Synergy — The Economics of Integrated Project Management

The hot topic lately in meetings and the odd conference on Integrated Project Management (IPM) often focuses on the mechanics of achieving that state, bound by the implied definition of current regulation, which has also become–not surprisingly–practice. I think this is a laudable goal, particularly given both the casual resistance to change (which always there by definition to some extent) and in the most extreme cases a kind of apathy.

I addressed the latter condition in my last post by an appeal to professionalism, particularly on the part of those in public administration. But there is a more elemental issue here than the concerns of project analysts, systems engineers, and the associated information managers. While this level of expertise is essential in the development of innovation, relying too heavily on this level in the organization creates an internal organizational conflict that creates the risk that the innovation is transient and rests on a slender thread. Association with any one manager also leaves innovation vulnerable due to the “not invented here” tact taken by many new managers in viewing the initiatives of a predecessor. In business this (usually self-defeating) approach becomes more extreme the higher one goes in the chain of command (the recent Sears business model anyone?).

The key, of course, is to engage senior managers and project/program managers in participating in the development of this important part of business intelligence. A few suggestions on how to do this follow, but the bottom line is this: money and economics makes the implementation of IPM an essential component of business intelligence.

Data, Information, and Intelligence – Analysis vs. Reporting

Many years ago using manual techniques, I was employed in activities that required that I seek and document data from disparate sources, seemingly unconnected, and find the appropriate connections. The initial connection was made with a key. It could be a key word, topic, individual, technology, or government. The key, however, wasn’t the end of the process. The validity of the relationship needed to be verified as more than mere coincidence. This is a process well known in the community specializing in such processes, and two good sources to understand how this was done can be found here and here.

It is a well trod path to distinguish between the elements that eventually make up intelligence so I will not abuse the reader in going over it. Needless to say that a bit of data is the smallest element of the process, with information following. For project management what is often (mis)tagged as predictive analytics and analysis is really merely information. Thus, when project managers and decision makers look at the various charts and graphs employed by their analysts they are usually greeted with a collective yawn. Raw projections of cost variance, cost to complete, schedule variance, schedule slippage, baseline execution, Monte Carlo risk, etc. are all building blocks to employing business intelligence. But in and of themselves they are not intelligence because these indicators require analysis, weighting, logic testing, and, in the end, an assessment that is directly tied to the purpose of the organization.

The role and application of digitization is to make what was labor intensive less so. In most cases this allows us to apply digital technology to its strength–calculation and processing of large amounts of data to create information. Furthermore, digitization now allows for effective lateral integration among datasets given a common key, even if there are multiple keys that act in a chain from dataset to dataset.

At the end of the line what we are left with is a strong correlation of data integrated across a number of domains that contribute to a picture of how an effort is performing. Still, even given the most powerful heuristics, a person–the consumer–must validate the data to determine if the results possess validity and fidelity. For project management this process is not as challenging as, say, someone using raw social networking data. Project management data, since it is derived from underlying systems that through their processing mimic highly structured processes and procedures, tends to be “small”, even when it can be considered Big Data form the shear perspective of size. It is small Big Data.

Once data has been accumulated, however, it must be assessed so as to ensure that the parts cohere. This is done by assessing the significance and materiality of those parts. Once this is accomplished the overall assessment must then be constructed so that it follows logically from the data. That is what constitutes “actionable intelligence”: analysis of present condition, projected probable outcomes, recommended actions with alternatives. The elements of this analysis–charts, graphs, etc., are essential in reporting, but reporting these indices is not the purpose of the process. The added value of an analyst lies in the expertise one possesses. Without this dimension a machine could do the work. The takeaway from this point, however, isn’t to substitute the work with software. It is to develop analytical expertise.

What is Integrated Project Management?

In my last post I summed up what IPM is, but some elaboration and refinement is necessary.

I propose that Integrated Project Management is defined as that information necessary to derive actionable intelligence from all of the relevant cross-domain information involved in the project organization. This includes cost performance, schedule performance, financial performance and execution, contract implementation, milestone achievement, resource management, and technical performance. Actionable intelligence in this context, as indicated above, is that information that is relevant to the project decision-making authority which effectively identifies specific probable qualitative and quantitative risks, risk impact, and risk handling necessary to make project trade-offs, project re-baselining or re-scope, cost-as-an-independent variable (CAIV), or project cancellation decisions. Underlying all of this are feedback loop systems assessments to ensure that there is integrity and fidelity in our business systems–both human and digital.

The data upon which IPM is derived comes from a finite number of sources. Thus, project management data lends itself to solutions that break down proprietary syntax and terminology. This is really the key to achieving IPM and one that has garnered some discussion when discussing the process of data normalization and rationalization with other IT professionals. The path can be a long one: using APIs to perform data-mining directly against existing tables or against a data repository (or warehouse or lake), or pre-normalizing the data in a schema (given both the finite nature of the data and the finite–and structured–elements of the processes being documented in data).

Achieving normalization and rationalization in this case is not a notional discussion–in my vocation I provide solutions that achieve this goal. In order to do so one must expand their notion of the architecture of the appropriate software solution. The mindset of “tools” is at the core of what tends to hold back progress in integration, that is, the concept of a “tool” is one that is really based on an archaic approach to computing. It assumes that a particular piece of software must limit itself to performing limited operations focused on a particular domain. In business this is known as sub-optimization.

Oftentimes this view is supported by the organization itself where the project management team is widely dispersed and domains hoard information. The rice bowl mentality has long been a bane of organizational effectiveness. Organizations have long attempted to break through these barriers using various techniques: cross-domain teams, integrated product teams, and others.

No doubt some operations of a business must be firewalled in such a way. The financial management of the enterprise comes to mind. But when it comes to business operations, the tools and rice bowl mindset is a self-limiting one. This is why many in IT push the concept of a solution–and the analogue is this: a tool can perform a particular operation (turn a screw, hammer a nail, crimp a wire, etc.); a solution achieves a goal of the system that consists of a series of operations, which are often complex (build the wall, install the wiring, etc.). Software can be a tool or a solution. Software built as a solution contains the elements of many tools.

Given a solution that supports IPM, a pathway is put in place that facilitates breaking down the barriers that currently block effective communication between and within project teams.

The necessity of IPM

An oft-cited aphorism in business is that purpose drives profit. For those in public administration purpose drives success. What this means is that in order to become successful in any endeavor that the organization must define itself. It is the nature of the project–a planned set of interrelated tasks separately organized and financed from the larger enterprise, which is given a finite time and budget specifically to achieve a goal of research, development, production, or end state–that defines an organization’s purpose: building aircraft, dams, ships, software, roads, bridges, etc.

A small business is not so different from a project organization in a larger enterprise. Small events can have oversized effects. What this means in very real terms is that the core rules of economics will come to bear with great weight on the activities of project management. In the world in which we operate, the economics underlying both enterprises and projects punishes inefficiency. Software “tools” that support sub-optimization are inefficient and the organizations that employ them bear unnecessary risk.

The information and technology sectors have changed what is considered to be inefficient in terms of economics. At its core, information has changed the way we view and leverage information. Back in 1997 economists Brad DeLong and Michael Froomkin identified the nature of information and its impact on economics. Their concepts and observations have had incredible staying power if, for no other reason, because what they predicted has come to pass. The economic elements of excludability, rivalry, transparency have transformed how the enterprise achieves optimization.

An enterprise that is willfully ignorant of its condition is one that is at risk. Given that many projects will determine the success of the enterprise, a project that is willfully ignorant of its condition threatens the financial health and purpose of the larger organization. Businesses and public sector agencies can no longer afford not to have cohesive and actionable intelligence built on all of the elements that contribute to determining that condition. In this way IPM becomes not only essential but its deployment necessary.

In the end the reason for doing this comes down to profit on the one hand, and success on the other. Given the increasing transparency of information and the continued existence of rivalry, the trend in the economy will be to reward those that harness the potentials for information integration that have real consequences in the management of the enterprise, and to punish those who do not.

Do You Know Where You’re Going To? — SecDef Ash Carter talks to Neil DeGrasse Tyson…and some thoughts on the international technology business

It’s time to kick off my 2017 blogging activity and my readers have asked about my absence on this blog.  Well because of the depth and research required by some of the issues that I consider essential, most of my blogging energy has been going to contributions to AITS.org.  I strongly recommend that you check out the site if you haven’t already.  A great deal of useful PM information and content can be found there–and they have a strong editorial staff so that what does get to publication is pretty well sourced.  My next post on the site is scheduled for 25 January.  I will link to it once it becomes available.

For those of us just getting back into the swing of things after the holidays, there were a number of interesting events that occurred during that time that I didn’t get a chance to note.  Among these is that SecDef Ash Carter appeared (unfortunately a subscription wall) on an episode of Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s excellent show “StarTalk“, which appears on the National Geographic Channel.

Secretary Carter had some interesting things to say, among them are:

a. His mentors in science, many of whom were veterans of the Second World War, instilled in him the concept of public service and giving back to the country.

b.  His experience under former SecDef Perry, when he was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, taught him that the DoD needed to be the “petri dish” for R&D in new technologies.

c.  That the approach of the DoD has been to leverage the R&D into new technologies that can be leveraged from the international technology industry, given that there are many good ideas and developments that occur outside of the United States.

d.  He encouraged more scientists to serve in the federal government and the Department of Defense, if even for a short while to get a perspective on how things work at that level.

e.  He doesn’t see the biggest source of instability will necessarily be from nation states, but that small groups of individuals, given that destructive power is becoming portable, will be the emerging threat that his successor will face.

f. There imperative that the U.S. maintain its technological edge is essential in guaranteeing international stability and peace.

Secretary Carter’s comments, in particular, in realizing that the technology industry is an international one strikes a particular personal cord with me since my present vocation has caused me to introduce new capabilities in the U.S. market built from technologies that were developed by a close European ally.  The synergy that this meeting of the minds has created has begun to have a positive impact on the small portion of the market that my firm inhabits, changing the way people do business and shifting the focus from “tools” as the source of information to data, and what the data suggests.

This is not to say that cooperation in the international technology market is not fraught with the same rocks and shoals found in any business area.  But it is becoming increasingly apparent that new information technologies can be used as a means of evening the playing field because of the asymmetrical nature of information itself, which then lends itself to leverage given relatively small amounts of effort.

This also points to the importance of keeping an open mind and encouraging international trade, especially among our allies that are among the liberal democracies.  Recently my firm was the target of a protest for a government contract where this connection to international trade was used as a means of questioning whether the firm was, indeed, a bonafide U.S. business.  The answer under U.S. law is a resounding “yes”–and that first decision was upheld on appeal.  For what we have done is–under U.S. management–leveraged technology first developed elsewhere, extended its capabilities, designed, developed, and localized it for the U.S. market, and in the process created U.S. jobs and improved U.S. processes.  This is a good deal all around.

Back in the day when I wore a U.S. Navy uniform during the Cold War military, many of us in the technology and acquisition specialties looked to reform our systems and introduce innovative methods from wherever we could find them, whether they came from private industry or other government agencies.  When coming upon resistance because something was “the way it always was done” our characterization of that attitude was “NIH”.  That is, “Not Invented Here.”  NIH was a term that, in shorthand, described an invalid counterargument against process improvement that did not rely on the merits or evidence.

And so it is today.  The world is always changing, but given new technologies the rate of change is constantly accelerating.  Adapting and adopting the best technologies available will continue to give us the advantage as a nation.  It simply requires openness and the ability to identify innovation when we see it.

You Know I’m No Good: 2016 Election Polls and Predictive Analytics

While the excitement and emotions of this past election work themselves out in the populace at large, as a writer and contributor to the use of predictive analytics, I find the discussion about “where the polls went wrong” to be of most interest.  This is an important discussion, because the most reliable polling organizations–those that have proven themselves out by being right consistently on a whole host of issues since most of the world moved to digitization and the Internet of Things in their daily lives–seemed to be dead wrong in certain of their predictions.  I say certain because the polls were not completely wrong.

For partisans who point to Brexit and polling in the U.K., I hasten to add that this is comparing apples to oranges.  The major U.S. polling organizations that use aggregation and Bayesian modeling did not poll Brexit.  In fact, there was one reliable U.K. polling organization that did note two factors:  one was that the trend in the final days was toward Brexit, and the other is that the final result was based on turnout, where greater turnout favored the “stay” vote.

But aside from these general details, this issue is of interest in project management because, unlike national and state polling, where there are sufficient numbers to support significance, at the micro-microeconomic level of project management we deal with very small datasets that expand the range of probable results.  This is not an insignificant point that has been made time-and-time again over the years, particularly given single-point estimates using limited time-phased data absent a general model that provides insight into what are the likeliest results.  This last point is important.

So let’s look at the national polls on the eve of the election according to RealClear.  IBD/TIPP Tracking had it Trump +2 at +/-3.1% in a four way race.  LA Times/USC had it Trump +3 at the 95% confidence interval, which essentially means tied.  Bloomberg had Clinton +3, CBS had Clinton +4, Fox had Clinton +4, Reuters/Ipsos had Clinton +3, ABC/WashPost, Monmouth, Economist/YouGov, Rasmussen, and NBC/SM had Clinton +2 to +6.  The margin for error for almost all of these polls varies from +/-3% to +/-4%.

As of this writing Clinton sits at about +1.8% nationally, the votes are still coming in and continue to confirm her popular vote lead, currently standing at about 300,000 votes.  Of the polls cited, Rasmussen was the closest to the final result.  Virtually every other poll, however, except IBD/TIPP, was within the margin of error.

The polling that was off in predicting the election were those that aggregated polls along with state polls, adjusted polling based on non-direct polling indicators, and/or then projected the chances of winning based on the probable electoral vote totals.  This is where things were off.

Among the most popular of these sites is Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog.  Silver established his bonafides in 2008 by picking winners with incredible accuracy, particularly at the state level, and subsequently in his work at the New York Times which continued to prove the efficacy of data in predictive analytics in everything from elections to sports.  Since that time his significant reputation has only grown.

What Silver does is determine the probability of an electoral outcome by using poll results that are transparent in their methodologies and that have a high level of confidence.  Silver’s was the most conservative of these types of polling organizations.  On the eve of the election Silver gave Clinton a 71% chance of winning the presidency. The other organizations that use poll aggregation, poll normalization, or other adjusting indicators (such as betting odds, financial market indicators, and political science indicators) include the New York Times Upshot (Clinton 85%), HuffPost (Clinton 98%), PredictWise (Clinton 89%), Princeton (Clinton >99%), DailyKos (Clinton 92%), Cook (Lean Clinton), Roth (Lean Clinton), and Sabato (Lean Clinton).

In order to understand what probability means in this context, the polls were using both bottom-up state polling to track the electoral college combined with national popular vote polling.  But keep in mind that, as Nate Silver wrote over the course of the election, that just a 17% chance of winning “is the same as your chances of losing a “game” of Russian roulette”.  Few of us would take that bet, particularly since the result of losing the game is finality.

Still, except for FiveThirtyEight, none of the other methods using probability got it right.  None, except FiveThirtyEight, left enough room for drawing the wrong chamber.  Also, in fairness, the Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato projections also left enough room to see a Trump win if the state dominoes fell right.

The place that the models failed were in the states of Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  In particular, even with Florida (result Trump +1.3%) and North Carolina (result Trump +3.8%), Trump would not win if Pennsylvania (result Trump +1.2%), Michigan (result Trump +.3), and Wisconsin (result Trump +1.0)–supposed Clinton firewall states–were not breached.  So what happened?

Among the possible factors are the effect of FBI Director Comey’s public intervention, which was too soon to the election to register in the polling; ineffective polling methods in rural areas (garbage in-garbage out), bad state polling quality, voter suppression, purging, and restrictions (of the battleground states this includes Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa), voter turnout and enthusiasm (aside from the factors of voter suppression), and the inability to peg the way the high level of undecided voters would go at the last minute.

In hindsight, the national polls were good predictors.  The sufficiency of the data in drawing significance, and the high level of confidence in their predictive power is borne out by the final national vote totals.

I think that where the polling failed in the projections of the electoral college was from the inability to take into account non-statistical factors, selection bias, and that the state poll models probably did not accurately reflect the electorate in the states given the lessons from the primaries.  Along these lines, I believe that if pollsters look at the demographics in the respective primaries that they will find that both voter enthusiasm and composition provide the corrective to their projections. Given these factors, the aggregators and probabilistic models should all have called the race too close to call.  I think both Monte Carlo and Bayesian methods in simulations will bear this out.

For example, as one who also holds a political science degree and so will put on that hat.  It is a basic tenet that negative campaigns depress voter participation.  This causes voters to select the lesser of two evils (or lesser of two weevils).  Voter participation was down significantly due to a unprecedentedly negative campaign.  When this occurs, the most motivated base will usually determine the winner in an election.  This is why midterm elections are so volatile, particularly after a presidential win that causes a rebound of the opposition party.  Whether this trend continues with the reintroduction of gerrymandering is yet to be seen.

What all this points to from a data analytics perspective is that one must have a model to explain what is happening.  Statistics by themselves, while correct a good bit of the time, will cause one to be overconfident of a result based solely on the numbers and simulations that give the false impression of solidity, particularly when one is in a volatile environment.  This is known as reification.  It is a fallacious way of thinking.  Combined with selection bias and the absence of a reasonable narrative model–one that introduces the social interactions necessary to understand the behavior of complex adaptive systems–one will often find that invalid results result.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised — The Sustainability Manifesto for Projects

While doing stuff and living life (which seems to take me away from writing) there were a good many interesting things written on project management.  The very insightful Dave Gordon at his blog, The Practicing IT Project Manager, provides a useful weekly list of the latest contributions to the literature that are of note.  If you haven’t checked it out please do so–I recommend it highly.

While I was away Dave posted to an interesting link on the concept of sustainability in project management.  Along those lines three PM professionals have proposed a Sustainability Manifesto for Projects.  As Dave points out in his own post on the topic, it rests on three basic principles:

  • Benefits realization over metrics limited to time, scope, and cost
  • Value for many over value of money
  • The long-term impact of our projects over their immediate results

These are worthy goals and no one needs to have me rain on their parade.  I would like to see these ethical principles, which is what they really are, incorporated into how we all conduct ourselves in business.  But then there is reality–the “is” over the “ought.”

For example, Dave and I have had some correspondence regarding the nature of the marketplace in which we operate through this blog.  Some time ago I wrote a series of posts here, here, and here providing an analysis of the markets in which we operate both in macroeconomic and microeconomic terms.

This came in response to one my colleagues making the counterfactual assertion that we operate in a “free market” based on the concept of “private enterprise.”  Apparently, such just-so stories are lies we have to tell ourselves to make the hypocrisy of daily life bearable.  But, to bring the point home, in talking about the concept of sustainability, what concrete measures will the authors of the manifesto bring to the table to counter the financialization of American business that has occurred of the past 35 years?

For example, the news lately has been replete with stories of companies moving plants from the United States to Mexico.  This despite rising and record corporate profits during a period of stagnating median working class incomes.  Free trade and globalization have been cited as the cause, but this involves more hand waving and the invocation of mantras, rather than analysis.  There has also been the predictable invocations of the Ayn Randian cult and the pseudoscience* of Social Darwinism.  Those on the opposite side of the debate characterize things as a morality play, with the public good versus greed being the main issue.  All of these explanations miss their mark, some more than others.

An article setting aside a few myths was recently published by Jonathan Rothwell at Brookings, which came to me via Mark Thoma’s blog, in the article, “Make elites compete: Why the 1% earn so much and what to do about it”.  Rothwell looks at the relative gains of the market over the last 40 years and finds that corporate profits, while doing well, have not been the driver of inequality that Robert Reich and other economists would have it be.  In looking at another myth that has been promulgated by Greg Mankiw, he finds that the rewards of one’s labors is not related to any special intelligence or skill.  On the contrary, one’s entry into the 1% is actually related to what industry one chooses to enter, regardless of all other factors.  This disparity is known as a “pay premium”.  As expected, petroleum and coal products, financial instruments, financial institutions, and lawyers, are at the top of the pay premium.  What is not, against all expectations of popular culture and popular economic writing, is the IT industry–hardware, software, etc.  Though they are the poster children of new technology, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, and others are the exception to the rule in an industry that is marked by a 90% failure rate.  Our most educated and talented people–those in science, engineering, the arts, and academia–are poorly paid–with negative pay premiums associated with their vocations.

The financialization of the economy is not a new or unnoticed phenomenon.  Kevin Phillips, in Wealth and Democracy, which was written in 2003, noted this trend.  There have been others.  What has not happened as a result is a national discussion on what to do about it, particularly in defining the term “sustainability”.

For those of us who have worked in the acquisition community, the practical impact of financialization and de-industrialization have made logistics challenging to say the least.  As a young contract negotiator and Navy Contracting Officer, I was challenged to support the fleet when any kind of fabrication or production was involved, especially in non-stocked machined spares of any significant complexity or size.  Oftentimes my search would find that the company that manufactured the items was out of business, its pieces sold off during Chapter 11, and most of the production work for those items still available done seasonally out of country.  My “out” at the time–during the height of the Cold War–was to take the technical specs, which were paid for and therefore owned by the government, to one of the Navy industrial activities for fabrication and production.  The skillset for such work was still fairly widespread, supported by the quality control provided by a fairly well-unionized and trade-based workforce–especially among machinists and other skilled workers.

Given the new and unique ways judges and lawyers have applied privatized IP law to items financed by the public, such opportunities to support our public institutions and infrastructure, as I was able, have been largely closed out.  Furthermore, the places to send such work, where possible, have also gotten vanishingly smaller.  Perhaps digital printing will be the savior for manufacturing that it is touted to be.  What it will not do is stitch back the social fabric that has been ripped apart in communities hollowed out by the loss of their economic base, which, when replaced, comes with lowered expectations and quality of life–and often shortened lives.

In the end, though, such “fixes” benefit a shrinkingly few individuals at the expense of the democratic enterprise.  Capitalism did not exist when the country was formed, despite the assertion of polemicists to link the economic system to our democratic government.  Smith did not write his pre-modern scientific tract until 1776, and much of what it meant was years off into the future, and its relevance given what we’ve learned over the last 240 years about human nature and our world is up for debate.  What was not part of such a discussion back then–and would not have been understood–was the concept of sustainability.  Sustainability in the study of healthy ecosystems usually involves the maintenance of great diversity and the flourishing of life that denotes health.  This is science.  Economics, despite Keynes and others, is still largely rooted in 18th and 19th century pseudoscience.

I know of no fix or commitment to a sustainability manifesto that includes global, environmental, and social sustainability that makes this possible short of a major intellectual, social or political movement willing to make a long-term commitment to incremental, achievable goals toward that ultimate end.  Otherwise it’s just the mental equivalent to camping out in Zuccotti Park.  The anger we note around us during this election year of 2016 (our year of discontent) is a natural human reaction to the end of an idea, which has outlived its explanatory power and, therefore, its usefulness.  Which way shall we lurch?

The Sustainability Manifesto for Projects, then, is a modest proposal.  It may also simply be a sign of the times, albeit a rational one.  As such, it leaves open a lot of questions, and most of these questions cannot be addressed or determined by the people to which it is targeted: project managers, who are usually simply employees of a larger enterprise.  People behave as they are treated–to the incentives and disincentives presented to them, oftentimes not completely apparent on the conscious level.  Thus, I’m not sure if this manifesto hits its mark or even the right one.

*This term is often misunderstood by non-scientists.  Pseudoscience means non-science, just as alternative medicine means non-medicine.  If any of the various hypotheses of pseudoscience are found true, given proper vetting and methodology, that proposition would simply be called science.  Just as alternative methods of treatment, if found effective and consistent, given proper controls, would simply be called medicine.

Finding Wisdom for Friday — Umberto Eco on Fascism

Blogging has been somewhat sparse of late because of, well, life.  But I seem to be approaching a patch that will allow me to once again explore subjects of interest.

While I was busy the world lost one of its leading lights on February 19th, 2016, as Umberto Eco passed away at the age of 84.  His voice will be sorely missed.  It will be missed in particular because his best writing reflected his main concerns regarding human communication.  As such, he is acknowledged as one of the founders of what has come to be known as interpretive semiotics.  Semiotics is the study of signs and processes in human communication such as analogy, metaphor, symbolism, among other forms.  What separates it from linguistics is that it takes into account all of the means of human interpretation and communications that exist and, in Eco’s synthesis, how each receiver interprets, incorporates, and processes such signs and sign processes.

Aside from his significant academic pursuits, he was best known in our own country for his popular novel The Name of the Rose (1980), which also was made into a very good and popular film.  But in surveying his seven novels, for me his best writing focused on the question of fascism and how it appealed to the people of his native Italy.  His knowledge of the subject was very personal, having been inculcated into the cult of personality centered around Mussolini when he was a youth.  At the age of 10 he describes how he was proud of his young fascist uniform, writing paeans to the fascist cause.  As such, in novels such as Foucault’s Pendulum (1988) and The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (2005), he reveals to the reader the sub-textual signs that continue to communicate fascist messages in many forms of popular media, life, and culture.

Thus I find his writing, which uses multiple devices to approach obliquely what otherwise was and is a tragic and horrific chapter of Italian and European history, to be very similar to the devices used by the contemporary Mexican director Guillermo del Toro in film.  In the case of del Toro, who was born in 1964–well after the events of his concern–he approaches the subject of the Spanish Civil War and the victory of Spanish fascism.  This has only recently been a subject of critical processing in Hispanic society, especially since the death of the Spanish dictator Franco, and the subsequent rejection of other neo-fascist regimes in South America and elsewhere in favor of liberal democracy.  Still, it is a very painful and sensitive subject, and so del Toro uses the devices of fantasy and gothic horror to approach and record the horrors and cruelty of those times in movies such as The Devil’s Backbone (2001) and Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)–probably two among the best films of our young 21st century.

To Americans, however, fascism is a confusing, esoteric, and fungible political term.  For the generations that lived during the 1920s and 1930s, the meaning was more immediate and its dangers best exemplified in the Sinclair Lewis novel It Can’t Happen Here (1935).  But the term has been appropriated over the years, and misused recently, most notably by the fact-challenged Jonah Goldberg, whose silly and frivolous mental gymnastics in Liberal Fascism (2008) contributed greatly to obfuscating the term in uniquely Orwellian ways which, of course, was the book’s intent.

Our times seem to suggest that it is time to end the silliness where it exists in throwing around the name.  So I think it is important to revisit what Eco had to say about the topic.  He had, after all, actually lived life from his most impressionable years as a fascist, embraced it and all that it stood for, articulated its meaning, and then was able–upon liberation–to free himself from its grip, reflect upon it, and identify what it is and its core characteristics.

The article in which he most effectively dealt with this subject was in the June 22, 1995 edition of the New York Review of Books.  Note that many of these characteristics by themselves or in some combination can be found in other political movements, ideologies, and social movements, but none contain all of these characteristics applied quite in the same manner and combination to society.

I have listed the characteristics below, and flesh out one.  Note that fascism as he describes it, and has discussed it, isn’t identified as being on the right or left of what in the modern U.S. is identified as the political spectrum.  Fascism can appropriate many of the agenda items and disguise itself using the raiment of the conventional political parties and ideologies, as well as the more mundane imagery of contemporary life.  They are:

  1. The cult of tradition.  In giving his example Eco points out that the cult of tradition has existed in many forms over the course of human history.  But in attributing this characteristic to fascism he points to its assertion that “there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.”
  2. Traditionalism implies a rejection of modernism.  According to Eco’s analysis, the Nazis and Fascists embraced technology, but not the modern systems and processes that made it possible.  “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity.  In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
  3. Irrationalism depends on the cult of action for action’s sake.  To the fascist, “thinking is a form of emasculation.”  Action without reflection is valued above all other things.  Anti-intellectualism rules. Where there are fascist intellectuals, their role is to attack modern culture for betraying traditional values.
  4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernity.  Science encourages disagreement to advance learning.  For fascism, disagreement and discerning distinctions are emblematic of treason.
  5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.  Fascism exploits the fear of difference–targeting intruders as the Other.  It is inherently racist.
  6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.  In Italy as in all cases, Fascism appealed to the fears of a frustrated middle class: “a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
  7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.  Note to Birthers.
  8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.  To fascists, the targeted groups are both weak and easily overcome, but also powerful and sinister, plotting to take away the rights and privileges that is the select group’s birthright.  This contradiction is key to stoking fear and provides motivation for further action.
  9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.  Life is a constant battle against the enemy at every level of society and thought, which will only be resolved with a great final battle.
  10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.  Fascism depends on the belief in, and allegiance to, the strong, especially a strong ruler.  The weak deserve their lot.
  11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.  Fascist societies are obsessed with hero worship, especially in the martial professions and the vanguard of the movement, where the heroic death for the cause is idolized, especially when someone else is doing the dying.
  12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.  Control of sexual mores and procreation is central to fascist movements.  Demonization of non-compliance is essential.
  13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.  Democratic processes are illegitimate and the targeted groups are excluded from participation in the political process.  An effort to undermine the legitimacy of democratic elected leaders and democratic elective processes and republican institutions, even from within, are part and parcel of the fascist cause.
  14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.  Intentions are obscured by language that is nonsensical or simplistic.  The purpose of Newspeak is to undermine critical thinking and disagreement.

The Monster Mash — Zombie Ideas in Project and Information Management

Just completed a number of meetings and discussions among thought leaders in the area of complex project management this week, and I was struck by a number of zombie ideas in project management, especially related to information, that just won’t die.  The use of the term zombie idea is usually attributed to the Nobel economist Paul Krugman from his excellent and highly engaging (as well as brutally honest) posts at the New York Times, but for those not familiar, a zombie idea is “a proposition that has been thoroughly refuted by analysis and evidence, and should be dead — but won’t stay dead because it serves a political purpose, appeals to prejudices, or both.”

The point is that to a techie–or anyone engaged in intellectual honesty–is that they are often posed in the form of question begging, that is, they advance invalid assumptions in the asking or the telling.  Most often they take the form of the assertive half of the same coin derived from “when did you stop beating your wife?”-type questions.  I’ve compiled a few of these for this post and it is important to understand the purpose for doing so.  It is not to take individuals to task or to bash non-techies–who have a valid reason to ask basic questions based on what they’ve heard–but propositions put forth by people who should know better based on their technical expertise or experience.  Furthermore, knowing and understanding technology and its economics is really essential today to anyone operating in the project management domain.

So here are a few zombies that seem to be most common:

a.  More data equals greater expense.  I dealt with this issue in more depth in a previous post, but it’s worth repeating here:  “When we inform Moore’s Law by Landauer’s Principle, that is, that the energy expended in each additional bit of computation becomes vanishingly small, it becomes clear that the difference in cost in transferring a MB of data as opposed to a KB of data is virtually TSTM (“too small to measure”).”  The real reason why we continue to deal with this assertion is both political in nature and also based in social human interaction.  People hate oversight and they hate to be micromanaged, especially to the point of disrupting the work at hand.  We see behavior, especially in regulatory and contractual relationships, where the reporting entity plays the game of “hiding the button.”  This behavior is usually justified by pointing to examples of dysfunction, particularly on the part of the checker, where information submissions lead to the abuse of discretion in oversight and management.  Needless to say, while such abuse does occur, no one has yet to point quantitatively to data (as opposed to anecdotally) that show how often this happens.

I would hazard to guess that virtually anyone with some experience has had to work for a bad boss; where every detail and nuance is microscopically interrogated to the point where it becomes hard to make progress on the task at hand.  Such individuals, who have been advanced under the Peter principle must, no doubt, be removed from such a position.  But this often happens in any organization, whether it be in private enterprise–especially in places where there is no oversight, check-and-balances, means of appeal, or accountability–or government–and is irrelevant to the assertion.  The expense item being described is bad management, not excess data.  Thus, such assertions are based on the antecedent assumption of bad management, which goes hand-in-hand with…

b. More information is the enemy of efficiency.  This is the other half of the economic argument to more data equals greater expense.  And I failed to mention that where the conflict has been engaged over these issues, some unjustifiable figure is given for the additional data that is certainly not supported by the high tech economics cited above.  Another aspect of both of these perspectives also comes from the conception of non-techies that more data and information is equivalent to pre-digital effort, especially in conceptualizing the work that often went into human-readable reports.  This is really an argument that supports the assertion that it is time to shift the focus from fixed report formatting functionality in software based on limited data to complete data, which can be formatted and processed as necessary.  If the right and sufficient information is provided up-front, then additional questions and interrogatories that demand supplemental data and information–with the attendant multiplication of data streams and data islands that truly do add cost and drive inefficiency–are at least significantly reduced, if not eliminated.

c.  Data size adds unmanageable complexity.  This was actually put forth by another software professional–and no doubt the non-techies in the room would have nodded their heads in agreement (particularly given a and b above), if opposing expert opinion hadn’t been offered.  Without putting too fine a point on it, a techie saying this to an open forum is equivalent to whining that your job is too hard.  This will get you ridiculed at development forums, where you will be viewed as an insufferable dilettante.  Digitized technology for well over 40 years has been operating under the phenomenon of Moore’s Law.  Under this law, computational and media storage capability doubles at least every two years under the original definition, though that equation has accelerated to somewhere between 12 and 24 months.  Thus, what was considered big data, say, in 1997 when NASA first coined the term, is not considered big data today.  No doubt, what is considered big data this year will not be considered big data two years from now.  Thus, the term itself is relative and may very well become archaic.  The manner in which data is managed–its rationalization and normalization–is important in successfully translating disparate data sources, but the assertion that big is scary is simply fear mongering because you don’t have the goods.

d.  Big data requires more expensive and sophisticated approaches.  This flows from item c above as well and is often self-serving.  Scare stories abound, often using big numbers which sound scary.  All data that has a common use across domains has to be rationalized at some point if they come from disparate sources, and there are a number of efficient software techniques for accomplishing this.  Furthermore, support for agnostic APIs and common industry standards, such as the UN/CEFACT XML, take much of the rationalization and normalization work out of a manual process.  Yet I have consistently seen suboptimized methods being put forth that essentially require an army of data scientists and coders to essentially engage in brute force data mining–a methodology that has been around for almost 30 years: except that now it carries with it the moniker of big data.  Needless to say this approach is probably the most expensive and slowest out there.  But then, the motivation for its use by IT shops is usually based in rice bowl and resource politics.  This is flimflam–an attempt to revive an old zombie under a new name.  When faced with such assertions, see Moore’s Law and keep on looking for the right answer.  It’s out there.

e.  Performance management and assessment is an unnecessary “regulatory” expense.  This one keeps coming up as part of a broader political agenda beyond just project management.  I’ve discussed in detail the issues of materiality and prescriptiveness in regulatory regimes here and here, and have addressed the obvious legitmacy of organizations to establish one in fiduciary, contractual, and governmental environments.

My usual response to the assertion of expense is to simply point to the unregulated derivatives market largely responsible for the financial collapse, and the resulting deep economic recession that followed once the housing bubble burst.  (And, aside from the cost of human suffering and joblessness, the expenses related to TARP).  Thus we know that the deregulation of banking had gone so well.  Even after the Band-Aid of Dodd-Frank the situation probably requires a bit more vigor, and should include the ratings agencies as well as the real estate market.  But here is the fact of the matter: such expenses cannot be monetized as additive because “regulatory” expenses usually represent an assessment of the day-to-day documentation, systems, and procedures required when performing normal business operations and due diligence in management.  I attended an excellent presentation last week where the speaker, tasked with finding unnecessary regulatory expenses, admitted as much.

Thus, what we are really talking about is an expense that is an essential prerequisite to entry in a particular vertical, especially where monopsony exists as a result of government action.  Moral hazard, then, is defined by the inherent risk assumed by contract type, and should be assessed on those terms.  Given the current trend is to raise thresholds, the question is going to be–in the government sphere–whether public opinion will be as forgiving in a situation where moral hazard assumes $100M in risk when things head south, as they often do with regularity in project management.  The way to reduce that moral hazard is through sufficiency of submitted data.  Thus, we return to my points in a and b above.

f.  Effective project assessment can be performed using high level data.  It appears that this view has its origins in both self-interest and a type of anti-intellectualism/anti-empiricism.

In the former case, the bias is usually based on the limitations of either individuals or the selected technology in providing sufficient information.  In the latter case, the argument results in a tautology that reinforces the fallacy that absence of evidence proves evidence of absence.  Here is how I have heard the justification for this assertion: identifying emerging trends in a project does not require that either trending or lower level data be assessed.  The projects in question are very high dollar value, complex projects.

Yes, I have represented this view correctly.  Aside from questions of competency, I think the fallacy here is self-evident.  Study after study (sadly not all online, but performed within OSD at PARCA and IDA over the last three years) have demonstrated that high level data averages out and masks indicators of risk manifestation, which could have been detected looking at data at the appropriate level, which is the intersection of work and assigned resources.  In plain language, this requires integration of the cost and schedule systems, with risk first being noted through consecutive schedule performance slips.  When combined with technical performance measures, and effective identification of qualitative and quantitative risk tied to schedule activities, the early warning is two to three months (and sometime more) before the risk is reflected in the cost measurement systems.  You’re not going to do this with an Excel spreadsheet.  But, for reference, see my post  Excel is not a Project Management Solution.

It’s time to kill the zombies with facts–and to behead them once and for all.

For What It’s Worth — More on the Materiality and Prescriptiveness Debate and How it Affects Technological Solutions

The underlying basis on the materiality vs. prescriptiveness debate that I previously wrote about lies in two areas:  contractual compliance, especially in the enforcement of public contracts, and the desired outcomes under the establishment of a regulatory regime within an industry.  Sometimes these purposes are in agreement and sometimes they are in conflict and work at cross-purposes to one another.

Within a simple commercial contractual relationship, there are terms and conditions established that are based on the expectation of the delivery of supplies and services.  In the natural course of business these transactions are usually cut-and-dried: there is a promise for a promise, a meeting of the minds, consideration, and performance.  Even in cases that are heavily reliant on services, where the terms are bit more “fuzzy,” the standard is that the work being performed be done in a “workmanlike” or “professional” manner, usually defined by the norms of the trade or profession involved.  There is some judgment here depending on the circumstances, and so disputes tend to be both contentious and justice oftentimes elusive where ambiguity reigns.

In research and development contracts the ambiguities and contractual risks are legion.  Thus, the type of work and the ability to definitize that work will, to the diligent contract negotiator, determine the contract type that is selected.  In most cases in the R&D world, especially in government, contract types reflect a sharing and handling of risk that is reflected in the use of cost-plus type contracts.

Under this contract type, the effort is reimbursed to the contractor, who must provide documentation on expenses, labor hours, and work accomplished.  Overhead, G&A, and profit is negotiated based on a determination of what is fair and reasonable against benchmarks in the industry, which will be ultimately determined through negotiation of the parties.  A series of phases and milestones are established to mark the type of work that is expected to be accomplished over time.  The ultimate goal is the produce a prototype end item application that meets the needs of the agency, whether that agency is the Department of Defense or some other civilian agency in the government.

The period of performance of the contracts in these cases, depending on the amount of risk in research and development in pushing the requisite technology, usually involving several years.  Thus, the areas of concern given the usually high dollar value, inherent risk, and extended periods, involve:

  1. The reliability, accuracy, quality, consistency, and traceability of the underlying systems that report expenditures, effort, and progress;
  2. Measures that are indicative of whether all of the aspects of the eventual end item will meet elements that constitute expectations and standards of effectiveness, performance, and technical achievement.  These measures are conducted within the overall cost and schedule constraints of the contracted effort;
  3. Assessment over the lifecycle of the contract regarding external, as well as internal technical, qualitative, and quantitative risks of the effort;
  4. The ability of items 1 through 3 above to provide an effective indication or early warning that the contractual vehicle will significantly vary from either the contractual obligations or the established elements outlining the physical, performance, and technical characteristics of the end item.
  5. The more mundane, but no less important, verification of contractual performance against the terms and conditions to avoid a condition of breach.

Were these the only considerations in public contracting related to project management our work in evaluating these relationships, while challenging, would be fairly cut-and-dried given that they would be looked at from a contracting perspective.  But there is also a systemic purpose for a regulatory regime.  These are often in conflict with one another.  Such requirements as compliance, surveillance, process improvement, and risk mitigation are looking at the same systems, but from different perspectives with, ultimately, differing reactions, levels of effectiveness, and results.  What none of these purposes includes is a punitive purpose or result–a line oftentimes overstepped, in particular, by private parties.  This does not mean that some regulations that require compliance with a law do not come with civil penalties, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

The underlying basis of any regulatory regime is established in law.  The sovereign–in our case the People of the United States through the antecedent documents of governance, including the U.S. Constitution and Constitutions of the various states, as well as common law–possesses an inherent right to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of the people.  The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution actually specifies this purpose in writing, but in broader terms.  Thus, the purposes of a regulatory regime when it comes to this specific issue are what are at issue.

The various reasons usually are as follows:

  1. To prevent an irreversible harm from occurring.
  2. To enforce a particular level of professional conduct.
  3. To ensure compliance with a set of regulations or laws, especially where ambiguities in civil and common law have yielded judicial uncertainty.
  4. To determine the level of surveillance of a regulated system that is needed based on a set of criteria.
  5. To encourage particular behaviors.
  6. To provide the basis for system process improvement.

Thus, in applying a regulation there are elements that go beyond the overarching prescriptiveness vs. materiality debate.  Materiality only speaks to relevance or significance, while prescriptiveness relates to “block checking”–the mindless work of the robotic auditor.

For example, let’s take the example of two high profile examples of regulation in the news today.

The first concerns the case of where Volkswagen falsified its emissions test results for a good many of its vehicles.  The role of the regulator in this case was to achieve a desired social end where the state has a compelling interest–the reduction of air pollution from automobiles.  The regulator–the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)–found the discrepancy and issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act.  The EPA, however, did not come across this information on its own.  Since we are dealing with multinational products, the initial investigation occurred in Europe under a regulator there and the results passed to the EPA.  The corrective action is to recall the vehicles and “make the parties whole.”  But in this case the regulator’s remedy may only be the first line of product liability.  It will be hard to recall the pollutants released into the atmosphere and breach of implicit contract with the buyers of the automobiles.  Whether a direct harm can be proven is now up to the courts, but given that executives in an internal review (article already cited) admitted that executives knew about deception, the remedies now extend to fraud.  Regardless of the other legal issues,

The other high profile example is the highly toxic levels of lead in the drinking water of Flint, Michigan.  In this case the same regulator, the EPA, has issued a violation of federal law in relation to safe drinking water.  But as with the European case, the high levels of lead were first discovered by local medical personnel and citizens.  Once the discrepancy was found a number of actions were required to be taken to secure proper drinking water.  But the damage has been done.  Children in particular tend to absorb lead in their neurological systems with long term adverse results.  It is hard to see how the real damage that has been inflicted will make the damaged parties whole.

Thus, we can see two things.  First, the regulator is firmly within the tradition of regulating the health, safety, and welfare, particularly the first category and second categories.  Secondly, the regulatory regime is reactive.

While obviously the specific illnesses caused by the additional pollution form Volkswagen vehicles is probably not directly traceable to harm, the harm in the case of elevated lead levels in Flint’s water supply is both traceable and largely irreversible.

Thus, in comparing these two examples, we can see that there are other considerations than the black and white construct of materiality and prescriptiveness.  For example, there are considerations of irreversible harm, prevention, proportionality, judgment, and intentional results.

The first reason for regulation listed above speaks to irreversible harm.  In these cases proportionality and prevention are the main concerns.  Ensuring that those elements are in place that will prevent some catastrophic or irreversible harm through some event or series of events is the primary goal in these cases.  When I say harm I do not mean run of the mill, litigious, constructive “harm” in the legal or contractual sense, but great harm–life and death, resulting disability, loss of livelihood, catastrophic market failure, denial of civil rights, and property destruction kind of harm.  In enforcing such goals, these fall most in line with prescriptiveness–the establishment of particular controls which, if breached, would make it almost impossible to fully recover without a great deal of additional cost or effort.  Furthermore, when these failures occur a determination of culpability or non-culpability is determined.  The civil penalties in these cases, where not specified by statute, are ideally determined by proportionality of the damage.  Oftentimes civil remedies are not appropriate since these often involve violations of law.  This occurs, in real life, from the two main traditional approaches to audit and regulation being rooted in prescriptive and judgmental approaches.

The remainder of the reasons for regulation provide degrees of oversight and remedy that are not only proportional to the resulting findings and effects, but also to the goal of the regulation and its intended behavioral response.  Once again, apart from the rare and restricted violations given in the first category above, these regulations are not intended to be enforced in a punitive manner, though there can be penalties for non-compliance.  Thus, proportionality, purpose, and reasonableness are additional considerations to take into account.  These oftentimes fall within the general category of materiality.

Furthermore, going beyond prescriptiveness and materiality, a paper entitled Applying Systems-Thinking to Reduce Check-the-Box Decisions in the Audit of Complex Estimates, by Anthony Bucaro at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, proposes an alternative auditing approach that also is applicable to other types of regulation, including contract management.  The issue that he is addressing is the fact that today, in using data, a new approach is needed to shift the emphasis to judgment and other considerations in whether a discrepancy warrants a finding of some sort.

This leads us, then, to the reason why I went down this line of inquiry.  Within project management, either a contractual or management prerogative already exists to apply a set of audits and procedures to ensure compliance with established business processes.  Particular markets are also governed by statutes regulating private conduct of a public nature.  In the government sphere, there is an added layer of statutes that prescribe a set of legal and administrative guidance.  The purposes of these various rules varies.  Obviously breaking a statute will garner the most severe and consequential penalties.  But the set of regulatory and administrative standards often act at cross purposes, and in their effect, do not rise to the level of breaking a law, unless they are necessary elements in complying with that law.

Thus, a whole host of financial and performance data assessing what, at the core, is a very difficult “thing” to execute (R&D leading to a new end item), offers some additional hazards under these rules.  The underlying question, outside of statute, concerns what the primary purpose should be in ensuring their compliance.  Does it pass the so-what? test if a particular administrative procedure is not followed to the letter?

Taking a broader approach, including a data-driven and analytical one, removes much of the arbitrariness when judgment and not box-checking is the appropriate approach.  Absent a consistent and wide pattern that demonstrates a lack of fidelity and traceability of data within the systems that have been established, auditors and public policymakers must look at the way that behavior is affected.  Are there incentives to hide or avoid issues, and are there sufficient incentives to find and correct deficiencies?  Are the costs associated with dishonest conclusions adequately addressed, and are there ways of instituting a regime that encourages honesty?

At the core is technology–both for the regulated and the regulator.  If the data that provides the indicators of compliance come, unhindered, from systems of record, then dysfunctional behaviors are minimized.  If that data is used in the proper manner by the regulator in driving a greater understanding of the systemic conditions underlying the project, as well as minimizing subjectivity, then the basis for trust is established in determining the most appropriate means of correcting a deficiency.  The devil is in the details, of course.  If the applied technology simply reproduces the check-block mentality, then nothing has been accomplished.  Business intelligence and systems intelligence must be applied in order to achieve the purposes that I outlined earlier.