Applied Behavioral Project Management - Designed Around ... · Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM Jodi...
Transcript of Applied Behavioral Project Management - Designed Around ... · Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM Jodi...
Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM
Jodi Wilson, PhDPresident, Leading Projects
President, Ins7tute for Neuro & Behavioral Project Management www.nbpmi.com
Leading
PROJECTS www.leadingprojects.org
Applied Behavioral Project Management – Designed Around the Grey Ma@er
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
2
“I am completely opera.onal, all my circuits are func.oning perfectly”
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
Designing Project Management Around the Brain3
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
The Missing Pieces in Technical Processes4
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
The Need for Redesign5
• Over $15 trillion a year in global GDP is projects
• Between $5 and $7 trillion a year in failed schedule and cost
objecFves is due to human factors
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
Meet … The BRAIN
• Behavior is a part of everything we do.
• Neuroscience and Psychology: explains what we are and do.
6
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
Human EndeavorsTo Dream…
7
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
Human Endeavors & Human Factors
• Every great human endeavor ever
accomplished or ever to be
accomplished was and will be a
project.
• Every great project relies on humans
to accomplishment it.
• Every human is prone to error and
irra?onal decisions.
• The success of every great human
endeavor, then, relies on effec?ve
planning and execu?on
8
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
Applying Science to Project Management9
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
10 Behavioral Economics & Behavioral Finance……Now, “Behavioral Project Management”
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
11
Defining Neuro and Behavioral Project Management
• Neuro and Behavioral Project Management is a method of managing projects that applies insights from neuroscience and psychology to explain and mi?gate decision-making human behavior in project environments. Behavior Project
Management
Agile
PMBOK
Prince2
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
12
Ra#onality, Human Factors, and Predictability
The Behavioral and Neurosciences, then, are the core drivers of all technical and non-technical processes we currently use on a project, including:
• Project management methods
• Leadership
• Teamwork
• MoEvaEonal methods
• EmoEonal intelligence
70% Impact 30% Impact
Behavioral
Technical
Because if we understand the brain, we can understand its outputs in every domain.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
13
Disrup'on in Projects
Vola=lity Ambiguity
Complexity Uncertainty
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
14
What is “Behavioral Project Management”• First and foremost, the ?me constraint is what differen?ates us from
opera?ons; and this ?me constraint changes human behavior.
• Applicability of the judgment and decision-making sciences in a project management context.
• Applicability of organiza?onal psychology to project management and project-based organiza?ons that differs significantly from most opera?ons-based constructs.
• Unique challenges to leadership and teams in project environments.
• Behavioral and neuroscience associated with predic?on, and the role it plays in project planning.
• The unique role that social psychology plays in project integra?on.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
15
Project-Based Leadership & Organiza7onal Psychology
Cogni7ve Impacts of Time Pressure
Project-Based Teams
The Neuro/Behavioral Domains Across Project Phases
Behavioral Project ClosingBehavioral Project Execu-onBehavioral Project PlanningBehavioral Project Ini-a-ng
Heuris7cs
Choice Architecture/Nudge
Judgment & Decision Making Sciences
Social Psychology
Uncertainty Sciences
Risk Sciences
Forecas7ng/Predic7on Sciences
Cogni7ve Biases
Neuroscience
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project Management
Leading
PROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
16
What’s (me have to do with it?
Megías, A., Navas, J. F., Petrova, D., Cándido, A., Maldonado, A., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Catena, A. (August 01, 2015). Neural mechanisms underlying urgent and evaluaMve behaviors: An fMRI study on the interacMon of automaMc and controlled processes. Human Brain Mapping, 36, 8, 2853-2864.
• Time constraints acMvate an
area of the brain releasing the
motor system from inhibiMon,
someMmes causing faster and
possibly premature decisions.
• Time pressure also reduces
creaMvity, and thus innovaMon.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
17
Time Pressure Processing
Inputs Time Pressure
Processing
Reduced Training & Coaching
Reduced Crea7vity
Decision Errors
Increase
Biases Increase
Risky Decision-Making
Increases
Changes Trust,
Ethics, and Governance
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
18
The %me constraint is changing all thinking
Put simply• projects have >me constraints > • >me constraints create >me
pressure > • >me pressure changes how the
brain reacts
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
19
Cogni&ve Load & Decision-Making
Cogni=ve Load
Decision fa=gue
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
20
Your Brain on Op,mis,c Planning
• We are more op>mis>c than
pessimis>c, resul>ng in unrealis>c:
• Risk analysis (Risk KA)
• Schedule dura>on es>ma>on (Time KA)
• Cost es>ma>on (Cost KA)
• Note that future events are more
heavily weighted toward
op>mism. Sharot, T., Riccardi, A. M., Raio, C. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Neural mechanisms mediating optimism
bias. Nature, 450(7166), 102-5. http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/nature06280
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
21The Future of Forecas.ng and Planning Accuracy
• Forecas=ng is NOT just guesswork.
• Dr. Tetlock, an expert in predic=on, and researcher for the U.S. government
Intelligence Community, found the following regarding predic=on accuracy:
• Forecasters with no training: 36% more accurate than a coin toss.
• Forecasters with training: 41% more accurate than a coin toss.
• Forecasters with training in teams: 44% more accurate than a coin toss.
• Elite forecas=ng teams: 66% more accurate than a coin toss.
• The best forecasters have been shown to increase their accuracy by an average of
83%, and that success is aPributed to how forecasters think.
• We have already tried several mi5ga5ons, with similar results
No Training WithTraining,
Solo
WithTraining,
Team
Elite Team
Time, Resource, Risk, and Cost Knowledge Areas
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
22
Mapping the Biases to PMBOK and Other Methodologies
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
23
Applica'on by Project Environment • High =me-pressure projects (Time KA)
• High risk (Risk KA)
• Ambiguous
• Vola=le
• Where predic=on accuracy is cri=cal
• In the Planning phase
• Forecas=ng during Execu$on phase
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
24
Using Earned Value to Improve Predic7on
• Monitor op=mism by organiza=on, PM, analyst,
etc. (Execu=on phase).
• Infer lifecycle impacts to baseline based on
monthly forecast (Planning phase).
• Measure Op=mis=c Forecast Rate (OFR) through
forecast-BCWP.
• Pinpoint prime contracts (Scope KA),
organiza=ons, or individuals for focused training
where forecasts are consistently inaccurate.
24
Behavioral Earned Value
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
25
Increase visibility of elements that show project realiBes
VisibilityProvide rouBne feedback to your forecasters on the accuracy of their predicBons
Feedback
Reduce biases through awareness of them and self-monitoring
Awareness We have conscious and unconscious intenBons, drives, and moBvaBons that lead behavior
Inten3onality
Passive Measures Ac$ve Measures
Increasing Accuracy of Project Predic4on using Behavioral and Neuroscience
Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
26
What Can You Do?• Recognize, first and foremost, that behavior drives
everything. Formally adopt behavioral approaches in
your organizaEon.
• Employ choice architecture in project management
process design.
• Put a new emphasis on planning and forecasEng,
from a perspecEve of predicEon (Planning and
ExecuEon phases).
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project Management
Leading
PROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
27
But Don’t Stop There…• Integrate (Integra>on KA).
• Mi>gate the equa>on: Siloed informa>on + biases +
behavior = work-flow breakdown and error.
• Strategic leadership development, hiring, and promo>on
(Integra>on KA).
• Messaging and communica>ons that have more effec>ve
results (Communica>ons KA).
• Using Social Psychology to improve cross-func>onal
integra>on (Integra>on KA).
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
28
Increasing Your Value
• Increased on->me project delivery (Time KA).
• Higher project management organiza>onal competency.
• Reduced risk realiza>on for your client (Risk KA).
• Fusing a full spectrum of human competencies in your
projects.
• Increased customer trust in project outcomes.
• Being a leader in advanced project management.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
29
What we do…
• Ac=on Research
• Integra=ng behavioral science into project educa=on
• Behavior-Informed Project Design
• Training and coaching
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
30
References• Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (March 01, 2008). Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: An organizational culture perspective. Project Management Journal, 39, 1, 7-15.
• Anderson, A. (February 16, 2012). Unflagging Optimism. Scientific American Mind, 23, 1, 11.
• Bell, L., Van, W. C. C., & Steyn, H. (December 01, 2016). Knowledge-sharing within the project-based organisation : a knowledge-pull framework. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27, 4, 18-33.
• Bendoly, E., Thomas, D., & Capra, M. (August 01, 2010). Multilevel Social Dynamics Considerations for Project Management Decision Makers: Antecedents and Implications of Group Member Tie Development. Decision Sciences, 41, 3, 459-490.
• Butler, Arthur G., Jr. (1973). Project management: A study in organizational conflict. Academy of Management Journal (Pre-1986), 16(1), 84. Retrieved from https://tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/docview/229554925?accountid=34120
• Caputo, A. (2013) A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24 (4). pp. 374-398. ISSN 1044-4068.) Emerald.
• Chen, W. (January 01, 2007). Analysis of Rail Transit Project Selection Bias With an Incentive Approach. Planning Theory, 6, 1, 69-94.
• Chen, T., & Wang, Y.-C. (January 01, 2012). An Integrated Project Management System for Facilitating Knowledge Learning. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (ijeis), 8, 2, 30-51.
• Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Company.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (3rd Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Creswell, J. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
• Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (September 18, 2013). Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. Bmj Quality & Safety, 22.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
31
References• Decisions and Designs Inc. McLean VA, Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos. (1977). Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures.
• Eizakshiri, F., Chan, P. W., & Emsley, M. W. (April 07, 2015). Where is intentionality in studying project delays?. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8, 2, 349-367.
• Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (August 01, 2006). Enhancing Creativity Through “Mindless” Work: A Framework of Workday Design. Organization Science, 17, 4, 470-483.
• Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.
• Fabricius, Golo, Büttgen, & Marion. (2015). Project managers' overconfidence: how is risk reflected in anticipated project success?. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (January 01, 1987). Short-Term Projects and Emergent Careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 4, 879-909.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (January 01, 2008). Curbing Optimism Bias and Strategic Misrepresentation in Planning: Reference Class Forecasting in Practice. European Planning Studies, 16, 1, 3-21.
• Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Wagenmakers, E. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17538-17542.
• Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (January 01, 2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 1, 35-42.
• Gertman, D. I., Halbert, B. P., Parrish, M. W., Sattison, M. B., Brownson, D., & Tortorelli, J. P. (2001). Review of Findings for Human Performance Contribution to Risk in Operating Events. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Washington, DC: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
• Gevers, Josette M.P., van Eerde, Wendelien, & Rutte, Christel G. (2001). Time pressure, potency, and progress in project groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10:2, 205-221, DOI: 10.1080/13594320143000636
• Gino, F., & Pisano, G. (October 01, 2008). Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10, 4, 676-691.
• Decisions and Designs Inc. McLean VA, Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos. (1977). Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures.
• Eizakshiri, F., Chan, P. W., & Emsley, M. W. (April 07, 2015). Where is intentionality in studying project delays?. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8, 2, 349-367.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
32
References• Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (August 01, 2006). Enhancing Creativity Through “Mindless” Work: A Framework of Workday Design. Organization Science, 17, 4, 470-483.
• Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.
• Fabricius, Golo, Büttgen, & Marion. (2015). Project managers' overconfidence: how is risk reflected in anticipated project success?. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (January 01, 1987). Short-Term Projects and Emergent Careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 4, 879-909.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (January 01, 2008). Curbing Optimism Bias and Strategic Misrepresentation in Planning: Reference Class Forecasting in Practice. European Planning Studies, 16, 1, 3-21.
• Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Wagenmakers, E. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17538-17542.
• Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (January 01, 2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 1, 35-42.
• Gertman, D. I., Halbert, B. P., Parrish, M. W., Sattison, M. B., Brownson, D., & Tortorelli, J. P. (2001). Review of Findings for Human Performance Contribution to Risk in Operating Events. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Washington, DC: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
• Gevers, Josette M.P., van Eerde, Wendelien, & Rutte, Christel G. (2001). Time pressure, potency, and progress in project groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10:2, 205-221, DOI: 10.1080/13594320143000636
• Gino, F., & Pisano, G. (October 01, 2008). Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10, 4, 676-691.
• Grossman, Z. (November 01, 2014). Strategic Ignorance and the Robustness of Social Preferences. Management Science, 60, 11, 2659-2665.
• Haji-Kazemi, S., & Andersen, B. (January 01, 2013). Application of performance measurement as an early warning system: A case study in the oil and gas industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6, 4, 714-738.
• Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (April 01, 2011). A project management research framework integrating multiple theoretical perspectives and influencing factors. Project Management Journal, 42, 3, 4-22.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
33
References• Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (February 01, 2002). Intergroup Bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1, 575-604.
• Ioi, T., Ono, M., Ishii, K., & Kato, K. (January 01, 2012). Analysis of a Knowledge-Management-Based Process of Transferring Project Management Skills. Campus-wide Information Systems, 29, 4, 251-258.
• Jacobsson, M., Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (October 01, 2015). Researching Projects and Theorizing Families of Temporary Organizations. Project Management Journal, 46, 5, 9-18.
• Jones, L. R., & Euske, K. J. (January 01, 1991). Strategic misrepresentation in budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 4.
• Jorgensen, M. (2004). Realism in assessment of effort estimation uncertainty: It matters how you ask. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(4), 209-217. doi:http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1109/TSE.2004.1274041
• Jorgensen, M. (2005). Evidence-based guidelines for assessment of software development cost uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(11), 942-954. doi:http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1109/TSE.2005.128
• Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (1979). "Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures". TIMS Studies in Management Science. 12: 313–327
• Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., & Seppi, D. (January 01, 2009). The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38, 2, 95-115.
• Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (June 01, 2006). The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 26, 3, 631-639.
• Knowledge management: The era of shared ideas. (1997). Forbes, 160(6), 28.
• Koudsi, S. (2000). Actually, it is like brain surgery. Fortune, 141(6), 233–234.
• Kutsch, E., & Hall, M. (January 01, 2010). Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 3, 245-255.
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
34
References• Leybourne, S. A. (January 01, 2007). The Changing Bias of Project Management Research: A Consideration of the Literatures and an Application of Extant Theory. Project Management
Journal, 38, 1, 61-73.
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, K. L., & Landfield, R. A. (July 01, 2009). Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 4, 390-398.
• Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (January 01, 1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 4, 437-455.
• Lundin, R. A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., & Sydow, J. (2017). Managing and Working in Project Society. S.l.: Cambridge Univ Press.
• Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., & Fazar, W. (1959). "Application of a technique for research and development program evaluation." Operations research, 7(5), 646-669.
• Megías, A., Navas, J. F., Petrova, D., Cándido, A., Maldonado, A., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Catena, A. (August 01, 2015). Neural mechanisms underlying urgent and evaluative behaviors: An fMRI study on the interaction of automatic and controlled processes. Human Brain Mapping, 36, 8, 2853-2864.
• Min, K. S., & Arkes, H. R. (November 01, 2012). When Is Difficult Planning Good Planning? The Effects of Scenario-Based Planning on Optimistic Prediction Bias. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 11, 2701-2729.
• Nygard, K. E., Bender, L., Walia, G., Kong, J., Gagneja, K., & LeNoue, M. (2011). Collaboration using social networks for team projects. In The International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS'11) (pp. 86-92).
• Oliva, R., & Watson, N. (March 01, 2009). Managing Functional Biases in Organizational Forecasts: A Case Study of Consensus Forecasting in Supply Chain Planning. Production and Operations Management, 18, 2, 138-151.
• Owen, J., Burstein, F., & Mitchell, S. (2004). Knowledge reuse and transfer in a project management environment. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 6(4), 21-35. Retrieved from https://tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/docview/214912051?accountid=34120
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
35
References• Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Steinmann, F. (January 01, 2012). How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both?. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 18, 3, 314-
30.
• Packendorff, J. (January 01, 1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 4, 319-333.
• Prater, J., Kirytopoulos, K., & Ma, T. (January 01, 2017). Optimism bias within the project management context: A systematic quantitative literature review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10, 2, 370-385.
• Project Management Institute. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (5th ed.). Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
• Project Management Institute. (2016). The High cost of Low Performance | Pulse of the Profession 2016. Retrieved from www.pmi.org: http://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2016.pdf
• Ramasesh, R. V., & Browning, T. R. (May 01, 2014). A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 4, 190-204.
• Rothman, A. J., & Hardin, C. D. (July 02, 2016). Differential Use of the Availability Heuristic in Social Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 2, 123-138.
• Sample, J. A. (January 01, 2015). Mitigating the Planning Fallacy in Project Forecasting: An OD Perspective. Organization Development Journal, 33, 2, 51-66.
• Sharot, T., Riccardi, A. M., Raio, C. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias. Nature, 450(7166), 102-5. http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/nature06280
• Shedler, J., & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 26-36. doi:http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.26
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
36
References• Son, J., & Rojas, E. M. (2011). Impact of Optimism Bias Regarding Organizational Dynamics on Project Planning and Control. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management, 137(2), 147-
157. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000260
• Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
• Thamhain, H. J., & Wilemon, D. L. (February 01, 1975). Diagnosing conflict determinants in project management. Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 22, 1.
• Thunström, Linda, Nordström, Leif Jonas, Shogren, Jason F., Ehmke, Mariah, & van 't Veld, Klaas. (2013). Strategic Self-Ignorance. Department of Economics, Lund University.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (January 01, 1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 2, 207-232.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (January 01, 1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 185, 4157, 1124-31.
• Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. OUP Oxford.
• Van der Weele, Joel J., When Ignorance Is Innocence: On Information Avoidance in Moral Dilemmas (August 20, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1844702 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1844702
• Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (January 01, 2001). Implications of Attitude Change Theories for Numerical Anchoring: Anchor Plausibility and the Limits of Anchor Effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 1, 62-69.
• Wieland, J. W. (April 23, 2016). Willful Ignorance. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
• Wu, W.-L., Hsu, B.-F., & Yeh, R.-S. (January 01, 2007). Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer: a team-level analysis. Journal of Information Science, 33, 3, 326-339. DOI: 10.1177/0165551506070733
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
37With Special Thanks for Their Support in the Journey
• Rolf Lundin, PhD
• Jeremy Nicholson, PhD
• Elizabeth Schwab, PhD
• Mark Reeson, RPP, FAPM, PMP, AfCGI
• BriMa Eremit, SSCC, SSC, EBC
• CJ Walker Waite, PhD, PMP
• Tim Kloppenborg, PhD, PMP
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
38
Contact
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
39
“You can design and create and build the most wonderful place in the world. But it takes people to make the dream a reality”
~Walt Disney
Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi
ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!
Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!