Intuition? Intelligent design versus evolution? Instead of discussing topics
that have nothing to do with ToC, (and which many on this list, including
myself, are poorly equipped to discuss) may I ask instead which "scientific
method" ToC (and thus CC PM) uses? ToC is supposed to be the application of
the scientific method to human organizations, and CC PM is the application
of ToC to projects.

So, do we use a "scientific method"?



No question we apply rigorous logic. at least some of the time (see examples
below). And all our "thinking process" tools are clearly based on logical
analysis. But in science, there is more than logic - there is also the
testing of hypotheses by "putting the question to nature". That is,
experimentation, and analysis of the results statistically. So why don't we
do the same in ToC? [As Six Sigma does, for example. ]



I mention this because I have found in some discussions that when some ToC
advocates reach the end of their logic, they sometimes resort to "we know
this works because many ToC practitioners have done it" - as if that was
either logical or scientific justification. [This is the same "evidence",
for example, offered by those who believed historically (for decades) that
bloodletting to allow "bad blood" to leave the body was "scientific"
medicine. That fact that many folks do (or claim to do) something and
succeed is interesting, but hardly conclusive. Anecdotal evidence is
excellent grounds for a hypothesis, but is hardly sufficient for a
"scientific" claim. ]



Perhaps it is easier, and more useful, to describe what is NOT a scientific
method: when you believe in things you don't understand.

Certainty without support is superstition, not science.

So, for example, if you believe in, and advocate to others, a "rule of
thumb" for sizing buffers, and you cannot offer any mechanism or rationale
as to why your rule of thumb works (or when it won't work), is that science
or superstition?

[And if it is science, what test would establish a different approach as
superior?]

Or, if you don't care for that example, what about the three-zone method for
determining buffer status?

Or the rule that project plans should not have more than 300 tasks?

These are all fairly fundamental to CC PM, yes? And CC PM is the application
of ToC to projects, and ToC is "scientific", right?

So how are we doing with our science and our method?



Richard Zultner, Jonah





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]