DTU ProjectLab - User contributions [en-gb]

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T20:30:55Z

MistaJacob: /* Engineering systems */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour is one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.

=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|370px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.

=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem, and try to solve it.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.

=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T20:30:33Z

MistaJacob: /* Engineering systems */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour is one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.

=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|380px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.

=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem, and try to solve it.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.

=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T20:29:34Z

MistaJacob: /* Engineering systems */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour is one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.

=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|350px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.

=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem, and try to solve it.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.

=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Talk:Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T20:19:47Z

MistaJacob:

Anna: In regards to the choice of topic, I feel like this article does not really fit any of the two types of articles that we want to see for this course. An idea could maybe be to focus on a specific tool that could help a manager to be a "mindful manager" in order to narrow the scope of your article down.

----

'''LasseHoier87 reviewer 3'''

The article is not finished as stated in the section ”To the reviewer”. I have therefore not reviewed the part where the author is writing ideas to the rest of the article. I will comment on what is available at the time of the review.

(Wiki article Peer Review template is used. To see question see "Wiki Article Peer Review and Peer Evaluation")

Formal aspects:

*It follows the "method" structure in a good and clear way
*Free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation error. Maybe change “We” to more formal style
**'''I'm using we, not as in me and someone else, but as in humans in general which makes it a bit more formal. On the other hand, in the bottom half of the article I am talking directly to the reader by writing "you", which is definitly not the formal way to write an article. That being said, I argue for my choice works here. Lets see if the professors agree.'''
*Written in a fine engaging style, short sentences also leading nicely to the next point.
*I think the figures is ok, but maybe the figure with a lot of text is not suitable (you have a tendency to skip it) Maybe some bullet points with a very short description would be better?!
**'''Agreed. It didn't fit the focus of my article, so it was removed and i linked to another article which sole focus was mindfulness.'''
*The figures are understandable, but I think “figure 1” should be enlarged.
**'''Noted. And enlarged a bit.'''
*The choice of figures is fine, but the label is missing. Use [[file….|none|thumb|caption]] or similar to get label on the figure
*The tables and figures is referred to in the text and works fine.
*Regarding copyright on the figures. I can not see any reference in relation to the figures.
*I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine. There are some small things, as mentioned earlier, the placement of the figures, layout of figure. But overall the formation is nicely done.

Content aspects:

*For practitioners the early version may be a bit theoretical, but if some examples of use could be made, the full understanding would be good.
**'''because of the early version as you said.'''
*I think the article fits the purpose of this course very good. It is dealing with some key issues in term of system engineering and the behavior behind the development towards high complexity in society.
*The article is relating to the project management category. But could be used in other aspects also. The article is categorized well within the content categories.
**'''I agree. That is commented shortly in the conclusion.'''
*It is hard to evaluate the length of the article at this point, but looking at the “thoughts” of the author – I doubt it will too short.
**'''haha, ohh yeah. Definitely not too short'''
*The logical flow through the article is fine. It seems like there will be a red thread through the rest of the article as well.
*The starting summary of the article should describe the content in a more detailed way.
**'''agree. you saw the early version.'''
*The sources and reference material is illustrated fine in the end of the article, but should of course be completed with “full name of author, title, year etc.”
*The sources and reference material is fine and is mostly relying books, standards and journals. Fine
*There are no link to other Wiki APPPM articles, but one link to oxford dictionaries, which is of doubtful relevance.
**'''Don't know what you normally do here. I kept the reference.'''
*Difference between own opinion and statements from literature is hard to say at this point. The article is mostly describing the basic ideas of mindfulness and cognitive biases.
*There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism.

----

'''Username: s146898 Reviewer #2'''

Hey :) I really like the topic of your article and I believe it’s an interesting perspective to look at the psychology behind project management. However, I am not entirely sure whether this is a method. The article is not finished and therefore, the feedback will apply mostly to the finished text. However, I did skim through your notes and they seem to be leading in a good direction and it seems the article will be coherent, once it’s finished.
*'''comment to the method issue: Since no "method" exists about cognitive biases in project management, and my topic therefore didn't fit the type of article to write; I firstly got permission to write it anyways; and secondly, I wrote the article so it could be considered to be the "method" itself. This is due to the inclusion of the test to see if you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; and the fact that the only way to overcome getting caught by cognitive biases, is to familurize yourself with them. This article can in that sense be seen as method (addressing and issue, and providing steps to take towards a "solution").'''

Formal aspects
*I would say that this article fits into the Explaining or Illustrating a Method type. However, it does not follow the structure suggested for this type of article. Consider clearly describing which is the big picture, what mindfulness means for project management and then go into detail about how it applies. Think about what are its limitations and maybe what are the pros and cons for using it.
**'''My early version (idea) focused on mindfulness and cognitive biases equally. This changed to mostly focus on the latter.'''
*As far as grammar is concerned, the vocabulary and language are quite neat. However, there are many times in which “are” is used instead of “is” and vice-versa. e.g. “The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the larger reasons for this change.” “Engineering systems is per definition socio-technical systems”
**'''fixed. Hopefully now without those mistakes.'''
*I like the use of figures and the fact that they are mentioned in the text. However, Figure 1 is very small and not easily readable.
**'''Noted. And enlarged a bit.'''
*You could consider linking the article to other wikis
**'''Done. To some extend.'''

Content aspects
*Personally, I believe practitioners would be very interested in this topic, as human behaviour plays a big role in the complexity of projects.
*I would reconsider the summary. Maybe introduce the context in which mindfulness is used in project management, the “big picture”
**'''Summary changed after article was finished.'''
*I like that your list of references includes relevant books and articles. Don’t forget the Annotated bibliography for each source
**'''Noted.'''
*Maybe you’d like to consider a section called “Limitations” as well.
**'''Agreed. This came in the section i hadn't written for the peer review.'''
*Generally, the article seems to have a logical flow. Of course, it is not finished yet…

'''Username: s143352 Reviewer 1'''

Your article bears the mark of an independent choice of topic you really care about, making it a liberating energetic read.

Formal aspects:
#The article is written in a competent and accurate manner and the reader is accurately guided through the different sections.
#No gramma faults or spelling.
#The references used throughout the text are from reliable sources (respected universities).
#The figures clarify the content easily, and are reasonably interesting.
#Figures and pictures are missing references.
*'''fixed in the final version.'''
#There is no link to another APPPM wiki article, but perhaps this is a product of the unique topic?
*'''Found some links, but yeah, this is a rather unique topic.'''

Content aspects:
#Very interesting reading. I really like the atypical topic.
#Super input with questions. It holds the reader's attention and prompts the reader/project manager to self-reflection.
#One proposal could be to bullet point intuitive vs. rational thinking in project management. Our society primarily honors the rational thinkers, but what about the uncertainty aspects in projects? Could the intuitive thinkers have an advantage there? Albert Einstein put it this way, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
*'''Awesome quote! Your suggestion could actually be a good research question for further investigation. Didn't quite fit my aim for the article, which was firstly to establish why our moders society has gotten so complex that we need to think outside the box to deal with it, and secondly to get the reader to doubt his/her own mind enough to inspire a need to seek more information about cognitive biases, so errors can be prevented in that regard.'''
#Another proposal could be to link the article to more practical every day project manager tasks, such as establishing project teams, group dynamics etc.
*'''I completely agree with your proposal, but due to the limit of 3000 +- words, i barely had space to get the reader to doubt his/her own mind, which was my primary goal. The next would have been to describe the most common biases to be aware of, which I somehow did ;) and thereafter practical examples should have been used from project management tasks. I included one general example, and left the rest to the reader to draw these connections, which I think I made posssible with how I wrote the article. Furthermore, in the conclusion, I related the topic of cognitive biases not only to project management, but all professions facing high-risk decisions in complex environments.'''

------

Talk:Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T19:53:16Z

MistaJacob:

Anna: In regards to the choice of topic, I feel like this article does not really fit any of the two types of articles that we want to see for this course. An idea could maybe be to focus on a specific tool that could help a manager to be a "mindful manager" in order to narrow the scope of your article down.

----

'''LasseHoier87 reviewer 3'''

The article is not finished as stated in the section ”To the reviewer”. I have therefore not reviewed the part where the author is writing ideas to the rest of the article. I will comment on what is available at the time of the review.

(Wiki article Peer Review template is used. To see question see "Wiki Article Peer Review and Peer Evaluation")

Formal aspects:

*It follows the "method" structure in a good and clear way
*Free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation error. Maybe change “We” to more formal style
**'''I'm using we, not as in me and someone else, but as in humans in general which makes it a bit more formal. On the other hand, in the bottom half of the article I am talking directly to the reader by writing "you", which is definitly not the formal way to write an article. That being said, I argue for my choice works here. Lets see if the professors agree.'''
*Written in a fine engaging style, short sentences also leading nicely to the next point.
*I think the figures is ok, but maybe the figure with a lot of text is not suitable (you have a tendency to skip it) Maybe some bullet points with a very short description would be better?!
**'''Agreed. It didn't fit the focus of my article, so it was removed and i linked to another article which sole focus was mindfulness.'''
*The figures are understandable, but I think “figure 1” should be enlarged.
**'''Noted. And enlarged a bit.'''
*The choice of figures is fine, but the label is missing. Use [[file….|none|thumb|caption]] or similar to get label on the figure
*The tables and figures is referred to in the text and works fine.
*Regarding copyright on the figures. I can not see any reference in relation to the figures.
*I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine. There are some small things, as mentioned earlier, the placement of the figures, layout of figure. But overall the formation is nicely done.

Content aspects:

*For practitioners the early version may be a bit theoretical, but if some examples of use could be made, the full understanding would be good.
**'''because of the early version as you said.'''
*I think the article fits the purpose of this course very good. It is dealing with some key issues in term of system engineering and the behavior behind the development towards high complexity in society.
*The article is relating to the project management category. But could be used in other aspects also. The article is categorized well within the content categories.
**'''I agree. That is commented shortly in the conclusion.'''
*It is hard to evaluate the length of the article at this point, but looking at the “thoughts” of the author – I doubt it will too short.
**'''haha, ohh yeah. Definitely not too short'''
*The logical flow through the article is fine. It seems like there will be a red thread through the rest of the article as well.
*The starting summary of the article should describe the content in a more detailed way.
**'''agree. you saw the early version.'''
*The sources and reference material is illustrated fine in the end of the article, but should of course be completed with “full name of author, title, year etc.”
*The sources and reference material is fine and is mostly relying books, standards and journals. Fine
*There are no link to other Wiki APPPM articles, but one link to oxford dictionaries, which is of doubtful relevance.
**'''Don't know what you normally do here. I kept the reference.'''
*Difference between own opinion and statements from literature is hard to say at this point. The article is mostly describing the basic ideas of mindfulness and cognitive biases.
*There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism.

----

'''Username: s146898 Reviewer #2'''

Hey :) I really like the topic of your article and I believe it’s an interesting perspective to look at the psychology behind project management. However, I am not entirely sure whether this is a method. The article is not finished and therefore, the feedback will apply mostly to the finished text. However, I did skim through your notes and they seem to be leading in a good direction and it seems the article will be coherent, once it’s finished.
*'''comment to the method issue: Since no "method" exists about cognitive biases in project management, and my topic therefore didn't fit the type of article to write; I firstly got permission to write it anyways; and secondly, I wrote the article so it could be considered to be the "method" itself. This is due to the inclusion of the test to see if you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; and the fact that the only way to overcome getting caught by cognitive biases, is to familurize yourself with them. This article can in that sense be seen as method (addressing and issue, and providing a "solution").'''

Formal aspects
*I would say that this article fits into the Explaining or Illustrating a Method type. However, it does not follow the structure suggested for this type of article. Consider clearly describing which is the big picture, what mindfulness means for project management and then go into detail about how it applies. Think about what are its limitations and maybe what are the pros and cons for using it.
**'''My early version (idea) focused on mindfulness and cognitive biases equally. This changed to mostly focus on the latter.'''
*As far as grammar is concerned, the vocabulary and language are quite neat. However, there are many times in which “are” is used instead of “is” and vice-versa. e.g. “The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the larger reasons for this change.” “Engineering systems is per definition socio-technical systems”
**'''fixed. Hopefully now without those mistakes.'''
*I like the use of figures and the fact that they are mentioned in the text. However, Figure 1 is very small and not easily readable.
**'''Noted. And enlarged a bit.'''
*You could consider linking the article to other wikis
**'''Done. To some extend.'''

Content aspects
*Personally, I believe practitioners would be very interested in this topic, as human behaviour plays a big role in the complexity of projects.
*I would reconsider the summary. Maybe introduce the context in which mindfulness is used in project management, the “big picture”
**'''Summary changed after article was finished.'''
*I like that your list of references includes relevant books and articles. Don’t forget the Annotated bibliography for each source
**'''Noted.'''
*Maybe you’d like to consider a section called “Limitations” as well.
**'''Agreed. This came in the section i hadn't written for the peer review.'''
*Generally, the article seems to have a logical flow. Of course, it is not finished yet…

'''Username: s143352 Reviewer 1'''

Your article bears the mark of an independent choice of topic you really care about, making it a liberating energetic read.

Formal aspects:
#The article is written in a competent and accurate manner and the reader is accurately guided through the different sections.
#No gramma faults or spelling.
#The references used throughout the text are from reliable sources (respected universities).
#The figures clarify the content easily, and are reasonably interesting.
#Figures and pictures are missing references.
**'''fixed in the final version.'''
#There is no link to another APPPM wiki article, but perhaps this is a product of the unique topic?
**'''Found some links, but yeah, this is a rather unique topic.'''

Content aspects:
#Very interesting reading. I really like the atypical topic.
#Super input with questions. It holds the reader's attention and prompts the reader/project manager to self-reflection.
#One proposal could be to bullet point intuitive vs. rational thinking in project management. Our society primarily honors the rational thinkers, but what about the uncertainty aspects in projects? Could the intuitive thinkers have an advantage there? Albert Einstein put it this way, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
#Another proposal could be to link the article to more practical every day project manager tasks, such as establishing project teams, group dynamics etc.

------

Talk:Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T19:41:30Z

MistaJacob:

Anna: In regards to the choice of topic, I feel like this article does not really fit any of the two types of articles that we want to see for this course. An idea could maybe be to focus on a specific tool that could help a manager to be a "mindful manager" in order to narrow the scope of your article down.

----

'''LasseHoier87 reviewer 3'''

The article is not finished as stated in the section ”To the reviewer”. I have therefore not reviewed the part where the author is writing ideas to the rest of the article. I will comment on what is available at the time of the review.

(Wiki article Peer Review template is used. To see question see "Wiki Article Peer Review and Peer Evaluation")

Formal aspects:

*It follows the "method" structure in a good and clear way
*Free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation error. Maybe change “We” to more formal style
**'''I'm using we, not as in me and someone else, but as in humans in general which makes it a bit more formal. On the other hand, in the bottom half of the article I am talking directly to the reader by writing "you", which is definitly not the formal way to write an article. That being said, I argue for my choice works here. Lets see if the professors agree.'''
*Written in a fine engaging style, short sentences also leading nicely to the next point.
*I think the figures is ok, but maybe the figure with a lot of text is not suitable (you have a tendency to skip it) Maybe some bullet points with a very short description would be better?!
**'''Agreed. It didn't fit the focus of my article, so it was removed and i linked to another article which sole focus was mindfulness.'''
*The figures are understandable, but I think “figure 1” should be enlarged.
**'''Noted. And enlarged a bit.'''
*The choice of figures is fine, but the label is missing. Use [[file….|none|thumb|caption]] or similar to get label on the figure
*The tables and figures is referred to in the text and works fine.
*Regarding copyright on the figures. I can not see any reference in relation to the figures.
*I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine. There are some small things, as mentioned earlier, the placement of the figures, layout of figure. But overall the formation is nicely done.

Content aspects:

*For practitioners the early version may be a bit theoretical, but if some examples of use could be made, the full understanding would be good.
**'''because of the early version as you said.'''
*I think the article fits the purpose of this course very good. It is dealing with some key issues in term of system engineering and the behavior behind the development towards high complexity in society.
*The article is relating to the project management category. But could be used in other aspects also. The article is categorized well within the content categories.
**'''I agree. That is commented shortly in the conclusion.'''
*It is hard to evaluate the length of the article at this point, but looking at the “thoughts” of the author – I doubt it will too short.
**'''haha, ohh yeah. Definitely not too short'''
*The logical flow through the article is fine. It seems like there will be a red thread through the rest of the article as well.
*The starting summary of the article should describe the content in a more detailed way.
**'''agree. you saw the early version.'''
*The sources and reference material is illustrated fine in the end of the article, but should of course be completed with “full name of author, title, year etc.”
*The sources and reference material is fine and is mostly relying books, standards and journals. Fine
*There are no link to other Wiki APPPM articles, but one link to oxford dictionaries, which is of doubtful relevance.
**'''Don't know what you normally do here. I kept the reference.'''
*Difference between own opinion and statements from literature is hard to say at this point. The article is mostly describing the basic ideas of mindfulness and cognitive biases.
*There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism.

----

'''Username: s146898 Reviewer #2'''

Hey :) I really like the topic of your article and I believe it’s an interesting perspective to look at the psychology behind project management. However, I am not entirely sure whether this is a method. The article is not finished and therefore, the feedback will apply mostly to the finished text. However, I did skim through your notes and they seem to be leading in a good direction and it seems the article will be coherent, once it’s finished.
*'''comment to the method: SinceThe finished article follows

Formal aspects
*I would say that this article fits into the Explaining or Illustrating a Method type. However, it does not follow the structure suggested for this type of article. Consider clearly describing which is the big picture, what mindfulness means for project management and then go into detail about how it applies. Think about what are its limitations and maybe what are the pros and cons for using it.
**'''My early version (idea) focused on mindfulness and cognitive biases equally. This changed to mostly focus on the latter.'''
*As far as grammar is concerned, the vocabulary and language are quite neat. However, there are many times in which “are” is used instead of “is” and vice-versa. e.g. “The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the larger reasons for this change.” “Engineering systems is per definition socio-technical systems”
**'''fixed. Hopefully now without those mistakes.'''
*I like the use of figures and the fact that they are mentioned in the text. However, Figure 1 is very small and not easily readable.
**'''Noted. And enlarged a bit.'''
*You could consider linking the article to other wikis
**'''Done. To some extend.'''

Content aspects
*Personally, I believe practitioners would be very interested in this topic, as human behaviour plays a big role in the complexity of projects.
*I would reconsider the summary. Maybe introduce the context in which mindfulness is used in project management, the “big picture”
**'''Summary changed after article was finished.'''
*I like that your list of references includes relevant books and articles. Don’t forget the Annotated bibliography for each source
**'''Noted.'''
*Maybe you’d like to consider a section called “Limitations” as well.
**'''Agreed. This came in the section i hadn't written for the peer review.'''
*Generally, the article seems to have a logical flow. Of course, it is not finished yet…

'''Username: s143352 Reviewer 1'''

Your article bears the mark of an independent choice of topic you really care about, making it a liberating energetic read.

Formal aspects:
#The article is written in a competent and accurate manner and the reader is accurately guided through the different sections.
#No gramma faults or spelling.
#The references used throughout the text are from reliable sources (respected universities).
#The figures clarify the content easily, and are reasonably interesting.
#Figures and pictures are missing references.
#There is no link to another APPPM wiki article, but perhaps this is a product of the unique topic?

Content aspects:
#Very interesting reading. I really like the atypical topic.
#Super input with questions. It holds the reader's attention and prompts the reader/project manager to self-reflection.
#One proposal could be to bullet point intuitive vs. rational thinking in project management. Our society primarily honors the rational thinkers, but what about the uncertainty aspects in projects? Could the intuitive thinkers have an advantage there? Albert Einstein put it this way, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
#Another proposal could be to link the article to more practical every day project manager tasks, such as establishing project teams, group dynamics etc.

------

Talk:Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T19:24:15Z

MistaJacob:

Anna: In regards to the choice of topic, I feel like this article does not really fit any of the two types of articles that we want to see for this course. An idea could maybe be to focus on a specific tool that could help a manager to be a "mindful manager" in order to narrow the scope of your article down.

----

'''LasseHoier87 reviewer 3'''

The article is not finished as stated in the section ”To the reviewer”. I have therefore not reviewed the part where the author is writing ideas to the rest of the article. I will comment on what is available at the time of the review.

(Wiki article Peer Review template is used. To see question see "Wiki Article Peer Review and Peer Evaluation")

Formal aspects:

*It follows the "method" structure in a good and clear way
*Free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation error. Maybe change “We” to more formal style
**'''I'm using we, not as in me and someone else, but as in humans in general which makes it a bit more formal. On the other hand, in the bottom half of the article I am talking directly to the reader by writing "you", which is definitly not the formal way to write an article. That being said, I argue for my choice works here. Lets see if the professors agree.'''
*Written in a fine engaging style, short sentences also leading nicely to the next point.
*I think the figures is ok, but maybe the figure with a lot of text is not suitable (you have a tendency to skip it) Maybe some bullet points with a very short description would be better?!
*The figures are understandable, but I think “figure 1” should be enlarged.
*The choice of figures is fine, but the label is missing. Use [[file….|none|thumb|caption]] or similar to get label on the figure
*The tables and figures is referred to in the text and works fine.
*Regarding copyright on the figures. I can not see any reference in relation to the figures.
*I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine. There are some small things, as mentioned earlier, the placement of the figures, layout of figure. But overall the formation is nicely done.

Content aspects:

*For practitioners the early version may be a bit theoretical, but if some examples of use could be made, the full understanding would be good.
*I think the article fits the purpose of this course very good. It is dealing with some key issues in term of system engineering and the behavior behind the development towards high complexity in society.
*The article is relating to the project management category. But could be used in other aspects also. The article is categorized well within the content categories.
*It is hard to evaluate the length of the article at this point, but looking at the “thoughts” of the author – I doubt it will too short.
*The logical flow through the article is fine. It seems like there will be a red thread through the rest of the article as well.
*The starting summary of the article should describe the content in a more detailed way.
*The sources and reference material is illustrated fine in the end of the article, but should of course be completed with “full name of author, title, year etc.”
*The sources and reference material is fine and is mostly relying books, standards and journals. Fine
*There are no link to other Wiki APPPM articles, but one link to oxford dictionaries, which is of doubtful relevance.
*Difference between own opinion and statements from literature is hard to say at this point. The article is mostly describing the basic ideas of mindfulness and cognitive biases.
*There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism.

----

'''Username: s146898 Reviewer #2'''

Hey :) I really like the topic of your article and I believe it’s an interesting perspective to look at the psychology behind project management. However, I am not entirely sure whether this is a method. The article is not finished and therefore, the feedback will apply mostly to the finished text. However, I did skim through your notes and they seem to be leading in a good direction and it seems the article will be coherent, once it’s finished.

Formal aspects
*I would say that this article fits into the Explaining or Illustrating a Method type. However, it does not follow the structure suggested for this type of article. Consider clearly describing which is the big picture, what mindfulness means for project management and then go into detail about how it applies. Think about what are its limitations and maybe what are the pros and cons for using it.
*As far as grammar is concerned, the vocabulary and language are quite neat. However, there are many times in which “are” is used instead of “is” and vice-versa. e.g. “The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the larger reasons for this change.” “Engineering systems is per definition socio-technical systems”
*I like the use of figures and the fact that they are mentioned in the text. However, Figure 1 is very small and not easily readable.
*You could consider linking the article to other wikis

Content aspects
*Personally, I believe practitioners would be very interested in this topic, as human behaviour plays a big role in the complexity of projects.
*I would reconsider the summary. Maybe introduce the context in which mindfulness is used in project management, the “big picture”
*I like that your list of references includes relevant books and articles. Don’t forget the Annotated bibliography for each source
*Maybe you’d like to consider a section called “Limitations” as well.
*Generally, the article seems to have a logical flow. Of course, it is not finished yet…

'''Username: s143352 Reviewer 1'''

Your article bears the mark of an independent choice of topic you really care about, making it a liberating energetic read.

Formal aspects:
#The article is written in a competent and accurate manner and the reader is accurately guided through the different sections.
#No gramma faults or spelling.
#The references used throughout the text are from reliable sources (respected universities).
#The figures clarify the content easily, and are reasonably interesting.
#Figures and pictures are missing references.
#There is no link to another APPPM wiki article, but perhaps this is a product of the unique topic?

Content aspects:
#Very interesting reading. I really like the atypical topic.
#Super input with questions. It holds the reader's attention and prompts the reader/project manager to self-reflection.
#One proposal could be to bullet point intuitive vs. rational thinking in project management. Our society primarily honors the rational thinkers, but what about the uncertainty aspects in projects? Could the intuitive thinkers have an advantage there? Albert Einstein put it this way, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
#Another proposal could be to link the article to more practical every day project manager tasks, such as establishing project teams, group dynamics etc.

------

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T19:13:43Z

MistaJacob: /* Complexity */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour is one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.

=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|400px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.

=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem, and try to solve it.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.

=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T19:08:16Z

MistaJacob: /* Engineering systems */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|400px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.

=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem, and try to solve it.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.

=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T19:07:44Z

MistaJacob: /* Engineering systems */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|350px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.

=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem, and try to solve it.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.

=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

List of Common Cognitive Biases and Other Workings of the Mind

2015-09-28T18:49:59Z

MistaJacob:

The aim of this article is to describes some of the more important workings of the mind, as well as to go through some of the most common and powerful cognitive biases. The hope is that familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, might prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact in situations where the stakes are high.

An introduction to the basic workings of the mind can be found through this [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Mindfulness_and_Cognitive_Biases_in_Project_Management#The_Two_Ways_of_Thinking link]. The term “System 1” used below, will also be explained there.
=Priming Effects=
When talking about priming effects, associative thinking is key for understanding it. If we start with an idea (something in your memory), say: an apple; System 1 automatically invokes other ideas that you associate with it, e.g.: green, fruit, healthy, etc. These ideas in turn activates other ideas, like a cascade of domino bricks. This all happens at once, and furthermore, only a few of the activated ideas will register in consciousness, which means that most these ideas are silent, hidden from our conscious selves.<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref> Said in another way, one initial idea can prime other ideas and so on, and often without us being conscious aware that it had happened. This is e.g. how the advertising business can guide our subconscious thoughts by priming the right ideas in our mind.
EAT. Try to finish the word: SO_P. Experiments show that most people answer ''soup''. On the other hand, when primed with ''wash'', most people answered ''soap''. This is what is meant by priming effects; and they can be a dangerous manipulator of our subconscious, and strongly influence how we make decisions.
=Exaggerated Emotional Coherence (The Halo Effect)=
The halo effect is the tendency to like (or dislike) everything about a person, object or situation, including things that is not yet observed. It is one of the ways System 1 generates a more coherent and simple model of the world than it really is.<ref name="k" />

If you bought an Audi because you like the design and how it makes you feel when you drive it; you would probably also favour the company Audi compared to other car companies; even though you knew nothing about how they do their business. If asked to describe the CEO of Audi, you would quite possibly use positive adjectives, like smart, intelligent, and hardworking; even though you did not know the first thing about the CEO. This is the halo effect in play.

Another outcome is that it increases the weight of first impressions, sometimes to the point that subsequent information is mostly wasted.<ref name="k" /> A short example of this is Solomon Asch’s classic of psychology, that presented a description of two individuals.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 82)</ref> What do you think of Alan and Ben?

::: Alan: intelligent - industrious - impulsive - critical - stubborn - envious
::: Ben: envious - stubborn - critical - impulsive - industrious - intelligent

If you are like most people, you favoured Alan. Again, this is the halo effect in play.
=What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI)=
In short, WYSIATI is a rule where the mind focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence. It is a rule for describing how System 1 is jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited evidence.<ref name="k" /> In his book, The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb introduced the notion of a “narrative fallacy” to describe how flawed stories of the past, shapes our understanding of the present, and the expectations of the future.<ref name="k" /> At work here, is inevitably how System 1 continuously tries to make sense of the world, even though it only has limited amount of evidence. It creates the most coherent story it can with the available information; and if the story is good, we believe it. The paradox here, is that it is easier to construct a “good” coherent story with fewer pieces of information. ''Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 201)</ref> That being said; most of the time, the coherent story System 1 creates is close enough to reality to justify reasonable action. However, WYSIATI is the basis for explaining a long list of biases of judgement, including: “overconfidence effect”, “framing effect”, as well as the above described “halo effect”.<ref name="k" />

=To Be Written=
*Overconfidence Effect
*Framing Effect
*Confirmation Bias
*Outcome Bias
*Answering an Easier Question

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T18:36:25Z

MistaJacob: /* The Two Ways of Thinking */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem, and try to solve it.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.

=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T18:33:30Z

MistaJacob: /* Further Readings */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: overconfidence effect, framing effect, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T18:31:56Z

MistaJacob:

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: Overconfidence effect, framing effects, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>
=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T18:31:14Z

MistaJacob:

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> is adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems: artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In themselves, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of: roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness is defined as the complex systems level. Continuing further; the once isolated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that humans and technology cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as in Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you, “the reader”, will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />

Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects, and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitations:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value.

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court where two teams were passing the ball to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient. It minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the ''colour'' of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the colour of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?

Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and are therefore also more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that are the origin of many cognitive biases; as well as going through the most common and powerful of these biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.).
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect].
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI).
**Which explains, among many others: Overconfidence effect, framing effects, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias.
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias.
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question.
**System 1 substitutes a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without you (System 2) realizing that the difficult question has not been answered.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>
=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T17:10:36Z

MistaJacob:

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity.<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref> Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in Oehmen et al.,<ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref> which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.,<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref> are adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems; artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In itself, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of; roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness are defined as the complex system level. Continuing further; the once separated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that technology and humans cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''.<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref> Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as:<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref> The quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition:<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref> ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref> The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in the description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking.<ref name="k" />
Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking,<ref name="k" /> which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects and avoid losses.<ref name="k" /> This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort,<ref name="k" /> which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitation:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.<ref name="k" /> It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all.<ref name="k" /> This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla''.<ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref> In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court, where two teams were passing the balls to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another.<ref name="k" /> This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically, and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref> Most of the time, this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour,<ref name="k" /> which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient; it minimizes effort, and optimizes performance.<ref name="k" /> In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the colour of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the coulor of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict.<ref name="k" /> This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are actually equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked.<ref name="k" /> Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?
Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and therefore also being more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1.<ref name="k" /> This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that is the basis of many cognitive biases, as well as going through the most common and powerful biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.)
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects]
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect]
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI)
**Which explains, among many others: Overconfidence effect, framing effects, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question
**Substituting a difficult question with an easier one, and answer that instead. Often without realizing that the difficult question has not been answered<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>
=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.
=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T16:53:25Z

MistaJacob:

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref>. Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in <ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref>, which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref>, are adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems; artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In itself, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of; roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness are defined as the complex system level. Continuing further; the once separated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that technology and humans cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref>. Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref>: The quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref>: ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref>. The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in their description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking<ref name="k" />.
Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking<ref name="k" />, which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects and avoid losses<ref name="k" />. This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort<ref name="k" />, which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitation:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps<ref name="k" />. It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all<ref name="k" />. This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla'' <ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref>. In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court, where two teams were passing the balls to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another<ref name="k" />. This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically, and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref>. Most of the time, this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour<ref name="k" />, which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient; it minimizes effort, and optimizes performance<ref name="k" />. In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the colour of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the coulor of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict<ref name="k" />. This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are actually equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked<ref name="k" />. Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?
Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test<ref name="k" />. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and therefore also being more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1<ref name="k" />. This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that is the basis of many cognitive biases, as well as going through the most common and powerful biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.)
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Priming_Effects Priming effects]
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#Exaggerated_Emotional_Coherence_.28The_Halo_Effect.29 The halo effect]
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind#What_You_See_Is_All_There_Is_.28WYSIATI.29 What You See Is All There Is] (WYSIATI)
**Which explains, among many others: Overconfidence effect, framing effects, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome bias
**When a decision is judged by its outcome, and not whether the decision process was sound.
*Confirmation bias
**Our mind is biased to confirm a hypothesis, where good scientific work tries to prove it wrong.
*Answering an easier question
**Substituting a difficult question with an easier one, and answer that instead. Often without realizing that the difficult question has not been answered<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>
=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, the five principles of mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are tools that can help you make the right choices. In respect to the latter, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.
=Annotated Bibliography=
<references/>

List of Common Cognitive Biases and Other Workings of the Mind

2015-09-28T16:49:43Z

MistaJacob:

The aim of this article is to describes some of the more important workings of the mind, as well as to go through some of the most common and powerful cognitive biases. The hope is that by familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, might prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact in situations where the stakes are high.

An introduction to the basic workings of the mind can be found through this [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Mindfulness_and_Cognitive_Biases_in_Project_Management#The_Two_Ways_of_Thinking link]. The term “System 1” used below, will also be explained there.
=Priming Effects=
When talking about priming effects, associative thinking is key for understanding it. If we start with an idea (something in your memory), say: an apple, System 1 automatically invokes other ideas that you associate with it, e.g.: green, fruit, healthy, etc. These ideas in turn activates other ideas, like a cascade of domino bricks. This all happens at once, and furthermore, only a few of the activated ideas will register in consciousness, which means that most these ideas are silent, hidden from our conscious selves.<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref> Said in another way, one initial idea can prime other ideas and so on, and often without us being conscious aware that it had happened. This is e.g. how the advertising business can guide our subconscious thoughts by priming the right ideas in our mind.
EAT. Try to finish the word: SO_P. Experiments show that most people answer ''soup''. On the other hand, when primed with ''wash'', most people answered ''soap''. This is what is meant by priming effects; and they can be a dangerous manipulator of our subconscious, and strongly influence how we make decisions.
=Exaggerated Emotional Coherence (The Halo Effect)=
The halo effect is the tendency to like (or dislike) everything about a person, object or situation, including things that is not yet observed. It is one of the ways System 1 generates a more coherent and simple model of the world than it really is.<ref name="k" />

If you bought an Audi because you like the design and how it makes you feel when you drive it; you would probably also favour the company Audi, compared to other car companies; even though you knew nothing about how they do their business. If asked to describe the CEO of Audi, you would quite possibly use positive adjectives, like smart, intelligent, and hardworking; even though you did not know the first thing about the CEO. This is the halo effect in play.

Another outcome is that it increases the weight of first impressions, sometimes to the point that subsequent information is mostly wasted.<ref name="k" /> A short example of this is Solomon Asch’s classic of psychology, that presented a description of two persons.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 82)</ref> What do you think of Alan and Ben?

::: Alan: intelligent - industrious - impulsive - critical - stubborn - envious
::: Ben: envious - stubborn - critical - impulsive - industrious - intelligent

If you are like most people, you favoured Alan. Again, this is the halo effect in play.
=What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI)=
In short, WYSIATI is a rule where the mind focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence. It is a rule for describing how System 1 is jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited evidence.<ref name="k" /> In his book, The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb introduced the notion of a “narrative fallacy” to describe how flawed stories of the past, shapes our understanding of the present, and the expectations of the future.<ref name="k" /> At work here, is inevitably how System 1 continuously tries to make sense of the world, even though it only has limited amount of evidence. It creates the most coherent story it can with the available information; and if it is a good story, we believe it. The paradox here, is that it is easier to construct a “good” coherent story with fewer pieces of information. ''Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 201)</ref> That being said; most of the time, the coherent story System 1 creates is close enough to reality justify reasonable action. However, WYSIATI is the basis for explaining a long list of biases of judgement, including: “overconfidence effect”, “framing effect”, as well as the above described “halo effect”.<ref name="k" />

=To Be Written=
*Overconfidence Effect
*Framing Effect
*Confirmation Bias
*Outcome Bias
*Answering an Easier Question

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-28T16:45:57Z

MistaJacob: /* Further Readings */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref>. Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in <ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref>, which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref>, are adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems; artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In itself, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of; roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness are defined as the complex system level. Continuing further; the once separated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that technology and humans cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref>. Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref>: The quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref>: ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref>. The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in their description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking<ref name="k" />.
Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking<ref name="k" />, which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects and avoid losses<ref name="k" />. This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort<ref name="k" />, which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitation:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps<ref name="k" />. It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all<ref name="k" />. This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla'' <ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref>. In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court, where two teams were passing the balls to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another<ref name="k" />. This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically, and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref>. Most of the time, this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour<ref name="k" />, which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient; it minimizes effort, and optimizes performance<ref name="k" />. In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the colour of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the coulor of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict<ref name="k" />. This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are actually equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked<ref name="k" />. Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?
Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.

=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test<ref name="k" />. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and therefore also being more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1<ref name="k" />. This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that is the basis of many cognitive biases, as well as going through the most common and powerful biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory (related to priming effects, the mental shotgun, etc.)
*[http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/List_of_Common_Cognitive_Biases_and_Other_Workings_of_the_Mind Priming effects]
*The halo effect (link)

=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

List of Common Cognitive Biases and Other Workings of the Mind

2015-09-28T16:42:42Z

MistaJacob:

The aim of this article is to describes some of the more important workings of the mind, as well as to go through some of the most common and powerful cognitive biases. The hope is that by familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, might prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact in situations where the stakes are high.

An introduction to the basic workings of the mind can be found through this [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Mindfulness_and_Cognitive_Biases_in_Project_Management#The_Two_Ways_of_Thinking link]. The term “System 1” used below, will also be explained there.
=Priming Effects=
When talking about priming effects, associative thinking is key for understanding it. If we start with an idea (something in your memory), say: an apple, System 1 automatically invokes other ideas that you associate with it, e.g.: green, fruit, healthy, etc. These ideas in turn activates other ideas, like a cascade of domino bricks. This all happens at once, and furthermore, only a few of the activated ideas will register in consciousness, which means that most these ideas are silent, hidden from our conscious selves.<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref> Said in another way, one initial idea can prime other ideas and so on, and often without us being conscious aware that it had happened. This is e.g. how the advertising business can guide our subconscious thoughts by priming the right ideas in our mind.
EAT. Try to finish the word: SO_P. Experiments show that most people answer ''soup''. On the other hand, when primed with ''wash'', most people answered ''soap''. This is what is meant by priming effects; and they can be a dangerous manipulator of our subconscious, and strongly influence how we make decisions.
=Exaggerated Emotional Coherence (The Halo Effect)=
The halo effect is the tendency to like (or dislike) everything about a person, object or situation, including things that is not yet observed. It is one of the ways System 1 generates a more coherent and simple model of the world than it really is.<ref name="k" />

If you bought an Audi because you like the design and how it makes you feel when you drive it; you would probably also favour the company Audi, compared to other car companies; even though you knew nothing about how they do their business. If asked to describe the CEO of Audi, you would quite possibly use positive adjectives, like smart, intelligent, and hardworking; even though you did not know the first thing about the CEO. This is the halo effect in play.

Another outcome is that it increases the weight of first impressions, sometimes to the point that subsequent information is mostly wasted.<ref name="k" /> A short example of this is Solomon Asch’s classic of psychology, that presented a description of two persons.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 82)</ref> What do you think of Alan and Ben?

::: Alan: intelligent - industrious - impulsive - critical - stubborn - envious
::: Ben: envious - stubborn - critical - impulsive - industrious - intelligent

If you are like most people, you favoured Alan. Again, this is the halo effect in play.
=What you see is all there is (WYSIATI)=
In short, WYSIATI is a rule where the mind focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence. It is a rule for describing how System 1 is jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited evidence.<ref name="k" /> In his book, The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb introduced the notion of a “narrative fallacy” to describe how flawed stories of the past, shapes our understanding of the present, and the expectations of the future.<ref name="k" /> At work here, is inevitably how System 1 continuously tries to make sense of the world, even though it only has limited amount of evidence. It creates the most coherent story it can with the available information; and if it is a good story, we believe it. The paradox here, is that it is easier to construct a “good” coherent story with fewer pieces of information. ''Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 201)</ref> That being said; most of the time, the coherent story System 1 creates is close enough to reality justify reasonable action. However, “what you see is all there is” is the basis for explaining a long list of biases of judgement, including: “overconfidence effect”, “framing effect”, as well as the above described “halo effect”.<ref name="k" />

=To Be Written=
*Overconfidence Effect
*Framing Effect
*Confirmation Bias
*Outcome Bias
*Answering an Easier Question

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

List of Common Cognitive Biases and Other Workings of the Mind

2015-09-28T16:38:18Z

MistaJacob:

The aim of this article is to describes some of the more important workings of the mind, as well as to go through some of the most common and powerful cognitive biases. The hope is that by familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, might prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact in situations where the stakes are high.

An introduction to the basic workings of the mind can be found through this [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Mindfulness_and_Cognitive_Biases_in_Project_Management#The_Two_Ways_of_Thinking link]. The terms “System 1” used below, will also be explained there.
=Priming Effects=
When talking about priming effects, associative thinking is key for understanding it. If we start with an idea (something in your memory), say: an apple, System 1 automatically invokes other ideas that you associate with it, e.g.: green, fruit, healthy, etc. These ideas in turn activates other ideas, like a cascade of domino bricks. This all happens at once, and furthermore, only a few of the activated ideas will register in consciousness, which means that most these ideas are silent, hidden from our conscious selves.<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref> Said in another way, one initial idea can prime other ideas and so on, and often without us being conscious aware that it had happened. This is e.g. how the advertising business can guide our subconscious thoughts by priming the right ideas in our mind.
EAT. Try to finish the word: SO_P. Experiments show that most people answer ''soup''. On the other hand, when primed with ''wash'', most people answered ''soap''. This is what is meant by priming effects; and they can be a dangerous manipulator of our subconscious, and strongly influence how we make decisions.
=Exaggerated Emotional Coherence (The Halo Effect)=
The halo effect is the tendency to like (or dislike) everything about a person, object or situation, including things that is not yet observed. It is one of the ways System 1 generates a more coherent and simple model of the world than it really is.<ref name="k" />

If you bought an Audi because you like the design and how it makes you feel when you drive it; you would probably also favour the company Audi, compared to other car companies; even though you knew nothing about how they do their business. If asked to describe the CEO of Audi, you would quite possibly use positive adjectives, like smart, intelligent, and hardworking; even though you did not know the first thing about the CEO. This is the halo effect in play.

Another outcome is that it increases the weight of first impressions, sometimes to the point that subsequent information is mostly wasted.<ref name="k" /> A short example of this is Solomon Asch’s classic of psychology, that presented a description of two persons.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 82)</ref> What do you think of Alan and Ben?

::::: Alan: intelligent - industrious - impulsive - critical - stubborn - envious
::::: Ben: envious - stubborn - critical - impulsive - industrious - intelligent

If you are like most people, you favoured Alan. Again, this is the halo effect in play.
=What you see is all there is (WYSIATI)=
In short, WYSIATI is a rule where the mind focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence. It is a rule for describing how System 1 is jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited evidence.<ref name="k" /> In his book, The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb introduced the notion of a “narrative fallacy” to describe how flawed stories of the past, shapes our understanding of the present, and the expectations of the future.<ref name="k" /> At work here, is inevitably how System 1 continuously tries to make sense of the world, even though it only has limited amount of evidence. It creates the most coherent story it can with the available information; and if it is a good story, we believe it. The paradox here, is that it is easier to construct a “good” coherent story with fewer pieces of information. ''Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 201)</ref> That being said; most of the time, the coherent story System 1 creates is close enough to reality justify reasonable action. However, “what you see is all there is” is the basis for explaining a long list of biases of judgement, including: “overconfidence effect”, “framing effect”, as well as the above described “halo effect”.<ref name="k" />

=To Be Written=
*Overconfidence Effect
*Framing Effect
*Confirmation Bias
*Outcome Bias
*Answering an Easier Question

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

List of Common Cognitive Biases and Other Workings of the Mind

2015-09-28T16:29:21Z

MistaJacob: Created page with "The aim of this article is to describes some of the more important workings of the mind, as well as to go through some of the most common and powerful cognitive biases. The ho..."

The aim of this article is to describes some of the more important workings of the mind, as well as to go through some of the most common and powerful cognitive biases. The hope is that by familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, might prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact in situations where the stakes are high.

An introduction to the basic workings of the mind can be found through this [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Mindfulness_and_Cognitive_Biases_in_Project_Management#The_Two_Ways_of_Thinking link]. The terms “System 1” used below, will also be explained there.
=Priming Effects=
When talking about priming effects, associative thinking is key for understanding it. If we start with an idea (something in your memory), say: an apple, System 1 automatically invokes other ideas that you associate with it, e.g.: green, fruit, healthy, etc. These ideas in turn activates other ideas, like a cascade of domino bricks. This all happens at once, and furthermore, only a few of the activated ideas will register in consciousness, which means that most these ideas are silent, hidden from our conscious selves.<ref name=”k”>Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref> Said in another way, one initial idea can prime other ideas and so on, and often without us being conscious aware that it had happened. This is e.g. how the advertising business can guide our subconscious thoughts by priming the right ideas in our mind.
EAT. Try to finish the word: SO_P. Experiments show that most people answer ''soup''. On the other hand, when primed with ''wash'', most people answered ''soap''. This is what is meant by priming effects; and they can be a dangerous manipulator of our subconscious, and strongly influence how we make decisions.
=Exaggerated Emotional Coherence (The Halo Effect)=
The halo effect is the tendency to like (or dislike) everything about a person, object or situation, including things that is not yet observed. It is one of the ways System 1 generates a more coherent and simple model of the world than it really is.<ref name=”k” />

If you bought an Audi because you like the design and how it makes you feel when you drive it; you would probably also favour the company Audi, compared to other car companies; even though you knew nothing about how they do their business. If asked to describe the CEO of Audi, you would quite possibly use positive adjectives, like smart, intelligent, and hardworking; even though you did not know the first thing about the CEO. This is the halo effect in play.

Another outcome is that it increases the weight of first impressions, sometimes to the point that subsequent information is mostly wasted.<ref name=”k” /> A short example of this is Solomon Asch’s classic of psychology, that presented a description of two persons.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 82)</ref> What do you think of Alan and Ben?

::::: Alan: intelligent - industrious - impulsive - critical - stubborn - envious
::::: Ben: envious - stubborn - critical - impulsive - industrious - intelligent

If you are like most people, you favoured Alan. Again, this is the halo effect in play.
=What you see is all there is (WYSIATI)=
In short, WYSIATI is a rule where the mind focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence. It is a rule for describing how System 1 is jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited evidence.<ref name=”k” /> In his book, The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb introduced the notion of a “narrative fallacy” to describe how flawed stories of the past, shapes our understanding of the present, and the expectations of the future.<ref name=”k” /> At work here, is inevitably how System 1 continuously tries to make sense of the world, even though it only has limited amount of evidence. It creates the most coherent story it can with the available information; and if it is a good story, we believe it. The paradox here, is that it is easier to construct a “good” coherent story with fewer pieces of information. ''Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance''.<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 201)</ref> That being said; most of the time, the coherent story System 1 creates is close enough to reality justify reasonable action. However, “what you see is all there is” is the basis for explaining a long list of biases of judgement, including: “overconfidence effect”, “framing effect”, as well as the above described “halo effect”.<ref name=”k” />

=Overconfidence Effect=
To be written (TBW)

=Framing Effect=
TBW

=Confirmation Bias=
TBW

=Outcome Bias=
TBW

=Answering an Easier Question=
TBW

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T21:07:00Z

MistaJacob: /* Conflict and Illusions */

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref>. Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in <ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref>, which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref>, are adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems; artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In itself, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of; roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness are defined as the complex system level. Continuing further; the once separated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that technology and humans cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref>. Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref>: The quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref>: ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref>. The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in their description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking<ref name="k" />.
Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking<ref name="k" />, which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects and avoid losses<ref name="k" />. This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort<ref name="k" />, which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitation:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps<ref name="k" />. It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all<ref name="k" />. This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla'' <ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref>. In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court, where two teams were passing the balls to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another<ref name="k" />. This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically, and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref>. Most of the time, this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour<ref name="k" />, which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient; it minimizes effort, and optimizes performance<ref name="k" />. In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the colour of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the coulor of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict<ref name="k" />. This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are actually equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100)</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked<ref name="k" />. Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?
Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.

=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test<ref name="k" />. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and therefore also being more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1<ref name="k" />. This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that is the basis of many cognitive biases, as well as going through the most common and powerful biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory
*Priming effects (link)
*The halo effect (link)
*What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI) (link)
**Which explains, among many others: Overconfidence effect, framing effects, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome and hindsight bias
*Substituting a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without realizing that the difficult question has not been answered<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>
=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T21:03:22Z

MistaJacob:

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref>. Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in <ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref>, which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref>, are adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems; artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In itself, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of; roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness are defined as the complex system level. Continuing further; the once separated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that technology and humans cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref>. Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref>: The quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref>: ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref>. The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in their description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking<ref name="k" />.
Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking<ref name="k" />, which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects and avoid losses<ref name="k" />. This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort<ref name="k" />, which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitation:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps<ref name="k" />. It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all<ref name="k" />. This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla'' <ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref>. In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court, where two teams were passing the balls to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another<ref name="k" />. This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically, and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref>. Most of the time, this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour<ref name="k" />, which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient; it minimizes effort, and optimizes performance<ref name="k" />. In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the colour of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the coulor of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict<ref name="k" />. This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are actually equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked<ref name="k" />. Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?
Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test<ref name="k" />. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and therefore also being more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1<ref name="k" />. This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that is the basis of many cognitive biases, as well as going through the most common and powerful biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory
*Priming effects (link)
*The halo effect (link)
*What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI) (link)
**Which explains, among many others: Overconfidence effect, framing effects, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome and hindsight bias
*Substituting a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without realizing that the difficult question has not been answered<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>
=Conclusion=
As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and increases the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T20:53:19Z

MistaJacob:

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref>. Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in <ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref>, which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref>, are adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems; artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In itself, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of; roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness are defined as the complex system level. Continuing further; the once separated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that technology and humans cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref>. Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref>: The quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref>: ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref>. The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in their description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking<ref name="k" />.
Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking<ref name="k" />, which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects and avoid losses<ref name="k" />. This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort<ref name="k" />, which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations:'''<ref name="k" />

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitation:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps<ref name="k" />. It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2:'''<ref name="k" />

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all<ref name="k" />. This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla'' <ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref>. In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court, where two teams were passing the balls to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another<ref name="k" />. This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically, and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref>. Most of the time, this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour<ref name="k" />, which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient; it minimizes effort, and optimizes performance<ref name="k" />. In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the colour of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the coulor of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict<ref name="k" />. This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, have a look at Figure 4.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are actually equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.

A similar illusion is present at Figure 5, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as the ones shown above are not the only way to get tricked. Illusions of thought - cognitive illusions - also exists, where the emphasis here is your thoughts and feelings getting tricked<ref name="k" />. Knowing that these illusions exist, what can we do to overcome them?
Since System 1 cannot be turned off, errors of intuitive thought are difficult to prevent. Firstly, because System 2 may not be aware of the error happening. Secondly, if it did, it would require System 2 to step in an overrule System 1, which requires effort and attention that may not be available in our limited budget. Constantly monitoring and evaluating every suggestion from System 1 would be an impractical and straining way to live, due to the slow and inefficient workings of System 2. As Kahneman<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 28)</ref> puts it: ''the best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high''. In other words; familiarize yourself with the most common and powerful cognitive biases, so you have a chance of preventing their effect when the stakes are high; e.g. when a project manager continuously is facing high-risk decisions in a complex dynamic project.
=The Cognitive Reflection Test=
One thing is to train/”program” System 2 to become aware of, and react when cues of cognitive biases are present. Another is to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others. To investigate this, Shane Frederick constructed the cognitive reflection test<ref name="k" />. This test consists of three questions that all have intuitive answers that are both compelling and wrong. It starts with “the bat and ball”-problem, and is the test you took above. Frederick’s found that people that scores low in this test, or tests with a similar type of questions, are more prone to trust the first idea that comes to mind. Put in another way, the supervisory function of System 2 is weak or lazy in these people; meaning that they are unwilling to invest the effort needed to validate their intuition; and therefore also being more susceptible to blindly follow other suggestions from System 1<ref name="k" />. This “weak supervisory function of System 2” is also known as “lazy thinking”. Following quote sums up the essential:

''System 1 is impulsive and intuitive; System 2 is capable of reasoning, and it is cautious, but at least for some people it is also lazy. We recognize related differences among individuals: some people are more like their System 2; others are closer to their System 1. This simple test has emerged as one of the better predictors of lazy thinking.''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 48).</ref>

So to figure out whether you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; compare your test results with the correct answers below, and ask yourself this: are you more like your System 1 or your System 2?

The correct answers are: 5 cents, 5 minutes, and 47 days.
=Further Readings=
Continuing the description of some of the more important workings of the mind, that is the basis of many cognitive biases, as well as going through the most common and powerful biases, would be a natural next step. This is however outside the scope of this article.

Among those important workings and biases, the author recommends you to seek information about the following:

*Associative memory
*Priming effects (link)
*The halo effect (link)
*What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI) (link)
**Which explains, among many others: Overconfidence effect, framing effects, jumping to conclusions, etc.
*Outcome and hindsight bias
*Substituting a difficult question with an easier one, and answers that instead. Often without realizing that the difficult question has not been answered<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 97-99)</ref>

As described in the beginning, our society is governed by engineering systems where humans and technology are inherently intertwined. This raises the complexity and the number of high-risk decisions people have to make in many different professions, where project management is only one of them. If you find yourself in a position where you regularly have to make these kind of decisions, familiarizing yourself with how your mind can trick you, is the only way to prevent cognitive biases from having a negative impact. Daniel Kahneman’s book: ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' will do that for you.

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T20:35:17Z

MistaJacob:

This article will address how knowledge about, mindfulness, the workings of the mind, and the related cognitive biases that follows; can be used as tools to better deal with high-risk decisions in an inherently dynamic and complex world.

The focus will be in the area of “project, program, and portfolio management”, that for the ease of reading, only will be denoted as “project management” in the remainder of the article.

Before introducing the concepts of mindfulness and cognitive biases, a short introduction to complexity and the thinking behind “engineering systems” is necessary, as to explain their relevance and usefulness.
=Complexity=
Even among scientists, there is no unique definition of Complexity<ref>Johnson, N. F. (2007). ''Two's company, three is complexity: A simple guide to the science of all sciences'', ch. 1, London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd. - '''Annotation:''' Chapter 1 explains how complexity can be understood, and goes through some of its key components. Here, only the beginning of the chapter was used to explain that no absolute definition of complexity exists.</ref>. Instead, real-world systems of what scientist believe to be complex, have been used to define complexity in a variety of different ways, according to the respective scientific fields. Here, a system-oriented perspective on complexity is adopted in accordance to the definition in <ref>Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., Geraldi, J., (2015). ''Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes, and Portfolios: An Engineering Systems Perspective''. PMI, White Paper. - '''Annotation:''' A review of the contemporary movements within the area of project, program, and portfolio management. Its definition of complexity, the section about mindfulness, and its mention of cognitive biases, was an essential first step in the shaping of the content of this article.</ref>, which list the properties of complexity to be:

*Containing multiple parts;
*Possessing a number of connections between the parts;
*Exhibiting dynamic interactions between the parts; and,
*The behaviour produced as a result of those interactions cannot be explained as the simple sum of the parts (emergent behaviour)

In other words, a system contains a number of parts that can be connected in different ways. The parts can vary in type as well as the connections between them can. The number and types of parts and the number and types of the connections between them, determines the complexity of the system. Furthermore, incorporating a dynamic understanding of systems, both the parts and their connections changes over time. The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the more significant reasons for this change. We do not always behave rationally and predictably, as will be further examined below, which increases the complexity of every system where humans are involved.
=Engineering systems=
[[File:Threelevels2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|'''Figure 1:''' The three levels of systems - artefact, complex, and engineering. ''Source:'' <ref>(de Weck et al.,2011, p. 14)</ref>]]
The view that our modern lives are governed by engineering systems, articulated by de Weck et al.<ref>de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). ''Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world'', ch. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - '''Annotation:''' The first two chapters of the book is about how the human inventions begin to be connected, create networks and infrastructure, along with some of the complications on the way. It defines how we went from simple inventions, through complex systems, to engineering systems where everything is interconnected. This view was adopted here as a help to explain why the complexity of the world only is on the rise, and that new tools are required to deal with it.</ref>, are adopted to explain why the complexity of the world only goes one way, upwards. In short, they distinguish between three levels of systems; artifact, complex, and engineering. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the following example. At artifact level we have inventions, e.g. cars, phones, the light bulb, etc. In itself, they do not offer any real benefits to our lives. To utilize their potential, and to exploit their respective benefits, the right infrastructure has to be present. Continuing the above example, the needed infrastructure consists of; roads, public switched telephone network (PSTN), and the electrical power grid. This level of interconnectedness are defined as the complex system level. Continuing further; the once separated transportation, communication, and energy system, is now getting increasingly interconnected. This is the engineering systems level.

One of the characteristics of our modern society and the engineering systems governing it, is that technology and humans cannot any longer be separated. Engineering systems are per definition socio-technical systems, which as described in the section above, only adds to the complexity. ''Without the right tools to analyse and understand them, complex systems become complicated: They confuse us, and we cannot control what happens or understand why''<ref>(Oehmen et al., 2015, p. 5)</ref>. Mindfulness and knowledge about cognitive biases are some of those tools that can be adopted to project management to help decomplicate the complexity.
=Mindfulness=
Mindfulness is defined as<ref>Definition of Mindfulness in English: ''Mindfulness''. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mindfulness></ref>: The quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. Weick & Sutcliffe further elaborated the definition<ref>(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 32)</ref>: ''a rich awareness of discriminatory detail. By that we mean that when people act, they are aware of context, of ways in which details differ (in other words, they discriminate among details), and of deviations from their expectations''. Put in another way, the mindful project manager knows that simplicity is not a word suited to describe the world around us; and that even the smallest deviation from the expected can be symptoms of larger problems. To translate this mindset into a useful model, Weick & Sutcliffe<ref>Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001). ''Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity''. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Oehmen et al., 2015)</ref> developed five principles of mindfulness, that could be used to increase the reliability of organizations. In other words, to enhance both the chance that an organization can prevent possibly disastrous unexpected events, as well as making a rapid recovery if they do happen. These principles are therefore well suited to deal with the intrinsic uncertainty of human behaviour and the complexity it brings to organizations. The principles are:

*Reluctance to simplicity
*Preoccupation with failure
*Sensitivity to operations
*Commitment to resilience
*Deference to expertise (collective mindfulness)

Describing the principles further is outside the scope of this article, but additional information can be found at: [http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Organisational_resilience_with_mindfulness Organisational Resilience with Mindfulness], as well as Oehmen et al.<ref>(Oehmen et al. (2015, p. 27-28)</ref>. The latter have adapted these principles to the field of project management, and in their description of “Sensitivity to operations”, they wrote: ''Be responsive to the messy reality inside of projects. This involves, on the one hand, ... , and on the other, being mindful to the potential unexpected events that go beyond what one would usually control in the project context''. The “thing” that goes beyond what one would usually control, is in this context chosen to be our own mind. It is well known that cognitive biases exist, and that the deviousness of the mind can constitute a risk to any project. But how can we discipline our mind to think sharper and clearer? How can we make sure that our rational decisions are in fact rational? And, are some people more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others? Answering these questions will be the focus of the remainder of the article, where you will be guided through some of the workings of your mind.
=Before Reading On=
Please take a quick look at the following 3 questions, and provide an initial answer to them before reading on.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:CRT2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|''Source:'' <ref>Shane, F., Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, p. 27. American Economic Association, The Journal of Economic Perspectives</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

=The Two Ways of Thinking=
To observe your mind in automatic mode, take look at Figure 2.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Fear.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 2:''' ''Source:'' <ref>[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/7_Set_Fear/acc39d207.jpg Facial expression: fear]</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

Many things simultaneously happened here. Just as easy as you noticed that the man's hair is black on the top and grey on the sides, you knew that he was scared. What further came to mind was probably thoughts about what he is looking at. If measured, it is also likely that your heart rate increased. You did not intend to assess his mood, or identify possible reasons for why he got this frightened, it just happened to you. It was an instance of fast thinking<ref name="k">Kahneman, Daniel. ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. N.p.: Penguin, 2011. Print. - '''Annotation:''' A review of how the human mind works, with focus on the division between two ways of thinking, fast and slow. It explains the origin of many cognitive biases, and is therefore an essential piece of literature to this article.</ref>.

Now consider the following math problem.

:::::::::: 13 x 27

You recognized immediately that this is a multiplication problem. You might also have had the feeling that you would be able to solve it, if given some time. If asked whether the answer could be 57 or 3200, you would fast and intuitively know that this was not the case. On the other hand, if asked the same with 332, a fast and intuitive acceptance or rejection would probably not come to mind. To solve it, you would have to slow down your thinking, try to recall the rules of multiplication you learned in school, and apply them. Either if you solved it, or gave up (the answer is 351), this was a deliberate mental process that required effort and attention. You just experienced a prototype of slow thinking<ref name="k" />.
Psychologists have for decades been interested in the two ways of thinking, fast and slow. Keith Stanovich and Richard West defined the terms System 1 and System 2 for respectively fast and slow thinking<ref name="k" />, which will be used onwards, and described further in the sections below.
==System 1==
System 1 operates quickly and automatically, with little or no effort, and with no sense of voluntary control. We are born prepared to observe and perceive the world around us, orient attention, recognize objects and avoid losses<ref name="k" />. This is an innate skill humans share with other animals. As we observe the world around us, System 1 automatically assesses the new information according to the mental model of the world already created from previous experiences. If something differs, our mental model evolves, and is continuously updated according to the new information. Putting your hand into the flame of a candle, hurts. That information is stored, and accessed without intention and effort<ref name="k" />, which will probably result in you not doing it again. Other activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice, e.g. how to gear-shift when driving a car, or understanding nuances of social interaction.

'''Below is a list of some examples of automatic activities attributed to System 1, as well as a list of some of its limitations<ref name="k" />:'''

*Answer the question 2 + 2 = ?
*Detect that one object is more distant than another.
*Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
*Reading simple words (in a language you understand; and, if learned to read)
*Understand simple sentences.
**E.g. “Try not to think of an apple”.
*Recognize common facial expressions.
*Associate “capital of France” with “Paris” (for most people).

'''Limitation:'''

*It cannot be turned off.
*Has little understanding of logic and statistics.
*Gullible and biased to believe and confirm.
*Generates a (too) coherent model of the world.
**Focuses on existing evidence and ignores absent evidence (WYSIATI).&lowast;
**Exaggerates emotional consistency (halo effect).&lowast;
*Computes more than intended (mental shotgun).&lowast;&lowast;

&lowast;Links for additional information will be provided further down.

&lowast;&lowast;Will be explained later.
==System 2==
System 2 is the conscious, reasoning self. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities, like the multiplication problem above; makes choices; decides what to think about and what to do; along with having the ability (which System 1 does not) to construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps<ref name="k" />. It is also in charge of doubting and logical reasoning.

'''Below is a list of some of the activities attributed to System 2<ref name="k" />:'''

*Check the validity of a complex argument.
*Brace for the starter gun in a race.
*Look for a man with grey hair.
*Focus attention on the passes of the ball in a basketball game.
*Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
*Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
*Compare two cars for overall value

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one thing in common: they all require attention and effort. We all have a limited budget of attention, and if adequate attention is not given to a specific activity, you will perform less well, or simply not be able to perform the activity at all<ref name="k" />. This is why the phrase “pay attention” is apt. Said in another way, when your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else. A great demonstration of this, is ''The Invisible Gorilla'' <ref>Chabris, Christopher F., and Daniel J. Simons. ''The Invisible Gorilla': And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us''. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. - '''Annotation:''' Cited through (Kahneman, 2011)</ref>. In short, participants were shown a video of a basketball court, where two teams were passing the balls to their teammates. One team with white shirts and the other with black. Before the video started the participants were told to count the number of passes made by the white team, ignoring the black players. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit appears for 9 seconds before moving on. Of the many thousands of people that participated, only about half noticed anything unusual. This illustrates two important facts of the mind. We can be blind to the obvious, and we are blind to our blindness.

Besides the limited budget of attention, System 2 has another limitation, which is that effortful activities interfere with one another<ref name="k" />. This is the reason you should not try to calculate 13 x 27, while making a right turn in your car crossing a busy bike lane; or why you automatically stops your conversation with the passenger in the car, when a dangerous situation occurs in the traffic.

'''Below is a list of some of the limitations of System 2:'''

*Requires effort and attention to work.
*Has a limited budget of attention to allocate.
*When your budget of attention is used, you are effectively blind to anything else.
*Effortful activities interferes with each other.
*Has low efficiency (slow thinking).
*Generally lazy, following the rule of least effort.
==Interactions Between the Two Systems==
When we are awake, both systems are running simultaneously. System 1 runs automatically, and System 2 is normally running in a low-effort mode, in which only a small part of its capacity is used. As described above, System 1 is continuously using its model of the world to assess incoming information. ''It generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions''<ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 24)</ref>. Most of the time, this process runs smoothly, and System 2 believes and adopts these suggestions and acts on them, which is fine - usually.

When System 1 runs into situations where no apparent answer comes intuitively to mind, it calls to System 2 for help. This is what you experienced with 13 x 27. Other situations where the two systems works well together, are when System 1 gets surprised. When it observes something that does not fit with its model of the world, System 2 is activated to search through your memory to make sense of it. This would happen if you saw a flying car, heard a cat bark, or saw a gorilla walk across a basketball court. System 2 also continuously monitor and controls your own behaviour<ref name="k" />, which e.g. comes in handy when System 1 sends impulses to System 2, that if acted upon, would result in behaviour that is not socially acceptable; like always saying the first thing that comes to mind. In other words, System 2 has the power to overrule the freewheeling impulses, intuitions, and feelings of System 1.

This division of labour is highly efficient; it minimizes effort, and optimizes performance<ref name="k" />. In general, this constellation works well because System 1 is very good at what it does. Its model of the world is usually accurate; and its short-term predictions of the future, and the suggestions for System 2 that follows, are ordinarily appropriate. As we shall see though, System 1 has biases, and is prone to systematic errors in specific circumstances.
=Conflict and Illusions=
Figure 3 is a variant of many similar experiments that induces conflict between System 1 and System 2. Before reading on, try to say (out loud, or whispering) the colour of the words.

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Left-right-conflict.jpg|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 3:''' Conflict between System 1 and 2. ''Source:'' [http://www.kwasistudios.com/neuromarketing-for-inbound-marketers/ Say the coulor of the words]]] </li>
</ul></div>

The task itself is a conscious logical task solvable by “programming” System 2 to look for, and say the colour of the words. System 1 however, interferes. Recall from earlier that it cannot be turned off, and that you cannot refrain from reading and understanding simple words. It happens automatically, without conscious control, and is the reason for the conflict<ref name="k" />. This is the effect of the “mental shotgun” mentioned above; we computes more than intended.

Now, take a look at Figure 4..

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:Mlillusion.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 4:''' Müller-Lyer. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 27</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

At a first glance, nothing abnormal is apparent about this picture. We all see that the bottom horizontal line is longer than the one above, and we believe what we see. This, however, is the Müller-Lyer illusion, and measurements will confirm that they are actually equally long. The remarkable thing is that even now, when System 2 is aware of this fact, we still see the lines as having different length.
A similar illusion is present at Figure 4, where you are asked: as shown on the screen, is the figure on the right larger than the figure on the left?

<div><ul>
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:3dillision.JPG|thumb|none|280px|'''Figure 5:''' 3-D illusion. ''Source:'' <ref>(Kahneman, 2011, p. 100</ref>]] </li>
</ul></div>

The obvious and intuitive answer, yes; is wrong. They are of equal size. Remember from above that one of the automatic functions of System 1 is to detect whether one object is more distant than another. Even though we are looking at a picture on a flat 2-D screen, System 1 interprets it as a 3-D scene, and sees the right figure as larger. Again, even after we know this, we still get tricked by System 1.
==Is Prevention Possible?==
Visual illusions as

=Annotated Bibliography=

<references/>

File:Left-right-conflict.jpg

2015-09-27T20:23:22Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T19:27:28Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T19:16:16Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T19:04:19Z

MistaJacob: /* System 1 */

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:54:32Z

MistaJacob: /* System 1 */

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:44:24Z

MistaJacob: /* The Two Ways of Thinking */

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:34:41Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:20:03Z

MistaJacob: /* The Two Ways of Thinking */

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:07:20Z

MistaJacob: /* Before Reading On */

File:Fear.jpg

2015-09-27T18:06:57Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T17:56:09Z

MistaJacob: /* Before Reading On */

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T17:46:21Z

MistaJacob:

File:CRT2.jpg

2015-09-27T17:41:39Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T17:32:50Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T17:32:35Z

MistaJacob: /* Mindfulness */

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T17:28:14Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:56:42Z

MistaJacob: /* Mindfulness */

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:46:19Z

MistaJacob:

File:Threelevels2.jpg

2015-09-27T16:26:31Z

MistaJacob:

File:Mlillusion.JPG

2015-09-27T16:25:28Z

MistaJacob:

File:3dillision.JPG

2015-09-27T16:24:58Z

MistaJacob:

Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:01:08Z

MistaJacob:

Talk:Program evaluation and review technique (PERT)

2015-09-22T17:47:39Z

MistaJacob:

Anna: Very nice topic! It seems that you have a good grasp on the structure of the article and the theme fits the first article type: method :).

'''Reviewer 2 – User: s113735'''
Feedback: Program evaluation and review technique (PERT)
Formal Aspects:
*The article clearly follows the “method or tool” structure required. Super!
*The grammar and spelling in the article is at a decently high level. The sentences are short and concise, which makes it a pleasurably read with clear and easy to understand points.
*Your choice of figures are good and in line with the points, you are trying to make. Some figures could, however, be explained a little better (for instance the PERT box).
*Figures are missing references.
*The article has a bibliography, but is otherwise free of references and links. This makes it really hardto check the validity of your points. The article will have to be referenced.

Content Aspects:
*The article is clearly within the scope as it relates directly to a “Program” tool/method.
*The length of the article seems fair, but a few headings and sub-sections could easily be elaborated a bit. (For instance the “process” section: What are the benefits/drawbacks from using the tools you present? Are the tools prescribed or optional? Etc… You explain the overall applications and limitations for the PERT model, but not for the individual tools).
*The “critical path” in Project Management to my knowledge is not “the path that includes the most time consuming tasks” but is instead “the sequence of activities which add up to the longest overall duration”. You clearly show in your article that you know this while ALSO showing you know how to calculate the critical path.
With a little bit sharper terminology and definitions, it would increase the understanding a lot.
*When making a statement like: “But soon, project managers and companies have found that it is too ineffective and error-prone to use it, causing lots of failures.” This definitely need to be referenced.
Other than in a few cases the article is generally void of personal/unverifiable opinions, which is good.
*So far, the article doesn’t link to any other articles on the Wiki. I understand that it might be tough to find something directly related to this specific tool amongst the rather limited topics on the Wiki. I suggest trying to find some broad topics or even Categories to link to when writing. For instance, you might link to “human behaviour” (a category on the Wiki) when writing about the “agreement dimension” in the Stacey Matrix.

Overall Conclusion: The article is written at a high level and is easy to read and understand. Some points could however be elaborated a bit and the article needs to be referenced according to Wiki standards using the
<nowiki><ref> lastname, firstname (year) [www.link.com “linkname”] </ref></nowiki> standard.

== MistaJacob, reviewer 3 ==

=== The feedback will be given in the form: ===
*My feedback
**My feedback

OR

*’’Copy of your text’’
**My feedback

=== Feedback ===
*The general formatting is almost as it’s supposed to be. The pictures though lack the numbering and the references in the text, and you shift with using ‘thumbs’ and placing it in the middle. Consistency can be recommended for a better visual overview.
*The language is clear and easy to read, only with small number of places where i found typo’s, like in “Limitation” where you start and end a sentence with: Therefore
**I will not comment these since they will be obvious to you when you read through your article for corrections.

*I found the article relevant, with a good red thread through it.
*The step by step approach worked as it should. That being said, the reader’s understanding could have been improved if you included a practical example you carried out through all steps
**As you promised in the introduction :)
*in the section “Key Concepts”, the sequence of the bullet point list should be the same as the sequence in which they are explained, or vice versa.
*’’The process of making a PERT analysis can be divided into 4 steps:’’
**you have written 5 bullet points below
*‘’Preparation of a list of all the tasks that will be involved in a given project’’
**I would stick to using ‘activities’ and not ‘tasks’ as you write here.
**There are other places (maybe only one) where you use task as well
*I would suggest that you also explain the term ‘float’, since it appears in your figure
*‘’In this step we estimate the amount of time that can be taken by each activity.’’
**You normally don’t use ‘we’
*‘’A project cannot be completed as long as his longest component isn't finished.’’
**Don’t know whether you would be able to argue your way out of defining a project as being ‘male’ ;)
*‘’Gantt charts are used to display the timing of activities aGantt charts are used to display the timing of activities and progress of the project.’’
**Double up
*Since you describe the other tool in the comparison very briefly, I would suggest to include links to their respective articles (if they exists)

Talk:Changing conversations based on the Stacey matrix

2015-09-22T16:41:38Z

MistaJacob:

Anna: Very nice topic choice. I like that the method is so specific so that it will allow you to go into greater details in the 3000 word article.

'''Reviewer 1 – User: s113735'''

Feedback:

Formal Aspects:
*The article clearly relates to the “method or tool” structure, which is required. Super!
*There are a few grammatical or spelling errors, which can easily be corrected for increased understanding. These are mainly missing words or endings of words i.e.: “
“This <strike>alines</strike> [aligns] with the theory of Ralph D. Stacey (2000). “
“This level of complexity is referred [to] as Chaotic. “
“It allows [us/you] to compare the level of agreement with the degree of certainty “
Other than these small errors the language is generally at a high, technical level fit for a scholarly Wiki article.
*Your sentences are short and concise and rarely becomes long and jumbled!
*The Wiki seems to be formatted correctly with headings sub-headings etc.
*The figure is clear, referenced in the text and seems to be formally sourced.

Content Aspects:
*I find your choice of topic specific and relatable, which is really nice! It also clearly relates to a project, program or portfolio management topic.
*Your introduction and your figure gives me (the reader) a good idea of the tool and its purpose.
*The article at the time of reading is, sadly, not finished as I can see plenty of other topics remains unwritten.
*From the topic list, I can see that there eventually will be a nice logical flow throughout the article.
*So far, NO references or annotated bibliography exists in the article; this needs to be included.
*So far, the article does not link to any other articles on the Wiki. I understand that it might be tough to find something directly related to this specific tool amongst the rather limited topics on the Wiki. I suggest trying to find some broad topics or even Categories to link to when writing. For instance, you might link to “human behaviour” (a category on the Wiki) when writing about the “agreement dimension” in the Stacey Matrix.

Overall Conclusion:
The article clearly needs a lot of work (adding more content) and the existing text will have to be referenced accordingly. Minor spelling errors still need correction, but the overall quality and content is good.

== MistaJacob, reviewer 2 ==

=== The feedback will be given in the form: ===
*My feedback
**My feedback

OR

*''Copy of your text''
**My feedback

=== Feedback ===
*Since this is not the finished article, I will only give feedback on the content, and not the formatting.
*In general, it was, for me, hard to read. The language, punctuation and sentence construction could have been clearer. One example is the following:
**’’If the causal connections are clear meaning a high or close certainty is faced beside having shared objectives in agreement, this provides the conditions for the managers for a simple decision-making case.’’
***Suggested correction: If you face a situation in which the relationship between cause and effect are certain, as well as having agreement amongst the different stakeholders, the conditions for a simple decision-making-case is present.
*There are many times during the article where I had to stop to think, then read it again, without understanding it. Only when i looked at the figure, and saw the terms used there, i started to understand. The reason for this is that you have not explained the terms of the model you are trying to explain; close, far, field, etc.
**Another thing that contributed to my confusion about which terminology you used, was that you introduce ‘clarity’ and ‘objectives’ in the section ‘Background’. These terms are from another model/theory, and are not in conjunction with the terms of figure 2, where ‘certainty’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used.
***My advice is for you to stick to one set of terms and explain them in detail before you use them.
*’’When the managers agree on the desires aimed to achieve but the causal connections make the situation unclear and uncertain how to do it, then it falls into the zone of so called Complicated. The usage of judgmental or intuitive modes of decision making is necessary to execute.’’
**Why is judgmental or intuitive modes of decision making necessary? and what does it entail?
*’’In the aspect and understanding of strategic choice, an important parameter is to consider the cause and effect of uncertainty and conflict. These are the two main properties of decision making in the management of an organization including project, program and portfolio management.’’
**If you state that this (uncertainty and conflict) is the two main properties of decision making, I suggest you show the source (reference), or state that this is your own opinion
*’’Although, as they move away from this field, the application of rational logic will be impossible and they need to use different approaches.’’
**Be careful to use the word ‘impossible’
**This is the first time you use the word ‘field’. When i read it, i firstly didn’t understand it. It was only after some thinking that I realized that it must mean the area on figure 2 which is named ‘Simple’.
*In the introduction: ‘’It allows to compare the level of agreement with the degree of certainty.’’
**This is another example of where the meaning is lost due to the reason that you do not explain yourself fully. My suggestion would be: It allows to compare the level of agreement amongst stakeholders with the degree of certainty in the relationship between cause and effect.
*The headline: ‘’The Big Idea: The strategic choice theory’’
**Dont over sell it: If you remove ‘Big’ you sound more professional