Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site October 20, 2014, 09:15:10 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Read the Practical Guide to DonationCoder.com Forum Search Features
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: The Getting Organized Experiment of 2009 - Preliminary Planning  (Read 12666 times)
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2009, 04:22:28 AM »

Paul,
I take your point about criticism, but I'll ask:
does being critical rule out being encouraging? Criticism, if delivered fairly, can obviously be something helpful - as you say if Allen was more specific in his criticism we would now know a bit more about the topic. I'm not trying to force you into an encouraging role !! just throwing it out there

I dont think we're trying to change the world of productivity or whatever it's called. You keep focusing on that world and it's problems. Again, I'm not saying all that stuff isnt important - I'm just saying it's only one aspect.

I'm curious - what is it you would want from a GOE ?
I mean - not what you dont want !
(apologies if you've said that somewhere already & I've missed it - just redirect me!)

Yes, this was my answer to your question: http://www.donationcoder....17712.msg158113#msg158113

I get that you feel that it's only one aspect but it's a huge under-represented aspect that has allowed people to be disappointed, disorganized further and messed up.

I also feel Allen being more specific won't help. Why? Because he wasn't interested in tools in the first place as much as he was on GTD. It's like saying Forster was helpful when he compared AutoFocus to a Rolls Royce of to-do lists when accused of the system being just a to do list.

Why? Because both cases fall under the case where people didn't really care enough about that aspect until their systems led them to that aspect where they had to clarify it.

I also don't know what you meant by encouragement. It seems to me the reverse has actually happened and that people are more likely to encourage and rule out criticism and as far as the impressions I've gathered, it has only helped out those who managed to become productive and fueled the anger or apathy of those who don't while the unproductive people are left to fend of for themselves on what a system should truly feel like.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,604



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2009, 05:56:03 AM »

I also don't know what you meant by encouragement.
what I said:
criticism doesnt rule out encouragement (I only said it because you were saying something along the lines that you didnt do encouragement but did do criticism)
And naturally: encouragement doesnt rule out criticism ...
Logged

Tom
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2009, 06:25:11 AM »

I also don't know what you meant by encouragement.
what I said:
criticism doesnt rule out encouragement (I only said it because you were saying something along the lines that you didnt do encouragement but did do criticism)
And naturally: encouragement doesnt rule out criticism ...

Hmm...that could be a failure of communication on my part. I don't recall saying anything like that. At least even if I do, I've never felt encouragement to be something I'm against and won't do.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,604



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2009, 02:09:37 AM »

Hmm...that could be a failure of communication on my part. I don't recall saying anything like that. At least even if I do, I've never felt encouragement to be something I'm against and won't do.
...
re-read your reply to mouser's 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.

you could re-read my last couple of posts again as well in connection with your "criticism = insulting" interpretation - I really dont see where you got that one (I'm looking forward to the D.Allen video though, but will have to wait till later)

Logged

Tom
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2009, 02:50:52 AM »

tomos, I did. I still don't get it. As for how I interpreted it. It started with SKesselman talking about heavy criticism.


Any particular reason to be heavily critical? Don't you think you might scare some potential participants away?

Then your own post:

Quote
does being critical rule out being encouraging?

then...

Quote
I only said it because you were saying something along the lines that you didnt do encouragement but did do criticism

and then you telling me to reread my post...
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,604



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2009, 01:10:20 PM »

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
Quote
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.
-
2) your reply
Quote
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.
-
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
Logged

Tom
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2009, 05:08:39 PM »

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.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
raybeere
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 94


see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2009, 06:18:50 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 06:20:27 PM by raybeere » Logged
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2009, 10:14:39 AM »

Quote
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.

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)
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,604



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2009, 11:58:05 AM »

the strict model appears to be awfully unpopular

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

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 smiley
Logged

Tom
raybeere
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 94


see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2009, 02:25:12 PM »

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.
....
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)

I agree, I did overgeneralise a bit, but the point I was making is still valid. Despite the variations, winning a basketball game still requires focus on one result - and the skills are strongly related. I am hardly enough of a basketball player to give advice on how to accomplish that goal, but the point is that a basketball coach can help their team to do so. If that same coach were to apply the same principles to helping writers write more and better works, or to helping programmers code more and better applications, a few individuals might come away with a few helpful ideas, but overall the results would be underwhelming.

If a writer tried coaching a basketball team (unless they also knew basketball, but let's not complicate this too much), the results would also be pretty pathetic. And neither a writer nor a basketball coach would do much to help a bank increase their revenues. And so on... My point is, "productivity" is a very general goal. It has specifics that may work - in specific areas - but they seldom translate well to other areas. So a system developed for business will only be completely helpful in increasing productivity when it is applied to business tasks. Even the most diehard GTD enthusiast is unlikely to suggest GTD can play a very significant part in creating a winning basketball team. If the GOE is to adopt any type of strict system, it would first be necessary to decide what type of productivity was the goal.

I agree completely that my remarks don't provide a clear goal on any road map, although the outlines of a goal could be inferred between the lines. That is because I believe that before any goal can be defined, the problem must first be understood. And the problem, as I see it, is that creative work, which I believe is what most if not all programmers practice, is not as easily pigeonholed as most other areas. Basketball, it is at least possible to use one system of training to build a successful team. Business, likewise. Why do so many companies offer programmers more flexibility? It isn't because in their secret wishes, all managers are non-conformists. Wink It is because there is no one system by which all programmers can do good work. Music, art, writing - all creative work I know anything about has this in common: one person's system will stifle another person's creativity.

So how do we experiment at all? I freely admit this is my own opinion; others may not like it at all. But my own impression of what would be most helpful would be a month long discussion where everyone who took part tried putting into practice whatever methods appealed to them, then openly discussed what worked for them - and what didn't - and why. That aspect would help others learn. And mutual participation, even if our paths and goals varied, would provide a sense of camaraderie. In addition, those who have the ability to whip out quick, useful apps could put together tools to help in the application of the various methods. The crucial point there is to understand the distinction between cool but ultimately distracting "toys" and tools that offer a real benefit. Whoever led the event would need to encourage as many people, with as many divergent ideas as possible, to take part, moderate and promote the discussion of what ideas worked or didn't work and why, and keep the tools that flowed from the GOE focused at least mostly on the truly useful. Sure, those ideas need refining; I'm not claiming that is anything like a finished picture of what the GOE could be.

As far as sustaining interest, I think most people are interested in anything that can help them do better. One of the reasons I think so many productivity "drives" fail is because they don't take the problems into account. If you adopt a single method, one that only works for half the participants, then only that half that benefited will be enthusiastic. The ones that method failed for will be discouraged; of course they won't keep trying once the month is up. And if you adopt a method that only partially works for a few participants, all the momentum will die, quickly. Keeping interest alive year round is only possible if the month long GOE enables most or all of those who take part to see real gains.
Logged
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2009, 10:15:17 PM »

Quote from: tomos
could you elaborate on the strict model Paul ?

To be honest, I had no specific model in mind. I was referring more to mouser's post of there being a model in 2006 to no model in 2007

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.

Unfortunately, I wasn't kidding when I said I wasn't much for being an organizer. I don't really favour any one model except that I notice not enough people are discussing of any model so right now there's not even an ability to post an effective poll.

Quote from: raybeere
I agree completely that my remarks don't provide a clear goal on any road map, although the outlines of a goal could be inferred between the lines. That is because I believe that before any goal can be defined, the problem must first be understood. And the problem, as I see it, is that creative work, which I believe is what most if not all programmers practice, is not as easily pigeonholed as most other areas.

Again here, I mostly agree with you but I must say that creative work from my perspective is not that difficult to pigeonhole...or rather to say that basketball and any creative work has near the same level of pigeonholing problem and in fact programming can be easier to adapt in a single form of training.

For ex. Someone versed in C++ once learned, can pretty much program successfully where as in basketball, you can only be successful in one system for so long if you do not aim to be competitive or if you are part of a lower standard of competition. With this model, in basketball it is as the cliche saying goes: "Much easier to get from 1000 to 100 than from 10 to 1" where as in programming it's much easier to get to 1000 to 1 than it is to climb the ladder.

In the end, I believe creative productivity can be pigeonholed into 3 major areas (over-generalizing)

Area 1: Results
Area 2: The Confidence to Fail
Area 3: The Capacity to Salvage a Failed Project to Inspire and Utilize for Future Projects

Quote
So how do we experiment at all? I freely admit this is my own opinion; others may not like it at all. But my own impression of what would be most helpful would be a month long discussion where everyone who took part tried putting into practice whatever methods appealed to them, then openly discussed what worked for them - and what didn't - and why. That aspect would help others learn. And mutual participation, even if our paths and goals varied, would provide a sense of camaraderie.

Yes, I don't mind this loose model but it has to be a discussion. This is why I emphasize that we must be allowed to criticize each other or else we'd become like most productivity conversations in the internet where it becomes like an optimistic support group rather than a discussion.

Quote
The crucial point there is to understand the distinction between cool but ultimately distracting "toys" and tools that offer a real benefit. Whoever led the event would need to encourage as many people, with as many divergent ideas as possible, to take part, moderate and promote the discussion of what ideas worked or didn't work and why, and keep the tools that flowed from the GOE focused at least mostly on the truly useful. Sure, those ideas need refining; I'm not claiming that is anything like a finished picture of what the GOE could be.

Here I am a bit confused, on one hand you suggested a loose model above and on this end, you suggested a stricter model of an organizer. Could you specify the model you are thinking of? It might help make this vision of yours more concrete and make it simpler for people to agree or disagree upon. (We could make another topic specifically addressing your model)

Quote
As far as sustaining interest, I think most people are interested in anything that can help them do better. One of the reasons I think so many productivity "drives" fail is because they don't take the problems into account. If you adopt a single method, one that only works for half the participants, then only that half that benefited will be enthusiastic. The ones that method failed for will be discouraged; of course they won't keep trying once the month is up. And if you adopt a method that only partially works for a few participants, all the momentum will die, quickly. Keeping interest alive year round is only possible if the month long GOE enables most or all of those who take part to see real gains.

Again, you hit another point of why I emphasize criticizing even the adapters of systems so they could be inspired to switch systems if there's a strong gut feeling of incompatibility.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
raybeere
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 94


see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2009, 05:39:17 PM »

In the end, I believe creative productivity can be pigeonholed into 3 major areas (over-generalizing)

Area 1: Results
Area 2: The Confidence to Fail
Area 3: The Capacity to Salvage a Failed Project to Inspire and Utilize for Future Projects

Personally, I think you've missed a few points. Like ideas. Some people have 'em, some struggle to find them. Also, processes that help you proceed from idea to finished result with as few unpleasant detours as possible. Both of those are major issues for writers, and I'd guess for many programmers as well. Although I do agree your three points are good ones.

Quote
Here I am a bit confused, on one hand you suggested a loose model above and on this end, you suggested a stricter model of an organizer. Could you specify the model you are thinking of? It might help make this vision of yours more concrete and make it simpler for people to agree or disagree upon. (We could make another topic specifically addressing your model)

Perhaps I didn't make this point clear enough. I wasn't suggesting a stricter model, simply pointing out that even a loose model does need a moderator of sorts. Otherwise, it is all too likely to drift into a discussion of the funniest lolcats we've found on the Web, or whatever. And I have seen that happen here, so I know it is not just writers who have this weakness.  Grin
Logged
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2009, 11:32:18 AM »

Quote
Personally, I think you've missed a few points. Like ideas. Some people have 'em, some struggle to find them. Also, processes that help you proceed from idea to finished result with as few unpleasant detours as possible.

Yes, this is why I mentioned over-generalizing.

This thing should be addressed in both Area 1 and 3.

Quote
Perhaps I didn't make this point clear enough. I wasn't suggesting a stricter model, simply pointing out that even a loose model does need a moderator of sorts. Otherwise, it is all too likely to drift into a discussion of the funniest lolcats we've found on the Web, or whatever. And I have seen that happen here, so I know it is not just writers who have this weakness.  Grin

True but in this case, from what I interpreted of mouser's post, the loose model of the 2007 GOE was exactly that. No moderator. Hence my usage of loose.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
kwacky1
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 178



i am Cody's cousin

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2009, 05:37:39 AM »

Vote 1:  Getting Disorganised Experiment 101
Logged

Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.048s | Server load: 0.14 ]