Daniel Kahneman's two systems of thinking
(→The control illusion) |
|||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
One solution to work against the control illusion is to use the 5 whys technique to find the root cause of a problem that has happened in the past. The reason that the 5 whys work is that a problem which normally would get assessed by system 1, now must get answered by 5 questions in correlation, and therefore eliminates the fast thinking of system 1. | One solution to work against the control illusion is to use the 5 whys technique to find the root cause of a problem that has happened in the past. The reason that the 5 whys work is that a problem which normally would get assessed by system 1, now must get answered by 5 questions in correlation, and therefore eliminates the fast thinking of system 1. | ||
| − | === The denominator effect | + | === The denominator effect === |
When presented chance of events happening, no matter if it is positive or negative for the project, the way the chance is presented have a large impact on how individuals process it. If presented with the chance as a fraction, people tend to focus a lot more on the numerator, than the numerator compared to the denominator. Kahneman presents the example that students are presented with two urns where the first contains 1 red marble out of 10, and the second contains 8 red marbles out of 100. They then afterwards must pick an urn to draw a marble from where they win a prize, if they draw a red marble. | When presented chance of events happening, no matter if it is positive or negative for the project, the way the chance is presented have a large impact on how individuals process it. If presented with the chance as a fraction, people tend to focus a lot more on the numerator, than the numerator compared to the denominator. Kahneman presents the example that students are presented with two urns where the first contains 1 red marble out of 10, and the second contains 8 red marbles out of 100. They then afterwards must pick an urn to draw a marble from where they win a prize, if they draw a red marble. | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Even though the test subjects are university students, which assumable are good enough at fractions, that they can calculate the chance of drawing a winning marble, a large part of them answers before they initiate the system 2. | Even though the test subjects are university students, which assumable are good enough at fractions, that they can calculate the chance of drawing a winning marble, a large part of them answers before they initiate the system 2. | ||
| − | The denominator neglect is important to consider in project risk management among others, and especially when representing risk to other team members and stakeholders. | + | The denominator neglect is important to consider in project risk management among others, and especially when representing risk to other team members and stakeholders. |
| − | + | ||
== Headline text == | == Headline text == | ||
Revision as of 18:05, 21 February 2021
In the book "Thinking, fast and slow", writen by the nobel price winner in econonics and professor in psychology Daniel Kahneman, two different methods of thinking is presented, called system 1 and 2.
System 1 rely on knowledge and rutine, and is engaged when a subject is dealing with a task that requires little to no effort, e.g. simple mathematical calculations or rutine work [1]. System 2 is engaged when dealing with tasks in which attention is required and necessary for completing the task, e.g. searching for at specific person in a crowd or parallel parking a car [2]. Both of the systems run simultaneously whenever we are awake, normally system 2 is in a low effort mode, where system 1 "continuously reports impressions, intuitions, intensions and feelings"[3]. These impressions and intuitions can be turned into beliefs and voluntary actions by system 2. In decision making under uncertainty, a cognative bias can thus interfere with the decision making process and have a impact on the thinking of system 2. It is therefore a general misunderstanding that humans think logically, which is why the two systems are relevant in project management.
This article will focus on the correlation between the two systems of thinking and forecasting [4] in project management. More precisely the article will investigate the two systems internal interaction when affected by the anchoring effect and its influence on the optimistic bias when predicting cost, duration and benefits of projects.
Contents |
Introduction to the two systems
It has been known for several decades that’s humans have two different modes of thinking. Kahneman adopts the terms system 1 and 2 with the following definition:
System 1 is fast and automatic and works with little or no effort, and include innate skills, as recognizing objects, persons, and places as well as orienting attention to important events around us. System 1 also include routine work, like solving simple mathematical calculations. When asked the question 2+2=, people will, if having a basic understanding for mathematics, unavoidably think of number 4. This is because the mind has learned to link the two assertions together.
System 2 allocates attention to mental activities that requires it, which means that it would not be possible to for system 2 to focus on several attention requiring activities at once, like calculating larger multiplications while focusing on when a traffic light turns green.
Most of the time, system 1 runs in an automatic state that continuously generates suggestions, intuitions, etc. for system 2, which if approved, can be turned into actions, without much effort from system 2. In a situation where system 1 can’t handle a problem or a task by itself, it will call for system 2, like when asked to calculate a larger mathematical multiplication. The biggest hurdle in the way that the two systems work, is that system 1 can create biased suggestions and intuitions for system 2. System 1 can’t be turned off, and therefore it will always report to system 2, even though system 2 disapproves the suggestion. On the other hand, it would not be possible only to rely on system 2, both because of the speed of which it operates in, but also because of the limited span of attention it can give.
It has been showed that people that is engaged in task that requires attention for a longer period, generally perform worse in task afterwards. This concept is known as ego depletion and occurs because of the small timespan that system 2 can be engaged. If a subject is engaged emotionally in a task for a period, the subject is faster to quit the next task. On the other hand, it is not impossible to engage system 2 in several task after each other, there just need to be a strong incentive behind it.
As mentioned earlier, system 2 continuously gets information, suggestions, and intuitions from system 1, and have how process and control it. One weakness about this, is what Kahneman describes as the lazy system 2. In a situation where information from system 1, seems like routine work, system 2 will in some situations approve it, which in some situations leads to mistakes. In the situation where this happens it is most likely because of lack of motivation. Everyone has the option to slow down and think about the problem, but most people let their system 2 endorse the thinking of system 1.
The two systems importance in project management
A project is undertaken to create a “unique product, service or result[knovel]” and therefore it a task that differs from routine work. There are continuously decisions to be made, that all have an impact on the final product, system, or result, and therefore system 2 is engaged many times throughout. That is why it is important for project managers and generally stakeholders in projects to be aware of the two systems, how they interact and knowing to prohibit or enhance effects of the two systems. The interaction of the two systems, will create biases, that can affect the ways we approach projects, programs and portfolios. In the book Kahneman describes several “products” of different biases, that he names effects, fallacies, illusions, and neglects. In the following one of each “product” will be presented, and why they are relevant to consider in project management. Solutions to prohibit these effects will also be presented.
Bias and the two systems in project management
The anchoring effect
Earlier research done by Kahneman together with Amos Tversky showed, that when people were presented with a number about a subject before asked to take a stand on the same subject, the number presented would have great impact on the final decision [5]. This is what is called the anchoring effect. Even though there is no correlation between the anchor presented to people and their answer about a different subject, they would still interfere. This is one of the things that makes system 2 susceptible to biasing influences, and therefore a vital weakness in projects and decisions in general. As cited earlier, system 2 is continuously influenced with impressions, intuitions etc. witch means that people, reluctantly, take decisions without having a logic argumentation.
There are several parts of projects where the anchoring effect is important to consider, e.g: project cost management [6]. Consider the following situation, a project manager is continuously working on two projects which is far from each other in cost. When shifting between the two projets, the former project is going to make a anchor in the projects managers mind. E.g. In the large project the project manager have to order 1000 windows for a construction project, and because of the large quantity, the project manager can get a considerable discount, but still would have to accept a high total price . When the project manager then soon after starts working on the other smaller project, this price would have left an anchor. Which means that the project manager, both would make higher estimates of total cost, but also lower estimation cost per window/unit because the lacking of quantity discount.
big
Planning fallacy
People involved in projects generally underestimate the time and resources needed for finishing the project or a task within the project, aswell as overestimating the final impact of the project. Kahneman and Tversky uses the term planning falacy to discribe this concept, with the definition that persons involved in projects will predict a unrealistic close to best-case scenarios that could be improved by comparing the project to statistics of similar projects. The main reason for the planning falacy is the optimistic bias, which is a bias that makes people think that they are less likely be victims to negative events. Another reason is the lack of regonizing of the unkown-unknowns, which is the One reason for the planning falacy, is the participants lack of knowledge or allowance to what is called the unknown-unknowns, which in project management, can be future events or hurdles that the participants of project are aware of nor understand.
Another thing discorvered by kahneman is the tendensy to ignore anchors, when operating under the planning fallacy. E.g. the same project manager as in the previus example, that works in the construction industry, has in previus large projects suffert under the planning falacy, in the process of installing windows in the building. One should think that the that the preveus projets would leave and anchor, but the optimism bias can overshine this
The control illusion
Or the illusion of control, is a state whereas individuals believe they have more control over a situation that they do. This makes people misjudge decisions, mainly because of there lack knowledge of a situation, which can lead to underestimating external influences. The illusion is partly, influenced by the optimism bias, that makes people think that the future is bright, and therefore doesn’t take risk into consideration. System 1 is the prime influence in the illusion of control, because it is fast to come up with solutions to things, that sometimes people don’t have control over.
The control illusion is important to consider when working in project management, simply because of the fact, the job consist of controlling projects, and therefore stakeholders can misinterpret that a project manager can control everything within their field.
When working within project integration management, and especially within process monitor and control project work [Knovel side 105], it is useful to consider the control illusion. The work within monitoring and controlling projects, consist of tracking, reviewing, and reporting the progress of the project to compare it with the overall performance objectives. The input to a consists of, among others, project documents such as schedule forecast [ ]
The schedule forecast uses the past performances in the project to determine the future, and if working on this without considering the control illusion, one can overestimate the team’s future performance against upcoming task.
One solution to work against the control illusion is to use the 5 whys technique to find the root cause of a problem that has happened in the past. The reason that the 5 whys work is that a problem which normally would get assessed by system 1, now must get answered by 5 questions in correlation, and therefore eliminates the fast thinking of system 1.
The denominator effect
When presented chance of events happening, no matter if it is positive or negative for the project, the way the chance is presented have a large impact on how individuals process it. If presented with the chance as a fraction, people tend to focus a lot more on the numerator, than the numerator compared to the denominator. Kahneman presents the example that students are presented with two urns where the first contains 1 red marble out of 10, and the second contains 8 red marbles out of 100. They then afterwards must pick an urn to draw a marble from where they win a prize, if they draw a red marble.
Again, here system 1 is the prime influencer on this neglect, because 30-40% of the students picked the urn with 8 red marbles, which is also the urn with the least chance of winning a prize. This is because system 1 paints a picture of 8 red marbles laying in a pool of non-prize marbles, and the same goes for the first urn, where the only is one winning marble.
Even though the test subjects are university students, which assumable are good enough at fractions, that they can calculate the chance of drawing a winning marble, a large part of them answers before they initiate the system 2.
The denominator neglect is important to consider in project risk management among others, and especially when representing risk to other team members and stakeholders.
Headline text
References
- ↑ Kahneman, D. (2012) Thinking, fast and slow . London: Penguin.
- ↑ Kahneman, D. (2012) Thinking, fast and slow . London: Penguin.
- ↑ Kahneman, D. (2012) Thinking, fast and slow . London: Penguin. side 24
- ↑ Project Management Institute, Inc.. (2017). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th Edition). Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI).
- ↑ kilde om anker
- ↑ PIM standard cost
