11 responses

  1. Ricardo I. Guido Lavalle
    January 7, 2014

    a)That’s what I commented today to some post complaining for Olympic’s projects cost runoffs. That possibly the right estimate should have been closer to actual (run-offed) budget.
    Complex endeavors are a cornucopia of opportunities for crashing, but people will think: “what’s a 747 but a 100x version of a Piper Cub?”, Just because both have wings, cabin, wheels and comparable control systems.
    Those simplifications, Daniel Kahneman et al proved, are a trick of our so useful intuitive thinking system. It works for most of the problem, most of the time (remember PMBOK?) and avoids us taking care of checking every tile before stepping on them, for we *assume* the floor 1 seg before is more or less the same right now.
    b)And our most common tendency, when we don’t fully (that means almost never) grasp the real problem, is to map it in a more workable one.
    We’ll argue on scope limitation and scope creeping avoidance.
    We will actually be working on a *map* of the real problem, and our solution will be a solution for the map (and consequently the gap will refer to the map, no to the real problem)

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop