There are phrases that start out with good intentions but end up becoming dogma. “The tool doesn’t matter” is one of them. GTD and personal productivity coaches often say this to remind you that it’s the method that counts, not the app you use to implement it. And they’re right in what they mean. But not in what they say.
Because the tool does matter. A lot.
Imagine you decide to practice the GTD methodology with a tool that isn’t designed for it. You can do it, just as you can hammer a nail with the handle of a screwdriver. But every time you process your inbox, you’ll have to keep track of the methods you’ve improvised yourself. Every time you do your weekly review, you’ll have to “jump” from one place to another to see if the information is up to date. A tool like that doesn’t guide you; it forces you to adapt to it. That adds an extra cognitive load on top of the GTD practice itself. And, paradoxically, cognitive load is exactly what the GTD methodology is supposed to minimize as much as possible.
Now imagine that your tool works perfectly well for GTD, but you find it ugly, clunky, or unintuitive. It has nothing to do with the method, that’s true. But every time you open it, there’s a little friction. A subtle resistance. And that resistance, building up day after day, turns into rejection. You’re not rejecting the method; you’re rejecting the tool. However, in your mind, the method and the tool have become the same thing.
Finally, imagine you decide to practice GTD with pen and paper. It’s not a bad idea; some people do it with discipline and achieve good results, and paper has advantages that no app has fully managed to replicate. But as your system grows (more projects, more contexts, more references), maintaining it becomes a job in itself. Updating lists, searching for a note buried between pages, relocating tasks that have changed status… What should be a weekly review turns into an excavation. The methodology hasn’t failed; the tool has. And when the tool fails, the temptation to abandon the system is almost inevitable.
To make things worse, the phrase “the tool doesn’t matter” throws two different concepts into the same category: the tool and the framework.
A tool is something external that helps you achieve what you want. Todoist, Notion, a spreadsheet, a notebook. You can use it to practice GTD, but the methodology isn’t in the tool—it’s in your head. You’re the one who has to remember the structure, follow the conventions, and maintain the system. A framework is something else entirely. It’s an environment specifically designed to embody a method, a system, or a way of working. It doesn’t require you to remember how GTD works because it’s built on the methodology—it has it embedded. You don’t use a tool adapted to the methodology; you operate directly within the methodology itself.
Notion is a tool. FacileThings is a framework. The difference isn’t in the price or the interface; it’s in who bears the burden of maintaining the system.
So the next time someone tells you that the tool doesn’t matter, understand what they mean: there’s no magic tool that will do the work for you. But don’t make the mistake of taking the phrase literally. It matters that the tool supports the method. It matters that it doesn’t create friction. It matters that it rows in the same direction you’re heading. It matters that it’s, as much as possible, invisible: that it disappears so you can see only the underlying system.
The perfect tool goes unnoticed. But its absence certainly doesn’t.
9 comments
This is my favorite article yet. The distinction (tool vs. framework) is at the heart of every GTD practitioner who gets the job done but LONGS for better. FacileThings continues to push for better so folks like me can benefit… and love our work/life.
This is my favorite article yet. The distinction (tool vs. framework) is at the heart of every GTD practitioner who gets the job done but LONGS for better. FacileThings continues to push for better so folks like me can benefit… and love our work/life.
I'd like to echo Michael here.
I fully agree. FacileThings continues to craft a tool that empowers users by building on the tried-and-true GTD framework.
I encourage the FacileThings team to remember that David Allen repeatedly states in his book, seminars, podcasts, and articles that GTD is intended to be customized by the user. However, this customization should not disrupt the core principles of the GTD framework (capture, clarify, organize, etc.).
This is the delicate balance that FacileThings must continuously maintain. The application must stay relevant, modern, and approachable, while at the same time maintain adhereance to a framework originally designed for paper in a modern digital world.
A large number of "productivity applications" have simply given up on the framework or are over-dialing on user customization, offering endless options that let users build their own framework and workflow, or not at all. This works for a large demographic, but one cannot ignore that so many are building from scratch what FacileThings has built from the ground up.
It is my sincere hope that the new version of FacileThings provides the continued structure of GTD, but also provides a means for its user to shift and cutomize to their needs and standards within the framework guidelines. For example, "urgent" in the current iteration of FacileThings is meaningless to me, and "energy" is one of those contexts that I can never get right. I'd prefer to have those features be toggles I can turn on and off, so I don't even see what I don't want to use.
This seems like the best approach: allow users to customize their experience based on the application's tools and features, but never lose the guidelines and structure of GTD.
I'd like to echo Michael here.
I fully agree. FacileThings continues to craft a tool that empowers users by building on the tried-and-true GTD framework.
I encourage the FacileThings team to remember that David Allen repeatedly states in his book, seminars, podcasts, and articles that GTD is intended to be customized by the user. However, this customization should not disrupt the core principles of the GTD framework (capture, clarify, organize, etc.).
This is the delicate balance that FacileThings must continuously maintain. The application must stay relevant, modern, and approachable, while at the same time maintain adhereance to a framework originally designed for paper in a modern digital world.
A large number of "productivity applications" have simply given up on the framework or are over-dialing on user customization, offering endless options that let users build their own framework and workflow, or not at all. This works for a large demographic, but one cannot ignore that so many are building from scratch what FacileThings has built from the ground up.
It is my sincere hope that the new version of FacileThings provides the continued structure of GTD, but also provides a means for its user to shift and cutomize to their needs and standards within the framework guidelines. For example, "urgent" in the current iteration of FacileThings is meaningless to me, and "energy" is one of those contexts that I can never get right. I'd prefer to have those features be toggles I can turn on and off, so I don't even see what I don't want to use.
This seems like the best approach: allow users to customize their experience based on the application's tools and features, but never lose the guidelines and structure of GTD.
Hi Michael,
Glad you liked it. There are many tools you can use for GTD, but I believe that working within a specific framework is what can truly prevent your mind from becoming overloaded and achieve the promise of stress-free productivity. ;)
Hi Michael,
Glad you liked it. There are many tools you can use for GTD, but I believe that working within a specific framework is what can truly prevent your mind from becoming overloaded and achieve the promise of stress-free productivity. ;)
Hi Cyrus,
Our vision is precisely that: a tool that allows you to implement GTD, adapting it to your specific needs without forcing you out of the methodology. It's not easy, though.
I believe the new app will greatly improve and simplify all the processes. We'll have a long beta phase to work on it. It will be fun ;)
Hi Cyrus,
Our vision is precisely that: a tool that allows you to implement GTD, adapting it to your specific needs without forcing you out of the methodology. It's not easy, though.
I believe the new app will greatly improve and simplify all the processes. We'll have a long beta phase to work on it. It will be fun ;)
I wanted to go further than Michael and Cyrus regarding Facile Things as a framework or an environment specifically designed to embody a way of working that doesn’t require you to remember how GTD works because it’s built on the methodology—it is embedded.
In particular, I wanted to hammer some more on context because on page 183 in David Allen's later book "Making it all work", he emphasises that deciding what to do now becomes easiest when "you can turn to a list that already has things to do sorted by their context"
This seems to me to be a clear argument that context is not a single category with many options but several distinct categories that are the basis for lists in themselves. Before I have suggested, based on his seminars/workshops, they are (1) location or place, (2) Productivity Tool/Resource (necessary to perform the Task), (3) Presence (or the name/job title of person, collaborator, or team who will undertake the Task because it is delegated to them, or they are responsible for aspects of it, such as quality control, or who provide specialist services such as diagnosing or providing troubleshooting analyses) which also overlaps with delegated to next actions (4) Occasion (which transforms the “complexion” of a whole day and, according to David Allen, does not belong in the Calendar because it is not an Appointment or Meeting). This can include birthdays and milestones (5) Interruptable/Uninterruptable (non-interuptable) because for some people, a Task requires complete concentration. This can be important for creative professionals or for decision-making in high-risk, high-reward situations, (6) for people who work outdoors or who use the outdoors say for recreation or wellbeing: weather (the prevailing conditions that suit the Task). These need to be available separately not as one big basket because each category is comprised of many granular elements. For example, my neighbour is a painter. So weather for him is not just the options sunny, wet, or windy. Fog, dusty, cloudy, dew on the ground or buildings in the morning are also factors because these influence what painting job he picks to begin and what he plans as his next painting job later in the day. He would love to have this on his phone if there was a list dedicated to weather. For this reason he still uses a notebook.
I am looking forward to the beta
I also applaud your commitment to have an evolving beta
warm regards/gary
I wanted to go further than Michael and Cyrus regarding Facile Things as a framework or an environment specifically designed to embody a way of working that doesn’t require you to remember how GTD works because it’s built on the methodology—it is embedded.
In particular, I wanted to hammer some more on context because on page 183 in David Allen's later book "Making it all work", he emphasises that deciding what to do now becomes easiest when "you can turn to a list that already has things to do sorted by their context"
This seems to me to be a clear argument that context is not a single category with many options but several distinct categories that are the basis for lists in themselves. Before I have suggested, based on his seminars/workshops, they are (1) location or place, (2) Productivity Tool/Resource (necessary to perform the Task), (3) Presence (or the name/job title of person, collaborator, or team who will undertake the Task because it is delegated to them, or they are responsible for aspects of it, such as quality control, or who provide specialist services such as diagnosing or providing troubleshooting analyses) which also overlaps with delegated to next actions (4) Occasion (which transforms the “complexion” of a whole day and, according to David Allen, does not belong in the Calendar because it is not an Appointment or Meeting). This can include birthdays and milestones (5) Interruptable/Uninterruptable (non-interuptable) because for some people, a Task requires complete concentration. This can be important for creative professionals or for decision-making in high-risk, high-reward situations, (6) for people who work outdoors or who use the outdoors say for recreation or wellbeing: weather (the prevailing conditions that suit the Task). These need to be available separately not as one big basket because each category is comprised of many granular elements. For example, my neighbour is a painter. So weather for him is not just the options sunny, wet, or windy. Fog, dusty, cloudy, dew on the ground or buildings in the morning are also factors because these influence what painting job he picks to begin and what he plans as his next painting job later in the day. He would love to have this on his phone if there was a list dedicated to weather. For this reason he still uses a notebook.
I am looking forward to the beta
I also applaud your commitment to have an evolving beta
warm regards/gary
Hi Gary,
No matter how you want to categorize your contexts; in modern software, tags are flexible enough to design whatever topology you need. You can define simple contexts like #errands, #home, etc., or something more sophisticated like #loc:home, #tool:computer, #with:john, etc. David Allen's original contexts were already informal tags (@calls, @errands...). The whole point is that your contexts should reflect your life, and that evolves. A rigid field schema works against that.
Thanks for your comments.
Hi Gary,
No matter how you want to categorize your contexts; in modern software, tags are flexible enough to design whatever topology you need. You can define simple contexts like #errands, #home, etc., or something more sophisticated like #loc:home, #tool:computer, #with:john, etc. David Allen's original contexts were already informal tags (@calls, @errands...). The whole point is that your contexts should reflect your life, and that evolves. A rigid field schema works against that.
Thanks for your comments.
Hi Francisco
I held back replying because I wanted to think over your comment " David Allen's original contexts were already informal tags (@calls, @errands...) ... A rigid field schema works against that."
I think by the revised edition (2015, page 147), David Allen has changed his priority from tagging to listing.
He writes "you'd have to do unproductive re-sorting ... [you want to avoid] having to shift into another activity ... [because you want] everything at hand".
Later, in discussing the review phase, David Allen makes the same point (p. 193).
Finally, in discussing the engagement phase, the fact that context is the first of the fourfold criteria seems to confirm, a dedicated list helps make next action easier.
In a footnote on p. 207 David Allen makes clear that having to next actions pre-sorted is preferable to having to think about what to do. Everyone I know who took training said this was manifested in the comment quoted above from his book dated 2008. When I think about where you are going, the resources you are committing, and compare that to say Nirvana and Todoist to take two examples, it seems to me you have an opportunity to be strategic and offer something they dont by having the broad context lists appearing in the menu in a block on their own. This would be a real competitive edge that reflects where GTD is going not where it has become stuck in the rigid primary menu of inbox, next, waiting, scheduled, and someday. In fact some GTD apps have partly moved in this direction by recognising Agenda/Presence, Completed, Projects for example.
warm regards/gary
Hi Francisco
I held back replying because I wanted to think over your comment " David Allen's original contexts were already informal tags (@calls, @errands...) ... A rigid field schema works against that."
I think by the revised edition (2015, page 147), David Allen has changed his priority from tagging to listing.
He writes "you'd have to do unproductive re-sorting ... [you want to avoid] having to shift into another activity ... [because you want] everything at hand".
Later, in discussing the review phase, David Allen makes the same point (p. 193).
Finally, in discussing the engagement phase, the fact that context is the first of the fourfold criteria seems to confirm, a dedicated list helps make next action easier.
In a footnote on p. 207 David Allen makes clear that having to next actions pre-sorted is preferable to having to think about what to do. Everyone I know who took training said this was manifested in the comment quoted above from his book dated 2008. When I think about where you are going, the resources you are committing, and compare that to say Nirvana and Todoist to take two examples, it seems to me you have an opportunity to be strategic and offer something they dont by having the broad context lists appearing in the menu in a block on their own. This would be a real competitive edge that reflects where GTD is going not where it has become stuck in the rigid primary menu of inbox, next, waiting, scheduled, and someday. In fact some GTD apps have partly moved in this direction by recognising Agenda/Presence, Completed, Projects for example.
warm regards/gary
I would like to build on what my colleague, Gary, has mentioned. I find it highly valuable, as a user, to work first and foremost at a level in my own context. "Context" is where GTD should be going and is my first and last stop when I manage my day.
The world is moving fast. The core of GTD remains relevant. What needs to grow, expand, and evolve is our understanding that "context" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example, I want my energy context to reflect "physical," "mental," and "social" energy, not "high" or "low". A subtle difference, but very empowering to the individual.
I think Gary has his mind set on the right horizon here. If FacileThings can figure out a way to balance GTD in its purist form, while at the same time allowing individual to spin off their own flavor, they will truly be the masters of productivity systems.
Well done, Gary. I highly admire how you are sticking to your concerns.
I would like to build on what my colleague, Gary, has mentioned. I find it highly valuable, as a user, to work first and foremost at a level in my own context. "Context" is where GTD should be going and is my first and last stop when I manage my day.
The world is moving fast. The core of GTD remains relevant. What needs to grow, expand, and evolve is our understanding that "context" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example, I want my energy context to reflect "physical," "mental," and "social" energy, not "high" or "low". A subtle difference, but very empowering to the individual.
I think Gary has his mind set on the right horizon here. If FacileThings can figure out a way to balance GTD in its purist form, while at the same time allowing individual to spin off their own flavor, they will truly be the masters of productivity systems.
Well done, Gary. I highly admire how you are sticking to your concerns.
Thank you Cyrus
I also want to support you in your threefold energy categories of physical, mental and social because it is implicit in David Allen's writings
More recently, David Allen in his revised GTD book in 2015 on page 209 talks about "mental or creative horsepower" so that definitely gets a tick. In his book on teams he also recognises the importance of the social. So a second tick.
Where he goes wrong is forgetting the physical. I assume this is because his books, blogs and newsletters all emphasise GTD for knowledge workers. This is a glaring omission and weakness as well.
David Allen ignores the many trades and industries where physical work is essential to our survival. For example, building, construction, infrastructure, and not forgetting farming. One of my neighbours is a farmer who intuitively uses weather conditions. For example when he was in drought he did all the clearing of naturally wet areas that were not longer wet. I do not understand why David Allen omits the physical. You are right to include it as a next action factor because in the areas of focus most people have to do some maintenance around the home
So the famous left-hand menu should look something like:
[First "block" of traditional GTD lists]
Inbox
Today
Focus
Next actions
Scheduled
Waiting (e.g., delegated)
Someday/Maybe (although to be consistent with the David Allen terminology, I am surprised that this wasnt named Non-Actionable which is more immediately meaningful)
=====
[Second block consisting of item type lists]
Tasks (All)
Projects
Agendas (items to discuss with people, groups, or roles which links to Presence context)
Checklists (or points to consider that is used as a reminder to prevent forgetting or doing things out of sequence)
Habits (or personal routines
=====
[Third block, which is directly accessible "Contexts" in lists, and each nests below it several more granular types]
Location or place
Productivity Tool/Resource
Presence (or the name/job title of person, collaborator, or team who will undertake the Task because it is delegated to them, or they are responsible for aspects of it, such as quality control, or who provide specialist services such as diagnosing or providing troubleshooting analyses) which also overlaps with delegated to next actions
Occasion (which transforms the “complexion” of a whole day and, according to David Allen, does not belong in the Calendar because it is not an Appointment or Meeting). David Allen, I think, gives the example of a significant other's birthday which influences the whole day
Interruptable/Uninterruptable (or non-interuptable) because for some people, a Task requires complete concentration. I have learnt a lot from using this because some tasks require concentration for the entire duration
Weather (or the prevailing conditions that suit the Task)
======
[Final "block" consisting of "housekeeping" lists]
Completed/Done
Recently Added
Recently Modified
Trash/Archive
Francisco, I hope this helps crystallise what I mean and enables you to get the attention Facile Things deserves. For example, when I looked last night on the GTD forum, there is a preponderance of recommendations over 16 screen pages of posts favouring Nirvana with only one mention of Facile Things
Warm regards/gary
Thank you Cyrus
I also want to support you in your threefold energy categories of physical, mental and social because it is implicit in David Allen's writings
More recently, David Allen in his revised GTD book in 2015 on page 209 talks about "mental or creative horsepower" so that definitely gets a tick. In his book on teams he also recognises the importance of the social. So a second tick.
Where he goes wrong is forgetting the physical. I assume this is because his books, blogs and newsletters all emphasise GTD for knowledge workers. This is a glaring omission and weakness as well.
David Allen ignores the many trades and industries where physical work is essential to our survival. For example, building, construction, infrastructure, and not forgetting farming. One of my neighbours is a farmer who intuitively uses weather conditions. For example when he was in drought he did all the clearing of naturally wet areas that were not longer wet. I do not understand why David Allen omits the physical. You are right to include it as a next action factor because in the areas of focus most people have to do some maintenance around the home
So the famous left-hand menu should look something like:
[First "block" of traditional GTD lists]
Inbox
Today
Focus
Next actions
Scheduled
Waiting (e.g., delegated)
Someday/Maybe (although to be consistent with the David Allen terminology, I am surprised that this wasnt named Non-Actionable which is more immediately meaningful)
=====
[Second block consisting of item type lists]
Tasks (All)
Projects
Agendas (items to discuss with people, groups, or roles which links to Presence context)
Checklists (or points to consider that is used as a reminder to prevent forgetting or doing things out of sequence)
Habits (or personal routines
=====
[Third block, which is directly accessible "Contexts" in lists, and each nests below it several more granular types]
Location or place
Productivity Tool/Resource
Presence (or the name/job title of person, collaborator, or team who will undertake the Task because it is delegated to them, or they are responsible for aspects of it, such as quality control, or who provide specialist services such as diagnosing or providing troubleshooting analyses) which also overlaps with delegated to next actions
Occasion (which transforms the “complexion” of a whole day and, according to David Allen, does not belong in the Calendar because it is not an Appointment or Meeting). David Allen, I think, gives the example of a significant other's birthday which influences the whole day
Interruptable/Uninterruptable (or non-interuptable) because for some people, a Task requires complete concentration. I have learnt a lot from using this because some tasks require concentration for the entire duration
Weather (or the prevailing conditions that suit the Task)
======
[Final "block" consisting of "housekeeping" lists]
Completed/Done
Recently Added
Recently Modified
Trash/Archive
Francisco, I hope this helps crystallise what I mean and enables you to get the attention Facile Things deserves. For example, when I looked last night on the GTD forum, there is a preponderance of recommendations over 16 screen pages of posts favouring Nirvana with only one mention of Facile Things
Warm regards/gary