Can A Paper Planner Be More Effective Than Digital?

I ran into (via Stumbleupon) a fascinating article by Amy Carleton on The Cut - The Centuries-Old Strategy That Turbocharged my Productivity.


You can read the article for yourself, but essentially she decided to try a daily planner the old fashioned way - on paper. And it worked. It apparently turbocharged her productivity.

As she puts it: "And I saw results: I read more, I exercised more, I cooked more, I had abstracts accepted for presentations at academic conferences. My time constraints didn’t change, but I became more aware of those constraints and how to consciously work within them."

She says that research indicates that writing down - instead of typing - tasks engages the mind more effectively.

In my case, I have all kinds of digital planners that I use during the day, and and I honestly can't say that they've 'turbocharged my productivity'. I often look at, and then ignore, them.

Nevertheless, the article set me to wondering. Would my own productivity improve with a paper based planning system?

I have several writing goals that I'd like to set hard deadlines for, as well as some habit changes. These don't seem to be happening despite all my virtual checklists on Evernote and goals/tasks apps (Trello at the moment.)

So I'm going to give the paper planner a whirl. I've ordered the Panda Planner on Amazon to see if this actually works better than my digital alternatives. It has a 4.4 rating (out of 5) on Amazon and there are myriads of enthusiastic reviews. Maybe there is something to this?

We'll see. It's a good lifehacking experiment and certainly can't hurt. Fortunately I work from home, so I don't have to drag the planner around with me which is one compelling reason for virtual versions.

I'll report progress at the end of November after I've given it a reasonable trial.

I'm ready to be Turbocharged!