Time to thank the latest top links to my blog. These are sites that are obviously very popular whose readers somehow find their way to projectmanagement411.com. I appreciate that they exist, remain popular, and increase the quality of the blogosphere. So- check ‘em out:
- http://www.copyblogger.com
- http://www.b5media.com
- http://www.stumbleupon.com
- http://slackermanager.com
- http://lifedev.net
- http://myhealthcare.com
Project management applies to just about everything even though I try to keep my posts related to innovation and executing strategies in business, large and small. If you like what you are reading here, and have a blog or site to link projectmanagement411.com to, link us up and let …read more

Strategy+Business does a good job of covering viability of cost-benefit analyses. The bottom line appears to be that pure cost-benefit analysis may only apply in the simplest of situations:
It is inadequate for evaluations of interventions that will affect many different dimensions, such as markets, economies, health, the environment, and endangered species. Cost-benefit analysis is also inappropriate for products or processes over which there are disagreements about benefits or about which outcomes are important, such as new medical technologies like genetic testing. And it should never be used as the basis for regulation in the presence of scientific uncertainty or value …read more

There is quite a revelation in the Strategy+Business piece on cost-benefit analysis:

…the data is often framed to protect existing industries and technologies and discourage innovation…..

Their example of two industry reports presented to OSHA that estimated costs of noise abatement at $31.6B and $11.7B respectively reveals that the reason was that one study completely ignored new, working technology. That study also didn’t consider minor changes and upgrades to current equipment that could substantially reduce noise.
I find this to be true in my field of software technology. Often companies fail to investigate new technology that enables collaborative business processes that can substantially …read more

A Strategy+Business article on the myth of cost-benefit analysis reveals how the government has consistently gotten cost estimates wrong:

A February 2004 analysis by Ruth Ruttenberg & Associates for the Public Citizen Foundation concluded that in 30 years of federal regulatory activity, the U.S. government had consistently inflated cost estimates for health, safety, and environmental protections. Rarely, if ever, did actual compliance costs reach the estimates provided by the regulating agency – and costs never reached the levels estimated by the private sector.

I think it’s interesting that the private sector “got it wrong” more than the government. The reason appears to …read more

Strategy+Business’s article on cost-benefit analysis reveals that any data used for this purpose must be tempered by non-quantitative considerations:

“…no matter how clever the mathematics, certain key inputs in a cost-benefit analysis cannot be translated into economic value. Security and safety, the preservation of wildlife and open spaces, the reduction of fear in a community, and scientific uncertainty in fields that spawn technological innovation are all economic intangibles – and omitting them when they are clearly important factors should invalidate the analysis. But it never does.”

The problem appears to be that cost-benefit analyses have been done in a vacuum that tends …read more

The EPA announces a new regulation limiting mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants; their coal industry cost estimate was $750M a year with a public health cost estimate of $50M a year. A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study agreed with the $750M number but put the health cost at $5B. How does something like this happen?
Strategy+Business covers this and other examples in it’s excellent article on “The Myth of Cost Benefit Analysis“. My experience with cost-benefit analysis is on large technology projects. Typically the problem is that too many areas are considered with not enough analysis of the likelihood …read more

picApp_publisherId = 673;picApp_imageId = 1833;picApp_imageWidth = 286;picApp_imageHeight = 430;picApp_configUrl = “http://pis.picapp.com/IamProd/FlashSite/GetConfig.aspx”;picApp_Picview=”http://pis.picapp.com/IamProd/FlashSite/en/picviewerv1_1.swf”;picapp_numberOfLine=1;ImageServe();
Strategy+Business.com dealt with who to include on projects in “The Community Network Solution“. The premise of the article is that choice of participants on a project is crucial. Typically power players are chosen based on rank but they suggest that highly networked people, who are much harder to identify, will result in better projects:
Identifying such people is a challenge because they fly below the public radar. Finding them requires not compiling a list but devising a new approach — making a map. This kind of map is a diagram of …read more

The Clinton-Obama rivalry gives us examples of what works and what doesn’t in terms of communicating to a team. I see Obama as a serious person who is interested in his audience. I see Clinton as more manipulative and prone to ill-timed laughter. Why are these reactions important in terms of how we are viewed by others? I’m not saying that my reactions are correct, but just that they are important when it comes to whether or not you can successfully communicate.
I think that an Obama-like seriousness and empathy is much more likely to result in developing a teaming atmosphere. …read more

The recent Clinton-Obama debates give us an opportunity to study communication styles. I find the behavior inside, vs. outside, the debates interesting in that an attempt is made to look cooperative “for the sake of the party and the nation” when seated next to each other.
What does this seemingly cooperative spirit do in terms of moving along one or the other’s agenda? What does the difference in cooperation inside a meeting (or debate), vs. outside, signal to the rest of a company (or voting population)? Do you see this type of thing happening in your company- i.e., VP seemingly cooperating …read more

I’ve carefully observed the recent Clinton-Obama debates and been fascinated with the differences in their communication styles. Both have enough common factors (policy stands, speaking ability, intelligence) to allow a good opportunity to analyze successful, and not so successful, ways of communicating.
Obama is unflappable, repectful, willing to admit mistakes, and redefines his arguments patiently. Clinton is prone to react strongly verging on anger, uses comedy poorly, yet provides analysis in a surprisingly detailed way. I wonder if my initial analysis is tainted by my reaction to her being a woman- i.e., the usual issues of reacting strongly to a woman’s …read more