Ever since I read How to Build a Second Brain I’ve been thinking about some of my core principles. Today we’re going to look at how I view systems vs tools.

In the coming weeks we’ll look at:

  • Production vs Consumption

  • Focus before Busy

  • Lasting before Trivial

Systems Before Tools

One of the biggest traps as you try to get anything done is thinking that changing the tools you use will do anything to increase the quantity or quality of your output. No one thinks that because they purchase a new hammer they'll be able to build a better house, yet we do this all the time with our software tools.

The only reason that you feel so much better when you change task managers is that you have finally thrown away all the baggage of the old tasks you were never going to do. You didn't move them to the new system because it was too much work to do. You finally said no to the tasks which brings relief.

Unfortunately, you still brought your own broken system that got you to 50 overdue tasks to the new task manager. So in a few months, or a year, youll have 50 overdue tasks nagging you again.

Build a Workable System First

One of the best thing I ever did to deal with my tasks was to use a Bullet Journal for a few years. The thing about an analogue system is that it defaults to "no" when it comes to moving tasks forward. You have to manually copy them forward to the next set of pages, or the next book.

Yup that's a lot of friction, and it takes time. Sure you could probably be using that time to do one of the tasks on the list, but overall it will be less productive to do the task in the moment. Doing a single task in a moment feels easier because it gets something off your list, but then you never spend the time evaluating the priority of all of the items on your list.

The friction is the point to a Bullet Journal. When something feels like too much work to write down you're acknowledging that it's not valuable enough. When you feel that friction stop and don't write it down because you're likely never going to do the task in the first place. Bullet Journal lets you off the hook for tasks as they end up on some page "lost". A digital task manager always brings everything forward to remind you of all the things you thought were a good idea to do that you never got to.

Using a Bullet Journal and then modifying it to my own Analogue Productivity System gave me a base workflow I still use today. It gave me the mindset to say no to so many more tasks so I can do the things that are actually valuable to my business. It let me have the freedom to say no to work so I could spend time with my children.

What Makes a Good System?

First, if any part of your system relies on a specific feature of a software tool (like OmniFocus review) then it's likely not a great system because it's not tool agnostic. A good system doesn't require a specific brand of task manager, just as any decent carpenter can build a house with any brand of hammers and do just as good a job.

That's not to say that a feature of a tool doesn't ease the burden of a part of your system. The review in OmniFocus does make looking over your tasks easier, heck I noticed years ago that without a good review I dropped 5% in billable hours but I do not require OmniFocus to manage my review process.

I still review my tasks regularly in Things 3 and toss the ones that have been sitting for a while. If I haven't opened up the time in my schedule to do something in a few weeks then I'm unlikely to do it at this time. I don't let myself feel bad about it, I just say goodbye and may come back to the task at a future date. My hybrid productivity system doesn't rely on any specific tool to help me get things done.

Second, a good system is repeatable. It's something you can do without thinking for hours. Yes a good system takes some work to set up the first time, but once it's working you shouldn't be spending huge amounts of time maintaining it. If you are then you don't have a good system.

If you can't sit down regularly to review your tasks, then you don't have a good system. Maybe you don't have a good system for planning your time so that you can sit down to evaluate your priorities. Maybe the review method you've picked is so much work that you're never going to do it.

Third, a good system achieves a goal. If all you're doing is shuffling the system around and you're calling that "productive" then you don't have a good system. The purpose of my task management system is to help keep me organizend and shipping work. The purpose of my note system is to produce content. If I'm spending all my time shuffling plugins in Obsidian around and not writing then my writing system is broken.

Finally, a good system is living. You start with the best ideas you have and then you refine them to fit you. Maybe you start with some of the ideas I've shared on my site, but you don't stick with the ones that don't fit in your life. You spend some time, at least yearly, looking at your goals and evaluating whether your systems are helping you accomplish your goals.

Not all your goals need to be productivity goals either. One of my goals is to be around for my kids without feeling distracted about work. That means I need to be able to sit down and get things done with minimal friction. That means I need to block out my time properly so I can get things done.

No Tool Will Ever be Perfect

There is never going to be a perfect tool. I sit on my iPad writing this in Obsidian, which I love. For me, Obsidian combines the right amount of power features and getting out of your way to just write.

But I'd love to see deeper iPadOS integration in the application. I don't really expect to see it though as Obsidian is a cross-platform application and spending a bunch of time for a single platform is unlikely to be a good use of the time of the developers.

I don't let the imperfections of Obsidian stop me from writing and producing YouTube videos though. I continue to execute my system of timeblocking and idea generation to produce content for my site.

When you have a good system the tools are almost entirely irrelevant after a baseline of functionality has been achieved.