Ran across this and thought it was interesting...
http://www.yottaflow.com/insights-o...-getting-things-done-fails-to-get-things-done
http://www.yottaflow.com/insights-o...-getting-things-done-fails-to-get-things-done
stevejackson;89161 said:Ran across this and thought it was interesting...
Even with all the so-called “GTD compliant” software available, GTD remains primarily a manual method of work prioritization and management.
(...)
We simply can’t understand why someone would choose to do manually what can so easily be automated. Why opt for the slide-rule when you can use a calculator?
RMS;89186 said:2) @BRSaxon - I understand that the item on David Allen's list were suggestions. The issue I raise isn't which type of paper you're using, but rather that I think there are better (read automated) options than the manual tools he suggests.
elguapo42;89195 said:It strikes me as odd that someone would write an article bashing another productivity methodology and post it on that methodology's site. This just seems like it is just an attempt at publicity. If it works for you--great--use it. If not, don't. We could all go on forever which is better.
RMS;89186 said:I noticed an up-tick in traffic on our site coming from this forum, so I thought I'd see what was causing it. I work for Yottaflow and wrote the article about GTD.
BRSaxon;89196 said:Your article claims that GTD fails because it isn't automated enough. I disagree. ... don't claim something is a failue based on your limited experience.
RMS;89200 said:Dear BRSaxon,
I guess that goes with some of the thinking behind my original post: a method/software should be easy enough to use without the big learning curve, nor the need for manual tools in the interim.
Again, thanks for the conversation.
Cheers!