132 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
132 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: _How to Measure Anything in Project Management_
|
|
tags:
|
|
- authorship/other-for-now
|
|
- topic/organization
|
|
---
|
|
# _How to Measure Anything in Project Management_
|
|
|
|
## Review
|
|
|
|
I think it is fair to say
|
|
that _HtMAiPM_ is mostly unoriginal,
|
|
being in large part a rehash
|
|
of ideas presented in [[hubbard_2020_failure]]
|
|
and earlier in _How to Measure Anything_.[^1]
|
|
|
|
[^1]: I have not read _HtMA_,
|
|
Hubbard et al frequently state explicitly that a topic introduced in _HtMAiPM_
|
|
was covered previously.
|
|
|
|
This is not a criticism,
|
|
the benefit of _HtMAiPM_ is its accessibility.
|
|
Where _TFoRM_ and _HtMA_ use appropriately ambiguous terminology
|
|
and examples from varied fields that would benefit from their recommendations,
|
|
_HtMAiPM_ is explicitly for project managers,
|
|
and uses examples
|
|
|
|
Many of my criticisms of _TFoRM_
|
|
(most presented in [[the-failure-of-risk-management]])
|
|
still apply.
|
|
|
|
## Praise
|
|
|
|
### Accessibility and Recommendability
|
|
|
|
It is possible to get the same takeaways from _HtMAiPM_
|
|
as from the earlier _TFoRM_,
|
|
but to translate risk management terminology to project management
|
|
requires continuous mental effort
|
|
and an intuition developed without help from Hubbard.
|
|
As much as I appreciate when researchers present findings
|
|
with specialty-neutral language
|
|
so as to not imply their use should be limited to any one field,
|
|
I acknowledge that my patience in that regard is uncommon.
|
|
|
|
It is much easier to recommend _HtMAiPM_ to my peers.
|
|
I should think they would be more likely to take me up on it too,
|
|
but it is difficult to say due to the [zero product property](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-product_property).
|
|
|
|
## Criticism
|
|
|
|
### Conflict of Interest
|
|
|
|
If I have any hesitation about recommending Hubbard's books
|
|
its that sections frequently read like advertisements.
|
|
|
|
It is worse in _HtMAiPM_ than _TFoRM_
|
|
because ~~coauthor~~, one of the coauthors,
|
|
~~has some stake~~ in Oxford ~~something~~,
|
|
a paid (for profit?) repository of project data
|
|
intended for use in reference class forecasting,
|
|
a method frequently lauded by the text.
|
|
|
|
I appreciate that it's usually impossible
|
|
for these authors to give impartial recommendations
|
|
considering we're talking about innovators
|
|
(they can hardly recommend the services
|
|
of competitors that don't exist yet),
|
|
but they could have done more
|
|
to get ahead of the apparent bias.
|
|
|
|
### Estimator Calibration
|
|
|
|
As Hubbard explains in _TFoRM_ and _HtMAiPM_ reaffirms,
|
|
when Hubbard first began offering calibration training
|
|
there were no comparable services available.
|
|
In this history both books establish and credit Hubbard
|
|
as the pioneer of calibration in business risk management.
|
|
|
|
Seemingly in contradiction,
|
|
_HtMAiPM_ implies in examples of project losses
|
|
not just that organizations would have avoided loss
|
|
by implementing calibration training programs,
|
|
but that they were _negligent_ in their failure to do so.
|
|
|
|
Regardless of whether calibration training for risk management
|
|
is interpreted as [[daniel-kahneman]]'s invention or Hubbard's,
|
|
the technique is new enough that its use ought to be the rarity,
|
|
not its absence.
|
|
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
Also frustrating,
|
|
in a book all about the necessity of objective measurement,
|
|
the term "calibrated" is not explicitly defined.
|
|
Worse, interpretation from context gives
|
|
"100% accurate plus or minus a little".
|
|
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
In evidence of [[#Conflict of Interest]]
|
|
one _would_ expect that a man selling calibration training
|
|
would write in this way:
|
|
Creating FOMO for his services
|
|
and allowing him to interpret individual calibration as favors him.
|
|
|
|
## Scratch
|
|
|
|
### ???
|
|
|
|
> [!quote] [[How to Measure Anything in Project Management - Douglas W. Hubbard & Alexander Budzier & Andreas Bang Leed.pdf#page=112&selection=40,0,41,60|Chapter 4, "Exploration vs. Exploitation"]]
|
|
> The analogy of this to project planning is that we can keep trying to design better solutions to a problem before we commit to it.
|
|
|
|
### Project Options
|
|
|
|
> [!quote] [[How to Measure Anything in Project Management - Douglas W. Hubbard & Alexander Budzier & Andreas Bang Leed.pdf#page=117|Chapter 4, "Choosing How to Run the Project"]]
|
|
> When a project is proposed for budget approval, planners must include a list of additions and reductions... If the project runs out of budget, then deliverables will be removed from the scope.
|
|
|
|
This is different from alternates,
|
|
which are only considered at the time of award.
|
|
|
|
### Value of Information
|
|
|
|
[[How to Measure Anything in Project Management - Douglas W. Hubbard & Alexander Budzier & Andreas Bang Leed.pdf#page=118|Chapter 4, "How Models Indicate What to Measure"]]
|
|
|
|
[Expected value of sample information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value_of_sample_information)
|
|
|
|
### Estimating Impact Under Uncertainty
|
|
|
|
> [!quote] [[How to Measure Anything in Project Management - Douglas W. Hubbard & Alexander Budzier & Andreas Bang Leed.pdf#page=170&selection=40,20,46,58|Chapter 5, "Simple Tools for Measuring Uncertainty and Risk"]]
|
|
> There is such a rule, and it is called the "record-breaking probability." It is simply $1/(1+n)$ where $n$ is the number of observations resulting in the various outcomes.
|