The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
I had a great question from one of my coaching clients who happens to be familiar with
GTD [1]. He wondered whether a simpler version of Allen's work was possible, say one that fits the spirit of the
80/20 Principle, maybe even something like 90-20
[2]. The reasoning is that the system can seem overly complex, with a significant
barrier to entry.
So in IdeaMatt fashion I took this as a challenge and spent some time on an exercise of to figure out what's possible, given the various systems I've studied
[3]. My goal was to stay true to my understanding of the
the essential GTD habits, including workflow phases, processing and organizing (e.g., two minute rule, "sticky" inputs, and front-end decision making), and effective reminder systems. I wanted to look at as radical change as possible within these confines, rather than incremental adoption or simpler tools. (Note: A search for
"GTD lite" and the like turned up some nice thinking on the topic, but a good number addressed adoption/tools, and not necessarily a shift in the method itself
[4].) See below
[5] for others who have looked at this.
My conclusion: An 80-20 version
just ain't possible. This is both a testament to Allen's crisp system, as well as to the necessary rigor to back up the goal of a clear and focused mind. Following is a summary - you can read some background detail
below. but I wanted to share the resulting simplified approach. I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this...
A simplified GTD-compatible system (~70-80)
This is the best I could figure out without incorporating more (relatively) radical ideas
[3]. As in any simplification, there are serious
trade-offs, with the biggest risk being keeping things out of your head. Note: I've thrown in some percentages estimating amount of simplification:
- Collection: No change (capture everything, fixed # collecting points). Maybe maintain a single inbox for everything that you carry with you.
- Processing: Use the 5Ds: DELETE, DEPOSIT (file), DELEGATE, DO (two minute rule), DEFER. ~20% simpler
- Projects list: No change (master list of work requiring two or more steps).
- Calendar: No change. BUT:
- Actions: Schedule all actions on the calendar. No actions list, no contexts. 40%
- Waiting For: None; use the calendar. This means you do hard scheduling of all follow-ups. 20%
- Tickler: None; use the calendar. 0-30%
- Filing [6]: No labeler (gasp!) No change in reference and project files. 10%
- Someday/Maybe: None. 20%
- Checklists: None; schedule as recurring reminders in calendar (daily, weekly, etc.) 10%
- Agendas: None; keep with project materials (but OK to have "projects" for on-going meetings). 10%
- Weekly review: None (!); do incrementally via daily review, say the night before (a common best practice). Review daily: calendar ~one week out (gets actions, waiting for, reminders), mind sweep. Opportunistically: projects. 30%
Importantly, to make this work you'll have to have an electronic calendar. Otherwise there's too much work moving actions around. Also, using it for ticklers and waiting for items probably requires electronic reminding.
What I like about this: 1) Simple. The calendar does most everything, with support by the projects list (which I really wanted to get rid of - thoughts?). 2) Implements what Mark Forster calls
closed lists, which help to define limits on our work, a common complaint about GTD.
What I dislike: 1) Potentially too much forwarding of unfinished items. David Allen makes a strong argument for separate action lists. 2) Risk of cluttering up the mind, esp. from removing the weekly review, Someday/Maybe, and checklists.
Interestingly, once this emerged I recognized similarity to other calendar-centric systems like
Bit Literacy (with its scheduling of all actions) and
Do It Tomorrow (with its closed lists).
What do you think? Are you using anything similar? Should we create a name for this? ;-)
References
- [1] As usual, I want to be very clear that I have no association with David Allen or his company. His work has been a huge influence, but I continue to combine the best practices from many sources (which I share here) into my work.
- [2] I've found it's not uncommon for people to be confused about the numbers. For example, they don't need to add to 100. This means you should watch out for misleading graphics. For example, do a Google image search for 80-20 and look for pie charts. Regarding the concept itself, here's a nice summary from Richard Koch's book:
Overall, keep in mind that a few things are always much more important than most things. Keep the vital few in the forefront of your brain. Keep reviewing whether you are spending more time and effort on the vital few rather than on the trivial many.
- [3] You can read about some of those quite different from GTD here: Some thoughts from the book "Getting Organized" by Chris Crouch, A GTD-er's perspective on Mission Control's "Productivity and Accomplishment" workshop, How to process stuff - A comparison of TRAF, the "Four Ds", and GTD's workflow diagram, and Some thoughts on the book "The Instant Productivity Toolkit".
- [4] That's not to say that simplifying tools doesn't provide an opportunity. There's a nice discussion of this angle in Leo's post Simplifying David Allen’s Complicated GTD Setup.
- [5] Additional thinking on simplified GTD:
- [6] Note: Many systems use an action-folder or Kanban approach, but that's a big change from action lists. Examples: The Anxiety of Getting Things Done and Ask E.T.: Thinking and Paper (scroll to "This is a follow-up").
A sketch of my analysis
This is a bit rough, but I hope it's useful to your comments or critiques. Broken down by workflow phase.
- collect
- skip: no. o/w don't know incoming work, clutter (paper, mental), leads to missing work
- just one bucket? (impossible)
- don't do mind sweep (head full)
- reduce (just manages, but still need collection)
- process
- skip: no. o/w work unidentified, falls through cracks, etc. maybe combine conceptually with organize?
- FAT (sure, but less rigorous). the problem: what to do with Act? must go to: do (now), delegate (other), defer (later)
- organize
- skip: no. need places; o/w clutter
- filing: radical: one file (Gmail model), organized say by date. prob: hard to find? time not always best way to index -> very difficult to find paper related to projects
- filing: no labeler (10%)
- all actions on calendar? prob: usual GTD, plus project actions hard to track?
- no projects list, say use project folders themselves for list. prob: not all projects need folders. have to carry folders instead of single list. hard to remind/review next steps
- no waiting for, say use tickler. prob: none?
- no tickler, say use calender. prob: none?
- no someday/maybe: yes, if don't mind not tracking (mind fills)
- no checklists: yes, but on mind. maybe put in calendar (daily, weekly, monthly, ...)
- no agendas (keep with projects)
- review
- skip daily tickler: yes, if using calendar
- skip daily calendar: no. prob: would have to look 2 weeks ahead every day, say night before
- skip daily actions: no, but simpler if all scheduled on calendar
- skip daily waiting for: yes, say if on calendar
- skip weekly mind sweep: yes, if done daily
- skip weekly someday/maybe: yes, if not tracking
- skip weekly projects & plans: maybe. prob: projects not up to date, actions not happening, blind-sided by problems
- skip weekly calendar: yes, if done daily
- skip weekly actions: yes, if done daily
- skip action support: yes, but might slip through cracks
- do
- put on calendar: see above
Return to Article