Tell me about your GTD implementation

Folke said:
BUT: Every methodology that is based on using lists or notes also implicitly uses the "out of your head" premise, even in those cases where they do not emphasize it or even mention it.
Click to expand...

Yes but GTD is the only approach I have ever encountered that suggests you should get everything out of your head that means something to you. I'm not saying you are wrong for liking or identifying with another part of the system personally. But in terms of what makes GTD different, the "everything" part makes a key difference and is what sets GTD apart.

Am I wrong? Are there multiple systems that recommend this get-it-all-out-of-your-head approach rather than just writing the "important" things down? If so I am curious as to what they are.
 
bcmyers2112 said:
Am I wrong? Are there multiple systems that recommend this get-it-all-out-of-your-head approach rather than just writing the "important" things down? If so I am curious as to what they are.
Click to expand...

I think you are probably right: Off the top of my head I cannot recall anyone else who stresses that. It has always seemed to me that everyone takes this for granted. It is a tacit assumption that you must write your stuff down in order to be able to organize it (classify it, group it, prioritize it, whatever each particular consultant recommends) - no one seems to be suggesting that you do this planning in your head. You might want to check out Mark Forster or Stephen Covey or any of the others who write on the subject. But I think David Allen is the only one who emphasizes it. And apparently it is good that someone did, as it is perhaps not as obvious to people as most consultants seem to have believed.

bcmyers2112 said:
I'm not saying you are wrong for liking or identifying with another part of the system personally.
Click to expand...

I know. I just want to make it clear that I do not at all dislike all those things that people are referring to - processing your mail, getting stuff out of your head, wording your actions clearly etc etc - I am totally for it. And think it is good that DA mentioned all those things in his work. It is just that I believe that they are timeless pieces of advice that are not in any way unique for GTD - your grandmother would tell you the same thing (and grandmothers probably have for centuries). I have never heard anyone anywhere (consultant, philosopher, grandmother) contest those principles. They seem to be universally and tacitly understood.

What I am trying to argue is my perception that the things that really stand out as different or controversial about GTD, things where other consultants take entirely different views, are in the areas of using dates and priorities, and the whole approach to select the action in the moment rather than pre-plan it. Do you disagree with that?
 
Folke said:
What I am trying to argue is my perception that the things that really stand out as different or controversial about GTD, things where other consultants take entirely different views, are in the areas of using dates and priorities, and the whole approach to select the action in the moment rather than pre-plan it. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Even DA himself has acknowledged that some people may only adopt one or two recommendations from GTD (for example, using a tickler file or the two-minute rule) and that's OK. If the aspect of GTD that resonates most strongly with you is avoiding using your calendar as a to-do list and that helps you, I think that's great.

For me, the core of GTD is the get-it-all-out-of-your-head piece. From that POV, the approaches described by Chirmer, Longstreet and others can still fit in with that even if in some respects they "deviate" from by-the-book GTD.

All I can say is that I buy into the idea of keeping things out of my head to keep myself clear and present in the moment, and un-stressed as is possible (and appropriate). To me, it's the core reason to do GTD. Some people may feel otherwise, and that's OK. I'm not out to convert others to my way of thinking, just to share my perspective in the hope that it may be useful to someone.
 
Folke said:
your grandmother would tell you the same thing (and grandmothers probably have for centuries). I have never heard anyone anywhere (consultant, philosopher, grandmother) contest those principles. They seem to be universally and tacitly understood.
Click to expand...

Not true. My grandmother (or mother) would never tell me: "write down everything that draws your attention - every open loop". She would tell me: "write down everything that I think should draw your attention". That's THE BIG DIFFERENCE. David Allen does not care if you don't take shower for a month if you're feeling OK with it.
 
bcmyers2112 said:
I don't know what a "soft" deadline is. To me a deadline or due date is real or it is not; missing it comes with negative consequences significant enough that blowing it off is not an option.
Click to expand...

Gardening has a lot of soft deadlines. Missing them has real consequences, but they're consequences that increase slowly as the days of delay increase, and it may be many weeks before the task isn't worth doing at all.

Example: Pole snap beans will keep on making more beans until frost. If you get them in three weeks late, you may get six weeks of beans instead of nine weeks, before they freeze out, but you still get beans. If you're ten weeks late, don't bother.
 
bcmyers2112 said:
I don't know what a "soft" deadline is. To me a deadline or due date is real or it is not; missing it comes with negative consequences significant enough that blowing it off is not an option.
Click to expand...
Farming has a lot of soft deadlines.

For example giving the lambs their first vaccinations can happen anytime between 8-12 weeks after birth. But once you give that first shot then the second booster is time critical, must happen 3 weeks later give or take a day or 2 at most. So a soft deadline can become hard for the next action.
 
Valid point, Gardener and Oogie,

Those things do exist. And this is why I like to use my "attention colors" rather than use soft dates.

But for everybody else here (I hope I am not making it over-complicated) you could perhaps distinguish between THREE levels of "hardness":
  1. A hard, true deadline (core GTD style; "hard landscape") is a time that is clearly defined and is beyond your own unilateral control. Example: submit some documents to some authority by Nov 30 at 4 pm.
  2. "Gardener dates/priorities", things that are in fact truly time-critical but do not have a particular fixed date. (I am sure we all have lots of those. I do. Those are the ones I mark with a red color when I feel that am running dangerously late.)
  3. Things that are neither time-critical nor externally anchored in any way, but which some people feel need to be scheduled anyway just as a means to attain "efficiency". (Some use that that extensively. I don't use it at all.)
The discussion in this thread has been mainly about the third type - reserving time for defined purposes. Some say it works for them - that's great. Personally I rather cut down on my availability to other people. But it all boils down to the same thing: we all need to make sure we have time to do what we need to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top