Was the problem in the plan or how it was carried out?

What to do and how to do it#

In “Strategy and execution”, Innocent begins with the power of responding to a problem rather than letting it dictate your life. His confidence in action leads to a more precise point: action needs both a workable direction and effective execution.

A weak strategy does not become sound because someone follows it carefully. Equally, the quality of a strategy cannot compensate for work that never carries it out.

The chapter also says the two need to be compatible. That is easy to overlook. A plan is not useful merely because it would succeed under ideal conditions. It must be possible to carry out with the time, information and resources available, or include a credible way to obtain them.

The distinction is therefore not simply between the person who planned and the person who did the work. It is a way to find the repair that the next attempt needs.

Two curtains, one disappointing result#

Imagine two people making curtains for the same size of window. Both finish with a curtain that is too narrow.

The first measured the window correctly and wrote down the required fabric width. While cutting, they misread the measurement and removed too much. The intended method could have worked; the work departed from it.

The second reused a pattern from a smaller window without adapting it. Every cut followed the pattern exactly. Here, careful execution produced precisely what the plan specified, but not what the window required.

Telling both people to “be more careful” misses the distinction. The first needs a reliable check before cutting. The second needs a different pattern.

It would be equally unhelpful to throw out both plans. One may need revision; the other may need to be followed.

Compare intention with evidence#

Start with the result you actually needed, then put the intended method beside the sequence that occurred. Use measurements, instructions, messages, timestamps or the work itself where they are available.

In the curtain example, compare three things: the window width, the written requirement and the cut fabric. If the first two agree but the fabric does not, there is evidence of an execution error. If the written requirement was already too narrow, the problem existed before the scissors were used.

For other work, the same comparison can reveal a missed step, an untested assumption or a requirement nobody translated into the plan.

A step that was repeatedly skipped deserves more investigation than “someone should remember next time.” Was the instruction clear? Was the necessary information available at that point? Did the schedule make the check realistic? Sometimes what appears to be carelessness exposes a plan that was difficult to follow.

Conversely, a plausible explanation for a departure does not prove the original plan was wrong. Keep the evidence separate from the desire to defend either the plan or the person.

Make the next attempt answer a question#

Not every failure can be neatly assigned to one category. A plan can contain a bad assumption and still be carried out badly. Conditions can also change after planning. An unsuccessful result does not prove that either component was wholly defective.

When the evidence is incomplete, leave the diagnosis open. A smaller next attempt with a recorded check may teach you more than a sweeping redesign based on a guess.

The purpose of the distinction is to make effort more effective. If the pattern is wrong, better cutting will not fix it. If the pattern is right, replacing it may only hide the point where the work went off course.

The next step should respond to what you have learned, not merely repeat the determination you brought to the last one.