DonationCoder.com Software > The Getting Organized Experiment of 2009

The Getting Organized Experiment of 2009 - Preliminary Planning

<< < (7/8) > >>

tomos:
apologies Paul, and to all for getting bogged down with this here
sometimes I should be more .. definite (? or something) - it really wasnt any big deal but butter put it to bed now !!!

1) mousers post
If we do go with this.. then it may make sense to try to get one person willing to volunteer to read all of the threads and post occasional summaries of people's different methods, and encourage everyone participating, etc.
--- End quote ---
-
2) your reply
The summary part I can also do if no one minds me being heavily critical though I can just keep that part of the post to myself.

Encouragement, no, not me.
--- End quote ---
-
3) I read that as "no, I dont do encouragement" - me, I guess I see e.g. constructive criticism as encouragement, hence the posts about criticism and encouragement etc. (and maybe I was trying to encourage you to be encouraging lol)

That was it, no big deal really, hope that buries it

Paul Keith:
Yes, my apologies also for not clarifying it. It was more or less a figure of speech.

I took mouser's "encouragement" as meaning someone who intentionally goes out of their way to cheer or inspire someone. That's why I said it's not me because my form of encouragement is more based around actual results and actual addressing of my criticisms.

I wouldn't keep myself from telling someone "congratulations" or "I think this guy did it good so and so" but I wouldn't go out of my way to encourage someone to keep trying or to experiment with a tweak of a system if I get the sense that they're already struggling and starting to de-organize themselves especially because chances are someone or even many in the productivity community would more likely be doing that to them already, so I'd rather be a devil's advocate except for cases where I really was impressed or inspired by that person.

raybeere:
What does "productivity" mean? In the narrowest sense, of course, it means producing more items; a factory churns out 10,000 more units of the same model one month than the last. But most people aren't producing identical items. I am not much of a programmer; I can only make a few very minor things work right now. But I have toyed with it just enough to understand it is a creative process. Creativity cannot be measured as precisely as output or profits.

Understanding systems designed for business may be helpful in gaining a general insight into productivity issues, but systems intended for business users will never provide a fully satisfying answer for anyone whose work involves creativity. Most systems tell you to "Focus on what matters." Now, that is a good point, well worth keeping in mind, but what does matter? To the executives of a large corporation, profit is what matters. To the people who work under them, pleasing their bosses is what matters. Yes, some corporations do manage to foster creativity to a certain extent, but no one has ever seriously suggested it is the ideal environment.

To get more creative work done, each individual needs to discover and establish processes that work for them. In one of the posts on this subject, someone mentioned that, if a number of people practice the fundamentals of basketball, most of them will improve. Of course! That is because basketball is a specific skill; everyone practicing has the same goal. Productivity requires different skills, depending on what it is you're producing. I think the best model for the GOE is one that will help every participant discuss and understand all the possibilities, while leaving them the freedom to set personally meaningful goals, then explore the best processes to help them - as individuals with different working styles and needs - achieve those goals.

Paul Keith:
To get more creative work done, each individual needs to discover and establish processes that work for them. In one of the posts on this subject, someone mentioned that, if a number of people practice the fundamentals of basketball, most of them will improve. Of course! That is because basketball is a specific skill; everyone practicing has the same goal.
--- End quote ---

I pretty much agree raybeere except for this one tidbit. In general, basketball might seem like one sport and thus one skill but then like all generalities, once you actually need to be productive in it, it is different skills. You simply cannot produce productivity focusing on practicing a dogmatic fundamental training regime alone.

A person who drives to the basket for example, will in turn have different variations of the same fundamentals as that of a shooter. Then there's inside and outside scoring. And then there's the whole other thing with trainers and coaches where the fundamentals aren't there to be practiced as skills so much as to be integrated into a team model. Then there's the fundamentals of your team and of your play and of the whole kinds of situation you are placed in. Even a general manager needs to know the fundamentals in order to be effective.

In the end, I agree with your model in theory but at the same time, I am baffled by how to proceed in fulfilling that goal. Let's not even forget that it is a month-long project. That is the first priority. The 2nd priority is what tomos alluded to which is to preserve and gain momentum to the ideas so much that even past that month, there will be people interested up until the next GOE.

This idea that the "best model for the GOE is one that will help every participant discuss and understand all the possibilities, while leaving them the freedom to set personally meaningful goals, then explore the best processes to help them - as individuals with different working styles and needs - achieve those goals." It's great but where does it fit in the entire road map? If anything it's like another month-long project of "Organizing" the Getting Organized Experiment and this month right now seems to be it.

Yet at the same time, right now where and what model to adapt, none of us knows yet and none of us has any idea how to decide. At least, I don't. It seems that is the problem with the loose model but the strict model appears to be awfully unpopular. Right now in this week, we all probably have done no productive things as opposed to even doing unproductive things to pursue this upcoming experiment. It's really a dilemma. (unless someone has already secretly established something without posting it here)

tomos:
the strict model appears to be awfully unpopular
-Paul Keith (April 08, 2009, 10:14 AM)
--- End quote ---

could you elaborate on the strict model Paul ?
- I think I know what you mean by it - I guess it would mean an awful lot of work for any organiser - if you were willing to go for it I would certainly happily partake, but as you've probably seen by now, my knowledge of these things is fairly minimal, so I cant see myself getting involved in organising in that way.


Yet at the same time, right now where and what model to adapt, none of us knows yet and none of us has any idea how to decide. At least, I don't. It seems that is the problem with the loose model -Paul Keith (April 08, 2009, 10:14 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think that problem is a problem with any model - making the decision to go for it
if you really favour one, say it - who knows, we may all follow you :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page