Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Systematic review on
behavioural decision making in projects
Verena Stingl ⁎, Joana Geraldi
Technical University of Denmark, Department of Management Engineering, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
Received 9 June 2016; received in revised form 3 October 2016; accepted 20 October 2016
Available online 16 November 2016
Abstract
This paper provides a systematic review of the literature on behavioural decision making in projects. The field is blooming, and given the
relevance of decisions in projects and the strong theoretical foundations of behavioural decision making, it offers to contribute to practice and
theory in projects and beyond. However, the literature is fragmented and draws only on a fraction of the recent, insightful, and relevant
developments on behavioural decision making. This paper organizes current research in a conceptual framework rooted in three schools of
thinking—reductionist (on cognitive limitations—errors), pluralist (on political behaviour—lies), and contextualist (on social and organizational
sensemaking—misunderstandings). Our review suggests avenues for future research with a wider coverage of theories in cognitive and social
psychology and critical and mindful integration of findings and concepts across three schools.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Decision making; Behavioural decision making; Cognition; Sensemaking; Systematic review; Project studies
1. Introduction
Making decisions is integral to the management of projects.
Plenty of normative guidance, including tools and methods, aid
the rational decision making process (Hazır, 2015). However,
the actual decision behaviour deviates strongly from the
rational ideal, as abundant research in behavioural decision
making demonstrates.
Behavioural decision making “endeavours to understand the
actual influences on actors on making choices”, (Mullaly 2014,
p. 519). The study of behavioural decision making in projects has
gained momentum in the past 15 years and allows first exploration
of the actuality of project decisions (Cicmil et al., 2006),
e.g. overoptimism in project forecasts (e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2007,
2013), escalation of commitment (e.g. Alvarez et al., 2011; Van
Oorschot et al., 2013), or ineffective risk management (e.g. Kutsch
and Hall, 2005, 2010).
The literature draws from different general theoretical
foundations in organizational theory, and cognitive and
behavioural sciences, including Groupthink (Hällgren, 2010),
sensemaking (Musca et al., 2014), self-justification theory
(Jani, 2008), risk propensity and uncertainty avoidance (Keil
et al., 2000), or ‘planning fallacy’(Flyvbjerg, 2013), among
others. All in all, the research displays strong heterogeneity in
terms of theoretical background and researched phenomena,
thus reflecting the multi-faceted nature of project decision
behaviour.
While theoretical pluralism is essential to grasp the
complexity of decisions in projects (Winter et al., 2006), it
bears the risk of falling into the ‘fragmentation trap’ (Knudsen,
2003). It is only when theories are interacting with each other
that we can fully benefit from theoretical plurality, as suggested
in seminal publications in organization studies, e.g. the critical
comparison between theories (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), and
the theorizing emerging in the intersection between research
perspectives (Zahra and Newey, 2009), and between research
paradigms (Lewis and Grimes, 1999).
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: verst@dtu.dk, v.stingl@gmx.at (V. Stingl).
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.009
0263-7863/00/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Literature reviews and conceptual frameworks can capture
theoretical pluralism, offer a deliberate integration, combination,
or parallel consideration of the theoretical concepts, and
thereby foster cross-fertilization, new ideas and the overall
development of the field (Knudsen, 2003; Shapira et al., 1994;
Söderlund and Geraldi, 2012; Söderlund, 2011). However, past
reviews fail to provide a comprehensive overview of the
literature on behavioural decision making in projects, and
focused instead on specific aspects, namely decision makers'
concept of risk (Zhang et al., 2011), decisions in mega projects
(Sanderson, 2012), and cognitive biases (McCray et al., 2002;
Shore, 2008).
The present study will contribute to close this gap. Its purpose is
to display and analyse the theoretical pluralism in the literature on
behavioural decision making in projects, and point to potential
future research. This article asks (1) How is behavioural decision
making studied in the project literature? (2) What gaps exist in the
current research on behavioural decision making in projects?
(3) How does the project literature relate to the grand theories of
behavioural decision making? We will address these questions by
populating an established conceptual framework, considering the
onto-epistemological foundations of behavioural decision making
theories, with related project literature, captured through a
systematic review.
Our aim is not to foster unification, but to offer a structured
understanding of the current theoretical pluralism, and thereby
identify gaps and opportunities for future research within and
across theoretical foundations. This study contributes to the
literature as it a) provides a holistic synthesis of the research on
behavioural decision making in projects, b) analyses the
relationship between this research and the theoretical foundations
of behavioural decision making, and c) points to possibilities of
integrating research findings from different theoretical backgrounds
whilst carefully considering their onto-epistemological
differences. The article contributes to practising decisions by
suggesting how behaviours impact decisions, and reviewing
coping mechanisms offered by the literature.
The next section will propose a framework of three ‘schools of
thought’ in behavioural decision making, followed by methodology.
We then will analyse the project literature within each of
the three schools, and the literature following a mixed-school
approach. In the discussion, we propose avenues for future
research within each school, and highlight limitations and
opportunities of the mixed-school approach. In conclusion, we
will return to the research questions, establish contributions and
limitations of current work.
2. Three schools of thought in behavioural decision making
To meet our objective, we needed to build on a framework
that is holistic, strongly rooted in cognitive and behavioural
sciences and is explicit about the ontological and epistemological
foundations of the theories. Such a framework highlights
the boundaries, assumptions, major findings, challenges, and
potential future of the field (Shapira et al., 1994). We identified
such a framework in Powell et al.'s (2011) three schools of
thought for Behavioural Strategy.
Grouping the literature according to schools of thoughts is
popular in project studies and beneficial for the development of
research. The use of schools of thought enables a systematic
search for gaps and competing theoretical explanations within
and between schools. In consequence, making the schools
explicit will illustrate the current theoretical pluralism in the
field, and will assist and promote the study and integration of
the individual findings. It is thereby a mean to identify both
conflicts between schools, or potential overlaps and opportunities
of complementation, and thereby stimulate future debate
and research (Knudsen, 2003; Söderlund, 2011).
Powell et al. (2011) introduced three schools of thought to
organize the research on Behavioural Strategy, that is, research on
strategy management based on cognitive and behavioural science.
Powell and colleagues structured the literature according to their
respective onto-epistemological foundations and identified three
conceptually distinct schools. These schools draw from separate
theoretical foundations, are fundamentally different in their
philosophies, and, in consequence, follow different methodologies.
Powell et al. named the three schools: Reductionist, Pluralist, and
Contextualist. We will only briefly introduce the three schools
here, and examine them in relation to project literature more
thoroughly later in the article.
The Reductionist school adopts a strictly positivist, objectivist,
and realist view. As such, it analyses deviations from a
‘normative ideal’, i.e. a rationally right trajectory or decision.
Deviations are labelled as biases and errors, and their roots and
extent are analysed through mostly quantitative methods.
The Pluralist school is based in pragmatism and draws from
multiple theoretical foundations, hence following a pluralistic
approach. While still adhering to a rational, normative ideal as a
reference, the reasons for ‘deviations’ are sought in intra-group
conflicts, resulting in opportunistic behaviour, bargaining, and
conflicts. Methodologically, this school builds on the same
pluralism as for its theoretical foundation, using qualitative,
quantitative and mixed methodologies.
Finally, the Contextualist school embraces a phenomenological
or constructionist view. Unlike the other schools, contextualist
research does not define an ‘optimal’ reference point for the ‘right’
decision. Instead, the focus is less on the decision, but the process
leading to it, and the context in which it takes place. The
methodologies are therefore typically qualitative.
In their paper Powell et al. argued that the identification and
acknowledgement of the paradigmatic differences of these three
schools of thought were a necessary starting point to adopt ‘a
policy of methodological pluralism and multimethod research’
(p.1380).
Their framework is a suitable starting point for organizing the
literature in project studies and addressing our research questions
for three reasons. First, although focussing on strategy, the
presented schools are strongly linked to decisions and reflect the
same types of influences that actors in project decisions are facing.
Second, the proposed framework builds on the grand theories of
cognitive and social sciences in behavioural decision making, and
also on organizational theory and strategic management, thus
providing a solid foundation for exploring missing or inaccurate
connections to the grand theories. Third, the framework presents
122 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
clearly the assumptions, boundaries and onto-epistemological
foundations of the theories. In doing so, this framework helps to
identify possibilities for translations and serves as a fruitful tool for
researchers to connect the studies on behavioural decision making.
3. Methodology
3.1. Choice of methodology
We conducted a systematic literature review to develop an
overview and synthesis of the research on decision behaviour in
projects. The analysis of the articles was guided by Powell
et al.'s (2011) framework.
We have chosen a systematic literature review because it
introduces the rigour of research methodology into literature
reviews, thus improving quality. A core difference between a
systematic review and a traditional narrative review is the search
for and analysis of a comprehensive sample of publications. The
methodology involves systematic data collection procedures,
descriptive and qualitative data analysis techniques, and theoretically
grounded synthesis. Its objective is a conceptual consolidation
across a fragmented field; it identifies different streams of
research and develops a coherent synthesis of research in a
systematic, transparent and reproducible way (Tranfield, et al.,
2003, p. 220). Therefore, the systematic identification and analysis
of articles is suitable to capture different onto-epistemological
stances and theoretical foundations in behavioural decision making
research in projects.
The systematic review followed a two-stage process adapted
from Tranfield et al. (2003).
3.2. Planning stage
The planning stage evaluated the relevance and objective of
the literature review. We discussed our plan with a practitioner
and two other academics in the fields of behavioural decision
making and project management, and presented an early and
modified version of the article in a conference. Our objective
was to validate the study's relevance, theoretical foundation
and methodological rigour.
3.3. Execution stage
The second stage of our systematic review, execution,
followed a 6-step process. After preliminary scoping (Step 0),
Steps 1–3 concern the sampling process, and explain our
selection criteria. The final step was the systematic analysis of
the studies. The refinement of the sample size during the steps
is shown in Table 1.
3.3.1. Step 0: scoping
We decided to follow Müller et al.'s definition of a decision
as a “cognitive phenomenon and conceptualized as the goal or
end point for a more or less complex process of deliberation
which includes an assessment of consequences and uncertainties.”
(2009, p. 76). Our focus is therefore on deliberate
decisions, and the deliberate study of decisions. Routines and
generic topics related, but not explicitly contributing, to
decision making are henceforth out of scope.
Our object of analysis is project studies—research and
research community dedicated to the study of projects (Geraldi
and Söderlund, 2016). Therefore, the starting point of the
systematic review was the three main project management
journals, International Journal of Project Management (IJPM)
and Project Management Journal (PMJ), and International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business. The journals
represent the main body of research in project studies.
3.3.2. Step 1: keyword search
We conducted a keyword search for the term ‘decision*’ in
the fields: title, abstract, and keywords. The keyword includes
“decision making”, “decisions”, “decision-maker”, etc. and thus
reflects the diversity and breath in theoretical foundations of
behavioural decision making, and its study. We have used
ScienceDirect for IJPM (1983–2015; Volume 1 to 33), Wiley
Online for PMJ (1999–2015; Volume 30 to 47) nd Emerald
Insight for IJMPB (2008–2015; Volume 1 to 8). Conference
papers were not included in the sample.
The keyword search resulted in 386 papers.
3.3.3. Step 2: refinement
Refinement focused the sample of articles on behavioural
decision making through two steps:
• Step 2.1: Screening abstracts and keywords for research
directly related to behavioural decision making. This eliminated
publications related to normative decision theory and
support tools.
• Step 2.2: Thoroughly reading the remaining abstracts and
further refinement to research explicitly addressing decisions.
This eliminated articles with a focus on general behaviour but
not directly linked to decisions.
After step 2, the sample was reduced to 46 articles relevant
to the literature review.
3.3.4. Step 3: snowballing sampling
As suggested by prior literature reviews (Kwak and Anbari,
2009; Söderlund, 2011), articles outside project management
main journals may also be relevant. This is a common challenge
in systematic literature review. Following Tranfield et al., a
subsequent snowballing approach mitigated this challenge.
Table 1
Selection of studies.
Step 1:
Keyword
search
Step 2.1:
Focus on
behaviours
Step 2.3:
Focus on
decisions
Step 3:
Snowballing
Final
sample
size
IJPM 282 65 31 – 31
PMJ 56 18 9 – 9
IJMPiB 48 6 6 – 6
Others – – – 9 9
Total 386 88 46 9 55
123V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Therefore, as we read the 46 remaining articles (and their
respective references), particular care was given to publications
cited by more than one article which were not part of the
selected pool of articles and journals. The aim of this step was
to add relevant literature in the area that was not necessarily
published in key project management journals. We added 10
additional articles to the sample after this step, making a total of
55 articles for this review.
3.3.5. Step 4: data analysis
The analysis of the data was structured according to a series
of questions. Thus we could clarify concepts and theoretical
foundation of each publication, and classify the articles
according to Powell et al.'s framework. We could also identify
overlaps, conflicts or complementary areas between the various
contributions.
• Ontology: Do the authors assume the existence of a
rationally ‘right’ decision?
• Epistemology: What methodology do the authors use to
develop and/or test their theory?
• Research problem: What was the research problem (issue)?
• Theoretical contribution: What theoretical explanation is
given for the problem/decision behaviour?
• Practical contribution: What recommendations for practice
do the authors offer?
The papers were first scanned for answers of the two first
questions regarding the onto-epistemological foundation of the
publication, and assigned to the three schools.
However, we identified 19 publications that drew from more
than one school, therefore, we introduced a fourth group of
articles, called ‘mixed schools’.
After grouping according to schools, we addressed the last
three questions through thorough reading of the individual
articles. Answers to all five questions were collected in a table
for each group including a summary of the article formulated to
reflect the aim of the systematic review. Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6
are condensed versions of these tables. Those tables allowed a
structured, concept-centred analysis of the literature within
each school, identifying communalities and differences.
4. The three schools of thoughts in projects
The different philosophical foundations of the three schools
can be translated into their individual assumptions related to
their definition of a ‘good decision’, and, in consequence, what
they perceive as the ‘problem’ with decisions or the decision
process. Table 2 provides an overview of the characteristics and
foundations of the three schools.
As stated earlier, the Reductionist school's norm of reference
is a rational decision. Reductionist research compares observed
decision behaviour to optimal decision behaviour according to
normative decision theories. The object of research is the
deviation from the norm, the ‘bias’ or ‘error’. The underlying
positivist ontology and consequential assumption of the
existence of an optimal decision is clearly expressed in the
respective literature, e.g.:
• “[..] errors of judgment are often systematic and predictable”
(Flyvbjerg 2013, p. 761)
• “project managers who accurately perceive the risks of a
failing endeavour are less likely to continue with failing
projects” (Jani 2011, p. 934),
Reductionist research searches for the roots of irrational
decision behaviour. Those roots are found in the decision
maker's bounded rationality (Simon, 1982) and other cognitive
biases. Hence, the research builds on the works of Kahneman,
Tversky, Slovic and Lovallo, exploring concepts like optimism
bias and planning fallacy (Lovallo and Kahneman, 2003),
prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), or illusion of
control (Slovic, 1987). The methodology is in consequence
mostly quantitative, building on the experimental approach of
psychology and cognitive sciences.
Reductionist research explores approaches to reduce biases
and thus increase the rationality of the decision maker. The
reductionist literature offers various ‘de-biasing methods’,
e.g. taking the outside-view (Lovallo and Kahneman, 2003),
reference class forecasting (Flyvbjerg, 2007), or introduction of
a devil's advocate. However, Flyvbjerg (2007), who has also
published pluralistic research, points to the limitations of those
approaches in projects where organizational and political
influences are high.
The Pluralist literature shares the Reductionist's notion of
a ‘good decision’ based on rational reasoning. In that line, the
authors speak of ‘optimal decision’ (Chapman et al., 2006) or
‘optimum outcome’ (Kujala et al., 2007). Again, the object of
research is the roots of ‘inaccurate forecasts’ (Flyvbjerg,
2007) and sub-optimal decisions. Pluralist research identifies
the origins of these biases within personal interests, or
political or opportunistic behaviour. The research is based on
concepts of negotiation and bargaining and following
strongly the ideas laid out in Cyert and March's (1963) ‘A
behavioral theory of the firm’. In general, the literature is
focussed on the impact of deviating interests (e.g. Pinto,
2014; Yang et al., 2014) and opportunistic behaviour (e.g.
Chapman et al., 2006). Other studies provide approaches to
overcome potential negative impacts (e.g. Kujala et al.,
2007).
The Contextualist school breaks with the assumption of a
rational decision and stresses the relevance of the decision context.
A key theme in the contextualist literature is the convergence of
sense and meaning as an enabler for decisions that are perceived as
‘right’ or successful—either in the moment or in retrospect
(Alderman and Ivory, 2011; Musca et al., 2014). Contextualist
literature analyses decisions as the result of a sensemaking process
(Weick, 1995), in which members of a group organize the cues
they perceive, so the cues build a logical structure, i.e. a way that
‘makes sense’. Obtained cues, prior believes and opinions, culture,
the interactions between actors, and other factors shape realities
and form ‘narratives’, which provide accounts for ‘what is going
on’. The narratives can strongly diverge within and between
124 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
groups. This divergence may create highly different interpretation
of new cues, development of different alternatives for action or
different assumptions about the future. Contextualist research
focuses on these gaps between narratives and explores how a
convergence of meaning can be fostered through negotiation,
dialogue and other contextual factors.
The scientific methods of the Contextualist School are
strongly based in qualitative research, usually (longitudinal)
in-depth case studies or ethnographic studies that follow the
sensemaking process and the development or convergence/
divergence of narratives in selected exemplary projects.
4.1. Reductionist school in project studies
Table 3 provides an overview of the literature following the
reductionist view. A good entry point to the reductionist school
is the articles of McCray et al. (2002) and Shore (2008), which
provide a theoretical analysis of the relevance of cognitive
biases in project decisions. While McCray et al.'s work is
purely conceptual, Shore's review on systematic biases links
nine systematic biases from the generic literature with eight
case studies of failed projects.
A series of empirical studies have researched the relevance of
individual biases in specific project phenomena. The two main
project phenomena studied were escalation of commitment (Du
et al., 2007; Hällgren, 2010; Jani, 2008, 2011; Keil et al., 2000;
Martinsuo et al., 2013; Meyer, 2014), and overoptimistic plans
and forecasts (Flyvbjerg, 2013; Kutsch et al., 2011; Son and
Rojas, 2011). Other topics of interest in the reductionist literature
are furthermore inefficient resource allocation (Eweje et al.,
2012), gold plating (Shmueli et al., 2015), lack of learning
(Sengupta et al., 2008), or failure to communicate early warning
signs (Ekrot et al., 2015).
Escalation of commitment (EoC) is a typical problem in
projects, and has been present in the literature of organizational
studies from the mid 1990s onward (e.g. Ross and Staw, 1993).
EoC describes situations in which projects are continued
although ‘objective’ criteria like significant cost overruns and
extreme delays indicate project failure. Reductionist research
provides various explanations based on cognitive limitations for
this phenomena, among which Jani (2008) lists self-justification
theory, prospect theory, agency theory, or hypotheses like the
‘sunk cost effect’ (Keil et al., 2000) and the ‘project completion
effect’. Project research specifically adds the long-term impact of
early formation of value judgments (Martinsuo et al., 2013),
groupthink (Hällgren, 2010), and most prominently: optimism
bias (Du et al., 2007; Jani, 2008, 2011; Meyer, 2014).
Optimism bias describes the overestimation of positive
outcomes and/or the underestimation of potential negative
outcomes. It is an umbrella term for a subset of various
cognitive biases like self-efficacy theory, illusion of control, or
outcome desirability. Illusion of control has been of particular
interest to reductionist research, when perceived control over
specific project risks leads to downplaying and underestimating
the risk. Research showed increased levels of perceived control
in endogenous (vs. exogenous) project risks (Du et al., 2007;
Jani, 2008, 2011), or for tasks with high perceived self-efficacy
(Jani, 2008, 2011). Keil et al. (2000) also linked culturally
moderated risk propensity and uncertainty avoidance with risk
perception and the willingness to continue a risky project.
Table 2
Overview of the three schools (adapted from Geraldi and Stingl, 2016).
Reductionist Pluralist Contextualist
Ontology in relation to decisions Decisions should be rational, and deviations
from rationality should be mitigated.
Decisions are negotiation arenas, prone
for conflict of interests, bargaining and
opportunistic behaviour.
Decisions are sensemaking processes,
intertwined in the negotiation of meaning
before, during and even after the project.
Assumptions about decision
maker's behaviour
Decision makers (or groups of decision
makers) make decisions consciously as
‘events’ but are bounded-rational, and
hence cognitively limited.
Decision makers are rational and strongly
influenced by personal and political
interests, which can be in conflict with
that of the project.
Decision makers do not ‘make’ decisions, but
are actors constructing narratives which will
shape processes of attention, prioritization
and ultimately decisions.
Core processes of interest Individual and intragroup decision making Intergroup bargaining, problem solving,
politics, conflict resolution, organizational
learning, resource allocation
Sensemaking, perception, enactment, action
generation
Caricature of project actors
portrayed in research findings
The optimist: project actors suffer from
pronounced optimism bias
The opportunist: project actors have
their own interests at heart
The orchestrator: project actors surf on
waves of meaning, in an highly ambiguous
world
Key generic concepts in social
and cognitive psychology
Cognitive biases; heuristics; bounded
rationality; subjective utility/probability;
personality types, groupthink
Conflict culture; decision process
(inclusion/participation); intra-project
communication; negotiations/bargaining;
game theory
Culture (Hofstede model), language, signs
& symbols, values, taboos, sensemaking,
storytelling, future perfect strategising
Typical methodologies Positivist research, marked by experimental
research, modelling and simulation
Critical realist, socio constructivist,
marked by qualitative and multi-method
tradition.
Socio constructivist, marked by qualitative,
in-depth studies, ethnography, grounded
theorizing.
Examples of classic contributors Edwards, Simon, Von NeumannMorgenstern,
Tversky-Kahneman,
Schelling, Bazerman, Loewenstein, Lovallo
March, Cyert, Simon, Fiske-Taylor,
Bower, Miller, Kets de Vries, Hambrick,
Levinthal, Denrell, Bromiley, Rumelt,
Winter
Weick, Starbuck, Pettigrew, Brunsson,
March, Staw, Mintzberg, Abrahamson,
Reger, Huff, Fiol, Milliken, Hodgkinson,
Bettis, Mitroff
Examples of contributors from
project studies
Flyvbjerg, Jani, Keil, Shore, Martinsuo,
Kutsch, Hällgren, Williams
Flyvbjerg, Pinto, Kujala, Clegg, Winch,
Chapman, Mullaly
Pitsis, Alderman, Musca, Winch
125V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
While not specifically examined through the experimental
setup of the study, Jani (2011) also found indication for
anchoring as a potential additional explanation for sustained
(delusional) optimism.
Overoptimistic initial plans and forecasts are the second
main concern of reductionist literature. The relevance of this
issue, especially in the infrastructure sector, has been demonstrated
abundantly through Flyvbjerg's work (e.g. 2007).
Table 3
Overview on reductionist research literature.
References Research problem Theoretical basis Methodology
(Du et al., 2007) Project termination • risk perception
• illusion of control
Simulation experiment
140 students (general population); 118 IT project
professionals (wireless communication company);
US
(Ekrot et al., 2015) (non) communication of risk
information
• employee voice behaviour Survey
618 project practitioners from 154 firms; crosssectional;
Germany
(Eweje et al., 2012) Resource allocation • prospect theory
• bounded rationality
• illusion of control
Survey
69 project practitioners of one oil and gas corporation;
globally
(Flyvbjerg, 2013) Overoptimistic plans • planning fallacy
• baseline neglect
Conceptual article (development of a planning
framework tested a posteriori on a case)
(Hartono et al., 2014) Differences in risk perception • loss aversion
• illusion of control
Two cross-sectional surveys;
96 project contractors and 99 clients; Indonesia
(Hällgren, 2010) Underestimation of risks • groupthink Case study (1996 Mt. Everest expedition)
(Jani, 2008, 2011) Escalation of commitment • self-efficacy bias
• illusion of control
• indication of anchoring
Simulation experiment—mixed-method (quantitative
and qualitative ‘think aloud’ data
36 students and 35 IT project managers; US
(Keil et al., 2000) Escalation of commitment • prospect theory (sunk cost effect)
• uncertainty avoidance (culture)
Simulation experiment (quantitative)
536 students from Finland (185), Netherlands (121),
and Singapore (230)
(Kutsch et al., 2011) Overoptimistic forecasts • delusional optimism
• indication of anchoring
Simulation experiment—mixed-method (quantitative
and short interviews to explain decisions)
28 teams à 6 European students with relevant work
experience (min 3 years)
(Leybourne and Sadler-Smith,
2006)
Improvisation and intuition in
project management
• heuristics
• improvisation
Cross-sectional survey
163 project practitioners; UK
(Low et al., 2015) Bid decisions • culturally moderated risk perception Mixed method: survey and subsequent face-to-face
interviews
44 international project contractors in Malaysia
(survey); 18 construction sector professionals in
Malaysia (interviews; sample partly overlapping
with survey)
(Martinsuo et al., 2013) Escalation of commitment • value perception Cross-sectional Survey
128 practitioners of companies who invest in risky
R&D projects; Finland
(McCray et al., 2002) Project failure • sixteen different cognitive biases Conceptual article linking potential impact of
cognitive biases to project outcome
(Meyer, 2014) Escalation of commitment • optimism bias Cross-sectional survey
345 practitioners involved in project selection decision;
42% enrolled in post-graduate PM courses; South
Africa
(Pinto and Patanakul, 2015) Project champion personality as
driver for portfolio decisions
• Narcissism
• Optimism bias
• Self-justification theory
Literature review, conceptual article
(Sengupta et al., 2008) Broken learning cycle (no
improvement through experience)
• Feedback delay
• fallible estimates (indication
of anchoring)
• initial goal bias
Overview article, reviewing several prior simulation
experiments (practitioners in MBA programs, no
specifics on sample given)
(Shmueli et al., 2015) Over specification (‘gold plating’) • endowment effect
• IKEA effect
• I-designed-it-myself-effect
Simulation experiment (quantitative)
204 senior students of industrial engineering and
management; Israel
(Shore, 2008) Project failures • nine different cognitive biases Eight case studies of project failures analysed for
potential relevance of cognitive biases
(Son and Rojas, 2011) Overoptimistic forecasts • optimism bias
• availability bias
• anchoring
Modelling (not validated through data)
126 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Although Flyvbjerg has developed a strong focus on political
behaviour as roots of such biased plans and forecasts (see also
the section on pluralist research), he has also contributed to
reductionist research, discussing the influence of optimism bias
and the resulting phenomena of ‘planning fallacy’ (Flyvbjerg,
2013). Kutsch et al. (2011) demonstrated the influence of
optimism bias on project forecasts in a simulation experiment
with follow-up interviews, through which Kutsch and colleagues
provided rich data on the quantitative effect of
optimism bias and indication of several potential drivers,
including motivated reasoning, outcome attribution and egocentricity
bias (both similar to self-efficacy bias), and outcome
desirability.
Offering de-biasing strategies to provide more ‘accurate’
forecasts is at the core of Flyvbjerg's work (e.g. 2013). The most
elaborate of these strategies consists of a framework that adopts the
‘outside view’-method based on Kahneman and Tversky's seminal
work (1979), and found interest and use in practice (e.g. UK HM
Treasury, 2004). By taking the outside view, the forecaster or
project team detach themselves from the project and evaluate it
from a neutral position based on benchmarks and historical data,
thus reducing drivers of optimism. Such an approach complements
other, more mechanistic de-biasing approaches based on elaborate
forecasting and risk identification tools to reduce the ‘technical’
side of the forecasting bias (e.g. Sengupta et al., 2008).
The issue of ‘gold plating’ or over-specification is especially
relevant in software projects, where an uncontrolled addition of
potentially unnecessary features may lead to significant cost
overruns, delays and high complexity. Shmueli et al. (2015)
have found that high emotional attachment to design elements
and involvement in the design lead to higher valuation of the
elements and consequential higher propensity for gold plating.
Sengupta et al. (2008) have summarized earlier experimental
research on broken learning cycles and why experience does
not necessarily lead to better performance in their article ‘The
experience trap’. The studies demonstrate the impact of delayed
feedback on accurate mental modelling, the difficulty of
abandoning initial goals even in significantly changed environments,
and the problem of sustained initial (inaccurate)
estimates.
4.2. Pluralist literature in project studies
Although opportunistic behaviour, politicking and bargaining
are, in the experience of the authors, a dominant issue in the
reality of project practitioners, the literature on behavioural
decision making in projects has put little attention to it. As Clegg
and Kreiner (2013) conclude, the intersection of project literature
and literature on power ‘is almost void’. Consequently,
articles subscribing to the pluralist school are relatively scarce
(see Table 4).
The two main topics explored in the pluralist literature are
overoptimistic forecasts—for which different explanations are
offered than in the reductionist literature—and bargaining and
negotiations, in particular sub-optimal negotiation outcomes.
While, with regard to overoptimistic forecasts, the reductionist
attributes inaccuracies in forecasts to the cognitive limitations of
the forecasters, pluralist literature is less benevolent and does not
shy away from calling these overoptimistic forecasts ‘lies’
(Flyvbjerg, 2007), or more neutrally termed: ‘strategic misrepresentation’.
It describes the opportunistic behaviour of individuals
and groups, who omit or even falsify information, or exploit
information asymmetries and other's biases to win project
business, push personal ‘pet’ projects, maintain or better their
position, and access resources. The ‘blame’ for strategic misrepresentation
is usually not sought only within the individual
forecaster. Both Flyvbjerg (2007) and Pinto (2014) point to the
customer–contractor dynamic, especially in public procurement,
Table 4
Overview on pluralist research school.
Reference Research problem Theoretical basis Methodology
(Chapman et al., 2006) Overoptimistic forecasts • conspiracy of optimism
• culture of irrational objectivity
Conceptual article
(Clarke, 2010) Influence of emotion on decisions • avoidance of anxiety
• influencing emotions of others
Qualitative interviews
15 project managers with recent training on
emotional intelligence
(Flyvbjerg, 2007) Overoptimistic forecasts • strategic misrepresentation Conceptual article, based on previously published
case studies
(Kujala et al., 2007) Sup-optimal stakeholder negotiations • negotiations Conceptual article, development of a negotiation
framework
(Mullaly, 2014) Process and political constraints in
project initiation decisions
• organizational routines
• power-distribution
Qualitative interviews
28 practitioners (executives and managers) involved
in project initiation decisions
(Pinto, 2014) Overoptimistic forecasts, overpromising,
dysfunctional planning/scheduling
dynamics
• strategic misrepresentation
• normalization of deviation
Qualitative interviews
21 PMs of 3 different companies (engineering,
procurement and construction management; IT;
manufacture of medical devices)
(Yang et al., 2014) Balancing of stakeholder claims • power-distribution
• negotiations
Multi-method—(1) interviews, (2) survey, (3) case
studies
Construction sector; (1) 6 industry professionals
(client, contractor, or contractor organization);
(2) 183 respondents; (3) 15 practitioners (not
overlapping with sample (1) or (2))
127V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
where unrealistic goals, promoted by the authorities, drive strategic
misrepresentation. However, Flyvbjerg is explicit that optimistic
forecasts come from both opportunistic behaviour and cognitive
biases, rooted in reductionist theories. He discusses the environment
in which one or the other influence prevails in “From Nobel
Prize to Project Management: Getting Risks Right” (Flyvbjerg,
2006), and provides thus a good illustration of the ontological
similarities between pluralist and reductionist theories, while
highlighting the different assumptions about the decision process.
While Flyvbjerg's work focusses on the impact of strategic
misrepresentation, Pinto (2014) and Chapman et al. (2006)
discuss its potential roots. Both studies point to a dysfunctional
environment which fosters and encourages strategic misrepresentation.
Pinto argues that these organizations suffer from a
‘normalization of deviation’ in which destructive behaviour like
strategic misrepresentation becomes first ‘the expected’ and then
‘the accepted’ behaviour, resulting e.g. in systematic
over-promising clients or a ‘rival camp mentality’ during project
planning. Chapman et al. (2006), on the other hand, argue that a
‘conspiracy of optimism’ fosters a climate in which organizational
pressure suppresses the acknowledgement of ambiguity
and uncertainty, leading to the development of ‘irrational
objectivity’. In this environment, employees will deliberately
omit concerns regarding potentially less optimistic outcomes to
maintain their positions. This kind of behaviour is of significance
to decisions because (a) the decision maker receives less or biased
information and/or (b) it creates an individual incentive that
deviates from the goals of the organization or project.
The second stream of pluralist research is concerned with the
issue of negotiations. Yang and Fu (2014) highlight that failure
to balance interests, or the adoption of a strongly self-interested
strategy in negotiations can lead to sub-optimal negotiations,
and may even impact the (perceived) success of projects. The
findings are in line with Kujala et al. (2007), who suggests that
satisfaction of the interests of all parties is a critical project
success factor. In terms of negotiation strategies, Mullaly
(2014) studies contextual influences on the choice of the
strategy. He suggests that the decision maker's choice of
negotiation style follows the perceived level of flexibility,
defined as power-distribution and the level of explicit rules in
the organization. Furthermore, in highlighting the role of own
and other actor's emotions in the choice of negotiation
strategies and their respective success in goal achievement,
Clarke (2010) shows that negotiation strategies can be subtle.
4.3. Contextualist literature in project studies
The contextualist school uses sense making theory (Weick,
1995) to explore, e.g. how stakeholder preferences in decisions
result from different interpretations of reality (Alderman and
Ivory, 2011; Alderman et al., 2005; Thiry, 2001). Contextualist
research is thereby, other than the pluralist school, foremost
concerned with the roots of different perceptions, rather than
the consequences. Other research applies sensemaking to study
why and when individuals or project teams are able to abolish
old and obsolete goals and methods (Musca et al., 2014), or
why certain theoretically incomparable alternatives are preferred
over another within somewhat homogenous groups (de
Camprieu et al., 2007). While research in the other two schools
focussed on decisions that ‘have gone wrong’, the contextualist
literature also discusses projects that are considered successful,
such as Pitsis et al.'s (2003) analysis of the Sydney Harbour
project, Musca et al.'s (2014) case study of a successful project
turnaround, or Alderman and Ivory's (2011) discussion of the
Eden project. For these cases, the authors have illustrated how
shared or converging narratives of the key actors contribute to
successful project implementation. Drivers that foster the
convergence were e.g. creation of a shared vision among the
stakeholders (Alderman and Ivory, 2011; Pitsis et al., 2003), or
a process of constant dialoguing to co-construct the project
renewal among the project team (Musca et al., 2014).
Due to the qualitative approach taken by the contextualist
school, the decision problems studied are less specific than in the
other two schools. Most contextualist research rather illustrates a
management approach that enables more effective or more
convergent everyday project decisions. This provides a process
view rather than an analysis of the decision as an isolated event (see
also Table 5). These authors argue, that a lack of converging
narratives or a failure of the individual actors to ‘make sense’ of the
project situation may lead to conflict, misunderstanding and
mistrust, withdrawals from stakeholders in the decision process,
and blame-culture, which challenges decisions. Building on
actor-network-theory, Alderman and Ivory (2011) stress that the
convergence is not only related to a convergence of interest
(‘political convergence’) but is essentially also about a convergence
of sense making (‘cognitive convergence’), i.e. the development of
a shared vision and common understanding of the meaning of the
project. Moreover, Thiry argues that a lack of sensemaking ‘will
trigger individual's anchoring into existing paradigms and
confrontations’ (Thiry 2001, p. 71). Consequently, the studied or
proposed management approaches focus on steering the sense
making process, where the project manager's task becomes the
“‘management of meaning’ by providing ‘interpretative frameworks’”
(Alderman et al. 2005, p. 384). Such concepts are for
instance the Future Perfect Strategy approach described by Pitsis
et al. (2003) or the managing of the sensemaking process in value
management practice as presented by Thiry (2001).
Musca et al. (2014) analysed the role of the sensemaking
process in the case of a successful project turnaround in a
mountaineering expedition. While reductionist literature discusses
the problem of non-abolishment of obsolete goals (see
e.g. Sengupta et al., 2008), Musca et al. identified processes and
drivers that led to the development of new goals and
approaches, like rewording and reframing of the problem, or a
focus of attention to less ambiguous issues.
As the concept of ‘bias’ and ‘error’ is irrelevant to the
Contextualist literature, they offer no ‘de-biasing’ strategies, or
systematic solutions to ‘improve’ decision behaviour. Recommendations
to practice of the contextualist research thus
concern creation of shared vision among project actors, and
the soft skills of the project manager as orchestrator of the
sensemaking process who has to ‘surf the waves of meaning’
(Weick, 1995).
128 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
4.4. Literature drawing from different schools
19 out of 55 of the reviewed articles drew from a combination
of various schools (see Table 6). Typically, these publications
explore ‘broader’ issues and problems in projects and make explicit
or implicit use of theories from different schools to explore
different alternative or complementary explanations, and to add
more explanatory depth to the phenomena studied. Issues that are
researched in the ‘mixed-school’ literature are escalation of
commitment or non-termination of failing projects (e.g. Van
Oorschot et al., 2013; Winch, 2013), ‘sub-optimal’ plan decisions
(e.g. Pinto, 2013; Williams and Samset, 2010; Winch and Kelsey,
2005), ineffective risk management (e.g. Kutsch and Hall, 2005,
2010), and the failure to identify or react to early warning signs
(e.g. Haji-Kazemi et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2012). Two of the
articles (Brewer and Runeson, 2009; Müller et al., 2009) discussed
specific influences (attitude, culture) on decision, and reflected on
these influences from—not specifically addressed—different
theoretical angles.
The phenomena of Escalation of commitment (EoC) have
received attention from both strictly reductionist literature and
mixed approaches. The oldest publication in our sample,
Drummond's (1999) analysis of the Taurus case, discusses several
of the drivers of EoC, that in later publications were explored with
more theoretical rigour: e.g. socio-psychological biases, ‘first
order thinking’ prohibiting problem reframing (‘more of the
same’), or politically motivated decisions. While Drummond's
article has introduced a wide array of potential issues, these are
presented as alternative explanations with little theoretical
discussion, and they are not thoroughly brought together. More
recent analyses of EoC have taken a more analytical approach
integrating various theoretical concepts. Winch (2013) proposes a
three-stage model in which future perfect strategizing fosters an
environment that triggers strategic misrepresentation which further
drives EoC. He especially stresses that, considered out of context,
strategic misrepresentation is a ‘puzzle’ for which the motive is
unclear. By contextualizing it through an environment of future
perfect strategizing, he identifies a motive and root for strategic
misrepresentation. Other procedural views of the escalation
phenomena are brought forward by Alvarez et al. (2011) and
Van Oorschot et al. (2013). Both explore EoC as a process
(ref. Alvarez et al.: ‘escalation of commitment is better
understood as coming with sequential, parallel loosely coupled
sub-processes’, p. 983), thus following a contextualist tradition of
analysis. However, to explore the process, both articles introduce
a variety of theories from other schools. In Alvarez et al. analysis
of a disastrous mountaineering expedition, they discuss a series of
determinants that, by themselves, do not represent a ‘single point
of failure’ but ‘lock actors in an escalating situation’. These
determinants are both drawn from the reductionist school
(self-justification, ego implications, self-efficacy bias), and from
the pluralistic school (face-saving behaviour, high strategic
stakes). Van Oorschot et al.'s (2013) analysis of EoC in a new
product development project in the automotive industry,
explicitly acknowledges the limited explanatory power of
common (single school) theories, like groupthink or sunk cost
bias. Consequently, they introduce a procedural decision model
(‘decision trap’), which embodies various perceptive filters based
Table 5
Overview on contextualist research school.
Research problem Theoretical basis Methodology
(Alderman et al., 2005) Conflict, mistrust and misunderstandings
between stakeholders
• competing narratives Case study—Pendolino train
Interviews with key actors (snowball sampling;
unspecified number) and inter-company workshops
(Alderman and Ivory, 2011) Conflicts, misunderstanding, ignorance
of problems and risks
• actor-network-theory
• sensemaking
Multi-case study—Millenium Dome, Eden Project,
Heathrow Terminal 5, Scottish Parliament Building
Document review, existing case studies, press
reports, and transcripts of government committee
hearings.
(de Camprieu et al., 2007) Different prioritization of risk types
leading to misunderstandings
• cultural dimensions Survey (quantitative)
138 students from China (72) and Canada (66)
enrolled in similar Masters programme on PM
(Fellows and Liu, 2015) Conflict, mistrust and misunderstandings
between stakeholders from different
cultures
• sensemaking
• cultural schemas (Hofstede model)
Literature review
(Lenfle, 2011) Dealing with uncertainty • learning
• implicit: sensemaking
Longitudinal case study—Manhattan Project
Document review, existing case studies in
academic publications
(Musca et al., 2014) Reluctance of abolishing established
goals/approaches
• sensemaking Ethnography—“Darwin” mountaineering expedition
Observation of discussions, document review
(expedition log)
(Pitsis et al., 2003) Creation of a common vision for the
future
• narrative creation
• future perfect strategizing
Ethnography—Sydney Harbour Project
Observation of project meetings, media review,
review of PR material, document review (reports
of independent assessor)
(Thiry, 2001) Common prioritization of values among
stakeholders
• sensemaking Conceptual article
129V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Table 6
Overview on literature drawing from different schools ((R) = Reductionist; (P) = Pluralist; (C) = Contextualist).
Research problem Theoretical basis Methodology
(Alvarez et al., 2011) Escalation of commitment • organizing-based narrative process
view (C)
• competitive rivalry (C)
• cognitive biases (self-efficacy, reinforcement,
optimism bias,..) (R)
Case study—1996 Mount Everest expedition
Document review of survivors' accounts and
prior academic case studies
(Boddy and Paton, 2004) Tension between stakeholders resulting
in confusing, contradicting, or withheld
information
• narratives (C)
• bounded rationality (R)
• cognitive biases (R)
• strategic misrepresentation (P)
Comparative multi-case study (Pensco;
London Stock Exchange—Taurus; Sun.
Microsystems)
Prior academic case studies
(Brewer and Runeson, 2009) Attitude driven decisions • opportunistic decision criteria (P)
• value perception (R)
Two stage study (doctoral thesis): (1) Delphi
study, (2) interviews
(1) 13 international construction
industry experts; (2) 39 decision makers in the
architecture/engineering/construction industry
(clients, contractors, subcontractors, consultants)
(Drummond, 1999) Escalation of commitment • sensemaking (C) implicitly addressed
• opportunistic behaviour (P)
• cognitive biases (R)
Case study—London Stock Exchange
“Taurus”
Media review, document review (internal
reports, memoranda, etc.), interviews with
project team members
(Flyvbjerg, 2006) Sub-optimal plan decisions • strategic misrepresentation (P)
• optimism bias (R)
Conceptual article (Overview of potential drivers
for overoptimistic forecasts and introduction of
reference class forecasting)
(Haji-Kazemi et al., 2015) Failure to identify or respond to early
warning signs
• optimism bias (R)
• opportunistic behaviour (P)
Cross-sectional survey (inductive reasoning;
exploratory and explanatory); 86 PMs, members
of “Project Norway” association
(Havermans et al., 2015) Prioritization of groups and solution
following leader's narrative
• narratives (C)
• power distribution (P)
• linguistics (C)
Semi-structured interviews
11 practitioners at different hierarchy levels,
working with various types of (novel)
projects and programmes
(Kutsch and Hall, 2005, 2010) Ineffective risk management system • Taboo (P)
• Distrust (P)
• sensemaking (C) and cognitive
biases (R) implicitly addressed
In-depth interviews
18 IT practitioners
(Lefley, 2006) Influence of project champions on
project selection
• Optimism bias (R)
• Strategic misrepresentation (P)
Case study—Introduction of a new IT
communication system at the Association of
International Accountants
Comparison of results of different appraisal
methods (FAP model protocol, Delphi model,
Group discussion model)
(Müller et al., 2009) Decision making processes and styles • Cultural influences—no explicit
link to behavioural decision theories
made
Sequential multi-method (interviews, survey)
12 interviews, 60 surveys of project practitioners
(Germany and Sweden) with experiences with
both German and Swedish projects
(Ojansivu and Alajoutsijärvi,
2015)
Intergroup tensions in project • Narratives (time concept, C)
• Politics, stereotyping (P)
Comparative case study—Service-intensive
projects: (A) wind turbine parts supplier, (B)
content management system supplier;
49 interviews with informants on the customer
and contractor side
(Van Oorschot et al., 2013) Failure to terminate • Sensemaking (C)
• Bounded rationality (R)
• Illusion of control (C)
• Various cognitive biases (R)
Ethnography—New Product Development
project of a supplier to the automotive industry
(semiconductor manufacturing)
Observation of 29 core team meetings,
document review of general internal
information, discussion with involved
strategic consultant
(Pinto, 2013) Sub-optimal plan decisions • Optimism bias (R)
• Strategic misrepresentation (P)
• Sensemaking (C)
Conceptual article (Overview of potential
explanations)
(Sanderson, 2012) Megaproject performance • bounded rationality (R)
• opportunistic behaviour (P)
• narratives (C)
Conceptual article (Overview of potential
explanations)
130 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
on theories of the reductionist school. In their model, these filters
serve as drivers of the sensemaking process within the project
team.
Another intriguing illustration on how the theoretical concepts
of the different schools can be complementary to each other are
the case studies presented by Boddy and Paton (2004) in their
discussion of competing narratives. In their paper, Boddy and
Paton discuss various roots that lead to competing or converging
narratives—and thus to perceived project success or failure.
These roots are linked to a broad range of theoretical concepts,
among other cognitive biases, bounded rationality, political
interest, or the cultural and structural context.
While the papers presented above take a process view in
which different theoretical models are considered as drivers of the
process, other papers present alternative explanation models for
observed behavioural decision making in a simple side-by-side
manner. One typical example of these kinds of papers is Pinto's
presentation of the ‘seven deadly sins’ of project management
(2013), which discusses a variety of potential causes for
inadequate plan decisions, drawn from all three schools—
e.g. optimism bias and anchoring, ‘massaging the plan’ (strategic
misrepresentation), or a failure of the project manager to
‘orchestrate’ the sensemaking process. Other such papers in
which various individual explanations are presented but not
discussed in their potential interaction are for instance Williams
and Samset's (2010) overview on possible influences on
front-end decisions, Kutsch and Hall's (2005, 2010) analysis of
deliberate ignorance in the risk management process, or the
studies on failure to identify and respond to early warning signs
by Williams et al. (2012) or Haji-Kazemi et al. (2015).
It could be argued that the large group of mixed-school research
would compromise the utility of the proposed framework to project
literature. However, the schools were still useful to qualify different
types of explanations used, and point to the need of a more explicit
relationship to the theoretical and philosophical foundations of the
applied concepts. Moreover, the majority of the ‘mixed’ research
does not aim at an integration of concepts but provides foremost
alternative, non-complementary theoretical concepts.
While the multi-lense analyses of single issues highlight the
plurality of theoretical concepts, these publications lack a
systematic integration of the theories and an analysis of possible
interactions. Moreover, these publications rarely acknowledge
that the theories and models they discuss are based on
significantly different philosophical concepts that may create
conflicts and churn. This is where we see the major contribution
of the proposed framework: allowing a systematic consideration,
combination and integration of theoretical concepts through
structured analysis. In those few cases where theoretical
integration has been achieved, the findings inform our understanding
the actuality of behavioural decision making in projects.
We will argue this further in Section 6.
5. Implications for future research
The systematic analysis of the literature revealed eight gaps in
the research of the individual schools. First, the most striking gap
in the reductionist school emerges as we compare the coverage of
research in behavioural decision making in projects with the
grand theories at their foundation. There we identified an almost
exclusive focus on the potential negative effects of cognitive
biases and heuristics. However, recent literature in management
studies like Bingham and Eisenhardt's (2011) study of ‘simple
rules’ or Artinger et al.'s (2015) analysis of ‘Heuristics as
adaptive decision strategies in management’ have given a
positive spin to the issue of heuristics. Moreover, heuristics as a
fruitful tool in many practical applications, when used ‘ecologically
or socially rational’, has been the focus of Gigerenzer and
colleagues for more than two decades (Gigerenzer and
Gaissmaier, 2011) and merits attention in project studies.
Table 6 (continued)
Research problem Theoretical basis Methodology
(Williams et al., 2012) Failure to adopt responses to early
warning signs
• optimism bias (R)
• groupthink (R)
• purposeful overlooking (P)
• power dynamics (P)
• sensemaking (C)
(1) Semi-structured interviews and document
review; (2) case studies
Review of 9 (public and private) governance
frameworks (interviews with 14 project
practitioners); 8 cross-sectoral case studies;
Norway, UK and Australia
(Williams and Samset, 2010) Sub-optimal plan decisions • framing (C)
• groupthink (R)
• strategic misrepresentation (P)
• bounded rationality (R)
Conceptual article (Overview of potential
explanations)
(Winch, 2013) Escalation of commitment • future perfect strategizing (C)
• strategic misrepresentation (P)
Case study—Channel Fixed Link
Hindsight analysis based on media clippings
and official reports.
(Winch and Kelsey, 2005) Sub-optimal plan decisions • heuristics (R)
• negotiation (P)
• organizational learning (C)
In-depth interviews
18 construction project professionals; UK
(Zhang et al., 2011) Risk management • sensemaking (C)
• risk perception, cognitive biases
(R)
Literature review
131V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Second, most of the research was based on studies of failing
projects. It would be relevant to explore ‘pink elephants’ that
are successful, and understand how decision behaviour shaped
project success.1
Third, cognitive sciences in the organizational context have
developed a recent interest in the neurosciences. Such an
integration of cutting edge research is currently still a white
spot for behavioural decision making in projects, which would
be interesting to explore, and thereby advance reductionist
research.
Fourth, according to our experience, project practitioners
experience political and strategic behaviour as a strong
determinant in project decisions. However, the literature on
that matter is, as we have shown, limited. Although we are
aware of the limited research opportunities in that regard, due to
the sensitivity of the topic, an increased focus of future research
on political manoeuvring and power relations in projects will
most likely provide interesting and enlightening findings.
Fifth, with regard to the issues explored, we have seen a
strong focus on the problem of over-optimism of forecasters.
However, industry practitioners have in personal communication
with the authors pointed to the challenge of overcautious
forecasters and project practitioners. While this phenomenon is
not directly linked with highly visible cost overruns and
schedule delays, we may argue that excessive caution may lead
to lost opportunities and suppress innovation and therefore
deserves attention in future research.
Sixth, while some literature explored external and internal
influences affecting the decision maker, we found limited
comparative discussion on how different behavioural decision
theories interpret these influences and their potential effects on
decisions.
Seventh, while research focuses on the making of decision,
there is also a need to study the problem of indecisiveness,
delayed decisions, or defensive decision making. Research in
this area can explore, for example, why project actors may
avoid decisions, the tactics used to delay decisions or cope with
indecisiveness, and the impact of indecisiveness in the project
process. The three different schools will provide fruitful and
complementary starting points for such inquiries.
Eight, one of the findings of our literature review was that the
majority of the articles in our sample draw implicitly and
uncritically from different behavioural decision making schools.
While such integration of different perspectives can be fruitful,
the acknowledgment of their different theoretical foundations and
potential incommensurability is crucial. We will discuss this issue
in detail in the next section.
6. The case for research across schools
We started the article by describing the pluralism of research in
behavioural decision making in projects, and the potential threat of
fragmentation. Our literature review confirms our initial assumption,
and suggests that the research on behavioural decision
making in projects is still in a stage Knudsen (2003) called
‘fragmented adhocracy’ in his discussion of pluralism in
organization theory, meaning a broad variety of methodological
and theoretical approaches while the interdependency among the
research community is low.
Paradoxically, we found that around a third of the reviewed
articles builds on various schools of behavioural decision
making. However, these ‘mixed’ studies fit different theories
and explanations often just loosely together, and lack a solid
discussion of the underlying grand theories. Moreover, most of
these articles did not fully acknowledge the significant
onto-epistemological differences between the theories brought
together. However, as Powell et al. (2011) claim concerning the
schools, ‘each of them can reasonably be called a paradigm’
(p. 1382). Thus, such a ‘mix of theories’ may potentially lead to
issues of incommensurability (Scherer, 1998), particularly if
not explicitly discussed.
While we acknowledge certain philosophical gaps between
the paradigms that may be impossible to bridge, we do not see a
case of absolute incommensurability like Burrell and Morgan
(1979) argued. Instead, we follow Sage et al.'s (2014)
argument, that paradigmatic incommensurability exist but is
not absolute, and furthermore Scherer (1998), who claims that
we ‘do not consider incommensurability as a problem that
exists per se, but a difficulty that emerges in a controversy
between proponents of different positions’ (p.161).
To illustrate with a common metaphor: we are usually not
facing situations like the trompe l'oeil in Fig. 1 where we can
either see a duck or a rabbit—but not both simultaneously.
Rather we may be blind men around an elephant—calling the
tail a rope, the legs pillars, and the tusks branches of a tree
while failing to perceive the whole animal. We will therefore
briefly discuss the limitations and opportunities for studies
across schools, by pointing to areas of possible incommensurability,
and others with potential for complementary studies.
Or, metaphorically: we identify the areas of ducks and rabbits,
and those which are more likely to be elephants.
As already discussed in Section 4, we see a clear incommensurability
between schools in the understanding of what constitutes
a ‘good’ decisions and how it contributes to the respective concept
of project success. Overcoming such incommensurability is rather
unlikely and potentially unnecessary. However, identifying and
analysing those differences improves our understanding of
projects, how we manage and organize projects, and why. A
good example is Pellegrinelli and Murray-Webster's (2011) study
of onto-epistemological stances of project stakeholders and their
consequences to the management of an organizational change
project.
However, such a case of entirely different, mutually exclusive
realities is rare within the different theories. Instead, many of the
theories explore, in (unnecessary) isolation, complementary
aspects of the same phenomena, like escalation of commitment
or over-optimism, thus missing out on the opportunity to explore
the full benefits of multi-paradigmatic research.
The multi-paradigmatic approach or pluralism of theories
allows to develop ‘more “comprehensive” explanation and
understanding of social phenomena’ (Scherer 1998, p. 155). As
1
We would like to thank Professor Hans-George Gemünden for suggesting
the study of successful cases in prior drafts of this article.
132 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
such, paradigmatic pluralism offers to map possible compatibilities
(Sage et al., 2014).
We identified two articles that explicitly attempted to develop
such multi-paradigmatic research based on onto-epistemological
consideration. First, Sanderson (2012) offers three alternative
explanations for behaviour in megaprojects, following different
assumptions regarding the decision maker's cognition and view of
the future, loosely associated with a reductionist view (‘misaligned
and underdeveloped governance’), pluralist view (‘strategic
rent-seeking behaviour’), and contextualist view (‘diverse project
cultures and rationalities’). While Sanderson highlights the
onto-epistemological differences between the explanation types,
he presents them as alternatives, not potentially complementary
concepts. Second, Zhang et al. (2011) similarly illustrate how the
researcher's view on risk as an objective reality or a subjective
construction influences the scientific approach.
Still, when we point to these connections and contestations
between the schools instead of considering them as mere
alternatives, it is not the unification of theories or overcoming
incommensurability that we aim for. Rather, we wish to enable
reflective research that may combine the concepts in a more
analytical and critical way.
Future research should therefore aim to build bridges across
the current fragmentation by adopting such an informed
approach, acknowledging the foundations and concepts of the
different schools and actively searching for potential overlaps,
while being aware of the incommensurabilities of the different
streams. Thereby, we hope that the proposed framework fosters
the development of what Knudsen (2003) termed a ‘polycentric
oligarchy’, thus escaping the ‘fragmentation trap’.
7. Conclusion & outlook
This article provides a comprehensive overview of behavioural
decision making research in projects and presents a solid
starting point to any researchers interested in the topic. In doing
so, we address our first question, namely how behavioural
decision making is studied in the project literature. In answering
this question, we contribute to practice by providing an overview
of how behaviours impact decisions, and the coping mechanisms
offered by the literature.
Our second and third questions intended to identify gaps and
links between general research on behavioural decision making
and its application in project studies. We have addressed these
questions by providing a structured mapping of the research
against its respective underlying grand theories—thereby
providing a tool for identifying gaps and missing links.
We conclude calling for research within and across the
different schools, and critical consideration of incommensurabilities
and complementarities across schools. We argue that the
different perspectives significantly increase our understanding
of behavioural decision making. The framework shall thus also
serve as a “map of possible compatibilities when addressing
matters of practical [..] concern” (Sage et al. 2014, p. 546).
Through this, the article contributes to avoiding the fragmentation
trap, and instead encourages fruitful interchange between
theories, taking full advantage of the theoretical pluralism of
the field.
This study is limited to a systematic review, which had its
starting point in the main project management journals. This
was the aim of the work, however, it comes with caveats, for
example, other relevant research streams studying behavioural
decision making in projects could be published in other outlets,
and not acknowledged by project scholars. Future studies can
develop literature reviews starting on aligned disciplines or in
general management to locate these other streams of research.
Moreover, our research covered three large areas related with
behavioural decision making in projects. Therefore, we cannot
enter as much in detail into each school. Future work could
explore the literature within each school in more detail, or a
bibliometric analysis of the schools.2
There are a myriad of ways to organize a literature review.
Our literature review is based on a pre-established framework,
which was appropriate for the objective of this study, namely to
strengthen the relationship between project-based research and
grand theories. However, future research could explore other
alternative forms of framing the literature.
In conclusion, decisions in projects are complex and multifaceted.
In consequence research has been as multifaceted, a pluralism
of theories, ‘letting a thousand flowers bloom’ (Knudsen 2003,
p. 263). As has been argued by Söderlund and Geraldi (2012) “the
field of project management needs to foster a variety of paradigms
working simultaneously, in different facets, with different theories,
mindsets, epistemologies, ontologies, however being able to bridge
the thinking across these communities.” By applying the
framework of the reductionist, contextualist and pluralist schools
of thought, we shed light on the ‘thousand blooming flowers’ in
behavioural decision making research in project, while building
‘bridges across the communities’ for a more critical examination
and exploration of the pluralism of theories.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.
Fig. 1. Rabbit-duck illusion. Source: Jastrow, J. (1899). The mind's eye.
Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299–312.
2
We thank the anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
133V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Acknowledgements
Parts of this work have been supported by ABB (ASEA
Brown Boveri) through their financial support for the main
author's PhD project.
References
Alderman, N., Ivory, C., 2011. Projects: translation and convergence in
projects: an organizational perspective on project success. Proj. Manag. J.
42:17–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20261.
Alderman, N., Ivory, C., McLoughlin, I., Vaughan, R., 2005. Sense-making as
a process within complex service-led projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23:
380–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.01.004.
Alvarez, J.F.A., Pustina, A., Hällgren, M., 2011. Escalating commitment in the
death zone: new insights from the 1996 Mount Everest disaster. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29:971–985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.013.
Artinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G., Weibler, J., 2015. Heuristics as
adaptive decision strategies in management. J. Organ. Behav. 36:33–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1950.
Bingham, C.B., Eisenhardt, K.M., 2011. Rational heuristics: the “simple rules”
that strategists learn from process experience. Strateg. Manag. J. 32:
1437–1464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.965.
Boddy, D., Paton, R., 2004. Responding to competing narratives: lessons for
project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22:225–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijproman.2003.07.001.
Brewer, G., Runeson, G., 2009. Innovation and attitude: mapping the profile
of ICT decision-makers in architectural, engineering and construction
firms. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2:599–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
17538370910991179.
Burrell, G., Morgan, G., 1979. Social Paradigms and Organizational Analysis:
Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Heinemann Educational, London.
Chapman, C.B., Ward, S.C., Harwood, I., 2006. Minimising the effects of
dysfunctional corporate culture in estimation and evaluation processes: a
constructively simple approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24:106–115. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.08.004.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., Hodgson, D., 2006. Rethinking Project
Management: researching the actuality of projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24:
675–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.006.
Clarke, N., 2010. Projects are emotional: how project managers' emotional
awareness can influence decisions and behaviours in projects. Int. J. Manag.
Proj. Bus. 3:604–624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538371011076073.
Clegg, S.R., Kreiner, K., 2013. Power and Politics in Construction Projects, in:
Novel Approaches to Organizational Project Management Research:
Translational and Transformational. Copenhagen Business School Press,
Copenhagen, pp. 268–293.
Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. PrenticeHall,
Madison.
de Camprieu, R., Desbiens, J., Feixue, Y., 2007. “Cultural” differences in project
risk perception: an empirical comparison of China and Canada. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 25:683–693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.005.
Drummond, H., 1999. Are we any closer to the end? Escalation and the case of
Taurus1. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17:11–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
7863(97)00074-4.
Du, S., Keil, M., Mathiassen, L., Shen, Y., Tiwana, A., 2007. Attentionshaping
tools, expertise, and perceived control in IT project risk
assessment. Decis. Support. Syst. 43:269–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.dss.2006.10.002.
Ekrot, B., Rank, J., Gemünden, H.G., 2015. Antecedents of project managers'
voice behavior: the moderating effect of organization-based self-esteem and
affective organizational commitment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1028–1042 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.10.011.
Eweje, J., Turner, R., Müller, R., 2012. Maximizing strategic value from
megaprojects: the influence of information-feed on decision-making by the
project manager. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30:639–651. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.004.
Fellows, R., Liu, A., 2015. Sensemaking in the cross-cultural contexts of projects.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 246–257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.010.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. From Nobel Prize to project management: getting risks
right. Proj. Manag. J. 37:5–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.476.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2007. Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems,
causes, cures. Environ. Plann. B. Plann. Des. 34:578–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1068/b32111.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2013. Quality control and due diligence in project management:
getting decisions right by taking the outside view. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31:
760–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.007.
Geraldi, J., Söderlund, J., 2016. Project studies and engaged scholarship. Int.
J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 9:767–797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-
0016.
Geraldi, J., Stingl, V., 2016. From visions of grandeur to grand failure:
alternative schools of descriptive decision theories to explain the Berlin
Brandenburg Airport Fiasco. EURAM Conference. Paris.
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 62:451–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346.
Haji-Kazemi, S., Andersen, B., Klakegg, O.J., 2015. Barriers against effective
responses to early warning signs in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33:
1068–1083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.002.
Hällgren, M., 2010. Groupthink in temporary organizations. Int. J. Manag. Proj.
Bus. 3:94–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538371011014044.
Hartono, B., Sulistyo, S.R., Praftiwi, P.P., Hasmoro, D., 2014. Project risk:
theoretical concepts and stakeholders' perspectives. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32:
400–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.011.
Havermans, L.A., Keegan, A., Den Hartog, D.N., 2015. Choosing your words
carefully: leaders' narratives of complex emergent problem resolution. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 33:973–984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.001.
Hazır, Ö., 2015. A review of analytical models, approaches and decision
support tools in project monitoring and control. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33:
808–815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.005.
Jani, A., 2008. An experimental investigation of factors influencing
perceived control over a failing IT project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26:
726–732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.06.004.
Jani, A., 2011. Escalation of commitment in troubled IT projects: influence of
project risk factors and self-efficacy on the perception of risk and the
commitment to a failing project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29:934–945. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.08.004.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision
under risk. Econometrica 66:497–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1914185.
Keil, M., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., Wassenaar, A.,
2000. A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in
software projects. MIS Q. 24:299–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3250940.
Knudsen, C., 2003. Pluralism, scientific progress and the structure of
organization theory. The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford
Univeristy Press, Oxford, pp. 262–286.
Kujala, J., Murtoaro, J., Artto, K., 2007. A negotiation approach to project sales
and implementation. Proj. Manag. J. 38:33–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.
20018.
Kutsch, E., Hall, M., 2005. Intervening conditions on the management of project
risk: dealing with uncertainty in information technology projects. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 23:591–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.009.
Kutsch, E., Hall, M., 2010. Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 28:245–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.003.
Kutsch, E., Maylor, H., Weyer, B., Lupson, J., 2011. Performers, trackers,
lemmings and the lost: sustained false optimism in forecasting project
outcomes—evidence from a quasi-experiment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29:
1070–1081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.010.
Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T., 2009. Analyzing project management research:
perspectives from top management journals. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27:
435–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.004.
Lefley, F., 2006. Can a project champion bias project selection and, if so, how
can we avoid it? Manag. Res. News 29:174–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01409170610665031.
Lenfle, S., 2011. The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable
uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29:359–373.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.02.001.
134 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Lewis, M.W., Grimes, A.J., 1999. Metatriangulation: building theory from
multiple paradigms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:672–690. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2307/259348.
Leybourne, S., Sadler-Smith, E., 2006. The role of intuition and improvisation
in project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24:483–492. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.03.007.
Lovallo, D., Kahneman, D., 2003. Delusions of success: how optimism
undermines executives' decisions. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81:1–7. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1225/R0307D.
Low, W.W., Abdul-Rahman, H., Zakaria, N., 2015. The impact of organizational
culture on international bidding decisions: Malaysia context. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33:917–931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.010.
Martinsuo, M., Suomala, P., Kanniainen, J., 2013. Evaluating the organizational
impact of product development projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6:
173–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291080.
McCray, G.E., Purvis, R.L., McCray, C.G., 2002. Project management under
uncertainty the impact of heuristics and biases.pdf. Proj. Manag. J. 33, 49–57.
Meyer, W.G., 2014. The effect of optimism bias on the decision to terminate failing
projects. Proj. Manag. J. 45:7–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21435.
Mullaly, M., 2014. The role of agency in project initiation decisions. Int. J. Manag.
Proj. Bus. 7:518–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2013-0043.
Müller, R., Spang, K., Ozcan, S., 2009. Cultural differences in decision making
in project teams. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2:70–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/17538370910930527.
Musca, G.N., Mellet, C., Simoni, G., Sitri, F., de Vogüé, S., 2014. “Drop your
boat!”: the discursive co-construction of project renewal. The case of the
Darwin mountaineering expedition in Patagonia. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32:
1157–1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.006.
Ojansivu, I., Alajoutsijärvi, K., 2015. Inside service-intensive projects:
analyzing inbuilt tensions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33:901–916. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.11.001.
Pellegrinelli, S., Murray-Webster, R., 2011. Multi-paradigmatic perspectives on
a business transformation program. Proj. Manag. J. 42:4–19. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/pmj.20275.
Pinto, J.K., 2013. Lies, damned lies, and project plans: recurring human
errors that can ruin the project planning process. Bus. Horiz. 56:
643–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.05.006.
Pinto, J.K., 2014. Project management, governance, and the normalization of
deviance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32:376–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2013.06.004.
Pinto, J.K., Patanakul, P., 2015. When narcissism drives project champions: a
review and research agenda. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33:1180–1190. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.013.
Pitsis, T.S., Clegg, S.R., Marosszeky, M., Rura-Polley, T., 2003. Constructing
the Olympic dream: a future perfect strategy of project management. Organ.
Sci. 14:574–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.574.16762.
Powell, T.C., Lovallo, D., Fox, C.R., 2011. Behavioral strategy. Strateg.
Manag. J. 32:1369–1386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.968.
Ross, J., Staw, B.M., 1993. Organizational escalation and exit: lessons from the
Shoreham nuclear power plant. Acad. Manag. J. 36:701–732. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/256756.
Sage, D., Dainty, A., Brookes, N., 2014. A critical argument in favor of
theoretical pluralism: project failure and the many and varied limitations of
project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32:544–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.005.
Sanderson, J., 2012. Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: a
critical discussion of alternative explanations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30:
432–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.002.
Scherer, A.G., 1998. Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management
and organization theory: a problem in search of a solution. Organization 5:
147–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849852001.
Sengupta, K., Abdel-Hamid, T.K., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2008. The experience
trap. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86, 94–101 (doi:Article).
Shapira, A., Laufer, A., Shenhar, A.J., 1994. Anatomy of decision making in
project planning teams. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 12:172–182. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0263-7863(94)90033-7.
Shmueli, O., Pliskin, N., Fink, L., 2015. Explaining over-requirement in
software development projects: an experimental investigation of behavioral
effects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33:380–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2014.07.003.
Shore, B., 2008. Systematic biases and culture in project failures. Proj. Manag.
J. 39:5–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20082.
Simon, H., 1982. Models of Bounded Rationality, in: Vol. 1: Economic
Analysis and Public Policy. Behavioural Economics and Business
Organization vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science (80-.) 236:280–285. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.3563507.
Söderlund, J., 2011. Pluralism in Project Management: navigating the crossroads
of specialization and fragmentation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 13:153–176. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.x.
Söderlund, J., Geraldi, J., 2012. Classics in project management revisiting the
past, creating the future. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5:559–577. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/17538371211280245.
Son, J., Rojas, E.M., 2011. Impact of optimism bias regarding organizational
dynamics on project planning and control. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 137:147–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0000260.
Thiry, M., 2001. Sensemaking in value management practice. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 19:71–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00023-5.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review *. Br. J. Manag. 14:207–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8551.00375.
Treasury, H., 2004. Supplementary Green Book Guidance: Optimism Bias. HM
Treasury, London.
Van Oorschot, K.E., Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2013.
Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects.
Acad. Manag. J. 56:285–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0742.
Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
Williams, T., Samset, K., 2010. Issues in front-end decision making on projects.
Proj. Manag. J. 43:84–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.
Williams, T., Jonny Klakegg, O., Walker, D.H.T., Andersen, B., Morten Magnussen,
O., 2012. Identifying and acting on early warning signs in complex projects. Proj.
Manag. J. 43:37–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21259.
Winch, G.M., 2013. Escalation in major projects: lessons from the channel
fixed link. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31:724–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2013.01.012.
Winch, G.M., Kelsey, J., 2005. What do construction project planners do? Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 23:141–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.002.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., Cicmil, S., 2006. Directions for future
research in project management: the main findings of a UK governmentfunded
research network. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24:638–649. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009.
Yang, S., Fu, L., 2014. Critical chain and evidence reasoning applied to multiproject
resource schedule in automobile R&D process. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 32:166–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.010.
Yang, R.J., Wang, Y., Jin, X.-H., Herazo, B., Lizarralde, G., Paquin, R., 2014.
Stakeholders' attributes, behaviors, and decision-making strategies in
construction projects: importance and correlations in practice. Proj.
Manag. J. 45:74–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.
Zahra, S.A., Newey, L.R., 2009. Maximizing the impact of organization science:
theory-building at the intersection of disciplines and/or fields. J. Manag. Stud.
46:1059–1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00848.x.
Zhang, H., Herazo, B., Lizarralde, G., Paquin, R., 2011. Two schools of risk
analysis: a review of past research on project risk. Proj. Manag. J. 42:5–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.
135V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135