> [!tldr] How do you know that achieving the next step will actually lead to your outcome? I don't know how to solve this, first off. I've always had an underlying sense of [[Anxiety]] about how it's possible to break down every step in a process (or every increment of change in a change effort) to something so minuscule and tiny that it feels almost utterly and completely insignificant. I'm not even sure if these two ideas are the same thing or not. This note, unlike almost any other note I have in here, is me expressing how I *don't* understand something. True thinking on digital paper. j ## Progress Context Say your goal is to run a marathon. That's overwhelming, so productivity gurus and tons of books I've read suggest break it down. Find the next achievable task that moves you to towards your goal. Okay well, I guess I could "find a marathon training plan" to follow. Set aside the concept of [[Analysis Paralysis]] (which, by the way, should *not* be set aside as its very much real in this), and you run into a few problems. - "Find a marathon training plan" really means *google it* or *ask someone*. - But *googling it* doesn't "find the plan", it just pulls up relevant results. - You can't google it if you don't have your laptop. So the first step is getting the laptop. - But you can't get the laptop from this chair, so the first step is "getting up". ... but just "getting up" is nothing. It's [[necessary but not sufficient]] for eventually running a marathon. My point here is that **it always feels possible to find a "next action" that is so small it doesn't actually move you towards your result**. It's like covering half the distance to the goal you have every time you go about it. You asymptotically approach the goal, but never reach it. Note I know all of this is obviously not true and a bit of [[hyperbole]] - but some of it gives me real anxiety. How do I know the next action I'm taking is actually on a path that leads to where I'm wanting to go fast enough to get me there when I want to be there? How do I know that I'm going to do steps 1 through 88 and then step 89 will just say "okay now go run a marathon" and I'm *still* incapable? Finding the right size task feels like such a "you know it when you see it" situation. I can think of no real algorithm, rhyme, or reason to say "yeah that's right" for an arbitrary project. Obviously we use our best judgement, hopefully honed by relevant experience or by seeking wisdom of those who've succeeded before us... but that just feels so... imprecise. > Note: this is a failure of [[My Notes]] right now - I'm quite sure there's a few relevant notes about "how small is too small" and "decomposition of projects into smaller steps", but I'm not finding them at the moment. ## Change Control Context Say you're undertaking a project in business, and there's a change control mechanism in place that says "If you're changing your plan and the budget impact is $X dollars, this must pass through a review process". You make a change. It's less than $X. You make another change. It's also less than $X. You make a 3rd change. It's also less than $X. You make a ton of small changes that [[Accumulation of Marginal Gains|accumulate]] to a huge change, and at no point did you need to go through the system of checks and balances. **Where is the threshold** where the straw breaks the camel's back? **** # More ## Source - self