3 ms·
I think around year 4 a manager made the mistake of believing the research and pushing hard on it. This in turn became a tracked goal with a multi-year timeline
by lumost 3y ago
I think around year 4 a manager made the mistake of believing the research and pushing hard on it. This in turn became a tracked goal with a multi-year timeline. The individual left before things could fall on them too heavily.
- mmmmpancakes 3y agohow do you work 4 years on a project before having a tracked goal. absurd. sounds like management's fault.
- dchftcs 3y agoThe goals before the 4 years were probably based on results claimed, not making a product. Research management is difficult and efficiently running a lab requires some degree of trust that researchers don't lie. I think the bigger part of management's fault here is that they should have spent some time on verifying the research before dedicating more resources.
- lumost 3y agoAlso setting up mechanisms to verify results and share results. Even a basic mechanism of “check in your code” would have served the purpose of identifying fake work. A code review mechanism can help stop irresponsible work.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago“Check in your code” can identify certain kinds of blatant fraud, but it only does so much. For example, you can p-hack by evaluating your result in many different ways and then commit the version that gives the best number. It takes a lot of discipline to prevent this at an organization level. You can even have an emergent group form of this, where people collectively p-hack by individually evaluating their work and randomly finding lottery tickets. I’ve seen this phenomenon extend from research all the way to shipped product changes.
- coldtea 3y agoIncidentally that's how the best research with the most impact had been made in the past. Letting brillians minds play around and supporting their tinkering.