Planning: The Efficiency Zone
From the Disciplined Agile Applied Blog
by Scott Ambler
This blog explores pragmatic agile and lean strategies for enterprise-class contexts.
Recent Posts
Data Technical Debt: 2022 Data Quality Survey Results
Is Technical Debt A Management Problem? Survey Says...
You Think Your Staff Wants to Go Back to the Office? Think Again.
Contracts, Procurement, Vendors, and Agile
Disciplined Agile 5.4 Released
Categories
#AgileBeyondIT,
#ChoiceIsGood,
ACP,
agile,
Agile Alliance,
agile-manifesto,
book,
Business Agility,
Certification,
Choose your WoW,
Conference,
Context,
Continuous Improvement,
contracts,
COVID-19,
Data Management,
database,
DDJ,
Disciplined Agile,
Enterprise Agile,
estimation,
Fundamentals,
Governance,
GQM,
guesstimation,
http://disciplinedagiledelivery.com/principles/be-awesome/,
India,
information technology,
Introduction,
Kanban,
lean,
MANAGEIndia,
math,
MENA,
Metrics,
mindset,
News,
OKRs,
Organization,
People Management,
Planning,
PMO,
Portfolio Management,
Principle,
Project Management,
Quality,
Ranged Estimates,
Remote Work,
Scrum,
Security,
skill,
software,
Surveys,
Technical Debt,
Technical debt,
Terminology,
Transformation,
value stream,
vendor management,
VMO
Date
Yogi Berra was fond of saying “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up someplace else.” What Yogi was getting at was that it’s a good idea to do a bit of thinking, a bit of planning, before you get started. In the previous blog, Planning: When Have you Done Enough? we explored the factors that affect how much planning we should do. The challenge is that the factors are qualitative in nature, requiring us to make a decision that is based on intuition.
In this blog we explore how to increase the chance that we get as close as we can to achieving the maximum value from our planning efforts. The following figure is organized into four planning quadrants, each one of which represents a target area for our planning efforts.
Figure – The four quadrants of planning efficiency.

Let’s explore each quadrant. In order from most desirable, to least desirable, they are:
- Q1: Efficient. The most efficient approach is to do a bit less planning than is sufficient, to undershoot the mark. The idea is that you want to get close to sufficient and be prepared to explore the aspects of your plan later in the lifecycle when you discover that it’s insufficient. This strategy assumes you have easy access to the subject matter experts (SMEs) and decision makers, thereby enabling you to quickly adjust and evolve your plan as needed.
- Q2: Comfortable. Some people will aim for this quadrant out of the believe that they need to think everything through right now, that they won’t be allowed to update the plan easily later on in the lifecycle. Although this is comfortable for people who are new to Disciplined Agile (DA) ways of working (WoW) it is also wasteful because they’ve invested too much on the planning effort.
- Q3: Insufficient. This is where a lot of agile purists, or non-managers who are new to agile, end up. When planning is grossly insufficient like this your team tends to work in an undirected manner that results in a lot of rework later.
- Q4: Wasteful. This is where a lot of traditional managers who are new to agile WoW land. This strategy is particularly problematic in areas where there is great uncertainty, in particular software development where requirements and underlying technologies change rapidly. Planning efforts that land in quadrant 4 are often caused by impedance mismatch between the expectations of the people doing the planning, or the expectations of the people who require a detailed plan before the rest of the work commences, and the reality of the situation on the ground. Very often the environment has changed but the planning methodology hasn’t, so lighten up.
Eisenhower said “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” There can be significant value in planning, but it is possible to go too far, to plan too much. Although more research is needed in this space, it appears that the value of planning follows the law of diminishing returns – there is significant value in doing some planning, but that value quickly reaches a maximum point. Determining that maximum point is a qualitative, “gut feel” decision based on a collection of factors such as the complexity and risk of the situation, the skills and experience of the people involved, and the uncertainty that you face. Surprisingly, the most efficient approach to planning is to aim for your plans to be slightly insufficient, to be close but in need of a bit more work when you discover that you need to work through a few more details. I hope this blog series has been food for thought.
Posted on: November 19, 2019 06:39 AM |
Permalink
Comments (16)
Please login or join to subscribe to this item
Very interesting thanks for sharing
Luis Branco
CEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, Ldª
Carcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dear Scott
Interesting perspective on the topic
Thanks for sharing
From a conceptual point of view it is quite noticeable
From an operational point of view:
What is considered "low effort" and "high effort"?
The same applies to the value.
What can we consider "High value" and "Low value?"
Interesting points...thanku for sharing
Interesting comparison between planning vs law of diminishing returns which some (especially economists) may disagree but in some extend I can certainly relate to your thought-provoking views, thank you! The law reminded me of those student years-in particular on daily consumption/spending - the end result was ‘not to spend’ once reached the max point of satisfaction, so based on the same analogy does that ‘not to plan’? Appreciate you thoughts further thank you!
-should read - - ‘does that mean ‘not to plan’?
Scott Ambler
Consulting Methodologist| Ambysoft Inc.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Suzi, great question. Yes, the idea is that once you've maximized value that you're best to stop putting effort in. The more planning that you do the less value you receive. For example, yes, I can do more planning once I've gone past the JBGE point and get more benefit from doing so. BUT, I lose overall value in doing so. For example, I could do a dollar's worth of planning effort but the benefit from doing so is only 90 cents. So the benefit received went up by 90 cents but the value went down by 10 cents (1-.90).
Good reminders of the need to find that sweet-spot for planning, Scott! One leading indicator that you are reaching the tipping point towards over-planning is keeping track of the volume of key assumptions being made within fixed durations such as a day or a week. If that volume is starting to reach the inflection point on the proverbial hockey stick, it might be time to take a step back and assess if we have crossed over to the Dark Side of planning...
I try to aim for the sufficient fence...lest waste and get more done.
Alfred Horton
CEO & President| AOC Connect, LLC
Lovettsville, Va, United States
Thank you for this interesting perspective. Planning is important, but you make a good point not to over-plan. This is where iterative evaluation and Agile methods can be brought in to a hybrid PMO. It allows for less upfront planning while still having a plan to overcome obstacles.
Peter Rapin
Subject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent Consultant
Ontario, Canada
My experience is that most projects fall into Q3 and Q4. and that the experienced traditional project managers, having experienced the inefficiency of Q4 or been directed to reduce planning costs, tend to jump from Q4 to Q3 thus going from over planning to insufficient planning. In effect trading costly planning for very costly execution. It is my opinion that in the construction industry Q3 presents a much higher risk than Q4 as the execution costs are so much greater than the planning costs.I can see a great benefit operating in the Q1 and Q2 quadrants.Considering that comfort is very important to project managers, especially in the government sector, Q2 seems ideal.
My initial take was that there was only one choice, traditional or Agile. Now I see that the Agile model can be adapted to the construction industry in moderation, ie Q2.
My next consideration would be to apply probability theory to Value/Effort graph - after all, it is a bell curve
Interesting approach. I agree that there is a theoretical optimum level of planning, but what is "value" and how can it be quantified? Also, I'm not clear on the mathematical function used to represent the logic. I think another equation would better match the logic presented. Increasing value as indicated with increasing effort (sideways parabola passing through 0,0), with a step function at max value/ effort, and then a function increasing negatively (mirror of above).
Scott Ambler
Consulting Methodologist| Ambysoft Inc.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Peter, it's likely not a bell curve. Any "bellness" reflects my lack of drawing skills.
Steve, this is an open research problem. I suspect an exact mathematical formula will be elusive due to the qualitative nature of the factors involved. But there is very likely several PHDs to be had if you're interested in doing such work. Good luck if so! ;-)
Michael Huber
Senior Project Manager| T-Mobile
Seattle, Wa, United States
Very useful information, thanks
Thanks for the valuable information. I was going through DAASM materials and in Module 8 of DAASM eLearning, Planning Zone, it seems the quadrant 3 and 4 are interchanged (Insufficient vs Wasteful & Risky). Can you please clarify this?
Please Login/Register to leave a comment.
|
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18."
- Albert Einstein
|