Pick a tool with 5 minimum requirements, select the first that meets them, commit for 90 days — satisfice, don't maximize
Choose one information processing tool by defining 5 minimum requirements, selecting the first that meets them, and committing for 90 days before re-evaluation, rather than maximizing across all available options.
Why This Is a Rule
Tool selection in the PKM/productivity space is a notorious time sink because the option set is enormous (hundreds of apps), the evaluation criteria are subjective (what "feels right"), and the switching cost is low (try something new next week!). This produces tool tourism: endless evaluation, migration, and re-evaluation that consumes more time than any tool saves. The person optimizing their tool setup is not doing the work the tool was supposed to support.
Herbert Simon's satisficing principle provides the antidote: define your minimum requirements, select the first option that meets them, and stop searching. The "first that meets them" is deliberate — it eliminates the infinite comparison loop where you evaluate Tool A against Tool B against Tool C looking for the "best," which doesn't exist because "best" depends on preferences you haven't fully articulated yet. The first adequate option is good enough because the value comes from using the tool, not from selecting the optimal tool.
The 90-day commitment period is a switching-cost firewall. It prevents the "grass is always greener" impulse that hits around week 2-3 of any new tool ("This is fine but I wonder if Notion/Obsidian/Logseq would be better..."). 90 days provides enough time to develop genuine proficiency, discover the tool's actual strengths and limitations (not imagined ones), and build enough content that switching costs become real and visible.
When This Fires
- When choosing a note-taking app, task manager, knowledge base, or any information processing tool
- When you've been evaluating tools for weeks without committing to one
- When the urge to switch tools hits before you've invested 90 days in the current one
- Complements Limit recurring low-stakes decisions to 3-7 options — this range matches working memory for effortless comparison (3-7 option set) with the tool-specific satisficing protocol
Common Failure Mode
The perpetual evaluator: spending 20+ hours reading reviews, watching comparison videos, testing free trials, and migrating notes between apps — without ever settling long enough to develop proficiency in any one tool. The evaluation time exceeds what any tool would save in a year of use.
The Protocol
(1) Define exactly 5 minimum requirements for your tool. These should be hard requirements, not nice-to-haves: "Must work offline," "Must support markdown," "Must have mobile app," "Must support linking between notes," "Must cost under $10/month." (2) Evaluate tools in order of popularity (most popular first — larger community, better support). Stop at the first tool that meets all 5 requirements. (3) Commit for 90 days. During this period, do not evaluate, compare, or research other tools. Use this one. (4) At day 90, evaluate: does the tool meet your needs in practice? If yes → continue. If a specific, articulable requirement is unmet → define the new requirement, add it to your list, and repeat the selection process. (5) "I wonder if X would be better" is not a valid reason to switch. "This tool cannot do Y, which I need for Z" is. Feelings of curiosity are not requirements.