Timeline for Identification strategy for measuring impact of employee turnover on project quality
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2020 at 3:15 | history | edited | Amatya | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
More technical details that can help decide the randomness of a variable
|
| Feb 26, 2020 at 3:07 | comment | added | Amatya | It is unlikely that the PM move is related to project quality. Nobody can be fired, everyone is working on 3-5 projects at the same time, and PM rotation window is driven by policy (3-7 years), and the specific exit point in that window is driven by quality of life/schooling in the region, career aspirations, lucrative positions opening etc. PMs may try to move at the earliest opportunity or they want to stay as much as possible and get exemptions to stay in a region beyond 7(tough to get). Sometimes PMs can move and still hold on to a project if the new location is close to the old one. | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 1:53 | comment | added | Art | Is the 3–7 years random? If the length the PM stays is not random (related to quality, whether the project is finished quickly, etc.) then it would be hard to tease out the effect of PM rotation rate. Ideally, you'd have two branches; one that rotates PM every 3 years, the other every 7 years, due to external factors like difference in legislation... then you could see which branch is more productive. | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 0:38 | answer | added | Adam Bailey | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 0:10 | history | edited | Adam Bailey | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add name for 3rd scenario
|
| Feb 25, 2020 at 13:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 26, 2020 at 1:53 | |||||
| Feb 25, 2020 at 13:26 | history | asked | Amatya | CC BY-SA 4.0 |