Tag Archives: scope

Reaching for the Stars

stars and mountaintopThere are several platitudes about goal setting that reference the stars and the moon:

  • – “Aim for the moon. If you miss, you may hit a star.”  has been attributed to Peale, Littrell, and Brown
  • – I have also heard “Reach for the stars and land on a mountaintop”

The two above are actually quite different.  One says to shoot for something really hard and maybe you will find you accomplish something even greater.  The other says to shoot for something impossibly hard and be satisfied with a smaller, but still significant accomplishment.

They are both recipes for failure.  They were coined at a time when there was much less data that we could track about our progress.  In both cases the resources are lined up in a different direction than they are moving…not good.

Think about if you had such a slice in golf that you had to line up at a 45degree angle to where you wanted to hit the ball.  Is it a better idea to continue with that approach or should you work to fix the slice?

Some of the damages that come from these philosophies include:

  1. miscommunication with stakeholders
  2. constant re-work of priorities
  3. demoralized staff

To be fair, there are positives:

  1. There is no risk of complacency or resting on laurels (unless the team starts to give up in despair)
  2. There are many decision points to decide which x of the >x is going to get accomplished
  3. There is tremendous pressure for efficiency in order to minimize the under-accomplishment.  Those efficiencies likely live on past the deadline

However, the above positives can still be realized without the extreme pressure of under-delivery that comes with an over-promise.  Thus, they are not worth the negatives.

Let’s examine each of the negatives…..

 Miscommunication with Stakeholders

There is a consulting adage of “Under promise and over deliver”.  This approach is the opposite of that.  You are telling people that you “want” to accomplish >x when you only have a historic or estimated capacity to reach x.

While stakeholders definitely want great things, they also want predictability.  The world is variable enough without starting off misaligned.

Alternatively, provide two sets of goals to your stakeholders: the realistic goals and the stretch goals.  Ensure that there is contingency built into your realistic goals so that if everything goes according to plan, you will be able to accomplish some of the stretch goals.

Constant re-work of priorities

When you are building plans that get you to a fixed deadline with >x accomplished and you then find yourself on a path towards x, you must constantly change that plan.  This requires significant overhead both for the people whose job it is to plan and organize, but also for the resources who are being communicated a different plan each week or month.

The three levers of resources, scope, and time will constantly be under pressure as you keep trying to squeeze >x into an x sized box.  If you don’t make the scope or resource changes, the deadline will be missed.

Demoralized Staff

Either your people were not invested in the first place (different problem) or they will now become less invested.  Nobody wants to sign-up for an impossible task unless they think somehow they can make it happen.

Most people want to be on the winning team.

If Candy Crush and Angry Birds have tought us anything is that many people are goal seekers.  They crave mini-accomplishments.  If your team is never hitting the goal, team members will start to seek their “success fix” elsewhere.


In this age of data abundance, you can accurately measure just about anything.  Do so.   Set goals that can be accomplished.  Don’t make them easy.  Everyone wants a challenge.  But, put the goal within reach so that your people, your organization, and your stakeholders can all feel like a success together.

How do you decide to set your goals against capacity?

Also posted on Linked Pulse if you prefer to comment there


Brainstorming technique – Asking all the questions

Every time we have a new idea, it takes into account a wide range of assumptions that are based on our own personal background/experience.  Just because we have personal data that leads to an assumption, does not mean that assumption is correct.

There is a group brainstorming activity which does not seek answers or solutions.  Instead the process looks to define the scope of a particular space through exploring questions.  The process seeks to eliminate assumptions and take nothing for granted.

This is just the start of a strategic planning process, but it is a really important one to make everyone think broadly before starting to hone in on answering questions and solving problems that you feel are most pertinent for your idea.

Before you begin, you should lay out some very high-level goals and carve your idea space into a few sub-topics that you want to explore.  This works best if your facilitator also is versed in the topic you are discussing.

You will need the following materials

  • large 5″x8″ colored post-it notepads (at least one per attendee)
  • sharpee pens (at least 1 per attendee)
  • colored sticker dots (at least 20 per attendee)

Note: optionally you can hand different colored pads to different attendees if you are interested in visually understanding which people are asking what questions.  For example you might have Marketing folks and Management in the same room and it might be interesting to get a sense of the different perspectives.

For each sub-topic you will build a wall of questions:

  1. Using the pens on the pads, ask each of the attendees to begin writing down questions on that they feel are important to know the answers for in that topic area
  2. Pass each note up to the facilitator
  3. The facilitator will read each question and ask for clarification where appropriate
  4. Each question follows one of these paths
    • The facilitator asks for question to be modified or broken up etc… and then re-submitted.
    • Facilitator determines that a question is better suited for another sub-topic: writes that sub-topic on the note and puts it off to the side
    • Facilitator asks author if question is perhaps similar to one already on the wall.
    • Facilitator places that question on the wall grouped with other related questions when possible
  5. As each participant hears the questions being read, that is going to spark additional questions in their heads.  They should keep writing them down and passing them up as this happens.

You will find that the stack of questions waiting to be read may grow longer and shorter as the process continues.  Keep going while there is a steady flow of questions that are not repeating previous questions.

Now you are going to rate the questions via a process called dotmocracy

  1. each attendee gets X sticker dots.  X is any number you decide
  2. Attendees are allowed to place their dots on any of the notes on the wall
  3. They can place more than one dot and in fact as many as they like on any note.

There is nothing explicitly to do with the ranking of the questions.  There may be some that garner more votes because they are broader while others may receive less because they split votes with other similar ones.  The votes should just be used as one data point when using the questions to build a strategy.

Anyone used a process like this?  Parts you liked?  Parts you didn’t?