The Risk Planning Fallacy

In a 1977 paper, Kahneman and Tversky identified a cognitive bias that causes project planners to systematically underestimate the execution time, execution costs, and risks associated with their plans. [Kahneman 1977] They called this bias the planning fallacy. By analogy with the bias they found, we can reasonably expect to find a risk planning fallacy that causes risk planners to systematically underestimate the probabilities and impacts of the risks they identify. In an additional twist, the risk planning fallacy causes risk planners to overlook risks in their plans, even though they might easily notice those same risks in the plans of other risk planners.

As Kahneman and Tversky write, "The planning fallacy is a consequence of the tendency to neglect distributional data and to adopt what may be termed an internal approach to prediction, in which one focuses on the constituents of the specific problem rather than on the distribution of outcomes in similar cases." [Kahneman 1979] We can then inquire as to the effect of this behavior on risk planning. There are three ways this behavior can affect risk planning: identifying risks, estimating risk probabilities, and estimating risk impacts.

Identifying risks

Trying to identify all risks that could affect a specific project is an example of what Kahneman and Tversky call "focusing on the constituents of the specific problem." By contrast, to take a distributional approach, we would instead determine in how many projects similar to this project did we encounter a risks that weren't anticipated in their risk plans. Call this question IR-1.

In answering IR-1 we must include all cases of past projects in which an unanticipated risk event occurred. But there are other instances of possibly greater interest. For example, with respect to an unanticipated risk event that did occur, we can ask how many past projects could have been affected by that same risk, but which escaped unscathed because the risk didn't materialize, even though it could have. Call this question IR-2.

Risk planners who don't ask the two questions IR-1 and IR-2 are vulnerable to omitting risk event types from their plans, and not being aware that they might be doing so.

Estimating risk event probabilities

In the singular-focused approach to risk planning, planners devise procedures for estimating the probability of risk events for each risk they've identified.

By contrast, in the distributional approach, planners survey past projects and compare the incidence of risk events to the estimated probabilities their planners calculated. The question to answer is how well the estimated probabilities compare to the actual events. (Call this question EP-1) A related question is how many past risk plans show evidence of measurement of risk event probabilities in projects that preceded them. (Call this question EP-2) Failure to measure risk event probabilities calls into question the procedures past risk planners used for devising estimates of risk event probabilities.

Risk planners who don't research questions EP-1 and EP-2 are vulnerable to underestimating risk event probabilities because they're unaware of the probability of doing so.

Estimating risk event impacts

The impact of a risk event is its effect on business value, often expressed as a numeric value (currency) or a severity level (a number chosen from a discrete list). [Engert 1999] Impact can have multiple dimensions. We can experience impacts on finance, reputation, regulatory compliance, health, safety, security, environment, and more. It's possible for a risk planner to gather data from past projects about the different impact values along these different axes. Call this question EI-1.

Risk planners who ignore EI-1 take a singular-focused approach. They try to estimate severity (or severities) for each type of risk event they have identified for their particular project. Planners who adopt a distributional approach will use the results of researching EI-1 to develop a risk profile from similar past projects, and use that as a basis for estimating the impact of all risks collectively on the current problem.

Last words

Researching the five questions IR-1, IR-2, EP-1, EP-2, and EI-1 for each project plan is a significant burden. Fortunately, much of this work is re-usable from project to project. Assembling and maintaining a library of these results can reduce the cost of this research below the cost of performing it for each project plan. And that can reduce the impact of the risk planning fallacy risk.  Top    Next Issue

Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

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:

The Focusing Illusion in Organizations

The judgments we make at work, like the judgments we make elsewhere in life, are subject to human fallibility in the form of cognitive biases. One of these is the Focusing Illusion. Here are some examples to watch for.

Bullet Point Madness: I

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.

Seven More Planning Pitfalls: III

Planning teams, like all teams, are vulnerable to several patterns of interaction that can lead to counter-productive results. Two of these relevant to planners are a cognitive bias called the IKEA Effect, and a systemic bias against realistic estimates of cost and schedule.

Illusory Management: II

Many believe that managers control organizational performance more precisely than they actually do. This illusion might arise, in part, from a mechanism that causes leaders and the people they lead to tend to misattribute organizational success.

Downscoping Under Pressure: II

We sometimes "downscope" projects to bring them back on budget and schedule when they're headed for overruns. Downscoping doesn't always work. Cognitive biases like the sunk cost effect and confirmation bias can distort decisions about how to downscope.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 1: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 2

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of miscommunications. Here's Part 2 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in communication under time pressure, emphasizing those that depend on content. Available here and by RSS on May 1.

And on May 8: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 3

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of problems. Here is Part 3 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure, emphasizing past experiences of participants. Available here and by RSS on May 8.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info