One thing is clear. In Economics, we have 'dismal' since we have very complicated systems that include humans. In Engineering, on the other hand, it's a little better. Why? Well, for one thing, engineering has nature as a lab, and it can (or try to) bend humans (or make them a collection of idiots - oh, by the way, isn't that the role of the fat cat CEO?) to meet the system, and machine.
In economics, we have people running off, like Ben, with decisions whose ramifications are unknown at this time. Oh, yes, call that undecidable. Get it? Thanks, Vienna school.
And, Engineering needs to wake up to the fact that the computer exacerbates the problems, except that one can look for certain types of stability in numeric processes, even those with PDE equivocations.
So, one finds major projects having problems. Their blaming things on the program management is only half-right.
Perhaps, it turns out, the dismal science may be of use, in a micro sense. After all, even heavily numeric processes require decisions. Message to the managers: these glorified computational resources need major adjustments to assumptions in the beginning, then they need to use heuristics for control during processing, and the after-the-fact analysis is definitely something that requires expert opinion.
One thing that the alluded-to program did wrong? Feed computer model data back in as if it were equivalent to a test in nature, or so it looks from the outside. Tsk, Tsk.
So, managers, if your techies tell you other than the following, they're leading you astray: there is no magic, no overarching theory, and definitely no wizard with the clue.
That is, manager, your techies are as clueless as is yourself.
Having said all that, there are things that lead to success. We all know about this and see it all the time. What was one comment? (quick, quiet, and early)
Quasi-empiricism needs to be added to the focus, to constrain the potential for hubris.
Note: One thing to discuss will be that we're dealing with a 'possible world' situation where these worlds are not disjoint. That is, you have fan-in and fan-out as things unfold along the line of time. And, we get a huge increases in potential due to computational models and their ever-growing-ness. This is an NP situation as we saw with de Kleer's ATMS (1986). But, the necessity for handling these matters can be easily shown, therefore the continuing interests in coping mechanisms.
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.