

"Planning" is highly overrated. The best performers seesaw between "ideas" and "actions." - paul
http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=009986.php

======
davidw
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
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
"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.

------
geebee
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
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
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?

------
uuilly
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.

------
akardell
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.

------
gibsonf1
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.

------
tokipin
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?

------
edw519
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.

------
DanielBMarkham
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
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
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
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.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It's also not an either-or choice. Sometimes you can plan to do two weeks of
work, then observe, then do it again.

I think it's a mistake to view the spectrum as only having two spots, total
planning and completely inductive. Learning how to mix and match is probably a
better skill than blindly following either extreme, imo.

