facto means nothing. It's a matter of defining what that means: everything.