Sanidad vegetal

A combination of both soft controls and hard controls and of both project/organizational factors as well as psychological/social factors gives the most complete understanding of situation

In the introduction section of this paper we argued that both soft controls and hard controls, both project factors and psychological factors, can influence the outcome of a project. For example, even if your security measures are of a high technological standard, that this does not mean that your data is secure when a user writes down their password or responds to a phishing e-mail. Similarly, as mentioned in the introduction, having a clear idea of what to cook (i.e. the end goal) and having the right ingredients (i.e. the business case) or even the right recipe (i.e. the project management method), does not necessarily mean that your dish (i.e. the project) will turn out as successfully as expected. To not consider the qualities of the cook (i.e. the project manager) in this case seems odd to say the least. For this reason, it is perhaps surprising that, in practice, there is a strong focus on hard controls but relatively little attention on soft controls. I propose that as a result, the impact of the decision maker, and specifically the potential impact of psychological biases that can cause the decision maker to escalate commitment to a failing project, may to be underestimated or at least not given enough attention.

The importance of not underestimating or ignoring psychological biases is demonstrated in the studies in this dissertation. Our findings indicate that factors such as project names and construal level are indeed capable of biasing decision makers and that they can lead to an increase in the willingness to continue a troubled project (i.e. escalation of commitment to a project). It is important to note, however, that the studies in this dissertation are not the first to find a link between psychological biases and project

escalation, nor are they the only psychological factors which can play a role. Rather, in this dissertation we aimed to contribute to the existing knowledge of potential biases in human decision making by investigating potential causal factors of project escalation which thus far had received very little to no attention (or which were not investigated in this manner).

Not only did we observe a causal effect (Chapters 2, 3 & 5) but we also identified several factors which mediate these effects. As such, this dissertation aims to contribute by raising awareness of new factors which can serve as potential causes of escalation is important and by explaining how exactly they can lead to biased decision making. Similarly, this dissertation reinforces findings from prior research by finding empirical support that psychological factors can influence project decision making and escalation and by demonstrating that there may be more psychological biases than we thought thus far and that more may yet be undiscovered.

Note that we are not trying to make the case that this is the be-all and end-all of project escalation. We recognize that (1) these are certainly not the only psychological factors that play a role in project escalation and (2) that project factors and hard controls also can have a big impact on the evaluations of a project and the decision making process.

As stated in the introduction of this dissertation, our aim is not to argue that psychological biases are the only thing that matter, just that they matter and that they should not be ignored. In line with Simons (2013), we emphasize the importance of looking at both soft control and hard controls, both project and psychological factors. Just because the psychological factors here aren’t the only factors of influence or perhaps the single most important factors in the decision making process does not mean that they should be ignored. Similarly, even if certain biases have a very strong effect, that does not mean that relevant financial information should be ignored either. Rather than ignoring one, both should be considered. It is the balance which, I propose, is important and which allows for a better and more complete understanding and prediction of people’s decision making and project outcomes.

Be open to the possibility that we might be influenced factors that we might not expect

As mentioned in the previous point, I believe that a balance of focusing on both characteristics of the project and organization itself, as well as on the (potential biases of the) decision maker can be valuable. However, the focus of organizations still appears to be primarily on the former and not on the latter. For example, while many organizations might focus on the information in the business case, relatively few might pay attention to factors such as a project name or framing and how these might bias managers. This may, however, not be entirely justified since our outcomes imply that such factors can actually influence project decision making and specifically the willingness to continue with a troubled project (i.e. escalation). Yet, despite there being a theoretical basis which supports

the notion that these factors can have an effect, they do not seem to be getting as much attention in practice. Indeed, we ourselves encountered resistance to the very notion that these factors could play a role. When debriefing subjects after an experiment, several practitioners indicated that they were very skeptical that a factor like a project name could play a role and that the idea that practitioners would be influenced by such a factor is unrealistic. Yet, this is exactly what the results of that experiment indicate.

The reason for such resistance to, and unwillingness to believe in, the effects of factors such as these may be the fact that they intuitively seem innocent and/or irrelevant.

It might be the case that people make the mistake that if they believe that something should not matter, that it must mean that it does not matter. But just because it seems unlikely or counterintuitive, that does not mean that it is not true, as our experimental results indicate.

Thus, one could argue that these factors are perhaps deceptive in the sense that they seem innocent when in fact they are not. Arguably this may make them more troublesome than several other psychological factors since the decision maker might (a) not be aware that they might be influenced by this factor and (b) might not believe that they themselves are prone to being influenced when they are being told about the potential biasing effect of these factors. This again emphasizes the importance of being open to the possibility that a factor might be capable of biasing decisions, even when this seems unlikely or counterintuitive. In this dissertation we aimed to contribute by (1) demonstrating that such factors can in fact have an effect and by (2) explaining how they can lead to biased decision making by identifying several mediators of these effects.

Well intended measures may actually backfire

Another reason why raising awareness of the effects of these biases is valuable is that, if people are unaware of these effects that they might unintentionally actually increase the chances of irrational decision making and project escalation. Certain well intended actions might actually do more harm than good due to their potential biasing effects. This may be particularly true with regard to project names. It seems that lately organizations are putting more time into a project name by trying to pick interesting, original and/or attractive project names. However, our findings from Chapter 2 indicate that exactly these types of positive names (e.g. “Sunrise”) may also cause decision makers to be more likely to remain committed to a project even when it is troubled and when redirection or termination is more desirable. Similarly, putting a completion year in a deadline may seem like a good idea since it can provide a clear target for people to work towards. Yet, as the findings from Chapter 3 demonstrate, a name which draws attention specifically towards one aspect of an element might lead to that element being overly emphasized and may cause decision makers to miss or underestimate issues related to other elements. By increasing awareness of how these types of factors can bias decision making in this dissertation, we aim to

reduce instances where well intended measures actually backfire simply because people are not aware of their effects.

Not all psychological biases may be equally relevant or useful to an organization In this dissertation we looked at various psychological biases. While it can be useful to be aware of the effects that these types of factors can have, not all of them may be equally relevant or valuable to an organization. Specifically, I propose that knowledge of factors capable of causing decision making biases may be more useful to an organization when (1) they are easily identified, (2) when their effects on project decision making can reliably be determined, (3) when they are within the control of the organization and (4) when they could potentially be used to either detect project escalation at an early stage or to prevent or reduce the chances of escalation occurring. Furthermore, the usefulness of such factors can increase when organizations could potentially also use them to their advantage (more on that in the next point).

In general, psychological factors can differ greatly on the above mentioned points, and so do the specific psychological factors that were investigated in this dissertation.

When biases are caused by the absence or presence of specific project attributes then it may be relatively straightforward to detect whether these factors were present. For example, it is relatively easy to identify the level of sunk costs or the name of a project.

When a bias can be caused not by specific attributes of the project itself but rather by how these are described (i.e. framing) then things already become a bit more difficult. It may be most difficult, however, when biases are caused by factors completely unrelated to the project. It is impractical for organizations to attempt to identify factors which take place outside of the project or even the organization. Similarly, these types of factors are generally also outside of the control of the organization. Whereas a project name is completely within the control of an organization, and can easily be set or changed to avoid biases, regulating the construal level of decision makers may, for example, be near impossible. The reasons for that are amongst others that, unlike (with) a project name (1) construal level cannot be observed but needs to be measured, which is invasive and takes time, (2) that construal level can be influenced by factors outside factors unrelated to the project and (3) that construal levels may fluctuate (more often) during the course of a project. Based on our findings, the less related to actual characteristics/attributes of the project, the more difficult these biases may be to detect, predict and prevent. As such, I propose that it may be valuable for organizations to (first) focus on those psychological factors which may be most relevant and useful to them.

Biases could also be used to an organizations benefit

As stated in section 6.2, while research on biases in the field of project escalation mostly seems to focus on the harmful effects of biases and how they can lead to irrational decision

making, there appears to be relatively little attention on how to best deal with biases beyond trying to prevent them. An alternative approach of dealing with biases is to investigate, when they are already present, how they might potentially be used to our advantage. In other words, if a bias is there, how do we make the best of it? As mentioned in section 6.2, our study on framing indicates that when managers use framing, that a listener aware of framing effects may actually be able to obtain valuable additional information from their framing usage. This again indicates that it is important to be aware of the effects of such biases rather than ignoring them. Such knowledge may be helpful not only in being able to understand, detect, predict and/or prevent irrational decision making caused by these biases, but it may also provide the organization with additional insights and means to best deal with biases that are present. I propose that this is something which thus far perhaps has not received enough attention and which could have a lot of untapped potential.