It is probably one of the greatest challenges to manage knowledge in a way that it could be found again over a long period of time and at the same time be intuitively manageable - in short: to have a successful, personal knowledge management. I, for example, have always thought about filing structures, organised by topics, years, months or categories. In my memory, I knew that in the context of my work for topic XY or project A, B or C, I had worked out a certain content.
Nevertheless, it happened to me time and again that I was sitting in a meeting and we were discussing a topic for which I had documents but could not find them immediately. I then had the choice of either researching after the session and trying to find the documents mentioned, or saying nothing so as not to give myself unnecessary work. Most of the time I chose the latter.
Let's face it: how much valuable knowledge and acquired experience is lost simply because one was never taught a meaningful method of knowledge management! In my eyes, the crucial question for such a reliable organising system is how to contextualise documents collected and elaborated in memory in order to find them again quickly.
Education Architects is running a pilot course in German from 26 May to 17 June on "Building a Second Brain: „Vernetze dein Gedächtnis. Die Methode Kreativität zu verwalten“
There are many different ways of doing this: Someone told me that he can give his presentations fluently because he imagines the content of the talk as a journey of thought across a landscape with certain waypoints. Each waypoint describes a topic to be presented. Then again, someone else told me that she remembers content using context, so for example she remembers certain people she met in relation to the content, or certain places she was when she was thinking about the content. So it seems that we often remember information well when we contextualise it. This also makes sense, because in most cases we move in three-dimensional space, i.e. in a context, when we work and gather or acquire knowledge there. It is precisely this contextualised space that is lost in the digital. So we need new methods to remember acquired content in a digital space. (1)
II would like to explain this with a concrete example.
In a book, I can mark passages of text and place further thoughts on notes and/or post-its in the book. When I search for a certain passage later, I know approximately where it is: At the beginning, more in the back third, etc. I orientate myself in the spatial structure of the book.
When I read a text in a digital medium, I can mark passages in it and link them directly to further information - for example, links to other texts, videos or images - and, depending on how I work, synchronise all of this in a note app in order to process my marked passages and notes there. (2)
This reveals two fundamental differences between the two media: the analogue text tends to act as the end point of my knowledge work, while the digital text opens up the knowledge work, but at the same time makes it more ephemeral. Axel Krommer has worked this out very clearly in this article: Paradigms and palliative didactics. Or: How Media Shape Knowledge and Learning (Paradigmen und palliative Didaktik. Oder: Wie Medien Wissen und Lernen prägen).
In my work, I have repeatedly found that I personally prefer a digital text to an analogue one, precisely because I have the possibility to add references to it. But I have also repeatedly failed because of the ephemeral nature of the digital, because I lacked a management method that I could use intuitively and sustainably (see my first post on this topic: My experience with "Building a Second Brain" #1).
With Building a Second Brain (BASB) I discovered a method that fits my knowledge work perfectly: Intuitively graspable, reliably applicable and adaptable to my habits. In the post My experience with "Building a Second Brain" #2, I presented the method of knowledge processing from BASB. Now I would like to introduce the method of data management.
P.A.R.A. = Projects - Areas - Resources - Archive
Imagine for a moment that you have a reliable organisation system for your research, your documents and your work results. Your personal knowledge management system supports and improves your work and tells you exactly where to file information and where to find it when you need it. Such a system would need to meet the following requirements:
It would have to be...
universal and be able to store any conceivable type of information from any source.
able to manage any project or activity at any time.
intuitive to manage, without time-consuming maintenance, cataloguing, labelling or reorganisation.
easy to implement, integrating seamlessly with task management and project management methods.
cross-platform, independent of operating systems and individual apps.
results-oriented, to easily structure information to optimally support personal work and work results.
modular to show or hide different levels of detail depending on the task.
customisable, so that it supports one's own ways of thinking and structural habits.
I find exactly these requirements fulfilled in P.A.R.A.. The intuitive thing about the method is that with every file and every piece of information I consider where I will store it: in a project, an area or a resource. I think about the context in which I need the information.
This is a reversal of traditional knowledge management: I don't think about the context the information comes from and try to manage it according to that, but I think about the context in which I can use the information now or in the future. In doing so, I take two important steps:
a) I contextualise my information, which makes it more memorable in the digital space, and b) I select. Because if I can't assign the information to an area, I have to decide whether I need it at all. The method therefore helps me to set an end point in my knowledge work in the digital space, which is essential for result-oriented work.
The Definitions of P.A.R.A.
Projects
These are deliverables that are developed over several working sessions and have a defined time frame and outcome.
Example: Formulate this blog post.
Areas
These are roles or responsibilities with a specific requirement to be maintained over time.
Example: Running my blog and writing regular posts.
Resources
These are topics of ongoing interest, importance or benefit. The key point about resources is that I collect and contextualise content that appeals to me intuitively, catches my attention or may be of use at a later date. Remember: resources are not categories.
Example: The topic "personal knowledge management".
I also call my resources question spheres. For me, question spheres are topics that appeal to me, that I encounter again and again, and that are always present in me as a latent interest.
Archive
Old and inactive elements from the other three categories.
Example: When this article is published, the draft goes into the archive.
My daily PARA application
Practically, my implementation of PARA looks like this: I use it across a wide variety of applications and manage all my data with it. I use the PARA structure in my data storage, in my notes app, my email and my task management. I use the same structure in every app.
There are also exceptions. If, for example, I have a project that is implemented exclusively via an e-mail exchange, then I do not need to create this project in my file storage or note app, or if it becomes necessary, this can be done quickly. It is precisely this flexibility, combined with the four intuitively implementable structural levels - projects, workspaces, resources and archive - that makes the method reliable and fun for me.
(1) I am aware that even as we work, we are naturally in a contextualised space. The moment we work on the PC we are, in my opinion, equally in a digital space.
(2) I presented my workflow with digital media in a post in German on publishingblog.ch: Sammeln – Synchronisieren – Synthetisieren: ein Workflow für Wissensarbeiter*innen
Comments