Modern external beam radiotherapy features highly conformal, inversed‐planned treatment techniques such as IMRT and VMAT. However, even with these techniques, and factoring out variations in contouring, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 the quality of treatment plans can vary greatly. Nelms et al. (5) reported a study where different institutions were asked to produce a plan based on the same downloadable CT dataset with presegmented targets and normal structures. Also provided was a clear set of planning goals given as a list of metrics and per‐metric scoring methodology, producing a cumulative score called the Plan Quality Metric (PQM). This approach eliminated two major sources of uncertainty for a plan quality study: (i) variability in anatomy and contouring, and (ii) variability and subjectivity in the measure of plan quality. In this well‐controlled study, the results showed substantial variation in plan quality. Moreover, the variation was not readily attributable to any common technical factors such as delivery technique or treatment planning system (TPS) used. The authors concluded the variation was generally due to differences in “planning skills”. Echoing these findings, the current state of treatment planning was summarized by Moore et al. (6) as “a very time‐consuming task with great output variability”.