How often do we rush something only to wait for somebody else to finish their work, or make a decision, or even turn up to a meeting? The military have a humoristic expression for this; ‘’hurry up and wait’’ which was spawned during WW2. This is not only frustrating but an all too true sign of failing to plan and not preparing properly. When we fail to plan we have, either deliberately or naively, planned to fail. But why do some endeavors fail even when a ‘plan’ exists and we end up ‘’waiting to rush’’.
Project managers know that planning is essential, after all 24 of the PMI’s 47 processes are related to planning. When a new project is announced it typically attracts attention and enthusiasm. According to Benford’s eponymous law of controversy the degree of enthusiasm, , is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. In the absence of information enthusiasm can run rife and plans are based upon incomplete and unquestioned information coupled with optimistic assumptions, wishful thinking, and a vision of the future project through rose-tinted spectacles.
This ‘uncontrolled’ planning is based upon an idealistic composite of the last project(s) and ‘what went well’, ‘what we would have done if we’d known better’, and ‘what we’d like’. Reading documents and understanding a project’s requirements, is put off till later. People are kept busy being busy and we may well hear, “there’s plenty of time for the documentation later once the project gets started”. Planning is completed on an island of incomplete information in a sea of assumptions.
The ‘plan’ gives a veneer of competence even in the knowledge of ignorance and guesstimates. But as long as plans are on time, everybody’s happy until there is a realisation that they are inapplicable.
The Planned Wait
Organisations, or those in power proclaim that the plans are in place and the ‘planned action’ can be implemented. The doubting Thomas’ who would fear that any action without a plan will become a nightmare are placated even though the plan was made on yesterday’s assumptions and an optimistic view of the future.
Should a realist, or the optimist’s pessimist, require more information then this is challenged. Why would anybody want anything that could possibly darken the anticipated rosy future and spoil everything? Counter arguments to enthusiastic assumptions, despite pragmatic views, are quickly and summarily dismissed as being something that can be solved ‘later’.
For the pragmatists who are caught up in the whirlwind of an enthusiastic team they may well be in quandary. On one side, and in an act of wishful thinking, there is hope that, perhaps, things will be different in the cold light of tomorrow’s day. On the other, and in an act of retrospective reflection, there is also the possible belief of the Beatles that, ‘yesterday, all our troubles seemed so far away’.
People who question the plan are branded radicals and ostracised as ‘boat rockers’. Going against the unquestioning flow of the herd is deemed heresy as ‘everybody’ is caught up in the maelstrom of novelty and reaction; or fun for some. Challenging voices of reason are quickly gagged and the plan becomes the truth. If everybody believes the truth then the ‘truth’ must be true – the blind can, and do, lead the blind.
However, and eventually, the planned action is taken and the plan is implemented. If the assumptions were wrong then reality soon takes over and any anticipated impetus stops and inertia sets in. The planned first step of the journey may have been addressed but the real requirements are quickly realised and stagnation results. Just look at military interventions for peace; the gung-ho rush to fight can be quickly over while the prolonged wait for an effective plan seems to take forever; the saying “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread” may well worth remembering.
The Failing Rush
“Realisation of requirements” – this was the last stage of a 1970’s humorous take on project life cycles. However, in all seriousness, it all too often rings true and as Chaucer wrote over 600 years ago in 1390, “many a true word spoken in jest”. Realising what you have to do rather than what you think you have to do is a very real occurrence and an all too familiar wake up call for many a project manager. We often hear “I think” rather than “I know” when it comes to requirements and if it’s “I think” how often do we hear “but I’ll find out”; very rarely.
The realisation that the plan is flawed can result in either; (1) carrying on regardless in the belief that everything will be all right and we can fix things as we go or (2) work out what has to be done and make a proper plan. It’s a difficult choice to make but carrying on in the knowledge of fundamental errors may mean that essential foundation stones for the project are missed which will cause problems and inevitable delays later. Stopping to plan effectively is a difficult decision but at some stage every requirement must be addressed and a plan is essential; the sooner this happens the better
“It’s better to get behind early so there is more time to catch up” say some in humour. It originated with NASA who, more correctly said “the sooner you know that you’re behind, the more time you will have to catch up.’ If there has been a failure to define requirements or the mission then the sooner the nettle of ignorance is grasped then there will be more time for correcting things.
The later the realisation of an ineffective plan the greater the rush required to get back on track and the less time is available for mitigation. But late realisation is compounded by refusals to see a situation for what it is, defending a plan that was flawed from the start, and protecting pride and ego. In the impending rush any deadlines appear to accelerate towards us, there’s never enough time, corners are cut, scope is missed, quality suffers and costs escalate as people and money, rather than rationality, are thrown at the problems.
Conclusions
A former world chess champion, Emanuel Lasker, once said “Even a bad plan is better than no plan (at all)”. This statement may be counterintuitive but even a ‘bad’ plan has a chance of being corrected as long as it is based on what was required rather than what was assumed. In Lasker’s case it was not about a plan ‘to win’ but a plan ‘not to lose’.
Plans based upon assumptions rather than requirements will be fraught with risk. The Hollywood director Jerry Belson once said, “Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME”; if a plan is founded on unverifiable assumptions then ass-like behaviour will ensue and asses will defend themselves stubbornly rather than correcting matters. Any positive progress then grinds to a halt while the next step is contemplated and, delays occur while we wait for the next tide or the ‘right time’; “time and tide wait for no man”
Waiting to rush is unfortunately endemic when plans are inadequately prepared without defined requirements and in an atmosphere of wild enthusiasm. The resulting false start and jumping the gun may give the impression of being quick off the mark but the end result can be a waste of time and effort as one returns to the starting blocks. While a project waits to restart properly we need to contemplate the rush and additional effort that is needed to get back on track.
When plnning a project perhaps we should remember Aristotle’s advice that “well begun is half done” and, rather than relying on yesterday’s trouble-free assumptions we should concentrate on today’s requirements, avoid waiting and obviate rushing.
Bio:
Malcolm Peart is an UK Chartered Engineer & Chartered Geologist with over thirty-five years’ international experience in multicultural environments on large multidisciplinary infrastructure projects including rail, metro, hydro, airports, tunnels, roads and bridges. Skills include project management, contract administration & procurement, and design & construction management skills as Client, Consultant, and Contractor.