Home > Uncategorized > daily 09/16/2014

daily 09/16/2014

    • The idea centers on an incredible strategic tool: the OODA Loop — Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Nation-states around the world and even terrorist organizations use the OODA Loop as part of their military strategy. It has also been adopted by businesses to help them thrive in a volatile and highly competitive economy.
    • We never have complete and perfect information. The best way to succeed is to revel in ambiguity.
    • Boyd infers that individuals or organizations that don’t communicate with the outside world by getting new information about the environment or by creating new mental models act like a “closed system.
    • The more we rely on outdated mental models even while the world around us is changing, the more our mental “entropy” goes up.
    • “Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch.” [emphasis mine]
    • Risk is the embodiment of the uncertainty which is inherent in the DNA of projects. Until all agreed-to scope has been delivered and accepted, risk does not disappear so why do we not connect the dots by referencing it in other key project management artifacts?
    • Risk drives variation in outcomes and hence the cost and time contingencies reflected in cost estimates and schedules should link back to specific risks in the register. Risk responses for high severity risks should show up as line items in the schedule and should have been baked into your baseline budget.
    • A well maintained risk register should be able to provide a forensic trail of project change.
    • valuable input into post-project assessment of risk management practice effectiveness.
    • Risk management is like quality – if you tack it on, the value derived is less than if it gets baked in as an intrinsic part of your overall project management approach.
    • Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, veteran science writer and foreign correspondent Dan Drollette, Jr. says that, at the time, the Air Force’s justification was that causing permanent blindness is no worse than shooting or bombing soldiers. In fact, from a tactical perspective, it was deemed more advantageous: a dead soldier is just dead, but a blinded one needs the help of others, thus tying up several enemy soldiers at once — similar to the thinking behind the use of landmines to blow off legs and arms.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: