Confucius simplified

---

Some of you read my recent posting on data quality and integrity, the discussion of which is anchored by a statement attributed to Confucius

Fair enough

But, the "publish" button was hardly pushed when this rolls in from herdingcats. I call it Confucius simplified:

If you make [a] serious allegation or claim and don't have serious evidence, no one is going to take you seriously

---

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

Information quality; information integrity

---

In the early 21st century when the 4th edition to the PMBOK was being designed for publication in the first decade, there was debate about adding "data quality" to Chapter 11, Risk Management. The idea behind data quality being to evaluate risk in the presence of not only uncertainty, but also to look at the impact of making risk-informed decisions in the presence of lousy data.

I'm extending "data" to "information" for this discussion. The working difference being that information is multiple data elements integrated, and that data integrated data set integrated with context.

And, also think of information in the large sense. With all that, I offer this bit of insight from Confucius:

“If names are not correct then statements do not accord with facts.

And when statements and facts do not accord, then business cannot be properly executed.
When business is not properly executed, order and harmony do not flourish.
When order and harmony do not flourish, then justice becomes arbitrary.
And when justice becomes arbitrary, people do not know how to move hand or foot.

Hence whatever a wise man states he can always define, and what he so defines he can always carry into practice; for the wise man will on no account have anything remiss in his definitions.’

Confucius, Lúnyŭ† (Analects), xiii:3 (Chinese, early fifth century BC)2”

“Empires of the Word.”(*)
 Nicholas Ostler 

My favorite
So, Confucius might have been a good member of the Chapter 11 team, but for his age. I think he said it all about data quality, data integrity, and indeed business integrity in the largest sense of the word when he said:

"And when statements and facts do not accord, then business cannot be properly executed."

_______________________

(*) If you love language or history, then "Empires of the Word" is a good read on the history of language

---

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

Interrogating or discussing?

---

".... interrogations, like battles, are never won but only lost"

John LeCarre

And so, you might ask, the lesson for project managers is what exactly?

My definition first: Interrogations, in the PM space, are just an adversarial or autocratic way to have a discussion. Someone in authority uses that authority to dominate, intending, of course, to "win"

And so, the lesson is: domineers don't win much, even when they're sure they've won it all. They often lose some aspect of .... respect, esteem, moral authority, mystique, and personal power as they "get up close and personal" as a means to overpower their "discussion partner".

After all, the closer at hand the more the weaknesses and blemishs appear. Afar is more mystical; mystique is what often sustains power and adds interest. But, you can't interrogate from afar, so be prepared to give at the office if interrogation is your thing.

---

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

Bring me a solution

---

I've always been an advocate of "bring solutions when you bring problems". In other words, no whining.

Some argue the opposite: Bringing a solution is like bringing an advocate that has something to lose if the solution is not adopted ... prestige, face, standing, etc.
Perhaps fostering or initiating an opportunity to discuss the problem before a solution gets locked in is better

Well, yes, perhaps.
And, I'm sure there are situations that need/require brainstorming and an open source approach.
But, not every solution is so elusive or difficult.

In most cases: come with a solution (or a solution candidate), but be open and insensitive (on a personal level) to an alternative.

We're all big people here! (Or, here's your opportunity to be the adult!)

---

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

Inspiration

---

Does your work inspire you?

• Super if so
• Frustrating if not

Kristi Hedges tells us in an hbr.org essay that psychologists T. Thrash and A. Elliot have posited three contributors to an inspired work life:

1. We see new possibilities
2. We're receptive to outside influences
3. We've a feeling of energy and motivation

Not working for you? Hedges goes on (I paraphrase her ideas):

• Inaction is your enemy; get up and get moving (my paraphrase)
• Keep on learning; if you think you've arrived at the pinnacle of knowledge for your job (career), you're mistaken. Not learning new stuff is actually going backward; you're knowledge will atrophy
• Expand your network; new people brings new ideas
• Keep it simple; narrow the scope or choices so you can focus and set priorities

The one that works best for me is the "keep on learning".  Writing this blog is an example; you might be amazed at the background reading and research that goes into it, from which I get many ideas for my professional role.
 

---

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

Precision without accuracy

---

I've often said the game of American football is a game of precision informed by inaccuracy.

From sometimes 25 yards away, in the split of a second, among the tangle of potentially 20+ actors all scrambling, a referee makes a judgment (hypothesis) about where the tip of an oblong ball happened to be when the action stopped.
Then, a steel chain is laid down to measure off the distance from the tip to the end of the chain (facts). The latter is precise; the former is often wildly a guess, but nonetheless is transformed instantly into "fact"

And, you may ask, what has this to do with project management, or management at all?
It's all about two schools of thought about managing with uncertainty -- managing what we know about risk (or, what we don't know, which is trickier even)

1. School of objectivity: facts come from what we observe; estimates are derived from experience and projected onto to knowable future circumstances.
   Risk is a matter of estimating impact (see: experience) and then applying a probability derived from the facts about how often such has occurred before.
   This is the "frequency-based" view of assessing risk
2. School of subjectivity: Nothing wrong with observable facts, to be sure. But in the school of subjectivity, it's what you believe to be the case that carries the day. The set of beliefs, however, is not set in stone; in fact, to be a good subjectivist, you have to be willing to update your beliefs in the context of new facts (observations)

Not that the objectivist would ignore new facts; they wouldn't.
But, the subjectivist begins where an objectivist never would: with a guess (gasp! ... a guess! shocking!)

• But, a guess about what? Not "facts", of course, but rather a guess (conjecture) about a hypothesis of the circumstances that might lead to facts (observables).

• Or, if there are observables, then a guess about the circumstances (hypothesis) that led to those observables.

• Either way, if the hypothesis is discoverable, or verifiable, then new facts are predictable.

And, so that sets up a set of conditional relationships:

1. Hypothesis, and 
2. Hypothesis (conjectured or validated) given some observables
3. Facts, and 
4. Facts (or new facts) given that a hypothesis is actually valid

These four make up the eco-system of the subjectivist. There is constant working about of a "a priori" hypothesis; facts, and do they fit the "a priori"; and either a modified hypothesis, or if its valid, then predicted new facts.

If you are one that wrestles with the four above, then you are not only a subjectivist, you are a Bayesian, and you reason according to Bayes theorem

And, you may not have known that you were either a Bayesian or a subjectivist!

---

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

"I wouldn't do that"

---

"Doubt is unpleasant, but certainty is absurd"

Voltaire

Interested in quantitative risk management, understanding risk metrics, and risk management?
This one may be for you:

Matthew Squair is working on a new book, entitled "I wouldn't do that". He's made a draft of Chapter 1 available, at least for a short time.

Why another book on risk management? The shelves are already full (even if only virtually full). Squair addresses the question. He writes:

" ..... in the face of the uncertainties posed by complex systems and new technologies, can we also achieve an acceptable level of safety. Answering this question both philosophically and practically is the purpose of this book"

Squair's focus as a consultant is risk-safety .... connecting those dots. But, he really writes in a larger context. Thus, if you're the least interested in managing with uncertainty, and self-educating with a very readable explanation of quantitative risk considerations, look through the Chapter 1 sample.

Here's the opening statement:

A nuclear reactor’s defences are overwhelmed by a tsunami, an aircraft manufacturer’s newest aircraft is brought low by design faults while another aircraft’s crew is overwhelmed by a cascading series of failures.

Why do these things happen?

Can we predict such events and protect ourselves from them, or are we destined to suffer like disasters again and again?

Do you actually care? You do! But, maybe not all that much

Squair posits that for there to be risk, there has to be value first. That is, if there is really nothing at stake then there really is not a risk to be considered. It's an interesting idea, really: start thinking first of value, or the value of an outcome, and then posit the risk proposition to that value.

Squair, again:

" ... there is an exposure to a proposition about which we care and about which uncertainty exists. If there is complete certainty then risk does not exist. For risk to be meaningful it also implies that we must value a specific outcome of the proposition."

---

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