Suppose you come up with a neat little plan based on proven concepts. You lay everything out and it looks pretty good, it looks so good you want to make it a little more inclusive so you add a few elements to your plan. Now it’s looking even better so you decide to refine it a bit. Wow! This thing is really taking shape it could easily support some additional features. You add some additional features and now you realize it will take a larger base to support this structure. It just goes on and on and on and before you know it you have a city, and then a state and then a country. It never ends! Finally it implodes and the whole thing goes in the waste basket.
This might be a slight exaggeration but you get the idea. Is there a method of some kind I can employ to limit such things or is it simply a defective compulsive way of thinking that will never allow for a finished product. I tend to get obsessed with dealing with every possible scenario. I can just imagine what the world would be like if world leaders had compulsive thoughts like this. I still manage to squeak out some useful things but the amount of energy I waste is really frustrating and I find myself off on these tangents before I even realize I am doing it.
Can anyone relate?
that made my brain explode.
I can relate, kinda. I have the opposite problem. I come up with overly complex and convoluted solutions for unimportant projects when the easiest, simplest fix is more than enough. My wife does not help, as she expects Di Vinci-like execution for Wile E. Coyote-type projects.
I want this pen moved. Weld up some kind of wheel system we can attach so we can move it around.
You wanna move this pen? We’re gonna hook a rope to this corner and drag it with the truck!
You’re asking about project management, and specifically, scoping. The thing you’re describing is called ‘scope creep’ (or ‘feature creep’ in software design).
There are methodologies you can use to limit scope - but essentially, all of project management boils down into:
[ul]
[li]Figure It Out[/li][li]Do It[/li][/ul]
Projects generally fail because they:
[ul]
[li]Try to Do It before having Figured It Out[/li][li]Figure It Out, but fail to Do It[/li][li]Figure It Out, then try to Do Something Else[/li][/ul]
In (for Example) PRINCE2 project management, there is a phase during which not only is it decided what is ‘in scope’, but also, examples of things that are ‘out of scope’ are listed - then when the project starts to slide in that direction, it’s easy just to say “nope, we’re not doing that”.
That makes good sense, work projects would always go very smoothly for me I think because I knew what resources I would have available to work with. When planning idealistic projects resources tend to be unlimited and this is where I tend to get lost. Maybe if I started off with realistic resources as my limits before I started a planning phase I would be more effective. As is I tend to identify what resources I would need after the fact.
Could be you’re drilling down into the detail too quickly - this makes it hard to see where the boundaries are between the edge of your project and the bits that aren’t really part of your project.
For example, if you were going to invent a new form of personal transportation, you have to do some high-level evaluation first, i.e:
Will it fly? If so, how will it fit in with things that already fly? Can it just function as a new kind of aircraft?
If it isn’t going to fly, will it travel on existing infrastructure (roads, rail), or will it need its own brand new infrastructure?
That way - considering how it will fit into the world, before you start thinking about how to build the thing, you already know if you also have to reinvent Air Traffic Control (or roads), etc.
Your analogy is not too bad actually. I have been working on this project for several years now. I consider it a dream project where in the back of my head I feel it is viable and I feel the logistics are also very doable, Scaling is where I seem to struggle, I like what I see scaled down but it pales in comparison to what I see in full scale. Full scale would obviously go way beyond my available resources. So I launch into another plan that would involve garnering resources.
This is where I get frustrated, I have an incredably simple concept that seems to require an enourmously complicated explanation to convey how it would work.
The big challenge is to prepare a presentation that won't put someone to sleep. This is where I have spent countless hours filling my waste paper basket with trash. I just can't find a way to condense the concept because it requires accepting certain premisies that are not commonly spoken about or well understould by the general public. I find myself feeling like I need to expand on each premise and it just goes on and on until I peter out and want to start over.
Have a read up on ‘writing executive summaries’ - the people who fund/approve the project don’t usually want to know all of the operational detail - they typically want to know stuff like:
What problem are we solving
How difficult is it
What will it cost
What are the risks
How long will it take
Why should we care
They will want to know that the operational detail is taken care of (so you still need to have addressed it and have it handy to whip out in answer to any questions - just not on the front page)
The guys I have working for me in IT are notorious scope creepers. I ask for a simple feed forward controller and I end up with a proposal for a 40 level recursive fuzzy logic piece of crap that would take weeks to code and months to debug. I always tell them, when Wilbur and Orville Wright flew at Kitty Hawk, they didn’t wait until they’d developed the seat back entertainment system and the in-flight drink service. They came up with something that met the minimum requirements and got the goddam thing in the air. I’m looking for a biplane and they want to build the Apollo. Everybody’s gotta add a refinement and eventually what you get is never going to work. I see it all the time.
You summed it up very well, when I am working for someone else I am alwyas the go to guy for getting it done as you describe. When I am work for myself I run into problems.
Ultimately you’re fighting human nature. Strict limits on resources are probably the path of least resistance to getting and keeping yourself on track.
If you can’t sell your idea with an “elevator pitch”, work until you can. Then make a powerpoint with 5 slides that doesn’t need narration and can sell it to an unprepared audience.
If the project is too complicated to do that, then it’s too complicated for one guy in a garage to *ever *move beyond the mental masturbation stage. Unless he happens to already be stupid, stupid rich. Then you get things like Tesla or SpaceX.
This is a huge help!
20 years ago it would have been easy to take a realistic approach keeping available resources in mind, I actually did this all the time and was pretty good at it. At my age I fully expect this will be my last big run, I just don't seem to be willing to compromise, each time I try to rewrite with compromises I loose motivation and abondon project. Kind of an all or nothing thing if I can't find some kind of acceptable middle ground.
Where I work, we call this “the perfect is the enemy of the shipped.”
I don’t really have any concrete suggestions. You have to take a hard line on scope creep. It probably happens in every industry and there’s not much evidence that anyone really knows how to control it.
In general, try to limit the number of parties invested in your project. Projects which try to be everything to everybody inevitably end up as compromise-ridden pieces of crap.
In terms of keeping yourself in line… well, if you’re a perfectionist, at least keep things small. Think “perfectly trimmed bonsai tree”, not “perfectly maintained forest.” The first is achievable; the latter impossible.
If we want to get all ontological, a necessary condition for a perfect project is that it’s achievable. So focus on stuff that is a closed system, so that you can flesh out every element completely and yet still be within your resources and capabilities.
I sort of felt like Mr. Coyote was just a methier and slightly dumber version of Da Vinci.
Better able to quickly recover from minor setbacks such as thousand-foot falls to the floor of the Grand Canyon, rapid compression-by-anvil, and self-immolation, though.
Probably.
The relevant phrase is, “Never let the perfect stand in the way of the good.”