An excerpt from yesterdays News Tribune.

http://www.tribnet.com/

I-695 exaggerations forfeit public trust

It turns out that Pierce Transit officials were stretching the truth just a bit prior to the election when they predicted that Initiative 695 would force the agency to lay off 100 to 150 employees and cut bus service by 25 percent next year.

Now that the I-695 has passed, Pierce Transit's actual 2000 budget plan calls for a 14 percent reduction in service and 41 layoffs, including part-time employees. And some of the layoffs are expected to be offset next year by the expansion of regional express lines between Pierce and King counties.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 02, 1999

Answers

Of course. Any time a program manager's funding line is threatened in any way, they come up with a barely defensible worst-case scenario of potential impact, add 10% for their spouse, 5% for each dependent child (10% if they're in college), and then use the results to attempt to bludgeon whoever is threatening their funding line. Why would they NOT do this? It usually works, and when it doesn't, THEY rarely suffer any adverse effects from the attempt. Of course, it gradually undermines the voters confidence in big government, but that affects the program manger not at all in the short run, and not a lot in the long run. They "win or lose" as far as their careers go in competition against the other program managers and through seniority, not based upon how the government as a whole does. It's how civil service is set up.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 03, 1999.

I tend to agree with Craig (probably not a surprise). It's a common project manager tactic to make your case as plausibly opti/pessimistic as possible. . .what choice he/she makes depends on the situation.

If you are faced with losing resources, you make your estimates as pessimistic as plausible. If you are making the case for increased resources, you make your estimates as optimistic as plausible.

That being said, I don't think it's done maliciously. It's human nature for a person to frame a discussion in a manner supporting their interests. Furthermore, I believe that "downside" estimates are often incorrect because they ignore people's amazing adaptive ability (intentional alliteration). After all, there's a reason that necessity is called the mother of invention.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 03, 1999.