grand plans vs quick wins
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 02:44PM The time-frame for projects is, of course, dependent on scope (and budget and quality) but it is not uncommon for projects to require decision trade-offs between large, long term gains and smaller faster fixes, or quick wins. There is no magic formula on the balance to strike, and certainly there are many examples where either:
- grand plans suffer from changing context, flagging confidence, shifting sponsor support, or increasing project risks and fail to deliver on expectations, while immediate issues have gone unaddressed;
- quick wins "do it fast but don't do it right" - applying band-aid solutions to symptomatic problems while causal factors continue and ultimately lead to strategic failures.
These extremes, however, suggest oversimplification in the way scope meets strategy - a cause of tension in development projects.
The trick is to assess potential deliverables on a roadmap against the benefits they offer and to tailor and prioritise the work programme accordingly. In principle, even "strategic solutions" should show reviewable deliverables in 6 -12 weeks and a working iterations in 18-24 weeks. Appropriately prioritised, these small steps should have big impacts while also progressing the strategic plan.
A well thought-out plan will consider time-to benefit, front-loading, and crawl-walk-run-lead aspects but also note that, in some cases (e.g. softening markets) even a delay may be the most economic option.
Maybe its about reaching for the low-hanging fruit, while ensuring you're at the right tree.









