Welcome to the IdeaMatt blog!

My rebooted blog on tech, creative ideas, digital citizenship, and life as an experiment.

Monday
Feb112008

Three indecisiveness phrases, and when (not) to use them

I'd like to tell you about three phrases you and I use that actually mean the opposite, and, when used improperly, hurt productivity and weaken your mind (Gasp!) Fear not, I'll also share the only times they are OK to use. And I'll start with a biggie.

"Let me think about it"

This is a classic in being indecisive. Situation: Have you ever been asked for something or had an offer made to you and you answered "Let me think about it"? Typically what this answer really means is "The answer is no, but I don't want to disappoint you so I'm going to pretend to think about it." Implied in this is "...and I hope you forget to bring it up again." Nasty!

In this case, you're is using the phrase as a crutch, and it has a cost:

  1. It's going to dog you until it's resolved.
  2. You're misleading someone and wasting their time; it's disrespectful.
  3. You're training yourself to be indirect and less decisive.

What you're really doing trading is clarity for a temporary reprieve in disappointing someone. It's a bad practice. If you know the answer, train yourself to be direct (but sensitive) and get closure right then. If you want to leave the bridge open, fine, but not if you really don't want to discuss the issue again.

That said, this phrase does have a few specific productive uses:

  • You need to collect more information. However, ask yourself whether this is an excuse to put off deciding. It's frequently better to make a decision early on, with less than 100% of possible information, than to strive for perfection. Most decisions can be mitigated later.
  • You need to clear or verify it with someone else. In this case, commit to a specific date to get back to them, no longer than a few days.
  • Germination: You really might have to let it germinate. The blogosphere is rife with creativity stories around the subconscious, and hey - who am I to take away your productive shower time ;-) But be honest about whether you really need to sit on it.

Here are a few rules if you do decide to defer:

  • Only one defer allowed per person. Think of it as a rare coupon you don't want to squander.
  • Make your decision time bound: Limit how much you're willing to spend on it, and don't make it too big - one hour max, say.
  • Commit to a decision by a specific date (no longer than a week), and tell it to them. Then keep your word.

"Let's get together sometime"

This really means "I'm not interested (or mildly interested), but not enough to follow through." The solution here is simple: Pick a date. I found myself weaseling out last week. I really did want to get together with a friend and peer, but I was having a weak moment and used the phrase. It felt weird. Thank goodness she called me on it and said "Let's set a date. how about next Monday at lunch time?"

A common variation: "We'll be in touch" - sadly not uncommon when applying for a job or sending an unwanted proposal. Please, put me out of my misery and get it over with! (I'm told companies sometimes get so inundated with resumes that they make it easier on themselves by not sending "sorry" letters. I don't respect this practice. Disclaimer: I've never been in the hiring role.)

"Interesting"

This is a true classic, and often means "That's really uninteresting" and/or "I disagree but don't want to get into it with you." To be fair, this can also mean "I don't understand or agree, but I'm willing to think about it." Also, it rally depends on the tone.

Instead of saying this, try getting into question asking mode and being genuinely curious. (For more, see How to help people, step 1.)

(An example: I once sent a resume to a company, waited a few weeks, heard nothing, then called the hiring person. She said "We got your resume. It was ... interesting." Her tone made me think "We thought your use of crayons for the resume was innovative." Not getting hired worked out much better, BTW.)

Others?

Do you have any favorites? A few others:

  • "Send me a brochure" ("I'm not interested, but I won't say so.")
  • "That's something" ("I have no idea what to do with this gift.")
  • "She's not here right now" ("She's here, but she doesn't want to talk to you."
  • "Thank you for sharing" ("That was wildly inappropriate. Save it for you psychiatrist."
Tuesday
Feb052008

What GTD and Weight Watchers have in common

One of the personal changes I was surprised by when adopting David Allen's work was how relatively efforlessly I lost 15 pounds [1]. In my case a simple engineering-based approach worked: Calories in < average calories burned. But keeping it off can be a challenge. What helped a lot was my wife's adopting the Weight Watcher's ("WW" from here on) program [2], which not only opened my eyes to how I thought about eating, but also kicked off some thinking about how WW and GTD are very much alike.

Following are some observations. As always, your thoughts and clarifications are very welcome.

Both are caused by a mismatch between abundance and old brains

Clearly we're not wired to to handle abundance - WW: Too much food available [3]. GTD: Too many demands and requests for our attention. As a result we make poor choices that impact our health and happiness. WW: We eat too many calories (and too many unhealthy ones), which overtaxes our bodies, causes self image problems, and cuts lifespan. GTD: We try to do it all, and don't do the highest impact work, which causes stress, hurts our lives outside of work, and can certainly cut lifespan.

The cause is our 100,000 year old brains, which aren't well prepared for these modern challenges. "Aha - here's some food. Better eat now while I have the chance! I know I'll store the unused bits for the lean times." (Filling up opportunistically doesn't apply to a full fridge.) "Gahh! Email, the phone, my Blackberry - I'm ready to tear my hair out!" (Fight or flight doesn't apply to a boardroom, a research lab, or your office.)

Sure, in another thousand or two generations we might have better brain structures to manage this (assuming no environmental changes - not likely), but that's no help to those of us suffering right now. Note: I would *love* to hear from you about minds and abundance, and recommended reading of leading theories.

Both address a huge gap: Self-management

This is the mind blower that got me into this work: Given the above mismatch, we're just plain not taught a principled method to manage these problems. And we're talking about two of the most fundamental things we do in life (eating and working). (Want another one: moving our bodies - see Reflections on Alexander Technique and personal productivity.)

So as I think of it, WW and GTD seek to provide systems, thinking, and tools to solve their respective problems.

Both are difficult, and not a silver bullet

The bad news? Quick fixes won't cut it. This includes fad diets that result in short-term gains (e.g., dehydrating) and tips and tricks to working better (e.g., a one-time office purge). Instead, changes like these require major habit adjustments, and those take time. It's a process of mastery (see George Leonard's great little book Mastery: The Keys to Success and Long-Term Fulfillment).

So there's a heavy requirement for WW and GTD "users:"
  1. Realize there's a problem (WW: overweight; GTD: overloaded).
  2. Be exposed to a new and principled way of thinking.
  3. Adopt principled ideas and tools for change.
  4. Form habits via practice and support, using experiences of improvement and relief to build inertia.

Both come down to transparency, limits, and choice

Both methods help to address the problems in (at least) three ways.

First, they provide information about what we let into our lives, and concrete mechanisms for tracking. For WW, this is around "points" (a combination of calories and fiber content, as I understand it). Practitioners learn about the foods they eat and the associated points, which leads to making better choices. They're tracked using various tools. For example, I was surprised by the high impact of oils in cooking (including dressings). For GTD, we decide the work involved in everything entering our lives, and track it all in lists and our calendar.

By making this information explicit, there's a kind of transparency to our world: It's all up front, and allows our being aware of our behavior - something that wasn't possible before with such clarity.


Second, both systems acknowledge there are limits, which lets us make those important trade-offs (WW: diet; GTD: action). In WW this is captured via limiting points. There are different programs to structure this, but they all involve a reasonable budget, which you work to stay within. However, in GTD this is actually a rather significant limitation. The calendar has built-in limits, but there's nothing explicit to keep us from adding unlimited work to our lists. I talked about this some in Extreme GTD: How low can you go (or: Can we 80-20 GTD?), esp. Mark Forster's take on "closed lists" in Do It Tomorrow.

Finally, they both come down to choice: The actions we take result in consequences, so we must choose with care. Interestingly, choice has (at least) two implications:

1) Self-responsibility: Making conscious choices about our lives removes the excuse to be passive and then complain about it. Example: I might need to make an important but difficult conversation, but instead of biting the bullet and doing it I might put it off and complain about relationship.

Another example: When I'm teaching clients best practices for personal productivity [4], it's highly empowering - too much so for some people. (Not too many, thankfully - plunking down money tends to motivate commitment.) For example, if I really get my act together after adopting the work, I can no longer claim it's out of my hands, or it's somebody else's fault - I explicitly take responsibility. This is not necessarily comfortable (at least initially), and can be a big change.

2) Things not chosen. Mark makes this point: deciding to do something means you've decided not to do something else. For example, spending time watching TV means not spending time with my daughter and wife. Or eating that slice of cake means I've blown some big points, and will limit the rest of the day.

Wrap up

I admit my knowledge of WW is a bit sketchy, but I like thinking about the overlap. In fact, I can't stop thinking about these things, so hey!

What do you think? Any parallels you've drawn? Are you reminded of other programs?

References

  • [1]"Missing: 15 pounds. Description: Heavy, yellowish in color. Distinguishing characteristics: Makes wet sucking sound when moving with curious rolling/oozing gait. Reward: None." ;-)
  • [2] Check out the Wikipedia article and the official site.
  • [3]I realize that many people in the world don't have enough food, and it breaks my heart. For something related that made me think, check out What the World Eats, Part I. I was really surprised by the big differences in how much/month different families spend, and how healthy the diets of the less industrialized families looked. Except for Chad, which didn't have enough.
  • [4]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.
Thursday
Jan312008

I promise I will...

...not try to sell you
I will look for ways to help you, esp. before we work together (if ever)

...not work with you if I don't think I can help
and I'll be very clear about it, even if we disagree

...not worry about "giving away the farm" to you
I know that sharing genuinely useful information always pays off

...be genuinely curious about your work
and have fun getting to know you

...continually absorb and synthesize the best ideas from my field
and share them freely with you

...respect you, your work, your organization
no exceptions

...treat our relationship as confidential
no exceptions

...be attuned to where we are in the process
and we'll change gears or take a short walk

...notice anything that may hamper our project
and tell you immediately

...give you every reason to trust me
and no reasons not to

...take responsibility for my mistakes
and apologize with humility

...see opportunities to apply my skills, knowledge, and experience to help you
regardless of where that ends up being

...support and encourage you during our project
and long after

...not judge where your self management skills currently are
hey - we've none of us been taught this stuff

...push back when needed
but tactfully and within reason

...sometimes send bulky bumpy delightful packages
:-)

Wednesday
Jan232008

A conversation with Mark Hurst, web usability expert and author of "Bit literacy"

Recently I had a nice conversation with Mark Hurst, a leader of the online "customer experience" movement, and author of Bit Literacy: Productivity in the Age of Information and E-mail Overload (see the book's site and sample chapter). Additionally, he's contributed to the web usability field in many other ways. For more, see his bio, his company, his newsletter, and his blog. (You might also enjoy his 2008 Gift Guide & Almanac, which is fun has a few more good tips.)

Bit literacy is a good, short book that I've mentioned before [1]. It has helpful ideas around managing email, documents, file naming, photos, and more. I particularly like his file naming scheme [2], which I shared with client who found it helpful as a kind of simple version control convention.

Mark stresses that the book is not just about email and getting the inbox to zero (a major change for most of us). It's about managing effectively all the bitstreams coming into our lives. Mark says the world has changed, but most people haven't caught up yet - the always-on lifestyle, urgency, and haste make us neither effective nor sustainable. Here's how he puts it:
Five, ten or twenty years from now, the bits will increase exponentially: email, web, phones and PDAs. Without proper training, users everywhere will face an increasingly urgent problem of overload. Now is the moment to learn bit literacy. It's like getting in shape on a slow-moving treadmill before it speeds up to a sprinting pace.
I hope you enjoy it.

On getting started

From early on, Mark noticed we aren't being served well by current technology, and found that there is a more fundamental and insidious problem with it today: people do not have the skills they need in order to do practically anything. Beyond using the web, we lack the skills to survive in a world dominated by email and other digital communications.

Over the years, these observations about technology (plus an admitted "obsessive interest in being efficient") led to his perspective on the process and cost of creating bits, and his eventual development of what Hurst calls "a simple, fast, and easy to learn system for being bit literate." He says it took him about ten years to develop that system.

Influences

Mark lists Richard Saul Wurman's Information Anxiety as a tremendous influence, a book he says is still pertinent. They met through a mutual friend, after which Mark wrote an essay for the 2000 edition. He then spoke at TED in 2001, which Wurman founded. He says the experience of speaking at TED was a big influence in his later starting Good Experience Live (Gel) conference.

He says the culture of "UNIX Geeks" was extremely influential, especially its design principles, how it is built, and the pervasive use a simple file format.

Definition of productivity

On what productivity means, Mark says people have a certain amount of stuff they need to get done, so the faster they get it done, the more time we get to spend on our personal lives - playing games or spending time with friends and family. He says there's a reason they call it work :-) Because of its contribution to quality of life, Mark says there's a bit of paradox; if you want to focus on things outside of work, then you really need to first focus on work itself - how effectively you're doing it. This leads to important feelings of liberation, his readers claim, from the "shackles of email," endless to-do lists, or whatever was dragging them down. This being able to be free to live life in a more meaningful way is ultimately what Bit Literacy is aiming at.

Mark points out that many current productivity systems are based on previous systems that were built for managing the flow of paper, and to apply systems for paper productivity to our new digital world is not appropriate. He thinks the systems still have value for the paper aspects of our lives, but new tools and perspectives are required. (Note: I disagree with this approach. I think the simplicity of a system that encompasses all aspects of inputs - atoms as well as bits - is important. YMMV.)

Forming new productivity habits

On how to create new habits, Hurst says there's a range of adoption levels, but those who seriously apply the method tend to stick with it. This is because experiencing the resulting gains, even for a day, is a "no brainer," leads to continuing the method. He notes that simply getting started (what he calls induction) isn't enough - they need to do a week or two of a steady state [3]. Once they do that, Mark says, they'll will never forget what that felt like.

He points out that some people encounter the book then apply their own misleading litmus tests. Either whether they've seen any of it before (using a quick scan), or a technical buzzword bingo test, where they scan for certain terms (AJAX, tags, or taxonomies). However, he says some very high tech geeks have completely embraced the method, and have written about it on their blogs [4].

What I find really interesting is the idea that people can resist, perhaps at the subconscious level, adopting systems like this. Mark and I agree that with the resulting freedom comes with responsibility for our lives, which is a big shift. He's fine with that and sees his role as to simply to invite them to learn that there's another way to think about work, and give them a new choice.

To-do lists

Mark's view of to-do lists is significantly different from systems like GTD. To managing to-dos, he says the list needs to be outside the email program (and not on paper), and have four components:
  1. Each is associated with a particular day,
  2. users can create new ones via email,
  3. each has a priority ranking within its day
  4. each can contain detail and summary information.
His Gootodo program (inexpensive, but not free) does this. (Interestingly, scheduling action in the calendar is one simplification that popped out of my extreme GTD analysis.)

I liked his thought on to-do lifecycles: creation, inactivity, activation, and completion. A second dimension classifies them as active (those we have to work on today), and inactive (those that become relevant in the future). This means on a given today, you have only one list, and there's no metadata to worry about.

"The Matrix" and Bit literacy

On a surprising note, Mark drew a comparison to The Matrix, and the climactic scene in which Neo is fighting the agents, gets cornered, and cannot escape. At that point he has the big revelation in which he sees the world differently and at the bit level. Mark says Neo sees that the danger, fears, and challenges that have been dogging him are really just an illusion that he can control in the bit world. He says no, the bullets stop, float, and fall down. Helping computer users do this is an nice metaphor.

Having too much to do

Like GTD, actually knowing exactly how much we've comitted to is a great first step to limiting it. (I know when I work with clients, this is often the first time they've seen the entirety of their lives in one place, and it's usually a shock. This often leads to hard choices and difficult conversations, but I think it's the only principled way to start improving our lives, that is, focusing on what's meaningful.)

He says the system can only let you know that you have too many; you have to manage them yourself. It's an issue that you have to adjust.

Media diet and information overload

To combat information overload (a $650 BLN drag on the economy [5]), mark has a nice section on the Media Diet - a "constantly pruned set of publications that keep us informed about what matters most to us professionally and personally." The Media Diet portfolio has two main components: the lineup and tryouts. His model: Create a media portfolio with two main components: Lineup and Tryouts. Lineup: Those that've earned their place as your most valuable sources. (The three types: Stars, Scans, and Targets.) Candidate sources get into the lineup by going through a tryout phase. (Guidelines: Be discerning, be intentional, and be biased toward rejecting.)

He encourages us to be discerning, be intentional, and remember we have to limit the total. Also, we have to do maintenance on these by asking the question "Is this source worth my time?"

Wrap-up

For his single best productivity tip, Mark says "Read the book." :-) He also suggests trying the Dvorak keyboard.

I'll let Mark sum finish up:
Today, it's harder and harder to be done. Just as we answer one email, two more come in. Just as we finish one project, we are reminded that another is behind schedule. We only partially listen to the music or watch the video which is downloaded, because we're too busy downloading another to put in the queue. Bit literacy grants the possibility of being done not just occasionally, but on a regular basis in order to work more productively and enjoy a fuller life outside of work.
Thanks again, Mark.

References

Monday
Jan142008

Extreme GTD: How low can you go (or: Can we 80-20 GTD?)

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

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