Even behind work as seemingly objective as metrics-based engineering, there exists high subjectivity. Projects are composed of experiences, and experiences are perspectival. No two people will form identical conclusions about a given event. It's standard to agree on the results, as those are less refutable. The reasoning behind the derivation of those results, the causality, can be perceived wildly differently. In the end, unlike a published scientific paper, there is no requirement that the hypothesis and test methodology be substantiated and peer-reviewed. In design, that the solution works (seemingly) is usually proof enough. Not having to prove and document results is a shortcut to supersede the release burden. It's also a great way to supersede factual for anecdotal. When this unsubstantiated anecdotal "wisdom" is incorrect, it leads in the wrong direction or blocks the right path. It's a proverbial bug in the code of collective consciousness.
Collective wisdom is the best potential resource for guiding efforts. Collective wisdom is the sum of experiential wisdom from which to draw upon. Technology expands chronologically, and all new achievements are predicated on the compilation of eons of developments of past pioneers. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Experiential wisdom, harnessed and filtered in a disciplined fashion, can be the most effective tool for predictive guidance. Experiential wisdom, taken in an undisciplined manner, can be unreliable or downright duplicitous.
Collective wisdom isn't cohesive wisdom. Curating collective wisdom at the project navigation leadership level is no easy task. It is everyone's job to self-curate the information they provide to the best of their ability at an individual level. These personal viewpoints will have some opposition that will need to be resolved to be applied at the collective level. The collective diversity of experiences, philosophies, capabilities, and interpretations is a double-edged sword of potential problem-solving acumen and problem-causing arguments. The diversity of the data is both the resource to be mined and the minefield to traverse. The wider the breadth of historical diversity, the more potential knowledge to translate into relevant teachings for guiding direction, avoiding pitfalls, and redundant effort. A popular method for filtering viewpoints for validity is by assigning an unofficial weighted score based on the loudest proponent in the room. This decision-by-committee approach almost never works.
"A camel is a horse designed by committee."
The sage approach is to empirically validate lessons learned along the way and document them for future reference, thereby creating a lasting and unequivocal reference. This proactive and systematic method reduces the waste associated with uncertainty, redundancy, and false positive/negative misinterpretations. Growing a database of proven accurate institutional knowledge (an organizational "cheat sheet") widens the ability for leveraged speed with reduced resources and can be a competition crusher. A database also buffers against personnel knowledge loss. Using data to avoid arguing and known fruitless pursuits greatly improves morale and thereby prevents mutiny. The common reality is that there isn't an unbiased resource to draw upon. To filter undocumented viewpoints takes developing trust, assessing personalities, asking probing questions, interpreting nuance, gauging risk, and deploying selective validation. In short, leadership.
For navigating turbulent and uncertain waters, a well-balanced, unified, and seasoned crew is paramount. Designers and sailors differ in that designers tend to be order-seeking, introverted, and indoorsmen. Sailors are tremendous sources of utilitarian knowledge, for sure, as well as lots of inexplicable hearsay (superstitions) and tattoos. The lore of a 500,000 square mile three-sided polygon of unexplained disappearances (Bermuda Triangle) and fabled giant multi-tentacled sea monsters (Kraken) Rrrrrrrrr ways of creating mythology as a preparatory measures framework for the unexplained and unfathomable (so many puns). Or take the nautical adage, “Red sky at night, sailors’ delight. Red sky at morning, sailors take warning,” as an example of correlation being attributed to causation. And, it goes without saying, no bananas! Perhaps kernels of truth existed in these beliefs, and there was no harm in believing they worked, until they didn't anymore. Maybe the new project requires placating ravenous monkeys, then what?