I think it was Merlin commenting on a task manager that offered “Very low” as a task priority with something along the lines of “this is what I’ve been missing - a robust way to taxonomize the things I shouldn’t be doing”. 
2 Likes
GTD works equally well with or without ever considering context. I don’t know anything about the Newport system, so I can’t suggest a more meaningful distinction to make in the comparison of the two. But I don’t think context would be the right one on the GTD side. It’s an optional part of the system, not an essential part of it.
1 Like
I would tend to agree, with the caveat that - especially if we’re talking about “life” instead of just “work” - “status” is completely useless without “context”.
COVID and work-from-home has been the great leveler of contexts. GTD’s example contexts such as “home”, “work”, “computer”, etc. are all about 10-15 feet away from each other in that scenario, so the default contexts are far less useful for most people.
But that doesn’t mean they’re semantically irrelevant.
Even with things like ubiquitous shopping from home, “store” is still a useful context for me. Make a list, and next time I’m shopping on my computer I’ll reference it. You could argue that some of those things are 2-minute actions, but when you factor in costs for shipping and supply chain issues that ceases to be the case in my experience.
“Spouse / partner” is a useful context if you live with somebody, have any interest at all in coordinating activities / maintaining a relationship, and don’t want to be having ad-hoc conversations all day when you should be doing something else.
I think Cal is restricting his system primarily to work activities, which in today’s world definitely flattens out contexts - but it also leaves all the personal stuff to be managed by some other, unspecified system.
And it’s not like GTD is completely status-free. Things tossed in ticklers, things scheduled for a day/time, “someday/maybe” to capture things that you’re not actually committed to doing, etc.
Which brings us back to that axis of separation.
From what I’ve read the differentiation, to me, seems to be more when the decision-making is happening - and the differentiation is more one-way. Cal seems to be arguing that decision making should be happening prescriptively ahead of time (“tasks you’re doing tomorrow”, weekly time blocking, etc.), whereas GTD doesn’t have an opinion on the matter other than to note that you should have a complete set of lists, ideally sorted in ways that are relevant to you, from which to make decisions.
Basically, it feels like Cal’s system is a limited-scope, more prescriptive version of the broader GTD set of principles. Or as software people would say, a “special case”.
And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that - although it does make it more fascinating to hear him rail against GTD. 
2 Likes
Yes, you’re right, Cal’s system is definitely work focused. He says NOT to time block plan your personal/family time.
1 Like
Running a business is a complex endeavor.
Like heart surgery, or building a bridge, or running a nuclear power plant.
Claiming that objectives, goals, projects, actions, lists, and contexts are not enough to run a business is, “by design”, 100% correct. Like claiming that they are not enough to do heart surgery.
There are many “layers” that run “above” GTD in running, for example, a manufacturing business - business planning, financial management, resource & capital allocation, working capital allocation, cash management, accounting, purchasing, accounts payable, production planning & control, billing, accounts receivable, materials requirements planning, distribution requirements planning, logistics, transportation planning & control, production, quality assurance, plant maintenance, organization design, financial reporting, performance management, hiring, compensating, developing, project planning and control, etc.
Obviously, these “processes” are somewhat different, depending on the type of business. For example - oil & gas exploration, drilling, and production, refining, chemicals, petrochemicals, paper, steel, automotive assembly, combustion engines, power generation, transmission, distribution, food, beef, apparel, food retail, bookstores, retail banking, investment banking, insurance, computer chips design, manufacturing, computer hardware design, manufacturing, sales, distribution (…,), etc.
The same applies to heart surgery, vaccine development, manufacturing, distribution, video streaming, music streaming, credit cards, peripheral artery disease surgery, etc.
So, yeah.
Neither GTD (D Allen), or COD (C Pullein), or CCC (C Newport), or CODE (Thiago Forte), MBO (?), etc, are “enough” to run a business - any business, nor to do heart surgery.
Neither are “empowerment”, “leadership”, “team work”, “buzzword i”, “acronym k”.
Or running a zettelkasten enough to write a best seller.
At all.
5 Likes
But it does not hurt the business (any business), if the Employees are using a kind of a Management Tool, to get done with their tasks (on time)… 
2 Likes
It is about the question we’re trying to answer. Say I need a heart surgery. What is the question?
- Does the surgeon know what the next action is?
- What is in his “someday/maybe”?
- Are 99.9% of the patients alive 20 years after surgery, according to my GP?
Yes, that’s why we have pen and paper! 
And nobody here is claiming that any of those systems are enough to run a business, or to do heart surgery. We’re talking about what support / systems will help individual employees be the most productive, and the above (at least the ones I’m familiar with) are all personal productivity systems.
You’ll probably say the answer is:
and for the purposes of this discussion, unless I’m really, really missing something, you’re incorrect.
For the purposes of this discussion, we’re talking about things like what system(s) both the surgeon and the hospital that employs the surgeon can use to support the surgeon in being productive. That translates to metrics like surgeries performed per day, adequate time to maintain continuing education for recertification purposes, enough time for patient communication, etc.
“Long-term patient survival” isn’t even on the list. It’s part of the job, but it has almost nothing to do with the surgeon’s on-the-job productivity.
I would want to know, if the surgeon has a „free brain“, because he know that all his duties and tasks, beside the surgeries, are in a good order (e.g. because he uses GTD), or if he is so distracted from everything else in his live, that he is, during the surgery not thinking about the technic for the heart surgery, but about his Tax return he had to file, the gifts he had to buy for the next birthdays of his 12 family members, the research for his next book about the best steak receipts, or whatever…?!
2 Likes
I don’t know, the potentially preventable early loss of patients doesn’t seem to be especially productive of the surgeon’s skills, time, or the hospital’s resources. That is a bit tongue in cheek but not entirely.
That’s why I am a huge enemy of cc:, “Reply all”, etc. Honestly, when do you do actual work? Assuming your job title is not “email replier”.
1 Like
Agree 100%, but from where I sit it’s not managed as part of “personal productivity” or “employee productivity”.
It seems to me that things like survival rates over any term are likely more logically tied to (a) an individual surgeon’s skill, and (b) a specific set of surgical procedural best practices (reference “The Checklist Manifesto”) designed to minimize mistakes. Those things largely function independently of any given surgeon’s (or hospital’s) system for managing tasks/schedule.
This, right here. If the surgeon isn’t focusing on what’s in front of him because he’s distracted by literally anything else, that’s not the guy you want holding the knife.
2 Likes
A “productive” surgeon is one who saves lives, “corrects” health issues through surgery, when other non “invasive”
techniques will not do the job, who prolongs lives, …
A “productive” lawyer is one who draws good contracts, helps close good acquisitions, helps companies and individuals pay less taxes, while meeting legal requirements, etc.
A “productive” engineer is …
A “productive” business executive …
A “productive” investment banker …
A “productive” venture capitalist …
A “productive” scientist …
A productive plant operator, sales person, app developer …
GTDish systems are just one of many techniques, support systems, tools, knowledge systems, skills that a 21st century professional needs to master to be productive.
Important, relevant? Definitely.
Like anatomy, tax law, DNA mapping, anatomy, trigonometry, finite element structural analysis, Python, etc.
Bit overrated perhaps?
I think where I might differ some is that within an organization comprised of a minimum of 3 individuals, there is inevitably a synchronicity or interdependence between an individual’s actions and his or her impact on others. While certain activities may be independent and largely unaffected by the actions and decisions of others, in most instances one’s work is impacted by both individuals and the organization comprised of those individuals. In the case of the surgeon, there is an entire external infrastructure, e.g., medical schools, societies, ethics boards, etc., not to mention insurance companies and lawyers, which combine with the internal infrastructure of the hospital which encompasses hiring practices, best-practices, accountability, training, equipment and more than can be listed here. All of these affect the surgeon and in turn, the surgeon’s practices, skills, personality, and more have an impact on the hospital and patient outcomes.
I think this is fundamentally Newport’s main point. Individually we can do some things to improve our personal productivity but within an organization we are also dependent on what others do. What he is suggesting, and to the best of my ability is not addressed much by David Allen, is that more attention needs to be paid to the what organizations can do to assist with personal productivity. They are not mutually exclusive.
2 Likes
Sorry, I don’t get, what you want to express?
Of course there is more in the world, than GTD, to be “productive”, but what is your problem with GTD and similar “systems”?
It is not an eighter/or…!
2 Likes
DA does handle that some, with discussions of companies actually allowing employees time to circle back, close open loops, keep their systems updated, etc. - but I would agree that it’s not anywhere close to the focus of the system.
Yes, and AFAIK nobody here has ever claimed otherwise. Obviously there are dozens of things happening in the background of any business - but that’s not what we’re talking about.
We’re discussing the specific issue of time / attention demands, and the methods for optimizing one’s utilization of one’s time - whether those are personal productivity systems or organizational efforts to help individual employees allocate and use one’s time more efficiently.
3 Likes
Depends on who’s doing the rating, I guess.
I’m personally acquainted with a group of very busy, highly accomplished surgeons who would be glad to know how highly I rate GTD over, say, Python, tax law, or even anatomy. They rely on me to be as efficient as possible when helping them edit and submit publications, educate patients and residents, publicize their successes, and market their services.
2 Likes
Doing GTD is not only about doing work, it’s about defining work to do. GTD does not make the calls, the sales pitch, or fly the plane. But it can help an individual understand what is expected of them and have the necessary conversations to modify those commitments. There are other systems with very similar components called different names which were developed by people with different needs. GTD is the only one I know of that was honed through a long term consultancy and observation process outside of the individual creator’s needs.
5 Likes
My takeaway from this thread is that the Venn diagram of MPU listeners and people with many opinions on GTD is quite nearly a perfect circle.
16 Likes