Mike Lyons explains the third shift agile project managers must make — moving from centralized to decentralized decision making — by introducing and defending adaptive planning. He contrasts adaptive planning with traditional (predictive) planning, arguing that agile involves more, not less, planning but organized as frequent, learning-driven iterations ("plan a little, execute a little, repeat"). He uses metaphors (GPS, surfing) and a brief comparison table (requirements, value delivery, management style, development approach) to show why adaptive planning suits complex, uncertain environments.
Chapters
Remember, there are three crucial shifts you need to make as an agile project manager. We've already talked about shift one, moving from managing people to managing systems. And we've talked about shift two, moving from manager accountability to team accountability. Well, now it's time to talk about the third shift, moving from centralized to decentralized decision making. And we'll start with the idea of adaptive planning. I remember in the early days of moving to Agile ways of working, one of my traditional project manager friends said, agile, that's just cowboy development with no planning. Howdy, partner. Have you ever heard that, like, there's no planning in Agile, just kind of start developing? It's certainly a mischaracterization of what we're actually doing. I would argue that there's more planning in agile delivery than in traditional delivery approaches. It's just that we have adaptive planning now. Adaptive planning is an approach that emphasizes flexibility and continuous learning and frequent adjustment of plans based on new information or changing circumstances. It's fundamentally different from traditional or predictive planning. In traditional planning, we try to map out all the details of a project up front, assuming we can predict all the challenges and know all the requirements. Adaptive planning, on the other hand, is more like using a GPS that continually updates our route based on current conditions. 307. Make a right.
Maybe it's a shortcut. Dwight, it said go to the right. It can't mean that there's a lake there. I think it knows where it is going. The machine. Stop yelling at me.
It acknowledges that we can't predict everything and instead focuses on creating a framework for responding to change. This approach is more effective as a learning approach because it allows us to gain insights and adapt as we go. So rather than spending months on upfront planning, we start executing and we use what we learn to inform our next steps. I grew up in Southern California and I spent many days in the Pacific Ocean surfing and bodyboarding. And sometimes my board would get away from me and be pulled away by the current. Now the waves and the swells, they can get pretty big in the Pacific Ocean. And you can't always see your board once it gets away from you. So I'd start to swim towards it. I'd look up and realize the board had moved. So I would change directions and swim a little more. And finally I'd get to the board. Basically, I had to swim a little, look up and see where I needed to go, do a little course correction and repeat that process. See, the board was always moving, but so was I. That's A pretty good description of the environment we're in. On agile projects, we have to accept that our end goal may be poorly understood, poorly defined, or even just wrong at the outset. If we try to just plan the work and work the plan without checking our progress and making adjustments, we'll end up pretty far from where we need to be. Instead, with adaptive planning, we plan a little, execute a little, and repeat the cycle, adjusting our course as needed to stay on track. If it reminds me of the late 1900s philosopher Mike Tyson, who said, everybody has a plan till they get punched in the mouth, it's not that traditional approaches to planning are wrong and that we've discussed this already, that approach, it has its place. But in complex environments, we tend to get better outcomes with adaptive planning. Now here's just a quick comparison between the two. In thinking about the approach, Traditional planning involves extensive upfront planning and sticking to the plan. Adaptive planning, on the other hand, embraces continuous planning and replanning throughout the project. Now think about requirements. In traditional planning, there's an assumption that with enough planning, we can get all the requirements right from the start. But in adaptive planning, we acknowledge that it's impossible to know all the requirements at the beginning of a project. How about value delivery? Well, traditional planning, it aims to deliver value at the very end of the project. In adaptive planning, the focus is on delivering value in small chunks to facilitate feedback. Now, what about management style? Well, traditional planning emphasizes coordination and control, whereas adaptive planning prioritizes inspection and adaptation. And finally, think about the development approach. Traditional planning typically involves one pass through each phase of development, whereas adaptive planning, well, it utilizes fast, frequent feedback through each development cycle. Again, adaptive planning is better suited for complex, uncertain environments where learning and adapting are crucial for success. It's not just about creating a plan, but about creating a system that allows us to learn and adjust and deliver value continuously. Now, what about you? Have you heard this idea that there isn't much or any planning in agile projects? How might you respond to that statement the next time you hear it? Adaptive planning isn't about abandoning planning altogether. It's about planning smartly, learning constantly, and being ready to adapt to the best possible outcomes. So don't let anyone tell you there's no planning in Agile.
