The verb "management" in Agile Project Management produces an actionable outcome - a "managed project." The simple implication is that a "managed project" has a plan for "managing of the project." No matter what the format of the plan, there is a plan in some form - implied or explicit.
I'm working through some discussions today on "what does a good plan look like?" It may seem odd that these types of questions still come up, but they do, even in sophisticated organizations. Here's the list (for now):
- What exactly do we have to do?
- Will this task result in something we need?
- How will we know when this task is done?
- How well do these tasks fit our objectives?
- Have we done enough detailed planning for the really important parts?
- Are the quality gates well aligned with the project plan?
- Do we have a idea of how much time and effort it will take to do the tasks?
What's interesting here is that description of the criteria for a good plan appear obvious, but the answers to each question are in fact hard to come by if you don't sit down and think things through, assess the impact of the answer on the work effort, and confirm that the answer is actually what you want.
Back to my favorite topic of the Declaration of Interdependence for Agile Project Management, how does the DoI fit into or encourage the answering of these types of questions? (Paraphrased)
- Increase ROI - confirm we're doing the right tasks for the right reasons
- Deliver reliable results - is the test for quality aligned with the plan?
- Expect uncertainty - how do we know when we are done?
- Unleash creativity - N/A
- Boost performance - do we know the time and effort?
- Improve effectiveness and and reliability - does the effort fit our objectives?
