Facts, Opinions, Estimates, and Desires

In project-oriented organizations, the appetite for new projects can be insatiable. We often seem to have more work to do than we can support with the people, equipment, and financial resources we have. To deal with what's commonly called resource contention we try to determine who and what will be available, when they will be available, and for how long they will be available. Making these projections requires hard data, excellent judgment, some arithmetic, and an understanding of estimation. Using these projections responsibly requires an understanding of the business objectives of the projects in question.

Rarely do we get all this right. That's why an ongoing activity in many project-oriented organizations is resource allocation — a more accurate term is probably resource reallocation. One factor that leads us to mis-allocate resources is confusion about the distinctions among facts, estimates, opinions, and desires. That confusion causes our debates about resource (re)allocation to lead to conclusions that fit our circumstances less well than we need.

A program to avoid these outcomes can begin with understanding these four terms, understanding how they are commonly misused, and understanding the consequences of their misuse.

Facts

Facts are bits of data that can be objectively verified. Verification methods vary. They include measurement, observation, and confirmation by trusted sources.

In oppositional debate, fact denial is a tactic often employed to advantage. Usually, the denier states an opinion, representing it as fact, in contradiction to the fact the denier wants to deny. For example, if two advocates of two different projects are in contention for portions of the same resource pool, one of the advocates might contend that a particular technology proved problematic in another recent project because the skill sets required for its use are so rare that the organization was unable to recruit staff with expertise in its use. To deny this fact, the opposing advocate might claim that the recruiter used by the organization was incompetent. Scarcity of qualified individuals is an objective, measurable fact, but assessing the competence of the recruiter is more likely to be based on opinion. Still, the fact denier can prevail if the debaters don't recognize that an opinion is not a fact.

If denying the facts fails, a contender might raise questions about the reliability of verification methods for particular kinds of facts. Indeed, questioning verification methods is a tactic often employed to convert facts into opinions for purposes of the debate at hand. Trusted human sources can be particularly vulnerable. Instead of questioning the fact, the skeptic can attribute nefarious motives to anyone who claims to offer verification of the fact. To limit the effectiveness of this tactic, begin the debate by agreeing on a set of verification methods. For example, when choosing a source for training, start by agreeing on a list of acceptable certifying agencies.

Opinions

Opinions are statements that cannot be verified (or cannot be verified in the time available) by objective measurement, observation, or trusted sources. For example, personal likes and dislikes are opinions. More to the point for the context of resource allocation in project-oriented organizations, opinions are participants' inclinations or disinclinations based on personal experience or reports of experiences of others. For example, a statement of opinion is, "As a programming language C is beginning to show its age." A statement of fact is, "C was first standardized in 1989 when the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) published the standard known as ANSI X3.159-1989."

Not all opinions are preferences. Some are beliefs. Key phrases that indicate that a statement is an opinion, and not a fact, include, "I think…," "I believe…," "I seem to recall that…," and "I've heard that…."

Among the Fact denial is a tactic often employed to
advantage. In Fact Denial, the denier
states an opinion, representing it as
fact, in contradiction to the fact
the denier wants to deny.opinions that perhaps present greatest risk to healthy debate are those opinions whose authors believe they are stating facts. Such opinions present risk to the health of debates because the authors of these opinions-as-facts don't allow for the possibility of legitimate but contradictory opinions of others. This attitude can seem to others to be arrogant and disrespectful, which to some is justification for retaliation. Over time, with a repeated pattern of opinion delivered as fact, the strain can grow until people lose control and toxic conflict erupts.

Cultural norms can be helpful in protecting against this pattern. But norms are usually voluntary, and they survive best in an enlightened culture. When everyone understands what a norm provides, they're more likely to abide by it.

Estimates

Resource planning requires projections of resource needs for activities underway and activities about to be undertaken. Those projections are based on estimates of the kind and scale of the effort required by those projects.

Estimates are neither fact nor opinion. They are a synthesis of both. Those who develop estimates rely on facts such as defined approaches to projects, and experience data from other projects. And they rely on opinions such as subjective assessments of the difficulty of tasks, or the time or effort required for finding the people needed to carry out those tasks.

But because estimates aren't facts, people who are dissatisfied with the implications of a particular estimate sometimes treat that estimate as if it were just another opinion, like the opinion, "I dislike raspberry ice cream." Unlike personal opinions, we dismiss unwelcome estimates at our peril.

A serious estimate is far more than an opinion, for two important reasons. First, if the activity being estimated is eventually undertaken, the actual values of the quantities estimated — financial expenditures and time taken — can be compared to the estimates. No one expects exact agreement between estimates and actuals, but the differences must be within tolerable limits. Because the professional reputations of the people who developed the estimates are at stake, estimators usually take care to make the estimates as realistic as possible.

Second, developing a serious estimate requires research. Portions of the estimate must be based on data from previous efforts and data pertinent to the activity in question. Estimators use that data, after making adjustments for current particulars. They might even employ sophisticated mathematics to make their projections. Except in rare cases, it's foolhardy to imagine that one can find fault with an estimate by simply examining the estimator's results.

Finally we come to our fourth item: desires. Those engaged in resource planning debates often have in mind their own preferred outcomes — their own desires. Many have strong attachments to particular projects. They want the available resources to be allocated in such a way that the projects they prefer receive support.

If the resources available aren't sufficient to support every desire of every debate participant, the pressure on all concerned escalates. Participants begin to regard their own opinions as facts. Participants begin to regard an estimate as just one more opinion. And projects that the organization cannot afford to undertake are given a green light with inadequate resources.

Desires therefore can bend the results of these debates away from what is best for the organization. People treat opinions as facts, or they treat estimates as opinions. Watch the resource debates in your organization. If you have an opportunity, you might be able to help others distinguish among facts, opinions, estimates, and desires.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Mudfights

When we steer the discussion away from issues to attack the credibility, motives, or character of our debate partners, we often resort to a technique known as the ad hominem attack. It's unfair, it's unethical, and it leads to bad, expensive decisions that we'll probably regret.

Shining Some Light on "Going Dark"

If you're a project manager, and a team member "goes dark" — disappears or refuses to report how things are going — project risks escalate dramatically. Getting current status becomes a top priority problem. What can you do?

Changing the Subject: I

Whether in small group discussions, large meetings, or chats between friends, changing the subject of the conversation can be constructive, mischievous, frustrating, creative, tension relieving, necessary, devious, or outright malicious. What techniques do we use to change the subject, and how can we cope with them?

Changing the Subject: II

Sometimes, in conversation, we must change the subject, but we also do it to dominate, manipulate, or assert power. Subject changing — and controlling its use — can be important political skills.

Virtual Meetings: Indicators of Inattention

If you've ever led a virtual meeting, you're probably familiar with the feeling that some attendees are doing something else. Here are some indicators of inattention.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info