<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-GB">
	<id>http://13.50.150.85/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=RikkeA</id>
	<title>DTU ProjectLab - User contributions [en-gb]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://13.50.150.85/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=RikkeA"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php/Special:Contributions/RikkeA"/>
	<updated>2026-07-15T22:59:43Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.3</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73581</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73581"/>
		<updated>2019-04-21T13:55:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PMI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Chatzipanos, P. and Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers. [online] Pmi.org. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/cognitive-biases-complexity-enhancers-projects-1454 [Accessed 21 Apr. 2019].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Ketal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., &amp;amp; Sibony, O., (2011) The big idea: Before you make that big decision…, Harvard Business Review, June 2011, Harvard Business Publishing.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preliminary:&lt;br /&gt;
Challenge:&lt;br /&gt;
Evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He further suggests asking the following three questions throughout the project duration &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kahne2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SLOW:&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;L&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;O&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;W&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73580</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73580"/>
		<updated>2019-04-21T13:54:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PMI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Chatzipanos, P. and Giotis, T. (2019). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers. [online] Pmi.org. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/cognitive-biases-complexity-enhancers-projects-1454 [Accessed 21 Apr. 2019].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Ketal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., &amp;amp; Sibony, O., (2011) The big idea: Before you make that big decision…, Harvard Business Review, June 2011, Harvard Business Publishing.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preliminary:&lt;br /&gt;
Challenge:&lt;br /&gt;
Evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He further suggests asking the following three questions throughout the project duration &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kahne2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SLOW:&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;L&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;O&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;W&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73579</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73579"/>
		<updated>2019-04-21T13:51:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PMI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;De Janasz, S., Wood, G., Gottschalk, L., Dowd, K. and Scneider, B. (2007). Interpersonal skills in organizations. North Ryde, N.S.W.: McGraw-Hill.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Ketal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., &amp;amp; Sibony, O., (2011) The big idea: Before you make that big decision…, Harvard Business Review, June 2011, Harvard Business Publishing.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preliminary:&lt;br /&gt;
Challenge:&lt;br /&gt;
Evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He further suggests asking the following three questions throughout the project duration &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kahne2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SLOW:&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;L&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;O&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;W&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73578</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73578"/>
		<updated>2019-04-21T13:44:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Application */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PMI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;De Janasz, S., Wood, G., Gottschalk, L., Dowd, K. and Scneider, B. (2007). Interpersonal skills in organizations. North Ryde, N.S.W.: McGraw-Hill.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary: Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Challenge: Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Evaluation: Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SLOW:&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;L&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;O&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;W&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73577</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73577"/>
		<updated>2019-04-21T13:19:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PMI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;De Janasz, S., Wood, G., Gottschalk, L., Dowd, K. and Scneider, B. (2007). Interpersonal skills in organizations. North Ryde, N.S.W.: McGraw-Hill.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary: Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Challenge: Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Evaluation: Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SLOW:&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;L&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;O&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;W&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73576</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73576"/>
		<updated>2019-04-21T13:14:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PMI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;De Janasz, S., Wood, G., Gottschalk, L., Dowd, K. and Scneider, B. (2007). Interpersonal skills in organizations. North Ryde, N.S.W.: McGraw-Hill.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary: Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Challenge: Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Evaluation: Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73575</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73575"/>
		<updated>2019-04-21T13:03:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PMI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;De Janasz, S., Wood, G., Gottschalk, L., Dowd, K. and Scneider, B. (2007). Interpersonal skills in organizations. North Ryde, N.S.W.: McGraw-Hill.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary: Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Challenge: Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Evaluation: Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73574</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73574"/>
		<updated>2019-04-19T16:13:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Description &amp;amp; Purpose */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognitive Bias vs. Heurestics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary: Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Challenge: Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Evaluation: Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73564</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73564"/>
		<updated>2019-04-19T13:37:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Overview of Different Types */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types of Cognitive Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary: Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Challenge: Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Evaluation: Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73563</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73563"/>
		<updated>2019-04-19T13:35:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To deliver a project on time and on budget it must be expertly managed. As humans are not rational beings, such management is always susceptible to cognitive bias &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary: Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Challenge: Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Evaluation: Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process it iterative and must be carried out before, during and after the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73470</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73470"/>
		<updated>2019-03-17T12:22:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73382</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73382"/>
		<updated>2019-03-06T15:06:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* References */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chatzipanos, P. A. &amp;amp; Giotis, T. (2014). Cognitive biases as project &amp;amp; program complexity enhancers: the Astypalea project. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2014—EMEA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt; Overview of cognitive biases, their effects and how to anticipate. Example of implementation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kahneman 2011&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73381</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73381"/>
		<updated>2019-03-06T15:04:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Abstract */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biggest impact on large infrastructure projects, especially when dealing with estimation of costs and benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This topic is related to Complexity, Stakeholder Management, Heuristics, Front-end management (?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73380</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73380"/>
		<updated>2019-03-06T15:02:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Application */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73379</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73379"/>
		<updated>2019-03-06T15:01:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Application */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the impact of cognitive bias in a program or project it is of paramount importance to be aware of their existence. Kahneman suggests asking the following three questions to help recognize and manage biases and their effect: &#039;&#039;&#039;FIND KILDE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any suspicion that biases based on self-interest, overconfidence, or attachment to past experiences exist? If such biases exist, it is almost impossible for people to not have these three influence their decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Does groupthink exist? Assess, recognize, and try to expose the biases&#039; effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Are there any recognizable perceptions about people&#039;s positive or negative attitudes towards the proposed action / change / result?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73378</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73378"/>
		<updated>2019-03-06T14:53:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Overview of Different Types */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Unconsciously underestimating time, cost, and risk.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Groupthink&#039;&#039;&#039; - A groups desire to achieve coherence and harmony will cause inadequate decision making, has severe consequences, especially for environments of frequent change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73377</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73377"/>
		<updated>2019-03-06T14:43:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* References */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Underestimating time and cost.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Flyvbjerg, 2013; (Hofstede, 2010; and Lovallo &amp;amp; Kahneman, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73376</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73376"/>
		<updated>2019-03-06T14:42:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Description &amp;amp; Purpose */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview of Different Types===&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Underestimating time and cost.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Optimism Bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Strategic Misrepresentation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73374</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73374"/>
		<updated>2019-03-05T16:55:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Description &amp;amp; Purpose */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects as listed by PMI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Underestimating time and cost.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Misremembering predictions, seeing past events as more predictable than they were before they were executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Tendency to favour information that confirm existing beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039; - Planned, systematic distortion of facts e.g. benefits or costs, to increase chances of project approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73373</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73373"/>
		<updated>2019-03-05T16:50:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Description &amp;amp; Purpose */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following list of cognitive biases and heuristics is not exhaustive, in reality, there are hundreds of different kinds. The list includes the most commonly encountered instances when dealing with projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic, overestimating favorable outcomes and having excessive confidence in the individual&#039;s beliefs, knowledge, and capability.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Fallacy&#039;&#039;&#039; - Underestimating time and cost.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039; - Believing something is true due to a desire or wish.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Focussing on information that confirms what you already believe or assume to be true.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being overly optimistic about an initial assessment and therefore making fast and intuitive decisions rather than deliberate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039; - Being more afraid of losses than wanting to acquire gains.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - Preference for keeping things as they are, change considered as a loss.&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039; - Sticking with the initial reference point, adjusting it to reach estimate rather than realizing it has become irrelevant. &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Avoiding risk, failure or difficult situations missing out on important lesson leading to repetition of mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039; - Using an approach or description that is too narrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73372</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=73372"/>
		<updated>2019-03-05T16:00:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Description &amp;amp; Purpose */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Optimism Bias&#039;&#039;&#039; Overly &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Planning Falacy&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Wishful Thinking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Overconfidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Loss Aversion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Status Quo Bias&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Anchoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Ostrich Effect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Framing Effect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Hindsight Bias&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Confirmation Bias&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Strategic Misrepresentation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67101</id>
		<title>Talk:Conceptual levels of competence</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67101"/>
		<updated>2019-02-25T23:19:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Feedback on Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Text clarity&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Good but it could be more coherent.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description of the tool/theory/concept&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Project management competence is described but could be more elaborated.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation of the purpose of the article&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Needs to be elaborated&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Relevance to curriculum&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Relevant&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Ok&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Other&#039;&#039;&#039;|| At the moment, the focus of the article is bit broad and it is not clearly defined&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Robert Kjønås&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
The flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 3===&lt;br /&gt;
There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 4===&lt;br /&gt;
The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Rikke Andersen&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The language is confusing, I&#039;m not certain what is meant by the author. &lt;br /&gt;
The three different categories discussed in the article are listed which gives a nice overview.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
The three categories stated from the beginning gives a natural flow throughout. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
Minor errors that will likely be corrected on a second read-through&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
No&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
The language can be sharper, shorter sentences could be an advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
Only one figure, nice and clear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
The figure supports the text&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe a figure or two more - maybe of how &amp;quot;competence&amp;quot; changes as you move from an individual to teams to organizations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
The topic is academically relevant, not sure if it is practical&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
More time could be spent on explaining the importance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
Elaborate on the importance of the topic, what happens if the correct level of competence is not present?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
I think it will be once finished&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
Not at the moment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
Currently only one annotated reference&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
Seems to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
Add more references as you get further into depth with the topic&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Human_behaviors_in_scheduling&amp;diff=67100</id>
		<title>Talk:Human behaviors in scheduling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Human_behaviors_in_scheduling&amp;diff=67100"/>
		<updated>2019-02-25T23:18:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Feedback on Abstract:==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Text clarity &amp;amp; language&#039;&#039;&#039;|| The text is good, however there&#039;s a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. look at &amp;quot;The majority of schedules is created with the &#039;&#039;&#039;ambition of enhance the time-management&#039;&#039;&#039; during a project and reducing unnecessary risks&amp;quot;). There are other mistakes, so please read the abstract again.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description of the tool/theory/concept&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Good.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Article purpose explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Well elaborated.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Relevance to curriculum &#039;&#039;&#039;|| Relevant.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Add references in your abstract, if needed, to give more credibility.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Ronglian Wei&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has a very clear view and seems the following article would be well structured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The keyword can be used in bold, which would make it easier for readers to get the key point at a glance :)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haven&#039;t seen the subsequent context yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for now, it&#039;s all good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 4===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There isn&#039;t any figure or table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 5===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cannot tell it since the article hasn&#039;t been fully delivered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&#039;s interesting for a practitioner to read in terms of this topic.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
No reference right now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Rikke Andersen&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Minor grammatical errors, some sentences that could be adjusted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
From the abstract, it seems like the author has thought about the topic and how to build up the article &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Minor grammatical errors that should be corrected to give the reader a better experience but nothing that prohibits the understanding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 4===&lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Topic is highly relevant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
No references made yet&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67094</id>
		<title>Talk:Conceptual levels of competence</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67094"/>
		<updated>2019-02-25T23:10:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Feedback on Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Text clarity&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Good but it could be more coherent.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description of the tool/theory/concept&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Project management competence is described but could be more elaborated.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation of the purpose of the article&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Needs to be elaborated&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Relevance to curriculum&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Relevant&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Ok&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Other&#039;&#039;&#039;|| At the moment, the focus of the article is bit broad and it is not clearly defined&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Robert Kjønås&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
The flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 3===&lt;br /&gt;
There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 4===&lt;br /&gt;
The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Μaria Stefaniotou&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The stakeholders and stakeholders analysis part gives some fundamental definitions, that introduce the reader to the topic. The abstract part has not been completed yet, but if it will contain the subtopics mentioned below, it should be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? It will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes, only one word change could be done. In the first sentence instead of externally-outside may fit better.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? It would be interesting if there was a part about the influence of the different stakeholders, including the risks that could occur if one or more of the stages of the analysis did not give satisfying results. If there is also available some kind of importance hierarchy among the stakeholders, depending on the the kind of the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Rikke Andersen&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The language is confusing, I&#039;m not certain what is meant by the author. &lt;br /&gt;
The three different categories discussed in the article are listed which gives a nice overview.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
The three categories stated from the beginning gives a natural flow throughout. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
Minor errors that will likely be corrected on a second read-through&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
No&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
The language can be sharper, shorter sentences could be an advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
Only one figure, nice and clear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
The figure supports the text&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe a figure or two more - maybe of how &amp;quot;competence&amp;quot; changes as you move from an individual to teams to organizations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
The topic is academically relevant, not sure if it is practical&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
More time could be spent on explaining the importance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
Elaborate on the importance of the topic, what happens if the correct level of competence is not present?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
I think it will be once finished&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
Not at the moment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
Currently only one annotated reference&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
Seems to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
Add more references as you get further into depth with the topic&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67085</id>
		<title>Talk:Conceptual levels of competence</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67085"/>
		<updated>2019-02-25T22:50:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Question 5 · TEXT */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Feedback on Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Text clarity&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Good but it could be more coherent.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description of the tool/theory/concept&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Project management competence is described but could be more elaborated.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation of the purpose of the article&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Needs to be elaborated&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Relevance to curriculum&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Relevant&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Ok&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Other&#039;&#039;&#039;|| At the moment, the focus of the article is bit broad and it is not clearly defined&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Robert Kjønås&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
The flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 3===&lt;br /&gt;
There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 4===&lt;br /&gt;
The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Μaria Stefaniotou&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The stakeholders and stakeholders analysis part gives some fundamental definitions, that introduce the reader to the topic. The abstract part has not been completed yet, but if it will contain the subtopics mentioned below, it should be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? It will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes, only one word change could be done. In the first sentence instead of externally-outside may fit better.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? It would be interesting if there was a part about the influence of the different stakeholders, including the risks that could occur if one or more of the stages of the analysis did not give satisfying results. If there is also available some kind of importance hierarchy among the stakeholders, depending on the the kind of the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Rikke Andersen&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
Minor errors that will likely be corrected on a second read-through&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
No&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
The language can be sharper, shorter sentences could be an advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
No figures yet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67082</id>
		<title>Talk:Conceptual levels of competence</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&amp;diff=67082"/>
		<updated>2019-02-25T22:48:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Feedback on Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Text clarity&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Good but it could be more coherent.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description of the tool/theory/concept&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Project management competence is described but could be more elaborated.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation of the purpose of the article&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Needs to be elaborated&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Relevance to curriculum&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Relevant&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;|| Ok&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Other&#039;&#039;&#039;|| At the moment, the focus of the article is bit broad and it is not clearly defined&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Robert Kjønås&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
The flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 3===&lt;br /&gt;
There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 4===&lt;br /&gt;
The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Μaria Stefaniotou&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
The stakeholders and stakeholders analysis part gives some fundamental definitions, that introduce the reader to the topic. The abstract part has not been completed yet, but if it will contain the subtopics mentioned below, it should be very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? It will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes, only one word change could be done. In the first sentence instead of externally-outside may fit better.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? It would be interesting if there was a part about the influence of the different stakeholders, including the risks that could occur if one or more of the stages of the analysis did not give satisfying results. If there is also available some kind of importance hierarchy among the stakeholders, depending on the the kind of the project. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: &#039;&#039;Rikke Andersen&#039;&#039;==&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 1 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Quality of the summary:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 2 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Structure and logic of the article:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the argument clear? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a logical flow to the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does one part build upon the other? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 3 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Grammar and style:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? &lt;br /&gt;
Minor errors that will likely be corrected on a second read-through&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? &lt;br /&gt;
No&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
The language can be sharper, shorter sentences could be an advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 4 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Figures and tables:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are figures and tables clear? &lt;br /&gt;
No figures yet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? &lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 5 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interest and relevance:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 6 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Depth of treatment:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 6===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Question 7 · TEXT===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Annotated bibliography:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would you suggest to improve?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Answer 7===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Answer here&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=65789</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=65789"/>
		<updated>2019-02-22T22:37:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Abstract */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description &amp;amp; Purpose==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Description and purpose, Reflect the current state of the art --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Application==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Provide guidance on how to use and when it is applicable --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Limitations==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Critical reflection on the concept and its application context--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- &amp;lt;ref name=&#039;&#039;name&#039;&#039;&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;link/title&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Articles_Spring_Term_2019&amp;diff=64587</id>
		<title>Articles Spring Term 2019</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Articles_Spring_Term_2019&amp;diff=64587"/>
		<updated>2019-02-22T14:26:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Overview of 2019 Wiki articles=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+Spring Term 2019 Wiki Articles&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|Dimitrios&lt;br /&gt;
|Kokkinopoulos&lt;br /&gt;
|s182528&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Due Diligence on Wind Farm Assets]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|Evgenia&lt;br /&gt;
|Chatzivasileiou&lt;br /&gt;
|s182299&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Sponsorship]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|Theodoros&lt;br /&gt;
|Seremetakis&lt;br /&gt;
|s183272&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Investment portfolio management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|Federica&lt;br /&gt;
|Menti&lt;br /&gt;
|S182994&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Getting Things Done (David Allen)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|Panagiotis&lt;br /&gt;
|Vounatsos&lt;br /&gt;
|PanosVoun&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Epistemic vs. Aleatory uncertainty]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|Jack&lt;br /&gt;
|Frain&lt;br /&gt;
|Fraino12345&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|Alexandros&lt;br /&gt;
|Bellos&lt;br /&gt;
|AlexBellos&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Effective Brainstorming]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Edoardo&lt;br /&gt;
|Braccini&lt;br /&gt;
|EdoBraa&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Benefits Realisation Management (BRM)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrea&lt;br /&gt;
|Könnecke&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrea Könnecke&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shannon &amp;amp; Weaver Model for Communication]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 10&lt;br /&gt;
|Srdjan&lt;br /&gt;
|Gluhovic&lt;br /&gt;
|srdjangluhovic&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Scope Control Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|Casper&lt;br /&gt;
|Claudinger&lt;br /&gt;
|Casper&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Managing projects in a functional organization]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|Ronglian&lt;br /&gt;
|Wei&lt;br /&gt;
|Panda Lian&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Conceptual levels of competence]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|Jesper &lt;br /&gt;
|Wolters&lt;br /&gt;
|Wolters&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Resource allocation and crashing]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|Oliwia&lt;br /&gt;
|Sonia&lt;br /&gt;
|Lubiarz&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Meeting Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Francisco&lt;br /&gt;
|Almirudis&lt;br /&gt;
|Frank Almirudis&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Scheduling: Critical path, PERT and Gantt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|Bartlomiej&lt;br /&gt;
|Tyczynski&lt;br /&gt;
|s182559&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Output,Outcome and Benefit]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|16&lt;br /&gt;
|Brynja&lt;br /&gt;
|Benediktsdóttir&lt;br /&gt;
|Brynja Ben.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Periodic Table of Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|16&lt;br /&gt;
|Jonina Thora&lt;br /&gt;
|Einarsdottir&lt;br /&gt;
|Jonina Thora&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Management Success Factors]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number 5&lt;br /&gt;
|Pedro&lt;br /&gt;
|Lopes da Cunha&lt;br /&gt;
|PedroLopesCunha&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Management: Cost vs. Price]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Sarantis&lt;br /&gt;
|Pavlidis&lt;br /&gt;
|Sarantis&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Types of activities]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|Rikke&lt;br /&gt;
|Andersen&lt;br /&gt;
|RikkeA&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Cognitive Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|Johan&lt;br /&gt;
|Hilsøe&lt;br /&gt;
|s154073&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Unidentified Risks]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Mads&lt;br /&gt;
|Kronholm&lt;br /&gt;
|Mads Kronholm&lt;br /&gt;
|[[DMAIC]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 11&lt;br /&gt;
|Anne&lt;br /&gt;
|Dittmann&lt;br /&gt;
|Anne&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Organisational Design and Structures]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|Thea&lt;br /&gt;
|Pedersen&lt;br /&gt;
|Thea&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Agile One Page Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|Madalina&lt;br /&gt;
|Grigoras&lt;br /&gt;
|s186465&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Value to whom?]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|Martin&lt;br /&gt;
|Eberholst Carlsen&lt;br /&gt;
|Martineberholstcarlsen&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Initiation Management in construction]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|Rasmine&lt;br /&gt;
|Søgren&lt;br /&gt;
|s145320&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Outcome]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|Julie &lt;br /&gt;
|Rostgaard Andersen&lt;br /&gt;
|s123790&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Use of Business Model Canvas to Kickstart the project management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|Dilan&lt;br /&gt;
|Casablanca&lt;br /&gt;
|Dilan Casablanca&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Prefabricated houses (industrial process)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|Sandro &lt;br /&gt;
|Pina&lt;br /&gt;
|SandroPina&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Create a pitch]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|Kristoffer&lt;br /&gt;
|Glahn&lt;br /&gt;
|s133378&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Vision Statement]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number 8&lt;br /&gt;
|Maria Christina&lt;br /&gt;
|Prokou&lt;br /&gt;
|Mprokou&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Negotiation Skills]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|Habib (Seyed)&lt;br /&gt;
|Bahrami&lt;br /&gt;
|Habib&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Uniqueness]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|Amani&lt;br /&gt;
|Alabdullah&lt;br /&gt;
|s173307&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|Andreas&lt;br /&gt;
|Riposati&lt;br /&gt;
|Ripo&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Basic estimation techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|Mark&lt;br /&gt;
|Christiansen&lt;br /&gt;
|s152736&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Stephen Covey&#039;s seven principles]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|Signe &lt;br /&gt;
|Bjerrum&lt;br /&gt;
|s141886&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Triple Constraint in Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|Sebastian&lt;br /&gt;
|Walther&lt;br /&gt;
|Sebastian&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Value Canvas in Projects]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|Keegan&lt;br /&gt;
|van Kooten&lt;br /&gt;
|Keegan&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Planning Poker for Improved Project Delivery]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| 8&lt;br /&gt;
|Hagos Zeru&lt;br /&gt;
|Gide&lt;br /&gt;
|Trhas&lt;br /&gt;
|[[BIM as a project management tool on construction companies]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|William&lt;br /&gt;
|Durant &lt;br /&gt;
|Mangum&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Crisis Management when there is a Project Cost Overrun]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|Shri Tejas &lt;br /&gt;
|Vedula&lt;br /&gt;
|Tehass 7&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The implementation of KPIs]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|Casper&lt;br /&gt;
|Gandil Qvortrup&lt;br /&gt;
|CasperGandil&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Application of Balanced Scorecard in Portfolio Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|Veronika Zsuzsanna&lt;br /&gt;
|Bankó&lt;br /&gt;
|Veronikabanko&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Determining Measurement Methods in Earned Value Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Mercedes&lt;br /&gt;
|Hachmann&lt;br /&gt;
|Mercedes Hachmann&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Design Thinking]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 1&lt;br /&gt;
|Rasmus&lt;br /&gt;
|Bjerg&lt;br /&gt;
|Rasmusbjerg&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Cash flow and milestone payments]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|Moritz&lt;br /&gt;
|Gutheil&lt;br /&gt;
|MoritzGutheil&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dan Pink on Motivation]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 5&lt;br /&gt;
|Giorgia&lt;br /&gt;
|Scartozzi&lt;br /&gt;
|GiorgiaS&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Resource-Constrained Critical Path Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 3&lt;br /&gt;
|Hannah&lt;br /&gt;
|Kürschner&lt;br /&gt;
|Hannah&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Projects integrating Sustainable Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Daniel&lt;br /&gt;
|Vorting&lt;br /&gt;
|s141018&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Product family master plan]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 10&lt;br /&gt;
|André&lt;br /&gt;
|Condamine&lt;br /&gt;
|S173349&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Belbin&#039;s Team Roles]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|Kristine&lt;br /&gt;
|Kaulberg&lt;br /&gt;
|Kristbk&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Governance of Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Sai Mahesh&lt;br /&gt;
|Nadukuru&lt;br /&gt;
|Sm nadukuru&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Process Planning and Cost Estimation]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|Gustav&lt;br /&gt;
|Josephsen&lt;br /&gt;
|Gustav Josephsen&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Potentials of Key Performance Indicators]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|Rikke Louise Kjær&lt;br /&gt;
|Knudsen&lt;br /&gt;
|RikkeK&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Milestones in Project Planning]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|Hedin&lt;br /&gt;
|Gunnarsstein Poulsen&lt;br /&gt;
|hedinp&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Resources in Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|Isabel&lt;br /&gt;
|Wang&lt;br /&gt;
|isabel.w&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Benefits Realization Management as a key driver of Project Management Effectiveness]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|Frederik&lt;br /&gt;
|Sørensen&lt;br /&gt;
|FTSN&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hersey and Blanchard&#039;s Situational Leadership]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|Simon&lt;br /&gt;
|Muurholm Hansen&lt;br /&gt;
|Muurholm&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Performance-based contracting]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|Charles&lt;br /&gt;
|Hemmingsen&lt;br /&gt;
|s122801&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Programmification of work]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|17&lt;br /&gt;
|Alberto&lt;br /&gt;
|Tognon&lt;br /&gt;
|s172420&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Management in pharmaceutical industry]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|17&lt;br /&gt;
|Stefano&lt;br /&gt;
|Di Lenardo&lt;br /&gt;
|s190056&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Risk management in industry 4.0]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|Arndt &lt;br /&gt;
|Oschinsky&lt;br /&gt;
|AJO&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Project Charter]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|16&lt;br /&gt;
|Dana Rut&lt;br /&gt;
|Gunnarsdóttir&lt;br /&gt;
|s180289&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Management Reporting]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|Anna&lt;br /&gt;
|Shevchenko&lt;br /&gt;
|Anutka&lt;br /&gt;
|[[SAFe]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Thomas&lt;br /&gt;
|Boel&lt;br /&gt;
|Morning&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Cost Control]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|Ole&lt;br /&gt;
|Moe&lt;br /&gt;
|s186359&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Prince2]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|Nikolaj&lt;br /&gt;
|Petersen&lt;br /&gt;
|s173344&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Managing habits in a project]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|Sofie&lt;br /&gt;
|Martinussen&lt;br /&gt;
|Sofie Martinussen&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Improve communication with active listening]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|Sophia&lt;br /&gt;
|Nielsen&lt;br /&gt;
|s114901&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Adaptive Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|Costanza&lt;br /&gt;
|Sesti&lt;br /&gt;
|Costanza Sesti&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Systems Theory in Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|Mathias&lt;br /&gt;
|Steuch&lt;br /&gt;
|Msteuch&lt;br /&gt;
|[[SMART goals - A Project Manager Tool]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|16&lt;br /&gt;
|Marie&lt;br /&gt;
|Bukkholm&lt;br /&gt;
|s182741&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Resource breakdown structure]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|16&lt;br /&gt;
|Karina&lt;br /&gt;
|Kindingstad&lt;br /&gt;
|Karina&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Benefits of systems engineering]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|16&lt;br /&gt;
|Robert&lt;br /&gt;
|Kjønås&lt;br /&gt;
|RobertK&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Human behaviors in scheduling]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|Andreas &lt;br /&gt;
|Tuxen&lt;br /&gt;
|S153408&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Requirements management using SysML]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|Helene &lt;br /&gt;
|Gravdal&lt;br /&gt;
|S182610&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Key performance indicator (KPI)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|17&lt;br /&gt;
|Rajat &lt;br /&gt;
|Kumar&lt;br /&gt;
|S181289&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Risk Log]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|Osman Furkan&lt;br /&gt;
|Simsek&lt;br /&gt;
|S182730&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Maslow&#039;s Hierarchy of Needs and Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Søren&lt;br /&gt;
|Bojesen&lt;br /&gt;
|s135284&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Evolutionary purpose as motivational driver in project and programme management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|Mads Mohr&lt;br /&gt;
|Madsen&lt;br /&gt;
|s144416&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Application of Agile]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|Helena Brandt&lt;br /&gt;
|Rejndrup&lt;br /&gt;
|S145492&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Leadership vs. management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group 13&lt;br /&gt;
|Behzad&lt;br /&gt;
|Sanie&lt;br /&gt;
|S122919&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dependency in project management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Kevin &lt;br /&gt;
|Lim&lt;br /&gt;
|s123368&lt;br /&gt;
|[[What is SWOT]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|Alexander &lt;br /&gt;
|Bagge&lt;br /&gt;
|s123908&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Risk identification methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|Mie Cuhre&lt;br /&gt;
|Anker&lt;br /&gt;
|s143895&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Optimism bias, Strategic Misinterpretation and Reference Class Forecasting (RCF)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|Martin&lt;br /&gt;
|Kirk&lt;br /&gt;
|s162004&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Communication and Media Richness Assurance in High-performance Projects]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|Birita&lt;br /&gt;
|Poulsen&lt;br /&gt;
|s144296&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Designing Organizational Structure]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|Simone&lt;br /&gt;
|Bruhn&lt;br /&gt;
|s152998&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Gantt chart and Scheduling techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|Rasmus&lt;br /&gt;
|Vedel&lt;br /&gt;
|S143855&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Conflict Resolution in Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|Lars Brandt&lt;br /&gt;
|Holst&lt;br /&gt;
|s180230&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Quality Management Systems]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|Tianhao&lt;br /&gt;
|Chen&lt;br /&gt;
|Tianhao&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Actions element]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|Tom&lt;br /&gt;
|Ruetgers&lt;br /&gt;
|Tom_Ruetgers&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Crisis management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|Jokin&lt;br /&gt;
|Brito&lt;br /&gt;
|s182753&lt;br /&gt;
|[[A Guide to Risk Management in Construction Projects]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|Sune&lt;br /&gt;
|Baldus&lt;br /&gt;
|Sunebaldus&lt;br /&gt;
|[[SMART Goals and Objectives]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|Bashir &lt;br /&gt;
|Isse&lt;br /&gt;
|BJI&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Stage-Gate Model/phase-gate process]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|Steffen &lt;br /&gt;
|Hansen&lt;br /&gt;
|s143889&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Context element]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Articles_Spring_Term_2019&amp;diff=60916</id>
		<title>Articles Spring Term 2019</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Articles_Spring_Term_2019&amp;diff=60916"/>
		<updated>2019-02-12T13:11:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Overview of 2019 Wiki articles */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ &#039;&#039;&#039;Disclaimer!&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;The requirements for the articles written in previous Terms (2014, 2015, 2016, Jun 2017, 2017) were not the same as for Spring Term 2018 and 2019. Please make sure you read the requirements for your own fall/spring term carefully before starting your wiki article.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please complete this table with your group number, full name, username and the title of your article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To create more lines in the table click &#039;&#039;&#039;Edit&#039;&#039;&#039; and use the following code to create more lines in the table and replace the example text with your own information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;white-space: pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
white-space: -pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
white-space: -o-pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
word-wrap: break-word;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number&lt;br /&gt;
|First Name&lt;br /&gt;
|Last Name&lt;br /&gt;
|Username&lt;br /&gt;
|Link to Article&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Create a direct link by making square brackets ([[ ]]) around the title such as [[Title]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The straight lines ( | ) create columns and the straight line with a dash ( |- ) creates a new row in the table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
( |} ) is only used at the very end to finish the coding for the table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Overview of 2019 Wiki articles=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+Spring Term 2019 Wiki Articles&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Group Number&lt;br /&gt;
!First Name&lt;br /&gt;
!Last Name&lt;br /&gt;
!User Name&lt;br /&gt;
!Link to Article&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Panagiotis&lt;br /&gt;
|Vounatsos&lt;br /&gt;
|PanosVoun&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Epistemic vs. Aleatory uncertainty]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Jack&lt;br /&gt;
|Frain&lt;br /&gt;
|Fraino12345&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Edoardo&lt;br /&gt;
|Braccini&lt;br /&gt;
|EdoBraa&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Benefits Realisation Management (BRM)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrea&lt;br /&gt;
|Könnecke&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrea Könnecke&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shannon &amp;amp; Weaver Model for Communication]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Srdjan&lt;br /&gt;
|Gluhovic&lt;br /&gt;
|srdjangluhovic&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Scope Control Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Casper&lt;br /&gt;
|Claudinger&lt;br /&gt;
|Casper&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Managing projects in a functional organization]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Ronglian&lt;br /&gt;
|Wei&lt;br /&gt;
|Panda Lian&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Conceptual levels of competence]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Jesper &lt;br /&gt;
|Wolters&lt;br /&gt;
|Wolters&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Resource allocation and crashing]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Oliwia&lt;br /&gt;
|Sonia&lt;br /&gt;
|Lubiarz&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Meeting Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Francisco&lt;br /&gt;
|Almirudis&lt;br /&gt;
|Frank Almirudis&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Scheduling: Critical path, PERT and Gantt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Bartlomiej&lt;br /&gt;
|Maciej&lt;br /&gt;
|Tyczynski&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Outcome, output, benefit]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Brynja&lt;br /&gt;
|Benediktsdóttir&lt;br /&gt;
|Brynja Ben.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Periodic Table of Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Jonina Thora&lt;br /&gt;
|Einarsdottir&lt;br /&gt;
|Jonina Thora&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Management Success Factors]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
!Pedro&lt;br /&gt;
!Lopes da Cunha&lt;br /&gt;
!PedroLopesCunha&lt;br /&gt;
![[Project Management: Cost vs. Price]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Sarantis&lt;br /&gt;
|Pavlidis&lt;br /&gt;
|Sarantis&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Types of activities]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Rikke&lt;br /&gt;
|Andersen&lt;br /&gt;
|RikkeA&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Cognitive Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Articles_Spring_Term_2019&amp;diff=60914</id>
		<title>Articles Spring Term 2019</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Articles_Spring_Term_2019&amp;diff=60914"/>
		<updated>2019-02-12T13:11:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: /* Overview of 2019 Wiki articles */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ &#039;&#039;&#039;Disclaimer!&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;The requirements for the articles written in previous Terms (2014, 2015, 2016, Jun 2017, 2017) were not the same as for Spring Term 2018 and 2019. Please make sure you read the requirements for your own fall/spring term carefully before starting your wiki article.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please complete this table with your group number, full name, username and the title of your article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To create more lines in the table click &#039;&#039;&#039;Edit&#039;&#039;&#039; and use the following code to create more lines in the table and replace the example text with your own information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;white-space: pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
white-space: -pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
white-space: -o-pre-wrap; &lt;br /&gt;
word-wrap: break-word;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number&lt;br /&gt;
|First Name&lt;br /&gt;
|Last Name&lt;br /&gt;
|Username&lt;br /&gt;
|Link to Article&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Create a direct link by making square brackets ([[ ]]) around the title such as [[Title]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The straight lines ( | ) create columns and the straight line with a dash ( |- ) creates a new row in the table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
( |} ) is only used at the very end to finish the coding for the table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Overview of 2019 Wiki articles=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+Spring Term 2019 Wiki Articles&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Group Number&lt;br /&gt;
!First Name&lt;br /&gt;
!Last Name&lt;br /&gt;
!User Name&lt;br /&gt;
!Link to Article&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Panagiotis&lt;br /&gt;
|Vounatsos&lt;br /&gt;
|PanosVoun&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Epistemic vs. Aleatory uncertainty]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Jack&lt;br /&gt;
|Frain&lt;br /&gt;
|Fraino12345&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Edoardo&lt;br /&gt;
|Braccini&lt;br /&gt;
|EdoBraa&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Benefits Realisation Management (BRM)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrea&lt;br /&gt;
|Könnecke&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrea Könnecke&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shannon &amp;amp; Weaver Model for Communication]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Srdjan&lt;br /&gt;
|Gluhovic&lt;br /&gt;
|srdjangluhovic&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Scope Control Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Casper&lt;br /&gt;
|Claudinger&lt;br /&gt;
|Casper&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Managing projects in a functional organization]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Ronglian&lt;br /&gt;
|Wei&lt;br /&gt;
|Panda Lian&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Conceptual levels of competence]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Jesper &lt;br /&gt;
|Wolters&lt;br /&gt;
|Wolters&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Resource allocation and crashing]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-		&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Oliwia&lt;br /&gt;
|Sonia&lt;br /&gt;
|Lubiarz&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Meeting Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Francisco&lt;br /&gt;
|Almirudis&lt;br /&gt;
|Frank Almirudis&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Scheduling: Critical path, PERT and Gantt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Bartlomiej&lt;br /&gt;
|Maciej&lt;br /&gt;
|Tyczynski&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Outcome, output, benefit]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Brynja&lt;br /&gt;
|Benediktsdóttir&lt;br /&gt;
|Brynja Ben.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Periodic Table of Project Management]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Jonina Thora&lt;br /&gt;
|Einarsdottir&lt;br /&gt;
|Jonina Thora&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Project Management Success Factors]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
!Pedro&lt;br /&gt;
!Lopes da Cunha&lt;br /&gt;
!PedroLopesCunha&lt;br /&gt;
![[Project Management: Cost vs. Price]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Sarantis&lt;br /&gt;
|Pavlidis&lt;br /&gt;
|Sarantis&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Types of activities]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Group Number Pending&lt;br /&gt;
|Rikke&lt;br /&gt;
|Andersen&lt;br /&gt;
|RikkeA&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Cognitive Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=60913</id>
		<title>Cognitive Bias</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Cognitive_Bias&amp;diff=60913"/>
		<updated>2019-02-12T13:10:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;RikkeA: Created page with &amp;quot;==Abstract==  Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Abstract==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something about Cognitive Bias with at least 1 reference.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>RikkeA</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>