Menu
Close
Somewhere near the beginning of every undertaking there is a moment when the frame gets drawn. I have sat in many versions of it.
A transformation programme, a product, sometimes a whole company: whatever the work is, this is where it acquires a budget, a timeline, a named deliverable and a set of expectations precise enough to approve. What has always struck me about the moment is its timing, because the frame is drawn when the organisation knows less about the work than it ever will again.
At that point nobody has had an honest conversation with a user, the data has not produced its first surprise and the assumption that will later prove quietly wrong is still sitting in the plan looking reasonable. Everything the work will teach lies ahead of it and everything it teaches will be judged against a frame that was drawn before any of it was known.
I wrote recently about how trouble tends to surface a long way from where it was made. This is a version of the same distance, stretched over time. The delay, the overrun, the deliverable that fits the contract and misses the point: they appear at the end of the work and they were made at the beginning, in a meeting where precision was demanded on exactly the dimensions nobody could yet know.
Approval needs something it can hold: a date, an amount, a name.
The frame comes first because permission does. Money moves against commitments and the commitments that fit on a form are the legible ones. A date can be compared with other dates, a budget can be added to other budgets, a deliverable can be named in a contract. An understanding of the problem, the thing that will actually decide whether the work is worth anything, fits nowhere on the form, so the form does without it.
And once a number is required this early, it will lean optimistic, for reasons that have little to do with honesty. Daniel Kahneman, who spent his career studying how people misjudge the future, told a story about a textbook he and a team set out to write. They estimated about two years. When they asked the one member who had watched many such teams up close, the answer was seven to ten years, when the teams finished at all, and this group looked no better than the others. They found the answer credible, kept their own estimate anyway and finished eight years later, by which time the appetite for the book had passed.
What stays with me is that knowing the pattern did nothing to break it. Kahneman's name for what the group was doing, the inside view, describes most frames I see: built from the plan as imagined, which by construction contains none of the things nobody has thought of yet.
There is also a quieter selection at work. A proposal with a realistic timeline tends to lose in the funding conversation to a proposal with a confident one, so the undertakings that come to exist at all lean toward the ones that promised more than reason allowed. Bent Flyvbjerg, who has spent decades measuring how large projects actually go, calls it survival of the unfittest. Nobody has to lie for this to happen; the environment does the selecting, one approval at a time.
The most valuable thing work produces is often a better understanding of what it should have been.
Dutch has a term that translates literally but has no real English counterpart: voortschrijdend inzicht, or progressive insight, is the understanding that advances as the work advances. It names the way understanding actually arrives, in increments, mostly in the middle, while the work is underway and because the work is underway. The plan could not have contained it, since the only way to reach it was to begin. Kahneman had a blunt phrase for why this gap never feels like a gap at the time: what you see is all there is. A plan built from everything visible feels complete, because what has not arrived yet is not experienced as absent.
What voortschrijdend inzicht does, when it is allowed to, is change what the work is. A team commissioned to build one thing finds, partway in, that the thing they were asked for is the visible corner of a larger question and that answering the larger question is where the value sits. It happens at every scale. Companies are frames too, drawn at a founding moment with goals and timelines attached and some of the most admired ones ended up somewhere other than where they aimed: the chat tool now called Slack was built inside a games company to coordinate work on a game that failed and YouTube spent its first months as a dating site.
I hold those stories lightly, because we remember the ones that ended well and the ventures that kept discovering without ever landing are remembered by no one. Still, the pattern reaches well below legend, into work that will never be written about, wherever the real outline of a problem shows itself only after the frame around it has hardened.
And when it does, the language runs out. A startup that becomes something better has a word for the change and it is a success word, a pivot. An organisation has only failure words: slipped, over budget, out of scope and re-baselined. So a room full of people who can all see that the changed work is worth more than the planned work will still report a shortfall, because the instruments were calibrated on the day everyone knew the least.
An open question, held deliberately, looks from the outside like indecision.
It would be convenient if the answer were simply to stay open, and it is worth being honest about why that is rare. Keeping a question open is uncomfortable in ways that a signed scope never is. A sponsor wants to know what they are buying, and a board experiences an unresolved shape as exposure.
The person holding the question open, meanwhile, has to keep explaining, meeting after meeting, why it has no answer yet, and for a long stretch there is nothing to show except better questions than the ones the work started with. That takes trust between the people paying and the people building, and a kind of nerve that has to be renewed every time someone asks when it will be done.
The discomfort is not irrational, either. Openness has real failure modes: work sprawls, learning becomes the alibi for never landing, and changing course grows more expensive the further the work has travelled. A revised idea costs an afternoon where a revised foundation costs a fortune; Sydney's opera house broke ground before its roof was solved, had early work torn out and redone and arrived a decade late at roughly fourteen times its budget.
Convergence has to happen somewhere and the people I have watched do this well make it happen on purpose. They separate the decisions that swing from the decisions that lock: most choices are doors you can walk back through, a few close behind you. The kind that locks gets its answer once the knowledge exists, rather than at the start because a form asked for it.
What they seem to understand is that the safety of the rigid frame is partly an illusion. In the projects I get close to, a hard frame rarely prevents the extra work; it reschedules it. The needs the frame excluded return later wearing other names, a change request, some rework, a second project quietly commissioned to finish what the first one closed too early. The tightly framed undertaking and the honestly framed one end up doing a similar amount of work, and only one of them planned for it.
By now a fair objection is waiting: surely there are methods for exactly this. Design thinking begins by holding the problem wide open and agile promises to keep it open all the way through. In practice, design thinking spends its openness early. The exploration is generous until the moment of definition and everything after that is delivery against a frame that has re-hardened. Agile, as it is commonly practised, keeps the date, the budget and the scope where they were and lets only the increments move: the same deliverable, chopped into fortnights, adaptiveness on a frame that doesn’t move.
Both also live a level below the problem. They were built for products and for software, and the pattern reaches all the way up to the company itself. Neither has anything to say about the funding conversation, which was over before the first sprint was planned. A team can be as adaptive as it likes inside a frame that was mis-sold into existence.
None of this argues against frames. Work needs permission and people need coordination, so something has to be held fixed for anything to begin. The question that deserves more attention is what that something should be.
In most of the frames I see, the fixed points are the date, the budget and the deliverable and the value is what ends up moving. It is possible to turn that around: to hold steady what the work must be worth to the people it serves and let the shape, the route, sometimes even the deliverable stay open to what the work teaches. I have seen it done. It asks more of everyone involved, more trust and more conversation than a signed scope ever needs, which may be the honest reason it is rare.
