4 ms·

If you use the rather stodgy and formulaic scientific method, sure. You mean the scientific method that has proven to work since the 1700's? I think we'll hav

If you use the rather stodgy and formulaic scientific method, sure. You mean the scientific method that has proven to work since the 1700's? I think we'll have to agree to disagree that you can just riff it and still get results.

jerf 10y ago
Bummer, I wish I'd have caught this earlier. Look up "multi-armed bandit"; it isn't just "riffing it" like you think it is. It is a mathematically-principled technique. In fact, it is probably safe to say it's more mathematically-principled than the "scientific method" itself, as it is popularly understood.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
So what would the scientific method have you do here? Take, say, 100 projects. On half of them, do standups. On the other half, don't. Measure the outcomes. Do statistics. The problem is, you'd have to find 100 projects where they care more about the scientific rigor of the experiment than they do about the results of the project. Good luck finding that with real-world projects. jerf's approach gives you data that is less certain than you would get from a real scientific experiment. But it gives you data that is better than nothing, gathered in the real world. And you can actually run the experiment (at least in some environments) without getting fired, which is more than is likely true with a pure "scientific method" approach.
- sillysaurus3 10y ago
  jerf's approach gives you data that is less certain than you would get from a real scientific experiment. But it gives you data that is better than nothing, gathered in the real world. The "better than nothing" is precisely where this logic goes awry. It's usually better to admit what you're actually doing: Going with your gut instincts. Pretending you're doing science adds fake legitimacy to your words and makes it easy to fool people. Unfortunately, the person you have to be concerned about fooling is yourself.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > It's usually better to admit what you're actually doing: Going with your gut instincts. Not at all. If you're doing standups, try not doing them for the next month. If you're paying attention, you'll know if things got worse or better. Yes, that's anecdote rather than data. Yes, it's not statistically significant. Yes, it may be different outside your specific circumstances. But no, it's not just gut instincts - not if you're any good as a manager.
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      A gut instinct is an instinctive feeling, as opposed to an opinion based on facts. If you're paying attention, you'll know if things got worse or better. Define "worse." In fact, define "better." These are not qualities that can be measured until the company is either doing better or doing worse. And then you still have to figure out if the company is doing worse solely because of no standup meetings. Hence my original argument. I'm not saying it's worthless to do that. I'm saying at least admit that it's not evidence-based science.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        You can tell (even measure) how much of the time people are waiting for stuff from other people. That's the main thing standups are supposed to fix. Now, you can still have confounding factors, because the project didn't stand still. You could have everybody waiting on a big deliverable from another team, for instance, in which case everybody's blocked, but the lack of standups has nothing to do with it. So you have to think about the results some, rather than just blindly accepting them. Still, it's better than just gut instinct, because it actually is an opinion based on facts.

jerf 10y ago

Bummer, I wish I'd have caught this earlier. Look up "multi-armed bandit"; it isn't just "riffing it" like you think it is. It is a mathematically-principled technique. In fact, it is probably safe to say it's more mathematically-principled than the "scientific method" itself, as it is popularly understood.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

So what would the scientific method have you do here? Take, say, 100 projects. On half of them, do standups. On the other half, don't. Measure the outcomes. Do statistics. The problem is, you'd have to find 100 projects where they care more about the scientific rigor of the experiment than they do about the results of the project. Good luck finding that with real-world projects. jerf's approach gives you data that is less certain than you would get from a real scientific experiment. But it gives you data that is better than nothing, gathered in the real world. And you can actually run the experiment (at least in some environments) without getting fired, which is more than is likely true with a pure "scientific method" approach.

sillysaurus3 10y ago
jerf's approach gives you data that is less certain than you would get from a real scientific experiment. But it gives you data that is better than nothing, gathered in the real world. The "better than nothing" is precisely where this logic goes awry. It's usually better to admit what you're actually doing: Going with your gut instincts. Pretending you're doing science adds fake legitimacy to your words and makes it easy to fool people. Unfortunately, the person you have to be concerned about fooling is yourself.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > It's usually better to admit what you're actually doing: Going with your gut instincts. Not at all. If you're doing standups, try not doing them for the next month. If you're paying attention, you'll know if things got worse or better. Yes, that's anecdote rather than data. Yes, it's not statistically significant. Yes, it may be different outside your specific circumstances. But no, it's not just gut instincts - not if you're any good as a manager.
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    A gut instinct is an instinctive feeling, as opposed to an opinion based on facts. If you're paying attention, you'll know if things got worse or better. Define "worse." In fact, define "better." These are not qualities that can be measured until the company is either doing better or doing worse. And then you still have to figure out if the company is doing worse solely because of no standup meetings. Hence my original argument. I'm not saying it's worthless to do that. I'm saying at least admit that it's not evidence-based science.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      You can tell (even measure) how much of the time people are waiting for stuff from other people. That's the main thing standups are supposed to fix. Now, you can still have confounding factors, because the project didn't stand still. You could have everybody waiting on a big deliverable from another team, for instance, in which case everybody's blocked, but the lack of standups has nothing to do with it. So you have to think about the results some, rather than just blindly accepting them. Still, it's better than just gut instinct, because it actually is an opinion based on facts.