Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 16, 2013 8:20 AM: > > On Jan 15, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Michael Paul Goldenberg > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > Lou's already made the point, so I won't belabor > the point that you've failed to establish a research > basis grounded in practice that supports anything at > all, as far as I can see. > > Quite the contrary. We establish qualifications, > review resumes and conduct interviews. We hire based > on that process and compare results. We adjust our > theory each iteration and we are competing with all > of the other companies doing the same thing, so there > is wide consensus and verification. What is not > scientific about that Michael? Lou? > > Bob Hansen > If I (GSC) may "butt in":
Is this (the place that you do all these iterations and things), is it the same place where you filled up all the walls of all the halls and all the corridors with PERT Charts that were utterly useless?
What is not scientific about that is that PERT Charts (based on the "PRECEDENCE" relationship) are indeed almost entirely useless in any system if the users do not adequately understand the significance of the various relationships that may inhere in the system under consideration. I.e.: what specifically does it mean in a system that one 'EVENT' or 'MILESTONE' precedes or follows another?
If people in the system are so naive that they believe PERT Charts by themselves can help them extract meaning out of a system, then they will never come to understand the system under consideration.