Might have to do an in-depth series with the questions that I posed in yesterday's journal entry with work.
How do we complete tasks transparently? So is the process of completing a task necessary to be transparent on some level other than that the task was completed? Obviously, for some things you can't complete them in Asana. But some can be definitely put into Asana. All the brainstorm, ideas, email templates, meeting minute related to that task can be put into Asana. The value isn't necessarily right now, but it's long term. If we want success; sustained, organically growing success as we increase employee count and overall workload, then it becomes increasingly important. Even if people are using Apple notes or whatever it's called, or Evernote, or anything else they can then insert into Asana. What value does that provide? What friction does it alleviate? The notes related to that task are within the context of that task. It reduces the friction of having to search for those notes on your local computer or G Drive somewhere. It increases buy-in into Asana. It'd be worth going into each individual's tasks and seeing what rough breakdown of tasks can be either completed or information provided in Asana vs tasks that can't. There's also value to future hires having insight into the steps and assets that were taken and created to complete that task. It simultaneously reduces the friction of the onboarding process for both the existing and new employee.
Ok, so I think for each of these I'm going to create a quadrant, one of the note-taking styles recommended by Jim Kwik. With added value and reduced friction on 1 side and current and future on another. (see image for quadrant)
That's essentially only the pros column though essentially. What about the flip side to this? Why wouldn't someone do this? Why wouldn't we adopt it as a best practice or SOP within our operating system? I think the framework is just the inverse of the previous quadrant. (see image for quadrant)
Just change around 'reduced' and 'added' and it has the cons in this quadrant.
Current reduced value:
Not as much value as we think it is to combine everything
Is G Drive still useful then (Yes, in my opinion)
The amount of tasks that fall into this category for people isn't worth standardizing it
Current added friction:
Extra steps to insert into people's existing process flow
Future reduced value:
We keep jumping from implementation method to implementation method, so lack of some consistency
Future added friction:
Every new person has to change their way
Outstanding questions:
How much of a person's task load has the ability to follow some version of this proposed change?
How much time would it save one person individually? The organization?
How do I measure the added / reduced value / friction? (I think with probabilities.)
How likely is this to happen? Getting out of a '1 reality' mindset and more into a 'In a 100 universes, in how many would this be useful in?'
Or something like that. I want to think / talk more in probabilities at work and in general. Nothing is black and white but just numbers in a probability range. Also connecting something here of what Alex was mentioning at T@2. "Offense" and "defense" roles at the company. That falls in line with the value-add and friction-reduction framework. I think he'll be a fan lol. The Value-Friction Quadrant. You know consultants love their quadrants lol.
Comments