What should an analyst do when confronted with SMEs who disagree about an estimate?

When facing a situation where subject matter experts (SMEs) disagree on an estimate, it's important to consider actions that can lead to more informed and reliable outcomes. Each of the suggested actions plays a unique role in achieving this.

Engaging with each SME about the underlying factors that contribute to the variable being estimated allows the analyst to understand the rationale behind their differing opinions. This helps in identifying the basis of their estimates and can shed light on areas where they might have different information or perspectives. Understanding these factors is critical for resolving disagreements and refining the estimates.

Combining the estimates from both SMEs into a wider range reflects the uncertainty present in the disagreement. This approach acknowledges the divergent views and provides a more comprehensive view of the potential outcomes, indicating that there is variability in expert opinion. While it may not yield a precise estimate, it captures the uncertainty and can be useful for risk assessment purposes.

Running the analysis with each SME's estimate separately allows for direct comparison of results. This can highlight how the differing estimates impact the overall analysis and may provide insights into which estimate might be more aligned with actual conditions or expectations. Observing the results from running two separate analyses can facilitate discussions between SMEs and guide further investigation into their differing views.

By choosing to employ all these