Graham Davidson reacts:
"Sticking to the plan is useless, you need to stick to reality, that is changing every day". How often have I heard that as an excuse for not delivering. The trouble is that many people confuse the plan with the deliverable, find the plan doesn't work any more and, rather than modify the plan, fail to deliver. Mostly, in a yearly cycle, the destination hasn't changed, just the method of getting there. As always the best answer lies somewhere between a rigid plan and hoping to take advantage of opportunity and, as always, people use one of these extremes for operating at the other."
In fact, I fully agree with Graham, it must be a choice of words. The plan is often mistaken for the goal, if I may paraphrase indeed. The goal should be clear. Unless there are serious discontinuities, the goal remains unchanged.
What changes all the time, is the way how to get there. A plan must be dynamic. I like the comparison with a term from the military: "strategic intent". The mission is clear, the goal is shared by everyone, and all commander's are aware of each other's task. But can you give detailed marching orders? No. The terrain changes, the moves of the enemy can't be fully predicted. As Field Marshall Von Moltke said: "any battle plan doesn't survive first contact with the enemy".
The trick to a good plan-to-act management process is continuous experimentation. More on that you can find here.
frank
