Reflections from using the KEE productivity system
Edwin's Do-It newsletter #26 - Insights from new modes of thinking
Hello everyone,
The fundamental benefit of specifying and making something is that you can test it against reality. You can see how it performs and pinpoint where it works or breaks down. If your creations are vague, then you lose the opportunity to error-correct and improve.
That’s why I’m glad that after using the KEE productivity system for a few months, I have some new insights to share.
The KEE system
Our brain is for having ideas, not for storing them. David Allen cleared that up in Getting Things Done. However, our computers are also not for storing ideas, they’re for acting on them.
KEE isn't centered around areas, domains, or any form of strict categorization. Instead, processes and outcomes are at the heart of it.
To get to know the framework check out the Medium article and Notion template below:
🔗 Medium article & guide: The KEE system explained.
Reflections on using the KEE system
The KEE system embodies 3 fundamental modes of thinking
Utility-oriented thinking:
If there's no clear purpose for X, it shouldn't be there.
My “Knowledge Database” was filled with different fields that I thought were beneficial to have: Psychology, Biology, Business, etc. But, since I didn’t have a direct purpose for them, they never got used. There was no process or moment where I’d think to myself to “crack open the business knowledge page". Therefore, I decided to clear out 60% of my knowledge database.
As a result of the reduced noise, it also became much clearer where I should tie in my new insights. Instead of pondering whether my thoughts on “First-principle thinking” should be linked to Psychology, Game Theory, Reality, or Chapter 2 of the 5 acts principle, only one option remained.
The lesson learned was that it’s far better to have limited choices than excessive choices. Once your limited options become too constructive, you simply add another item.
Outcome-oriented thinking:
What’s the end-result of X?
It’s easy to fall into the “I might need this information for later, so I better keep it” trap. The way out of that is to break down all the possible outcomes, after which it’s immediately clear which properties of that item are useful, or not.
I moved or removed 7 properties because I realized they were not needed in the database I used. Most properties only become relevant once moved into a more specific workflow (engine).
Process-oriented thinking:
What’s the immediate next step for X, and when is that?
Previously I had several descriptive properties added to items to indicate their present state: “last action taken” “reasoning” and “next steps” for example. Although this information was helpful, it was incomplete. There was no historical log of what the previous states were, so the indicator became quite stale and subjective. Instead, I decided to move the state indicators to new “page comments”, so that I can a) immediately see what the state had previously been, and b) am forced to type out a new state each time instead of editing what’s already there.
Interesting finds of the week:
📖 Read:
The bubble has popped for unprofitable software companies - Post by DHH
The title says it all.
🔗 Link to the blog post
Declining educational standards? - Post by Brett Hall
Excellent analysis of the fallacy and vicious cycle of “declining educational standards” worldwide.
🔗 Link to the newsletter publication
🔊 Listened to:
The Meaning of It All - Richard P. Feynman - Audiobook version
In this short book, Physicist Richard Feynman investigates the relationship between science and society in a playful and understanding manner.
🔗 Link to the audible store
🌊 Re-surfaced:
We Need a New Science of Progress - Article in The Atlantic
Very interesting article analyzing specifically “progress” and its conditions.
🔗 Link to the article
That’s a wrap
I’d love to hear what you think. You can leave a comment on Substack, send me a private message or simply reply to this e-mail. See you next week!
, Edwin