Reality is not plan based - Plans as a communication device

Posted by Gerard Janssen terribly early in the morning: June 11, 2007

When it comes to the contents of plan there is a big difference between prescriptive and criterion based approaches. As we stated before the idea behind a plan is to provide guidance to the activities on the project. In that sense it is a sort of communication device. However, the way we use the plan determines its effectiveness.

A plan should describe how to realize the business case on which the project is based. In the criterion based approach to project management this means that the intention of the project is described, but not all activities on how to materialize the business case are specified. The essence of the plan is to explain or to translate the business case into practical guidelines and criteria on how realize the business case. Put differently, it specifies the high level requirements for the project that need to be met for the project to be deemed successful. Tom and Kai Gilb for instance like to state that approximately 10 high level requirements should be enough to give direction to a project. These requirements then are the criteria used to measure the progress and success of the project.

the plan as a vision
In the criterion based approach the plan can be seen as a vision statement.
It is used to convey and clarify the vision of business case and it is used to create a shared vision within the project team. The project team will then be organized around that vision. This makes managing the project a lot easier. Instead of managing people based on their actions and activities, the project manager has to guard the vision. He has to make sure the project team has the correct understanding of the vision and is acting in accordance with it. Project members that have a good understanding of the essence of the business case are able to organize themselves and to choose for themselves the appropriate actions. They do not need to be managed, they can be led.

communication is bi-directional
If we support the notion that a plan is really a way to communicate the vision and direction of the project, we also need to asses how to do this most effectively. Change is part of that.
Communication is a two way thing, Especially on projects where people cooperate towards a shared goal.
Then as the project is executed data is being generated that must be fed back into the plan. The feasibility of the goals becomes clearer as actions towards achieving them are undertaken. Assumption that are part of the vision are being tested and evaluated by the project team. Whether the project team will be able to achieve certain goals can only be determined in reality and cannot be deferred from the plan. This information must then be fed back into the planning process and in the plan itself. Thereby improving the quality and reliability of the plan. If we wish our plans to be based on reality, we must allow feedback from that reality to form the basis of the evolving plan.

the plan as a status indicator
The plan should reflect the current status of the project. It should indicate what has been achieved thus far and what still needs to be done to reach the goals of the project. As times passes these things change. Progress is made and the feasibility of the unfinished work can be better assessed as time passes. Thus the project plan needs to be updated regularly to reflect the progress and the new insights. This also implies that really only the current status of the project plan is important. Yesterdays’ planning is no longer relevant today.
For the historians on the project it will be interesting to see how the plan changed over time, but for the "present-based" population, only the current version of the plan reflects the reality on which future action and direction needs to based.