Hey V... Process or Execution?

S: What's more important; the plan, or the execution?

V: You need both.

S: That's not what I asked you. I asked, what is more important. Are you saying that it's exactly 50/50?

V: No, I would say that it is not 50/50, but that one without the other will not carry the load.

S: You're going to end up pissing me off.

V: Sorry. I would phrase the question differently. I see where you're headed, but it's not as if these two elements are completely detached.

S: Okay - how about this; Would you rather have a well designed plan and struggle to execute it, or would you prefer a weak plan and good execution?

V: Your going to be mad when I tell you.

S: Why is that?

V: Because I'm going to say that the truth is still buried in the fact that these two legs can't stand on their own. It's really not an either or thing, but I think I understand how I can answer you and make my point.

S: Can't you just make the call? Process or Execution; which is the most important - even if it's 51/49?

V: I'll go with Process. Let's start there.

S: Thank you. Now - briefly tell us why.

V: Okay, but don't cut me off you vomity bastard.

S: Fine

V: If we accept that by process we mean "the system". The system design has to work with the participant's skill level, include ways to monitor and react to deficiencies. A good system must be executable. You burn a lot of energy trying to execute a poorly designed system. It is a circle of inefficiency that will eventually crash as you burn through people. Bad process also frustrates participants. A good system has to be trainable and changeable. To be really good, you have to build these attributes into the plan. We look to find the optimal performance path that we can deliver. Therefore, when we say that a good process is more important than good execution, we make a call about the chicken and the egg, because the system - to be good enough - has to adapt and repair itself. Do you see what I mean?

S: I do.

V: May I go now?

S: Yes, thank you.