Planning Fallacy

Author(s):  
Carly Silvester
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 122 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E.D. Love ◽  
Michael C.P. Sing ◽  
Lavagnon A. Ika ◽  
Sidney Newton

2005 ◽  
Vol 131 (5) ◽  
pp. 761-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael M. Roy ◽  
Nicholas J. S. Christenfeld ◽  
Craig R. M. McKenzie

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 531-546
Author(s):  
Bent Flyvbjerg

Behavioral science has witnessed an explosion in the number of biases identified by behavioral scientists, to more than 200 at present. This article identifies the 10 most important behavioral biases for project management. First, we argue it is a mistake to equate behavioral bias with cognitive bias, as is common. Cognitive bias is half the story; political bias the other half. Second, we list the top 10 behavioral biases in project management: (1) strategic misrepresentation, (2) optimism bias, (3) uniqueness bias, (4) the planning fallacy, (5) overconfidence bias, (6) hindsight bias, (7) availability bias, (8) the base rate fallacy, (9) anchoring, and (10) escalation of commitment. Each bias is defined, and its impacts on project management are explained, with examples. Third, base rate neglect is identified as a primary reason that projects underperform. This is supported by presentation of the most comprehensive set of base rates that exist in project management scholarship, from 2,062 projects. Finally, recent findings of power law outcomes in project performance are identified as a possible first stage in discovering a general theory of project management, with more fundamental and more scientific explanations of project outcomes than found in conventional theory.


2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 389
Author(s):  
Matthew B. Welsh ◽  
Nigel Rees ◽  
Hugh Ringwood ◽  
Stephen (Steve) H. Begg

The ‘planning fallacy’ describes the tendency of people to underestimate costs and times required for the completion of complex projects. Psychological research has demonstrated that a key component of this results from the packing/unpacking bias—where options or problems that are not specifically stated tend to be ignored by people when making estimates or assigning probabilities to events. We have investigated this effect as it relates to oil and gas decision making, highlighted by experimental results comparing estimates of drilling times made by both student and industry participants. Specifically, participants were provided with a drilling scenario and asked to estimate the time required to drill the well—including drilling, tripping, rigging and all potential problems. In the packed condition the options were given as just stated while, in the unpacked condition the ‘all potential problems’ category was divided into a list of specific problems. The packing effect was shown to markedly alter the time estimates made by all groups of participants—altering estimates of problem times by more than 100 hours on average. Additional analyses assessed the interactions between the packing/unpacking effect and personal traits such as optimism, tendency to procrastinate and industry experience. These findings are discussed in terms of their import for oil and gas decision makers desiring to improve prediction accuracy and, thus, economic outcomes by avoiding, or limiting, the impact of the planning fallacy.


2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian R. Newby-Clark ◽  
Erica Dawson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document