Significant Reasons for Mega-Project - Assignment Example

WHАT АRЕ THЕ MОST SIGNIFIСАNT RЕАSОNS FОR МЕGА-РRОJЕСT FАILURЕ АND MIGHT SUСH FАILURЕS BЕ АVОIDЕD? By (Name) Presented to (Name of Professor) (Name of Institution, City, Sate) (Date) Executive Summary In spite of the huge amounts of money going into mega projects, surprisingly, nominal systematic knowledge is available on the reasons why most of these projects fail. The available literature valid explanations as to why these projects fail to perform as anticipated. However, massive research has been done to determine the rationale behind failure of the mega projects. A combination of numerous factors is said to propel the failure. To begin with, there is delusion of control whereby there is lack of strategic decision-making. This is characterized by poor forecasting, strategic misinterpretation, and biases, eventually leading to poor risk management. Moreover, most mega projects lack user involvement, which proves vital for the success of projects. Accordingly, the project stakeholders lack a share in making decisions pertaining to the projects, which eventually results in lack of ownership in the projects. Additionally, Mega projects are perpetually complex, and are becoming progressively more complex. However, organizations are displaying massive difficulty in dealing with the increasing complexity of the mega projects. Additionally, most projects fail due to lack of effectual project management. They lack realization of specifications to cost, quality, and time, fail to deploy competent staff, and as well prove incapable of delivering project mission. Ultimately, mega projects fail owing to cost underestimation. Consequently, there tends to emerge incongruities amid projections at the preliminary phases and the final overrun costs. Nevertheless, effective management of these factors is likely to increase the rate of successes among mega projects. WHАT АRЕ THЕ MОST SIGNIFIСАNT RЕАSОNS FОR МЕGА-РRОJЕСT FАILURЕ АND MIGHT SUСH FАILURЕS BЕ АVОIDЕD? Introduction The industrializing and industrialized nations are making massive progress toward initiation of mega projects. These projects are a principal way in which the contemporary societies are generating novel value through creation of physical assets, which are exploited to realize economic and social ends. Mega projects, described as large, complex projects within the minerals, petroleum, power, and chemical industries remain massively challenging with a startling high rate of failure. Mega projects may as well be described as public, expensive, and physical initiatives. The occurrence of mega projects is increasing considerably and is projected to continue increasing in the imminent decades because the large projects are vital to not merely the funders but also to the beneficiary communities as well as to the health of global economies. Mega projects are employed within the private as well as public sectors (Altshuler and Luberoff 2003, p. 56), for instance in the sector of merger and acquisition (Weston, Mitchell and Mulherin 2003, p. 147). In spite of the increasing proportion, mega projects are portraying meager performance record in regard to environment, public endorsement, and economy (revenues and project costs) (Flyvbjerg and Rothengatter 2003, p. 143). According to the recent CHAOS results, success rates of projects has portrayed significant decrease, with merely 32 percent of projects being completed on budget, on time, and with the required features (The Standish Group International 2010, p. 3). The failed mega projects led to massive losses, inefficient resource use, and company bankruptcy. Statement of Problem Mega projects, which are large and complex, fail much often. More than half of the large-scale projects have portrayed poor results. The present track record on mega projects failure is unacceptable. Interestingly, the project management experts are not solely the actual sources of failures. However, numerous factors characterize the mega project failure. Delusion of Control According to the standard economic theory, the principal reason why mega projects fail is imperfect strategic decision-making, which include forecasting. The regularity of poor upshots remains an unavoidable outcome of the companies that take rational risks within uncertain situations. Managers and entrepreneurs are inclined toward accepting the odds as the success rewards are satisfactorily enticing. Eventually, the benefits emanating from the few successes surpass the losses emanating from numerous failures (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003, p. 13). Accordingly, faulty strategic decision-making remains liable in influencing different genres of risks, such as demand risk, financial risk, political risk, and cost risk. Imperfect decision-making emanates from strategic misinterpretation and biases, therefore having substantial negative impacts on mega projects given that these projects are typified by high level of uncertainty. Strategic misinterpretation refers to the presentation of figures with intent too optimistically than they are in real sense (Flyvbjerg and Rothengatter 2003, p. 145) while bias is doing the alike but without intent (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003, p. 14). The techniques employed in strategic decision-making, predominantly in forecasting, have a tendency to fail to take into consideration the uncertainty. Uncertainty emerges from ambiguity, vagueness, and contradictions allied to lack of precision owing to dearth in data, inaccurate and incomplete data, lack of apt structure for considering issues, known and unknown bias, ignorance on the amount of effort required in clarifying situations, and inadequate control of suitable players (Atkinson, Crawford and Ward 2006, p. 688). In this context, project managers make predictions pertaining to unknown issues with complexity and uncertainty. The chief challenge is recognizing and reacting to the surrounding changes by locating the appropriate probabilities. The principal genres of uncertainty comprise of risk uncertainties, structural uncertainties, and the unknowable. The major bias realized in forecasting under elevated uncertainty is unrealistic overconfidence, risk perception, delusion of control, assessing probabilities, and distortion of info (Shoemaker 2004, p. 123). Thus, the widespread perspective of bias in strategic decision-making in mega projects emerges from optimistic overconfidence whereby the project managers fail to encourage multiple hypotheses as well as place too much emphasis on confirming evidence at the expense of the disconfirming evidence (Shoemaker 2004, p. 123). According to the cognitive theorists, when the cognitive processes aimed at dealing with high uncertainties introduce bias into human judgments, people become incompetent in detecting the problems emanating from flawed dispensation of uncertain info (Sterman 1989, p. 383). Disliking ambiguity, human beings have a tendency of avoiding ambiguous situations. Hence, with high uncertainties and biases, humans muddle through, frequently doing well but occasionally plunging into serious troubles. In this context, the bias that influences forecasting under optimistic overconfidence and uncertainty with mega projects is delusion of control, which typifies a psychological phenomenon. Optimistic overconfidence remains a widespread perspective of bias in strategic decision-making vis-à-vis mega projects. In this context, project managers are scandalously subject to self-enhancement and wishful thinking, thus providing probability approximations that are disfigured by the self-serving stimulus (Ayton and McClelland 1997, p. 280). Therefore, optimistic overconfidence probes threat to strategic decision-making in mega projects (Koellinger, Minniti and Schade 2007, p. 504). The Channel Tunnel, which is a tunnel between Great Britain and France, represents an instance of a failed mega project (Stannard 1990, p. 49). The tunnel, inaugurated in 1994, cost 15 billion Euros after facing numerous near bankruptcies that emanated from overruns in construction costs amounting to 80 percent and financing expenses that were 140% higher than the forecasted costs (Flyvbjerg and Rothengatter 2003, p. 150). Hence, in this context, recommendations aimed at lowering the failure of mega projects endeavor at minimizing delusion of control, improving strategic decision-making, and making better forecasts. The probable means of minimizing delusion of control, found within the psychology and business studies, encompass of cognitive strategies, technological strategies, and motivational strategies. The motivational approach concentrates on boosting the impetus to increase performance. The critical assumption within this strategy is that human beings possess normative techniques, and will employ them when gains exceed costs. The technological and cognitive approaches presume that intuitive approaches are imperfect. The cognitive strategy is vital in forecasting with uncertainty. The technological strategy expands probable approaches to incorporate techniques that are external to decision makers. These techniques encompass using groups in lieu of individuals, developing info processing via info displays and decision aids, replacing personal judgments with statistical representations, and enhancing instinctive decision-making using proper decision analysis. In addition, strategies to curtail mega project failures include effectual uncertainty management, with chief consideration on the sources of substantial uncertainty and related responses. The formal processes of managing project risks that concentrate on threats do not sufficiently address the numerous sources of ambiguity and variability (Atkinson, Crawford and Ward 2006, p. 690). While the processes of risk management concerned with opportunities and threats may do well, they need to be concentrated on the uncertain circumstances and events. Addressing the sources of critical uncertainty demands a more unequivocal concentration on managing uncertainty as part of overall project management. Particular attention ought to focus on the stakeholders involved within a project as well as their relevant objectives in the following ways. To begin with, project managers ought to treat the characterization of project objectives as principal to managing projects. In this context, there is need to select apt performance criteria, formulate objectives for the criteria, and modify objectives to fit the criteria appropriately. Besides, management of projects should make clear and manage the preferred trade-offs amid diverse performance objectives. Projects contain various performance standards and allied objectives. Performance variations on every criterion remain achievable and measurable, and thus uncertainty is manifest in each performance criteria. For instance, project performance may be presented in terms of time, quality, and cost-associated objectives. The different performance criterions remain at risk to distinct extents vis-à-vis each objective. Accordingly, active performance management entails making trade-offs amid objectives as distinct strategies entail diverse amalgamations of uncertainty vis-à-vis the diverse performance criteria. Lack of recognizing the trade-offs and articulating the preferred trade-offs may result in unsuccessful and inappropriate risk management. Ultimately, uncertainty ownership requires explicit consideration. In this sense, project mangers ought to make decisions pertaining to how uncertainty and the related issues can be allotted to diverse project parties, identifying that distinct parties embrace different objectives, project risk perceptions, and capacities to manage allied uncertainty sources (Atkinson, Crawford and Ward 2006, p. 691). User Involvement The nonexistence of user involvement is a major cause of failure of mega projects. According to The Standish Group International (2010, p. 4), user involvement is vital in project success because users are both the company’s worst foe and best ally. Failure to incorporate users within a project implies that the project manager is assuming that whatever the project is delivering is what the users want as well as assuming that the users will buy into the project idea. Even if delivered on budget and on time, projects fail if they do not meet the needs of the users (Attarzadeh and Ow 2008, p. 235). When a project is delivered successfully, the users determine the product and the usability. If the users fail to derive value in what the project is delivering, the project manager has spent all the project effort and finances in vain. Projects lacking user involvement are inclined toward performing poorly because they fail to foster close cooperation and collaboration. However, in spite of the verity that companies are aware of this requirement, they are finding it hard to attain it. Since vast majorities of the companies fail to incorporate user involvement, many business partners have lacked commitment to the system and some partners become unreceptive to it. Accordingly, there has been lack of commitment to effort and time. Such people become stretched, making it hard for them to find time for novel projects. Most failures in Information Technology mega projects are attributable to inadequate user inclusion in IT development. According to (Tae-In 2005, 36), user involvement remains a critical success factor for software projects. However, inappropriate user involvement results in misapprehension of systems requirements, vague objectives and scope of the systems, and misaligning user expectations. In a study in Thailand, Mann and Johnson (n.d. p. 544) found that Information Systems projects experience inadequate user involvement when functional users fail to commit to their responsibilities and deliverables. Moreover, the users fail to dedicate their effort and time to the project goals. According to the collectivism theory, the users remain reluctant to involve in development projects owing to lack of socialism. In this context, users perceive developers as out-group members, regarding them with suspicion. Moreover, lack of user involvement render users unwilling to impose their thoughts on developers. To curtail the problems arising from lack of user involvement in mega projects, there is a need for the project team to endorse user feedback, prototyping, basic research, requirements review, and auxiliary events endeavored at consensus building. In their case study involving IT projects, The Standish Group International (2010, p. 4) has found that the facet optimizer within the OptiMix offers a communication platform via aiding project teams and users concentrate on the critical functions and requirements. OptiMix employs the procedure of converting rational limitation into linear limitations, thus allowing users optimize facets founded on dependencies. Moreover, the project management team needs to nurture a network for user groups and users, which facilitates involvement. Another case study pertains to NHS Direct, which was set up to offer advice and healthcare information to the communities in Wales and England via online services and telephone helpline services. The establishment of NHS Direct in December 2007 targeted its completion by the termination of 2000. The nations achieved nationwide telephone coverage in November 2000. This marked a significant achievement. However, the achievements were realized owing to effectual associations between the project team and the persons responsible for service implementation at local levels. In addition, the project made effectual use of wide-ranging and piloting consultations with chief stakeholders (Royal Academy of Engineering 2004, p. 8). Project Complexity Project complexity has been classified as channeling the high rate of mega projects failure. Mega projects are perpetually complex, and are becoming progressively more complex. However, organizations are displaying massive difficulty in dealing with the increasing complexity of mega projects. As Baccarini (1996, p. 201) elucidates, the notion of complexity has realized little detailed attention within the context of projects. These mega projects and their completely incorporated plans have every feature of a perfectly planned and well-managed undertaking. However, lack of contingency in time and budget implies that any unplanned event is likely to derail the overall project. Many mega projects fail to deliver full potential in spite of the efforts of the project partners. The International Centre for Complex Project Management conducted a study aimed at determining the reasons behind mega projects failure (Remington n.d., p. 2). The principal key findings indicated that project managers of complex projects are not equipped as leaders of program delivery and that the modern tools are inadequate for management of complex projects. The challenge lays in steering the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in hastening the technological, organizational, and social change and developing cultural diversity. As complexity theory explicates, projects tend to be complex, thus translating into intricate adaptive systems (Remington, Zolin and Turner 2009, p. 4). Project complexity bases on project budget and project size. Complex projects are characterized by some level of severity, which deems it extremely hard to predict the outcomes of the project as well as to manage or control the project. Even though project-oriented enterprises have the appropriate tools and techniques to calculate project risks, these apparatuses fail to take into account the dynamics and complexity of projects. The characteristics of project severity comprise of high extent of interconnectedness, adaptiveness, emergence, and non-linearity. Remington, Zolin and Turner (2009 p. 8), basing on the structural approach, maintains that the distinction between complicated projects and complex projects bases on the amount of elements as in complicated projects rather than the correlations between the elements as in complex projects. Moreover, the relationship between linearity in complicated projects and non-linearity in complex projects means that non-linearity renders the affiliation between outputs and inputs unpredictable (Remington, Zolin and Turner 2009 p. 8). Other precise definitions of project complexity arise from the complexity theory. According to this theory, complex projects refer to those projects consisting of numerous assorted interrelated parts, which may operationalized in based on interdependency and differentiation (Baccarini 1996, p. 202). In reference to project complexity, differentiation would refer to the proportion of hierarchical levels, division of project tasks, and proportion of units. Interdependency would refer to the extent of operational interdependencies amid organizational elements. Another aspect is technological complexity, which is typified by knowledge characteristics, operations, and material characteristics. The success of mega projects is challenged by failure to measure project complexity in a robust manner that accounts for dynamic, interaction, and structural elements. Besides, mega projects tend to fail owing to an underestimation of the complexity of the project’s environment. An example is the increasing development costs at Airbus and Boeing. Underestimation of complexity emerges whereby there are unforeseen developments or where particular factors have been unconsidered. For instance, in the case of SSC project, the chosen project manager asserted that the size of the project caused complexity in the project. The URA project manager explained that the project was larger than any project he had managed before. Consequently, the project came with novel problems. Nevertheless, owing to the sheer size of the SSC project, it became extremely hard for anyone to forecast the complications allied to the project (Anbari n.d., p. 5). Complexity within mega projects can be an insufficiently understood sector. The extent of complexity involved in attaining a specific objective may be quite hard to approximate at the outset of a project. Consequently, projects tend to incorporate greater complexity than initially realized. These projects remain susceptible to difficulty or failure. A case study illustrating project complexity portrays a supermarket that aimed at making changes to its IT systems. The supermarket chain opted to make use of the shopping history located within the central database to ascertain the special offers that were of particular interest to customers. The system contained records of the items that the clients had bought within the preceding six months. The customers visiting the supermarket ever day amounted to about nine million, and each customer bought approximately thirty items. Even though the project appeared attractive from the commercial point of view, it would have entailed looking for a four-terabyte central database, delivering info remotely to every store concurrently, and analyzing the outcomes. Given the current system architecture, this project was impracticable. Whilst changes to the architectural system, such as hoarding data locally and disseminating database to allied stores, the cost of carrying out these activities would have outweighed the benefits. There is an increasing requirement for project management to understand complexity in projects owing to the difficulties allied to goal attainment and decision-making, aspects that are associated with complexity. A lucid comprehension of the sources of complexities in projects aids in selecting the apt approaches and tools to manage mega projects. In this context, appropriate leadership in complex projects remains critical in project management. Project leaders ought to recognize the present day’s transformational change from the information age of interconnected systems to knowledge age of interrelated capabilities. Hence, project leaders should have the capacity to continually nurture and enhance the skills of the project team to develop a comprehensive approach to the complex challenges. Appropriate leadership ought to be goal-driven if it has to curtail mega projects failure. The project leaders should make the project team understand how the project goal looks, feels, and sounds. Further efforts ought to aim at making clear the goal paths as well as the means of attaining these goals. Effective Management of Projects With loads of money depending on the failure and success of projects, organizations are trying hard to manage their projects more effectively. Not merely is it vital for companies to manage projects, portfolios, and programs strategically and effectively, but poor implementation may lead companies to peril. Project management entails the entire process, not merely realization of specifications to cost, quality, and time. Hence, management of programs and projects assumes a strategic approach, which stipulates delivery of project mission. In this perspective, effective management of projects is allied to removing implementation barriers, enabling innovation, increasing global perspectives, and enhancing an organization’s competitive advantage (Project Management Institute 2013, p. 3). Bertelsen (2004, p. 1) establishes that the failure of construction projected is associated with poor project management. This entails incoherent value generation, low quality, inappropriate working conditions, time overruns and frequent costs, and poor safety records. To reduce the mega projects failure, organizations standardize their projects to drive company-wide efficiencies. On top of this, the organizations deploy talented personnel and empower them to deem them competent in leading the projects. However, Pulse of the Profession has found that many organizations tend to underestimate project management and lay inadequate concentration on developing talents (Project Management Institute 2013, p. 4). Merely half of the existing organizations fully comprehend with the value of managing projects. Even though strategic management of projects is vital at every organizational level, this competency fails to portray representation at high organizational levels. Accordingly, owing to this underestimation of program, portfolio, and project management, mega project failure is increasing. According to a report, the proportion of projects that have attained their initial goals has declined by 10% since 2008 (Project Management Institute 2013, p. 4). Ineffective management of projects deems it difficult to meet project timelines, complete projects on time, involve stakeholders, and achieve the projected project goals. According to the strategic model, businesses will continue putting their money at risk if they fail to embrace effective management of projects. In this context, project, portfolio, and program management ought to be placed at the center of organizational culture. A key aspect in project management is training and developing the personnel. Conversely, the Pulse has found out that project management development and training has attained a decline since 2010 (Project Management Institute 2013). A vast majority of the organizations have failed to train their personnel on techniques and tools of project management. Consequently, many mega projects are failing owing to ineffectiveness in project management as well as incompetency among project personnel. An example of ineffective project management is manifest in the case of SSC. The projected was allocated to URA, whose principal experience was with technology that focuses on high-energy physics as opposed to construction. This was not perfect for most of the preliminary stages of the project that required expertise in construction. The project manager of URA asserted that the SSC project was larger than any other project he ever managed, thus there were numerous new problems to him. Hence, choosing a more experienced contractor would have proved wiser (Anbari n.d., p. 5). Over many years, much effort is being made in correcting the undesirable state of mega projects but without success. However, project management is proving to be an effectual strategy. To overcome the high rate of mega projects failure, establishment of project management tools, which comprise of value management, safety management, cost management, value engineering, quality assurance, and the renowned CPM, is causing marginal improvements (Bertelsen 2004, p. 1). Moreover, to avoid the mega project failures, organizations ought to concentrate on managing talents, developing skills, endorsing consistent project management, and eventually striving for constant alignment. For organizations to boast successful and high-performing projects, they should be continuous and consistent in developing and training both project managers and project teams. They should embrace defined career paths for the staff involved within given projects as well as have processes to develop competency in project management. Besides, they should endow the project stakeholders with training on use of techniques and tools allied to project management. Cost Under-estimation Mega projects have had an account of cost escalation. These projects, which are characterized by long epochs between the planning stage and the inception stage, are frequently underestimated. The regular under-estimation of cost in mega projects budgeting raises the query of the existing incongruities amid projections at the preliminary phases and the final overrun costs. As Shane, Molenaar, Anderson and Schexnayder (2009, p. 221) have found out, approximately 50 percent of mega projects within the United States have failed due to overrun in the initial budgets. Examples of mega projects that have failed owing to cost underestimation include the Channel Tunnel (Stannard 1990, p. 50) and the superconducting Supercollider (Domondon 2009, p. 303). The SSC project was estimated at a cost of 6 billion dollars during the Reagan administration in 1985. However, in 1988 when George Bush succeeded President Reagan, criticism of the project lay on its ballooning cost. Various factors are accountable to cost underestimation of mega projects, which eventually leads to failure of these projects. To begin with, large and complex projects have features that deem them quite challenging to approximate, and which managers ought to always consider in the process of evaluating cost assumptions. These comprise of stretching of the available resources, such as material, labor, information systems, and management skill to the limits (Greiman 2013, p. 22). Furthermore, the public funds aimed at financing numerous projects may be limited while there is accumulation of vital infrastructure needs. Hence, all these projects are made to fit within the projected budget. Accordingly, project budgets are prepared without considering the future escalations in the economy, which result in an increase in the project cost. As a result, most of the mega projects are inclined toward failure owing to a dearth in material, finance, and human resources. Other aspects allied to project overestimation include schedule delays and cost escalation (Cantarelli, Flyvbjerg and Bert van Wee 2010, p. 9). These are likely to emerge from poor weather conditions, environmental mitigation and protection, government pressure, inflation, technical challenges on top of project size, project scope, exogenous delays, and inexperienced administrative staff. A significant representation of cost underestimation in mega projects is the case of Boeing. The conventional plan of Boeing aimed at building a novel 747-8 freighter alternate. The project, which was initiated in 2005, endeavored at improving the existing 747 by incorporating new engines, new wings, and innovative cockpit technologies. However, the project failed because the initial plan did outrun the ability to implement it. Owing to the economic problems emerging in October 2009, Boeing suffered a cost overrun of 1 billion dollars. In managing the problem of cost underestimation, there is a need to develop a procedure for actions when the cost is exceeded at milestone. The actions ought to incorporate justification for the modifications as well as endorsement of an amended budget. Moreover, there is a prime need to deal with scope uncertainty. In this context, initiate a mechanism clearly describing what is within the project schedule and scope as well as what has not been incorporates, predominantly with respect to projected project cost. Conclusion The mega projects executed around the globe portray a significant percent of failure as compared to smaller projects. The more projects achieve the mega project status, the more they attain the risk of failure. Despite of this failure, many nations, industries, and businesses have embarked on mega projects owing to the increasing economic development. Researchers are engaging in expansive studies to provide a lucid understanding of the reason why mega projects get in trouble as well as how these costly and hazardous errors can be curtailed. Major delays, cost overruns, project complexity, delusion of control, and poor project management represent the major reasons why these projects fail. Large and complex projects prove quite hard to manage on almost every aspect. Given that these projects are fragile and demand wide-ranging cross-functional cooperation, the project team ought to be more knowledgeable in the field of project management. List of References Altshuler, A. and Luberoff, D. 2003. Mega projects: the changing politics of urban public investment. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Anbari n.d. ‘Project Management Institute: Case studies in project management.’ Atkinson, R., Crawford, L. and Ward, S. 2006. ‘Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management.’ International Journal of Project Management, vol. 24, pp. 687-698. Attarzadeh, I. and Ow, S.H. 2008. ‘Project management practices: The criteria for success or failure.’ Communications of the IBIMA, Vol. 1, pp. 234- 241. Ayton, P. and McClelland, P. 1997. ‘How real is overconfidence?’ Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 10, pp. 279-285. Baccarini, D. 1996. ‘The concept of project complexity-A review.’ International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, Pp. 201-204. Bertelsen, S. 2004. ‘Construction management in a complexity perspective.’ Presented at the 1st International SCRI Symposium, March 30th-31st 2004 at the University of Salford, UK. Cantarelli, C.C., Flyvbjerg, B. and Bert van Wee, E. 2010. ‘Cost overruns in large-scale transportation infrastructure projects: explanations and their theoretical embeddedness.’ EJTIR, Vol. 10, No. 1, Pp. 5-18. Domondon, A.T. 2009. ‘Kuhn, Popper, and the Superconducting Supercollider.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 40, Pp. 301-314. Flyvbjerg, B. and Rothengatter, W. 2003. Mega projects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, UK. Greiman, V.A. 2013. ‘Mega project management: Lessons on risk and project management from the Big Dig.’ John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., and Schade, C. 2007. ‘“I think I can, I think I can”: overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior.’ Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 502-527. Lovallo, D. and Kahneman, D. 2003. Delusions of success: how optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, July. Mann, J. and Johnson, J.P. n.d. ‘Identifying and explaining risk factors associated with Information Systems projects in Thailand: A model and research proportions.’ Pp. 537-552. Project Management Institute 2013. ‘PMI’s pulse of the profession: The high cost of low performance.’ Project Management Institute, Inc. Remington, K. n.d. ‘Leading complex projects.’ Gower Publishing, New York. Remington, K., Zolin, R. and Turner, R. 2009. ‘A model of project complexity: Distinguishing dimensions of complexity from severity.’ In: Proceedings of the 9th International Research Network of Project Management Conference, 11-13 October 2009, Berlin. Royal Academy of Engineering 2004. ‘The challenges of complex IT projects.’ The Royal Academy of Engineering, London. Shane, J., Molenaar, K., Anderson, S. and Schexnayder, C. 2009. ‘Construction project cost escalation factors.’ Journal of Management Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 4, Pp. 221-229. Shoemaker, P.J. 2004. Forecasting and scenario planning: the challenges of uncertainty. In Koehler, D. and Harvey N. ed. 2004. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision-making. Blackwell Publishing, New York. Chapter 14. Stannard, C.J. 1990. ‘Managing a mega project- The Channel Tunnel.’ Long Range Planning, Vol. 23, No. 5, Pp. 49-62. Sterman, J. 1989. ‘Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision experiment.’ Managerial Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 321-339. Tae-In, M. 2005. ‘Impact of project leadership on user participation and the user involvement: the consequences for user satisfaction and systems usage.’ Journal of Management Systems, vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 35-43. The Standish Group International 2010. ‘Chaos summary for 2010.’ The Standish Group International, Inc, Boston, MA. Weston, J., Mitchell, M., and Mulherin, J. 2003. Takeovers, restructuring, and corporate governance. Prentice Hall, New York. Read More