I’ve read two great posts this week that I’m going to tie together with some other thoughts I’ve been having. Thus, I’m violating the “one post, one topic” blogging wisdom - but bear with me as the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts.

I’ve mentioned before that I started writing about productivity because my own productivity system was broken. At the time, I was having such a hard time getting my life to fit inside one of the different systems that I was frustrated - I went from getting fully invested in the system, to falling off the horse , to getting back on the system…in roughly five to six week cycles, no less.

Looking back, I now realize the folly. The point of productivity systems is not to get my life into the system, but to help me live my life through a system.

Generating Motion and Scaffolding

While reading Dave Seah’s post Reevaluating the Year’s Goals, a weird tangent occurred to me. Dave said:

The GHDR System is designed to maintain momentum via natural levels of desire, whereas other systems seem to be designed to use either pressure (nagging) or structure (idealize process) to create the necessary motion. I happen to know that what works for me is just focusing on moving, and I will build structure as necessary, so it’s no surprise that GHDR has evolved the way it has.

The insight here is brilliant - I’d like to build on it a bit more. Part of what has always bothered me about GTD is purely skill-based. I’ve found that I don’t need to list every action to complete the project in most cases - using GTD, I was overplanning.

On the other hand, a lot of my creative projects needed to be left tagged “to do” but relatively unstructured during the planning phase. What I needed most is a system that helped me generate motion.

The problem was that a lot of my projects were ones that I didn’t want to do. No productivity system was going to make me enjoy things I didn’t enjoy doing - so inevitably, generating motion wasn’t enough as I’d soon become disinterested and start doing things that generally weren’t advancing that current goal.

So the second lesson: it needed to generate motion and make short bursts of work worthwhile. The main project that I need the most help with is completing the chapters of my dissertation. All the GTD’ing and productivity systems weren’t helping me.

Okay, tying this back in with what Dave was talking about, I’ve recently started teaching myself Ruby on Rails. For those of you not in the know, Ruby on Rails is a great platform for quickly building and deploying web-based applications - all of the 37Signal’s products (Backpack, Basecamp, and Highrise) are built using it, as well as a slew of other web2.0 services. It’s great stuff, but I’ll not get too much into it here.

There’s a process in building with Ruby on Rails called scaffolding. The basic idea, as I currently understand it, is to very quickly get the structure of the design you want now and quickly remove it when you deploy the application. As such, you aren’t bogged down by complicated problems - you’re actively moving towards the completed project.

This is exactly what I want my productivity system to do - it should fluidly structure the movement towards a goal rather than direct the movement towards the goal. As I complete a part of a project, I should be able to scaffold to the next and kick away the stuff I don’t need from the old system.

The reason I find this paradigm shift empowering is because it is structured around the way our lives actually work. I need to fix the airplane while I’m flying it - and though a well-structured plane would have prevented me from having to fix it midair, I’m here already and can’t land.

My Notebook-based Productivity System

It’s at this point that I’ll reveal a somewhat embarrassing secret - the scaffolds of my actual productivity system is a set of notebooks. Yes, I said set (as in multiple) and notebook (as in paper). This is anathema for most productivity gurus - the conventional advice is if you absolutely must have a notebook, everything needs to go in one.

For me, nothing beats the fluidness and simplicity of paper for charting, planning, and capturing. Everyday, I write down what I need to do and draw (DRAW!) a daily planner (or use my own if I have one printed). That planner becomes my dashboard for the day and this takes me about ten minutes to do.

(Yes, my drawings differ a bit each day - but each day is a bit different. Yes, the planner I draw is different than the one I’ve presented, but all of my planners are going through a redesign to make them more useful and intuitive. Sorry that it’s taking me so long to get these out.)

But why do I have a set of notebooks? Because I’ve got discrete components of my life that I want to keep separate, and I’ve found that having everything in one notebook makes it such that it takes me a long time to find what I’m looking for. Also, having one notebook means I go through it faster, making it the case that I spend more time trying to capture the information than if I just left them in a dedicated notebook for longer. Here are the notebooks I have:

• Charlie

For general notes I take - has blogging notes, ToDo Lists, notes from conversations, notes from research, etc.

• Joint

When Angela and I talk about some of our joint projects, it goes in here.

• Home

Notes having to do with home projects, groceries, chore lists, etc.

• Military

Everything having to do with Guard projects.

• Music

Notes I take from playing music - chord structures, lyrics, song lists, etc.

• Work-Out Log

Notes I take about my workouts and other exercise related information.

Each notebook is marked with what it’s about, and the Military notebook is visually different from the others mainly because I get them free from the Guard. They are all 6″ x 9″ Gregg Ruled, Top Bound and cost something like $4 for a three pack - this is a good size, because they fit in cargo pockets, and I can write, jot, and draw to my heart’s content because they’re relatively cheap, unlike Moleskines which cost $12-16 a pop.

I keep each notebook in the place it’s most likely to be used - i.e. the Joint and Home notebooks are on the kitchen desk counter, the Music notebook is back with my music stuff, and the Work-Out Log is down with the exercise equipment. The Military notebook is part of my uniform set and is pulled out when I do military correspondence - everything relevant to my Guard life is captured there. The Charlie notebook goes everywhere with me and is always retrievable within 10-15 seconds.

Now, this byzantine system may drive others crazy, but it works really well for me because I know where I wrote something based on what type of information it is. I don’t have to worry about listing contexts, projects, or what have you - I can just grab the notebook, put a date and time at the top of a clean sheet, and start writing. If I ever need that information again, I know where to find it.

Sometimes it happens that I write the wrong stuff in the wrong notebook - but usually I remember that I wrote it in a different notebook and remember what notebook it was, so it’s not that big of a deal.

Back to scaffolding - the notebooks help me because they generate rapid scaffolds that don’t pull from the process that I’m trying to do. Because each notebook is dedicated to a particular type of information, I can focus on what I’m currently doing without getting derailed on the notes from other projects.

When I’m done with the project, I turn the page - I generally don’t throw the page away until I get to the end of the notebook, as the ideas from one project sometimes help with another. The information from the notebook that needs to be captured permanently goes into a text file (because it’s searchable) and the rest gets recycled.

Paper-Based Task Management is Still Simpler, More Effective, and More Useful

It was Andre’s post On Paper-Based Task Management that motivated me to write about my notebook- scaffolded life. His discussion of the benefits of switching to a paper-based system is dead-on from my experience and I won’t repeat much of it. I think the most insightful piece is when he says:

Perhaps the most important advantage of using a separate organizer is perspective. Keeping my task management system outside of my production tools — my laptop and cell phone — provides an Archimedean vantage point that allows me to think about my workflow instead of within it.

Laptops, cellphones, PDAs, and the other tools we use have a tendency to diffuse our focus. Paper-based task management systems work so well because you’re not trying to work from them - the reason you refer to such a system is not to do you work, but to figure out what you need to be doing. To carry on with the scaffolding metaphor, paper-based task management systems are more prone to help you see the structure you’re building from the outside rather than from the inside.

Our projects take lives of their own sometimes (most of the time) - and computer-based task management systems cause most people to spend more time restructuring the plan and fidgeting with software than working on the product. A paper-based system lets you develop a system that scaffolds the motion you’ve generated quickly and let’s you maintain that motion without pulling you away from the work.

If you’d like to learn more about developing your own system that keeps you working without being something else you’ve got to work on, get FREE updates by Email or by RSS.

Update: I decided to place the form at the top of the post to make it easier to download. Grab it here: Blank Daily Productivity Heatmap (4290)

I’ve been a bit bottlenecked recently with some of my posts. I’ve been stewing over A Special Theory of Productivity and trying to figure out the best way to present it. Meanwhile, another post that I’m working on also needs some preluding explanation. This post is related to both of those.

I’m a huge fan of heat maps, and here recently I’ve started to think about productivity in terms of heat maps, as well. The above picture is a heat map of my daily productive capacity.

Continue reading →

The question “Why Am I Productive?” very rarely comes up when we’re productive. Usually, it’s when we’re not productive that we ask why we’re not being productive. Asking the question in the negative like that often gets us to quick fixes, but very often does not answer it in a way that’s helpful.

Here recently I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes people productive in general. What follows is a general theory that captures what I think is going on:

Productivity= (Creative Energy + Focus + Motivation + Aptitude + Ideal Time)/(Difficulty + Distractions)

A discussion of the individual components is in order:

Productivity: Effectiveness vs. Efficiency

There’s a difference between being effective and being efficient, as highlighted by most productivity systems. Basically, here’s the difference:
Effectiveness: completing tasks related to meaningful goals.
Efficiency: Completing tasks in a specified amount of time.


The model of Productivity that I’m working with is based off effectiveness, not efficiency. We can complete any number of tasks in a given amount of time, pat ourselves on the back, and not have advanced a single, meaningful goal. While it may seem that we should be proud of the feat we’ve just accomplished, the reality is that we have moved backward rather than forward. Time is finite, and every minute spent on tasks that are not related to meaningful goals puts us further behind.

“Meaningful goals” is intentionally vague at this point, and though it is a critical part of the theory, we’re going to leave that aside for another day. I’ve started making stabs at it with this proposed model and I’m thinking it’ll be something like “goals that promote flourishing.”

Productivity Enhancers

The following components positively affect our productivity, meaning that more of any one of those components have a tendency to make us more productive.

Creative Energy

This one is fairly straightforward. Though we can influence ourselves by setting up the right conditions, the brute fact is that there are times when we are insanely, innately creative.

Focus

Another straightforward one. There are times when our attention is laser focused on one task, project, or idea and time, reality, and physical necessities melt away while we chase the muse.

Motivation

Motivation comes in two distinct breeds: general motivation to get something–anything–done and specific motivation to get specific tasks completed. The higher the motivation, the more likely we are to stay on task and complete the project.

Aptitude

Our proficiency at a given task has a major impact on our ability to complete that task in a given amount of time. For example, people who have difficulty writing have to work so much harder to complete the same given article, essay, or post than someone who is either innately better or better through practice. Experts at a task are quantum leaps ahead of novices in terms of productivity.

Ideal Time

Different tasks require different amounts of time to complete them. Figuring out your own ideal time is a matter of practice, but it’s critical for planning and execution. The importance of being able to plan work is obvious on the planning end, but many people forget that going past the ideal time in execution also hampers productivity.




Two Observations:

• All of the productivity enablers are internal


By internal, I mean that they have to do with our own natures, we can individually identify what’s missing, and we can influence the components. The “hack” literature on the blogosphere is mostly about giving you ways to influence these components. While this is not a hacky post, I’ll give some starting reads that works on each of these dimensions.

• Creativity
• Do You Recognize These 10 Mental Blocks to Creative Thinking?
• Are You As Creative As You Want To Be?
• Focus
• 20 Ways to Eliminate Stress From Your Life
• The Power of Clarity
• Motivation
• Top 20 Motivation Hacks
• Motivational Tips to Hack Your Day
• Aptitude
• Zen and the Art of Remarkable Blogging
• How To Get From a 7 to a 10
• Ideal Time
• The Key to Productivity: Schedule Calibration
• Big Rocks First: Double Your Productivity This Week




• The Enablers are Interconnected


Each of the dimensions have a tendency to increase the others. Being in an incredibly creative mood tends to motivate us to work the ideas through. Working within an ideal time tends to make us focus on the given task at hand. Being apt at the task tends to open up creative avenues to approach and complete our work.

This interconnected feature of the enablers also can work to our disadvantage, too. Low motivation, for example, tends to make us lose focus, creative energy, and squander our ideal time.

So, there are two tricks here. The first is figure out how to increase each of these dimensions and incorporate these into productive habits. The second is to identify the weakest dimension and work on increasing that one so that it doesn’t drag down the other enablers.

Productivity Detractors

The following components negatively affect our productivity, meaning that more of any of these components have a tendency to make us less productive.

Difficulty (of Task)

This is different than our aptitude at a task. Some tasks are inherently more difficult than others and require more of the enablers to complete. Compare the difference in difficulty between, say, writing a catch-up email to a friend and writing a pillar post for a blog. Though the word counts might be the same, the difficulty of writing a good pillar post is simply far greater than writing the catch-up email.

Distractions

Distractions are different than focus because focus has to do with what’s going on inside our heads, whereas distractions have to do with what’s going on outside our heads. Of course, what’s going on outside our heads has a tendency to creep inside our heads, but usually removing distractions require you to cut yourself off from something else. Increasing our focus requires us to quiet the noise inside of our heads. Understanding the difference between the two is critical, for decreasing distractions requires different methods than increasing focus, although the two dimensions are heavily inter-related.



Observations:

• The productivity detractors are external


We can’t control when our children need attention or when our loved ones are having bad days. We also can’t really control the fact that some tasks are more difficult than others. Our ability to influence these dimensions require us to handle things outside of ourselves. Minimizing the detractors consists of (a) minimizing distractions, and (b) simplifying difficult tasks. Some resources for each component:

• Simplifying Difficult Tasks
• How to Actually Execute Your To-Do List: or, Why Writing it Doen Doesn’t Actually Get it Done
• Granularity for Students
• Minimizing Distractions
• Best 8 Ways to Deal With Detractors
• Top 20 Parent Hacks: Tips for Organization, Kid Optimization, and Happiness




• The productivity detractors are interconnected


I’ve covered this above, but observe that the detractors have the same feature. Given that difficult tasks require more productivity enablers, we’re all too prone to look to outside sources to make them easier and wind up distracted. And being distracted makes difficult tasks that much harder.

The Take-Away Value of The Theory:

We can create habits that increase the enablers.

Every one of the enablers are within our control to foster, despite the common myth that we’re born creative, focused, and motivated. That myth is rubbish and doesn’t address the reality that creative people are creative through habit, focused people are focused through habit, motivated people choose to do things that motivate them, and experts train and hone their skills routinely.

We can examine the tasks that we do and plan ideal times to work.

We can plan around or minimize distractions.

We can’t help the fact that kids returning from school require attention. But we can plan our tasks around them (and we can also recognize that time spent with them is itself a valuable goal). We also can’t help that someone has to make food and we have to eat. Yes, we can turn email, IM, IRC, Twitter, Growl, and the myriad other technological time wasters off and do our work.

We can simplify complex tasks.

Some tasks are just hard. But even hard tasks can be simplified by breaking them down into more manageable pieces.

It helps us figure out why we’re productive at “weird” times.

I’ve been trying to figure out why most of my ideas come up in the shower and on Sunday afternoon. Answer: few distractions (in shower and off work) and high creative energy (batteries recharged since I’m not at work and I’ve had time to play). Apparently, Dave Seah has the shower problem, too.

Of course, not a single bit of this is new information, as the links attest. But there comes a point where we need step outside of hacks and look at general trends. In the next few days, I’ll be covering a Special Theory of Productivity that focuses more on time management.

If you liked this post, please consider subscribing to my feed, commenting, or submitting the post to StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks for your time and support!