4 ms·

"Planning" is highly overrated. The best performers seesaw between "ideas" and "actions."

43 points by paul 19y ago

davidw 19y ago
Is it just my being aware of it, or is this current of thought popping up in more places lately? "The Black Swan" comes to mind, "The Wisdom of Crowds" is along these lines. It's certainly not new - it seems to be one of Hayek's central ideas. One of the things that greatly attracts me to startups is the ability to work like this... I loathe rigid schedules and attempts to plan out things in minute detail. What I prefer is an aggressive schedule (you need to set some dates, lest you wander), and a general plan of attack, and quality people that can change tack if needs be.
- rams 19y ago
  The 'Black Swan' is indeed a bit of mind-bender. I am reading it for the second time. I just noticed, that I have underlined something, in practically every page.
  - davidw 19y ago
    "Why most things fail" by Paul Ormerod is pretty good too, although the writing style isn't quite so direct, and it leaves you wondering a little bit more than the Black Swan.
uuilly 19y ago
I love this philosophy. I first realized this while writing essays. I used to stare at the "Keyhole Method" diagram and conjure an intro, examples and a conclusion. They always sucked but the diagram made it seem so easy. When I started writing on my own for fun I would just launch right into the examples and find a pattern as I went. It almost always turned out that the last paragraph I wrote, the moment of clarity that tied it all together, would become the introduction.
tokipin 19y ago
i think knowing a system by playing with it gives a much better perspective than simply theorizing about it. generally, if you "know" the system, you don't have to do much theorization -- the solutions are obvious unfortunately, not everyone is suited for that sort of learning. and in fact i would say most people aren't able to "know" using any method. for these people a decent plan can be beneficial, but technical subjects require a minimal degree of playfulness. their capricious details aren't very forgiving to fine plans, and you'll probably find most of these people don't become programmers :) ... or they become java programmers?
DanielBMarkham 19y ago
Wow. I like this article a lot. I think it captures the essence of what we're all talking about. Having said that, it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of deal. I certainly wouldn't want my brain surgeon saying "Hey. Let's just cut this schmuck's head open and see what we get, okay? Where's that can opener?" A startup looking for user desires and aligning them with economics is a simple system. Act more and plan less to do it right. Brain surgery, creating the space shuttle code, or integrating all of GE's client software is not a simple system. Here's the kicker: some of these are complex because of the underlying nature of the problem (brain surgery) and some are complex because of the underlying nature of the _people_ (GE). Still, the end is the same. No amount of fast prototyping and "users love me" is going to fly in a complex environment. Now you might invent it and sell it to GE, but that's a different story. Simple environments mean you have to plan to answer simple questions, like "am I making something that users want?". Complex environments mean you have to plan to answer all kinds of other questions, like "How do I communicate what we're doing to 30 important stakeholders, some of whom may not like our project?" BTW, I hate complex environments. So yes, by all means make something quickly and adapt. But know when that strategy works and when it doesn't.
- davidw 19y ago
  Actually, I would bet that brain surgery is difficult, rather than particularly complex. Indeed, your scope for action is probably pretty limited compared with writing a huge program. And... brain surgeons probably practice (start doing) on animals or something else before trying it on people. At least I hope they do.
  - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
    I've always heard the brain was the most complex thing that we know about. And I've always heard that brain surgeons spend a considerable amount of time planning some operations due to the complexity involved (although I am sure not all operations).
    - davidw 19y ago
      The brain being incredibly complex is probably right, but my guess is that our ability to slice and dice it in beneficial ways is probably much more limited. Still though, yes, in some activities you must do your utmost to get it right the first time.
gibsonf1 19y ago
It seems like the key point of his idea is that induction is the key to success. Edison used a massive amount of induction (experimentation) and prototyping while exploring the big idea of a light bulb - and things worked out well for him :). I think you can also argue that a plan based on prior induction makes for a much cleaner, faster, and better built prototype.
edw519 19y ago
I like to take this kind of thinking a step further... Planning to code: good. Coding in a garage: better Developing in a living breathing organization: best No matter how much time I spend on my startup, I always keep an active consulting gig on the side. Routine situations come up every single day that I would have never conjured up in my "ivory tower". The value of fresh ideas and feedback from live users far outweighs the income.
akardell 19y ago
In the context of software development, the ideas expressed really fall into alignment with incremental, Agile development. While I have been fortunate enough to spend most of my career so far in an Agile environment, I have had some time in a more traditional waterfall environment as well. In comparing the two, it seems like a key benefit of an Agile environment is that momentum much more quickly builds upon itself. It's much easier to work with something tangible, tweak it and improve it, than it is to abstractly imagine what it needs to be like, and get it right the first time.
geebee 19y ago
I'm really glad to see that people are coming around to this school of thought. It seems very closely related to the decline of waterfall and the rise of iterative development. It's really important that we (the people who believe in prototyping and iterative development) emphasize that this is not a chaotic way to approach a problem. We absolutely do plan - however, we plan by coding and prototyping, rather than writing detailed specs. Specs are good - but they emerge from the code and the prototype. We absolutely do consider design issues - however, we discover and implement these things through refactoring. And in the end, we may very well throw out our first approach and rewrite, if it appears to be necessary. But I think this is leaving the realm of opinion and entering the realm of reality. The people who try to do the pure waterfall where an architect designs and writes specs, a coder writes code, a tester does testing - they seem to be losing badly in the race to get excellent software to market. From what I've read (successful startups, Google) the free market appears to be rewarding the better approach.
- yters 19y ago
  I've been learning about this transition in my software design class, and the funny thing is the waterfall method should never have been in the first place. The method is actually based on a misinterpretation of Dr. Winston Royce's paper, where he advocates a system like rational unified process, but a bit more nuanced.
fleddermaus 19y ago
The problem with planning is that it oversimplifies your lived experience. Very few people live from step to step, they live by their desire, therefore the statement, "the best performers seesaw between "ideas" and "actions" is more of linear effect. You have an idea, you want it to become real, so you try, if some actions to get you to the idea, the key is knowing what actions best produce the idea. An now we are back to planning, which people do more subconsciously than consciously, and let's face it, sometimes you just need to cogitate on an idea for a few months and then it strikes you what to do to make it real. I think the more important question is how do you not loose sight of the ideas you want to make real?

43 points by paul 19y ago

Is it just my being aware of it, or is this current of thought popping up in more places lately? "The Black Swan" comes to mind, "The Wisdom of Crowds" is along these lines. It's certainly not new - it seems to be one of Hayek's central ideas. One of the things that greatly attracts me to startups is the ability to work like this... I loathe rigid schedules and attempts to plan out things in minute detail. What I prefer is an aggressive schedule (you need to set some dates, lest you wander), and a general plan of attack, and quality people that can change tack if needs be.

rams 19y ago
The 'Black Swan' is indeed a bit of mind-bender. I am reading it for the second time. I just noticed, that I have underlined something, in practically every page.
- davidw 19y ago
  "Why most things fail" by Paul Ormerod is pretty good too, although the writing style isn't quite so direct, and it leaves you wondering a little bit more than the Black Swan.

uuilly 19y ago

I love this philosophy. I first realized this while writing essays. I used to stare at the "Keyhole Method" diagram and conjure an intro, examples and a conclusion. They always sucked but the diagram made it seem so easy. When I started writing on my own for fun I would just launch right into the examples and find a pattern as I went. It almost always turned out that the last paragraph I wrote, the moment of clarity that tied it all together, would become the introduction.

tokipin 19y ago

i think knowing a system by playing with it gives a much better perspective than simply theorizing about it. generally, if you "know" the system, you don't have to do much theorization -- the solutions are obvious unfortunately, not everyone is suited for that sort of learning. and in fact i would say most people aren't able to "know" using any method. for these people a decent plan can be beneficial, but technical subjects require a minimal degree of playfulness. their capricious details aren't very forgiving to fine plans, and you'll probably find most of these people don't become programmers :) ... or they become java programmers?

DanielBMarkham 19y ago

Wow. I like this article a lot. I think it captures the essence of what we're all talking about. Having said that, it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of deal. I certainly wouldn't want my brain surgeon saying "Hey. Let's just cut this schmuck's head open and see what we get, okay? Where's that can opener?" A startup looking for user desires and aligning them with economics is a simple system. Act more and plan less to do it right. Brain surgery, creating the space shuttle code, or integrating all of GE's client software is not a simple system. Here's the kicker: some of these are complex because of the underlying nature of the problem (brain surgery) and some are complex because of the underlying nature of the _people_ (GE). Still, the end is the same. No amount of fast prototyping and "users love me" is going to fly in a complex environment. Now you might invent it and sell it to GE, but that's a different story. Simple environments mean you have to plan to answer simple questions, like "am I making something that users want?". Complex environments mean you have to plan to answer all kinds of other questions, like "How do I communicate what we're doing to 30 important stakeholders, some of whom may not like our project?" BTW, I hate complex environments. So yes, by all means make something quickly and adapt. But know when that strategy works and when it doesn't.

davidw 19y ago
Actually, I would bet that brain surgery is difficult, rather than particularly complex. Indeed, your scope for action is probably pretty limited compared with writing a huge program. And... brain surgeons probably practice (start doing) on animals or something else before trying it on people. At least I hope they do.
- DanielBMarkham 19y ago
  I've always heard the brain was the most complex thing that we know about. And I've always heard that brain surgeons spend a considerable amount of time planning some operations due to the complexity involved (although I am sure not all operations).
  - davidw 19y ago
    The brain being incredibly complex is probably right, but my guess is that our ability to slice and dice it in beneficial ways is probably much more limited. Still though, yes, in some activities you must do your utmost to get it right the first time.

gibsonf1 19y ago

It seems like the key point of his idea is that induction is the key to success. Edison used a massive amount of induction (experimentation) and prototyping while exploring the big idea of a light bulb - and things worked out well for him :). I think you can also argue that a plan based on prior induction makes for a much cleaner, faster, and better built prototype.

edw519 19y ago

I like to take this kind of thinking a step further... Planning to code: good. Coding in a garage: better Developing in a living breathing organization: best No matter how much time I spend on my startup, I always keep an active consulting gig on the side. Routine situations come up every single day that I would have never conjured up in my "ivory tower". The value of fresh ideas and feedback from live users far outweighs the income.

akardell 19y ago

In the context of software development, the ideas expressed really fall into alignment with incremental, Agile development. While I have been fortunate enough to spend most of my career so far in an Agile environment, I have had some time in a more traditional waterfall environment as well. In comparing the two, it seems like a key benefit of an Agile environment is that momentum much more quickly builds upon itself. It's much easier to work with something tangible, tweak it and improve it, than it is to abstractly imagine what it needs to be like, and get it right the first time.

geebee 19y ago

I'm really glad to see that people are coming around to this school of thought. It seems very closely related to the decline of waterfall and the rise of iterative development. It's really important that we (the people who believe in prototyping and iterative development) emphasize that this is not a chaotic way to approach a problem. We absolutely do plan - however, we plan by coding and prototyping, rather than writing detailed specs. Specs are good - but they emerge from the code and the prototype. We absolutely do consider design issues - however, we discover and implement these things through refactoring. And in the end, we may very well throw out our first approach and rewrite, if it appears to be necessary. But I think this is leaving the realm of opinion and entering the realm of reality. The people who try to do the pure waterfall where an architect designs and writes specs, a coder writes code, a tester does testing - they seem to be losing badly in the race to get excellent software to market. From what I've read (successful startups, Google) the free market appears to be rewarding the better approach.

yters 19y ago
I've been learning about this transition in my software design class, and the funny thing is the waterfall method should never have been in the first place. The method is actually based on a misinterpretation of Dr. Winston Royce's paper, where he advocates a system like rational unified process, but a bit more nuanced.

fleddermaus 19y ago

The problem with planning is that it oversimplifies your lived experience. Very few people live from step to step, they live by their desire, therefore the statement, "the best performers seesaw between "ideas" and "actions" is more of linear effect. You have an idea, you want it to become real, so you try, if some actions to get you to the idea, the key is knowing what actions best produce the idea. An now we are back to planning, which people do more subconsciously than consciously, and let's face it, sometimes you just need to cogitate on an idea for a few months and then it strikes you what to do to make it real. I think the more important question is how do you not loose sight of the ideas you want to make real?