Annual Planning Worksheet
Project context, decisions, evidence and where I can contribute
Use one copy per project. Begin with the project context, then write the choices due over the next year. Fill in evidence and proposed work against those choices. Transfer the three priorities for the next team discussion to the overview slide.
1. Project Context
| Field | Fill in |
|---|---|
| Project and planning period | [Project; start and end dates] |
| Page owner and last review | [Name; date; next review] |
| Purpose | [Who benefits, what improves, and why this project is a useful route] |
| Success by the end of the period | [An observable outcome, with the basis for judging it] |
| Current position | [Stage, strongest result so far, and what remains unresolved] |
| Longer-term destination | [What this year’s work enables beyond the next twelve months] |
| Constraints | [Resources, access, timing or commitments that limit the choices] |
| Assumptions to challenge | [What must be true for the current plan to succeed?] |
| Alternatives | [Another route to the same outcome, including stopping or deferring] |
An overview should explain how the project is expected to succeed. Write that argument in a few sentences: the need, the proposed intervention, the observable result and the condition under which the project should continue. Mark the least-supported link. This is often a useful place for critical thinking before the team asks for an analysis.
2. Decisions Over the Next Year
| ID and choice | Options and current position | Owner and forum | Decide by | Dependencies and cost of changing later |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1: [Which action?] | [A / B / defer; currently A because…] | [One name; meeting] | [Date] | [Depends on…; commits us to…] |
| D2: [Which action?] | [Options; current position] | [Name; forum] | [Date] | [Related decisions; reversibility] |
| D3: [Which action?] | [Options; current position] | [Name; forum] | [Date] | [Related decisions; reversibility] |
Expand the register as needed. Include decisions about the project’s direction, population, study design, resource allocation, operational feasibility and when to stop. A milestone such as a data readout becomes useful here when it is paired with the action it could change.
For each priority row, copy this short decision brief:
Decision ID and question:
Why this choice affects the project:
Options, including the default if we take no action:
Current position and rationale:
Success criteria and tradeoffs:
Result or threshold that would change our choice:
Assumptions that could reverse the comparison:
Evidence confidence and reason:
Team agreement, unresolved objection and whose input is missing:
Decision owner, forum and deadline:
Latest date evidence must be usable:Agree on the switching criterion before commissioning work. It can be a quantitative threshold or a qualitative finding. If an exact threshold is premature, describe the alternative outcomes and the action each would support.
3. Existing Data and Additional Evidence
Existing Evidence
| Decision | Dataset or other source | What it already tells us | Limitation for this choice | Access and next analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [D1] | [Study, dataset, external result or expert judgment; link and version] | [Observation and uncertainty] | [Missing comparison, population mismatch, measurement limit or bias] | [Owner; access date; analysis needed] |
Record whether each source is available now, collected but not accessible, still maturing, or only planned. Distinguish a result actually observed from a model-based inference and an assumption carried forward from another setting. An existing dataset can inform the decision through a new analysis without requiring another study.
Proposed Work
| Decision and unresolved question | Work and output | Why the result could change the choice | Delivery and review date | Cost, burden and dependency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [D1; uncertainty] | [Reanalyze existing data / model / collect new data; usable output] | [If result X, choose A; if Y, choose B] | [Evidence owner; usable by date] | [Effort, access, participant burden or prerequisite] |
For new data, specify who or what to measure, the comparator, endpoint, timing and required precision. For a model, specify the inputs, assumptions, prediction to be checked and decision comparison it will support. Include preparation and review time when working backward from the decision deadline.
If the work finishes too late, make the timing conflict explicit. The team can change the decision date, accelerate or simplify the evidence plan, or proceed with a stated uncertainty and a way to revisit the choice. Recording the study as “in progress” leaves this conflict unresolved.
4. Where I Can Contribute
| Situation | Useful contribution | Output the team can use |
|---|---|---|
| The project has activities but no explicit choice | Clarify the objective, options and decision owner | A decision brief the owner agrees describes the choice |
| The team agrees on the plan but relies on an untested explanation | Identify alternative explanations and evidence against the preferred one | Assumptions ranked by their effect on the choice |
| Data exist in separate reports | Reconcile definitions, populations and timing | An evidence summary with the unresolved comparisons visible |
| Options trade benefit, risk, time or resources differently | Quantify scenarios and test sensitivity to uncertain inputs | A comparison showing when the preferred action changes |
| Another study is proposed | Assess which uncertainty the study can resolve and whether it arrives in time | A design comparison tied to a decision and its deadline |
| The team disagrees | Separate disagreement about evidence from disagreement about objectives or constraints | The specific issue for the decision owner to resolve |
Modeling is useful when the decision depends on a quantitative relationship, an extrapolation, a combination of evidence or an uncertain future outcome. Begin with the simplest analysis that can distinguish the options. A sensitivity analysis varies uncertain inputs and checks whether the preferred action changes; it can reveal where new data would be useful before a more elaborate model is built.
A discussion may be sufficient when the obstacle is an unclear objective, an unavailable option, a conflict between stakeholders or missing authority to act. Analyses can also have a required documentation or monitoring purpose. Name that purpose explicitly when the immediate decision would stay the same.
My Proposed Commitment
Decision I can help with:
Specific question I will answer:
Output and how the decision owner will use it:
Collaborator and data/access needed:
First useful result by:
Time or resources I can commit:
Condition for stopping, simplifying or changing the work:5. Priorities Across Projects
Give priority to consequential choices where a plausible finding could change the action and useful work can finish before the commitment. High uncertainty alone does not establish priority: a highly uncertain quantity may have little effect on which option is best.
| Project and decision | Consequence and reversibility | Uncertainty that could change the choice | Feasible contribution before the deadline | Priority and next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Project; D1] | [Effect of choosing poorly; cost of revisiting] | [Specific unknown] | [Output; effort; date; collaborator] | [Do now / schedule / monitor / decline; reason] |
Use explicit judgments before constructing a numerical score. Separate required work from discretionary investigations. Look for a shared dataset, assay or model that can inform several decisions, and for competing commitments that depend on the same people. Also identify long-lead work that must begin this year to inform a later decision.
6. Worked Example
Illustrative planning example. Program X, its dates and all proposed findings below are invented. They show the form of a discussion, without recommending a real study or clinical strategy.
| Field | Example |
|---|---|
| Annual objective | Agree on the next study’s population before the November protocol commitment |
| Decision | Enroll broadly or restrict enrollment using biomarker M |
| Current position | Broad enrollment because the biomarker’s selection value is unresolved |
| Existing evidence | An exploratory association in previously treated participants; archived samples remain available |
| Limitation | The association may reflect prognosis or measurement differences rather than a difference in treatment benefit |
| Critical-thinking contribution | Define the evidence needed to justify restriction and challenge alternative explanations |
| Modeling contribution | Compare the consequences of broad versus restricted enrollment under plausible biomarker effects and misclassification |
| Additional data | Consider an assay and sample-analysis plan only if it can resolve an uncertainty that changes the choice |
| Timing conflict | A new prospective dataset would arrive after the November commitment |
| Immediate action | Confirm archived-sample access and assay readiness; agree on a usable-evidence date with the decision owner |
| If uncertainty remains | Record the assumptions supporting the choice and the later result that would reopen it |
The example distinguishes the observed association from the inference needed for patient selection. Simulation can describe the consequences of that uncertainty; it cannot by itself establish that the biomarker identifies a different treatment effect.
7. Review and Decision Record
At the annual review, agree on the objective and decision inventory. At regular project reviews, update the current positions and evidence dates. Revisit the plan when new data, a competing program, a resource change or a failed assumption changes the options. Keep a specific next review date on the page.
Once a decision is made, move it to the record below and free space on the overview for the next choice.
| Decision and date | Selected option and rationale | Evidence used and remaining uncertainty | Owner and conditions for reopening |
|---|---|---|---|
| [D1; date] | [Choice; tradeoff accepted] | [Versioned sources; uncertainty accepted] | [Name; trigger and review date] |
For the next conversation, bring the project context and one fully developed decision brief. Once the team agrees that the brief describes the real choice, complete the evidence plan and propose a contribution.