How Can the F.I.R.E. Method Help You Innovate Faster With Less Money and a Smaller Team?

What Is Dan Ward’s F.I.R.E. Framework for Simplifying Complex Projects and Cutting Costs?

Discover Dan Ward’s F.I.R.E. methodology—Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained, Elegant—and learn how to ignite innovation by embracing constraints. This guide explains why small teams, tight budgets, and simple goals often outperform complex, high-cost projects, offering practical tips for faster, better results.

Master the art of doing more with less—start applying the 17 proven F.I.R.E. principles to your next project and watch innovation take flight.

Recommendation

Project management pro and military technology expert Dan Ward spices up his informative writing with wonderful asides and management war stories. He writes in accordance with his principles: Ward’s prose is straightforward, clear, and without ornamentation. He advocates a simpler-is-better approach to all projects and urges managers to use less money, fewer people, and shorter time frames in pursuit of less complex goals. He spices up his informative writing with spark-plug references, including Star Trek, steampunk, Superman, the Death Star, the “Tonto, Frankenstein and Tarzan School of Public Speaking,” and more. Ward provides readable, commonsense, no-nonsense, counterintuitive project management principles for executives, managers, business owners, and students – and you will laugh as you learn.

Take-Aways

• Project restraints on personnel, money, time, and goals foster creative thinking and imaginative solutions.
• For most projects, “faster, cheaper” is better than “slower, more expensive.”
• “F.I.R.E.” – meaning “fast, inexpensive, restrained, elegant” – is the right approach to project management.
• Big budgets, long schedules, huge teams, and project complexity impede success.
• Rely on small teams, tight budgets, short schedules, and simple goals.
• NASA succeeded for many years with a formal “faster, better, cheaper” approach.
• Limit the documents you create, the meetings you conduct, the budgets you allocate, the teams you direct, and the schedules you set.
• You can often find the best project solution by adapting someone else’s tested tactic.

Summary

Project restraints on personnel, money, time, and goals foster creative thinking and imaginative solutions.

In 1942, during World War II, Colonel Homer L. “Tex” Sanders, commander of the 51st Fighter Group of the US Army Air Corps, wrote his superior officer to request more P-51 Mustang fighter planes. Sanders explained that he and his fighter pilots loved the P-51 Mustang because it had “perfect handling qualities.” He stated that the P-51 outperformed all other US fighters in “speed, range, and maneuverability.” Sanders’s assessment was right. During World War II, P-51s flew 213,800 combat missions, and after World War II, US pilots flew them for 35 more years. During its long service, the P-51 proved that it was the “premier fighter of its age.”

“The big secret is that the best products aren’t the most expensive and complicated.”

Before they become operational, many aircraft require years of design and prototyping, plus the concentrated work and specialized expertise of thousands of engineers and other professionals. Modern aircraft often take decades to develop.

In contrast, a small team spent just a few months creating the P-51 prototype. Sanders admiringly described it as “an extremely simple” aircraft. “He liked the P-51 because its engines, guns, radios, instruments, and other parts are the same as those used on the P-40” – a companion fighter aircraft. Its simple design made it quick and easy to build (“10 per week”) and maintain. A 1944 Aviation magazine article described the P-51 as “a plane that does not to any extent embody previously unknown engineering features, but rather employed refinements of known accepted practices.”

For most projects, “faster, cheaper” is better than “slower, more expensive.”

This brief history of a fighter plane demonstrates that best-in-class performance can directly correlate with “speed, thrift, simplicity, and restraint.” The P-51 excelled because it “was developed quickly, inexpensively, and with simplicity in mind.”

“A superficial pursuit of speed, thrift, simplicity, and restraint results in products that are simplistic, cheap, hasty and too small.”

Consider the US Air Force’s F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, a complex plane the United States began developing in 1981, but that wasn’t operational until 2005. Engineers first designed the Raptor to confront the Soviet air force. By the time it was ready for service, the Soviet air force was no longer a factor, and the costly plane no longer had a mission. By 2013, the United States had run air operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, but the Raptor had not flown a single combat mission.

“F.I.R.E.” – meaning “fast, inexpensive, restrained, elegant” – is the right approach to project management.

The P-51 embodied the FIRE project management principle. The FIRE acronym means:

• “Fast” – The shorter the schedule and timeline are, the better your project outcome will be. Short for some projects means years, while for others it means days.
• “Inexpensive” – A small budget is more functional than a big budget. Financial capital is not the key factor; intellectual capital is what matters.
• “Restrained” – Create fewer documents, hold fewer meetings, allocate trimmer budgets, direct fewer teams, and set more limited schedules. Limit the documents you create, the meetings you conduct, the budgets you allocate, the teams you direct, and the schedules you set.
• “Elegant” – Shoot for project elements that are “pleasingly ingenious and simple.” Prioritize “true design maturity and true process simplicity.”

Big budgets, long schedules, huge teams, and project complexity impede success.

FIRE refines an earlier concept called FIST, meaning “fast, inexpensive, simple, tiny.” You don’t necessarily need gigantic budgets, vast teams, and decades of intensely focused work to develop great projects. You can succeed “with a skeleton crew, a shoestring budget, and a cannonball schedule.”

“FIRE codifies the…principles and tools used by some of the best technology developers in the world.”

You are far more likely to “deliver top-shelf stuff” when you are working under constraints than when you are getting all the money, time, and people you think you need. It seems counterintuitive, but project leaders who get “large budgets, large teams, and long schedules” are unlikely to meet all – or even most – of their project objectives. Managers with “the largest budgets were most likely to ask for more money and least likely to deliver an actual working product.”

Rely on small teams, tight budgets, short schedules, and simple goals.

“Faster, cheaper stuff” works better than “slower, more expensive stuff.” FIRE doesn’t focus on project management. It focuses on project outcomes – delivering a great product that works according to plan. Instead of targeting procedures, FIRE helps your team make the best design and production decisions.

“In an environment of rapid change, long-term projects are a losing proposition.”

FIRE is a relatively new management concept based on respected leadership traditions that are thousands of years old. Consider the story of Alexander the Great and the Gordian knot. Alexander figured out how to untangle this remarkably complicated “fibrous labyrinth” – instead of trying to penetrate the puzzle, he just slashed through it with his sword. Many times, the best approach is the simplest.

NASA succeeded for many years with a formal “faster, better, cheaper” approach.

For many years, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operated successfully under a “Faster, Better, Cheaper” (FBC) program, which is similar to the FIRE approach to project management.

“Speed without thrift and complexity is going to lead to a spectacular crash.”

NASA based its FBC program on the following five operating principles:

1. “Do it wrong” – Create numerous “quick-and-dirty prototypes.” Many will fail, but you can learn from your mistakes.
2. “Reject good ideas” – Stay focused on the primary goal of your project.
3. “Simplify and accelerate” – Design your work to be clear and quick.
4. “Limit innovation” – For easier, faster testing and operating, avoid excess innovating.
5. “Failure is an option” – If everything works all the time, you’re not pushing the limits.

The US military uses a project management principle called “commercial off-the-shelf” (COTS). It emphasizes “repurposing existing components and systems into new applications.” COTS can reduce costs, time demands, and complexity.

Limit the documents you create, the meetings you conduct, the budgets you allocate, the teams you direct, and the schedules you set.

FIRE assumes that the people carrying out the project, not a series of rules, are the ultimate source of project wisdom. It honors oral tradition and commonsense rules of thumb.

“By all means, be fast. But don’t be hasty.”

The following FIRE principles are not a definitive set of axioms but a guide to a way of thinking that relies on “tradecraft and ingenuity” rather than rigid protocols and processes.

• “You can’t design anything without revealing your values” – People who revere complexity make their projects complex. People who equate big budgets with power and prestige prefer to work with more money than less. Instead, emphasize the values of “speed, thrift, simplicity, and self-control” to work better and produce the best results.
• “You can’t change just one thing” – Changing one element affects all others. With FIRE, you can’t tighten the schedule, leave everything else as is, and hope that things will work out. If you must move up your completion date, you must also cut your budget and make things less complicated. FIRE offers a “spectrum of decision making;” it’s not merely a change tool.
• “Constraints foster creativity” – A lack of people, time, and money forces managers to become imaginative and come up with less obvious – and often much better – solutions. A minimalist mindset makes you focus on the essence of things. A lack of constraint often results in “overengineered solutions, bloated software, and incoherent PowerPoint decks.”
• “Focus fosters speed” – Create a three-item project list featuring the highest-priority steps. Focus on these to avoid distractions.
• “Speed validates the need” – Legitimate projects satisfy clear needs. Need is easier to establish in the short term than the long term. Fast beats slow. Speed itself is not your goal; it’s a path to a better project.
• “To finish early, start early” – Always be proactive. For example, have a “collection of sketches, notes, ideas, and prototypes in the works.”
• “Delays cause delays” – Project delays lead to external changes, including being overtaken by technological advances that force project adjustments. Any changes you make trigger additional changes, which create more delays. The result is a “death spiral.” Do everything you can to prevent project delays.
• “A project leader’s influence is inversely proportional to the budget” – Bigger projects have high profiles. More people want to be involved in big projects, so they’ll offer their opinions and assistance. In contrast, smaller projects don’t attract as much (unwanted) attention. This means more autonomy for project leaders and their teams.
• “Complexity is not a sign of sophistication” – Often, it signifies redundancy, excess, and duplication. Instead, streamline; reduction is as valuable as addition.
• A great partial job trumps a bad complete job – As you plan, focus first on high priorities. Save the less essential things for later or ignore them. Build your project approach on an “iterative series of incremental steps” that deliver the most important capabilities upfront. This rule is from Rework, by Jason Fried and David Hansson, who emphasize “quick wins.”
• “The best way to unleash talent is to not have too much of it” – The “bystander effect” manifests when increasing the number of people working on a project diffuses individual responsibility, thus leading to fewer positive steps. On a large team, it is easier for each person to contribute less, something sociologists term “social loafing.” Reduced contributions equals lower quality projects. Making your team larger can be counterproductive.
• “Minimize the distance between decision and action” – The people on the front lines are in the best position to make informed project decisions and react intelligently. The idea of subsidiarity, which derives “from Catholic social teaching,” says “the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively” should handle a job. In project management, this is the project team, not the higher-ups who lack requisite project knowledge.
• Quickly delivering “new capabilities is…a strategic capability” – In the words of former US Navy secretary Richard Danzig, “build for the short term.”
• “The future will be surprising; prepare accordingly” – Consider long-term outcomes. You want your projects to last, so build a “responsive capacity for change” into your operations and activities.
• “No more than one miracle per project” – The more your project involves “immature technologies,” the more trouble you may incur. Don’t set yourself up for problems. Rely on “existing materials, components, pieces, functions, and ideas.” Credit former US representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) with the concept of “only one miracle at a time.”
• “The FIRE prime directive” – Always keep two primary FIRE concepts in mind: Never include advanced technologies that you don’t need. Don’t overengineer; simpler is always better.

You can often find the best project solution by adapting someone else’s tested tactic.

FIRE runs counter to three common wisdom-based, traditional project management guidelines which, on closer inspection, turn out to be foolish. Avoid three fallacies:

1. “Faster, better, cheaper – pick two” – In its “faster, better, cheaper” program, NASA proved you can have all three: sound projects, low costs, and constrained schedules.
2. “You get what you pay for” – Lots of money can deliver a quality product, but so can a small budget. Pull the plug on any project that exceeds its budget by 15%.
3. “Take your time to do it right” – Cutting corners compromises quality, but that doesn’t mean that going quickly equates to poor work. Sometimes speed represents efficiency, but sloth can harm project quality and undermine success as much as working too fast.

The world is a big place with billions of people and a rich history. Don’t try to reinvent the wheel.

“A low-cost solution that doesn’t work is actually a pretty expensive solution.”

If you are observant and resourceful and do your research, you are likely to discover a solution that already worked for someone else and will work perfectly for you.

Project delays inevitably cause even more delays.

Complexity indicates an “immature design.” The best projects are the least complicated and cost less. Yet, simple doesn’t mean easy; FIRE doesn’t come with a guarantee.

“In a maddeningly consistent dynamic, projects that are already late tend to experience additional delays. Projects that are already over budget tend to ask for more money.”

FIRE projects sometimes go awry, as do bloated projects with huge teams, budgets, and schedules. Since a delay in one facet of your project will usually cause other delays, try to design projects based on the principles of “speed, thrift, simplicity, and restraint.”

Use these guidelines to make wise choices and solve problems. Don’t rely solely on brainstorming, that is, developing as many ideas as possible, good or bad. Instead, embrace “storm draining,” separating great ideas from the ones you don’t need.

About the Author

A low-cost innovation specialist, engineer Dan Ward is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. He plans and develops military equipment.