Is the 80 - 20 Principle a Friend or a Foe? Critical Remarks on the Dominant Flat Gradient - 17206
The well-known 80 - 20 principle, also known as the Pareto principle, describes the fact that usually 80 % of the result is achieved by 20 % of the effort, because many probability distributions are caused by a power-law. This principle is valued in the realm of project management and management in general because of the fast progress which generally takes place in the first fifth of the process. If the final result is not exactly specified or resources are spent wisely, 100 % of the planned result will be reached easily. However, in nuclear business safety is a principal parameter. Therefore precision is inevitable. In long-lasting projects the bad end of the Pareto-distribution is dominant: The very shallowly-inclined gradient at the end of the graph means that results at that point come at a very high effort and cost. The graph reaches the 100% only asymptomatically, meaning the initially projected results are never met. Especially if in earlier project phases the Pareto principle is applied very successfully, a lot of work is transferred to the future. For example, in decommissioning projects the waste often is badly characterized causing an enormous effort in the process of characterization and qualification. Especially if funding or time are limited, it is important to be aware of the asymmetric distribution of applied work and result. The 80 - 20 principle is a great advantage, if you start a project and respect the asymmetric distribution of applied resources and results in your project plan. Especially in long-lasting projects with changing perspectives, this asymmetric distribution may cause massive delays and expansion of costs, because small changes near the end cause large/big effort due to consequences on the existing data. If the proper goal of a project is not entirely known in the beginning, it is very probable that the last 5 - 10 % of the result will cause major financial threat and extensions of the estimated time frame. If funding or time are limited, it is almost impossible to readjust a project in the estimated frame of resources. In this case a complete restart of the project may be more reasonable than a long-lasting change management with uncertain results. (authors)