Defining a Project

Projects cannot be prescribed absolutely. There is always something more to say about issues that should be addressed. Nevertheless, it is important to take stands on how a project should proceed in the early stages of specification. These stands, or positions, are formative and help to clarify issues and limitations that must be recognized, as well as special viewpoints that exist within the planning team.

The Structured Planning process begins with a Charter. This is a “brief” that sets out what must be done without overly burdening the project with preconceived ideas or conceptual frameworks.

The Charter serves as an initial communication vehicle between client and planners. It contains background, context, basic goals and a project statement that cuts to the heart of the planning task (Figure 1). Definition then builds around these foundation materials and project statement with the addition of “white papers” on issues that must be addressed. In the Structured Planning process, these are called Defining Statements.

Defining Statements serve to focus the project within the general direction of the project statement. They pick out issues that are important and suggest the specific direction that the project should follow with regard to them. The word issue is used advisedly with the intention that the subjects for Defining Statements should be particularly selected from topics that are controversial, or at least have plausible alternatives associated with them. Figure 2 shows two Defining Statement examples.

To make it easier for team members to cooperate in the generation of Defining Statements, they are carefully written to a common format. The format is five-part: (1) Issue Topic – one or two words establishing the subject of the Defining Statement; (2) Question at Issue – a short question raising an important issue under the topic; (3) Position – a sentence stating the position to be taken on the issue; (4) Alternative Positions – other plausible positions that were considered, but not taken; and (5) Background and Arguments – as much discussion as is necessary (in narrative form) to explain the reason/s why the position was selected (and why others were not). There are three kinds of Defining Statements, differentiated by the force they exert on the planning process.

Constraints are the strongest statements. They state what must or must not be done. They fix positions that must be held as conscientiously as possible. The word must is used in the position statement to amplify the force of commitment.

Objectives are Defining Statements less forceful than Constraints, and more forgiving in their demands. It is possible to settle for less than complete satisfaction of an Objective, although the planning team will strive to achieve as much of its prescription as possible. The word should, which carries with it a sense of obligation, is appropriate for the position statement. In choosing between the Constraint or Objective labels for a Defining Statement, the decision is made with regard to the force of commitment that can reasonably be expected. If achievement cannot really be guaranteed, the statement probably should be an Objective. Objectives can be thought of as having more of a scalable measure of achievement than Constraints, which tend to be thought of as thresholds that must be observed.

Directives are somewhat different from the other two statement types. In the hierarchy, they have the least force and, accordingly, are used for goals that are desirable. They are also used to express the biases of the planning team. Everyone brings biases of style or preference to the projects they work on. Some planners become well enough known for them that they are sought out for the very brand or trademark their style places on a project. Unfortunately, all biases are not readily observable, but that doesn’t mean that they should not be expressed! A major problem that often develops in client/planner relations stems from the failure of one or both parties to communicate the subtleties of their intent. The Directive provides a place for this kind of expressive statement. English also has a nice wording for this level of commitment: ought to. The words suggest almost a moral or ethical force – appropriate for a bias or a statement of style.