Discussion Forum > Scatter Maps, etc
Personally, I've learnt SO MUCH from Dan Roam (the books Back of the Napkin, Unfolding the Napkin, Show and Tell are great).
I'm currently working through his hand drawn video course on Udemy. I use Dan's ideas daily in my project planning, soccer coaching planning and in problem solving.
Same with me re Mind Maps...I never got on with them at all - I find them very fiddly and awkward to do.
I'm currently working through his hand drawn video course on Udemy. I use Dan's ideas daily in my project planning, soccer coaching planning and in problem solving.
Same with me re Mind Maps...I never got on with them at all - I find them very fiddly and awkward to do.
May 19, 2016 at 13:49 |
Leon
Leon
I've always had a soft spot for mind maps, as they seemed to promise so much. But I also found that they never quite delivered on the promise, at least for me. In particular, restricting each line to one word I found to be almost impossible sometimes. There was also the pressure to try to get this map *right* on the first go, which is something I put on myself; I think even Buzan recommended redrawing maps to make them neater and find new connections.
The attraction of such devices for me is that I don't always think linearly, and even brainstorming a list of tasks on paper seems to enforce a linearity.
That's why I always liked Mark's freeform scatter map and still use it occasionally to brain dump disconnected tasks. Just plop stuff down anywhere and use the arrows and lines to make connections as they appear to me. They remind me of concept maps in that respect.
Related: The makers of Scrivener have a 'scatter map' tool (Mac-only) that I like the look of, better than the mind map programs: https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scapple.php . Their example hand drawn map looks a lot like Mark's scatter map: https://www.literatureandlatte.com/gfx/scapple-paper_to_digital-lg.jpg
The attraction of such devices for me is that I don't always think linearly, and even brainstorming a list of tasks on paper seems to enforce a linearity.
That's why I always liked Mark's freeform scatter map and still use it occasionally to brain dump disconnected tasks. Just plop stuff down anywhere and use the arrows and lines to make connections as they appear to me. They remind me of concept maps in that respect.
Related: The makers of Scrivener have a 'scatter map' tool (Mac-only) that I like the look of, better than the mind map programs: https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scapple.php . Their example hand drawn map looks a lot like Mark's scatter map: https://www.literatureandlatte.com/gfx/scapple-paper_to_digital-lg.jpg
May 19, 2016 at 15:00 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
I've found mind maps useful, but I use software...Inspiration (or Webspiration) is a good tool to create a scatter tool. Mindmup is not bad, but I find it more restrictive to work with than Inspiration since it forces you into a hierarchical structure..
May 19, 2016 at 16:44 |
Paul B
Paul B
Interesting, I always thought a mind map WAS a scatter map! I never followed all the strict rules for mind mapping -- I actually didn't know there were any. It seemed to me the whole point of a mind map was to dump everything on paper to make it visible, and start seeing the natural groupings and connections between things. The idea of putting down some central nodes and branching out from there seems to be just one possible technique in the broader context of capturing thoughts and ideas and drawing connections.
May 19, 2016 at 19:24 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
My notes and brainstorming are point-form outlines. Sometimes I write extra notes in the margins. Sometimes I remember to leave extra room for those notes. (Some meetings need more room than others.) Sometimes I write a code meaning "See note 1", and then note 1 is where-ever there's room, often on the next page.
One of mom's typing clients wrote about 50 words, two sentences in the normal way. Then drew a line and wrote another bit. Then another line and another bit. At some point he added numbers. I'm not sure how many pages between consecutive numbers. Mom had to type in the order of the numbers. It drove his office typists nuts, which is why he hired her for his longer reports. She didn't mind, and the material was fascinating.
It just shows that there are many different ways of putting thoughts on paper. Use what works for you for the situation.
One of mom's typing clients wrote about 50 words, two sentences in the normal way. Then drew a line and wrote another bit. Then another line and another bit. At some point he added numbers. I'm not sure how many pages between consecutive numbers. Mom had to type in the order of the numbers. It drove his office typists nuts, which is why he hired her for his longer reports. She didn't mind, and the material was fascinating.
It just shows that there are many different ways of putting thoughts on paper. Use what works for you for the situation.
May 19, 2016 at 22:03 |
Cricket
Cricket
When taking notes, I find the exercise of finding a place for a note within a structure helps to bed the knowledge in. Engaging actively is much more effective than passively writing down what was said. (Though I did have a set of notes from an applied maths lecture taken after a cheese and rather too much scrumpy lunch. Which I was never able to make any sense of whatsoever. The notes, that is. The lunch made perfect sense.) After all, learning is the act of integrating new data into your existing world view.
However, this assumes that the fit is reasonably clear. In many of the interesting cases, it is not. Or there is a different fit which reveals exciting new opportunities. Or a team needs to come to a common view of a mess, which they all see differently. Then a bottom up approach can be very powerful.
The KJ method developed by anthropologist Kawakita Jiro, for example, works well for individual though as well as teams. It fits well into any discussion of questioning as a technique.
You can find a rough summary here https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/affinity-diagram-kj-analysis/effective-use-special-purpose-kj-language-processing/ , though it's missing some of the disciplines which really make it work. Some indication of these can be found here: https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/affinity-diagram-kj-analysis/effective-use-special-purpose-kj-language-processing/ .