As I scour the internet looking for productivty enhancements (I'm always looking), I keep finding bloggers who are just now stumbling across GTD (Getting Things Done) and are wondering what it is, implying that it's a cult, or are telling others, incorrectly, what it is.
In short, it is a fantastic system developed by David Allen for capturing all the tasks that one has to do, putting them in the form of a next (physical) action that must be done, doing it - or putting it in one's context-based system until one is in a position to accomplish it. It is a system that helps one accomplish what must be done and does so in a stress-free method. It is not a cult, but does have a lot of followers because it works! But, to be official, we need an ultimate definition.
So, from David himself, here is the new official definition of GTD.
Hehe... sometimes ignorance is just plain stupid. What fascinates me is the number of people who are on the Internet, have this wonderful collection of tools... and still make assumptions without looking it up on a basic search engine.
Just putting in "GTD" into various search engines and you'll find David Allen's website mentioned as follows:
Google - 1st entry
Yahoo - 4th entry
MSN Search - 4th entry
Excite - 1st entry (although it was for the Outlook add-in page on David's site)
Hehe.. a "GTD Cult"... pretty soon we'll be known for carrying around index cards, wearing shirts from the Open Loops store and shouting out "Git-It-Dun" (hrm.. may post that one over on the slogan page).
Posted by: Charles Martin | May 25, 2005 at 12:05 PM
You mean we don't? :)
Posted by: Bert | May 28, 2005 at 10:26 PM
As a fervent evangelist for GTD (though not a particularly consistent practitioner), I'd never send anyone to that definition. It's terribly full of buzzword-bingo jargon. At best my friends would write it off as another Dilbert-management fad; at worst they'd write it off as a cult.
It's odd, because the book is written much more clearly, as are most of the fan sites I've seen.
Posted by: morfydd | June 03, 2005 at 01:07 PM
You reflect what I've heard from many: It's too PR, like it was written by copywriters for an ad. David, however, has taken many suggestions and has indicated that the definition may change in the future. For the meantime, however, this will remain the official definition.
Posted by: Bert | June 03, 2005 at 01:19 PM