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.
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.