I absolutely agree that project planning is one of the most critical stages of the project lifecycle. A well-structured strategy gives clarity, establishes expectations, and makes the subsequent phases much more manageable. I also get your idea about striking the proper balance between too little and too much detail. A strategy that is excessively imprecise may leave team members unsure about priorities or deadlines, perhaps leading to delays or misunderstanding. An too thorough plan, on the other hand, may feel restricting, micromanaged, or even confusing if it specifies exactly how each activity should be completed. Instead than prescribing each step, I believe the focus should be on results, timetables, and significant milestones. Allowing employees to choose the best way to execute their jobs may foster creativity and efficiency while yet keeping the project on pace. Clear communication is essential, particularly identifying job dependencies and priorities, so that everyone understands how their contributions fit into the broader project. I'd want to know how others have struck this balance in corporate or research contexts, as well as if autonomy in job execution typically leads to higher performance or greater obstacles.

Detail in project planning is very important. There should be a schedule with tasks that need to be completed. In my opinion, I think the people working on the different tasks should break those tasks down into smaller tasks. If a project is too detailed, it may lead to the managers to micromanage the people working on the tasks, therefore causing the project to have issues very early on. Does too much detail in a project lead to micromanagement?

I believe that too much detail is when the project is overflowing with information that is unnecessary. For example, a project has a central goal or the solidified scope that was established during the planning phase with the team meetings and kickoff meetings with stakeholders. That goal should, in theory, be able to be explained in five central points; who, what, when, where, and why. When you start overexplaining or focusing too much on other stuff besides those five central points, I would consider that to be too much detail. The project plan becomes too excessive when you start overfocusing or overexplaining too many details, becoming the scope creep. It can lead to too much work or unnecessary work done. This can cause task slack as the lesson mentioned. If one task gets delayed due to this situation, then the entire project gets delayed. The lesson had also talked about watching out for scope creeps during the executing phase since that is when you are starting the project from start to finish with all of the careful planning and consideration you had taken before this phase. It is alright to begin the project with all sorts of details during the initiating and planning phase, but once you start getting closer to the executing phase, you should start cutting out certain details that are unnecessary and not needed for the project itself based on the set scope and objective. All of these details are sometimes due to excitement over the project, like "let's do this and let's add this", but sometimes, it is not needed. This is a part of the resources pitfall where there are commitments being made before the known tasks. These details can make the project more complicated than it should be where you are taking on more than you should be. 
To me, as long as employees do not cause more work or trouble to other coworkers, team members, or to the project itself, and are more efficient than the established methods, then it is fine to let them use their own methods. Even if that is the case, they should communicate with the entire project team firsthand before going off on their own. They cannot simply go off on their own with the team’s knowledge on what they plan to do. Without the team knowing what that member is doing, the project can get delayed if it is not done correctly or efficiently, thus once again, one task delaying the project. If the project manager or team members notice that the way that person does things is more efficient, then it is alright for them to be free to use their own methods. If it shortens the work time and does not cause more work, problems, or trouble, then the project manager can modify the established protocols to incorporate their methods which would be more efficient since the tasks are getting done correctly and on time.

This a great question. I firmly believe that the planning process should take a good chunk of time to account for minimizing any misunderstandings or mistakes and so that each member can be assigned their specific roles and responsibilities for the project. However, there is a case to be made where too much detail isn't necessarily a good thing. Sure, you want to be as detailed as possible to avoid any complications, but I don't necessarily think that too much detail is beneficial. If anything, I think too much detail can overcomplicate things. You need to be detailed enough where each member knows what they are meant to do, but you also don't want to overcomplicate things by adding more details that can seem detrimental or even unnecessary. However, the other side of it comes with how well the team communicates. Poor communication and too much detail sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. On the other hand, great communication and a lot of detail can actually help the project development. if you think about it, good communication and a lot of detail means that everyone is up to date with project details and are made sure that they know what they are doing. So honestly, I think it depends on the situation. But if I had to give an actual answer, I'd say too much detail is detrimental for underprepared team. 

I do not think you can be over detailed in any way because this just ensures that you are covering your bases, but I think it also means sometimes that it can be hard to adjust because if you do not get the plan to work exactly as you envisioned it can be hard to pivot. However, I think there should be enough detail to ensure that everyone is clearly able to tell what their roles are and how they are expected to complete their part of the project. It should have the basic dates and set up, but I think you need a bit more information in terms how you want the project to be completed and what you think is exact way it should happen. Too much detail can also become frustrating for the people that are assigned the task because if you set up the guidelines saying I need you to complete this task and make sure that it is done in this exact way, that can mess up their flow. Especially for certain engineering positions because there might be a better or easier way for them to do their job, but if you make it extremely restrictive it can become frustrating for them. There should always be room for adjusting and making sure the work is swiftly but also is within the requirements. A through plan makes it easier for people to follow and makes the expectations known from beforehand, so they are well aware of the time management they will need to do when working on this project, so I think finding that fine line is important. 

When is come to determining when too much detail in a projects plan, it come down to how much of the risk needs or wants to get mitigated and how much extra steps does the project actually need. If there is too much detail on how everything need to be done, this can not only slow down the time of production and make it so that the task have to broken down so much that they may be overwhelming and there is more to complete. The pro to this method is that it mitigates the most risk and can make it so the project is it more precise. But at the same time too little detail can lead to the project to be to broad and left up to too much interepetation and lead to missing deadlines and mis designing or building the product. But have the right amount of detail can allow for the project to move more smoothly, stay on deadlines, and move allow efficiently with the mitigation of the risks. 

I think project plans need the right amount of detail — not too little, but not too much. If a plan is too vague, people won’t know who is doing what or when it’s due. But if it’s too detailed, you spend more time updating the plan than actually doing the work. For me, the best balance is planning the big steps clearly, like deadlines and who is responsible, but leaving some room for flexibility in how the team gets the work done. For example, in medical device projects, I think regulatory steps need to be very detailed, since missing them can cause big delays. But creative tasks, like design ideas, don’t need every step written out. So I’d say it’s like using a map: you need enough detail to get where you’re going, but you don’t need every small thing marked down.

A project plan, in my opinion, gets overly complex when it begins to micromanage each little step instead of concentrating on the larger goals. Clearly defining what must be done, when it must be done, and how various tasks depend on one another is the goal of planning. A strategy can overwhelm the team, impede development, and even restrict innovation if it specifies every detail of how each task must be completed. However, if the plan is very ambiguous, it might lead to misunderstandings and missed deadlines. Setting explicit goals, deadlines, and roles while allowing individuals to choose the most effective ways to do their task strikes a balance, in my opinion. Setting explicit goals, deadlines, and roles while allowing individuals to choose the most effective ways to do their task strikes a balance, in my opinion. Flexibility ought to be promoted as long as the results fulfill the specifications and due dates. In addition to keeping the project on schedule, this gives team members the confidence to use their knowledge and problem-solving abilities, which frequently produces superior outcomes.