Share
392 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1
clock Created with Sketch.
30/05/17
10:52
Share
Originally posted by Martin Gifford
↑
"Because it was a number that guaranteed they would have enough people who had the right diseases ... as it happened they got enough people with the correct disease from a lower total number"
So they over-estimated by 23%. What if they needed 1500? It would be another month delay. So you are saying they lucked out, and that luck is the same as accurate communication of timeframes and needs?
What happened to the stronger results part? Lucked out again? Previous announcement said bigger number needed for stronger results, this announcement ignores that. Maybe the stronger results claim was just embellishment to soften the previous delay?
I really don't understand this need to automatically defend management when they have been incredibly wrong about timeframes and have failed to present results for some trials. People contort and twist themselves all over the place to defend management. The sensible approach is to doubt and question management, especially given the history of delays and failure to present results.
Expand
I wouldn't say they have a history of failure to present results as their results have been ridiculously excellent however they do seem to fail in terms of communication and schedule