Debating project decisions in an ai enabled environment

Debating project decisions in an ai enabled environment

• 1.
  1 Debating Project Decisionsin an AI Enabled Environment Bob Prieto I had the opportunity to watch the first debate between AI powered IBM Debater and a recognized human expert debater. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3u-1yttrVw ). I will not spoil the outcome for those who have not yet watched the debate but I will underscore one key aspect - all learned more about both sides of the position as a result of the debate. I have written previously about the need to look at every problem and every opportunity from a myriad of perspectives. The use of AI in this “debating” role offers the possibility of an AI enabled assistant constructively providing fact based challenge from a number of different perspectives, enriching the ultimate human decision process. I have previously advocated the need to consider, look at and challenge a project’s foundations, its very raison d’être, from every available perspective. I have called on managers at all levels to develop frameworks that help them adopt these different perspectives such as the ESPRIT framework I have used for years in looking at international construction and development projects. ESPRIT, an acronym for economic, social, political, religious, intellectual and technology, has allowed me to better ensure that foundations are strong before we set out to boldly go where no one has gone before. Mentally, I take turns sitting in each of these seats, adopting a different perspective, considering different sources and sets of facts and alternative points of view. An AI powered assistant such as what I witnessed with IBM Debater offers the potential to challenge from a myriad of perspectives in even richer detail. The decision is still to
• 2.
  2 be made bythe human team but the risks of inadequate knowledge and challenge are significantly reduced. Informed, civil, non-threatening debate draws out rational, reasoned arguments and compelling evidence. It helps provide clarity of argument and decision and all sides of a debate learn and sharpen their points of view, narrowing the focus to the essential elements of differing views. The very areas where judgement must be made. “Debate” brings much to project decision making processes such as: • Broadened, multi-domain knowledge beyond a project management team’s collective breadth and depth of relevant knowledge • Building alignment around key project drivers and influencers across the project management team. o “Debate” should not happen in a technician’s office but through engagement with the entirety of the human project management team. o The debate is a collective team learning and team building activity • Sharpening team based critical thinking • Improved organization and structure to project execution strategies, linking back, as appropriate, to one or more of the arguments made from a different perspective • Richer, more balanced decisions and rationale Human team debaters build confidence in their own abilities and the now, more richly informed team decisions. Lines of debate may suggest new areas for exploration, promoting creativity and all important innovation. The team’s critical thinking skills are enhanced benefiting the countless project decisions that will still be made in a non-AI enabled environment.
• 3.
  3 Skills Learned atthe Drafting Board One of the stories I like to tell goes back to my earliest days as a young nuclear engineer. Younger readers may not appreciate the story since so much has changed in the way we do engineering so at the risk of appearing older than I am I will set the stage. It was a time where the first scientific calculators had come down in price to about $500 (over $2000 in 2015 $), a major NYC based engineering firm had 1 computer (and it took up much of the floor) and code and data were input one line at a time on punch cards. Engineers were supported by draftsmen who created drawings based on engineer’s instructions and their own experience on either vellum or mylar. Before the drawings were copied for a broader distribution, or at even earlier in the development process, “on the board” reviews were held. These reviews were much as they sounded. Involved engineers at all levels huddled around the draftsman as the subject drawing(s) were unfurled on the drafting board. Often the draftsman would describe the key features or if it was a revision, what had changed. The various engineers would highlight features or considerations while others would ask questions. The senior most engineers would stand alongside and behind the draftsman, sharing his perspective of the drawing as it was discussed. Young engineers such as myself peered at the drawing from the other side of the drafting board, looking down at an angle at the upside down drawing. Familiar patterns and features were not readily evident. This caused one to concentrate deeply, seeing what was actually there versus what we expected to see. This changed perspective allowed this young engineer to see things that others did not. Not bad for one’s career at an early age. While it had been a lot of years since those days of “on the board” reviews the importance of looking at things from a different perspective was not lost. Whether it’s turning a page or figure upside down “to better see it” or consciously looking at the same problem with a number of different “hats on” each with a distinctive perspective, the early skills learned on the drafting board remain as important and relevant today.