Regarding two models of planning -- the traditional one where planning
precedes doing, and a second one where doing leads to learning, which
directs the next steps in the doing, TJ Elliott agrees with the two
models, and also says,
> There is value at time in just the cycle that you propose
>(and it fits a lot of learning theory). I find two difficulties. The
>first is giving up the assurance that comes from the planning. It may be
>false but it is a security blanket and a protection from blame later on.
>(Yes, I think those motivations are still potent in many organizations.)
>The second problem is figuring out which model to use when. Both have
>merit; there are situations when planning before action is very useful
>even necessary (e.g., launching a spacecraft, lighting your last match at
>a snowy camp site). How do you know which to use? How do you get yourself
>to follow some sort of practice that will get you on the right track?
It seems to me the answer is neatly encapsulated in your question. Where
the costs of failure are higher, the need for more explicit planning is
more important. Where there is a great deal to learn before success can
be achieved, the less explicit planning cycle is more important.
Low Learning High learning
Low cost does not matter " Do" first
HIgh Cost "Plan" first Break into smaller pieces
How does that sound?
--Rol Fessenden
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>