Project plans usually include estimates of costs and schedules in addition to plans for work to be done, and the order of doing that work. Sometimes we fail to complete all the work we had in mind; sometimes we find we cannot do some work we wanted to do; sometimes we discover additional work we needed to do. But overall, the work actually done in a project does roughly approximate the work that was planned. Not so for cost and schedule. Cost and schedule can differ from projections by double, triple, and more, even when we make allowances for differences between work planned and work actually done.
In a 1977 report, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky identify a particular cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, which afflicts planners [Kahneman 1977]. They discuss two types of information used by planners. Singular information is specific to the project at hand; distributional information is drawn from similar past efforts. The planning fallacy is the tendency of planners to pay too little attention to distributional information and too much attention to singular information, even when the singular information is scanty or questionable. Planners tend to underestimate cost and schedule by failing to harvest lessons from the distributional information, which is inherently more diverse and reliable than singular information.
But even when planners attend to distributional information, two forms of self-serving considerations can lead planners to make estimates that cannot be met. Here's how.
- Self-serving bias
- Choosing local experts is a common pattern for designating people to make estimates of cost and schedule. Usually the experts designated tend to be people who've done similar work in the past, and sometimes they must assess their own past work. When estimators must evaluate their own work, they have a conflict of interest that can compromise objectivity as a result of a cognitive bias known as self-serving bias [Campbell 1999]. Self-serving bias causes us to perceive ourselves more positively than objective judgment warrants. We tend to attribute successes to our own talents and decisions, and attribute failures to external factors.
- When the The work actually done in a
project does roughly approximate
the work that was planned.
Not so for cost and schedule.estimators designated for a project were themselves involved in the past efforts they're evaluating for estimation purposes — what Kahneman and Tversky call distributional information — self-serving bias tends to lead them to biased conclusions, which they then use to make projections for the project whose cost and schedule they're estimating.
- Organizational politics
- From the perspective of objective estimation based on balanced assessment of distributional and singular information, organizational politics can make a bad situation even worse. Estimators who are evaluating past efforts in which they played roles can use their evaluations as tools of what psychologists call impression management — to make themselves look good. They can thus enhance their own prospects for advancement [Drory 2006]. In this way, politics can limit the willingness of estimators to faithfully represent sources of successes and failures in past efforts. In effect, to gain political advantage, estimators tend to attribute too much of the reason for past successes to their own actions, and too much of the reason for past failures to external factors or to the actions of others, especially political rivals.
The distortions that result from the planning fallacy, from self-serving bias, and from organizational politics can reduce the chances that estimators will produce reliable results. When that happens, cost overruns and schedule delays become more likely. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Project Management:
- Dubious Dealings
- Negotiating contracts with outsourcing suppliers can present ethical dilemmas, even when we try to be
as fair as possible. The negotiation itself can present conflicts of interest. What are those conflicts?
- The Injured Teammate: II
- You're a team lead, and one of the team members is suddenly very ill or has been severely injured. How
do you handle it? Here are some suggestions for breaking the news to the team.
- On the Risk of Undetected Issues: I
- In complex projects, things might have gone wrong long before we notice them. Noticing them as early
as possible — and addressing them — is almost always advantageous. How can we reduce the
incidence of undetected issues?
- Avoid Having to Reframe Failure
- Yet again, we missed our goal — we were late, we were over budget, or we lost to the competition.
But how can we get something good out of it?
- Missing the Obvious: I
- At times, when the unexpected occurs, we recognize with hindsight that the unexpected could have been
expected. How do we miss the obvious? What's happening when we do?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 1: Incompetence: Traps and Snares
- Sometimes people judge as incompetent colleagues who are unprepared to carry out their responsibilities. Some of these "incompetents" are trapped or ensnared in incompetence, unable to acquire the ability to do their jobs. Available here and by RSS on April 1.
- And on April 8: Intentionally Misreporting Status: I
- When we report the status of the work we do, we sometimes confront the temptation to embellish the good news or soften the bad news. How can we best deal with these obstacles to reporting status with integrity? Available here and by RSS on April 8.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.