Castle's Second Law Of Practical Risk Assessment - Conceptual Thinking.

Castle's Second Law Of Practical Risk Assessment*:

Business Planners and Project Managers, as well as their affiliated teams should note that "in many cases, the same given risk factors in implementing a new technological tool or 'solution' weigh much more heavily against the benefit factors in a larger, more 'multi-cellular' organization than in its smaller, less-evolved counterpart."
---------------
* Sometimes referred to alternatively as Castle's Second Law Of Practical Risk Management or Castle's Second Law Of Practical Risk Evaluation
***

Or, looked at in a different way...

Business Planners and Project Managers, as well as their affiliated teams should note that "in many cases, the same given risk factors in implementing a new technological tool or 'solution' weigh much more heavily against the benefit factors in a larger, more 'multi-cellular' organization than in its smaller, less-evolved counterpart."
---------------
* Sometimes referred to alternatively as Castle's Second Law Of Practical Risk Management or Castle's Second Law Of Practical Risk Evaluation

Braintenance Battalions:

Dear colleagues, friends, readers, followers and curiosity seekers, you expand the scope of virtually every aspect of your intellect, creative ability, visualization powers and neuronal plasticity when you think intensely about a concept. Concepts, especially those which cause you to think of a tremendous number of examples, and to compare and contrast many variables simply make you smarter.

Pondering them distracts you from thinking about the more mundane but unpleasant challenges which face you and allow your mind to unwind.

The above concept (my Second Law), a study in conceit and eponymous versus anonymous publication, is one mentioned in a article which I published in a blog about business and project planning and management.

Ponder this conundrum:

In a situation (in implementing a new technology, for example) where the identified risk factors are exactly the same for two companies, the relative benefits tend to outweigh the relative costs (risk of loss) for the smaller, less complicated company.

1) Why would this be the case?

2) Can you cite some examples?

3) Do you think that bigger organizations in general (notwithstanding my ridiculous Law) have more to lose than much smaller organizations? And justify your answer logically, philosophically, and Humanistically... might those three different criteria [analysis variables] give you some feelings of conflict?

*Actually, any conflicts between judgment criteria when evaluating a concept further expand the realm and scope of the mind and its miraculous capabilities.

When trying to align these judgment criteria variables, your mind must do a great deal of work; and sometimes, looking at the concept with respect to one variable might lead you to a conclusion which conflicts irreconcilably with that which would apply with respect to another.

This is akin to a type of paradox, and is often the cause for either elimination of some test variables (look at some of the major drug company studies, for example), rationalization, or a bit of an unsettled schizophrenia-like intellectual or even emotional dilemma.

Conceptual Thinking is not for the faint of heart.