Artful planning

European Journal of Information Systems (2006) 15, 113–115. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000622 This issue of the European Journal of Information Systems includes our special section on business agility as it relates to information systems. In preparing this editorial for the entire issue (the special section has its own introductory editorial by the guest editors), I discovered a common thread among all of the articles. Of course, it may be that the commonality reaches across a broader range of information systems research than just the nine articles in this issue, but the possible distinction of a useful general concept could be helpful for reading the entire issue. When defining management, ‘planning and control’ are frequently prominent in our definitions. Planning is an activity that could not be more central to information systems. It is an activity that extends the future into the present vision. It is a way of deciding what is intended, and what is to be achieved; it is what we have in mind when we go about our activities. Like any meaningful concept, the idea of agility carries along with itself the tension between ‘being agile’ and ‘not being agile’. What does it really mean not to be agile? Authorities seeking to describe agile software development methods often cast about for its opposite. These opposites are sometimes called ‘disciplined’ approaches or ‘plan-driven’ approaches (Boehm, 2002; Boehm & Turner, 2004). But is agility really the opposite of discipline and planning? Planning, it seems, is one of the more difficult activities carried out by professionals in information systems. When plans actually meet their future, how do we deal with the inevitable mismatch? Do we stick to the plan? Do we adapt the plan? Do we toss the plan and start planning anew? Planning is particularly important for information systems because these plans drive the acquisition and deployment of information technologies and services. If the plan does not match the future, then the expensive technologies and services acquired under the plan are likely to be ill-suited for new purposes. Adapting the plans may mean using the systems in ways not originally planned. Tossing the plans may mean discarding valuable and newly acquired systems. Is a decision to be agile more-or-less a plan to depend less on planning? That is, are we planning not-to-plan? If we plan not-to-plan, are we not still planning just the same? This child-like riddle inhabits not only much of what has been discovered about agility but also work in organizational (and systems) emergence. For information system professionals, planning not-to-plan often intends to open up more options for near-horizon adaptation of systems being implemented. It assumes future innovation will be constrained by extensive systems acquired with a long-range plan. To enable less fettered future innovations, we turn to short-term plans that may involve acquisition of systems that are more adaptable and generally applicable. Here, we discover that planning not-to-plan not only involves planning, but it may involve acquiring just the right kinds of information technology and services to best serve a less-well-planned future setting. Such technology may indeed be purpose built to fit unseen future events – that is, planning for serendipity by seeking universally useful technologies (Eagle, 2004). European Journal of Information Systems (2006) 15, 113–115 & 2006 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/06 $30.00