Questionable GTD Foundation for Common Software Feature

[TesTeq]

My idea is a start-up!

I have understood from your earlier posts that you use paper. What would it take to make you yourself prefer using an app?

I didn't say that I wanted to switch to any GTD app. My idea is a start-up based on your deep understanding of the customers' real needs in the GTD area and beyond. We will create great video, start a Kickstarter project, optionally develop some software and sell our company to Google, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook for $1,200,000,000!

 

[Folke]

I didn't say that I wanted to switch to any GTD app. My idea is a start-up based on your deep understanding of the customers' real needs in the GTD area and beyond. We will create great video, start a Kickstarter project, optionally develop some software and sell our company to Google, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook for $1,200,000,000!

Sorry, I thought you were just being ironic - "deep understanding", "real needs" and all that. I am not sure I actually have much understanding of what people need or believe they need or would be prepared to pay for, but I certainly do have opinions.

Sure, yeah, a Kickstarter project is probably a great idea, and I am sure many people here from this forum and from other app forums would be able to contribute a lot. Someone mentioned this over at the Nirvana forum as well, when everybody was fed up with the slow pace of development there, but it came to nothing in the end - people just dispersed instead. But I still believe it is possible. I am in. How do we start?

My question about what you personally would like to see in an app is still very interesting, IMO. Obviously you know how to manage your stuff on paper (as do I), so if you were ever going to move to an app instead, why would that be? To gain what additional capability that paper does not give you? I believe the answer to that question may reveal what some of the core functionality of the app should be.

In my case, the main initial hope I had - and which I have only been able to realize inelegantly in the apps I have used most recently, is the capability to have all "do" items in one single app instead of spread across so many physical places. In particular, perhaps, these days, the problem is related to "subsequent" tasks (all too often considered as "project support" along with budgets, brochures and other non-task type material) which I want to be able to see included clearly - as tasks - in an easy-to-read format when looking at the individual project, but not have to see cluttering my main consolidated views of currently active tasks (Next, Waiting etc). The solution is simple, and anyone could implement it in almost no time if they decided to, with no disadvantage at all to their existing customer base, so I am a bit hesitant whether this is a solid enough base for a new venture.

Beyond that, paradoxically, I think most of the computer features I would like to have are more of the nature of compensating back for the rigidity brought about by the computer itself - give you back some of the flexibility you had when using paper. But there is an infinite amount of fine-tuning here, where a new app could be made smoother and simpler and clearer etc than other apps.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Gardener]

1) If someone sells a product called "fondue pot", but it has nowhere to put the oil/cheese/sauce, and its predominant feature is a grill element above, then maybe we have a clear case of false advertizing.

But these GTD fondue pots do have a place to put the oil/cheese/sauce--that is, a place to put the projects/actions. You seem to be complaining that in addition to melting cheese, they offer an option to grill the cheese, and thus mislead the cook into believing that grilled cheese is relevant to fondue.

But my argument is that it's not the pot's job to teach the cook about fondue. The cook learns about fondue somewhere else and buys the pot. If the pot supports him in doing what he's learned that he's supposed to do, where's the harm in an unneeded grilled-cheese capability?

 

[Folke]

... where's the harm in an unneeded grilled-cheese capability?

It depends. It will definitely be a missed opportunity to teach the "student" the "best" way (fondue, GTD). In addition, it can sometimes make it more difficult to even use the feature in a meaningful way (e.g. if it constitutes an obstruction).

Typical example: Apps that have a so-called "scheduled" feature make no distinction between calendar actions and ticklers. They are all treated as if they were the same kind of animal. In addition, some apps have calendar integration, and if you use it they may show all of these "scheduled" items on the calendar, i.e. ticklers and calendar actions alike. In essence, this means you cannot really use that calendar at all. If you were to schedule a calendar action in the app it would drown among a ton of ticklers, and the ticklers themselves you have no reason to see on the calendar in the first place, and would clutter up your calendar, so you need to have it switched off, which basically means you will need to enter the project based calendar actions straight in your calendar in the usual "manual" way and "sync" manually, just as if you had no functionality at all for entering calendar actions in projects.

 

[Barb]

!

But these GTD fondue pots do have a place to put the oil/cheese/sauce--that is, a place to put the projects/actions. You seem to be complaining that in addition to melting cheese, they offer an option to grill the cheese, and thus mislead the cook into believing that grilled cheese is relevant to fondue.

But my argument is that it's not the pot's job to teach the cook about fondue. The cook learns about fondue somewhere else and buys the pot. If the pot supports him in doing what he's learned that he's supposed to do, where's the harm in an unneeded grilled-cheese capability?

I love this analogy! Well said!

 

[Folke]

I love this analogy! Well said!

Yes, good analogies can be seductive.

No pot maker has a duty to teach cooking. But imagine the potential success of a pot maker that sports its own recipe collection and cooking classes, and can demonstrate how easy it is to use its pot for those dishes with exceptionally good results.

 

[Gardener]

Yes, good analogies can be seductive.

No pot maker has a duty to teach cooking. But imagine the potential success of a pot maker that sports its own recipe collection and cooking classes, and can demonstrate how easy it is to use its pot for those dishes with exceptionally good results.

Actually, I do see this as a relevant addition to the analogy, because a lot of cooking tools and appliances *do* come with recipe books. I find that I never use them, because the talents that apply to creating a good appliance or tool are not necessarily the talents that apply to either cooking or teaching cooking. Similarly, the talents that apply to creating good software are not necessarily the talents that apply to designing or teaching a personal habit or process.

Ford didn't teach me to drive, KitchenAid didn't teach me to cook, Viking didn't teach me to sew.

 

[TesTeq]

It's all about mindfulness.

Sorry, I thought you were just being ironic - "deep understanding", "real needs" and all that. I am not sure I actually have much understanding of what people need or believe they need or would be prepared to pay for, but I certainly do have opinions.

I perceive your opinions about software implementation of productivity tool beyond GTD as very strong. And maybe - as an old-fashioned paper list maker - I simply don't recognize the power of multidimensional context filters that you propose. But I am pragmatic. Why not make money on something that I don't fully understand?

My question about what you personally would like to see in an app is still very interesting, IMO. Obviously you know how to manage your stuff on paper (as do I), so if you were ever going to move to an app instead, why would that be?

My simplified GTD journey consisted of the following milestones:

• 2-minute rule!
• Weekly Review!
• The power of the "PROCESSING" step of the workflow in pursuit of the mind like water state.

I found no software app that can make any of these milestones more mindful. And I think that mind like water is all about mindfulness.

 

[Folke]

But I am pragmatic. Why not make money on something that I don't fully understand?

I agree with that - I've never made money from anything that made total sense to me

So, how do we get started?

I am already quite committed business-wise to various other things, and I keep my GTD activities (forums etc) mainly as a fun intellectual hobby that gives me a chance to breathe. I would be happy to participate on the basis of being some form of source of ideas and opinions, but I would have to think twice before participating as an active business partner or business advisor (because that's what I do for a living - exactly what I am escaping from here on the forums.)

How about you? Are you up for taking the commercial and administrative lead? Additional people?

 

[TesTeq]

Where are our customers?

How about you? Are you up for taking the commercial and administrative lead? Additional people?

My only concern is that I haven't noticed anybody here saying "What a great idea!" during all these discussions about multidimentional contexts or questionable GTD foundations. Probably GTD Forum is not our target market! So... where are our customers?

 

[Folke]

My only concern is that I haven't noticed anybody here saying "What a great idea!" during all these discussions about multidimentional contexts or questionable GTD foundations. Probably GTD Forum is not our target market! So... where are our customers?

Indeed. Well, they may very well turn out to be our customers in the end, why not, but what we need right now is not customers; what we would need right now is active collaborators in the creative process - to create a design that many potential customers will like when they see it. Seeing is believing.

Creating is always difficult. Consuming, on the other hand, saying yes or no, is easy. As consumers we do not like to create. We tend to say it is too complicated. And so do I in most areas - cooking, for example. I find it easy enough to put stuff in my mouth mouth and say "good" or "not so good", but if you try to discuss with me why it is good or not good, or if you try to discuss with me even more specifically whether we should reduce the amount of salt, add some coriander seeds and maybe grind them first, and then maybe fry the meat at a slightly higher temperature with less mustard, I would probably just say "it sounds too complicated", even though the proposed food might be even simpler to cook and nicer to eat than the original recipe.

A collaborative creative project, such as this one, is a bit like trying to get a bunch of chefs to start a restaurant - to analyze and agree - in words - on what kind of flavors, textures and impressions to create. It will probably not be easy to find those additional chefs and to form a verbalized vision that we can share.

In addition, money will be required sooner or later. I imagine the cost might well be about a million dollars, if all work is salaried, to even just get a me-too/rip-off/clone service on its feet and on the market. I figure there would be no additional cost for the extra benefits that I had in mind - they are mainly simplifications, but still. Someone will have to front up money for the development before the end consumers will have a chance to see for themselves and say yes or no. And any of the other players could easily simplify/improve their already existing product any time. Although I doubt that they will do so in an all-out, decisive, focused way there is always a risk that they will beat us to it or at least undermine our potential.

 

[TesTeq]

We need a vision - not a focus group.

A collaborative creative project, such as this one, is a bit like trying to get a bunch of chefs to start a restaurant - to analyze and agree - in words - on what kind of flavors, textures and impressions to create. It will probably not be easy to find those additional chefs and to form a verbalized vision that we can share.

There is an old Polish saying: "Gdzie kucharek sześć, tam nie ma co jeść!" (literally "Where there are six cooks, there is nothing to eat.", means "Too many cooks spoil the broth.")

There was one cook at Apple, one cook at Tesla, one cook at Nozbe, but many cooks at Microsoft, Blackberry or Yahoo...

We need a vision - not a focus group.

 

[Folke]

We need a vision - not a focus group.

Well, here is my vision (highly tentative):

Take the whole wisdom of GTD and free it from the limitations of paper. Make it easy, in one app, to let your aspirations and plans evolve gradually over time as a result of convenient ongoing reviewing, and allow you to conveniently identify and check off the ripe stuff at the tip of the iceberg as you go.

Or more specifically:

1) Make it possible to keep ALL action-type stuff in one single app without drowning in it
2) In other words, allow you to enter every single thought of what you will do or might do, definitely or maybe, near-future or long-term, important or unimportant etc etc in one single app
3) Allow you to organize all this effectively (essentially as per GTD)
4) Make it easy for you to keep the tip of the iceberg clearly visible (i.e. current Next actions etc), uncluttered by all the futures and maybes etc
5) Make it easy to review and evolve your plans for any chosen single "part" of your life (project, AoR, long-term objectives etc) - from the tip of the iceberg and into the depths of it.
6) Make it easy to find suitable actions to do in "any" given situation
7) Make it easy to manually-contextually batch actions in advance into little groups of actions to be tentatively done together in one single go.

 

[TesTeq]

How is your approach different?

1) Make it possible to keep ALL action-type stuff in one single app without drowning in it
2) In other words, allow you to enter every single thought of what you will do or might do, definitely or maybe, near-future or long-term, important or unimportant etc etc in one single app
3) Allow you to organize all this effectively (essentially as per GTD)
4) Make it easy for you to keep the tip of the iceberg clearly visible (i.e. current Next actions etc), uncluttered by all the futures and maybes etc
5) Make it easy to review and evolve your plans for any chosen single "part" of your life (project, AoR, long-term objectives etc) - from the tip of the iceberg and into the depths of it.
6) Make it easy to find suitable actions to do in "any" given situation
7) Make it easy to manually-contextually batch actions in advance into little groups of actions to be tentatively done together in one single go.

Let's try Nozbe:
1) I can enter all my thoughts into Nozbe's inbox.
2) I can assign dates and labels to Projects, I can manually change the order Projects and Actions.
3) I can assign Actions to Contexts.
4) I can mark Actions with a star as a tip of the iceberg marker.
5) As far as I know Nozbe is a tactical weapon. Other equipment is needed for higher levels of planning.
6) I can filter actions by contexts, labels, Projects etc.
7) I can use labels, contexts or stars to group actions.

I don't suggest that Nozbe is perfect but it manages actions according to your vision.

I am sure that OmniFocus enthusiasts would be able to similarly specify how your vision is implemented in their favourite tool.

The point is: all software apps implement GTD in a similar way. How is your approach different?

 

[Folke]

Let's try Nozbe:
1) I can enter all my thoughts into Nozbe's inbox.
2) I can assign dates and labels to Projects, I can manually change the order Projects and Actions.
3) I can assign Actions to Contexts.
4) I can mark Actions with a star as a tip of the iceberg marker.
5) As far as I know Nozbe is a tactical weapon. Other equipment is needed for higher levels of planning.
6) I can filter actions by contexts, labels, Projects etc.
7) I can use labels, contexts or stars to group actions.

I don't suggest that Nozbe is perfect but it manages actions according to your vision.

I am sure that OmniFocus enthusiasts would be able to similarly specify how your vision is implemented in their favourite tool.

The point is: all software apps implement GTD in a similar way. How is your approach different?

I think maybe one way of rephrasing, or clarifying, the earlier approach ("vision") would be to say that I want to put the emphasis on "vertical integration" (horizons of focus) rather than "horizontal integration" (in and out of inboxes and reference and colleagues etc). It seems most apps (and most users) emphasize the latter. I am quite sure I am not the only one in the world who would like to have more of the former - and we have no app looking after our needs in particular.

I think your answers to the 7 statements are all beside the point - either I haven't expressed myself clearly enough or you haven't read it carefully enough, for example: What on earth does the inbox (#1) have to do with being able to keep an immense number of tasks on file without drowning in them on a daily basis? And so on.

But you are perfectly right that you can get by reasonably well with most apps. I current use Doit. It has a few hierarchical levels that I can use for goals, projects etc. and it has some tagging capabilities etc for contexts and so on. It could be improved and simplified, but it does the job (or most of it).

As I said in an earlier post, it would be so much easier for any of the existing apps to become a bit better at "vertical integration" than it would be to start up a new company and have to replicate/reinvent all the standard stuff just to be able to add a few nice extra touches.

 

[Oogiem]

Take the whole wisdom of GTD and free it from the limitations of paper. Make it easy, in one app, to let your aspirations and plans evolve gradually over time as a result of convenient ongoing reviewing, and allow you to conveniently identify and check off the ripe stuff at the tip of the iceberg as you go.

Or more specifically:

1) Make it possible to keep ALL action-type stuff in one single app without drowning in it
2) In other words, allow you to enter every single thought of what you will do or might do, definitely or maybe, near-future or long-term, important or unimportant etc etc in one single app
3) Allow you to organize all this effectively (essentially as per GTD)
4) Make it easy for you to keep the tip of the iceberg clearly visible (i.e. current Next actions etc), uncluttered by all the futures and maybes etc
5) Make it easy to review and evolve your plans for any chosen single "part" of your life (project, AoR, long-term objectives etc) - from the tip of the iceberg and into the depths of it.
6) Make it easy to find suitable actions to do in "any" given situation
7) Make it easy to manually-contextually batch actions in advance into little groups of actions to be tentatively done together in one single go.

Sounds like the exact description of Omnifocus.

1) I keep EVERYTHING in that one app that I am committed to doing now, plan to do sometime, want to do when I have time/money or dream about doing in this lifetime. My projects in OF range from knit a Dr. Who Bigger on the Inside Scarf (with a link to the pattern on Ravelry for that scarf) to Remove old Apple cellar and rebuild a new one in that location, or Learn to play mandolin or Climb Mt. Lamborn. I have stuff that is small and simple (call dealer and get truck in for service) to big and complex (Design and program LambTracker system for flock management)

2) yep every thought about something I want to do goes into OF. If the idea originates in some other "inbox", like a paper note I took, then when I process my paper inbox I will enter in that data to OF. I can clip out the projects or even individual actions from all my electronic inputs whether they are e-mail, web pages or anything easily with command keys. I can then decide where those items belong, either into existing projects or as new ones.

3) I can easily organize my ideas by area of focus by sorting them within folders. I can also look at projects and ideas across AOFs by proper searching until I get the view I want and then saving that as a custom perspective

4) By setting next actions appropriately and spending a bit of time on setting up custom perspectives I can see just the trees in front of me (next actions by context) or the forest (projects by AOF or by other higher levels or projects that relate to a single goal even if they cross AOFs or any other criteria I set up)

5) Again by using perspectives properly and fine tuning the review time for individual projects I can review current projects, only those related to a single AOF or goal, or go into every single one in depth depending on what I feel I need to do at each weekly review or as I am working on my lists during the week.

6) If I have done proper project planning on my active projects then my context view has actions that will make a concrete step towards completion for every project I am working on sorted into my own personal buckets that work for how I do things. I am never without anything to do and I can easily see if I have been neglecting a context and need to move into it and get the items done that are in there.

7) I can set up groups of actions within a project that are related and need to be done together using the hierarchy of subprojects OF provides. However, I find that proper selection of contexts is a better way to handle this task and I will create, use and then delete contexts as my life, needs and project mix dictate. It's easy and simple to add a new context, change the context of any particular action or for all actions within a larger grouping or to delete a context.

I see no need for anything better in terms of software. I've been reading this thread but I disagree strongly that there are no existing tools that support what you are describing. However, I will agree that there are no tools on the Windows or Linux platforms that do it as neatly and easily as Omnifocus, that's my Mac bias showing. However if you really feel that you need it then the solution is to switch platforms to one that has the software you need with the features you require.

What I will say though is that it's take several years to really grok all that Omnifocus can deliver in terms of support for managing my GTD system. Just really getting to a deep understanding of the power of perspectives takes a while.

So rather than try to re-invent the wheel why don't you make it a project to try out the IMNSHO best GTD software out there, Omnifocus, for at least 6 months, and then come back and see if you haven't been able to do everything you think is missing from software tools in that one package.

 

[notmuch]

....2) In other words, allow you to enter every single thought of what you will do or might do, definitely or maybe, near-future or long-term, important or unimportant etc etc in one single app....

One of my biggest epiphanies about my GTD system was a subtle shift in focus in dealing with new "stuff". My initial focus had morphed into, "How can a fit this into my GTD app?"...one place for everything!

I shifted my initial focus to: "How can I close this open loop?" The answer might be the GTD app, but often it is a strategically placed post-it note or physical item, a Siri-generated reminder, a calendar entry, an immediate text, email or call, a photo (one of my favorite inboxes)... most of these may never make into my GTD app, but they generally leave breadcrumbs if needed. The goal is trusting the open loop is closed, not having a "complete" GTD app.

Software "automation" can be seductive... it certainly caused me to lose focus on this important point. YMMV.

 

[Folke]

So rather than try to re-invent the wheel why don't you make it a project to try out the IMNSHO best GTD software out there, Omnifocus ...

Yes, I've actually played with that thought, but it seems a bit extreme to get a Mac just for that. I definitely would not spend any money trying to develop a new app. I am quite optimistic that things will improve soon, and many apps are reasonably close.

The way I see it the solutions are very simple and hopefully not too far away. For vertical focus, all it really takes is a simple hierarchical structure (like Google Drive etc), where your levels can represent projects, AoRs, goals or whatever you like. And you need a way to "draw the line" somehow in those "folders" - above the line is the "active" stuff to be visible on your active next lists, project lists etc, and the stuff below the line is the future "pipeline" (i.e subsequent tasks aka "project support" tasks, someday/maybe, ticklers etc). I have 80% of that in Doit now using workarounds, and they are bringing some improvement before Christmas.

For context filtering the main missing thing, that Doit, Nirvana, and Zendone have all said they will implement, is a NOT filter (but the question is when). They already have multiple contexts, and Doit has both multiple contexts and a separate context field for list grouping. So it is quite close.

And so on. Quite close, and I can get by with workarounds. But it is easy to see that none of the developers have their hearts and minds in these areas. They are much more interested in horizontal inter-app integration - getting stuff in an out (to email systems, Google maps, what have you) rather than help you review your commitments in relation to their larger purpose.

One of my biggest epiphanies about my GTD system was a subtle shift in focus in dealing with new "stuff". My initial focus had morphed into, "How can a fit this into my GTD app?"...one place for everything!

I shifted my initial focus to: "How can I close this open loop?" The answer might be the GTD app, but often it is a strategically placed post-it note or physical item, a Siri-generated reminder, a calendar entry, an immediate text, email or call, a photo (one of my favorite inboxes)... most of these may never make into my GTD app, but they generally leave breadcrumbs if needed. The goal is trusting the open loop is closed, not having a "complete" GTD app.

Software "automation" can be seductive... it certainly caused me to lose focus on this important point. YMMV.

If I am understanding you correctly I agree completely. I also have no problem at all with using external alarm clocks or whatever it takes. The common obsession in app forums about dubious "niceties" like Google maps integration, snoozers and buzzers and what not is driving me nuts.

I am not striving for having new kinds of stuff or bells and whistles in my app. What I am trying to do (or rather what I am doing already but would like to be able to do without cumbersome workarounds) is the same as I was hoping to be able to do in the first place when I moved from paper to electronic lists about 15 years ago, which was to put all the tasks from my current lists, projects etc etc together in one app and be able to both read (review/evolve) these plans for a selected area, project etc. and also be able to (alternately) view only the currently "active" tasks across the board per context etc and select suitable things and do them. And most of this I can do even now, albeit with some annoying limitations.

But it disturbs me that developers have different priorities ;-) They often focus on more "trendy-techy" stuff and on time-management features than on GTD. And they do not seem to share my (or GTD's) reading/reviewing/evolving approach to planning. Despite their stated allegiance to GTD they often seem to work just as much from a mindset where task definitions and everything are highly predetermined and you should not really have to review your lists at all, just enter stuff and preprogram it to jump out automatically at predetermined times and/or GPS locations. I find this annoying.

 

[cwoodgold]

2) In other words, allow you to enter every single thought of what you will do or might do, definitely or maybe, near-future or long-term, important or unimportant etc etc in one single app

How about an app that would use sort-of artificial intelligence software to imitate (more or less) what David Allen would do if you were to hire him to stand over your shoulder for a year telling you what to do (as described in the book Willpower by Baumeister and Tierney).

It could ask you questions like "Is there anything on your mind right now?" and "What would be the first step to getting that done?" and "Is that really a single physical action that you know how to do?" and "Where would you be when you do that?" and "How much time do you have available right now where you are?" and so on. It could tell you "It's time to start the weekly review now" -- or not bother saying that and just start asking the types of questions you should be asking yourself during that review. And so on. It should have options like "Don't bother asking me any more whether it's a single physical action" and "switch to advanced mode" and "shut up -- I'll take control from here". It could ask you now and then whether you're happy with the style of interaction.

This might dovetail with another idea I've been thinking about. I read that hospitals have too many alarms, such that the staff start ignoring the alarms. The article said that airplane cockpits are well-designed to bring attention to the more urgent information while providing the less urgent information in a less distracting format, but that hospitals don't do that.

So here's my idea. For each type of thing that might be automatically detected (UV feel out of patient's arm) or triggered by a clock (time to administer medicine), you input an estimate of how bad it could be if the thing isn't done, how long it will take to do the thing, and either the time remaining until a deadline or the probability per unit time of a bad result occurring. Then you get software to display the things perhaps in order of most urgent (calculated based on a combination of those things) as a bar chart perhaps, with the more urgent things sticking up higher. Maybe they'd always be in the same order so they're easier to recognize but you'd notice the ones sticking up higher. You can also use your judgement: read the top few and decide which to do. And you can tweak the input so it matches your intuition better.

With a glance, you could get a feel for whether there were a lot of pretty urgent things piling up such that you might run out of time trying to do them all at once. Also for extremely urgent things, you'd have actual alarms going off and blinking lights.

Not only hospitals but ordinary people might benefit from software like that.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Software "automation" can be seductive... it certainly caused me to lose focus on this important point.

I think that is far and away the single most cogent point made in this entire thread, hands down, bar none. Well said.