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.
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 maintain 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! .
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.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.
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 Cognitive Biases at Work:
- Confirmation Bias: Workplace Consequences Part I
- We continue our exploration of confirmation bias, paying special attention to the consequences it causes
in the workplace. In this part, we explore its effects on our thinking.
- Scope Creep and Confirmation Bias
- As we've seen, some cognitive biases can contribute to the incidence of scope creep in projects and
other efforts. Confirmation bias, which causes us to prefer evidence that bolsters our preconceptions,
is one of these.
- Wishful Significance: II
- When we're beset by seemingly unresolvable problems, we sometimes conclude that "wishful thinking"
was the cause. Wishful thinking can result from errors in assessing the significance of our observations.
Here's a second group of causes of erroneous assessment of significance.
- Bullet Point Madness: II
- Decision makers in many organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of a series of bullet points
or a series of series of bullet points. Briefers who combine this format with a variety of persuasion
techniques can mislead decision makers, guiding them into making poor decisions.
- Seven More Planning Pitfalls: I
- Planners and members of planning teams are susceptible to patterns of thinking that lead to unworkable
plans. But planning teams also suffer vulnerabilities. Two of these are Group Polarization and Trips
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming September 27: On Working Breaks in Meetings
- When we convene a meeting to work a problem, we sometimes find that progress is stalled. Taking a break to allow a subgroup to work part of the problem can be key to finding simple, elegant solutions rapidly. Choosing the subgroup is only the first step. Available here and by RSS on September 27.
- And on October 4: Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: I
- Conversational narcissism is a set of behaviors that participants use to focus the exchange on their own self-interest rather than the shared objective. This post emphasizes the role of these behaviors in advancing a narcissist's sense of self-importance. Available here and by RSS on October 4.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.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