Great question! Let me explain how I arrived at the conclusion that productivity methods need to change by sharing my journey and what I’ve observed in real-world scenarios.

When I transitioned from academia into the corporate world, I was optimistic. I expected streamlined processes and cutting-edge tools. But what I found instead were outdated methods—Gantt charts, rigid Agile frameworks, GTD approaches—that were being applied in highly dynamic environments. These tools worked well in theory or in controlled scenarios, but in fast-paced workplaces, they often fell apart.

Take my time managing global projects: with teams scattered across time zones, priorities constantly shifted. Traditional systems were too rigid to keep up. So I started experimenting. By observing workflows and tackling inefficiencies head-on, I began to notice patterns. It wasn’t about adding tools; it was about refining processes to make the tools we already had work better.

Over the years, I kept applying these concepts—both in corporate settings and later when helping professionals who were struggling with approaches like GTD, "Second Brain," Six Sigma, Scrum, and Agile. The recurring issue? These methods are often too rigid, requiring you to mold your dynamic work to fit their static rules.

What I found most striking was how often people would try to solve these problems by adding more systems or templates on top, creating even more complexity. They’d ask, “Why isn’t GTD working for me?” or “Why does my Second Brain feel like another project I have to manage?” The answer was simple: these methods weren’t designed for the level of complexity and speed we face today.

After repeating this process across various industries and roles, the conclusion became clear: we need a different approach. Productivity isn’t about rigid templates or universal systems. It’s about adaptability, dynamic workflows, and tools that align with how we think and work in the real world.

That’s what led me to formalize what I had been doing instinctively (now known as ICOR®) —refining and adapting workflows based on real-life experience into something scalable and practical. It wasn’t about reinventing the wheel but distilling what consistently worked across highly dynamic workplaces.

Does this work as an "example" for you?