Notes dump:

Basic philosophical changes we are proposing:

• collecting data about whether something worked is itself work. If we do something in Q1, we may not know if it worked until Q3 or even never.
• Sync everything. Keep our high-level and low-level goals in sync (but not so much, or in a way, that we do more paperwork than other work)
• output vs outcome. when evaluating the results of work, checking that the team completed the output they intended to complete is a different thing than checking that the output caused the desired outcome.
• noise of change is really signal; traditional gantt charts, and even quarterly goal setting, can induce the tendency to see changes from the plan as problems to be minimized. However, the reasons for these changes are generally the reasons why the plan is bad or incomplete or impossible, so we should be treating these changes as signal to incorporate into the plan. And we should have a process that encourages rather than discourages this. (which is what?)
• evidence-based narrative. The stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing and how it is working should be grounded in evidence where possible, and bounded by caveats (and plans for tests) where not.
• continuity of planning; stop re-inventing, maintain institutional memory over years
  • quarterly goals, weekly or bi-weekly sprint planning or Kanban checkin, should start with last period's goals and show deltas

Basic mechanism in SPDPP:

1. make goals.
2. do work breakdown
3. do work and track work
4. evaluate against plan

repeats at at least three different levels

1. outcomes to outputs
2. outputs (quarterly goals) to milestones
3. milestones to tasks

@JAufrecht please break this out and make this ticket an Epic.