Now for something completely different: MindManager importing tricks 1

As well as writing about social media and small non-profit and public sector organisations generally, one thing I always intended to do through this blog was to write the occasional article about mind mapping software and in particular MindManager (MM).

In fact I have written about mindmapping software before because of its particular usefulness to small organisations, but I thought I’d write something this time for the nerds this time especially those who are reasonably proficient users of MindManager which is the leading PC-based mindmapping software available on the market at the moment.

This exercise was prompted by an innocent query on an MM forum about creating maps from Excel files. While it is possible to link to an Excel spreadsheet, Mindjet (the publishers of MindManager) have so far refused to provide a facility to directly convert an Excel file into a mindmap (or vice versa).

While a number of third-party solutions exist for exporting to Excel, there are few that provide for importing spreadsheets in this manner. This shortcoming also affects other areas; while MM does have extensive capabilities for importing from and exporting to Outlook and Word, it doesn’t work that well with tables generally.

Now I don’t pretend to be an MM expert but I have used it for a few years and the following is the result of my experimentation with MM, Excel, Word and Outlook. I’d welcome any feedback if somebody has come up with simpler approaches.

OK, so you have a table of information that you want to turn into a MM mindmap. How best to approach this depends primarily on two things; the nature of the data (for example, whether it’s a straight-forward list of task-related information or a multi-levelled table of data) and the format of the table (mainly whether it’s in Word or Excel).

As a general rule of thumb, the easiest approach is to use Outlook as your intermediary. This applies especially to task information; all recent versions of MM are designed to handle import and export of Outlook items, albeit in different ways.

For example, you may have developed a table of actions in either Word or Excel which will look something like this (I’m using European/UK/Australian dd/mm/yyyy date format, but you can use others, so long as they are consistent with those available in Outlook):

Task	Start Date	Due Date	Notes
Task A	10/03/2011	13/03/2011	Comments on task A
Task B	14/03/2011	17/03/2011
Task C	17/03/2011	20/03/2011	Comments on task C

If the table is in Word, the best approach is to strip out all text apart from what is in the table, convert the table to text using tabs as breaks between fields and save the file in txt format (tabs are a safer bet than commas as your comments or other fields may have commas in them). This can then be imported into Outlook.

If the table is in Excel, you can export it directly into Outlook. However, you must do two things first; highlight and name the table range and then, if you are using Excel 2007 or 2010, save the file in 2003 format (unbelievably, Outlook 2007 or 2010 can’t import Excel files later than 2003).

Irrespective of which format you start with, you then need to go to File Open/Import in Outlook, select the option to import from another program or file and choose tab separated or Excel 97-2003 formats as appropriate. Choose the file to import and then the task folder in Outlook as the destination; you will then be asked to confirm the mapping of the imported table’s fields to those in Outlook.

Once imported into Outlook, it is an easy matter to highlight the tasks and export them to MindManager. You can then decide whether or not you want to retain the link between the tasks in MM and their counterparts in Outlook. A number of other fields can also be mapped and imported, including resource, priority, percentage complete, etc.

It’s important to note that MM and in particular version 9 has a very specific approach to the relationship between start date, due date and duration, which will be explored in more detail in a future post. In summary, however, if you have any two of the following, start date, due date and duration, MM will calculate the missing item.  Further, MM will base its calcuations on working days as identified in MM’s Task Info Options. If a due date falls on a non-working day, MM willl push it onto the next working day.

While the approach outlined above is an obvious choice for task-related material, it can also be used to import other sorts of tables, even those without date fields. In both cases, however, this approach is only suitable with a relatively simple table where the tasks can be imported as topics at the same level and the fields can be related to those in Outlook. In future posts I will look at importing more complex tables, as well as importing tables when you don’t want or are unable to use Outlook.

MindManager 9: Mindjet keen to respond to user issues

A brief update on the MindManager 9 (MM9) story. As I noted in my last post, Mindjet had replied positively to the detailed map I compiled of user concerns regarding the most recent release of their flagship mind mapping product which I forwarded to them with an open letter summarising the key issues. I commented that Mindjet’s prompt response had the potential to grow into a proper dialogue between the company and its customers which could serve as a model for other companies seeking to make major changes to their key software products.

I’m very pleased to say that Mindjet seems keen to follow through on its initial response, with senior management contacting me regarding the letter. These discussions have been very positive; they are ongoing, but a few key points have emerged:

• While they obviously would have preferred it if there wasn’t anything to be concerned about, Mindjet really appreciated the fact that users were prepared to take the time to identify problems in a constructive way. They also thanked me for coordinating these responses and providing them to Mindjet as a compiled map;
• A point release of MM9 should emerge in the next few weeks, possibly as early as next week. This was obviously already in development when they received my map of user concerns but it should address at least some of the key issues detailed in the map. Further user issues will be addressed in future point releases, which are likely to be more frequent than was the case in previous versions;
• Mindjet are exploring options for greater input from MindManager users to help identify issues and gain a better understanding of customer needs. To complement this, Mindjet are also looking at ways to improve their communications with their customer base.

So far the Mindjet response has been exemplary and indeed it does show signs of developing into a model for other companies. Obviously we will have to see how well Mindjet deliver on their initial promises, but they have already taken the first step that many other companies fail to do; that is, admit it when there is a problem and respond openly, instead of trying to sweep it under several layers of spin.

MindManager 9 problems – a positive response from Mindjet

In my last post I commented on some of the major problems with the latest version of the market-leading mind mapping program, MindManager, from Mindjet.

 To summarise, MindJet recently introduced MindManager 9 with a range of new features, many of which are worthwhile. However, key aspects of these changes appear to have been poorly implemented in the rush to market. In addition, some important features of the previous version which many users relied upon were dropped or reduced in functionality, potentially compromising the product’s fundamental role as a brainstorming tool.

When I put out a  request for responses from affected users on relevant forums I received strong feedback which I consolidated into a detailed MindManager map. I forwarded this to Mindjet with an open letter outlining the changes that users were demanding in upcoming service packs for the product – click here to see the map  (requires Flash), go to Biggerplate to download the map or click on this link to download the letter to Mindjet - as well as writing about it here.

I commented that it would be interesting to see if this modest exercise had any affect. I’m pleased to say that it has. On the Yahoo MindManager forum, Garrett Scott from Mindjet made the following response to my post:

Alex,

Thank you for taking the time to pull all these comments together and create
this letter. I have passed this to the highest levels of Mindjet and we are now
digesting your comments and feedback. A lot of the feedback you have included, I
have previously escalated and our Products and Engineering are already looking
at them.

I will tell you that the first service pack is due out the first week of October
so I can’t say that these fixes will be included. But our teams know how
important these issues are with you, our most dedicated power users, and are
formulating ways to address your comments.

We will only know how committed Mindjet really is to addressing these issues when the service packs start rolling out (and of course we’ll be using the map of MindManager issues which I compiled to keep tally of what they do in response to the problems we have identified). However this is a very positive beginning: potentially this exercise in “user power” can grow into a proper dialogue between Mindjet and its customers which can serve as a model for other companies that want to make major changes to their software (PC or web-based) which could potentially affect their existing user base.

At this stage I’d just like to say thanks to the Garrett and the people at Mindjet for listening.

When good software goes off the rails – how to fix MindManager 9

Some time ago I posted an article on my StrategyMatters blog about the virtues of mind mapping and subsequently on this blog about web-based mind mapping applications. I’ve been a little tardy in following this up with the article I foreshadowed on PC-based mind mapping tools with a web-based interface. That article will have to wait a little longer while I tackle some issues with the latest version of my favourite mind mapping program, MindManager.

While MindManager (MM) has a web-based incarnation, Catalyst, I have to confess that I use- and have become addicted to – the PC-based version. MM is the Rolls Royce of mind mappers- it’s big, it’s expensive, but it’s got everything and it does everything.  And I use it for everything, from brainstorming, to project planning to article outlining to – well, you name it.

The numbers back up Mindjet’s claim that MM is the market leader, with about 1.5 million users, roughly a third of the 4 million plus mind mapping market (though I’m not sure if these figures include the web-based applications).

A month or so ago Mindjet, who produce MM, released the latest version (MindManager 9) to much fanfare. I’m the first to admit it’s got some great features, including a new slide view which allows you to present the map in sections to an audience and interact with it at the same time, and a built-in Gantt view.

Unfortunately the changes have come at too high a cost for many users. Mindjet appears to have embarked on a strategy to attract new users by repositioning MM as an Outlook task and appointment manager. While there are many worthwhile aspects to these new features, key aspects appear to have been rushed to market and as a result they seem to have been poorly implemented.

Furthermore the new features seem to have compromised the product’s fundamental role as a brainstorming and product development tool from which tasks will eventually be exported and linked to Outlook, rather than the other way round.

The story from here on in is a bit technical for non-MM users, but it illustrates some of the difficulties that can occur when companies make a major change in direction in search of new market share which leaves their existing user base stranded. It’s even worse when some of these changes are not fully thought through.

A request for feedback on issues with the new version which I placed on key MM forums has elicited a strong response. Based on these I’ve prepared, appropriately enough, a detailed mind map in consultation with key members of the MM user community. I’ve forwarded this to Mindjet with an open letter seeking changes in the first and subsequent MM9 service packs.

It will be interesting to see if this small exercise in consumer protest has any affect. For those of you who are interested in this issue, click here to see the map  (requires Flash), go to Biggerplate to download the map or click on this link to download the letter to Mindjet – and if you are a concerned MindManager user, pass these links on, post comments on the Mindjet and Yahoo MM forums and write to Mindjet yourself.

Is this the (western) world’s oldest mind map?

I was watching the first episode of the BBC series Seven Ages of Britain (currently being screened in Australia on the ABC) in which the presenter, David Dimbleby, visits the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence to look at the Codex Amiatinus, the earliest surviving example of a complete (or nearly complete) Bible.

According to the program (and Wikipedia) it was produced in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria and was commissioned as a gift for the Pope in 692. The book is huge – it weighs over 35kg – with over a 1,000 pages of beautiful script in vulgate Latin and intricate illustrations, all laboriously completed by hand by the monks of the double monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow.

As Dimbleby turned the pages he paused briefly to describe the manuscript’s contents page and I suddenly realised that we were looking at what appeared to be a very old mind map. I went to the ABC iView site to review the program and grabbed a snapshot of the page (all copyrights acknowledged, etc).

Codex Amiatinus

 

Strictly speaking it’s a knowledge or information map, rather than a mind map (I don’t imagine the monks were brainstorming the Bible). It’s a simple org-chart diagram – I’m assuming the two main branches are the Old and New Testaments and the sub-branches represent the key sections, but somebody with a better knowledge of the Bible’s structure can correct me!

I did a quick search of the web to see if there are any earlier examples of mind maps or similar diagrams. It appears that the concept of visually mapping information dates at least to the third Century, when the philosopher Porphyry of Tyros used a form of decision tree to represent the concept categories of Aristotle. However the only illustration I could find of these was from a later translation.

Obviously, non-European cultures have also made extensive use of illustration in various ways to represent complex information, from simple pictographs and drawings to the extremely complex diagrams of some Central and South American pre-Columbian civilisations. However, this page in the Codex Amiatinus may be one of the oldest extant knowledge maps in European culture. Even if it isn’t, it’s remarkable in terms of its simplicity and restraint. While it is clearly hand drawn, it almost has the regularity of a software-generated map, combined with the creative use of different line colours and icons (all undoubtedly highly symbolic).

The thing that struck me the most was how accessible it was; it’s easy to recognise, 1,300 years after it was drawn, that this is some form of contents page or publication guide – even if, like me, you are neither a regular church-goer nor a Latin scholar!

 

If the iPad is the answer, what is the question?

Recently I extolled the virtues of netbooks as an ideal device for travellers, due to their light weight, long battery life and very low (sub $500) cost. When the iPad was subsequently announced I assumed that it would be a “netbook killer”. However, after reading about them and having a brief play with one, I’m not so sure. In fact, once all the current enthusiasm for the iPad dies down, I don’t know exactly what its role will be.

This is not to knock the iPad, through which Apple has done to the tablet computer what it did through the iPhone to the mobile phone – remake the current crop of disparate poorly-implemented devices as a well-executed package integrated with a great, intuitive interface which can be used as a platform for a range of applications. 

iPad (from Wikipedia)

The difference of course is that the mobile phone was already a ubiquitous device when the iPhone came along. Millions of people already had the things and knew roughly what to do with them, though Apple was certainly successful in making a better interface and extending the range of phone-based activities.

 In geological terms, the mobile phone market was not so much as a niche as a very large depression, one only partly filled by a lake of existing devices which the iPhone successfully swamped. To labour the metaphor, the iPhone then went on to fill up most of the neighbouring niches and creating new ones, courtesy of the vast range of iPhone apps.

By comparison the tablet was only a very small niche before Apple arrived. While the iPad is likely to fill this relatively small hole, this is not that significant an achievement. Apple and the apps providers also need to fill a lot of connected niches  – and create new ones to fill as well – to give the iPad critical mass.

This is complicated by the fact that, because of its size, the iPad is unlikely to become a ubiquitous device like the mobile phone – for a start, you can’t just put one in your pocket, or indeed the average handbag, as you zoom out the front door. This will obviously limit its numbers, unless a great killer app or two can be found.

Such an app is unlikely to come from the ranks of iPhone apps ported to the iPad – after all, the iPad can use all of these already. It will likely have to be something new which is best suited to the iPad form factor. One suggested example is the delivery of newspapers, though electronic paper could well do a better job of displaying these (that is, if anyone ever actually releases electronic paper displays on a commercial basis). It may be that the killer iPad app is yet to be written.

This brings me back to the iPad’s potential as a netbook killer. There is little doubt that the iPad may be the ideal device for some travellers, especially those who just want to send and receive emails, look up websites (provided they don’t use Flash) or upload and post holiday photos (provided they buy the appropriate attachment). It also has almost twice the battery life of a netbook and would no doubt suit many (well-heeled) tourists.

However a netbook can do all of these things, albeit less elegantly, and is easier to use for anything more complex such as word processing or photo editing. It is also a lot cheaper – ironically, your average business traveller who can afford to buy an iPad may prefer to stick with a netbook because it is much easier to use the latter to type up that last-minute report on the early-bird flight to Melbourne. This response is also consistent with the suggestion that iPads are best thought of as content consumption rather than content production devices.

While I can’t predict whether such a killer iPad application will emerge or what that application might be, it’s interesting to consider how the iPad might be used in relation to some of the Web 2.0 applications I have previously reviewed. Those workshop or conference tools such as Poll Everywhere or iMeet which require interactive, real time participant input might benefit the most. MyCommittee also has potential, but only once it can be used to run actual committee meetings themselves. 

Perhaps more intriguing are the web-based mind mapping applications I reviewed last year, such as Comapping, Mindomo and MindMeister. These may also require some adjustment but they would offer the potential for brainstorming or mind mapping for small groups using iPads.

In summary, while the jury is still out on the extent to which the iPad will succeeed, there is a lot of potential to use the device to capture feedback interactively in meetings, workshops and conferences which should be explored by NGOs and small businesses – that is, if you can afford to buy the things in the first place. I’d be interested in any suggestions about other Web 2.0 applications for the NGO or small business sectors that are designed for iPads or which might be particularly useful in the iPad format.

Mind Mapping and Web 2.0: Part 1 – web-based tools

Over on our other blog, StrategyMatters, I’ve been looking at a key strategic thinking and planning tool, mind mapping software. In this post I’ll start to look at the interaction of mind mapping software with the web and a warning – this is a longish post!

First, what is a mind map? Wikipedia offers a good definition:

“A mind map is a diagram used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged around a central key word or idea. Mind maps are used to generate, visualize, structure, and classify ideas, and as an aid in study, organization, problem solving, decision making, and writing.”

As I said in the relevant StrategyMatters post, mind mapping has been around for a long time as a manual, pen-on-paper exercise. Organisation brainstorming sessions often use a loose form of manual mind mapping with less than satisfactory results, but now software has been developed to make the process much easier and more efficient.

There are dozens of mind mapping programs out there, but most work the same way, allowing users to add ideas as branches to a core concept. The software allows users to move these ideas around the resulting tree on screen, detaching them from one branch and attaching to another, and to add new ideas as sub-topics to these branches.

Most programs also allow you to prioritise these topics and sub-topics, to format them in other ways and to add information such as deadlines, resources, document files and web links. Not only can these programs provide a simple, visual one-page map as record of a planning or brainstorming session – these maps can also become effective “live” management documents for implementing an organisation strategy or managing a project.

Whilst mind mapping software started out as conventional PC and Mac based programs, it has evolved in interesting ways. Some programs have stayed in this conventional mould. Others remain computer based, but also have options for uploading, storing and sharing maps on the web – and, in some cases, for shared online collaboration.

A third emerging category is those programs that are entirely web-based, with maps stored online and accessed though a browser. Obviously this facilitates sharing, but it also makes it easier for single users to access their maps from any computer.

I’ll have a brief look at the last two groups, starting off in this post with the fully web-based applications. Three good examples are Comapping, Mindomo and MindMeister. Both the latter programs offer both free and charged accounts, though free account holders can access only a basic version with limited features (MindMeister however offers a time-limited trial of its fully-featured premium version). Comapping offers only a 30-day trial but the trial version is fully-featured.

Cost: All three programs make it easy to sign up and get started. However, to obtain access to additional features you have to sign up for at least the “premium” version of either Mindomo (a monthly charge of US$6) or MindMeister (US$4 a month). Both programs also offer closely-matched “business” and education/academic versions with some additional features. Comapping comes in a single version, which costs US$15 for 6-month and US$25 for annual subscriptions. Comapping also offers group, class and company subscriptions.

Interface: All three programs observe basic mind mapping software conventions regarding the creation of new topics and sub-topics, the ability to move topics around the map and the expanding and collapsing of branches. The creators of Comapping and Mindomo have opted for Office 2007-style tab and ribbon formats for their commands, with a button in the top left corner allowing access to the most basic commands. This has the advantage of familiarity for many users, but the downside is that because the map window is already in a browser there isn’t much area left for the map itself in either program if you are accessing it from a notebook computer, especially one with a small screen.

Mindomo’s ribbon layout is reasonably intuitive, but with some unexpected twists. For example, text formatting is under the Home tab and not in Formatting. It is also annoying that at least in the trial version a column of ads appears on in the right sidebar, taking up even more space.

Mindomo screen:

Meanwhile, Comapping’s limited feature set (more on this later) and lack of advertising means that its interface is relatively straightforward.

Comapping screen: 

Comapping also appears to try to make virtue out of necessity by offering only a right-facing map. This makes better use of the available real estate on a notebook screen, but is somewhat limiting, especially as you cannot vary the spacing between topics. However you can change the map’s focus to topics other than the main topic and at least there are no annoying advertisements.

Meanwhile MindMeister has a different approach. Across the top of the browser window is a narrow bar with basic commands only. Other commands are contained in tabs on the sidebar. Whilst it provides more real estate for the map in the browser window, this causes another problem for notebook users – if several of the uppermost tabs are open, the bottom ones are pushed off the screen.

MindMeister screen:

 

This situation isn’t helped by the fact that the MindMeister sidebar contains “recommendations” (ie, advertising) which can only be removed by purchasing the premium version. Even if your screen is big enough to have all the tabs fully open, it isn’t easy to work out what options are available.

Feature set: Both Mindomo and MindMeister offer a reasonable set of features, though neither is as comprehensive as the range of features in a “conventional” commercial program such as MindManager. However, you can insert icons and images, add task information and attach notes and web links. Both programs also allow you to attach files but these first have to be uploaded. Mindomo can also handle audio and video files but these have to be available on the web in the first place.

Mindomo has by far the biggest range of map and topic formatting. There are 20 predetermined map layouts and individual topics can be given different shapes. Topic text font, size and colouring can also be changed and bold, italic and underline styles applied.

In MindMeister there is only one style of map and node shape, whilst only text style, size and colouring can be varied. MindMeister however does provide a history view and a “geistesblitz” (mind flash) facility, which allows users to insert topics directly from a sidebar, browser or via email or SMS.

Comapping  also has a limited feature set. Again, you cannot change the basic map style or format topic shapes but you can change the colour and size of text and apply a background colour. You can insert a hyperlink  for the whole map and as well as for individual topics – however some of the editing options only appear when you are actually editing the topic. Comapping does not have predefined images, but if you attach a graphics file to a topic it will insert a thumbnail image of the file.

One feature is unique to Comapping, however; its presentation mode allows users to drag topics onto the ribbon to create a slide show focussing on these topics in the order selected. This is actually quite clever and easy to use. Other Comapping users can view the presentation on their computers by clicking on the Join Presentation button in their tool bar and the map can be edited in presentation mode.

Mindomo and MindMeister offer the most comprehensive help facilities with detailed instructions and FAQs. Mindomo also has a forum, whilst MindMeister offers an online tutorial. Comapping has the most limited support, with only an FAQ and “Tips & Tricks”.

Accessibility and sharing: All three programs allow map sharing by inviting colleagues as well as posting them publicly on the web. MindMeister explicitly allows groups to work on the same map at the same time – and so, apparently, does Comapping – but neither program makes it clear how conflicts are handled. Mindomo does not indicate if it is possible to work collectively on the same map at the same time.

Both MindMeister and Comapping have downloadable versions which allow users to edit maps when they are not connected to the internet. MindMeister’s offline version is free as long as you have a premium or team subscription, but it requires Google Gears and a fairly complex installation process. Comapping’s offline version costs US$99 and requires Adobe AIR. Mindomo have not yet released an offline version, though one is in development. Business and academic users can however get a server based version.

Import and export: The basic versions of Mindomo and MindMeister can export image, PDF and Word (RTF) files, but a signup to the premium version is required in both programs to export more sophisticated formats such as MindManager. The premium version of Mindomo can export MindManager, Microsoft Project (MPX), Excel and HTML files whilst MindMeister can export to Mindmanager and Freemind. Comapping has a similar range to Mindomo, allowing export to RTF, MindManager, Freemind, HTML, Project and OPML files.

The ability of all three programs to export to MindManager and of Comapping and MindMeister to export to Freemind is especially significant. Although neither the commercial MindManager or nor the open source Freemind (or any other program) dominates the mind mapping market in the way that Microsoft does with office software, both have a large base of users and a number of other programs can also import their files. On this front all three programs can import maps from Freemind and MindManager.

The ability to export to common file formats also provides a simple way for users to back-up their mind map files off-line (which is relevant in the context of what I wrote recently regarding Web 2.0 services and data security) and to access these files easily using other software if required.

Verdict: Unlike Comapping, Mindomo and MindMeister both provide free versions – but these are very basic. Once payment is involved, the playing field is a little different. Comapping is the cheapest over 12 months at US$25, whilst MindMeister will cost US$48 and Mindomo US$72.

Comapping and MindMeister have an edge in online collaboration and both provide offline facilities (though you pay extra for Comapping’s software), whilst Comapping and Mindomo have a wider range of export options. MindMeister and Comapping have the most limited options for map formatting, though Comapping alone offers a very useful presentation mode. Mindomo has by far the most comprehensive range of formatting features.

Both the Comapping and Mindomo ribbon-based interfaces are reasonably intuitive and even for new users would be easy to pick up. This contrasts with the MindMeister interface, which seems to require more visits to the online help to understand.

I think that Mindomo offers the best balance of features and ease of use and would probably suit single users – especially those who have previously used other mind mapping programs – or small groups who want to share files, but not necessarily work on them at the same time. Both MindMeister and Comapping may be best suited to workgroups who want to collaborate intensively on maps in real time. Of these two, Comapping probably just wins out, especially for larger groups, because of its ease of use, presentation facility and lower cost per user.   

However the great thing is that all three programs allow potential users the opportunity to try them out for free. I would suggest giving all three a trial to determine what suits you the best. It should also be noted that I haven’t had time to apply all the tests I suggested in my last post about avoiding problems with Web 2.0 services - but you are strongly advised to look at these issues in evaluating these products.  At the very least you should use the ability of all of these  programs to export MindManager and Freemind files to provide off-line backups of your maps in either format.

In a future post I’ll look at the web-based collaboration of the more conventional mind mapping programs such as MindManager.

At Gooding Davies Consultancy we use MindManager extensively and can provide a range of strategic planning and program management solutions for your organisation based on this versatile program. We can also advise on solutions using the above products.