Strongly agree. I think a point not explicit in OP's article is having low quality initial Plans in order to move forward.
Logically, we want a Plan to move towards our Goal. As Engineers we often suffer from Analysis Paralysis: lots of paths to the goal with no clear winner. We also slow down from Impostor Syndrome: surely a smarter/more talented person knows the one true Plan forward to the goal.
> I make a plan, then do the plan, then learn from my efforts by reviewing my progress. I do this every day of the year, going on half a decade now. [At many time scales: three hour cycles going up to three-month cycles.]
I believe OP would agree that the Plan should be low quality, at least at the beginning. This encourages forward movement, and learning, vs just planning in circles and without using real-world data.
Logically, we want a Plan to move towards our Goal. As Engineers we often suffer from Analysis Paralysis: lots of paths to the goal with no clear winner. We also slow down from Impostor Syndrome: surely a smarter/more talented person knows the one true Plan forward to the goal.
> I make a plan, then do the plan, then learn from my efforts by reviewing my progress. I do this every day of the year, going on half a decade now. [At many time scales: three hour cycles going up to three-month cycles.]
I believe OP would agree that the Plan should be low quality, at least at the beginning. This encourages forward movement, and learning, vs just planning in circles and without using real-world data.
Source: writing a book on Feedback Loops