Recently I received a set of preliminary project plans. On the face it was normal: 18 month duration, relatively standard product set, expected functional groups and staff assignments.

But there was one very disturbing feature: The details increased further along the timeline.

Of course, milestones might increase in frequency as one approaches launch. An agile development cycle might take 2 weeks while final sign off may follow gold by 3 days and golds may be sent to the manufacturer the next day after that.

But the granularity of the milestones shouldn't change. To me, a preliminary schedule has input from all functional groups, for example content development, software development, manufacturing and marketing. Further, that input is at the same level of granularity.

Generally, when the granularity is off, it means that a functional group didn't have direct input. Instead, an eager or time crunched project manager guessed. A schedule that lacks input from a functional group isn't a schedule, it's a set of inputs into scheduling. So if I see a milestone set that reads "develop software" followed by "receive gold", "sign off", "send to manufacturing", "receive test master", "send to duplicator"... then I am seeing a granularity mismatch.

This is important because it is a symptom of an incomplete work breakdown structure (WBS). In practical terms, when I review the WBS on such a project I find that there is an inconsistent level of indentation in the outline. For example we may have a work package for the product, with a sub-package for "development" but then a "manufacture" sub-package that itself has the sub-packages of "sign off" etc. Such a WBS is incomplete.

An incomplete WBS is trouble enough! (Refer to the PMBOK.) But it's a double-whammy when the near milestones are incomplete and the far ones are detailed. Usually it is accompanied by false optimism, "Hey! We know exactly where we're headed!" Great, "But how will you get started?" Such projects tend to have creeping delays at the very beginning, which is terrible for morale. It's as if we have very clear directions on how to get from the interstate into the city and to our hotel, but no idea how to get to the interstate.

Fuzzy near + detailed far = trouble

What to do? Presume that everyone involved is sincere. Usually the lack of granularity is, as noted above, because a PM is eager or, more likely, crunched for time. Maybe the given functional group is unavailable and the schedule can't be extended (a separate problem). One cure is process assets: template schedules, a library of WBS from prior projects, and so on. If we're doing a project that is similar to a prior one, maybe we can pick up an old WBS. I wouldn't suggest doing this blindly though, be helpful and proactive-- rather than saying to a functional group, "Give me a WBS," send them one from a prior project and ask, "Is this sufficient? Mark it up and I'll take care of the rest."