Forum Posts Feed
Interesting article from the co-founder of Scrintal
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Paul Korm
Dec 15, 2024 at 02:39 PM
I’m sympathetic to Stephen Zeoli’s thoughts about “workflow”. To me, it smacks of Taylorism, which is not a good model for intellectual pursuits. I don’t think the term is going way in so-called “PKM” forums any time soon, however. (“PKM” is another cringe.)
Posted by Lucine
Dec 15, 2024 at 11:04 PM
The article sounds like an ad-hoc collation of pseudo-inspirational soundbites. Reading it gave me a headache. It might as well have been written by ChatGPT. Nauseating stuff.
Posted by Dormouse
Dec 15, 2024 at 11:33 PM
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>I guess I am taking exception to your characterizing Heptabase
>and Scrintal as having no intention to contributing to a workflow.
‘twas not me that defined them thus, ‘twas the developers themselves
> Heptabase describing itself now as “empowering
>you to visually make sense of your learning, research, and projects”,
- that’s defining the app’s purpose as a form of self development
> Scrintal being “playground for the mind”.
- that’s play not work
I can understand them changing focus (Ece’s article implied helping with the production of theses etc; I regard ‘playground’ as indicating a change of focus - at least in its marketing): Obsidian (now about ‘sharpening your thinking’) has always got more traction from users playing with the settings and plugins than the utility of the notes. And to an extent I commend it because it matches my own experience of using the programs.
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>To be honest, though I’ve used the term myself, I really don’t
>understand the concept of workflow.
Compound word, two elements. One implies a a productive outcome from effort; the other implies a flow - an easy move from one stage to another. A production line is a better flow than workers carrying half-made products from one bench to another.
>Scrintal for instance could be used to plan
>a writing project, gather the research, build an outline or first draft.
This is a chunk of work without the element of flow.
You could, for instance, choose Mindomo for that chunk.
But with Mindomo you would also get a flow. The map can be exported as a formatted docx with different levels of headings, body text and even with notes that show as margin notes in Word.
The developers have spent time considering this use of the program and designed features to make it quicker and easier to move from the Mindomo chunk to the Word chunk.
>I wouldn’t actually write the final draft in Scrintal, but it certainly
>could fit a writing workflow.
You can of course use it however you want. I can hammer with a screwdriver. But I find it best when the vision of a program’s developers align with my own intended usage. Especially in the case of early stage programs where current functionality is a very limited indication of what there will be in two or three years time.
Posted by Dormouse
Dec 16, 2024 at 05:55 PM
Paul Korm wrote:
(“PKM” is another cringe.)
Yeah. And it’s not as if there’s a clear definition.
Is it just bi-directional links in a collection of notes? Are tasks, calendar and journal required? Images, handwriting and drawing?
I’m not convinced by the association of workflow with Taylorism. Significant usage of the term only started in the computer age. And from the P pov, it’s a helpful concept - moves the focus from programs and feature lists to content and the interactions between programs. Everyone’s workflow will be different, but thinking about the flow and the content is individual-centred which is quite the opposite of the optimal standardisation in Taylorism.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Dec 16, 2024 at 05:58 PM
Fascinating discussion!
I don’t pretend to have clear, comprehensive definition of workflow independent of the specific job at hand. Nevertheless, I personally consider that a tool positively contributes to my own workflow(s) when it has the flexibility to support various information flows.
To give an example: as much as I despise the bloatware called MS Word, I find that it can support just about any work related to producing longform “rich” (integrating formatted text and images) documents. Most importantly, it does not impose a specific workflow —e.g., finalise text first, then format— as one can go back and forth, drafting, editing, enriching, refining, versioning, etc.
Another —completely different— tool that comes to mind is Andy’s Easy Data Transform, often revered here.
Being able to do a lot within the same tool is a major workflow advantage, because it reduces conversion/migration tasks, which can constitute bottlenecks and/or one-way streets, both of which impact flow efficiency.
We could consider Theory of Contraints, a definition of Lean as presented in https://thisislean.com/ (“Lean is an operations strategy that prioritises flow efficiency over resource efficiency”), or simply terms such as “seamless” often brought up in the forum.
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>So yes, I guess I am taking exception to your characterizing Heptabase
>and Scrintal as having no intention to contributing to a workflow. Of
>course they can contribute. Scrintal for instance could be used to plan
>a writing project, gather the research, build an outline or first draft.
>I wouldn’t actually write the final draft in Scrintal, but it certainly
>could fit a writing workflow.
>
>I’m not trying to tell you or anyone else you should use Scrintal this
>way—I don’t myself. I am just trying to make a point that—in my
>opinion—the term “workflow” is very squishy and feels meaningless to
>me unless it is put into the context of the job at hand.