I actually believe that management consulting companies are paid to help companies make big decisions. I believe this because usually they are hired when a company needs to make a big decision.
Decision theory shows us that a huge portion of making big decisions is making accurate predictions about the future (and the other pieces, such as determining an accurate utility function, are best left to the organizations themselves).
Decision theory shows us that a huge portion of making big decisions is making accurate predictions about the future
Where does it show us that’s true?
More importantently how do you know that the customers of mangement consulting believe that’s true? Do you think that the average Fortune 500 CEO invests resources into internal prediction making in a way to indicate that he believes this is true?
I think if the average Fortune 500 CEO would believe this to be true you would have much more internal prediction markets in companies. Programs for internal prediction markets that are not sold based on team building efforts but that are sold on actually producing actionable data.
I mean, I’m convinced by the math. You are welcome to disagree with the math, but you’ll have to show me some other math that disproves everything that decision theorists have already figured out.
I think if the average Fortune 500 CEO would believe this to be true you would have much more internal prediction markets in companies. Programs for internal prediction markets that are not sold based on team building efforts but that are sold on actually producing actionable data.
We have different models here. In my model, Prediction Markets aren’t used because politics are set up for people who can make excuses—prediction markets would remove the ability of those people to make excuses, so the political factions don’t allow them. Management consulting firms solve this by coming in as an outsider endorsed by the fortune 500CEO (therefore bypassing most of the politics) and making those predictions themselves. I’m just trying to bring down the cost of these outsiders, so that the CEO can use them for many more decisions.
I mean, I’m convinced by the math. You are welcome to disagree with the math, but you’ll have to show me some other math that disproves everything that decision theorists have already figured out.
The math depends heavily on the axioms that you use. It’s quite easy to choose axioms in a way that you get the outcome you are looking for. The question is whether those axioms are warrented.
prediction markets would remove the ability of those people to make excuses, so the political factions don’t allow them
Why can’t the CEO order prediction markets to be created? Do you think the political factions wouldn’t create markets if ordered to do so?
The math depends heavily on the axioms that you use. It’s quite easy to choose axioms in a way that you get the outcome you are looking for. The question is whether those axioms are warrented.
As I said, you’re welcome to show me some axioms that show that forecasting is NOT a huge part of making big decisions.
Why can’t the CEO order prediction markets to be created? Do you think the political factions wouldn’t create markets if ordered to do so?
Because good CEO’s understand that buy-in is essential for any project. You can order projects all day and alienate your workforce, but that’s not how the fortune 500 CEOs got to be fortune 500 CEOs
As I said, you’re welcome to show me some axioms that show that forecasting is NOT a huge part of making big decisions.
The general idea is that big decisions get in most contexts made by experts via informed intuition and not by shutting up and calculating.
The math at which you are looking is shut up and calculate math.
Because good CEO’s understand that buy-in is essential for any project.
Do you think people get substantially more alienated if the CEO says: Let’s do an internal prediction market then when he transfers the same power to management consultants? Especially when the consultants are suddenly forced by your system to not make politically acceptable suggestions but focus on true predictions?
The general idea is that big decisions get in most contexts made by experts via informed intuition and not by shutting up and calculating. The math at which you are looking is shut up and calculate math.
There’s substantial room for both in prediction polls.
Do you think people get substantially more alienated if the CEO says: Let’s do an internal prediction market then when he transfers the same power to management consultants?
The alienation doesn’t tank the project because it’s not being run by the people being alienated.
I actually believe that management consulting companies are paid to help companies make big decisions. I believe this because usually they are hired when a company needs to make a big decision.
Decision theory shows us that a huge portion of making big decisions is making accurate predictions about the future (and the other pieces, such as determining an accurate utility function, are best left to the organizations themselves).
Where does it show us that’s true?
More importantently how do you know that the customers of mangement consulting believe that’s true? Do you think that the average Fortune 500 CEO invests resources into internal prediction making in a way to indicate that he believes this is true?
I think if the average Fortune 500 CEO would believe this to be true you would have much more internal prediction markets in companies. Programs for internal prediction markets that are not sold based on team building efforts but that are sold on actually producing actionable data.
I mean, I’m convinced by the math. You are welcome to disagree with the math, but you’ll have to show me some other math that disproves everything that decision theorists have already figured out.
We have different models here. In my model, Prediction Markets aren’t used because politics are set up for people who can make excuses—prediction markets would remove the ability of those people to make excuses, so the political factions don’t allow them. Management consulting firms solve this by coming in as an outsider endorsed by the fortune 500CEO (therefore bypassing most of the politics) and making those predictions themselves. I’m just trying to bring down the cost of these outsiders, so that the CEO can use them for many more decisions.
The math depends heavily on the axioms that you use. It’s quite easy to choose axioms in a way that you get the outcome you are looking for. The question is whether those axioms are warrented.
Why can’t the CEO order prediction markets to be created? Do you think the political factions wouldn’t create markets if ordered to do so?
As I said, you’re welcome to show me some axioms that show that forecasting is NOT a huge part of making big decisions.
Because good CEO’s understand that buy-in is essential for any project. You can order projects all day and alienate your workforce, but that’s not how the fortune 500 CEOs got to be fortune 500 CEOs
The general idea is that big decisions get in most contexts made by experts via informed intuition and not by shutting up and calculating. The math at which you are looking is shut up and calculate math.
Do you think people get substantially more alienated if the CEO says: Let’s do an internal prediction market then when he transfers the same power to management consultants? Especially when the consultants are suddenly forced by your system to not make politically acceptable suggestions but focus on true predictions?
There’s substantial room for both in prediction polls.
The alienation doesn’t tank the project because it’s not being run by the people being alienated.