Training

The essence of training is acquiring or improving skills.  If you undergo training, and no change occurs in how you do the things you were trained at, then the training did not matter.

If you had a certain way of planning projects, and underwent training on how to plan projects more correctly, then you went back to your way (which was not as good), then the training did not matter. Sometimes the reason you went back to the old way was not due to yourself. Perhaps the organisation you work in prefers the old way, and resists the new way (a very common situation), then you face incongruity. You know what you're doing is not as effective as the new way, but you 'have no choice'. It takes a lot of effort to try and change an organisations. If you tried, you may end up alienating people, or making enemies. There is also the risk that your execution of the new way won't be as effective as the old way. This is a real risk, because after all, you are just a beginner in the new way.

Random thoughts

A dissertation that has typos has too many words.

A dissertation that has typos but makes sense nevertheless is not a dissertation worth writing.

If writing is a muscle that can be trained to improve one's writing, don't forget to train both the left and right parts of the brain, lest they grow uneven.

Manifesto for Agile Corporate Finance

Suppose that in 2001, seventeen corporate finance professionals came together at a ski lodge, and wrote a document called "Manifesto for Agile Corporate Finance", and one of the values promoted is "Cash on hand over receivables" (analogous to 'working software over comprehensive documentation).

How bizarre would it be if the values espoused in their manifesto then gets used as bedrock foundations for: the right way to build software, run projects, and a host of other activities unrelated to corporate finance?  

I also wonder if everyone would be calling it the "Agile Manifesto" for short, omitting the "for Corporate Finance", thus obscuring its intended domain.