robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/14/84)
<This line no text>
I was really excited to discover that there was a net group
on Philosophy. I subscribed to it, hoping to do some reading
about, well, philosophy, ethics, morality, etc. But this group
has the weirdest collection of memos?!?!
Unlike net.general, which might be abolished because it has no
identity, this group MUST have an identity.
- It's not the same as net.abortion, because the stuff copied to
this group is much less rational than what appears in net.abortion.
- It's not the same as net.flame, becuase the stuff in this group
is much more childish than what appears in net.flame.
- It's not net. politics, because, well, it's even sillier, and
less informed, than what appears in net.politics.
Maybe it is net.misc.copytrash, since a great deal of what appears in
here is copied to other groups.
I'd like to start up a philosophical/ethics discussion. I'm going to
apologize in advance that this issue is much less important than
those that usually grace this group. On the other hand, maybe
someone has something to say about it.
The issue:
- Given that, on the basis of almost universal experience,
your client should never believe the (probably optimistic)
software development schedules you announce, how should one
go about communicating accurate schedule information, on
those rare occasionas when one probably has accurate
information to communicate?
For starters, I've tried the obvious:
- tell client when system will be ready. Client doesn't believe,
gets ready months later.
- tell client optimistic schedule you know to be false. Client
draws obvious conclusions, comes to same real conclusion I have,
but I can't know this for sure, and it doesn't feel ethical.
- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
{allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robisonrwh@aesat.UUCP (Russ Herman) (12/16/84)
>The issue: > > - Given that, on the basis of almost universal experience, > your client should never believe the (probably optimistic) > software development schedules you announce, how should one > go about communicating accurate schedule information, on > those rare occasionas when one probably has accurate > information to communicate? > Toby Robison (not Robinson!) I think this question really belongs in net.psychology. However, since we don't have any such newsgroup, ... . What it is a instance of is the general question of "How do we build trust?" Essentially, what you are trying to do is build someone's confidence in *their appraisal of your estimate*, rather than *the truth of your estimate*. Thus, if you learn from experience that someone will automatically add 50% to your estimate, go 50% low. If another person can learn gradually, from a string of accurate estimates, that you really mean what you say, then give the actual estimates. If you can supply a long enough string of accurate estimates to build this degree of trust, you're a better planner than most of us :-)! -- ______ Russ Herman / \ {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh @( ? ? )@ ( || ) The opinions above are strictly personal, and ( \__/ ) do not reflect those of my employer (or even \____/ possibly myself an hour from now.)
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/17/84)
> > information to communicate? > In a libertarian society, you would be free to have an abortion if you had the money. Whether you would or not is entirely pre-determined, but that's no reflection on your Free Will. Given any schedule, your programs are bound to run better on silicon than on meat. Particularly lamb. Baba