“How do you know when you need a plan for the plan? Who should write it? And how do you do it, especially for small anti-process teams, so that it’s beneficial in some way?”

Even Da Vinci had a plan, and he worked alone.

Everyone has a plan for their contribution to the project, and that specifically, is the problem: so many people = so many plans.

Each perspective on the problem (read, “individual contributor’s plan”) is framed against a different background of experience and knowledge. Where the contributions i.e. tasks overlap, so too will the perspectives. The integration of perspectives requires communication. Sometimes it is sufficient to chat. More often, proximity, ego or politics prevent meaningful chat and if circumstances are ripe, might even stop progress altogether (which means actually stop, or proceed surreptitiously, which is the leading cause of imbroglio).

It seems that the degree of plan formalism required must be based on the realistic assessment of the “interpersonal thermodynamics” of the project space. To whit, the 2nd law of entropy – the trend to disorder, must be well considered.

What factors influence?

The greater the complexity of the project, the more profound even subtle differences in individual perspective.

The greater the number of people the lower the resolution of the problem domain; that is, with more people the problem domain itself must be blown up incrementally in order for everyone to see it: this reduces the clarity with which the project “team” as a whole might view the overall picture (pardon the play on words, but dispute resolution is also at issue).

The conclusion?

Realistic assessment and a process that scales in formality as necessary.

Additional Reference:

A chapter from Scott Berkun’s book: The Art of Project Management, Chapter 3, “How to figure out what to do”

All about Scott’s Berkun’s book