Established methods
Causal comparison, construct validity, coordination analysis and forecast evaluation have substantial scholarly foundations. Application still depends on assumptions and setting.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING / EVIDENCE & LIMITS
Practising a method
is not proof it works.
The five workshops teach ways to examine workplace problems. Their scientific foundations are not the same thing as evidence that attending a particular session improves performance.
← Explore the five workshopsHow to read this page
Three evidence claims.
Three different standards.
Conditional support
Practice and feedback can support learning, but their effects vary. Findings from other populations or disciplines cannot validate these specific workshops.
Not yet demonstrated
We do not have a workshop-specific controlled study or longitudinal outcome dataset establishing durable learning transfer or improved organizational results.
Five workshops / Evidence review
Mechanisms first.
Certainty second.
01 / Diagnosis
Fixing the Wrong Problem
Research basis. A causal claim needs a credible comparison, not just an observed correlation. Tracing workflow cases can generate hypotheses about capacity, skill or approvals.
Boundary. A handful of delayed cases and a short pilot cannot establish an intervention’s causal effect without addressing case selection, concurrent changes and comparison conditions.
02 / Coordination
Where Work Gets Lost
Research basis. Team-level targets can differ from customer-level outcomes. Coordination practices and incentives can create cross-unit problems.
Boundary. Delays do not by themselves demonstrate careless staff, perverse incentives or suppressed reporting. Each explanation requires evidence that distinguishes it from alternatives.
Study: Organizational Behavior · Holmström & Milgrom (1991) ↗ · Edmondson (1999) ↗
03 / Measurement
When the Dashboard Lies
Research basis. A proxy can measure activity without adequately representing the outcome of interest. Valid score interpretation requires a defended construct and appropriate evidence.
Boundary. Unexpected metrics do not prove deliberate gaming. Cohort timing, measurement changes and disagreement about qualification criteria can explain apparent contradictions.
04 / Adoption
Why Change Doesn't Stick
Research basis. Existing practices may persist because of task fit, switching costs, incentive arrangements or coordinated expectations. Some definitions of path dependence emphasize self-reinforcement; others recognize reactive sequences.
Boundary. A three-week spreadsheet workaround proves neither resistance nor lock-in. Observe actual tasks, permissions and controls before choosing a response.
Study: Path Dependence · Pierson (2000) ↗ · Mahoney (2000) ↗
05 / Planning
Plans That Keep Slipping
Research basis. Explicit uncertainties, relevant historical comparisons and conditional release decisions make planning assumptions more inspectable.
Boundary. A declared date range is not automatically calibrated, especially when comparable historical cases are scarce or dependencies are correlated. A governance gate is not evidence that forecasts become more accurate.
Study: Forecasting & Uncertainty · Kahneman & Lovallo (1993) ↗ · Gneiting & Raftery (2007) ↗
Evaluating the teaching
Better reasoning must be
demonstrated, not declared.
A defensible evaluation begins with a case-based reasoning task before instruction, uses a different but comparable case after instruction, and applies an explicit rubric. A later check examines whether participants actually used the method, with appropriate consent and without assuming that usage caused better outcomes.
- Before: record an initial diagnosis, alternatives, evidence requirements, proposed action and disconfirming result.
- Immediately after: assess a distinct case with the same scoring rules; separate confidence and satisfaction from demonstrated reasoning.
- Four to eight weeks later: ask what was attempted, what evidence appeared, what changed, and which explanations remain open.
Limits. A small pre/post exercise may reveal progress on that task but not sustained workplace effectiveness, nor a causal effect of the workshop without an adequate comparator. Participation is optional; confidential employer and employee information should not be entered in public forms.
Blume et al. (2010), 89-study training-transfer meta-analysis ↗ · Kluger & DeNisi (1996), feedback meta-analysis ↗
Our approach: research grounds the methods, designed scenarios make the reasoning concrete, and workplace outcomes are evaluated through measurement. These workshops follow the Side Studies Universal Side Standard, which preserves subject-specific forms and proportional scientific confidence.
Return to the workshops ↗