Time-boxes and risk proximity

I’m reviewing the templates in order to complete the End stage/project and then move to the plans. This strategy is based on the need to offer the best of my competence. Therefore, plans are left at the end of the first series. They are the most discussed item in the project management.

The appeal of the plans

The idea of allocating the people time into neat lines has its appeal. Building a sort of bulwark against any inconvenient seems a reassuring act. However, the rows appearing on Gantt are just the result of so many others traced on a series of documents that often are neglected (from Risk to budget). The excuses range from the boredom of bureaucratic work to lack of courage to assess (and receive written confirmation) about vague promises or uttered decrees.

Time and energy

Time is just an empty container. Only energy can make it useful; then, if no accident diverts our efforts, the time will be made meaningful by the results of our actions. This can only be obtained when a portion of the future is allocated along with the necessary resources (energy, tools and skills). For longer and complex activities this container should be structured into smaller units.

These are the reasons to support this policy:

1. Natural gates for checking results.
2. Time allocated for reviewing and reflections.
3. More manageable units for dealing with issues.
4. More homogeneous the tasks’ nature, easier the Risk Management.
5. Given a better articulated plan, risk proximity becomes easier to evaluate.

Conclusion

The “strategic” choice of delivering something that could be considered “good enough” is not an easy one. Less than perfect outcomes are likely to receive some critics. When these are taken as suggestions, any comment is a new source of energy.