3 ms·

Whenever you talk about breaking down tasks, estimations etc, those usually are for multi-person teams, and/or projects that have some specific budget or someth

Whenever you talk about breaking down tasks, estimations etc, those usually are for multi-person teams, and/or projects that have some specific budget or something. Of course if you are exploring or building your own projects and/or don't have any other accountability, you wouldn't start planning that.. unless you are really into planning in and of itself. But as soon as you have a boss and the boss asks "how long? who does what? where do we start?" - you have to have some framework. I also have a very high aversion to "conforming to the system", esp. when these systems seem arbitrary or are overly rigid .. but systems in general need to be simple and flexible. Productivity systems are there to help people. I don't think the author intended for this to be like a detailed recipe.. but more like an example of how he approaches these things, which can hopefully help others have their own ideas.

fmbb 3y ago
> But as soon as you have a boss and the boss asks "how long? who does what? where do we start?" - you have to have some framework. Why? Does it work? Is it productive? Is it better than not doing that?
- zarathustreal 3y ago
  Suppose it doesn’t work, it’s not productive, and it’s worse than not doing it. You still have a boss asking these questions. Any answer you provide constitutes a framework.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Well, one answer you can try is to push back on the concept of providing status updates. For many (but not most) high-trust individuals working on many (but I think not most) kinds of projects, that's totally fine. (Ideally it is an expectation set much earlier on than the point where a status update is being requested, though.)
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  On average: yes, yes, and yes.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    > Does it work? Is it productive? Is it better than not doing that? >> On average: yes, yes, and yes. For what it's worth, I think it's more like: On average: no, no, and yes. It doesn't really "work" in the sense that the plan turns out to be an accurate and useful reflection of the work; that is not the case on average in my experience (sometimes it is, but not usually). And for the same reason, it isn't usually a productive exercise; it usually costs more time up front than it earns in productivity. But despite those two things I think it still turns out to be better on average, in a team / "you have a boss" environment. Because productivity is not the only thing that matters, legibility is also important to organizations, and worth some productivity cost. Though this will chafe me until I'm in my grave, I still think it's true.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      The plan being an accurate reflection of what then happens is not the point. Having people assigned to tasks, a starting point, some initial steps to follow is something that increase delivery speed in the beginning a lot. Edit: to some extent, legibility is productivity, as it means others are aware of what is going on and can interact/refer/etc.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        > Having people assigned to tasks, a starting point, some initial steps to follow is something that increase delivery speed in the beginning a lot. It's a balance of time spent planning against the value of the plan. Immediate-term "planning" is definitely valuable, IMO. Thinking through how some immediate work can be split up so that multiple people can make progress simultaneously, without stepping on each other's toes, that is definitely valuable. Having some discussion about what the next steps might be after those immediate steps are complete, that's also pretty much always valuable. Spending a small amount of time thinking about the next next steps can be valuable. But past that, in my experience, people often put more time into planning detailed steps than ends up being valuable. It's not that it has zero value, it's that it has a pretty high cost that, in my opinion, usually outweighs that value. Also, just to note that I think spending time thinking about a "north star" vision of what a project is trying to achieve is also pretty much always strongly positive ROI. It's time spent coming up with a detailed plan a few steps out from the immediate term that I find dubious. I don't mind other people spending that time if they want to, but I don't like spending my time in those planning meetings; I'd rather be getting to work on the immediate term tasks.

fmbb 3y ago

> But as soon as you have a boss and the boss asks "how long? who does what? where do we start?" - you have to have some framework. Why? Does it work? Is it productive? Is it better than not doing that?

zarathustreal 3y ago
Suppose it doesn’t work, it’s not productive, and it’s worse than not doing it. You still have a boss asking these questions. Any answer you provide constitutes a framework.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Well, one answer you can try is to push back on the concept of providing status updates. For many (but not most) high-trust individuals working on many (but I think not most) kinds of projects, that's totally fine. (Ideally it is an expectation set much earlier on than the point where a status update is being requested, though.)
RandomLensman 3y ago
On average: yes, yes, and yes.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  > Does it work? Is it productive? Is it better than not doing that? >> On average: yes, yes, and yes. For what it's worth, I think it's more like: On average: no, no, and yes. It doesn't really "work" in the sense that the plan turns out to be an accurate and useful reflection of the work; that is not the case on average in my experience (sometimes it is, but not usually). And for the same reason, it isn't usually a productive exercise; it usually costs more time up front than it earns in productivity. But despite those two things I think it still turns out to be better on average, in a team / "you have a boss" environment. Because productivity is not the only thing that matters, legibility is also important to organizations, and worth some productivity cost. Though this will chafe me until I'm in my grave, I still think it's true.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    The plan being an accurate reflection of what then happens is not the point. Having people assigned to tasks, a starting point, some initial steps to follow is something that increase delivery speed in the beginning a lot. Edit: to some extent, legibility is productivity, as it means others are aware of what is going on and can interact/refer/etc.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      > Having people assigned to tasks, a starting point, some initial steps to follow is something that increase delivery speed in the beginning a lot. It's a balance of time spent planning against the value of the plan. Immediate-term "planning" is definitely valuable, IMO. Thinking through how some immediate work can be split up so that multiple people can make progress simultaneously, without stepping on each other's toes, that is definitely valuable. Having some discussion about what the next steps might be after those immediate steps are complete, that's also pretty much always valuable. Spending a small amount of time thinking about the next next steps can be valuable. But past that, in my experience, people often put more time into planning detailed steps than ends up being valuable. It's not that it has zero value, it's that it has a pretty high cost that, in my opinion, usually outweighs that value. Also, just to note that I think spending time thinking about a "north star" vision of what a project is trying to achieve is also pretty much always strongly positive ROI. It's time spent coming up with a detailed plan a few steps out from the immediate term that I find dubious. I don't mind other people spending that time if they want to, but I don't like spending my time in those planning meetings; I'd rather be getting to work on the immediate term tasks.