Seven More Planning Pitfalls: III

In two previous posts, I noted five different phenomena that can lead planning teams to devise unworkable plans. They included Group Polarization, Trips to Abilene, False Consensus, Groupthink, and Shared Information Bias. In this final post of the series, I explore effects that cause planning teams to adopt or accept approaches for reasons other than their merits.

The IKEA effect

A cognitive bias known as the IKEA Effect causes individuals to place an inordinately high value on products they assembled themselves [Norton 2012]. One might speculate that an analogous bias occurs with respect to organizations. If this speculation is valid, organizations would tend to place inordinately high value on assets and processes that they created or helped to create, compared to similar assets or processes that they could acquire elsewhere. This phenomenon, if confirmed experimentally, might be related to what is sometimes called the not-invented-here syndrome [Katz 1982].

Planning teams A cognitive bias known as the
IKEA Effect causes individuals
to place an inordinately
high value on products
they assembled themselveswould be affected by the "organizational IKEA Effect" by assessing as more valuable or effective approaches that exploited products or technology developed in part or in toto by in-house efforts. That might also cause them to be compelled by internal political forces to use such assets, even if they were inferior to commercial alternatives.

Competition bias

When internal experts provide estimates of cost and schedule, they're vulnerable to a number of cognitive biases that cause them to underestimate both. I've noted some of these, such as the priming effects or Shared Information Bias, in previous posts. But even if the members of the planning team weren't vulnerable to these biases, another problem — potentially even more significant — causes them to produce underestimates. The forces that create this problem are traceable to competition, both internal and external. I call this phenomenon Competition Bias.

Boehm, et al., observe that because organizational resources are finite, project advocates compete with each other for resources [Boehm 2016]. They are compelled by this competition to be unrealistically optimistic about their objectives, costs, and schedules. Although the authors call this mechanism the "Conspiracy of Optimism," possibly facetiously, it isn't actually a conspiracy. Rather, it's a variant of the N-Person Prisoner's Dilemma [Hamburger 1973].

Market dynamics provide a second illustration of the effects of competition. Those who advocate marketing strategies based on the so-called "first mover advantage" believe that the organization that first delivers an offering to a marketplace can gain advantages by arriving early. The strategy is somewhat controversial [Suarez 2005], but it is believed widely enough that it leads to pressure on project planning teams to reduce their estimates of cost and schedule.

Estimates of cost and schedule are more likely to be realistic if the estimators aren't subjected to pressure to produce low estimates.

Last words

In these last six posts, I've inventoried 14 different phenomena that can lead to unworkable plans.

But there is a trap here. Some might feel that when a plan goes awry, and we see some evidence that the IKEA effect might have played a role, then the people who devised the plan are at fault for not recognizing the problem and doing something about it. That would be a mistake. Replacing those people, or disciplining them in some way, is unlikely to affect substantially the probability of a recurrence.

The root cause of the problem lies not in the people who devised the unworkable plan, but in the processes they used when devising the plan. To reduce the probability of recurrence of the IKEA effect, for example, we need to add to the planning process new steps. Those new steps must ensure decision-maker objectivity with respect to the origins of the assets they're planning on using. For each of the 14 phenomena I've been exploring, we would need to add some measures like that.

Undoubtedly there are dozens more phenomena that lead to unworkable plans. It's a wonder that any of our plans are workable. First in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

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.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

Self-Serving Bias in Organizations

We all want to believe that we can rely on the good judgment of decision makers when they make decisions that affect organizational performance. But they're human, and they are therefore subject to a cognitive bias known as self-serving bias. Here's a look at what can happen.

Scope Creep and the Planning Fallacy

Much is known about scope creep, but it nevertheless occurs with such alarming frequency that in some organizations, it's a certainty. Perhaps what keeps us from controlling it better is that its causes can't be addressed with management methodology. Its causes might be, in part, psychological.

Why Scope Expands: I

Scope creep is depressingly familiar. Its anti-partner, spontaneous and stealthy scope contraction, has no accepted name, and is rarely seen. Why?

The Planning Fallacy and Self-Interest

A well-known cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, accounts for many unrealistic estimates of project cost and schedule. Overruns are common. But another cognitive bias, and organizational politics, combine with the planning fallacy to make a bad situation even worse.

The Trap of Beautiful Language

As we assess the validity of others' statements, we risk making a characteristically human error — we confuse the beauty of their language with the reliability of its meaning. We're easily thrown off by alliteration, anaphora, epistrophe, and chiasmus.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 28: Notes to Self

Many of us jot important reminders to ourselves on sticky notes, used envelopes, scraps of paper, and whatnot. Often we misplace these notes, or later find them too late to serve their purposes. Here's a low-tech alternative that works better for some. Available here and by RSS on October 28.

And on November 4: Mastering Messaging for Pandemics: I

When a pandemic rages, face-to-face meetings are largely curtailed. Clarity in text messaging and email communication becomes more important than usual. Citing dates and times unambiguously requires a more rigorous approach than many are accustomed to. Available here and by RSS on November 4.

Coaching services

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

Public seminars

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.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   

Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?

Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.