I did a lot of reading this weekend for my “book library” MVP. I dug deep into retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and learned some helpful things:

• There are different variations of RAG: GraphRAG, StructRAG, LightRAG, etc. New versions have been introduced every few months this year. Which is the right one depends on your use case.
• Normal RAG isn’t great for a large data set like a book. It struggles to make connections when presented with a lot of data.  
• RAG’s results are better when you feed it relationships in a data set via a schema. GraphRAG, StructRAG, and LightRAG try to make up for this by using a knowledge graph to index the information better, which leads to understanding the data better and providing better results.

I’m realizing that how the information gets indexed in large data sets is critical, especially if I want to query across lots of dense data sets like books. Thinking about why entrepreneurs with photographic memories have an edge, I decided that their minds have done a superior job of indexing everything they’ve consumed and making nonobvious connections across the data. Those connections lead to unique insights that lead to creative solutions to problems or actions to get closer to their goal.

This weekend highlighted that I need to focus on and understand how information gets indexed as I evaluate RAG and other alternatives.

Today I read an article about a hack that helps you learn better. It suggests writing a one-page summary after you’ve read ten pages of a book because this increases your retention by 50%. The idea is that to learn, you must stretch yourself. You’re forced to do that if you have to process and organize what you consumed and then express your understanding in writing.

A few months back, I was writing a series of five or so blog posts for every biography or autobiography I read. I created a digest of each book and then shared the important parts via the blog series. Then, I began using the blog series to create a podcast series.

I was doing multiple levels of distillation, which helped me uncover insights from each book and retain more about each founder’s journey that I’d read about. Doing all of this weekly wasn’t sustainable, and I want to find a more sustainable process for doing the same thing. That’s why I’ve created an MVP to help me create book digests.

I’m a fan of writing. It’s a powerful practice that helps me organize my thoughts. When I write about what I’ve read, it feels like a superpower. I identify core concepts and insights I wouldn’t have found by reading passively, I retain them, and I can share them with others.

Writing about what you’ve read is something everyone can do, but most won’t. It’s more work, but I think the reward is worth the effort.

I’m using Google AI Studio to run one of the MVPs for my book project. Google’s AI is called Gemini, and there are eight different Gemini large-language models (LLMs). Determining which would yield the best result was a concern. Google had thought it through, though: AI Studio has a compare feature: you can ask a question and select two LLMs, and Gemini will provide responses from both of them in a side-by-side view.

I’ve been testing prompting and system instructions this week, and the compare feature has been helpful. Seeing how the different LLMs respond to the same question is helping me narrow my choices faster.

Google AI Studio has limitations, but it’s a good tool for someone who is nontechnical and wants to fine-tune their AI experience.

I’ve spent the last few weeks diving into Google’s AI Studio, NotebookLM, Vertex AI Agent Builder, and various other AI-related tools from Google and other companies. A developer friend has helped me a lot. I was aware of some of these technologies from reading about AI and LLMs in general, but now that I’m trying to use them to create solutions for my personal project, my understanding of them has gone much deeper.

I have a clear idea of what I want the technology to do. I’m trying to figure out if it can specifically do what I want. If so, what are all the ways? What are the implications of each option? What I learn sticks in my memory. This is different from my normal approach of poking around to understand a tool’s general capabilities, which doesn’t result in good retention.

I’ve also noticed that when I seek help from technically oriented people to learn new technologies, describing the problem and how I want to solve it helps tremendously. It gives them a better idea of where to start, and the conversation is more focused on solutions to my problem than on a broad overview of the technology.

I’m not sure which, if any, of these technologies will be part of the solutions I build. But I’ve learned something: If I have a problem I’m excited to solve, I should try using new technologies to create a solution. Worst case, I’ll gain a better understanding of the technologies. Best case, I understand the technologies better and create a solution to my problem.  

This year, I’ve read roughly twenty biographies and autobiographies about entrepreneurs in media—broadcasting, publishing, and cable. I didn’t plan to read so many books about this industry; it just happened as I followed my curiosity. As I read about one entrepreneur, I learned about competitors or business partners I wasn’t familiar with, so I found books on them too. Almost every book led me to at least one other person I wanted to learn more about.

Before I read all these books, I had zero understanding of media. I didn’t know its history, how people made money, or how it has impacted other industries and society. Now, I’m far from a media expert, but I have a working, high-level understanding of the industry and the strategies used to build large media companies. Reading books about numerous entrepreneurs back to back (mostly) helped me see the industry from different perspectives by way of each entrepreneur’s journey. This gave me a clearer picture of the industry and an understanding I wouldn’t have if I’d read about only one or two media entrepreneurs.

I gained lots of value from this media deep dive, and I want to mimic it in the future, but more intentionally. Next time, I’ll do a few things differently. The main thing is to start with a desire to understand a specific industry—and a clear reason why. Ideally, I’d be highly motivated to understand the industry to help me solve a specific problem. The other thing is to research the major players who helped create the industry and try to find books about them. Entrepreneurs who help build an industry in the early days and achieved outsize success are likely to have done business with, employed, or be connected to other entrepreneurs in the space.

Reading the life stories of multiple entrepreneurs in an industry feels like a major hack. I can’t wait to find out what the benefits are when I’ve studied several industries this way.

I published a six-part podcast series on Ted Turner, the visionary entrepreneur who created CNN and other cable channels like Cartoon Network and TNT under Turner Broadcasting System. He also owned the NBA’s Atlanta Hawks and MLB’s Atlanta Braves, and had a fortune of $10 billion at its peak. I really enjoyed his autobiography and learned a lot from it. If you're interested in learning more about Ted and his remarkable journey, you can start listening to part one in this series on Apple Podcasts here or Spotify here. Ted's journey is covered in episodes 98 through 103.

I’ve recently read books about two founders who founded massive publicly traded companies, but in different ways: Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, and Willis Johnson, founder of Copart. Both companies offer online auctions. As of this writing, eBay has a market capitalization of roughly $27 billion, while the Copart valuation is roughly $53 billion.

Omidyar worked in Silicon Valley and was financially comfortable after a previous employer was acquired. He thought the world was unnecessarily unfair economically. He envisioned an efficient market that empowered people financially so they could control their own lives. His mission was to create an online auction with a strong community. His vision- and mission-first approach led to his nailing product–market fit straight out of the gate. The company went from zero to $41.7 million in revenue and was publicly traded on the stock market in three short years.

Johnson didn’t want to work for anyone but needed to support his family. He knew the salvage industry and started a salvage yard because he knew he could make money. As more problems presented themselves and money-making opportunities arose, he took them on too. After twenty years of opportunistically solving various problems, the rapid success of his online auction market in 2003 caused him to question his “job.” He shifted his mission from solving various salvage problems for profit to “streamline and simplify the auction process.” Johnson’s twenty-year transition from mercenary to missionary led to unprecedented growth at Copart. It’s now a global online auction market.

I, too, began as a mercenary when I started my company. I wanted more control over my life and needed to replace the salary from the job I’d had. I went from problem to problem with a focus on profitability. Years later, after I had financial breathing room, I started to focus on the painful problems. I became something of a missionary. This led to $10 million in annual revenue, but that could have been $300 million if I’d gone full missionary. I should have been laser-focused on our customers’ most painful problem.  

As I thought about my founder friends and myself, I realized that Johnson’s journey is most common among my peers. Most of them picked a market and focused on making money to support themselves. They often attempted to solve various problems. But my friends who had outsize success didn’t stick with that approach. When their companies began to grow rapidly, it was because they were laser-focused on a single problem and mission. Their outsize success was the result of converting to being missionary founders, often after they had financial breathing room.

Entrepreneurs wanting financial independence and control of their lives can accomplish these goals as mercenaries, but if they aspire to have a bigger impact or build something significant, crystallizing a vision and mission is likely the key.

Listen to the audio versions of my blog on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Tune in here and here!

Today I finished reading Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. Here are some high-level thoughts:

• À la carte – Allen’s complete system, as described in the book, isn’t something I’d fully implement given my digital workstyle and other factors. However, as an à la carte framework, I see lots of value. Allen details several concepts that can add immediate value. I implemented his 2-minute rule years ago and will implement others now.
• Locus of control – People who want to drive the direction and outcome of their life (rather than having life happen to them) may see immediate value in several concepts in Allen’s framework.
• Brain – Allen believes the brain is better suited to making connections between ideas and creating new ideas than to storing information. He cites a study to support this. I agree. I’m more creative and insightful when I’m not worrying about everything I’m managing. Allen’s framework is good for generating more ideas and insights.
• Wisdom – Wisdom is the ability to apply knowledge in a manner that aligns with the desired outcome. Wisdom means changed behavior and improved decision-making—knowing what to do and when to do it. President Hoover once said, “Wisdom consists not so much in knowing what to do in the ultimate as knowing what to do next.” Allen’s ideas around continuously and quickly identifying next actions can be powerful and accelerate the acquisition of wisdom.

I’m glad I revisited this book. I’m looking forward to testing ideas it triggered.

This book contains ideas that are useful for anyone looking to be highly productive and approach work in a disciplined way.

For founders looking for a better way to manage the inevitable chaos of company building, wanting more creative or strategic time, or wanting to be more in the driver’s seat of their life, the ideas in this book are a great starting point, and many are worth cloning.

I’m finishing David Allen’s Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. Allen shares great concepts in his book. After reading more of his book, I picked up on a core concept, one I alluded to yesterday: his framework – working bottom up.

Allen believes it’s hard to take on new responsibilities, be creative, or think longer term until you’re effectively managing what’s already on your plate. To manage what’s on your plate, you must know the totality of what has your attention. Allen suggests capturing all lingering physical, digital, or mental “incompletes” and recording them in a system. This will give you a clear picture of everything on your plate.

After that, you’ll “clarify,” which I mentioned yesterday, then “organize” to put everything where it belongs, and then “reflect” periodically to review and update your incompletes. I won’t get into the specifics of each step. But notice that everything so far has focused on current, ground-floor activity.

After this, you’re ready to “engage” and start making action choices. Allen provides three priority frameworks to help manage action in a bottom-up manner. This is counter to how many approach this. Here they are (listed bottom up, of course):

Now: Choosing Action in the Moment

When you have time to accomplish something, this framework helps pinpoint what to work on.

• Context – What are your circumstances? Are you at your desk in the office, on a plane, or in a lobby waiting for a meeting to begin?
• Time – How much time do you have available?
• Energy – What’s your energy level? Are you in top form or in low-energy state?
• Priority – What’s the most important task?

Many people waste time trying to figure out what to work on. Going through this framework sequentially helps you quickly identify what to work on (you will have already categorized tasks that can be only done in a particular context, for instance, so you can ignore everything else for the time being). It’s helpful when you have free time you didn’t anticipate.

Today: Evaluating Daily Work

Throughout the day, you’ll likely be engaged in one of these three work types:

• Doing predefined work – Doing something on a next-action list is a good example.
• Doing work as it shows up – Having an impromptu chat with a direct report or responding to an email requesting a status report are examples.
• Defining your work – Reviewing a project and adding tasks to your next-action list is a way to define your work.

The goal is to manage your total inventory of work in a balanced manner, instead of only reacting to unexpected work. Deciding what to work on is a balancing act that relies on your intuition. But having the habit of defining and refining your work helps your intuition by crystallizing what you’re saying no to when an unexpected task arises.

Reviewing Your Work

On a regular basis, you should review your work. Starting at the bottom, of course.

• Ground – Confirm that all your lists of next actions are current. You want to make sure you’re not missing anything. For example, call brother.
• Horizon 1 – Confirm that your projects list captures all commitments requiring more than one action. The goal is to capture short-term commitments so you can free your mind. For example, onboard new hire.
• Horizon 2 – Confirm that all your areas of focus and responsibilities are captured on a list. For example, parenting. This level will determine what projects you start.
• Horizon 3 – Define your direction and intentions over the next one to two years.
• Horizon 4 – Paint a vision of life in three or more years.
• Horizon 5 – Define your life’s purpose.

Horizons 3–5 focus on the future; the others, more on the present. The goal is to get and keep the nearer horizons current so you have the mental bandwidth to think about the more distant horizons.

I see the value for most, not all, people in Allen’s bottom-up process. It’s a great approach to working productively and intentionally by getting the mundane under control so you’ll have the bandwidth to gain clarity in the long term. His approach is well suited for those working for an organization.

For entrepreneurs creating and growing companies, tweaking is required. Entrepreneurs usually start with a problem and craft a vision of what the world could look like if they solve that problem. Then, they figure out how to solve that problem and craft a mission to scale that solution. After that’s done, that’s when embracing Allen’s bottom-up work approach and iteratively turning a vision and mission into reality makes sense for entrepreneurs.

Reading about personal knowledge management (PKM) and reading books by Tiago Forte, I became interested in how PKM and productivity can help get more done. I decided to read up on productivity frameworks. Years ago, I read Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity by David Allen. I remember it only vaguely and decided to revisit it. Learning that an updated version had been released, I bought it.

I haven’t finished it yet, but a few of the concepts he writes about have caught my attention. Here are two:

Clarifying

Allen evaluates incoming information based on its actionability, who should execute a task, and how long it will take to accomplish. If something isn’t actionable, trash it, “incubate” it until it becomes actionable, or store it for reference. He has a 2-minute rule for actionable items: anything actionable that you can do in less than 2 minutes should be handled on the spot. Anything that can’t be handled in 2 minutes should be delegated to the appropriate person or deferred to a time when you’ll do it. He has a nice flowchart in the book that simplifies his clarification process.

I’ve used this approach to handling email for some time, aiming to be inbox zero every day. I’m a big fan of my email app’s “remind me” feature. I queue up tasks and email responses that will take more than 2 minutes and handle them at times I’ve dedicated to this predetermined work. This approach has helped keep my inbox tame, ensure that nothing falls through the cracks, and allowed me to be more proactive by doing this kind of work as I deem appropriate.

Identifying Next Actions

For projects with multiple steps and a clearly defined goal, Allen advocates constantly asking, Is there something someone could be doing on this right now? Asking this question continuously surfaces the next actions, keeping a project moving forward.

People sometimes have project plans defining actions to take and when to take them. However, the problem with those plans is twofold. First, they’re hypothetical. Those plans are often crafted before execution begins. They don’t consider current real-world reality. Second, if a team is involved, they’re likely to be top-down. The people executing the work have little or no input into how they achieve the goal for which they’re responsible.

Allen’s approach is more of an iterative bottom-up approach. It reminds me of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s analogy of climbing a mountain shrouded in fog. The goal is defined, but the path to get there is flexible. The next action always reflects the current realities and incorporates learnings from previous actions. For teams, this approach empowers members closest to ground level to pinpoint and take the best action at any given time.

The iteration that results from Allen’s approach of asking this question constantly is more powerful than most people realize. This approach is how the impossible becomes possible. It’s how people successfully navigate uncertainty. It’s progress toward a stated goal with constant recalibration.

I hope to share other good concepts from the book in another post. I’m looking forward to finishing the book.