Top Ten Behavioral Biases in Project Management: An Overview

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.

Rendezvous Under Temporal Uncertainty

Objective Three experiments sought to understand performance limitations in controlling a ship attempting to meet another moving ship that approached from various trajectories. The influence of uncertainty, resulting from occasional unpredictable delays in one’s own movement, was examined. Background Cognitive elements of rendezvous have been little studied. Related work such as the planning fallacy and bias toward underestimating time-to-contact imply a tendency toward late arrival at a rendezvous. Methods In a simplified simulation, participants controlled the speed and/or heading of their own ship once per scenario to try to rendezvous with another ship. Forty-five scenarios of approximately 30 s were conducted with different starting geometries and, in two of three experiments, with different frequencies and lengths of the unexpected delays. Results Perfect rendezvous were hard to obtain, with a general tendency to arrive late and pass behind the target vessel, although this was dependent on the angle of approach and relative speed. When occasional delays were introduced, less frequent but longer delays disrupted performance more than shorter but more frequent delays. Where delays were possible, but no delay occurred, there was no longer evidence of a general tendency to more frequently pass behind the target ship. Additionally, people did not wait to see if the unpredictable delays would occur before executing a course of action. Different control strategies were deployed and dual axis control was preferred. Conclusions The tendency to arrive late and the influence of the possibility of uncertain delays are discussed in relationship to control strategies.

Understanding the Perspective of Behavioral Economics’ Planning Fallacy in Improving Business Strategy for Kopi Bon

In seeking differentiation value, Small Medium Enterprises tend to have limitations which hinder their way in developing the business strategy. As an SME that has established its two-year business operation—Kopi Bon is being analyzed and investigated from the perspective of behavioral economics’ Planning Fallacy—as it shows that the planning process is filled with distortion made from judgments as a result of behavioral biases. The study revealed how cognitive biases that involve planning fallacy as a supporting theory influences the company’s decision-making process—where later could be affected to the decision making in terms of operational activities which comprises of the quality of products and services, to the company’s branding. Also, the study reveals how understanding planning fallacy would make improvement towards business strategy to survive within the pandemic of COVID-19.

PERFORMANCE DES GRANDS PROJETS : DEUX LECTURES COMPORTEMENTALES

La question de la contre-performance des grands projets, incluant ceux relatifs aux data industrialisés et aux SI, est l’objet de nombreux débats quant à leurs réelles retombées économiques par rapport aux retombées attendues, sans toujours mentionner leurs dépassements récurrents de temps et de budget. Cette contre-performance, une sorte de rendez-vous manqué, interpelle sur ses causes. Deux principes clé, la « hiding hand » et la « planning fallacy », apportent des réponses opposées, qui témoignent d’une controverse majeure entre Albert O. Hirschman, d’un côté, Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky et Bent Flyvbjerg, de l’autre. L’article s’intéresse plus spécifiquement aux comportements de projets que ladite controverse met en avant, en concluant sur l’importance d’une étude approfondie de leurs enjeux au plan sociétal, et pas seulement au plan managérial.