3 ms·

We don't need more training in school. That's where this type of procedural, bureaucratic thinking comes from in the first place.

stevesimmons 6y ago
My point, expressed more fully, is: "teach people to design projects with measurable outcomes versus the status quo; calculate an NPV to make your implicit assumptions and biases explicit; look for ways to restructure your project plan into intermediate goals where you can reassess your strategy (aka "real options"). And your projects will, on average, cost less and be more successful." My meta-point is: these are useful skills that can and should be taught more widely. Your argument is essentially "No", is it not? I'm not sure how that helps improve the situation.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  This is basically the primary curriculum of current management training. The more people "train" in it, the more we get to a stupid "ruled by metrics" world. IRL, you can't actually be scientific outside of certain cases. Bad/fake science can be worse than no science. Fake objectivity is usually worse than subjectivity. The whole things gets bogged down into "searching under the streetlamp" problems. If you can find a problem that fits the solution you (+ most bogus management consultants of the last 10 years) are advocating, it'll work. Mostly, it gets bolted on to whatever people are doing as an additional layer of bullshit. Nonsense analytics + politics.
dragontamer 6y ago
Procedural bureaucratic thinking happens to be a very effective way at finding concensus. Make sure everyone speaks their turn, make sure everyone has a voice. That takes bean counting and nitty gritty arguments. No way around that. Robert's rules suggests that everyone at a meeting gets two chances to speak on any subject, no more. A big issue with today's discussion is that a few powerful and full of themself individuals take up all the oxygen in the room, removing other people's voices from consideration. Say your point, then one followup later as other points come up. Then your turn is over and other people talk.

stevesimmons 6y ago

My point, expressed more fully, is: "teach people to design projects with measurable outcomes versus the status quo; calculate an NPV to make your implicit assumptions and biases explicit; look for ways to restructure your project plan into intermediate goals where you can reassess your strategy (aka "real options"). And your projects will, on average, cost less and be more successful." My meta-point is: these are useful skills that can and should be taught more widely. Your argument is essentially "No", is it not? I'm not sure how that helps improve the situation.

dalbasal 6y ago
This is basically the primary curriculum of current management training. The more people "train" in it, the more we get to a stupid "ruled by metrics" world. IRL, you can't actually be scientific outside of certain cases. Bad/fake science can be worse than no science. Fake objectivity is usually worse than subjectivity. The whole things gets bogged down into "searching under the streetlamp" problems. If you can find a problem that fits the solution you (+ most bogus management consultants of the last 10 years) are advocating, it'll work. Mostly, it gets bolted on to whatever people are doing as an additional layer of bullshit. Nonsense analytics + politics.

dragontamer 6y ago

Procedural bureaucratic thinking happens to be a very effective way at finding concensus. Make sure everyone speaks their turn, make sure everyone has a voice. That takes bean counting and nitty gritty arguments. No way around that. Robert's rules suggests that everyone at a meeting gets two chances to speak on any subject, no more. A big issue with today's discussion is that a few powerful and full of themself individuals take up all the oxygen in the room, removing other people's voices from consideration. Say your point, then one followup later as other points come up. Then your turn is over and other people talk.