I had been aware of mindmapping, and could see its usefulness as a brainstorming tool, but it hadn’t “clicked” with me as a tool that could help with clearer presentations.

The fundamental problem I had seen was the same problem underlying virtually all PowerPoint presentations - the use of a “categorical outline” approach which defines our collective thinking today. Look at the mind maps on your site in “Outline” view and you’ll see the same structure you see underlying PowerPoint slides, which consistently includes a “category heading” and a list of its members below, which goes something like this:

Strategic Plan
A. The competitive landscape
B. Market research
C. Operations
D. Forecast

This is great for brainstorming and capturing information, which both mindmapping and PowerPoint slides do.

But the next thinking problem that arises is: “Out of all of the information I have collected here in my mindmap or my PowerPoint deck, which information is the most important to help me take my next action to accomplish my goal?”

When I look at the examples of mindmaps on your site, or at PowerPoint decks, it is often difficult to tell. And in fact, it is easy for viewers to experience “map shock” - a documented sense of being overwhelmed by a map which shuts down the ability of people to understand it.

I didn’t see a solution to the problem until a reader sent me the script of his presentation he had written based on my new book “Beyond Bullet Points.” He had written it in MindManager instead of using the story template I have created in Word.

I was skeptical at first that MindManager would be helpful, because I designed into the Word document a “logic tree” methodology that distills information to 3 or 4 top-level points, and then places them in a storyboard sequence to support a singular point. The methodology also incorporates the powerful alternative to “categorical outlines” - an “action outline” approach that uses complete sentences instead of sentence fragments. (This is inspired by the pioneering work of Barbara Minto at McKinsey consulting and by the STOP proposal-writing method at Hughes Aircraft in the 1960s.)

Lo and behold, what he had done in MindManager worked. The dramatic difference between his two presentations was viewable in Outline view in MindManager. The “before” version was a series of categorical lists, as described above. But the “after” version was a series of complete sentences that followed one another in a specific sequence that presented a clear case for a specific action.

The transformation was due to the application of a critical thinking process that can turn any existing brainstorming mindmap into a persuasive storyboard.

Tim, in order to demonstrate a “next level application” of your tool, what do you think if we invite your readers to take the Beyond Bullet Points challenge and we’ll post the results on our websites and blogs, for everyone to see?

Thanks for your feedback. You raise a couple of good points.

You question MindManager’s ability to prioritize information and refer to the “map shock” that some users may experience as they are overwhelmed by the wealth and depth of information you can capture in a MindManager map. This is certainly a phenomenon we are aware of, but MindManager in fact offers features to avoid it and accomplish exactly what you describe: creating the missing link between the information display and “acting upon the data.”

First, the toolbar on the right allows you to interpret map topics as tasks and to assign priorities, due dates, resources, and status information. You can also flag certain topics or add comments in form of icons. Second, once you have defined map topics and built a hierarchy of topics, you can use the filter function to view the map from a specific angle. For example, if you want to focus on all comments from one specific team member, you are able to zoom in to just his comments. If you look for an overview of all tasks due next week, you can filter the map to show just those tasks. That’s what makes MindManager so special: it is both hierarchical and non-hierarchical, both linear and non-linear, both analytical and non-analytical, or simply – both left- and right-brain.

This task- and filter-functionality helps you to handle the high amount of data that at times must be captured in a map. And this certainly allows you to identify the information “that is the most important to help me take my next action to accomplish my goal,” as you write. Of course it is fair to say that the ability to take action based on MindManager progresses with your familiarity with the program’s full functionality – not unlike PowerPoint.

The big idea of MindManager is: YOU control the information, it does not control you. And that allows you to shift to action faster than if you have to struggle with many different formats and databases. You’re always on top of things and never loose sight of your key goals.

Why don’t you send me the word template of your presentation you were talking about and the MindManager map with the same content – it would be interesting to publish them and see the difference.

Best,
Tim

It can be hard to suddenly be presented a large map if you haven’t had any part in creating it. If you have, there is really no limit to how big the maps can be. As Tim says, there is something very cmmpelling about being able to store a ton of ideas, tasks, information and data in one place—and then slice and dice the information so that you see only what you want to see.

I personally think MindManager is much more compelling as a way to manage a process. When you work alone or with a team to build the map up, it is one of the better ways to manage the changes and continual aggregation of information that happens with most business initiatives.

Yes, it’s a tough issue, especially when it relates to the presentation of information to people who have no prior knowledge of it.

The research behind map shock relates to the limited capacity of working memory to process information. Solutions generally relate to the sequential presentation of chunks of information, similar to the linear sequence of a storyboard.

Is there any research that has measured the results of audience understanding using mindmapping, as compared to a range of other methods?

This is a helpful site on 2x2 matrices:
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/dstools/represent/2x2.html

Also check the book “The Power of the 2x2 matrix:
http://www.managementmag.com/index.cfm/ci_id/2071/la_id/1.htm

jay

P.S. I like the blog!

I did and he was indeed quite attentive! He said he would check out MindManager and then get back to us.