Of facts and theories

---

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts"

Sherlock Holmes

Yes, Mr Holmes has hit upon the dilemma of various reasoning strategies:

• Inductive reasoning: from a specific observation to a generalization of causation
• Deductive reasoning: from a generalized theory to a predicted set of specifics

As he correctly posits, inductive reasoning is hazardous. Just a slight error in facts, or in fashioning causation, or most frequently confusing causation with correlation, may lead to quite incorrect theories.

Thus, the strength of Bayes reasoning (*), a form of deductive reasoning. Aren't we all Bayesians?

-------------------
Look up Bayes Theory on Wikipedia; it's means of deducing conditions which are predictive of facts, a form of statistical reasoning.

---

Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!

Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Actually, you can't measure it

---

We're told repeatedly: you can't manage what you can't measure. Or, you can measure anything -- everything

Actually, you can't

Measurements do the changing
There are may project domains where measurements change the thing being measured, so that the results are incorrect, sometimes dramatically so:

• Many chemical reactions or chemistry attributes
• Some biological effects
• Most quantum effects
• Most very-high or ultra-high frequency systems (VHF and UHF, to extend to micro and millimeter wave systems)
• Some optical effects

 And, of course, many human behaviors and biases are themselves biased by measurement processes

Intangibles et al
Not be left out: the affects and effects of intangibles, like leadership, empathy, the art of communication, and others. Not directly measureable, their impact is a matter of inference. Typically: imagine the situation without these influences; imagine the situation with them. The difference is as close to a measurement -- if you can call it that -- that you'll get.
 

Which all leaves the project where?

• Inference and deduction based on observable outcomes which are downstream or isolated or buffered from the instigating effects 
• Statistical predictions that may not be inference or deduction
• Bayes reasoning, which is all about dependent or conditioned outcomes
• Simulations and emulations

Bottom line: don't buy into the mantra of "measure everything". Measuring may well be more detrimental than no measurements at all

---

Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!

Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Testing... how much testing?

---

Consider this quote from Tony Hoare:

One can construct convincing proofs quite readily of the ultimate futility of exhaustive testing of a program and even of testing by sampling. So how can one proceed?

The role of testing, in theory, is to establish the base propositions of an inductive proof.

You should convince yourself, or other people, as firmly as possible, that if the program works a certain number of times on specified data, then it will always work on any data. This can be done by an inductive approach to the proof.

Everyone remember what an inductive argument is? Yes? Good!
Then I don't need to say that ....
When reasoning inductively you are reasoning from a specific instance to a generalization. The validity of the generalization can only be known probabilistically. (It's probable-- with high confidence -- that any instance will work because a particular instance -- or particular set of instances -- worked)

Thus, there is no absolute certainty that a generalization will work just because a large set of specifics works.

Monte Carlo testing is inductive. There are two inductive conditions in Monte Carlo testing:

1. That the test conditions are time-insensitive ... thus, tests done serially in time are valid for any time, and are valid if the tests were done in parallel rather than serial
2. That the test results for a finite number of iterations is representative of the next iteration that is not in the test window

Sampling is also inductive.
And why would one do this?
Economics mostly.
Usually you can't afford to test every instance possible; sometimes, you can't create all the conditions to test every instance possible. The plain fact is, as Mr Hoare says, you should be able to do "just enough" testing to convince yourself and others who observe objectively that, hey: it will work! 

 

---

Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!

Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Two doors and the risk manager

---

A narrative*

Imagine two doors to the same room: One labeled risk manager; the other labeled decision maker.
Though the risk manager's door, entry is for the inductive thinker: facts looking for a generality or integrating narrative
Through the decision maker's door, entry is for the deductive thinker: visionary with a need to connect specifics to the vision

And, consider this:

• Pessimists with facts enter through the risk manager's door
• Optimists with business-as-we-want-it enter through the decision maker's door

Then what happens?
Each needs to find the other. In the best of situations, they meet in the middle of the room where this is buffer space and flexibility.

How does the inductive and deductive interact?

Risk management does not set policy for the project office; it only sets the left and right hand boundaries for the vision, or for the project policies.
The space in between is where the decision maker gets to do their envisioning, moving about, perhaps even bouncing off the walls, constrained only by the risk boundaries.

Sound familiar? I hope so. You'll find a similar explanation known as the "project balance sheet" in Chapter 6 of "Maximizing Project Value: A project manager's guide". (Oh -- the book cover is shown below!)

In that balance sheet metaphor, the right side is for the fact-based inductive manager; the left side is for the visionary. And, since those two never agree fully, there is a gap.

And the gap is where the risk is. Risk is the balancing element between the vision and the facts. And who is the risk manager: the project team -- not the visionary. (That's why we pay the PMO the big bucks: to manage the risk!)

---

*This narrative adapted from "Playing to the Edge", pg 428

---

Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!

Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Fallacies, illogic, and bad arguments

---

I came across this ebook (free) that is a good, fast read... with humor... about "bad arguments", logic, fallacies, poor reasoning, wrong conclusions, and more....

Recommended to all!

---

Bookmark this on Delicious

Check out these books I've written in the library at Square Peg Consulting

Abduction, anyone?

If you're not a regular reader of BusinessWeek you may have missed the January 14th (2010) missive in their regular Innovations column. Here we have one that is close to the heart of many project managers:

the accidental nemesis to a really new-to-the-world idea, or as the authors put it: the 'accidental enemy'

In their column, entitled "Innovation's Accidental Enemies", authors Roger L. Martin and Jennifer Riel , academics at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto , posit that too many executives manage when they should lead: to wit, they rely too often on inductive and deductive reasoning.  They fail to embrace abductive reasoning when confronted with a never-done-before idea for project excecution.  In doing so, they become the accidental enemy of a radically new idea.

What, say you, is abductive reasoning?  It's the third leg of inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning.  One only needs to search a bit in Wikipedia to get the ideas.

Inductive and deductive reasoning are the two we're most familiar with; they align rules and data--either the rules beget the data, or the data begs the rules. These situations are a traditional manager's view of putting the enterprise's rules with the situational facts.  Nothing wrong with that---some of my best friends are inductive or deductive reasoners--but even though one or the other works well in many situations, they don't always work when innovation is the order of the day.

• Innovative ideas many times do not comport with established rules.  That lets out deductive reasoning. 
• Innovative concepts are often free of facts, and seemingly lack cohesion and coherence among the available data.  That lets out inductive reasoning.

So, what do you do when faced with seeming unrelated facts or ideas that don't appear to connect? Abduction reasoning may be an approach.  To reason abductively is to postulate or hypothesize a situation that might be rational or consistent for what is known, but it may require a few leaps over the missing. Thus, it may be necessary to fill in the plot holes, as it were.

Haven't we heard endlessly about connecting the dots?  Well, having a skill, and a tolerance, for the emergence of a new idea by abductive reasoning is key to having visionary foresight. In an article in Strategy+Business, authors Tim Laseter and Saras Sarasvathy call making something out of seemingly nothing (or a lot of somethings that don't seem to relate) "constructive transformation". (I've not heard that one before, but I'm always open to a new idea). According to their idea, constructive transformers:

"... use the vagaries of fate to help them proactively shape their environment."

The genius of innovators is not to let their management impulses overwhelm their instincts to inspire, motivate, and empower.

Marc Andreessen--innovator and venture capitalist extraordinaire--said something similar in a recent interview: the mission of technology companies is to innovate, in effect: to continuously renew, even if it means to renew with legacy destruction.

Recall this witicism from RAdmiral Grace Hopper [esteemed software leader who, among other things, invented the 'bug']:

"Things are managed; people are led"

Bookmark this on Delicious

Innovation and the accidental nemesis

If you're not a regular reader of BusinessWeek you may have missed the January 14th missive in their regular Innovations column. Here we have one that is close to the heart of many project managers: the accidental nemesis to a really new-to-the-world idea, or as the authors put it: the 'accidental enemy'

In their column, entitled "Innovation's Accidental Enemies", authors Roger L. Martin and Jennifer Riel , academics at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto , posit that too many executives manage when they should lead: to wit, they rely too often on inductive and deductive reasoning.  They fail to embrace abductive reasoning when confronted with a never-done-before idea for project excecution.  In doing so, they become the accidental enemy of a radically new idea.

What, say you, is abductive reasoning?  It's the third leg of inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning.  One only needs to search a bit in Wikipedia to get the ideas.

Inductive and deductive reasoning aligns rules and data--either one or the other begets the other--a traditional manager's view of putting the enterprise's rules with the situational facts.  Nothing wrong with that---some of my best friends are inductive or deductive reasoners--but even though one or the other works well in many situations, they don't always work when innovation is the order of the day.

Innovative ideas many times do not comport with established rules.  That lets out deductive reasoning.  Innovative concepts are often free of facts and seemingly lack cohesion and coherence among the available data.  That lets out inductive reasoning.

Abduction is reasoning through, or postulating, or hypothesizing that seeming unrelated facts or ideas indeed do connect.  Haven't we heard endlessly about connecting the dots?  Well, having a skill, and a tolerance, for the emergence of a new idea by abductive reasoning is key to having visionary foresight.

The genius of innovators is not to let their management impulses overwhelm their instincts to inspire, motivate, and empower.

Recall this witicism from Rear Admiral Grace Hopper [esteemed software leader who, among other things, invented the 'bug']: "Things are managed; people are led"

Are you on LinkedIn? Share this article with your network by clicking on the link.