4 ms·

> The report estimated the application software for the new system is still only 63 per cent complete, with an “uncertain” timeline to completion Does anyone a

by sethd 4y ago

> The report estimated the application software for the new system is still only 63 per cent complete, with an “uncertain” timeline to completion Does anyone actually believe the level of precision coming from this report? I bet good money that remaining “37%” would take way longer to complete than that supposed “63%” did. Oh, Accenture created the report, so it must be accurate, never mind. /s

sweezyjeezy 4y ago
That's typical in these kinds of reports. I wouldn't necessarily read that as Accenture believing they have 2 s.f. precision. If you put something like 60±20% in a report like this, to the audience it might look like you've done a bad job and have no idea what the real number is.
- delusional 4y ago
  It may be even more banal than that. If you start putting simple boxed uncertainties on numbers the reader might start adding their own uncertainties to your uncertainties when they communicate it further. I've found that when communicating with "leadership" it's best to not present anything difficult that requires them to make judgement, because they'll use that as an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway (60±20% that's basically 80% and there's always some uncertainties with these things, so that's basically 90% so it's basically done, just ship it). Providing uncertainty is just asking someone else up the chain to pick the number. It's better to just pick it yourself to shape the conclusion you're going to make. The people making these decisions aren't scientists. They don't have any allegiance to your methodology or analysis. They just care about the conclusion.
mrjin 4y ago
I think the number might be plausible, but you know, even if you get 80% done, it's probably only 20% of the effort. The remaining 20% will require 80% of the effort, which is 4 times of the committed.

by sethd 4y ago

sweezyjeezy 4y ago

That's typical in these kinds of reports. I wouldn't necessarily read that as Accenture believing they have 2 s.f. precision. If you put something like 60±20% in a report like this, to the audience it might look like you've done a bad job and have no idea what the real number is.

delusional 4y ago
It may be even more banal than that. If you start putting simple boxed uncertainties on numbers the reader might start adding their own uncertainties to your uncertainties when they communicate it further. I've found that when communicating with "leadership" it's best to not present anything difficult that requires them to make judgement, because they'll use that as an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway (60±20% that's basically 80% and there's always some uncertainties with these things, so that's basically 90% so it's basically done, just ship it). Providing uncertainty is just asking someone else up the chain to pick the number. It's better to just pick it yourself to shape the conclusion you're going to make. The people making these decisions aren't scientists. They don't have any allegiance to your methodology or analysis. They just care about the conclusion.

mrjin 4y ago

I think the number might be plausible, but you know, even if you get 80% done, it's probably only 20% of the effort. The remaining 20% will require 80% of the effort, which is 4 times of the committed.