Brain Breach

Productivity, organization, and collaboration software excite me.  Just recently I decided to upgrade my task tracking system, and that is just so fun!  The following is a review of some desktop task management suites.  After many hours in review of online project/task management, I wasn’t prepared to go that route.  We already use Trac internally for dev teams, and each of them has their own way of tracking tasks.  There is just no killer project management suite as of today, sorry.

Certainly there is a fine selection of personally task management software, or so I thought.  After all, mastering ourselves is the key to mastering our dreams.   Let me explain what tools I tried, and my opinion of them.

---

TaskJuggler

This project is attractive because of its robustness.  You can do nearly everything.  It might very well be a pain to do it, but you can.  See, this program manages tasks via its own markup.  I would be able to pull out reports with any level of abstraction and specificity I wish. That’s HUGE. But a new markup to learn? Well, darn.  But I figured it was worth learning because the task management landscape is terribly malnourished.

I make my way to the download page and………surprise…Linux only!  You can get it running under Cygwin, virtualization, or just run it remotely on your Linux server.  Gees.  No thanks.  Looks like a great project, but until its ported, or I move to Linux full time, I shall look elsewhere.

---

Nomad Pim

My hopes are once again high.  This PIM is programed on the Eclipse platform.  That means programmers can focus on functionality over platform robustness, and the ensuing app has great potential.  The app has a short learning curve, and the interface for contacts and tasks is the same.  That’s a new take, but it seems to work.  You can search through your contacts quickly, and schedule tasks.  Its usefulness ends there for me.  When I flick on the PC, and open my task lists, I can’t have 100 tasks staring me in the face.  I need abstraction! In other words, give me the top priorities.  That’s the essence of GTD, except they are called next actions.  Note: “GTD” suites suffer all the same problems in my opinion.

A neat start for Nomad, but that’s all.  It really would leave me stressed at the end of the day from not knowing exactly what I need to be doing. I am starting to think my requirements are impossible, but they seem simple to me.

---

Abstract Spoon’s ToDoList

Deciding I have to disperse PIM functions into different apps, I look solely for a task management application. So many! I am not going to list everything I have tried or researched.

Do you know that I fell in love with ToDoList? It is open source, a few minutes to learn, only has minor bugs, and you can truly arrange and filter tasks. If you are looking for an app that is great for collaboration, keep looking or hire Bixly to build one that considers such usability topics as abstraction. ToDoList is magically simple and smart. Sure, it can be a bit awkward to use at times, but it just leaves these other programs in the dust when it comes to getting things done without stress. Good work!

---

WikidPad

For a neat desktop wiki that tries to employ a task system, try Wikidpad. It’s the best desktop wiki I have seen. Its attempt to tackle “globals” such as tasks, is darn interesting. I think my dream PIM app lay somewhere in WikidPad, just not yet. It’s rather cumbersome right now as a task or contact manager. But the idea that you can create tasks or contacts from anywhere on any wiki page is fantastic. Also, having the navigation tree decided completely by the wiki script is cumbersome. I just haven’t given thought to exactly how it should work, because the alternative is quite robust. I am truly rooting for this project.

---

Another program that really disappointing me was TaskCoach . It just…..doesn’t get it. Nothing is intuitive or easy, and it certainly doesn’t help me manage tasks very well. Now I am thankful to all these programmers for giving us free software, so don’t misunderstand my purpose here. I hope to save you time in your search for great software.

Also you might find collaborative mindmaping useful for knowledge management and simple tasking within the enterprise. The earliest program to do it right was Comapping .

The following entry is a summary of this amazing article, Engines of Democracy . This is exciting info, and a good follow up on the previous entry on Simplexity. You can read my drab summary of the article, or read the 12 pages yourself, which I highly recommend. I understand the ideas presented here aren’t turn-key solutions for every organization. It sure is interesting to think HOW these principles can be applied to my current and future companies.

• Just one floor manager for 170 employees
• Teams, averaging 16 people, create jet engines
• Three levels of techs, with clear pay grades
• Level 3’s can do any jet job
• Each task has clear directions, with photos of each step
• Interview process takes 8 hours:
  > They are given tasks, work with the team, and build a presentation
  > Team rates interviewee on 11 criteria, many involve teamwork
• They give each other feedback when needed. They don’t have resentment, or hide feelings
• Employees get creativity with the exact process of building engines
• They are trained on how to reach consensus, or live without getting their way:
  > they know if it doesn’t work out, the have a chance to change it later on
• Sharing skill is important, it allows the team to operate without you when you need time off
• Teams are really tribes: accountability, culture, training, loyalty
• Members periodically join councils to decide hr/discipline/rewards for other teams
• A team is responsible for themselves with things like cleanup and tool tracking
• Basic principles, from managers mouth:
  > Layerless organization
  > People paid according to skill
  > Everyone certified/trained by FAA
  > Tribal mentality
• Three types of decisions for the company
  > A decisions – The plant manager decides (She only makes 10-12 of those a year)
  > B decision – The plant manger decides with input from teams
  > C decision – Decision is made by employee consensus (most common type)
• Though they technically have only one boss for 170 employees, they see it as having 15 bosses. Their peers.
• Employees don’t think their job is making jet engines, but making them better

Simplexity is the prefect marriage of simple and complex.  It’s accomplished by creating many simple parts, that create a larger complex system. Miguel Cunha is gold, if you haven’t read him before. He has a fascinating, although rough draft, article on Simplexity. There are many parallels for business, software, and life in the idea of simplexity, but he focuses on Business. It’s worth a read if you can find the time, otherwise, here are my notes from his article

Ashby’s Law:
only complex organizing – rather than complicated organizations – provides enough complexity to cope with environmental turbulence.
basically means only complexity can cope with complexity

Unintentional Complexity

Complexity is the cumulative by-product of organizational changes, big and small, that over the years weave complications (often invisibly) into the way work is done. pg 7

It is fought with intentional simplicity. Jack Welch turned around GE with his simplification process.

Unintentional simplicity is a problem also. it encourages exploitation over exploration. pg 8

Loosely coupled organizations can better handle the unexpected. pg 17

Only the complex organizing provided by simple structures – rather than complicated organizations – is flexible enough to cope with environmental complexity. pg 18

Complexity, top-down hierarchy, overdeveloped systems and processes seem to turn workers into machines. A hive-mind mentality should foster creativity.

organizations need to create designs that favor alertness and capacity of response, triggered wherever the information is. pg 19

Although the behavior that emerges is complex, the rules that guide it are necessarily simple. In fact it is their simplicity that creates the freedom to behave in complicated adaptive, and surprising ways. pg 20

One of the potential results of deliberately simple organizing is the creation of a developed collective mind, or what Weick and Roberts (1993) described as heedful interrelating. The concept refers to a developed attentiveness and caring about the actions of the other organizational members, in such a way that individual know-how is made subservient to group processes. pg 22

Simple infrastructures may result in complex behaviors because they support and facilitate a number of processes that encourage rich and mindful interactions. pg 22

in his Mann Gulch study, which showed that training and specialization may actually hamper the variety of behavioral repertoire. Again: complexity may block learning and adaptation. pg 25

This read was particularly reassuring for me. It’s the collective intelligence of the company that can really make a great company, not just mine. That’s great! Now the leader’s role is to facilitate such an atmosphere.

Resources

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/28/ge.html
http://www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY1/pdfs/Complicity11b_Intro.pdf

Research has shown that we certainly possess risk aversion. Ambiguity aversion should be considered its hidden twin in the proliferate duo that is worth understanding for your business. An awareness of this principle is certainly important enough to add to Paradigms I Follow .

It is simply this: Being psychologically prohibited to expanding decision options because of ambiguity. See, you can have a two or more choices in front of you with greater/lesser/equal worth in the end. You will most likely choose the one which requires the smallest amount of thinking. Please check out the Thirteen.org video that inspired this post. What a neat show! Further:

Frisch and Baron (1988) emphasized that the subjective experience of missing information relevant to a prediction may lead to ambiguity aversion.
Keller

This has so many implications for business and brands. A great example of popular usage and profit from Ambiguity Aversion is the show Deal Or No Deal . Forward to the middle of a show and the decision usually looks like this: Take $300,000 right now, or possibly get $800,000. It’s silly really to choose the $800,000 because the chances are still 1 in 5 or 1 in 10. Since we are averse to ambiguity, it’s easier to calculate “hmmm, I want more money, and this could work”.

This opens up a whole new field of Neuroeconomics to us, which is definitively worth further brain breaching.

Interestingly, ambiguity aversion in pairs of users actually gets worse!

The majority of the dyads exhibited a cautious shift in the face of ambiguity, stating a smaller willingness-to-pay than the two individuals’ average. Our study thus confirms the persistence of ambiguity aversion in a group setting and demonstrates the predominance of cautious shifts for dyads.
Keller

Additional resources:
Four types of Ambiguity Aversion link