[erikpukinskis]

The author is suggesting replacing a bad plan (everyone discuss each intersection) with another bad plan (just drive however you like).

(And as an aside, stopping at each intersection to discuss is not ideal, but at least no one is going to die.)

Anyway, I’m unconvinced. Most of the planning failures I’ve seen came about because people were bad at planning, not because they were talking too much. I’ve seen the opposite (not enough talking, not enough looking ahead) far more often.

I do like the slogan though. Planning is for doing.

[YokoZar]

>The author is suggesting replacing a bad plan (everyone discuss each intersection) with another bad plan (just drive however you like).

The author is suggesting replacing it with the normal rules of the road, which are as close to not planning as possible (following basic heuristics like go on green). The example in the parable didn't have "unjust" stop signs or traffic lights for a reason.

[layer8]

Actually, I would say that coming up with the rules constitutes planning, whereas negotiating who drives first each time constitutes a comparative lack of planning (and of rules). To me the parable rather demonstrates a case where planning (to decide actual rules) would be worth the extra time, because it saves time each time the rules are applied. The parable thus didn’t work for me, although I largely agree with the conclusion.