Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Systematic review on behavioural decision making in projects

Abstract

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Detection of early warning signals for overruns in IS projects: linguistic analysis of business case language

“…A more realistic forecast can be generated by adopting an "outside view" (Flyvbjerg, 2013;Haji-Kazemi et al, 2015;Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993;Lovallo & Kahneman, 2003;Stingl & Geraldi, 2017), which ignores the details of the project and, instead, bases estimates on the outcomes of similar projects. If necessary, these estimates can then be adjusted based on a comparison between the current project and the prior projects (Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993;Lovallo & Kahneman, 2003).…”

Project Is as Project Does

“…For example, when discussing how values, signs, symbols, and storytelling play significant roles in sensemaking during a project, Stingl and Geraldi (2017) characterize the project actors as "surfing on the waves of meaning in a highly ambiguous world" (p. 125). As this kind of ambiguity and surfing are essentially part of the project reality, these need to be accounted for, both in theory and practice.…”

Organizational Ambidexterity: A Critical Review and Development of a Project-Focused Definition

“…Since we intend to advance a more specified definition of ambidexterity which is contextualised within projects and their managing organizations, associated taxonomical analysis of the elements and components of the concept will be undertaken from a predominantly project perspective (Stingl and Geraldi, 2017). Undertaking such a review of literature reflects our acknowledgement that such reviews serve as an effective means of capturing different and emerging considerations in theoretical concepts.…”

“…The popularity of this review approach has extended to a range of disciplines including software engineering (Kitchenham et al, 2009), information systems (Rowe, 2014), organizational (Birkinshaw and Gupta, 2013), and general management studies (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). More recently, systematic reviews have become popular in not only operations management (Thome et al, 2016;Maestrini et al, 2017), but also project management (Xue et al, 2010;Stingl and Geraldi, 2017;Lee et al, 2018). Systematic reviews of literature are defined by Rowe (2014),drawn from Kitchenham et al (2009) as "…a form of secondary study that uses a well defined methodology to identify, analyse and interpret all available evidence related to a specific research question in a way that is unbiased and (to a degree) repeatable" (p. 246).…”