You're Locked In The Iron Triangle, But It Could Be a Good Thing
What's the best knowledge management system?
There's a dilemma we deal with occasionally:
You can get something fast, good or cheap. Pick two.
In project management, this is officially called "The Iron Triangle", and, like any law of physics, you can't beat it. You must embrace and work around it.
But is it a bad thing?
When I first heard about knowledge management as a semi-formal discipline with a history, a community, a collection of tools, and relevant literature, the first question that popped into my head was, "What’s the best knowledge management system?" I hoped to find a formula to safeguard me from making rookie mistakes. I believe in learning from the best as a fast track to success.
But, even though I've stumbled upon popular methodologies like Zettelkasten, BASB, CODE, PARA, or LYT, upon closer inspection, a simple truth became clear:
The best knowledge management system is the one you would build yourself.
I'm not saying the approaches mentioned above are rubbish. They're a great start if you don't know where to begin. But, they're prêt-à-porter. You'll still need a tailor: you.
That’s because we all optimise for different outcomes and will deal with The Iron Triangle differently.
Some want to capture ideas on the go quickly but don't mind spending a bit longer digging out the required notes later; others prefer taking the time to polish the thought as it appears and adequately classify it so that the note retrieval is ultra-fast.
Some see the economic benefit of investing in an expensive technology stack to boost their productivity; others want it built on a shoestring budget.
Some require their second brain to be the ultimate reference that doesn't require additional lookups; others prefer jotting down the seeds of thought and letting their brain complete the picture when they return to the note later.
The point is:
You can have it all… just not at the same time.
Is it a bad thing? I'd argue not.
Facing constraints and trying to work around them forces you to question your core requirements. What is a definite show-stopper, and what is an insignificant tradeoff?
For example, here are the types of questions to ask yourself if you choose an analogue note-taking system for everyday carry and are hesitating between a classic bound notebook and a loose-leaf notepad.
Do I need previous notes as a reference when creating a new one?
Yes: Notebook.
No: Notepad.
Are my notes sequential in nature, such as a daily journal, or are they random thoughts and observations I capture as they appear?
Sequential: Notebook.
Disconnected: Notepad.
Do I need to classify my notes for faster retrieval in the future, or am I okay scanning through a series of notes to find what I need?
Searching a bit longer is fine: Notebook.
Speed is of the essence: Notepad.
Am I generally in a comfortable office or travelling light when ideas pop up, and I need to capture them?
I have the luxury of space and focus: Notebook.
I’m on the go without a backpack: Notepad (a few of its sheets, in this case).
You and I have answered the above questions very differently, I'm sure. Same Iron Triangle, different choices. This is why engineers work with different classes of databases depending on the problem they're trying to solve: relational, graphs, flat, geo-spacial, etc.
What's important is to know how to tune your system to fit your needs within your timelines and budget. Start anywhere and tweak as it matures, but invest in your personal knowledge system.
Special thanks to
for reading the drafts.