Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Planning on the Titanic

    Posted 03-12-1998 14:25
    Phil,

    Thanks for reminding us of the importance of people, an essential
    consideration in any management education or management development
    activity. However, there are lots of "classes" of plans, not just the
    three extremes you identify, just as there are lots of reasons for writing
    them and lots of possible reactions to them. It's not nearly as
    black-and-white as your comments suggest (e.g, "Planning for planning's
    sake is simply wasting time."). The message in Eisenhower's observation
    and in the views of Rod Brazier and others who have posted messages to this
    list is that planning is an essential activity that brings people together.
    And just bringing people together so that they have contact with each
    other, as shown in the research being conducted over the past 10 years at
    Queens University in Belfast, can decrease the conflict and increase the
    cooperation between them. It also tends to generate valuable new
    information and leads to solutions better than the average of individual
    solutions, as other research shows.

    More than my gut tells me, as a Vietnam veteran, that the planning that
    went into designing and building those ships your father told you about
    enabled him and the other brave, young men and women in them to succeed
    when more than mere careers were at stake. We need look no further than
    the nearest boxoffice to find compelling evidence in the movie "Titanic" of
    poor planning in the design and construction of a sea vessel. All the
    goodness in all those dedicated people did little to correct the poor
    planning that contributed to the sinking of the ship and the loss of
    hundreds of lives.

    Best,

    Larry E. Pate
    University of Wisconsin-Madison

    At 09:29 AM 3/12/98, you wrote:
    >I agree with you up to a point: Aside from the brilliant plan that
    everyone loves and will follow to the ends of time, there are generally two
    classes of plans - the brilliant plans that no-one can subscribe to and
    therefore don't follow, and the rubbish plans that are picked up by a good
    team who run with them even though they have to make many changes as they
    go along. (And in doing so make the planner look good.)
    >
    >Now, your point that "Could a plan be written that a person
    >"could commit to" without knowing more about that person and what drives
    >that person or causes him/her to make commitments?" sums up the major
    problem people have in writing plans - they don't know the people for whom
    the plan is written. I do a lot of work in consulting in project
    management training and education and am linking up with some of the best
    brains in the world in both the practice and the theory of planning, and
    all of them say the same thing: Unless the planner can tap into the skills,
    knowledge and needs of the people who are expected to make the plan work,
    then there is hardly a point in writing the plan in the first place.
    >
    >It's a little like giving somebody a road map but not bothering to ask
    whether or not they can drive or even make their own way from where they
    are to where they want to be - or even if they want to go in the first place.
    >
    >So, to answer the question, no it can't - and that is the whole problem.
    >
    >Planning for planning's sake is simply wasting time. How many plans are
    written behind closed doors and then thrown like a paper plane into the
    waiting throng with the expectancy that everyone will laugh and applaud at
    this offering from the Gods? How many plans are written and then not even
    shared with those who are expected to do everything to make them come into
    fruition? Too many. But still it goes on.
    >
    >My father spent over 12 years in the navy, including 6 years in WW2. He
    once said that he never saw a ship win a battle - it was always the crew on
    board the ship that won the fight. The ship was only the platform they used
    to take the fight up to the enemy and then defeat him.
    >
    >In planning terms, the ship is the plan and the crew is the people
    expected to put the plan into reality. The plan takes the people from where
    they are, along the road to their objective, and it is the people who do
    whatever is expected of them to produce the desired outcome.
    >
    >Without a good crew, comfortable with what the ship offers them (in terms
    of tools to carry out their job, safety for self and others, comfortable
    working conditions, security and reward throughout) and dedicated to the
    protection of the ship and its reputation, then the ship is nothing but a
    funny shaped island. Somewhere for seagulls to rest while heading off to
    somewhere else. Similarly, if the plan can't offer these things - and more
    depending on who the crew is - then it won't be followed. It too will end
    up just a good idea at the time.
    >
    >The bottom line is that planning is more than just writing a plan. It is
    identifying all of the key stakeholders and drawing from them their needs
    in regard to how they see their part in the plan. It is also drawing from
    them their needs in regard to what the plan can offer them so that the plan
    can motivate them and they can motivate themselves to achieve its outcomes.
    >
    >I'm starting to sound like a preacher so I'll stop there. I think that the
    proof of what I'm saying is in a close analysis of plans that work and
    those that don't.
    >
    >PHIL
    >P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
    >Competency-based systems specialists
    >0011 61 2 6230 4823
    >robnphil@ozemail.com.au
    >
    >
    >
    >The process of writing a plan at scheduled intervals is not necessarily a
    >waste of time. Ancient Chinese wisdom tells us that "We make plans to
    >throw them away" and more recently Eisenhower observed that "Plans are
    >nothing; planning is everything." The plan provides a road map and it's
    >only as good as the assumptions made when thinking about it and writing it.
    > Assuming that people aren't "committed" to a plan just because of how it's
    >written is probably a stretch. Could a plan be written that a person
    >"could commit to" without knowing more about that person and what drives
    >that person or causes him/her to make commitments? I think the solution is
    >to focus more on planning as a process and less on the plan itself.
    >
    >Larry E. Pate
    >University of Wisconsin-Madison
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >