Yes, it’s lousy. The lighting is bad, the sound is bad, and it’s got that horrendous camera whine that I may have since learned how to avoid.

But if you listen you’ll understand that the point is that I got it done and got it out there, using the tools I had available.

And the next one will be better.

Get one thing done. Then another. Make each one better. Rinse, repeat.

Also — in the video I talk a bit about Merlin Mann and in particular his old material from the early days of 43 Folders. Given the new video Merlin recently posted, I want to just want to clarify that a bit.

I don’t recommend you read Merlin’s older stuff because everyone desperately needs advice on notebooks, paper, space pens and new ways to order hamburgers. And I’m certainly not promising that all of those old posts will make you more productive. No guaranteed secrets to turbo charge super productivity in ten days or your money back call now operators are standing by.

I recommend the older stuff on 43 Folders because:

1. The posts are entertainingly written.
2. As Merlin acknowledges in his recent video, everyone needs strange, fun, and even low-impact input from time to time.
3. Maybe one in two dozen of those early posts will contain the very thing you need in that moment to get out of a rut and get something started or get something done more efficiently. That will be worth it, and that one thing will be different for everyone. Or maybe you won’t find that thing, but at least you’ll have enjoyed a few minutes of wit.

By all means don’t get sucked in, and don’t fool yourself into believing that reading productivity blogs — old or new — is any substitute for getting real work done. But in the right context and the right frame of mind, they can be a lot of fun.

I really like unitaskers.

Sadly, unitaskers are a favorite target of many who see themselves as anti-clutter, pro-organization, pro-simplicity. The idea seems to be that if you have tools that each serve only one purpose you will end up surrounded by countless tools, leaving your life cluttered and your spirit in chains. Alton Brown hates unitaskers in the kitchen. Unclutterer.com even has a weekly feature specifically to mock unitaskers.

I don’t have a big problem with Unclutterer’s “Unitasker Wednesday.” For many of the items featured I’d be happy to just label them “stupidtaskers” and leave it at that. For a more telling look into dogmatic anti-unitasker sentiment read through the comments to this old Unclutterer post on labelmakers.

In discussing the relative merits of labelmakers there are those who conclude “It’s a unitasker.” Then they sit back as if this revelation is enough to make their decision inevitable. It’s a unitasker, so they want nothing to do with it.

When someone proclaims refusal to own a “unitasker” I’m sometimes tempted to ask: do you not own a toothbrush? Or if you do, what exciting alternate uses have you discovered for it? Then I decide that I really don’t want to know.

Listen: it’s a labelmaker. Either you find it useful enough to own, or you don’t. There is no right answer. If you really think it will be clutter, don’t get one. If you’re not sure, check the Clutter Equation and decide whether it will provide more value than it costs. But to leave the whole decision up to whether a tool is treif or kosher based on its unitasker status makes little sense. This is true even is you are concerned about clutter, and it’s especially true if you’re interested in getting things done.

Maybe it’s my Unix experience, but I find that the most efficient and uncluttered way for me to get things done is to use simple, specialized tools. Let each tool do one thing very well. Honestly, what will contribute more to clutter in your life: a complicated tool that has dozens of features and dozens of uses, or a simple tool that is thoughtfully designed to get one thing done? I’ve had far more frustration from tools that try to do too much than from tools that perform one task simply and elegantly. When I want to dig a hole please give me a simple shovel, not an awkward chimera with pointy bits on both ends. When I want a decent-looking label please give me my labelmaker, not a roll of tape and a Sharpie.

This is not to say there is no room in my life for multitaskers. It is also unreasonable to reject a tool simply because it has more than one function. But when selecting a tool be sure to think about what you will really use it for, and whether or not it can do that thing — or things — well. Multitaskers are especially good when space, weight and portability are issues. I would not want to be without a Leatherman or comparable multitool in my satchel. (And I curse the fact that I can no longer take one in my carry-on baggage.) My iPhone is definitely a multitasker — it’s a digital multitool. And my MacBook is one king-hell multitasker — though I’m more inclined to think of it as an environment, in which I use a collection of different tools. Most of those are unitaskers, like WriteRoom.

Whether physical or digital, a good collection of simple unitasking tools can allow you to develop expertise in doing things, rather than in operating tools. If your tools are simple, they become transparent. Then there’s just the task and you, getting one thing done after another.

Inbox Zero Tumblr.

Rebalance the Equation

Part I introduced the Clutter Equation, a way to think about the things in your environment and how to identify clutter. If an object costs more — in time, attention, space, energy or money — than the value it brings to your life, it has a positive “clutter index” and you can safely call it clutter.

So once you’ve identified an object as clutter, what should you do?

Rebalance the equation. Get that clutter index down to zero or less.

The obvious thing to do is reduce the object’s cost. And the obvious way to do that? Get rid of it! That’s the most common anti-clutter advice there is, and it’s often the best. When’s the last time you even thought about that collection of old Tiger Beat magazines? Do you really think you’re going to read them again? Maybe someone is on eBay right now looking for them. Sell them, and you might have a few extra bucks in your pocket. If not eBay, then maybe the dumpster is the way to go — at least you’ll still end up with a little more room in your garage or one less bill for self-storage space.

But eBay or the trash are not the only answers.

You can relocate things. Maybe something is clutter because you don’t use it very often but it’s sitting in the middle of things and getting in your way. You may love that espresso maker, but if you only use it once a month does it have to be front and center on your counter? Put it away in a cabinet and make room for something you use more frequently — or, wonder of wonders, leave more open work space in your kitchen.

Another option is better organization. Organizing can reduce the space, time and attention costs for things that you want to keep. Just don’t get caught up in the idea that organizing has to be complicated or expensive. Organization just means putting things in an appropriate place, arranged in a useful or decorative way.

I tend to bring a lot of books into my house. For the longest time they just clotted into stacks all over the place — already read, waiting to be read, ready to be loaned to a friend, or too often just forgotten. Naturally this cost my family space — space we could have used for other things, such as breathing. It cost us time by turning cleaning and other activities into scrambles through a maze. And it cost us attention and energy by being such an unsightly distraction.

None of that is true anymore. Did we get rid of all of our books? No! We got rid of hardly any. Instead we organized them. Over the course of a few snowy afternoons Darling Wife and I entered all the books we could find into a computer database. (We use the free program Tellico on Linux, but there are other good options such as Delicious Library for Mac.) Some of the books were placed on our ample and now-organized bookshelves, with the shelf number noted in the database. Others were packed away in neat, well-labeled boxes, with box numbers that are also in the database. A few books were discarded or donated.

Now instead of a disastrous minefield of piled books we have an attractive library that takes up much less space and costs much less time, attention and energy.

And that’s not the only way organization changed the equation for our books. In addition to decreasing their cost, getting them organized increased their value. Now that we can find any one of our books in about two minutes we’ve been able to help friends by loaning them useful books at the right time, we’ve been able to re-read old favorites when the mood strikes, and we’ve been able to avoid trips to the bookstore by finding that we already have copies of most of the books required by our son’s English courses.

So in addition to finding ways to reduce an object’s cost, think of ways to increase its value.

One good question to ask is, why did you buy the thing in the first place? When you got the telescope that’s gathering dust in the corner you must have had some interest in astronomy. Why not clean the thing off, grab your kid on the next clear night and spend some time looking at the stars? Or that exercise machine — you must have envisioned it bringing more value to your life than just another place to hang clothes. Start using it.

Decrease the cost, increase the value. Toss, organize, and use your stuff to improve your environment and your life.

And there’s one more way you can use the Clutter Equation: to make better decisions about acquiring stuff. Before you buy something, ask yourself: if I add this to my life, what value will it bring? And what will it cost, day after day?

The Clutter Equation

There are plenty of books, websites and professional consultants who would be very happy to tell you about you and your clutter — what doesn’t belong, what should be moved, discarded, downsized or stowed. Trouble is, these experts don’t know you, your stuff or your life.

I don’t know you either. But I can offer a tool that may help you make your own decisions. The tool is called the Clutter Equation:

C(t, a, s, e, m) – V = I

More plainly:

Cost (in Time, Attention, Space, Energy and/or Money)

minus

Value the object adds to your life

equals

Clutter Index

If I is negative, then the item is not clutter. Its presence adds more value to your life than it consumes. Your life is, by definition, richer than it would be if the object were not there.

If I is positive, then the item is clutter — at least for now. It is costing you more than it is worth.

Of course I’m not expecting anyone to put specific numbers into this equation. Most of the costs and values involved cannot be quantified. (Though if you’re spending $45.00 a month on a storage unit for your collection of 1980s Tiger Beat magazines, there’s a cost you can quantify.)

Also, it’s important to remember that there are no “correct” values for any part of this equation. Like everything else about real or so-called clutter, the final decisions are subjective.

The purpose of the equation is to get you to think differently about the stuff in your life. Don’t assume you need to get new stuff, need to keep stuff, or need to leave stuff where and how it is. But don’t assume you have to get rid of all of your stuff either. Instead ask honestly — how much does the stuff enrich your life, and how much does it cost you?

Honesty and clarity are the keys to making this equation work. If you suspect that an object might be cluttering up your living room, be brutally honest about the value it brings. Sure, that SpiderMan snowglobe is nice, but what does does it add to your life? Try to be more specific than “it’s nice” or “I like it.” What do you like about it? What senses are engaged — sight? sound? memory? What about it would you miss if it were discarded or packed away?

Above all, beware of mistaking guilt or a sense of obligation for real value. As a cogent aphorism from unclutterer.com has it, “Guilt is not a reason to keep something.” Guilt is not value, and it is not a good basis for designing your environment. Moreover, a genuine obligation to another person can be served in better ways than keeping stuff you don’t really want in places you don’t really want it.

It is also important to be clear and honest about the cost side of the equation. Think about the space taken up by the object. What other use might you have for that space? Would your environment be more relaxing with nothing in that space? How much does that space cost, as a percentage of your housing costs (or storage space rental for those Tiger Beat magazines)?

The other potential costs make for harder questions, but may be even more important. How much time, attention and energy does the thing consume? How much time do you spend keeping those decorative teacups clean and dusted? Does that telescope on its tripod add to the time and effort it takes to get from your living room to the patio? How many times have you looked at that stack of crossword puzzle books and had negative rather than positive thoughts?

If you spend some time on this process and come to the conclusion that an object’s costs are greater than its value, then it is clutter. That means you’ll be better off if you do something about it.

In Part II of this series we’ll explore options for changing the balance of the equation.

I can think of a number of reasons for this. Some amount to simple and predictable contrarianism — when something is as popular as GTD, there are people who won’t be happy until they’ve declared it to be crap. But in the most thoughtful responses to GTD, like those cited above, there is something more going on. I’ll consider some of those in this and future posts to 1 Thing Done.

BEYOND PUNDITDOME

One source of this GTD backlash seems to stem from the rise of a newer generation of personal development pundits. Naturally, one way for a new guy to make his name is to call out the big dog – and that’s been Allen for a while now, though others such as Timothy Ferris are quickly emerging as targets. For example, in his blog Ferriss gives a strong and clever response to a pointed example of this kind of sniping by Bit Literacy author Mark Hurst.

Not that it’s necessarily the authors and consultants themselves who start with the chest-thumping. Just as often it’s bloggers looking for controversy who start yelling “Let’s you and him fight.”

One of the most literal and weird examples if this is also from Clay Collins in The Growing Life, in the form of a mock MMA bout between David Allen (representing GTD) and Tim Ferris (representing his 4-Hour Workweek approach). After some amusing descriptions of the pre-fight build-up and “rounds” of comparison between GTD and 4HWW, Collins ultimately tips his hat to both systems and refrains from declaring a winner. Which is a good thing, because I don’t quite see the basis for the conflict.  GTD and 4HWW are different approaches to different things, so a head-to head comparison is like comparing a dump truck to a dishwasher.

The focus of 4HWW is a particular kind of lifestyle design. The very title of the book describes a particular outcome.

The focus of GTD is a systematic approach to making plans, capturing ideas and executing actions to help create whatever outcome you want.

I didn’t get a lot out of The 4-Hour Workweekthe first time I read it. Maybe that’s because I don’t find hammocks very comfortable, and because my idea of a nutritional supplement is the extra shot of espresso I used to get in the giant lattes from my local coffee shop. Recently I gave 4HWW another look, and gathered from it a number of useful suggesting about developing business ideas and markets, managing the inputs in my life, and in general being open and active when it comes to creating opportunities. What I did not find was anything that seems to conflict with GTD.

Certainly the nuts and bolts of GTD can enable an unfortunate amount of system-fiddling for fiddling’s sake. As Ferriss says in his blog, “GTD is a bottom-up approach to time management that — used in isolation — can lead to becoming very efficient (doing things well) but decreasingly effective (not doing the right things).” This is definitely a risk if one obsesses on the the “runway-level” workflow parts of Getting Things Done while ignoring the planning and “altitudes of focus” models that are presented in the very same book.

There are any number of ways to decide how you want your life and world to be. David Allen, Timothy Ferriss and others provide valuable tools and approaches. But in the end it always comes down to wanting an outcome, deciding on an action to bring the real world conditions closer to that outcome, and then taking that action. That’s where the simple heart of GTD pays off.

• Have you decided on an action to take, but you can’t take it right now? Record it somewhere. There’s no sense in wasting time and brain power having to think it up all over again.
• Where should you record it? Someplace you trust yourself to look when you’ll be in a position to act.

There’s GTD in a nutshell.

Now, this glosses over a lot of important topics, such as what goes into choosing an outcome, deciding upon an action, and creating gates and gate keepers to control what you have to think about in the first place. But if there’s some great innovation that improves on these principles — choose an action, then do it now or write it down and do it later — I’d be delighted to hear about it.

So naturally I’m going to ignore his powerful advice about how to start a new blog. Rather than diving directly into hardcore content, I’m posting this note to explain the purpose of the site and give you an idea of what you can expect to find here.

This post is more for me than for you. Which may prove true for most of what appears on this site. I’m writing this post to help myself sort out the direction for the site.

A number of related ideas have been rising to the top of my thoughts over the past year. Some have been steeping for longer than that. A partial list:

• Systematic approaches to workflow, productivity and creativity.
• Organization — personal and professional, physical and mental.
• Space, stuff and “Decluttering.” Paying due attention to physical environment and the things we allow into our lives.
• Effective living. Bringing together the skills, habits and attitudes needed to live a life in which you can experience, create, learn and above all be happy.

Of course, there are plenty of books and web sites out there already covering these subjects. Many of those are great, but even more are deeply wrongheaded. Too often the discussions stray far afield from the principles that lay behind the systems, and lose sight of the goals they can serve. “Decluttering” becomes making fun of other peoples’ choices and knee-jerk condemnation of “Unitaskers.” “Productivity” becomes a fetish for to-do lists rather than a thoughtful approach to what is allowed onto those lists. Frugality becomes just another way of obsessing over physical possessions. Many wonderful ideas can become parodies of actually living an effective life, if you lose focus on why the ideas matter.

On 1 Thing Done I plan to keep purpose and principle at the heart of things. And this includes the most important principle: effective living means taking action.

No matter how much you plan, organize or mind-map, in the end you have to get one thing done.

Then another.

Then another.

And eventually these small changes in the state of the world can add up to great achievements.