(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 04:16pm on 17/05/2006
Well, you can read it yourself, if you like - http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos_report.pdf It's fairly specific about where it gets its numbers, though I think there's still plenty of room for reinterpretation.

Then I'm fairly cynical about stats, having interacted with academic psychology for so long.

It seemed kind of relevant to what Maelorin was pondering for his PhD, so I thought I'd share.

I agree about justifying the course - it's bloody annoying to have to sit through such a shallow few week long brush over of organisational theory when I'm supposedly there to learn how to manage networks of computers...
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] easterbilby.livejournal.com at 10:44pm on 17/05/2006
Thanks for that! It makes interesting reading, but I would have to agree that it is worth being cynical about the stats. They use a very biased survey tool, having already defined failure in narrow and quantitative terms, but that seems about right for the type of research. :) I'd also be concerned about the sample size - 365 respondents is a reasonably low percentage (under 5%?), and I'd be curious as to whether or not one could argue that they were self-selecting, with those experiencing major failures being more inclined to respond, while successes were forgotten. It might be interesting to do the same work using a large-scale qualitative approach, but the difficulties of using qualitive methodologies on large sample sizes would probably preclude this.

One thing I do find curious, though, is how large businesses had over 10% more "challenged" projects compared with small-medium businesses. I suspect that project scale comes into play here.

[link] [parent] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:04am on 18/05/2006
While I've not looked at it yet myself (not even had brekkie!) these surveys are going to be problematic - though 365 is hardly representative, you'd be wanting 3-4 times that many - or at least 10% - would you not?

I'm getting very curious about the factors, the actual factors, that come into play when the size +/- complexity of a project grows - or where it hits some kind of 'critical mass' (wherever, whatever, that might be).
[link] [parent] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

Thanks :)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 11:49pm on 17/05/2006
Will have a good look at that report in the coming days.

Then I'm fairly cynical about stats, having interacted with academic psychology for so long.

It was stats that turned me off psych, way back when. (Thought he women were more plentiful than even Biology :)

I agree about justifying the course

Keep in mind thoght, that most fo your colleagues probably don't have a background in OrgPsych :)

Also, having some idea baout what PM is, and how is supposed to work, is not a bad idea. Seems to me the execution is flawed. I'd have given my justification for lumping this on you upfront.

Then again, I do/did play Nosferatu and Ventrue anti-tribu ... :)
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
 2
 
3
 
 4
1
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
31