Final answer:
Negligence is hard to prove when an organization follows widely accepted development methods, as these methods provide a systematic approach and align with established standards, making evaluations and results more valid.
Step-by-step explanation:
If an organization follows widely accepted development methods, negligence on its part is hard to prove. This concept is linked with program evaluation, methodology adherence, and reproducibility of results. Program evaluations are crucial in assessing whether certain programs are capable of being replicated successfully, relying on systematic observation and documentation.
Moreover, the validity of such evaluations depends on the accuracy of the results in measuring what they are purported to measure.
Using a well-developed set of practices, which are accepted universally, plays a significant role in argumentation against negligence claims. These practices include statistically robust approaches for measuring success, as mentioned in conservation case studies, and considerations about reproducibility of results in scientific communities.
Furthermore, the involvement of appropriate policymakers is essential for the generalizability of methodology and the usability of results, underscoring the need for decisions and evaluations to be free from personal or cultural biases. However, when poor design decisions are made early in development, they can limit the potential for a design to meet customer needs effectively, which points towards the importance of a robust methodology from the onset.
The ability to discuss and learn from failures is also an important aspect of a mature development culture. This openness leads to growth and the adoption of more internally coherent and robust belief systems and practices. In summation, adhering to widely recognized methods in organizational development makes it more difficult to allege negligence, due to the inherent systematic approach and the conformance to established standards.