WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.530
We don't tend to get celebrated for installing smoke detectors.
00:00:04.530 --> 00:00:07.934
We tend to get celebrated for jumping through the window and saving the cat.
00:00:12.955 --> 00:00:19.346
You're listening to Traction Heroes: digging In to Get Results with Harry Max and Jorge Arango.
00:00:22.807 --> 00:00:24.166
Jorge, it's great to see you today.
00:00:25.846 --> 00:00:27.225
It's always good to see you, Harry.
00:00:27.525 --> 00:00:28.396
How are things going for you?
00:00:30.196 --> 00:00:31.635
Things are going well, man.
00:00:32.566 --> 00:00:33.345
A little busy.
00:00:33.795 --> 00:00:42.271
I don't like to use that word because people think of it as an excuse, and it sounds terrible coming from a guy who's supposed to have written a book on prioritization.
00:00:42.661 --> 00:00:46.021
But, yeah, things have been really busy.
00:00:46.261 --> 00:00:46.646
How about you?
00:00:47.731 --> 00:00:49.680
I am pretty busy as well.
00:00:49.680 --> 00:00:54.000
And, when you said that about prioritization, what came to mind is that..
00:00:55.771 --> 00:01:01.856
Was it Eisenhower that had that thing about, planning being essential, but...
00:01:02.948 --> 00:01:07.412
It is the planning, which is important, the plans themselves don't tend to hold up to reality.
00:01:07.742 --> 00:01:08.513
I don't remember what the(quote) is.
00:01:09.376 --> 00:01:14.822
And there's also the Mike Tyson thing about, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
00:01:15.003 --> 00:01:15.272
So...
00:01:15.923 --> 00:01:16.412
Exactly.
00:01:17.403 --> 00:01:22.662
You may have priorities all nicely whiteboarded somewhere, but then life happens, right?
00:01:22.662 --> 00:01:23.503
Yeah, exactly.
00:01:24.540 --> 00:01:27.957
Have you brought a reading to share with us today?
00:01:29.082 --> 00:01:35.203
I have, and it's totally funny and ironic that it's on the topic of planning.
00:01:36.153 --> 00:01:41.158
Well, now this won't be the first time that we are completely in sync unknowingly, right?
00:01:41.697 --> 00:01:41.987
Yeah.
00:01:43.390 --> 00:01:50.049
I've been listening to this as an audio book and I had to go back and listen to the whole book again because it was so good.
00:01:51.579 --> 00:01:56.650
And the reading's a little long, but let me, just dig into this because I think you'll really like it.
00:02:00.609 --> 00:02:03.189
"Planning is a concept with baggage.
00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:12.759
For many, it calls to mind a passive activity: sitting, thinking, staring into space, abstracting what you're gonna do.
00:02:13.840 --> 00:02:24.675
In its more institutional form, planning is a bureaucratic exercise in which the planner writes reports, colors maps and charts, programs activities, and fills in boxes on flow charts.
00:02:26.155 --> 00:02:30.205
"Such plans often look like train schedules, but they're even less interesting.
00:02:30.925 --> 00:02:40.435
Much planning does fit that bill, and that's a problem, because it's a serious mistake to treat planning as an exercise in abstract, bureaucratic thought and calculation.
00:02:41.215 --> 00:02:45.594
What sets good planning apart from the rest is something completely different.
00:02:46.074 --> 00:02:49.094
It's captured by the Latin verb experiri.
00:02:50.384 --> 00:02:56.259
Experiri means to try, to test, or to prove.
00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:02.770
It's the origin of two wonderful words in English: experiment and experience.
00:03:03.909 --> 00:03:05.710
"Think of how people typically learn.
00:03:06.280 --> 00:03:06.939
We tinker.
00:03:07.479 --> 00:03:08.530
We try first.
00:03:08.860 --> 00:03:09.849
We try that.
00:03:10.449 --> 00:03:11.979
We see what works and what doesn't.
00:03:12.639 --> 00:03:13.360
We iterate.
00:03:14.110 --> 00:03:23.710
We learn this is experimentation creating experience, or to use the phrase of theorist, it is experiential learning.
00:03:24.909 --> 00:03:31.300
We're good at learning by tinkering, which is fortunate because we're terrible at getting things right the first time.
00:03:32.199 --> 00:03:38.469
Tinkering sometimes requires tenacity, and it always requires a willingness to learn from failure.
00:03:39.354 --> 00:03:47.245
'I have not failed 10,000 times,' Thomas Edison said,'I've successfully found 10,000 ways that will not work.' And that wasn't hyperbole.
00:03:48.205 --> 00:04:02.425
Merely to figure out how to make a low-cost, long lasting filament for a light bulb, Edison had to churn through hundreds of experiments with different substances before he found that one carbonized bamboo that worked.
00:04:03.580 --> 00:04:08.530
"Experimentation and planning requires a simulation of the project to come.
00:04:09.400 --> 00:04:13.375
With that, you can make changes in the simulation and see what happens.
00:04:14.409 --> 00:04:19.689
Changes that work, changes that will get you to the box on the right are kept.
00:04:20.290 --> 00:04:21.819
Those that don't are chucked.
00:04:22.449 --> 00:04:29.500
With many iterations and serious testing, the simulation evolves into a plan that is creative, rigorous, and detailed.
00:04:30.064 --> 00:04:32.404
Which is to say a reliable plan.
00:04:33.394 --> 00:04:39.725
The genius of our species, however, is that we can learn not only from our own experience, but that of others.
00:04:40.338 --> 00:04:51.177
Edison himself started his experiments on light bulb filaments by studying the results of many other scientists and inventors who had tried to create an efficient light bulb before him.
00:04:52.252 --> 00:04:59.632
And once he had cracked the problem, anyone could skip the experiments, study what he had done, and make a working light bulb.
00:05:00.562 --> 00:05:10.103
"Still, even if I know Edison's solution to the light bulb problem, my first attempt to make a working light bulb will almost surely be a struggle.
00:05:10.523 --> 00:05:13.432
It will be slow, and my light bulb will not work well.
00:05:13.853 --> 00:05:18.502
So I do it again and I get a little better, and I do it again and again.
00:05:18.932 --> 00:05:21.213
Again, and I get a lot better.
00:05:21.843 --> 00:05:24.182
That's called a positive learning curve.
00:05:24.632 --> 00:05:29.233
Things get easier, cheaper, and more effective with each iteration.
00:05:29.744 --> 00:05:33.603
This, too, is experience and it is invaluable.
00:05:34.384 --> 00:05:38.793
There's a Latin saying that translates to repetition is the mother of learning.
00:05:39.574 --> 00:05:42.723
A good plan is one that meticulously applies.
00:05:42.723 --> 00:05:45.213
Experimentation or experience.
00:05:45.723 --> 00:05:49.173
A great plan is one that rigorously applies both."
00:05:51.286 --> 00:06:04.487
You know what came to mind in hearing you talk about that is a book that our common friend Peter Morville wrote a few years ago called Planning for Everything, which is about this subject.
00:06:04.487 --> 00:06:07.786
But I don't think that this text is from that book.
00:06:08.747 --> 00:06:34.646
No, this is an extraordinary book on how big things get done, and in fact, that's its title: How Big Things Get Done: the Surprising Factors That Determine the Fate of Every Project, From Home Renovations to Space Exploration and Everything In-Between by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner, and it is excellent.
00:06:34.646 --> 00:06:39.062
I heard two things in the text that you read.
00:06:40.177 --> 00:06:51.846
One was, what I'm going to caricature as the distinction between thinking and doing, which I think is something that, a lot of us internalized very early on.
00:06:53.692 --> 00:07:11.160
and a little bit of that came across at the beginning of that passage where I got the sense that the author was saying something like we tend to minimize the value of planning because it feels like thinking rather than doing, and we tend to shortchange thinking.
00:07:12.329 --> 00:07:22.579
And the other thing that I heard there was that good planning is actually putting out what might be called like a first draft that you then iterate on.
00:07:24.425 --> 00:07:33.004
And what came to mind there was the conversation we had about the book On Grand Strategy and this image from the Lincoln speech about the compass, right?
00:07:33.004 --> 00:07:51.545
It might be that your plan is to head south and you start walking south, but then eventually you run into a swamp and you can't continue walking south, so you have to turn some other direction while keeping in mind that the overall goal is south, right?
00:07:52.048 --> 00:07:59.459
Plan for directionality, but adapt to conditions on the ground might be one way to synthesize what I heard there in the second part.
00:08:00.463 --> 00:08:05.132
The thing about this particular reading is it's really a hook into the book.
00:08:06.502 --> 00:08:12.283
Gee, that sounded more alliterative than I expected, the hook into the book.
00:08:12.283 --> 00:08:25.663
So the idea of the book is that there are more predictable ways of achieving success and more predictable ways of generating cost overruns and late schedules and failures.
00:08:25.663 --> 00:08:40.543
And there are methods for increasing the likelihood that things are gonna go well, and there are ways to ignore those, which predictably, based on the data, generally result in predictable failures for a lack of a better term.
00:08:40.543 --> 00:08:50.293
And part of what the book shows is that the data points to the absolutely horrific track record of information technology projects.
00:08:51.043 --> 00:09:05.239
And the author, one of the authors of the book, has established a massive database of project data and how things go well and how they don't, and across three different dimensions.
00:09:05.509 --> 00:09:09.589
One is were they late or were they on time, or were they early?
00:09:09.589 --> 00:09:13.548
The other is, did they meet the estimates or forecast?
00:09:13.548 --> 00:09:15.589
And the other is, did they deliver what people said?
00:09:16.129 --> 00:09:22.609
And information technology projects, the things that you and I are involved in regularly, are the things that do worse.
00:09:22.818 --> 00:09:26.629
They do worse than almost anything, which is really astonishing.
00:09:27.229 --> 00:09:39.943
And I think part of what grabbed me about this book was the very clear direction about how to increase the likelihood that things are gonna go well.
00:09:40.274 --> 00:09:48.553
And one of the things that they, the authors, didn't actually say in the book, is that hiring experienced people is a really good idea, right?
00:09:48.553 --> 00:10:02.206
There's this trend in the Silicon Valley ethos and the whole software technology world that hire junior people because they don't know what they don't know, and they'll just work really hard.
00:10:02.206 --> 00:10:15.255
But in fact, this book makes an out outstanding case for hiring experienced people because they have embodied knowledge about what tends to work well and what doesn't.
00:10:16.096 --> 00:10:40.150
And one of the other things that the authors point to is this notion of using a technique called reference class forecasting or estimation based on looking at similar types of projects in the past, because those projects, whatever they are, tend to include the things that were initially planned for and the things that were unexpected.
00:10:40.421 --> 00:11:00.770
So if somebody planned a house renovation, it ultimately ended up costing$500,000 and took two years, which is, in the made up case of$250,000 too much and a year late, that if you look at reference classes, like how do renovations of a particular type of house tend to go?
00:11:01.010 --> 00:11:07.655
Then your estimates are more likely to paint a picture of what it's actually gonna take.
00:11:08.046 --> 00:11:13.475
Because the authors say that, and I totally believe this, that...
00:11:14.135 --> 00:11:26.395
I mean it just hit me like a two by four in the back of the head, we often blame execution when things go wrong, but you can almost always point back to the estimates and forecast because they're simply too optimistic.
00:11:26.725 --> 00:11:30.446
And so, the failures are not based on the things are taking too long.
00:11:30.655 --> 00:11:35.380
It's that we estimated that they were gonna happen much faster or for much less money.
00:11:35.951 --> 00:11:47.980
And so much of that is about this bias for action, which I know we've talked about before, this idea that, we don't tend to get celebrated for installing smoke detectors.
00:11:47.980 --> 00:11:51.385
We tend to get celebrated for jumping through the window and saving the cat.
00:11:52.076 --> 00:12:11.125
It's what do heroics actually look like and that the optics of heroic looks like the optics of heroics look like saving the cat, but the actual heroics are involve often stuff that is totally mundane, like making sure you've checked your batteries and your smoke detector.
00:12:12.395 --> 00:12:13.600
I'm hearing a couple of things there.
00:12:13.740 --> 00:12:18.166
One is about the importance of having...
00:12:19.311 --> 00:12:22.301
I'm gonna use the word qualified people when planning.
00:12:23.041 --> 00:12:29.091
And by the way, I recalled now the Eisenhower quote that I had in mind.
00:12:29.091 --> 00:12:33.081
It's,"Plans are useless, planning is indispensable."
00:12:33.990 --> 00:12:34.480
Totally.
00:12:35.041 --> 00:12:45.421
And I'm bringing it back now because what's implicit in that is that the plan is an artifact, it's an outcome, it's a"deliverable," right?
00:12:46.801 --> 00:12:51.750
What he's saying there is once you have the plan, you should be free to discard it.
00:12:52.506 --> 00:12:55.356
It's the process of arriving at the plan that is useful, right?
00:12:55.356 --> 00:13:02.197
Because you gain alignment, you gravitate towards shared goals, right?
00:13:02.246 --> 00:13:11.667
When you said, going over by$250,000 or what have you, that implies that you have some kind of target state that you're aiming for, right?
00:13:12.057 --> 00:13:12.836
You have a goal.
00:13:13.047 --> 00:13:24.356
And, it might be that it's buying a house, but it might also be that your goal is to launch a new product by particular date with particular characteristics or what have you.
00:13:25.226 --> 00:13:37.797
And, one of the things that is implicit in all of this is that planning is an action, like you say, it's like bias for action, right?
00:13:38.187 --> 00:13:48.836
It's you gotta realize that the process of planning actually entails getting together with other people and doing things.
00:13:48.907 --> 00:14:02.346
And what it entails doing is somehow thinking ahead, playing out in your minds your collective minds what it might take to get to that target state that you've hopefully aligned on.
00:14:02.917 --> 00:14:04.057
The value is in the process.
00:14:04.057 --> 00:14:05.076
It's not in the outcome.
00:14:05.136 --> 00:14:06.876
And I think that people conflate those two.
00:14:08.456 --> 00:14:10.736
And it's also value to the optics.
00:14:10.767 --> 00:14:16.496
And that's the thing, like the authors make the exact point that you're making right here, and they do it brilliantly.
00:14:17.966 --> 00:14:22.017
Part of the challenge is the planning doesn't look like the kind of action...
00:14:22.017 --> 00:14:26.937
it doesn't look like you're putting the shovel in the ground, it looks like a bunch of people sitting around a table with pencils.
00:14:27.626 --> 00:14:41.486
And that doesn't look like action, even though if they could see inside the minds of the people that are doing that planning, it's a lot of action and a lot of thinking and a lot of preparing for putting the shovel in the right place or deciding whether or not the shovel's even the right tool.
00:14:42.417 --> 00:14:54.966
And I think something that is not stated in this book, and it's certainly controversial, is I often tell my clients,"look, you can lie to other people.
00:14:55.366 --> 00:14:59.830
Don't lie to yourself." And I'm not saying this to give them permission to lie to other people.
00:15:00.039 --> 00:15:07.690
I'm saying that people bend the truth and they conflate things and they obfuscate stuff and they over generalize.
00:15:08.169 --> 00:15:09.549
That's okay, fine.
00:15:09.549 --> 00:15:10.690
So you're gonna do that.
00:15:10.929 --> 00:15:13.570
That's part of the nature of psychology and politics.
00:15:13.720 --> 00:15:15.669
But don't do it to yourself.
00:15:15.720 --> 00:15:20.919
Because then you're fooling yourself, which means you're, fooling other people and you don't even know it.
00:15:23.940 --> 00:15:27.419
We've certainly talked about that idea before in our conversations, right?
00:15:27.799 --> 00:15:34.289
This idea of not fooling yourself and trying to get a clear read on the situation.
00:15:34.740 --> 00:15:37.350
I wanna circle back to something that's implicit in what...
00:15:39.419 --> 00:15:50.004
you said it explicitly, but I just want to shine a spotlight on it, which is, when going through the planning process if we buy into this idea that planning is acting, right?
00:15:50.195 --> 00:15:51.341
It's a very active process.
00:15:51.441 --> 00:15:56.910
But the idea that people think that sitting around talking about things is wasted time, right?
00:15:58.171 --> 00:16:12.934
So if we can move past that idea and assume that we are not fooling ourselves, one of the things that's implicit in this is that the degree to which the process of planning is valuable is going to be determined by the people who are part of the planning process.
00:16:13.164 --> 00:16:17.274
And you talked about hiring experienced people.
00:16:17.693 --> 00:16:23.903
What I heard there is, you don't want people planning things for whom this is the first rodeo they've been in.
00:16:24.327 --> 00:16:29.114
And there's one of these cheeky laws that we have in tech, Hofstadter's law.
00:16:29.738 --> 00:16:30.607
You know this thing?
00:16:31.592 --> 00:16:32.312
I don't remember it.
00:16:32.508 --> 00:16:37.908
It says that it always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law.
00:16:38.288 --> 00:16:38.498
Oh.
00:16:39.278 --> 00:16:40.837
It's that piece of the planning fallacy.
00:16:40.967 --> 00:16:41.097
Yeah.
00:16:41.638 --> 00:16:49.538
And the thing is that if you don't have a lot of experience doing this, you're going to fall for the fallacy, right?
00:16:50.104 --> 00:16:54.033
You have to have been burned to internalize that particular lesson.
00:16:54.033 --> 00:16:55.624
At least that's the sense I have.
00:16:56.884 --> 00:17:03.124
I'm 30 years into my career and I still find myself double checking my myself when I'm doing a plan, right?
00:17:03.634 --> 00:17:05.044
It's what can go wrong?
00:17:05.044 --> 00:17:15.173
I've had so many things go in directions different than the ones that I expected, that at this point I feel like I can do it pretty well.
00:17:15.173 --> 00:17:22.523
But I remember a time in my career where I was like wildly optimistic and I think I would've been useless in that room.
00:17:23.614 --> 00:17:24.304
Yeah, it's funny.
00:17:25.294 --> 00:17:26.223
That's a hundred percent right.
00:17:26.223 --> 00:17:29.505
And in the reading there was a reference to the box on the right.
00:17:29.664 --> 00:17:39.759
The idea is that the box on the right represents, with enough definition and enough clarity, the goal.
00:17:39.940 --> 00:17:41.710
What are you trying to accomplish?
00:17:42.460 --> 00:18:03.630
And I am a ginormous fan of assumptive goal setting, which is a technique in planning and sort of goal setting that says that for every goal or for every desired outcome, there are a set of assumptions that went into it.
00:18:03.750 --> 00:18:07.008
And so, assumptive goal setting can take three states.
00:18:07.008 --> 00:18:14.494
One is often referred to as back casting, one is referred to as a pre-mortem, right?
00:18:14.494 --> 00:18:17.765
And the third one I've completely forgotten; it'll come to me in a second.
00:18:17.765 --> 00:18:20.674
But let me just talk about the pre-mortem, right?
00:18:20.674 --> 00:18:24.194
The pre-mortem I think it's from Gary Klein, from his work.
00:18:24.494 --> 00:18:25.755
I don't remember which book.
00:18:26.234 --> 00:18:39.164
And he talks about the idea that if you have an important project and you're clear enough about what success looks like, what you can do is sit around a table and talk about the imaginary future where that project failed.
00:18:39.434 --> 00:18:56.744
And then you can start identifying and prioritizing what were the causes of that imaginary failure, and then plan for those things, so that you can mitigate the effects of those that would lead to the failure that was ultimately predictable.
00:18:57.255 --> 00:19:13.755
And so this notion of a pre-mortem, when you think about a post-mortem or a retrospective, if you will, so a project happens and then you look at it after the fact, a pre-mortem says, look at it before the fact and do it intentionally and paint the picture of what would likely cause it to fail.
00:19:14.700 --> 00:19:24.970
Well, an analogous assumptive goal setting technique some people refer to as back-casting, I refer to it as back-planning for a very specific reason.
00:19:25.339 --> 00:19:38.480
What I like to do is paint, in any sufficiently complex project, I've been doing this for years and years, in fact I remember the first time I actually ever went through it for the design and development of Virtual Vineyards, which became wine.com.
00:19:38.819 --> 00:19:48.779
The idea is get really clear about what success looks like, not in some kind of pan-galactic strategic way where you've written down three documents and you have a video and a bunch of pictures and a vision board in this.
00:19:48.779 --> 00:19:49.920
And now I'm not talking about that.
00:19:50.039 --> 00:19:55.289
I'm talking about like at least a paragraph of clarity about what success looks like, right?
00:19:55.470 --> 00:20:01.740
And then you ask yourself the question, what would have to have been true to have achieved that.
00:20:03.750 --> 00:20:04.319
Okay.
00:20:04.859 --> 00:20:09.420
That's an interesting question, because you're not saying what needs to be true.
00:20:09.450 --> 00:20:14.339
You're not saying, what do I need to do, or what activity do I need to engage in?
00:20:14.339 --> 00:20:22.769
You're asking yourself the question, what would have to have been true to have achieved this end state that you've said was so important.
00:20:23.400 --> 00:20:29.519
What's really cool about that question is you can ask it again and again and again.
00:20:29.519 --> 00:20:44.130
So if you start at a point in the imaginary future of this thing you want to achieve and you ask yourself the question, what would've had to have been true such that outcome, that desired outcome, was realized?
00:20:44.819 --> 00:20:53.339
You can then ask the question for that thing that would've had to have been true, what would have to have been true?
00:20:54.555 --> 00:20:58.394
And so you can work from this imaginary future back to the present.
00:20:59.174 --> 00:21:15.684
So it's this recursive process of working from the future to the present, and that tells you what would have to have been true right now today in order for you to achieve this future state that you claim is so important.
00:21:16.224 --> 00:21:24.835
And so this assumptive goal setting technique rests on this very simple question, what would have to have been true?
00:21:25.444 --> 00:21:32.075
It's a total unlock for a complex project and it works profoundly well with teams.
00:21:32.345 --> 00:21:34.835
I've done this for company funding events.
00:21:35.194 --> 00:21:39.424
I've done this for infrastructure projects.
00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:41.650
I've done this for websites.
00:21:41.920 --> 00:21:53.950
And once you have a map from the future to the present, you can now look at, okay, in order for this to be true, what activities would we need to engage in?
00:21:54.369 --> 00:22:04.029
What decisions would we have to make and what investments would we have to commit to in order to start building from the present back to that future?
00:22:04.660 --> 00:22:06.519
It's profound.
00:22:07.589 --> 00:22:09.329
That sounds really useful and practical.
00:22:11.019 --> 00:22:16.000
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the time objection, right?
00:22:16.150 --> 00:22:25.590
What you're doing sounds time-consuming, how much time should people invest in this kind of work and how often should it happen?
00:22:25.595 --> 00:22:25.625
I.
00:22:26.440 --> 00:22:26.789
Uhhuh.
00:22:27.035 --> 00:22:27.285
Yeah.
00:22:27.724 --> 00:22:28.744
I always love that.
00:22:29.884 --> 00:22:37.835
My father, who was brilliant, used to say to me,"If you have time to do it wrong, you have time to do it right." What did he say?
00:22:37.835 --> 00:22:47.980
He used to say,"If you have time to do it twice, you have time to do it right once." So my rule of thumb there is at least spend an hour on it.
00:22:50.410 --> 00:22:56.079
It's a function of the cost of the project and not just dollars and cents, but the amount of time and energy.
00:22:56.200 --> 00:22:59.890
It's a function of the opportunity cost of getting it wrong.
00:23:00.220 --> 00:23:16.244
Like, how much time would you have spent planning and can you allocate a percentage of that to some assumptive goal setting technique, which doesn't take that much time and it is a major efficiency play.
00:23:16.605 --> 00:23:30.134
Because rather than working from a point in the present to a large number of possible futures, what you're really doing is saying, there's only one future and now I need to work toward that future.
00:23:30.134 --> 00:23:35.384
So you're saving time in terms of your forward planning by investing in backward planning.
00:23:35.865 --> 00:23:39.974
And I think in many cases it's a net zero.
00:23:41.115 --> 00:23:46.815
And in terms of how much time you spend doing it and how often you do it, how important are your projects?
00:23:46.815 --> 00:23:48.315
How important is it that they're right?
00:23:48.315 --> 00:23:51.464
How important that they land on time or that they're within budget?
00:23:52.755 --> 00:23:57.809
Yeah, there's all these aphorisms and folk wisdom about this stuff, right?
00:23:57.809 --> 00:24:00.359
Like measure twice, cut once.
00:24:00.359 --> 00:24:04.529
And there's the Abe Lincoln quote about, what is it?
00:24:04.769 --> 00:24:04.980
give
00:24:05.039 --> 00:24:09.505
If I had five minutes to cut a tree to chop down a tree, I'd spend three minutes sharpening the ax.
00:24:09.779 --> 00:24:10.349
That's right.
00:24:10.349 --> 00:24:10.700
Yeah.
00:24:10.700 --> 00:24:23.337
So it's the idea that the acting part of it, like it's going to go maybe not much faster, but it's going to be much more effective if you're actually working in the right direction.
00:24:23.548 --> 00:24:26.397
And what this process is about is directionality.
00:24:26.458 --> 00:24:36.123
It's let's get us pointed in the right direction, so that then we can pour all of this active energy more wisely, maybe is one way to put it.
00:24:36.772 --> 00:24:39.472
And it turns out it's just a hidden efficiency play.
00:24:39.532 --> 00:24:48.502
Because rather than being late or being more expensive or getting it wrong and having to do it again and make excuses and justifying it, the whole thing just ends up being more smooth.
00:24:51.393 --> 00:24:54.093
That feels like a really good place to wrap this.
00:24:54.093 --> 00:24:58.952
I'll just say, I think maybe you and I should set aside some time to do some planning for the podcast.
00:24:59.192 --> 00:24:59.883
I'm inspired.
00:25:01.758 --> 00:25:02.147
Me too.
00:25:02.147 --> 00:25:04.307
Let me see if I can make time in my busy schedule.
00:25:05.792 --> 00:25:07.323
All right, Harry, thank you.
00:25:07.323 --> 00:25:10.593
Once again, I've learned something in our conversations.
00:25:11.057 --> 00:25:11.508
Fabulous.
00:25:11.508 --> 00:25:12.077
Thanks Jorge.
00:25:20.125 --> 00:25:24.566
Thank you for listening to Traction Heroes with Harry Max and Jorge Arango.
00:25:25.226 --> 00:25:32.905
Check out the show notes at tractionheroes.com and if you enjoyed the show, please leave us a rating in Apple's podcasts app.
00:25:33.266 --> 00:25:33.715
Thanks.
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.530
We don't tend to get celebrated for installing smoke detectors.
00:00:04.530 --> 00:00:07.934
We tend to get celebrated for jumping through the window and saving the cat.
00:00:12.955 --> 00:00:19.346
You're listening to Traction Heroes: digging In to Get Results with Harry Max and Jorge Arango.
00:00:22.807 --> 00:00:24.166
Jorge, it's great to see you today.
00:00:25.846 --> 00:00:27.225
It's always good to see you, Harry.
00:00:27.525 --> 00:00:28.396
How are things going for you?
00:00:30.196 --> 00:00:31.635
Things are going well, man.
00:00:32.566 --> 00:00:33.345
A little busy.
00:00:33.795 --> 00:00:42.271
I don't like to use that word because people think of it as an excuse, and it sounds terrible coming from a guy who's supposed to have written a book on prioritization.
00:00:42.661 --> 00:00:46.021
But, yeah, things have been really busy.
00:00:46.261 --> 00:00:46.646
How about you?
00:00:47.731 --> 00:00:49.680
I am pretty busy as well.
00:00:49.680 --> 00:00:54.000
And, when you said that about prioritization, what came to mind is that..
00:00:55.771 --> 00:01:01.856
Was it Eisenhower that had that thing about, planning being essential, but...
00:01:02.948 --> 00:01:07.412
It is the planning, which is important, the plans themselves don't tend to hold up to reality.
00:01:07.742 --> 00:01:08.513
I don't remember what the(quote) is.
00:01:09.376 --> 00:01:14.822
And there's also the Mike Tyson thing about, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
00:01:15.003 --> 00:01:15.272
So...
00:01:15.923 --> 00:01:16.412
Exactly.
00:01:17.403 --> 00:01:22.662
You may have priorities all nicely whiteboarded somewhere, but then life happens, right?
00:01:22.662 --> 00:01:23.503
Yeah, exactly.
00:01:24.540 --> 00:01:27.957
Have you brought a reading to share with us today?
00:01:29.082 --> 00:01:35.203
I have, and it's totally funny and ironic that it's on the topic of planning.
00:01:36.153 --> 00:01:41.158
Well, now this won't be the first time that we are completely in sync unknowingly, right?
00:01:41.697 --> 00:01:41.987
Yeah.
00:01:43.390 --> 00:01:50.049
I've been listening to this as an audio book and I had to go back and listen to the whole book again because it was so good.
00:01:51.579 --> 00:01:56.650
And the reading's a little long, but let me, just dig into this because I think you'll really like it.
00:02:00.609 --> 00:02:03.189
"Planning is a concept with baggage.
00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:12.759
For many, it calls to mind a passive activity: sitting, thinking, staring into space, abstracting what you're gonna do.
00:02:13.840 --> 00:02:24.675
In its more institutional form, planning is a bureaucratic exercise in which the planner writes reports, colors maps and charts, programs activities, and fills in boxes on flow charts.
00:02:26.155 --> 00:02:30.205
"Such plans often look like train schedules, but they're even less interesting.
00:02:30.925 --> 00:02:40.435
Much planning does fit that bill, and that's a problem, because it's a serious mistake to treat planning as an exercise in abstract, bureaucratic thought and calculation.
00:02:41.215 --> 00:02:45.594
What sets good planning apart from the rest is something completely different.
00:02:46.074 --> 00:02:49.094
It's captured by the Latin verb experiri.
00:02:50.384 --> 00:02:56.259
Experiri means to try, to test, or to prove.
00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:02.770
It's the origin of two wonderful words in English: experiment and experience.
00:03:03.909 --> 00:03:05.710
"Think of how people typically learn.
00:03:06.280 --> 00:03:06.939
We tinker.
00:03:07.479 --> 00:03:08.530
We try first.
00:03:08.860 --> 00:03:09.849
We try that.
00:03:10.449 --> 00:03:11.979
We see what works and what doesn't.
00:03:12.639 --> 00:03:13.360
We iterate.
00:03:14.110 --> 00:03:23.710
We learn this is experimentation creating experience, or to use the phrase of theorist, it is experiential learning.
00:03:24.909 --> 00:03:31.300
We're good at learning by tinkering, which is fortunate because we're terrible at getting things right the first time.
00:03:32.199 --> 00:03:38.469
Tinkering sometimes requires tenacity, and it always requires a willingness to learn from failure.
00:03:39.354 --> 00:03:47.245
'I have not failed 10,000 times,' Thomas Edison said,'I've successfully found 10,000 ways that will not work.' And that wasn't hyperbole.
00:03:48.205 --> 00:04:02.425
Merely to figure out how to make a low-cost, long lasting filament for a light bulb, Edison had to churn through hundreds of experiments with different substances before he found that one carbonized bamboo that worked.
00:04:03.580 --> 00:04:08.530
"Experimentation and planning requires a simulation of the project to come.
00:04:09.400 --> 00:04:13.375
With that, you can make changes in the simulation and see what happens.
00:04:14.409 --> 00:04:19.689
Changes that work, changes that will get you to the box on the right are kept.
00:04:20.290 --> 00:04:21.819
Those that don't are chucked.
00:04:22.449 --> 00:04:29.500
With many iterations and serious testing, the simulation evolves into a plan that is creative, rigorous, and detailed.
00:04:30.064 --> 00:04:32.404
Which is to say a reliable plan.
00:04:33.394 --> 00:04:39.725
The genius of our species, however, is that we can learn not only from our own experience, but that of others.
00:04:40.338 --> 00:04:51.177
Edison himself started his experiments on light bulb filaments by studying the results of many other scientists and inventors who had tried to create an efficient light bulb before him.
00:04:52.252 --> 00:04:59.632
And once he had cracked the problem, anyone could skip the experiments, study what he had done, and make a working light bulb.
00:05:00.562 --> 00:05:10.103
"Still, even if I know Edison's solution to the light bulb problem, my first attempt to make a working light bulb will almost surely be a struggle.
00:05:10.523 --> 00:05:13.432
It will be slow, and my light bulb will not work well.
00:05:13.853 --> 00:05:18.502
So I do it again and I get a little better, and I do it again and again.
00:05:18.932 --> 00:05:21.213
Again, and I get a lot better.
00:05:21.843 --> 00:05:24.182
That's called a positive learning curve.
00:05:24.632 --> 00:05:29.233
Things get easier, cheaper, and more effective with each iteration.
00:05:29.744 --> 00:05:33.603
This, too, is experience and it is invaluable.
00:05:34.384 --> 00:05:38.793
There's a Latin saying that translates to repetition is the mother of learning.
00:05:39.574 --> 00:05:42.723
A good plan is one that meticulously applies.
00:05:42.723 --> 00:05:45.213
Experimentation or experience.
00:05:45.723 --> 00:05:49.173
A great plan is one that rigorously applies both."
00:05:51.286 --> 00:06:04.487
You know what came to mind in hearing you talk about that is a book that our common friend Peter Morville wrote a few years ago called Planning for Everything, which is about this subject.
00:06:04.487 --> 00:06:07.786
But I don't think that this text is from that book.
00:06:08.747 --> 00:06:34.646
No, this is an extraordinary book on how big things get done, and in fact, that's its title: How Big Things Get Done: the Surprising Factors That Determine the Fate of Every Project, From Home Renovations to Space Exploration and Everything In-Between by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner, and it is excellent.
00:06:34.646 --> 00:06:39.062
I heard two things in the text that you read.
00:06:40.177 --> 00:06:51.846
One was, what I'm going to caricature as the distinction between thinking and doing, which I think is something that, a lot of us internalized very early on.
00:06:53.692 --> 00:07:11.160
and a little bit of that came across at the beginning of that passage where I got the sense that the author was saying something like we tend to minimize the value of planning because it feels like thinking rather than doing, and we tend to shortchange thinking.
00:07:12.329 --> 00:07:22.579
And the other thing that I heard there was that good planning is actually putting out what might be called like a first draft that you then iterate on.
00:07:24.425 --> 00:07:33.004
And what came to mind there was the conversation we had about the book On Grand Strategy and this image from the Lincoln speech about the compass, right?
00:07:33.004 --> 00:07:51.545
It might be that your plan is to head south and you start walking south, but then eventually you run into a swamp and you can't continue walking south, so you have to turn some other direction while keeping in mind that the overall goal is south, right?
00:07:52.048 --> 00:07:59.459
Plan for directionality, but adapt to conditions on the ground might be one way to synthesize what I heard there in the second part.
00:08:00.463 --> 00:08:05.132
The thing about this particular reading is it's really a hook into the book.
00:08:06.502 --> 00:08:12.283
Gee, that sounded more alliterative than I expected, the hook into the book.
00:08:12.283 --> 00:08:25.663
So the idea of the book is that there are more predictable ways of achieving success and more predictable ways of generating cost overruns and late schedules and failures.
00:08:25.663 --> 00:08:40.543
And there are methods for increasing the likelihood that things are gonna go well, and there are ways to ignore those, which predictably, based on the data, generally result in predictable failures for a lack of a better term.
00:08:40.543 --> 00:08:50.293
And part of what the book shows is that the data points to the absolutely horrific track record of information technology projects.
00:08:51.043 --> 00:09:05.239
And the author, one of the authors of the book, has established a massive database of project data and how things go well and how they don't, and across three different dimensions.
00:09:05.509 --> 00:09:09.589
One is were they late or were they on time, or were they early?
00:09:09.589 --> 00:09:13.548
The other is, did they meet the estimates or forecast?
00:09:13.548 --> 00:09:15.589
And the other is, did they deliver what people said?
00:09:16.129 --> 00:09:22.609
And information technology projects, the things that you and I are involved in regularly, are the things that do worse.
00:09:22.818 --> 00:09:26.629
They do worse than almost anything, which is really astonishing.
00:09:27.229 --> 00:09:39.943
And I think part of what grabbed me about this book was the very clear direction about how to increase the likelihood that things are gonna go well.
00:09:40.274 --> 00:09:48.553
And one of the things that they, the authors, didn't actually say in the book, is that hiring experienced people is a really good idea, right?
00:09:48.553 --> 00:10:02.206
There's this trend in the Silicon Valley ethos and the whole software technology world that hire junior people because they don't know what they don't know, and they'll just work really hard.
00:10:02.206 --> 00:10:15.255
But in fact, this book makes an out outstanding case for hiring experienced people because they have embodied knowledge about what tends to work well and what doesn't.
00:10:16.096 --> 00:10:40.150
And one of the other things that the authors point to is this notion of using a technique called reference class forecasting or estimation based on looking at similar types of projects in the past, because those projects, whatever they are, tend to include the things that were initially planned for and the things that were unexpected.
00:10:40.421 --> 00:11:00.770
So if somebody planned a house renovation, it ultimately ended up costing$500,000 and took two years, which is, in the made up case of$250,000 too much and a year late, that if you look at reference classes, like how do renovations of a particular type of house tend to go?
00:11:01.010 --> 00:11:07.655
Then your estimates are more likely to paint a picture of what it's actually gonna take.
00:11:08.046 --> 00:11:13.475
Because the authors say that, and I totally believe this, that...
00:11:14.135 --> 00:11:26.395
I mean it just hit me like a two by four in the back of the head, we often blame execution when things go wrong, but you can almost always point back to the estimates and forecast because they're simply too optimistic.
00:11:26.725 --> 00:11:30.446
And so, the failures are not based on the things are taking too long.
00:11:30.655 --> 00:11:35.380
It's that we estimated that they were gonna happen much faster or for much less money.
00:11:35.951 --> 00:11:47.980
And so much of that is about this bias for action, which I know we've talked about before, this idea that, we don't tend to get celebrated for installing smoke detectors.
00:11:47.980 --> 00:11:51.385
We tend to get celebrated for jumping through the window and saving the cat.
00:11:52.076 --> 00:12:11.125
It's what do heroics actually look like and that the optics of heroic looks like the optics of heroics look like saving the cat, but the actual heroics are involve often stuff that is totally mundane, like making sure you've checked your batteries and your smoke detector.
00:12:12.395 --> 00:12:13.600
I'm hearing a couple of things there.
00:12:13.740 --> 00:12:18.166
One is about the importance of having...
00:12:19.311 --> 00:12:22.301
I'm gonna use the word qualified people when planning.
00:12:23.041 --> 00:12:29.091
And by the way, I recalled now the Eisenhower quote that I had in mind.
00:12:29.091 --> 00:12:33.081
It's,"Plans are useless, planning is indispensable."
00:12:33.990 --> 00:12:34.480
Totally.
00:12:35.041 --> 00:12:45.421
And I'm bringing it back now because what's implicit in that is that the plan is an artifact, it's an outcome, it's a"deliverable," right?
00:12:46.801 --> 00:12:51.750
What he's saying there is once you have the plan, you should be free to discard it.
00:12:52.506 --> 00:12:55.356
It's the process of arriving at the plan that is useful, right?
00:12:55.356 --> 00:13:02.197
Because you gain alignment, you gravitate towards shared goals, right?
00:13:02.246 --> 00:13:11.667
When you said, going over by$250,000 or what have you, that implies that you have some kind of target state that you're aiming for, right?
00:13:12.057 --> 00:13:12.836
You have a goal.
00:13:13.047 --> 00:13:24.356
And, it might be that it's buying a house, but it might also be that your goal is to launch a new product by particular date with particular characteristics or what have you.
00:13:25.226 --> 00:13:37.797
And, one of the things that is implicit in all of this is that planning is an action, like you say, it's like bias for action, right?
00:13:38.187 --> 00:13:48.836
It's you gotta realize that the process of planning actually entails getting together with other people and doing things.
00:13:48.907 --> 00:14:02.346
And what it entails doing is somehow thinking ahead, playing out in your minds your collective minds what it might take to get to that target state that you've hopefully aligned on.
00:14:02.917 --> 00:14:04.057
The value is in the process.
00:14:04.057 --> 00:14:05.076
It's not in the outcome.
00:14:05.136 --> 00:14:06.876
And I think that people conflate those two.
00:14:08.456 --> 00:14:10.736
And it's also value to the optics.
00:14:10.767 --> 00:14:16.496
And that's the thing, like the authors make the exact point that you're making right here, and they do it brilliantly.
00:14:17.966 --> 00:14:22.017
Part of the challenge is the planning doesn't look like the kind of action...
00:14:22.017 --> 00:14:26.937
it doesn't look like you're putting the shovel in the ground, it looks like a bunch of people sitting around a table with pencils.
00:14:27.626 --> 00:14:41.486
And that doesn't look like action, even though if they could see inside the minds of the people that are doing that planning, it's a lot of action and a lot of thinking and a lot of preparing for putting the shovel in the right place or deciding whether or not the shovel's even the right tool.
00:14:42.417 --> 00:14:54.966
And I think something that is not stated in this book, and it's certainly controversial, is I often tell my clients,"look, you can lie to other people.
00:14:55.366 --> 00:14:59.830
Don't lie to yourself." And I'm not saying this to give them permission to lie to other people.
00:15:00.039 --> 00:15:07.690
I'm saying that people bend the truth and they conflate things and they obfuscate stuff and they over generalize.
00:15:08.169 --> 00:15:09.549
That's okay, fine.
00:15:09.549 --> 00:15:10.690
So you're gonna do that.
00:15:10.929 --> 00:15:13.570
That's part of the nature of psychology and politics.
00:15:13.720 --> 00:15:15.669
But don't do it to yourself.
00:15:15.720 --> 00:15:20.919
Because then you're fooling yourself, which means you're, fooling other people and you don't even know it.
00:15:23.940 --> 00:15:27.419
We've certainly talked about that idea before in our conversations, right?
00:15:27.799 --> 00:15:34.289
This idea of not fooling yourself and trying to get a clear read on the situation.
00:15:34.740 --> 00:15:37.350
I wanna circle back to something that's implicit in what...
00:15:39.419 --> 00:15:50.004
you said it explicitly, but I just want to shine a spotlight on it, which is, when going through the planning process if we buy into this idea that planning is acting, right?
00:15:50.195 --> 00:15:51.341
It's a very active process.
00:15:51.441 --> 00:15:56.910
But the idea that people think that sitting around talking about things is wasted time, right?
00:15:58.171 --> 00:16:12.934
So if we can move past that idea and assume that we are not fooling ourselves, one of the things that's implicit in this is that the degree to which the process of planning is valuable is going to be determined by the people who are part of the planning process.
00:16:13.164 --> 00:16:17.274
And you talked about hiring experienced people.
00:16:17.693 --> 00:16:23.903
What I heard there is, you don't want people planning things for whom this is the first rodeo they've been in.
00:16:24.327 --> 00:16:29.114
And there's one of these cheeky laws that we have in tech, Hofstadter's law.
00:16:29.738 --> 00:16:30.607
You know this thing?
00:16:31.592 --> 00:16:32.312
I don't remember it.
00:16:32.508 --> 00:16:37.908
It says that it always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law.
00:16:38.288 --> 00:16:38.498
Oh.
00:16:39.278 --> 00:16:40.837
It's that piece of the planning fallacy.
00:16:40.967 --> 00:16:41.097
Yeah.
00:16:41.638 --> 00:16:49.538
And the thing is that if you don't have a lot of experience doing this, you're going to fall for the fallacy, right?
00:16:50.104 --> 00:16:54.033
You have to have been burned to internalize that particular lesson.
00:16:54.033 --> 00:16:55.624
At least that's the sense I have.
00:16:56.884 --> 00:17:03.124
I'm 30 years into my career and I still find myself double checking my myself when I'm doing a plan, right?
00:17:03.634 --> 00:17:05.044
It's what can go wrong?
00:17:05.044 --> 00:17:15.173
I've had so many things go in directions different than the ones that I expected, that at this point I feel like I can do it pretty well.
00:17:15.173 --> 00:17:22.523
But I remember a time in my career where I was like wildly optimistic and I think I would've been useless in that room.
00:17:23.614 --> 00:17:24.304
Yeah, it's funny.
00:17:25.294 --> 00:17:26.223
That's a hundred percent right.
00:17:26.223 --> 00:17:29.505
And in the reading there was a reference to the box on the right.
00:17:29.664 --> 00:17:39.759
The idea is that the box on the right represents, with enough definition and enough clarity, the goal.
00:17:39.940 --> 00:17:41.710
What are you trying to accomplish?
00:17:42.460 --> 00:18:03.630
And I am a ginormous fan of assumptive goal setting, which is a technique in planning and sort of goal setting that says that for every goal or for every desired outcome, there are a set of assumptions that went into it.
00:18:03.750 --> 00:18:07.008
And so, assumptive goal setting can take three states.
00:18:07.008 --> 00:18:14.494
One is often referred to as back casting, one is referred to as a pre-mortem, right?
00:18:14.494 --> 00:18:17.765
And the third one I've completely forgotten; it'll come to me in a second.
00:18:17.765 --> 00:18:20.674
But let me just talk about the pre-mortem, right?
00:18:20.674 --> 00:18:24.194
The pre-mortem I think it's from Gary Klein, from his work.
00:18:24.494 --> 00:18:25.755
I don't remember which book.
00:18:26.234 --> 00:18:39.164
And he talks about the idea that if you have an important project and you're clear enough about what success looks like, what you can do is sit around a table and talk about the imaginary future where that project failed.
00:18:39.434 --> 00:18:56.744
And then you can start identifying and prioritizing what were the causes of that imaginary failure, and then plan for those things, so that you can mitigate the effects of those that would lead to the failure that was ultimately predictable.
00:18:57.255 --> 00:19:13.755
And so this notion of a pre-mortem, when you think about a post-mortem or a retrospective, if you will, so a project happens and then you look at it after the fact, a pre-mortem says, look at it before the fact and do it intentionally and paint the picture of what would likely cause it to fail.
00:19:14.700 --> 00:19:24.970
Well, an analogous assumptive goal setting technique some people refer to as back-casting, I refer to it as back-planning for a very specific reason.
00:19:25.339 --> 00:19:38.480
What I like to do is paint, in any sufficiently complex project, I've been doing this for years and years, in fact I remember the first time I actually ever went through it for the design and development of Virtual Vineyards, which became wine.com.
00:19:38.819 --> 00:19:48.779
The idea is get really clear about what success looks like, not in some kind of pan-galactic strategic way where you've written down three documents and you have a video and a bunch of pictures and a vision board in this.
00:19:48.779 --> 00:19:49.920
And now I'm not talking about that.
00:19:50.039 --> 00:19:55.289
I'm talking about like at least a paragraph of clarity about what success looks like, right?
00:19:55.470 --> 00:20:01.740
And then you ask yourself the question, what would have to have been true to have achieved that.
00:20:03.750 --> 00:20:04.319
Okay.
00:20:04.859 --> 00:20:09.420
That's an interesting question, because you're not saying what needs to be true.
00:20:09.450 --> 00:20:14.339
You're not saying, what do I need to do, or what activity do I need to engage in?
00:20:14.339 --> 00:20:22.769
You're asking yourself the question, what would have to have been true to have achieved this end state that you've said was so important.
00:20:23.400 --> 00:20:29.519
What's really cool about that question is you can ask it again and again and again.
00:20:29.519 --> 00:20:44.130
So if you start at a point in the imaginary future of this thing you want to achieve and you ask yourself the question, what would've had to have been true such that outcome, that desired outcome, was realized?
00:20:44.819 --> 00:20:53.339
You can then ask the question for that thing that would've had to have been true, what would have to have been true?
00:20:54.555 --> 00:20:58.394
And so you can work from this imaginary future back to the present.
00:20:59.174 --> 00:21:15.684
So it's this recursive process of working from the future to the present, and that tells you what would have to have been true right now today in order for you to achieve this future state that you claim is so important.
00:21:16.224 --> 00:21:24.835
And so this assumptive goal setting technique rests on this very simple question, what would have to have been true?
00:21:25.444 --> 00:21:32.075
It's a total unlock for a complex project and it works profoundly well with teams.
00:21:32.345 --> 00:21:34.835
I've done this for company funding events.
00:21:35.194 --> 00:21:39.424
I've done this for infrastructure projects.
00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:41.650
I've done this for websites.
00:21:41.920 --> 00:21:53.950
And once you have a map from the future to the present, you can now look at, okay, in order for this to be true, what activities would we need to engage in?
00:21:54.369 --> 00:22:04.029
What decisions would we have to make and what investments would we have to commit to in order to start building from the present back to that future?
00:22:04.660 --> 00:22:06.519
It's profound.
00:22:07.589 --> 00:22:09.329
That sounds really useful and practical.
00:22:11.019 --> 00:22:16.000
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the time objection, right?
00:22:16.150 --> 00:22:25.590
What you're doing sounds time-consuming, how much time should people invest in this kind of work and how often should it happen?
00:22:25.595 --> 00:22:25.625
I.
00:22:26.440 --> 00:22:26.789
Uhhuh.
00:22:27.035 --> 00:22:27.285
Yeah.
00:22:27.724 --> 00:22:28.744
I always love that.
00:22:29.884 --> 00:22:37.835
My father, who was brilliant, used to say to me,"If you have time to do it wrong, you have time to do it right." What did he say?
00:22:37.835 --> 00:22:47.980
He used to say,"If you have time to do it twice, you have time to do it right once." So my rule of thumb there is at least spend an hour on it.
00:22:50.410 --> 00:22:56.079
It's a function of the cost of the project and not just dollars and cents, but the amount of time and energy.
00:22:56.200 --> 00:22:59.890
It's a function of the opportunity cost of getting it wrong.
00:23:00.220 --> 00:23:16.244
Like, how much time would you have spent planning and can you allocate a percentage of that to some assumptive goal setting technique, which doesn't take that much time and it is a major efficiency play.
00:23:16.605 --> 00:23:30.134
Because rather than working from a point in the present to a large number of possible futures, what you're really doing is saying, there's only one future and now I need to work toward that future.
00:23:30.134 --> 00:23:35.384
So you're saving time in terms of your forward planning by investing in backward planning.
00:23:35.865 --> 00:23:39.974
And I think in many cases it's a net zero.
00:23:41.115 --> 00:23:46.815
And in terms of how much time you spend doing it and how often you do it, how important are your projects?
00:23:46.815 --> 00:23:48.315
How important is it that they're right?
00:23:48.315 --> 00:23:51.464
How important that they land on time or that they're within budget?
00:23:52.755 --> 00:23:57.809
Yeah, there's all these aphorisms and folk wisdom about this stuff, right?
00:23:57.809 --> 00:24:00.359
Like measure twice, cut once.
00:24:00.359 --> 00:24:04.529
And there's the Abe Lincoln quote about, what is it?
00:24:04.769 --> 00:24:04.980
give
00:24:05.039 --> 00:24:09.505
If I had five minutes to cut a tree to chop down a tree, I'd spend three minutes sharpening the ax.
00:24:09.779 --> 00:24:10.349
That's right.
00:24:10.349 --> 00:24:10.700
Yeah.
00:24:10.700 --> 00:24:23.337
So it's the idea that the acting part of it, like it's going to go maybe not much faster, but it's going to be much more effective if you're actually working in the right direction.
00:24:23.548 --> 00:24:26.397
And what this process is about is directionality.
00:24:26.458 --> 00:24:36.123
It's let's get us pointed in the right direction, so that then we can pour all of this active energy more wisely, maybe is one way to put it.
00:24:36.772 --> 00:24:39.472
And it turns out it's just a hidden efficiency play.
00:24:39.532 --> 00:24:48.502
Because rather than being late or being more expensive or getting it wrong and having to do it again and make excuses and justifying it, the whole thing just ends up being more smooth.
00:24:51.393 --> 00:24:54.093
That feels like a really good place to wrap this.
00:24:54.093 --> 00:24:58.952
I'll just say, I think maybe you and I should set aside some time to do some planning for the podcast.
00:24:59.192 --> 00:24:59.883
I'm inspired.
00:25:01.758 --> 00:25:02.147
Me too.
00:25:02.147 --> 00:25:04.307
Let me see if I can make time in my busy schedule.
00:25:05.792 --> 00:25:07.323
All right, Harry, thank you.
00:25:07.323 --> 00:25:10.593
Once again, I've learned something in our conversations.
00:25:11.057 --> 00:25:11.508
Fabulous.
00:25:11.508 --> 00:25:12.077
Thanks Jorge.
00:25:20.125 --> 00:25:24.566
Thank you for listening to Traction Heroes with Harry Max and Jorge Arango.
00:25:25.226 --> 00:25:32.905
Check out the show notes at tractionheroes.com and if you enjoyed the show, please leave us a rating in Apple's podcasts app.
00:25:33.266 --> 00:25:33.715
Thanks.
