> In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or

> In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence. But it's a matter of psychology of the organization members, not a technical issue. On the other hand, priority inversion is purely technical thing. And then, the reactor could easily be built without bike shed finished. The two tasks are independent. Inversion of priorities happens precisely because the high priority task cannot be finished without the low priority task. Thus, both the field the term operates on and the term's mechanics are completely different. > With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight. And that's about the only aspect of the two terms that is similar. Both talk about two objects with vastly different (nominal) importance.