Kazakevich Pichugina Semenova Programma Po Tehnologii

Downloadable Resources • Large capital investments that are completed on schedule and within their budgets are probably the exception rather than the rule—and even when completed many fail to meet expected revenues. Executives often blame project underperformance on foreseeable complexities and uncertainties having to do with the scope of and demand for the project, the technology or project location, or even stakeholder opposition. No doubt, all of these factors at one time or another contribute to cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and delays. But knowing that such factors are likely to crop up, why do project planners, on average, fail to forecast their effect on the costs of complex projects? We’ve covered this territory before 1. Dan Lovallo and Olivier Sibony, “,” McKinsey Quarterly, February 2006.

«Po delu o proverke konstitucionnosti polozhenij punkta 6 stat'i 4, podpunkta «a» punkta 3 i punkta 4 stat'i 13, punkta 3 stat'i 19 i punkta 2 stat'i 58 Federal'nogo zakona ot 19 sentjabrja 1997 g.

But continue to see companies making strategic decisions based on inaccurate data. Deliberately or not, costs are systematically underestimated and benefits are overestimated during project preparation—because of delusions or honest mistakes on one hand and deceptions or strategic manipulation of information or processes on the other. Daniel Kahneman and Dan Lovallo, “Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions,” Harvard Business Review, July 2003, Volume 81, Number 7, pp. Blok pitaniya 22bp 36 rukovodstvo po ekspluatacii.

56–63, hbr.org. As we’ll explore, the former is often the result of underlying psychological biases and the latter of misplaced incentives and poor governance. Fortunately, corrective procedures to increase transparency and improve incentive systems can help ensure better forecasts.

Psychological biases can create cognitive delusion Most of the underestimation of costs and overestimation of benefits of capital projects is the result of people taking what’s called an “inside view” of their forecasts. That is, they use typical bottom-up decision-making techniques, bringing to bear all they know about a problem, with special attention to its unique details—focusing tightly on a case at hand, considering a project plan and the obstacles to its completion, constructing scenarios of future progress, and extrapolating current trends. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Intuitive predictions: Biases and corrective procedures,” in Forecasting: TIMS Studies in Management Science, ed. Spyros Makridakis and Steven C. Wheelwright, pp.