Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
We estimate optimistically and consider the duration set as sufficient. So we will be inclined to start late.
In Scenario 1 we are unsure about the duration and try to tackle this insecurity by starting early.
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing
Have you heard of student syndrome?
Now you can answer your question
I would not expect scenario 1 to complete before scenario 2, considering it is the same goal.
Generally speaking, the less you know about a situation, the less urgency you can give it; this is more likely to lead to procrastination.
In practice, the variables you identify are not the only variables that motivate people. You need to understand the people involved, their current situation, and what motivates them, to more accurately determine if they will procrastinate working on the goal.
It depends on how much time is provided in Scenario 2. If it is more than what is required, then Parkinsons Law/Student Syndrome will come into play and usually be impacted by Murphys Law, late in the timeline.
If the time provided is aggressive, then I'd expect less procrastination with Scenario 2.
You can not fight agains procastination. It has no sense. What you have to do is find a way to deal with that. I did that, it works and I published works on that in several publications that are well received and cited (I am writting this just to say that for me it was the way to validate the method). At the end, the basement is things never will happend exactly in the way you put inside a project schedule. What you have to do, for each activity, is considering the whole duration and the work done, time elapsed, remainder time, and remainder work all these adding your organizations threardholds in terms of time and cost and with all that on hand you create your own traffic light system.
Please login or join to reply