ARGUMENTS FOR PLANNING

All project teams are typically pressed to move on into execution quicker than they would prefer. Management and other stakeholder groups push the team to move for- ward and start getting visible items accomplished. Users feel like they have defined the

Project Plan Development • 117

requirements with the original business case or vision statement and the planning pro- cess is not adding anything to the process other than time.

Planning should not be viewed as a waste of time if you can produce a reasonably well- defined target and believe that the technical steps necessary to achieve that target are known. The flaw in this logic is that this scenario is seldom the case. User requirements are typically not well-defined or understood even by the user much less the project team. Also, project team members often have diverse views regarding how to produce the item. Given these fuzzy issues, there are perspectives that favor the development of a less thor- ough initial planning process with some form of iteration in developing the output. In other words, let the users see something working and then define the next step, iteratively marching toward some completion point. From a management viewpoint, the lack of a defined schedule, budget, and some definition of the final goal makes this approach hard to sell. Based on this view and the belief that iteration can waste resources, many orga- nizations opt for a more planned initial stage prior to beginning execution. The sections below summarize a few of the common supporting rationale for this.

11.1.1 Project Monitoring and Control

One of the classic rules of management is that you can only control what has been planned. This means that the omission of a coherent plan also means that you are giving up a significant ability to control the project. From a management perspective, the plan becomes the baseline on which to measure performance status through the life cycle.

11.1.2 Conflicting Expectations

A project vision often is often spawned in one segment of the organization and for that reason it is common to focus the solution on that isolated segment. As the scope and impact of the project is better understood, there will likely be conflicting views regarding how best to orient the requirements for the benefit of the overall organization. What might be very productive for one segment of the organization could well create chaos elsewhere? Failure to define and review the overall requirements with a broader stakeholder group will often leave issues to be uncovered later when they will be costly to correct. Even when the issues are relatively minor, a stakeholder’s frustrations are often caused by his lack of understanding the project directions—how to best execute the requirement, supporting processes, resource issues, and so on. The classic example of this would be to produce a costly product successfully according to the original requirements only to have the user population say “we can’t use this,” or to find a better product already in the marketplace.

One of the major purposes of the planning process is to evaluate the various views of the vision and work toward one that the overall organization understands and agrees to support. Everyone may not agree with the result, but they should agree to work posi- tively toward that agreed upon goal and to understand why that particular choice is either appropriate or approved. Failure to go through a planning process would omit this negotiation process and resulting buy-in.

11.1.3 Overlooking the Real Solution

Oftentimes, a new technology looks promising and brings the hope of some break- through solution to a perceived problem. Racing to achieve the use of a new technol- ogy can result in similar negative outcomes as described above. In this case, the new technology could require changes in organizational processes, structure, governance, or reward systems (Henry, 2004). In other situations, a narrow perspective of the project

goal might completely miss the proper target. A valid solution at one point in time could be absolutely wrong, given dynamics in the organization or the external marketplace.

11.1.4 Competing Solutions

In the organizational environment, multiple project proposals and active projects are likely at any one point in time. As efforts continue to define the technical approach or scope direction for a particular project, different solutions can emerge elsewhere. Experience indicates that the initial approach is often not the best strategic approach. Unfortunately, the zeal of the various parties can turn the selection process into a battle- ground of egos and parochial positions. It is up to the project governance structure to ensure that reasonable options are viewed and explored without turning the process into an “analysis paralysis” activity with no direction. Certainly, one of the reverse side risks of planning is over planning. Finding the right balance between too much time spent and not enough is a critical skill for the management team.

11.1.5 Misaligned Goals

As discussed in previous sections, there is a requirement that a project aligns its direc- tion with organizational goals. As obvious as this point might be, it is one that is often difficult to achieve in the operational environment.

11.1.6 Quality Solutions

Even in the situation where the target project vision is proper and all are in synch with it, there is still a need to produce a quality output. In order to achieve that goal, the result- ing plan must find an appropriate balance between the vision (scope), cost, schedule, risk, and quality. Very few projects are worth pursuing without regard to the associ- ated cost, time, or level of risk. Likewise, few projects can afford to produce the highest possible quality. So, the planning function must find the correct balance between these competing goals. The only way to estimate these parameters is to carry out a reasonable level of planning.

11.1.7 Summary

To create an effective plan that properly deals with the issues outlined above, there are five items that must be resolved.

1. A combination of technical, resource, and process considerations must be dealt with

2. Diverse stakeholder expectations must be negotiated and documented

3. A proper balance between tactical and strategic needs must be reviewed and resolved

4. A solid review of the business case must be completed and matched with the subsequent requirements developed during planning

5. The organizational goal alignment requirement needs to be verified.