What's A Good Plan Look Like?

Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit
Add little to little and there will be a big pile
- Ovid 43 BCE - 17 CE

The notion of "well formed" is lost many times on a program. A well formed system architecture. A well formed Master Plan and Master Schedule. A well formed resource allocation strategy.
    So what are the attributes of "well formed?"

• Referential integrity of all the elements of the Plan. These means the "all in" work can be found and the interconnectivity of this work forms a logical sequence, traceable to the requirements, resource assignment, risk with its mitigation and retirement, and all other attributes of that work.
• Visible increasing maturity of the work products, in units of measure meaningful to the customer. When we speak in units of "done" the conversation is clear and concise. "I'm working real hard," "almost there, just a few more days,"  "I'll have it all organized by the time I get to the power point slides," are not actually measures of physical progress. They may be measures of consumed effort or resources. But not Physical Percent Complete.

So in the end "well formed" needs to be just that "well formed." This starts with the basic thought processes around the development of a "well formed" project, its plans, and its execution.
    There is a nice framework for this, from the professional writing aspects. When a written document is submitted to review, be it a plan, a specification, a Mind Map, or a hand waving white board drawing. It must posses the following three attributes:

1. It must be readable - a high level of "readability" means there are no impediments to understanding what is being described, asked, and required. The information is readily understood by the reader or consumer
2. It must be relevant - the information must be connected to the requested actions.
3. It must be reliable - the data associated with the project plan, execution, and analysis must be reliable if management actions are going to have credible outcomes. Reliability is not hard to recognize when the data is statistical or involves empirical outcomes. When these are not present, it is difficult to assess the reliability of the management suggestions. This is the primary reason for quantitative evaluations of project management processes and their outcomes. Otherwise it becomes anecdotal advice.