1 s2.0 S0263786316302769 Main

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121 – 135
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
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 The literature draws from different general theoretical

foundations in organizational theory, and cognitive and
Making decisions is integral to the management of projects. behavioural sciences, including Groupthink (Hällgren, 2010),
Plenty of normative guidance, including tools and methods, aid sensemaking (Musca et al., 2014), self-justification theory
the rational decision making process (Hazır, 2015). However, (Jani, 2008), risk propensity and uncertainty avoidance (Keil
the actual decision behaviour deviates strongly from the et al., 2000), or ‘planning fallacy’(Flyvbjerg, 2013), among
rational ideal, as abundant research in behavioural decision others. All in all, the research displays strong heterogeneity in
making demonstrates. terms of theoretical background and researched phenomena,
Behavioural decision making “endeavours to understand the thus reflecting the multi-faceted nature of project decision
actual influences on actors on making choices”, (Mullaly 2014, behaviour.
p. 519). The study of behavioural decision making in projects has While theoretical pluralism is essential to grasp the
gained momentum in the past 15 years and allows first exploration complexity of decisions in projects (Winter et al., 2006), it
of the actuality of project decisions (Cicmil et al., 2006), bears the risk of falling into the ‘fragmentation trap’ (Knudsen,
e.g. overoptimism in project forecasts (e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2007, 2003). It is only when theories are interacting with each other
2013), escalation of commitment (e.g. Alvarez et al., 2011; Van that we can fully benefit from theoretical plurality, as suggested
Oorschot et al., 2013), or ineffective risk management (e.g. Kutsch in seminal publications in organization studies, e.g. the critical
and Hall, 2005, 2010). comparison between theories (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), and
the theorizing emerging in the intersection between research
⁎ Corresponding author. perspectives (Zahra and Newey, 2009), and between research
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (V. Stingl). paradigms (Lewis and Grimes, 1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.009
0263-7863/00/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
122 V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135
Literature reviews and conceptual frameworks can capture Grouping the literature according to schools of thoughts is
theoretical pluralism, offer a deliberate integration, combina- popular in project studies and beneficial for the development of
tion, or parallel consideration of the theoretical concepts, and research. The use of schools of thought enables a systematic
thereby foster cross-fertilization, new ideas and the overall search for gaps and competing theoretical explanations within
development of the field (Knudsen, 2003; Shapira et al., 1994; and between schools. In consequence, making the schools
Söderlund and Geraldi, 2012; Söderlund, 2011). However, past explicit will illustrate the current theoretical pluralism in the
reviews fail to provide a comprehensive overview of the field, and will assist and promote the study and integration of
literature on behavioural decision making in projects, and the individual findings. It is thereby a mean to identify both
focused instead on specific aspects, namely decision makers' conflicts between schools, or potential overlaps and opportu-
concept of risk (Zhang et al., 2011), decisions in mega projects nities of complementation, and thereby stimulate future debate
(Sanderson, 2012), and cognitive biases (McCray et al., 2002; and research (Knudsen, 2003; Söderlund, 2011).
Shore, 2008). Powell et al. (2011) introduced three schools of thought to
The present study will contribute to close this gap. Its purpose is organize the research on Behavioural Strategy, that is, research on
to display and analyse the theoretical pluralism in the literature on strategy management based on cognitive and behavioural science.
behavioural decision making in projects, and point to potential Powell and colleagues structured the literature according to their
future research. This article asks (1) How is behavioural decision respective onto-epistemological foundations and identified three
making studied in the project literature? (2) What gaps exist in the conceptually distinct schools. These schools draw from separate
current research on behavioural decision making in projects? theoretical foundations, are fundamentally different in their
(3) How does the project literature relate to the grand theories of philosophies, and, in consequence, follow different methodologies.
behavioural decision making? We will address these questions by Powell et al. named the three schools: Reductionist, Pluralist, and
populating an established conceptual framework, considering the Contextualist. We will only briefly introduce the three schools
onto-epistemological foundations of behavioural decision making here, and examine them in relation to project literature more
theories, with related project literature, captured through a thoroughly later in the article.
systematic review. The Reductionist school adopts a strictly positivist, objec-
Our aim is not to foster unification, but to offer a structured tivist, and realist view. As such, it analyses deviations from a
understanding of the current theoretical pluralism, and thereby ‘normative ideal’, i.e. a rationally right trajectory or decision.
identify gaps and opportunities for future research within and Deviations are labelled as biases and errors, and their roots and
across theoretical foundations. This study contributes to the extent are analysed through mostly quantitative methods.
literature as it a) provides a holistic synthesis of the research on The Pluralist school is based in pragmatism and draws from
behavioural decision making in projects, b) analyses the multiple theoretical foundations, hence following a pluralistic
relationship between this research and the theoretical foundations approach. While still adhering to a rational, normative ideal as a
of behavioural decision making, and c) points to possibilities of reference, the reasons for ‘deviations’ are sought in intra-group
integrating research findings from different theoretical back- conflicts, resulting in opportunistic behaviour, bargaining, and
grounds whilst carefully considering their onto-epistemological conflicts. Methodologically, this school builds on the same
differences. The article contributes to practising decisions by pluralism as for its theoretical foundation, using qualitative,
suggesting how behaviours impact decisions, and reviewing quantitative and mixed methodologies.
coping mechanisms offered by the literature. Finally, the Contextualist school embraces a phenomenological
The next section will propose a framework of three ‘schools of or constructionist view. Unlike the other schools, contextualist
thought’ in behavioural decision making, followed by method- research does not define an ‘optimal’ reference point for the ‘right’
ology. We then will analyse the project literature within each of decision. Instead, the focus is less on the decision, but the process
the three schools, and the literature following a mixed-school leading to it, and the context in which it takes place. The
approach. In the discussion, we propose avenues for future methodologies are therefore typically qualitative.
research within each school, and highlight limitations and In their paper Powell et al. argued that the identification and
opportunities of the mixed-school approach. In conclusion, we acknowledgement of the paradigmatic differences of these three
will return to the research questions, establish contributions and schools of thought were a necessary starting point to adopt ‘a
limitations of current work. policy of methodological pluralism and multimethod research’
(p.1380).
2. Three schools of thought in behavioural decision making Their framework is a suitable starting point for organizing the
literature in project studies and addressing our research questions
To meet our objective, we needed to build on a framework for three reasons. First, although focussing on strategy, the
that is holistic, strongly rooted in cognitive and behavioural presented schools are strongly linked to decisions and reflect the
sciences and is explicit about the ontological and epistemolog- same types of influences that actors in project decisions are facing.
ical foundations of the theories. Such a framework highlights Second, the proposed framework builds on the grand theories of
the boundaries, assumptions, major findings, challenges, and cognitive and social sciences in behavioural decision making, and
potential future of the field (Shapira et al., 1994). We identified also on organizational theory and strategic management, thus
such a framework in Powell et al.'s (2011) three schools of providing a solid foundation for exploring missing or inaccurate
thought for Behavioural Strategy. connections to the grand theories. Third, the framework presents
V. Stingl, J. Geraldi / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 121–135 123
clearly the assumptions, boundaries and onto-epistemological Table 1

foundations of the theories. In doing so, this framework helps to Selection of studies.
identify possibilities for translations and serves as a fruitful tool for Step 1: Step 2.1: Step 2.3: Step 3: Final
researchers to connect the studies on behavioural decision making. Keyword Focus on Focus on Snowballing sample
search behaviours decisions size
3. Methodology IJPM 282 65 31 – 31

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

1 s2.0 S0263786316302769 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0263786316302769 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0263786316302769 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Systematic review on

1. Introduction The literature draws from different general theoretical

clearly the assumptions, boundaries and onto-epistemological Table 1

3. Methodology IJPM 282 65 31 – 31

Our second and third questions intended to identify gaps and

You might also like