You want your model to work in reality, and therefore you have to assume that others have their own models.
It is a game. Like playing chess. Or the usual “prisoner’s dilemma”.
From models, we will move to the interaction between models- and between different decision paths within a model.
A down-to-earth introduction to the game theory.
This post is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
When you build a model of reality, you try to reduce complexity.
Reducing complexity means making choices- and reducing the risk of something unexpected affecting the results of your model.
Actually, it means also reducing the number of parameters- and, therefore, making any evolution in your world more predictable.
But reality is not necessarily limited by your definition: and managing the reality within a model requires more that planning beforehand for what you know, in terms of activities or risks.
You have also to identify what is the “normal” way in which your model will react to unexpected changes in the “reality” surrounding your model.
This post is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
If you identify the “risks”, what could affect the conditions that you assumed that could affect your execution of the plan, then you will end up monitoring that:
It is not just the journey that you have to keep in check; it is also the destination.
This post is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
You do not need to know just what you are supposed to do, but also where you are, and where you should be.
If you are a perfect project manager with all the certifications required: probably you should skip this section, as it could be depressingly simple.
But it is not just progress itself- is the measuring and definition of progress that matter.
This post is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
In my definition, a plan is neither cast in stone, nor just an intellectual exercise done because it is supposed to be done.
But what, after defining a model of your reality, and identifying the changes required and their impacts, should be part of your planning activity?
This post is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
Any organization, or organized group, whatever its purpose and composition, has what could be defined a “decision inertia”.
Any change has multiple dimensions: time, the environment were the change is carried out, the “stakeholders” (to simplify: whoever, directly or indirectly, is involved, affected, interested by a decision), etc.
In this post, we will briefly see the multiple dimensions of change, and what means managing change.
This post is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
standardized tests can be useful- but, in my experience, should be compounded with profiling
along my career, as well as in other activities before, I always enjoyed negotiating.
often, I have been called in by partners after they had already built a contract-based relationship: that wasn’t working as planned
this post is long and without a chapter-by-chapter division: because it is a short summary of what I learned to do, and what to avoid
Well, the title is maybe a little bit too much- but it is certain to attract you attention 
This short article summarizes some ideas and information I discussed or collected while attending few events
At a further stage, something more structure will appear on BusinessFitnessMagazine.Com
For free, as usual
Searching & Machine intelligence & Decisions
Tuesday, May 19th, 2009How the addition of WolframAlpha as a search engine could complement Google services to create a new market.
Services? Access and structure knowledge. And a new form of knowledge management.
Tags: alpha, analyst, artificial, brio, business, competitive, comshare, dimension, dss, eis, explain, fitness, game, google, intelligence, knowledge, magazine, management, model, online, project, prolog, theory, training, web, wolfram, yale
Posted in commentary, events, everything, publications, reviews | No Comments »