You can find great commentary from Glen Alleman, Steve Romero and Pawel Brodzinski in Shim’s comments section. These reports are skeptical of my opinion. Let’s not get too excited about that. Controls These are observational studies with all the limitations that go with that type of research. How can you control for variation among organizations, people within them, and subtleties of culture or methodology? Practically speaking, you can’t. Did the charisma or skill of those in charge make an implementation of EVM or configuration management, Kanban or Agile more or less successful? How can you control charisma across project teams, countries, countries, and industries? Practically speaking, you can’t. You can’t gain any real knowledge from a study if it’s not experimental. Some experiments are better than others, as with all experiments. For examples of experiments in human psychology that can be applied to improve our projects, see the studies I have cited.
- How expectations can mess up project estimates
- What does that have to do with the price of a cordless keyboard?
- Do your project teams suffer from chronic media multitasking?
Applicability What is the purpose of these reports? Apart from being a way to create fear in sales prospects for project management consulting, and software that will fix the problem’, what’s the value? These reports may be accurate, but does it really matter to you? Is it possible to compare the state of your program or organization’s behavior and results with the aggregate? You can’t. Check Controls. False Dichotomy A logic fallacy known as the false dichotomy. In this instance, you would be led as to believe that there are two states for projects: success or failure. These false dichotomies can be revealed using the Reductio Ad absurdum. Let me show you. A successful project has reached its budget if it is measured on the cost axis. It was $100,000 +/- 5%, with a total budget $110,000. This assumes G&A and reserve. That’s your maximum spe