https://civilgrandjury.sfgov.org/2020_2021/2021%20CGJ%20Repo...
Ironically, more planning and analysis at the beginning of the project (e.g., by potholing and inspecting the condition of utilities underneath Van Ness may have avoided the construction delays.
The lack of meaningful technical planning was a big part of it, and so was the contract-awarding math, but I think the most striking - and generally applicable - behind-the-scenes stories were about what happens when trust breaks down at a human level. The city's internal back and forth on approving and then un-approving a subcontractor at the beginning meant that the GC was more likely to work to the letter of the contract when things went wrong later, instead of collaborating to solve problems. The one positive thing the city eventually did to get the project moving forward, according to all the information we got, was put someone with some amount of authority on the ground to talk to people.
Rereading the report now, all of these facts are in there, but I wish we'd found a way to stress this part more. You see the same thing in every industry, whether it's individuals or teams or companies working together - the best laid plans mean nothing unless the people involved are actually interested in tackling challenges as they come up. Culture eats strategy, and all that. A culture of writing a plan and then either strictly following it or throwing a fit when it can't be followed isn't a culture that can do great work.
It definitely does convey that once things were going wrong, the relationship broke down quickly, and it was hard to adapt once the trust was lost.
The fact every single major infrastructure project is a decade late and 3x over budget is just normal and tolerated by the people running the show across the US/Canada. The gov workers picking who wins these gov contracts (usually the same small set of companies) doesn't seem to care, despite extensive track records of the same behaviour. They probably have jobs lined up at these companies there afterwards.
It's only natural human behaviour to not put effort in if there's no consequences or risk in doing so. This is Public/private partnerships 101.
That’s nonsense. That’s like saying that it’s only natural human behavior to abuse and be abused. If I put myself in the shoes of an underpaid sewage worker, that has a family to maintain, that sees the owner and investors of said private companies getting obscenely rich just by closings contracts under their AC… yeah, I’d slack the s* out of it too.
I think that's exactly what experiments have shown the world. There are many follow-up experiments that prove exactly that.
The Stanford Prison Experiment has become one of psychology's most dramatic illustrations of how good people can be transformed into perpetrators of evil, and healthy people can begin to experience pathological reactions - traceable to situational forces.
Those traceable situational forces can be minor and subtle things, and yet.
Thoroughly debunked[1][2][3], no?
[1] https://themindlab.co.uk/academy/epic-fails-what-can-we-lear...
[2] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
The conclusion was self-evident before they ran the experiment, so another criticism that could be leveled at the experiment was that it was redundant.
"It's just common sense" is not a solid scientific proof. Testing something that we _think_ we know (but have no proven) is not a bad thing.
Simple “we confirmed water is wet” tests are not very good science. Whereas “what is wetness & why does it happen” is.
Milgram found that 42% of people will administer electric shocks to someone who appears to be screaming in pain, as long as the order is given by an apparent authority figure. What is there to debunk, exactly?
Keep in mind what motivated these experiments: a desire to understand more about how the Nazis were able to accomplish what they did. It's not as if the findings of Milgram and Zimbardo were novel or controversial; they were merely trying to reproduce and understand something that the entire world had just observed.
You'd start by telling yourself that, so it would be easy enough to convince people looking to "debunk" the experiment later.
The new research builds upon findings from a previous study, which analyzed recordings of 91 conversations conducted immediately after the termination of the experiments. The recordings showed that most of the obedient subjects justified continuing the experiment because they believed the learner was not really being harmed.