On Statesmanship and Software engineering

Picture the situation: You are the project manager of a major digital project. Countless people, millions of spend in any currency, and big stakes. How do you go about that?

Many years ago, when I was a student, I was invited into such a project. I was given six months to see study and suggest how this large project could succeed “better”, where better was time, money, quality, i.e., what any large organization would want.

I was allowed to read any document, interview anyone, sit in one meetings, read defect reports – anything. After six months, I gave my recommendation. Most of what I recommended has no meaning today, but one observation was crucially important – and may be so also for a Statesman of today: I recommended having one more coffee machine.

Shortly after concluding the study, I visited a scientific research conference. Just before my own presentation, another researcher, whom had performed a similar study, presented his findings. One of his conclusions was that the coffee machine in his case should be removed, because, people spent too much time by the coffee machine. I was astounded, because I had come to the opposite conclusion: Spend more time around the coffee machine. How could we have come to so different conclusions, in so similar circumstances?

The thought plagued me. The other researcher was very bright. The projects we had studied were in many ways similar. Culture was similar. I just could not put my finger on why we concluded so differently. It really bothered be, because either I had come with a terrible recommendation, or, the other person had.

So, I decided to go back and ask myself: How had I arrived at my conclusions? How had I arrived at my decision to recommend one more coffee machine? What made my decision and recommendation better or worse than the other researcher's?

I hypothesized widely. After due time thinking, I formulated a question to explore:

If I did not have access to this or that piece of information, had I arrived at the same conclusion?

I studied this with all the rigor of a scientist, which turned out to be quite easy, as I had noted and numbered in detail what evidences had helped shape every single recommendation. I could see things such as "Evidence A, B and C shaped conclusion D". When you have that level of rigor in your analysis, you can also see that conclusion D would be different if you did not know C. The more I studies all my conclusions, the more clear it became:

The more independent information sources you have, the better decisions you are able to make.

You also need different types of information sources. For example, had I only listened to one person, I would not have gotten a complete perspective. For example, if you only look at where people spend time, such as at a coffee machine, you do not get the insight of what the value of what they talk about at the coffee machine. And if you do not look at defect reports, you do not see that you produce less waste, because of what you discussed.

Thus, I could write one more peer reviewed software engineering scientific paper. I could with a very high degree of confidence conclude:

The more independent information sources you have, not only do you make other decisions than with fewer sources, you make different decisions. You make better decisions.

So what does this have to do with statesmanship? Think of it like this: If you are the leader of a major endeavor, you want to make the best decisions – preferably better than lets say, a competitive organization. And what larger organizations are there than states, or mega sized organizations?

In this world, different states are organized differently. We have different operational models. Each an one have different traits. But I dare say that the more people have access to more independent information sources, the more people make better decisions

Is that not the essence of what you need in a large organization?

If you are a statesman, or a leader of a large organization, the question then becomes: How do you foster a culture where you get access to real information, as seen from different perspectives, and using a multitude of ways of getting information?

It is my personal hope that an old software engineering case study can inspire more top leaders to allow, encourage and cherish the messiness, the discussions, the temporal disputes – and the greater outcome you get when more people make better decisions.

And if not – my initial finding was that coffee machines in offices are good, because key influencers meet, and they talk about reality as it really was, and thus made better decisions. Drink coffee and talk to each other.

For a large organization, or a small planet, that may be a better approach, if the objective is a better world for you and others.