[sevensor]

> however, that saying applies to war, politics, negotiations

It’s not even an argument against planning. You’d be a fool to go to war without a plan. The point of the saying is that you’d be a fool not to tear up your plan and start improvising as soon as it stops working.

[zmgsabst]

To borrow another quote:

Plans are nothing, but planning is everything.

The process of building a plan builds the institutional knowledge you need to iterate when inevitably the original plan doesn’t work.

[dbsmith83]

It is kind of an argument against overplanning though, because if your plan that you spent considerable time creating becomes irrelevant, you wasted a lot of time

[fragmede]

That assumes the plan itself is the only useful output from the time spent planning. Even if the plan itself isn't used, the time spent planning means you examined the problem thoroughly, and raised questions that needed answering. Taking the time to think about those questions in order to give a coherent answer is, in and of itself, worthwhile for answering the question later, even if that part's never actually written down.

[dbsmith83]

True, I agree 100%, and that's why I chose to say 'irrelevant' to imply that there was nothing useful about it inherently for those cases. Most of the time, at least in coding, there was probably something useful that came out of it, even if you had to scrap the plan. At the very least, some sort of learning more about the problem space. In the case of war, however, if you lost the war because you over-planned (such as planning one thing very very intricately instead of having several rough plans that leave room for some improv), I'd argue that there probably aren't any residual benefits to celebrate