Bob Lambert

Need uber-guru types who are willing to challenge the existing groupthink on design and architecture, especially on TDD and emergent design and pair programming anti-pattern” – job post at Monster.com 2/9/2010

I stumbled upon that quote following links on the role of the architect on an agile project. Maybe one important role of the architect is to help the team avoid groupthink.

Groupthink is a situation where a team’s decision process breaks down and the team reaches decisions that aren’t fully vetted and evaluated.  Both Watergate and the Bay of Pigs fiasco are cited as examples (here).  I’ve seen groupthink operate on IT projects, and to me the agile method’s effectiveness in enabling groups to work together means agile projects are particularly susceptible.

This post reviews groupthink then discusses how the architect on an agile project might help prevent it.

Groupthink

From the Wikipedia article on groupthink, “groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking…Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink, because their cohesiveness often correlates with unspoken understanding and the ability to work together with minimal explanations.”

In my experience risk of groupthink can manifest in several ways on IT projects:

• Not Invented Here: Successful teams that work through conflict can settle into a shared culture that resists new ideas from outside the team.
• The Know It All: Less successfully integrated teams can be dominated by a single strong-willed individual, and can habitually avoid conflict by accepting without question the ideas of that one dominant team member.
• The Abilene Paradox: Team members sometimes collectively decide on a course of action that no one on the team likes, when each member actually disagrees with the decision but mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group’s.

The Agile Architect

According to the Psychologists for Social Responsibility, the standard remedies for groupthink include this: “At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil’s advocate (to question assumptions and plans)”. Of course the architect is an integral part of the overall project, but the skilled practitioner participates with the Agile team while maintaining separateness in order to remain a source of ideas from outside the team, and therefore provide a counterweight to groupthink by recognizing it and taking measures to prevent it.  Andrew Johnston’s site agilearchitect.org describes some of the ways the architect is in but not totally of the team (here). Among the architect’s responsibilities, he or she:

• Ensures “the delivered system is consistent with the agreed architecture, and will meet the requirements”
• “Is frequently an evangelist for new or different technologies, processes or solutions”
• “Acts as a bridge between developers, managers and other communities, and spends much of his time translating and mediating between them”
• “Recognizes the wide range of stakeholders, and their needs and concerns.”

While core agile team members are immersed in the scope and design that defines the current sprint, the architect retains a larger perspective that encompasses alternative designs, emerging technologies, business fit, stakeholder concerns, and more. The architect is therefore uniquely positioned to recognize groupthink effects on the team’s technical activities. Here are two examples of how that works on agile projects:

• Estimations and retrospectives: Mark Needham, in this post, cites risk of groupthink in agile estimation sessions and retrospectives.  The architect can address both of these risks. In estimation, the architect brings the diverse perspective that Mr. Needham says is important when team members estimate incorrectly due to incorrect team-shared assumptions. In retrospectives, the architect can be the one to increase the “safety” of different perspectives by raising or encouraging others to raise “things that have gone well, not gone well, and things that are confusing”.
• Work product reviews: I’m an advocate of code walkthroughs and design reviews, and making them explicit sprint tasks. The team can set aside an hour or two a week to review one or two representative work products in order to share ideas, ensure quality, and uncover overlooked errors or opportunities. In this forum the architect has the opportunity to reinforce quality work that is aligned with the requriements and architecture, or supportively correct deficiencies.

Of course there are risks:

• The architect shouldn’t be the know it all: In some cases the architect can be the strong-willed individual who stifles creativity and causes the team to avoid conflict.  Strong teamwork and interpersonal skills are core to the agile method, and those who staff the project must include those skills in selection and evaluation of the architect.
• Keep the architect different: If the architect is a core member of the team, he or she can become integrated into the group and therefore part of a groupthink dynamic.  For this reason, I advocate architects being assigned part-time to agile efforts. Otherwise, the architect risks becoming the extra developer, as near term sprint tasks expand to fill the available team bandwidth.  Consider sharing the architect among two or three projects, or assigning him or her responsibility for technical strategy and planning.

In a previous post I posed this question: “more people are followers than leaders, so isn’t it more important to cultivate effective followership than effective leadership?”  In reality the distinction between leading and following isn’t very interesting.  The goal of each member of a group should be to contribute to individual and shared goals in a balanced manner and promote the dignity of group members.  In every group effort, whether business, charity, sports, or anything else, everyone leads and everyone follows.

I recently read Testimony, Solomon Volkov’s controversial publication of the memoirs of Dimitri Shostakovich, the great 20th century Russian composer.  There were three different individuals in the book who demonstrated three different ways of “leading”, or behaving with character within a group.  (See the note at the end of this post on the question of authenticity)

The Cheerful Individualist

Volkov presents Modest Mussorgsky, known to most of us today as the composer of Pictures at an Exhibition, as an eccentric but cheerful individualist who would listen attentively to criticism as “everyone who felt like it harangued and criticized him…When he was criticized, he kept quiet, nodded, almost agreed.  But the agreement lasted only as far as the door; once he was outside, he took up his work again, like one of those dolls you can’t knock down.”  Mussorgsky was a unique individual with a unique musical voice, and in Volkov’s account had the confidence to overcome negative reaction to harsh feedback.

The Enabler

Alexander Glazunov, known as the “Russian Brahms,” was head of the Leningrad Conservatory from 1906 to 1928.  Glazunov was Shostakovich’s mentor during his time at the conservatory.  Glazunov enjoyed the company of young musicians, “performers came to his house every day”.  From Shostakovich’s account of Glazunov I’m reminded of a teacher I had who didn’t seem to teach at all, but by being welcoming, cheerful, and obviously talented and passionate about the subject matter, created an atmosphere in which we couldn’t help but learn.  More importantly, Glazunov saved lives during years of starvation and repression in Russia by “giving away his salary to needy students” and saving Jewish musicians from repression in their home towns by signing petitions for them to live in Petersburg without having them play for him.  As Volkov atrributes to Shostakovich after relating this story: “All things in life can be separated into the important and the unimportant.  You must be principled when it comes to the important things and not when it comes to the unimportant.”

The Supportive Subversive

Volkov’s Shostakovich lived bemused in a world of individual and institutional stupidity.  For example, one official order demanded “a quartet of 10 musicians.”  In this world  Shostakovich trod a fine line but never crossed far enough over to draw retribution.  Finally Shostakovich (among others) was denounced as a “decadent formalist” at the first Composer’s Congress in 1948, perhaps in part due to his 8th Symphony.  It was a solemn response to the end of World War II rather than the expected victory celebration.

Life during the Stalin years and World War II was characterized by deprivation and repression.  Many of Shostakovich’s friends and associates were denounced, exiled to Siberia, or killed in mysterious circumstances.  As a leading Soviet composer Shostakovich provided the soundtrack for the regime.  However, to the careful listener it seems not to celebrate the Stalinists but rather to channel the anguish of the people.  A telling example is his Fifth Symphony, ostensibly a joyous tribute to Party but arguably a veiled protest (see this analysis by Michael Tilson Thomas).

Volkov’s Shostakovich seems to have blundered on in spite of the worst possible conditions, sublimating his genius into musical irony and thereby doing what little he could in small ways to help his fellow Russians.

–

Many question Testimony’s authenticity, but this from the Wikipedia entry on the book might sum up a reasonable assessment: “the book gives a true picture of the political situation in the USSR and correctly represents his father’s political views, but [Maxim Shostakovich] continues to speak of the book as being ” ‘about my father, not by him.’ “  I’m neutral on whether or not Testimony is authentic, and whether Shostakovich was a toady of Stalin’s regime or an undercover dissident.  This post reflects subjective impressions from the book, nothing more.

Here are three things to remember when putting together a BI business case:

Excerpt from "Show Me the Money: A DM/BI Business Value Primer", Bob Lambert and Tri Truong, Information Management Special Reports, March 24, 2009

1. Intangible benefits don’t count.
2. BI has no inherent value.
3. Senior managers often make decisions about future outcomes with insufficient data.

Intangible Benefits Don’t Count: An effective business case communicates tangible future value in a convincing way.  An argument has a chance of convincing a skeptical reader if the reader agrees that the argument’s assumptions are reasonable and that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions.  Quantifying financial metrics like Return on Investment (ROI) or Net Present Value (NPV) help build the case, but such measures are credible only if readers agree with the underlying assumptions and the logic built upon them.

BI has no inherent value: We in the BI field believe that any organization’s fortunes would improve if it rationalized its data stewardship, integrated its data, and applied analytics creatively in management and operations.  However true, that view must ring hollow to senior business managers.  Without a compelling and motivating story about how a new system contributes to revenue or reduces costs, that system’s business case stops dead in its tracks.  Of course sometimes “someone at a high level” just wants BI, but organizations don’t often embark on BI efforts without first evaluating tangible costs and benefits.

Senior Managers Make Decisions about Future Outcomes with Insufficient Data: Although BI practitioners must make a convincing case for future business value, there’s room for uncertainty.  Executives and senior managers aren’t highly compensated for playing it safe, but rather for understanding current conditions and setting direction based on educated but sometimes courageous predictions of future conditions.  A successful BI business case matches or extends the executive’s knowledge of current conditions and expands his or her view of potential future outcomes of near term actions.

In a recent article at Information Management, Maria Villar and Theresa Kushner offer 4 Steps to Create an Effective IT and Business Partnership, a very useful list of ways to ensure “strong partnership between IT and business”.  To the authors this partnership “is the most important, and often overlooked, component to successfully managing critical business data. Undertaking business intelligence, data quality or an enterprise data management [program] without full cooperation and collaboration between IT and the business is a formula for frustration.”  The authors suggest these four steps: “know your partner, develop a relationship, define roles and responsibilities, and establish open, regular communication channels.”  I recommend reading this article because IT folks (like me) seem tempted to neglect the habits that enable building a solid relationship with business people.

That said, it seems to me that there’s something missing.  Consider one BI manager I know who has fractious relations with his business customers.  I won’t go into detail, but trust me, relations have been rocky, and reviews from key business players poor.  What this person does extremely well is to build rock-solid, reliable systems, deliver on time, meet business needs, and ensure that the solution meets regulatory and audit concerns.  This BI group is essentially unchanged after many years, enduring even the recent recession in a devastated industry segment, and outlasting many of its critics.

To me, building a good relationships is important, but execution is the sine qua non of IT/business alignment.  Think about it.  Say you hire a really nice contractor to fix a leaky roof.  However personable he is, you won’t hire him to replace your windows if the roof still leaks after you’ve paid the bill.

My view: if you want to do it right adopt Villar’s and Kushner’s excellent suggestions but the fundamentals remain the same:

1. Either (a) present a robust business case that all accept, or (b) pay attention to what you’ve been asked to do
2. Deliver what was requested/promised in 1
3. When things change go to 1

“When you are in the middle of a story it isn’t a story at all, but only a confusion; a dark roaring, a blindness, a wreckage of shattered glass and splintered wood; like a house in a whirlwind, or else a boat crushed by the icebergs or swept over the rapids, and all aboard powerless to stop it.  It is only afterwards that it becomes anything like a story at all.  When you are telling it, to yourself or to someone else.” – from Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood

Whatever project management approach a team uses, sometimes everything falls apart, commonly due to work piling up at the end, but sometimes due to a key individual leaving, or a pivotal assumption no longer holding true, or many other reasons.  When that happens, the project can become like a whack-a-mole game, with leads working from issue to issue as they pop up faster and faster.

I served as one of many workstream PMs on one very large project where this didn’t happen.  Out of the seeming chaos the multi-million dollar IT project came in on time.  Here’s my view of what we did to succeed:

• Had very clear interim milestones that were generally known and served as reference points for discussion.  I’d characterize them as a milestone per workstream per month.
• Held seemingly interminable weekly risk/issue discussions.  These were open, no holds barred reviews of anything at all that could endanger achieving milestones.  Often risk/issue discussions are polite exercises in avoiding the fact that the emperor has no clothes, with team members carefully avoiding forbidden topics.  On this project everything was open for discussion.
• The program manager excelled at visibly not sweating the small stuff, directing workstream leadership to handle their localized risks and issues themselves, and focusing program energy only on those he judged to have overall impact.
• Each of the many workstreams had its own project schedule; the program insisted on detail where it mattered but not where the detail was irrelevant.  For example, there was a minutely detailed cutover plan for production migration.

Many of us were surprised when the chaos all came together on time with surprisingly few glitches. I attribute this program’s success to the program manager’s unflappable focus on milestones, encouragement of unfettered group risk/issue analysis, and ability to parse program from project concerns.

A recurring theme in the literature on IT over the years has been frequent failure of IT projects.  Most studies lay the bulk of the blame on requirements (examples here and here).  One way to improve accuracy and fit-to-purpose of requirements, and thereby promote project success, is to include data analysis as well as process analysis in the requirements plan.

I’ve cited here the need to start data interface analysis early to avoid budget and schedule blow-ups when, as a result of not thinking early about interface complexity, data integration work turns out to be bigger and nastier than anticipated.

Early data study also helps business analysts elicit more detailed and accurate business requirements.  Say a mid-level football (soccer) team in the UK is looking to recruit a couple of strikers who can reliably punch home goals for the club.  The obvious data they seek is (1) the number of goals scored per game by each prospect, and (2) over their careers how much time have they spent on the bench due to injury.  At the same time, this club is building a strategic recruiting system to support growth into the higher echelons of English football.  A process-oriented requirements strategy (like the one described here) asks the team’s recruiters what they need to in order to get good people into the club, and often emerges with a list of statements about what the system will do (”The system shall provide an interface enabling entry of the following player statistics” or “The system shall provide a report ranking players by the following criteria:…”).

It isn’t necessarily wrong to start with process analysis, especially when backed up with formal techniques like use cases, data flow diagramming, or others, but addition of data analysis early provides ability to be far more perceptive into the real business needs.  Without interviewing anyone a data analyst can know that there are many goals in a game of soccer (OK, to some not nearly enough, but that’s another story), that the attributes of a game include location, weather conditions, date and time, whether it’s regular season or playoff, and more.  Attributes of a goal: time during the game; left foot, right foot, or head; did it come from a set play or in the run of play; from the left or right side of the field, and much more.

The analyst who knows the data and understands its structure can probe with questions like whether a player tends to score at the end of games, or would it be useful to find one striker who tends to score from the left side of the field and another who scores from the right?  By understanding the data an analyst can understand the business problem more deeply, build better rapport with business people  by asking more informed questions, and cross the business/IT communications gap to define the right requirements so that the right system gets built.

It may be just the organizations I’ve been exposed to, but in my experience data analysis isn’t typically part of the requirements effort.  Supporting this point, the author of the wikipedia page on business analysis entirely omits data analysis, apparently favoring a process-only approach.  On the other hand, object-based techniques offer a balanced approach, studying both data and process by representing things like goals, games, and players as objects with their own attributes and behaviors.  In addition, the International Institute of Business Analysts (IIBA) includes data-oriented along with process-oriented techniques in its Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK).

As process/data balance early on in the application lifecycle becomes more widespread analysts should generate more insightful requirements and, other things being equal, the success rate of IT application projects should improve.

In a recent very thoughtful post on data quality, Paul Erb plays out an analogy comparing data users with Don Quixote and data quality professionals with Sancho Panza, then reverses the analogy to cleverly coin the “Sancho Panza” test of data quality professionals.  He encourages data quality professionals promoting the critical role of data quality to apply a what would Sancho say test to ensure that they are aligned with the needs and interests of data consumers.

Here’s Paul’s description of the Sancho Panza test:

Think of Don Quixote [DQ] as the data-quality specialist or even the data management specialist or software vendor, bringing to the world his specialist’s perspective and vocabulary and enthusiasm, influenced by the books he’s read, visioning everyday business practices, with his value added, as goldmines for the organization.  Meanwhile Sancho Panza represents the person who does a practical job every day, who knows what works around here and what doesn’t.

I advocate to Data Quality (let’s call it DQ) consultants that they listen to this Sancho Panza, and consider themselves as Don Quixote.  Sancho doesn’t know much about data, but he knows what he likes… He’s open to listening, but slow to change, and he’ll tell you what he thinks.

Paul’s article reminded me that as a child I thought the problem with Don Quixote was that he tilted at windmills and attempted to ambush acting troupes because of his bad eyesight.  Of course this is not the case, but to me it provides a relevant perspective on data quality in many organizations.

Here’s the problem I’ve seen play out on a number of IT application projects:

1. A high level business study recommends replacement or improvement of a current application.
2. The organization approves the project described in a business case citing benefits named in the business study and costs detailed for infrastructure, package software, and application development, but data-related costs are glossed over or left out entirely.
3. The project begins with a requirements phase that collects hundreds of imperative statements (”The system shall…”)  from business people who will use the system.
4. Late in the requirements phase, the team finds that data integration work in system interfaces will be more complex than expected.  A common example: the project requires changes to a feeder application with no documentation and no in-house support expertise.
5. Project leadership goes back to the sponsor seeking more money.

In these situations the business case was incorrect because it did not account for all of the costs of data integration.  I’ve seen projects weather steps four and five well, but often discovery of previously unseen data complexity starts a disruptive chain of events.  (Sadly for the project manager, such situations are often seen as a failure of project management and corrected accordingly, but that’s a topic for another post.)

In my view the root cause of unforeseen data complexity on projects is the lack of a data constituency in current IT. It is only recently that success of companies like Google and Amazon have motivated emergence of data as a key business resource in the collective consciousness. Famous success stories notwithstanding (see this link), there are relatively few senior IT managers with data quality backgrounds.  Conversely, many rose through the ranks of the infrastructure, application development, or business (process) analysis groups.

It will be a while before, for example, a Mobil CIO’s predecessor jobs include definition of a metadata repository or elimination of multipurpose data, but in the meantime here’s what we can do:  add a business case to the application lifecycle as the last step in requirements.  Stop the project when the real costs are known, recalculate the cost/benefit, and ask the sponsors if the project should continue.  Give Sancho (in this case the project team) a chance to speak to the reality of the situation, and hand to Don Quixote (project sponsors) the eyeglasses of in-depth visibility into real costs. If the decision is to move ahead with the project, then all share the same vision and the sponsors have endorsed the actual project, not the fuzzy image from earlier on that might have been a windmill.

In a new post at Insurance Networking News Ara Trembly provides a balanced perspective on IT/business misalignment (Business/IT Misalignment: Whose Responsibility?).  He describes the problem as cultural, more amenable to relational than management solutions.    His conclusion sums it up: “Take a geek/suit to lunch today!”

To me (speaking as an IT professional) IT should take the initiative to solve the problem.  Quoting Trembly, “business executives … make decisions, but they are for the most part mystified at the magical incantations and actions that produce IT results” and “IT people, on the other hand, are jealous of the sheer power wielded over them by business people who just don’t get IT.”  In other words, business people contend with an emotional and a substantive problem, “fear and lack of knowledge,” while IT people have only the emotional problem of jealousy.

If we take the emotions out of the picture (its just a job, right?) then that leaves IT folks with knowledge that business people need in order to maximize the value of IT and efficiency of business processes.  Ever since mainframes roamed the prehistoric rain forests of the ’60s application developers have often been the most knowledgeable about how business processes really work, understanding both the intricacies of the application logic and how business people use the system to get things done.  These individuals can add value to the business discussion by bringing their knowledge to the table in a way that business people can understand.

In many organizations IT manages the forum in which these conversations can occur: the requirements process.  In my experience a good requirements process is long enough for the business and IT teams to get to know each other, offers generous opportunity for both structured and unstructured conversations about business needs, and brings together knowledgeable business and IT participants.  IT is typically able to bring the insights of seasoned application developers to the fore in a well planned requirements effort.

Yes, everyone has responsibility to “cultivate personal relationships based on mutual need and respect,” but IT can and should bring substance to the relationship in requirements definition.

Excerpt from "Show Me the Money: A DM/BI Business Value Primer", Bob Lambert and Tri Truong, Information Management Special Reports, March 24, 2009

Before starting the Business Intelligence business case, the BI advocate should do the homework required to ensure its success, including these essential steps:

1. Know the organization’s goals and objectives.
2. Identify a BI champion.
3. Identify and work with BI stakeholders.
4. Identify an application with tangible business value.
5. Define and quantify a quick win prototype project.

Know the organization’s goals and objectives. It is human nature for any of us, including executives, to be receptive to help with our own goals and objectives but less receptive to new ideas that aren’t related to our own goals. Furthermore, senior executives facilitate intensive strategic planning processes to set the right corporate goals and objectives. A proposed BI initiative should clearly and tangibly help achieve strategic objectives already in place.

Identify a BI champion. BI is in a unique position within the application stack. Most organizations can operate without a BI strategy. However, most companies would greatly improve their market position with a comprehensive BI solution. The impetus for deploying such a solution needs to come from a leader within the corporation who champions the value that BI brings to the organization as a whole. Often, this champion is someone at the top level of the business chain of command with a solid grasp of the BI’s potential.

Identify and work with BI stakeholders. BI projects should be driven by BI stakeholders, those who will see direct effects (good or bad) from the BI project. Some stakeholders look to benefit from BI-based solutions to concrete problems. Other stakeholders will have to be convinced about the potential value of BI. Both types of stakeholder must be involved in defining and supporting the goals of a BI project.

Identify an application with tangible business value. Again, in order for the BI application to return value, it must focus on achieving business goals. These goals should be measurable so that the value of the BI application can be determined, and the application should contribute to overall organizational strategy.  Scroll down to “Business Value Examples” here for more.

Define and quantify a quick win prototype project. Businesses must quickly see the value that BI brings in order for it to catch fire in the organization. A prototype project is often the best way to showcase BI’s value proposition. These projects should typically produce tangible results in a matter of weeks and target a well-defined business area. The prototype should have a well-defined goal and ROI metric, and produce data or case studies that show progress toward, if not achievement of, that goal.

- Thanks to co-author Tri Truong for assistance with this post.

History is littered with IT application projects that end late, go way over budget, or abandoned altogether.  I was fortunate enough to see one work out really well (almost – please read on).  It was no mistake.  It came down to a simple method advocated by a gentleman named named John Carpenter.

The project was an HR management software conversion from one commercial off-the-shelf software (COTS) package to another.  The company concerned was conservative about spending money.  A previous business case had proposed a similar project.  The problem with that business case was that the benefits were really tough to conceptualize, so the cost/benefit analysis relied on soft benefits like “improved access to information” and “more consistent reporting data”.  The folklore was that the CFO had physically thrown that business case out of his office.

Mr. Carpenter’s method was to divide requirements definition and implementation into two distinct projects, with a different business case for each.  Under his direction, we wrote a ~1m business case for requirements definition only.  We proposed that this first project would result in another business case precisely specifying the schedule, method, cost, and benefits of the implementation project.

According to John, “the approach we used would not be considered a textbook approach for an ERP (enterprise resource planning) implementation.  What we did was more of a strategy to address the the CFO’s concerns.  The company was very risk-averse so we needed a way to take out as much risk as we could.  This was a large project because it involved four major modules affecting the three main areas of HR, and the company wanted to know costs and benefits at each step.  Complicating matters, HR business processes and therefore requirements were not clearly understood – the HR department seemed to rely on on the job training rather than documented procedures.  So we presented the first phase as an investment into understanding HR processes, as well a precise roadmap for implementation.”

This first business case was accepted by that same CFO and we got started on the 7-month effort. We brought in a consulting team experienced in the proposed COTS package, and followed their lead in requirements definition and prototyping.  During the prototyping step they walked HR staff through each relevant function in the software package, detailing how to configure the package for their specific needs and where we’d need to customize it.   The result was a definitive, detailed document that showed how the package fit HR process and how it would need to be customized.  Then, we used those results to build a business case that included specific configuration, customization, hardware, and software costs, as well as the process and organizational changes that would be required, not to mention the benefits that would accrue.  The business case showed substantial improvement, predicting real financial benefits within 4 years.  Even better, on a depreciated basis the project literally was almost free, costing only $1,800 in the first year and returning benefits thereafter.

The business case was accepted by the company’s executive committee and the project started.  It ran exactly as outlined by the results of the requirements effort, with very few of the nasty surprises often typical of large projects, and it tracked to forecast schedule and budget.

Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the company, whose core business was real estate, in effect folded in the financial crash of last autumn ‘09 , one month from implementation.

At any rate, the lesson I took away from the effort was that dividing requirements and development into separate projects gives business visibility into a project, helps manage financial risk, and enables the project to ground predictions rather than guessing at costs and benefits before they can be known.