5 ms·
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 assu
by 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 agoThis 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.