What Happens When Everyone Plans (And When They Don't)

Martin breaks down the critical distinction between accountability and responsibility in planning. While planning departments are responsible for the program, project teams must have accountability and ownership at different levels. The industry often misunderstands this, defaulting to 'your program' language that undermines team ownership.

• •Everyone in the business is responsible for program at different event horizons and detail densities
• •Planning departments are responsible for the program, but project leads must be accountable for delivery
• •Common industry mistake: teams say 'your program' to planners instead of owning it collectively
• •The contract program is like a sat-nav - planning provides the tool, but the whole team defines the route

Martin outlines a practical framework for planning at different time horizons. The contract program (master schedule) sits with project leads, weekly plans become commitments owned by agents/engineers, and the planning horizon at each level should match the time needed to solve problems at that level.

• •Contract-level program: owned by project leads, focuses on overall strategy and long-term interfaces
• •Weekly plans (5-7 days): owned by agents/senior engineers, these are commitments not just plans
• •12-week horizon is optimal for visibility on procurement and design items with long lead times
• •Planning horizon should match problem-solving timeframe - if it takes 4 weeks to solve procurement, plan more than 4 weeks out
• •Three-month focus periods work well for large infrastructure projects to manage interfaces collaboratively

Martin uses a provocative analogy comparing construction planning to social planning 30 years ago. Before mobile phones, 10 people would commit to meet at the pub Friday night and all 10 would show up early because there was no other option. Today's constant communication paradoxically enables less commitment, and this cultural shift has infected construction project delivery.

• •30 years ago: weekly site meetings with one-hour commitments, no communication between meetings, but 100% delivery
• •Example: concrete pump would arrive exactly as planned because there was no alternative to following through
• •Modern culture: constant communication enables last-minute changes and reduced commitment levels
• •Technology should enable earlier commitments and simpler execution, but instead it's compressed event horizons
• •The ability to react instantly (call for materials, send emails) has made teams more reactive rather than more proactive

Martin explains how the evolution of planning as a specialized function has inadvertently confused ownership. NEC contracts put programs at the core, requiring dedicated planning resources, but this has led to misunderstanding where 30 years ago agents and PMs clearly owned their section delivery while planners handled procurement and materials.

• •NEC contracts elevated planning's importance by making programs contractually central
• •Historical context: 30 years ago, planning was more static (program on wall), agents owned their sections
• •Modern planners handle program updates, project controls, and complex contract requirements
• •The professionalization of planning has created confusion about who actually owns delivery
• •Need to be clear: it's not 'your program' (planner's) - it's the project team's program

When asked about implementing planning standards across a business, Martin identifies four critical elements: understanding the 'why', setting clear processes and expectations, providing the right tools, and most importantly, creating the 'want'. He argues the industry needs to restate basics for new generations, not just return to them, because many have never experienced foundational practices.

• •Four elements needed: understanding (why), process clarity, appropriate tools, and the 'want' to do it
• •Don't say 'back to basics' - say 'restate the basics' because new generations never experienced them
• •Show teams the tangible value: how planning makes their lives easier and gives them headspace
• •Industry enjoys the adrenaline rush of solving problems, but those problems often exist because of poor planning
• •Goal is to make everyone's job 'a little bit boring' - no firefighting, just smooth execution
• •Walk teams through expectations and demonstrate value, don't just mandate processes

Martin challenges the common refrain that 'the program is wrong' by arguing plans are based on information available at the time. The real problem is teams don't understand the logic, constraints, resources, and risk assumptions behind the plan. Planning isn't just the Gantt chart - it's all the narratives, schedules, sketches, and daily briefings that support it.

• •The plan is never wrong - it's based on the best information and assumptions at that point in time
• •Failure comes from not understanding the logic, constraints, resource levels, and risk built into the plan
• •Planning includes: Gantt charts, narratives, procurement schedules, method statements, sketches, daily briefings
• •Teams must understand what's driving durations and logic, not just presume the plan is incorrect
• •Communication of all the detail behind the program is as important as the program itself

Martin emphasizes that delivery teams shouldn't be forced to plan unrealistic work just because the master schedule says so. If the contract program says pour concrete Thursday but foundations aren't built by Monday, teams must have the authority to plan reality. The failure isn't missing master schedule dates - it's not having a plan to get there as quickly as possible.

• •Teams can't be expected to plan pouring concrete Thursday when foundations aren't built Monday
• •Must plan based on reality, not blindly follow master schedule when circumstances have changed
• •The failure is not having a plan for fastest possible recovery, not missing the original date
• •Use planning methodologies (like Last Planner) in right circumstances - wrong application creates negative impact
• •Commitment and delivery on commitments is key - but commitments must be realistic and achievable

Martin discusses the challenge of hiring project managers with planning ethos in a resource-constrained industry. He highlights the advantage of having learned in the analog world before transitioning to digital, as it provides understanding of the 'why' behind practices. His ideal: planners should be project managers with additional skills, deeply embedded across all project aspects.

• •Ideal scenario: hire project leads with strong planning ethos, but industry is resource-constrained
• •Focus on training and setting expectations for those who never experienced analog/manual planning
• •Advantage of bridging analog and digital worlds: understanding why we do things, not just how
• •Risk: new generations do things 'because we used to' without understanding the underlying reasons
• •Martin's vision: planners should be project managers with additional skills, not separate function
• •Need to explain tangible benefits to new project managers, not just mandate processes