managementscienceУправленческие науки / Management SciencesManagement Sciences2304-022X2618-9941Financial University under The Government of Russian Federation10.26794/2304-022X-2024-14-2-104-115managementscience-553Research ArticleУПРАВЛЕНИЕ ПРОЕКТАМИPROJECT MANAGEMENTВлияние когнитивных искажений на принятие решений в гибких фреймворках управления проектами: текущие положения и взгляды научного сообществаThe Impact of Cognitive Distortions on Decision Making in Agile Project Management Frameworks: Current Positions and Perspectives in the Academic Communityhttps://orcid.org/0009-0000-7183-3542ХамитовД. А.KhamitovD. A.

Хамитов Давид Альбертович — эксперт-аналитик ООО «ГПБ-ИТ1», аспирант РАНХиГС.

Москва

David A. Khamitov — expert-analyst, LLC “GPB-IT1”, post-graduate student of RANEPA.

Moscow

dawid.hamitov@yandex.ruРАНХиГСРоссияRANEPARussian Federation202407082024142104115Copyright © Хамитов Д.А., 20242024Хамитов Д.А.Khamitov D.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://managementscience.fa.ru/jour/article/view/553

Цель исследования заключается в рассмотрении текущих положений и взглядов научного сообщества относительно влияния когнитивных искажений (как индивидуальных, так и групповых) на принятие решений в рамках такого подхода к управлению проектами, как гибкий фреймворк. В статье дается определение понятий «проект», «управление проектом», «гибкий фреймворк управления проектами», «эвристика», «когнитивные искажения»; описывается, какого рода решения (согласно иерархической структуре) могут приниматься при использовании гибких фреймворков управления проектами. На основе анализа ряда научных работ фиксируется наличие проблемы успешности (результативности) реализуемых (в том числе и в сфере ИТ) проектов даже при условии применения современных гибких фреймворков управления ими. Автором исследования рассматривается понятие эвристик и когнитивных искажений (как индивидуальных, так и групповых), их проявления и влияния на решения, принимаемые в гибких фреймворках управления проектами; приводится обзор развития теории принятия решений и выделяются три основных подхода к рассмотрению эмпирического процесса принятия решений: по Д. Канеману и А. Тверски (эвристический подход; поведенческая экономика), по Г. Гигеренцеру (подход экологической рациональности), по Г. Клайну (натуралистический подход). Результатом работы явилась классификация вероятных индивидуальных и групповых когнитивных искажений на каждом из трех уровней принятия решений в гибких фреймворках управления проектами (согласно иерархической структуре): оперативном, тактическом и стратегическом.

The purpose of the study is to review the current positions and views of the scientific community regarding the influence of cognitive distortions (both individual and group) on decision-making within such an approach to project management as agile framework. The article defines the concepts of “project”, “project management”, “agile project management framework”, “heuristics”, “cognitive distortions”; it describes what kind of decisions (according to the hierarchical structure) can be made when using agile project management frameworks. On the basis of analysis of a number of scientific works, the existence of the problem of success (efficiency) of implemented (including IT) projects even if modern flexible frameworks of project management are used is fixed. The author of the study considers the concept of heuristics and cognitive distortions (both individual and group), describes the manifestation of individual and group cognitive biases, gives examples of individual and group cognitive biases’ impact to decisions taken in Agile project management. As a result, the author proposes a classification of likely to manifest individual and group cognitive biases at each of the three levels of decision-making in Agile (according to the hierarchical structure): operational decisions, tactical decisions, strategic decisions. The author also provides an overview of the development of decision-making theory and describes three main approaches to the consideration of the empirical decision-making process: according to D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (heuristic approach; behavioral economics), according to G. Gigerenzer (ecological rationality approach), according to G. Klein (naturalistic approach). The author also identifies a possible further vector for the development of research in this direction. The result of the work was the classification of probable individual and group cognitive distortions at each of the three levels of decision-making in flexible project management frameworks (according to the hierarchical structure): operational, tactical, and strategic.

когнитивные искажениягрупповые когнитивные искаженияиндивидуальные когнитивные искажениягибкие фреймворки управления проектамивлияние когнитивных искажений на принятие решенийэвристикапринятие решений в гибких фреймворках управления проектамиклассификация когнитивных искаженийошибки в управлении проектамиэффективность agile-командcognitive biasesgroup cognitive biasesindividual cognitive biasesAgile project managementthe impact of cognitive biases to decision-makingheuristicdecision-making in Agile project managementclassification of cognitive biasesmistakes in project managementefficiency of Agile teamsReferencesХелдман К. Профессиональное управление проектом. Пер. с англ. М.: Лаборатория знаний; 2022. 763 с.Heldman K. PMP: Project management professional study guide. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2005. 592 p. (Russ. ed.: Heldman K. Professional’noe upravlenie proeektom. Moscow: Laboratoriya znanii = Knowledge laboratory; 2022. 763 p.).Wegemer G.B., ed. New Atlantis (1626) by Francis Bacon. Irving, TX: CTMS Publishers at the University of Dallas; 2020. 47 p.Wegemer G.B., ed. New Atlantis (1626) by Francis Bacon. Irving, TX: CTMS Publishers at the University of Dallas; 2020. 47 p.Marinho M., Sampaio S., Lima T., de Moura H. A systematic review of uncertainties in software project management. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications. 2014;5(6):1–21. DOI: 10.5121/ijsea.2014.5601Marinho M., Sampaio S., Lima T., de Moura H. A systematic review of uncertainties in software project management. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications. 2014;5(6):1–21. DOI: 10.5121/ijsea.2014.5601Macedo K., Marinho M., Santos S. Uncertainty management in software projects: A case study in a public company. Journal of Convergence Information Technology. 2019;14(1):61–67.Macedo K., Marinho M., Santos S. Uncertainty management in software projects: A case study in a public company. Journal of Convergence Information Technology. 2019;14(1):61–67.McDaid K., Greer D., Keenan F., et al. Managing uncertainty in agile release planning. In: Proc. 18th Int. conf. on software engineering & knowledge engineering (SEKE’2006). (San Francisco, CA, July 5–7, 2006). Skokie, IL: Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School; 2006:138–143. URL: https://ksiresearchorg.ipage.com/seke/Proceedings/seke/SEKE2006_Proceedings.pdfMcDaid K., Greer D., Keenan F., et al. Managing uncertainty in agile release planning. In: Proc. 18th Int. conf. on software engineering & knowledge sngineering (SEKE’2006). (San Francisco, CA, July 5–7, 2006). Skokie, IL: Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School; 2006:138–143. URL: https://ksiresearchorg.ipage.com/seke/Proceedings/seke/SEKE2006_Proceedings.pdfSillitti A., Ceschi M., Russo B., Succi G. Managing uncertainty in requirements: A survey in documentation-driven and agile companies. In: 11th IEEE Int. software metrics symp. (METRICS’05). (Como, September 19–22, 2005). New York, NY: IEEE; 2005:10–17. DOI: 10.1109/METRICS.2005.29Sillitti A., Ceschi M., Russo B., Succi G. Managing uncertainty in requirements: A survey in documentation-driven and agile companies. In: 11th IEEE Int. software metrics symp. (METRICS’05). (Como, September 19–22, 2005). New York, NY: IEEE; 2005:10–17. DOI: 10.1109/METRICS.2005.29Грекул В.И., Коровкина Н.В., Куприянов Ю.В. Проектное управление в сфере информационных технологий. М.: Лаборатория знаний; 2020. 337 с.Grekul V.I., Korovkina N.V., Kupriyanov Yu.V. Project management in the field of information technology. Moscow: Laboratoriya znanii = Knowledge laboratory; 2020. 337 p. (In Russ).Shenhar A., Dvir D. Project management research — the challenge and opportunity. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2008;36(2):112–121. DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2008.4534315Shenhar A., Dvir D. Project management research — the challenge and opportunity. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2008;36(2):112–121. DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2008.4534315Özkan D., Mishra A. Agile project management tools: A brief comparative view. Cybernetics and Information Technologies. 2019;19(4):17–25. DOI: 10.2478/cait-2019–0033Özkan D., Mishra A. Agile project management tools: A brief comparative view. Cybernetics and Information Technologies. 2019;19(4):17–25. DOI: 10.2478/cait-2019–0033Hoda R., Salleh N., Grundy J. The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Software. 2018;35(5):58–63. DOI: 10.1109/MS.2018.290111318Hoda R., Salleh N., Grundy J. The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Software. 2018;35(5):58–63. DOI: 10.1109/MS.2018.290111318Mokhtar R., Khayyat M. A comparative case study of waterfall and agile management. SAR Journal. 2022;5(1):52–62. DOI: 10.18421/SAR51–07Mokhtar R., Khayyat M. A comparative case study of waterfall and agile management. SAR Journal. 2022;5(1):52–62. DOI: 10.18421/SAR51–07Cooper R., Sommer A.I. Agile-stage-gate for manufacturers: Changing the way new products are developed. Integrating agile project management methods into a stage-gate system offers both opportunities and challenges. Research-Technology Management. 2018;61(2):17–26. DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2018.1421380Cooper R., Sommer A.I. Agile-stage-gate for manufacturers: Changing the way new products are developed. Integrating agile project management methods into a stage-gate system offers both opportunities and challenges. Research-Technology Management. 2018;61(2):17–26. DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2018.1421380Poth A., Kottke M., Riel A. Evaluation of agile team work quality. In: Paasivaara M., Kruchten P., eds. Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming — workshops. Cham: Springer-Verlag; 2020:101–110. (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Vol. 396.). DOI: 10.1007/978–3–030–58858–8_11Poth A., Kottke M., Riel A. Evaluation of agile team work quality. In: Paasivaara M., Kruchten P., eds. Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming — workshops. Cham: Springer-Verlag; 2020:101–110.(Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Vol. 396.). DOI: 10.1007/978–3–030–58858–8_11Бэрон Р., Бирн Д., Джонсон Б. Социальная психология. Ключевые идеи. Пер. с англ. СПб.: Питер; 2003. 512 с.Baron R.A., Byrne D., Johnson B.T. Exploring social psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd; 1997. 363 p. (Russ. ed.: Baron R., Byrne D., Johnson B. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya. Klyuchevye idei = Exploring social psychology. Key ideas. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2003. 512 p.).Moe N.B., Šmite D., Paasivaara M., Lassenius C. Finding the sweet spot for organizational control and team autonomy in large-scale agile software development. Empirical Software Engineering. 2021;26(5):101. DOI: 10.1007/s10664–021–09967–3Moe N.B., Šmite D., Paasivaara M., Lassenius C. Finding the sweet spot for organizational control and team autonomy in large-scale agile software development. Empirical Software Engineering. 2021;26(5):101. DOI: 10.1007/s10664–021–09967–3Ngo-The A., Ruhe G. Decision support in requirements engineering. In: Aurum A., Wohlin C., eds. Engineering and managing software requirements. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2005;267–286. DOI: 10.1007/3–540–28244–0_12Ngo-The A., Ruhe G. Decision support in requirements engineering. In: Aurum A., Wohlin C., eds. Engineering and managing software requirements. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2005;267–286. DOI: 10.1007/3–540–28244–0_12Anthony R.N. Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Boston, MA: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University; 1965. 180 p.Anthony R.N. Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Boston, MA: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University; 1965. 180 p.Montgomery O. What is agile decision-making in project management? Software Advice. Jan. 02, 2020. URL: https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/agile-decision-makingMontgomery O. What is agile decision-making in project management? Software Advice. Jan. 02, 2020. URL: https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/agile-decision-makingКанеман Д., Словик П., Тверски А. Принятие решений в неопределенности. Правила и предубеждения. Пер. с англ. Харьков: Гуманитарный Центр; 2021. 540 с.Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A., eds. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1982. 544 p. (Russ. ed.: Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A., eds. Prinyatie reshenii v neopredelennosti. Pravila i predubezhdeniya Decision Making in Uncertainty. Rules and biases. Kharkov: Humanitarian Center; 2021. 540 p.).Вихман А.А., Попов А.Ю. Когнитивные искажения: единый фактор или компенсаторные взаимодействия? Научное мнение. 2013;(6):174–180.Vikhman A.A., Popov A. Yu. Cognitive biases: A single factor or compensatory interactions? Nauchnoe mnenie = Scientific opinion. 2013;(6):174–180. (In Russ).Kahneman D., Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D., eds. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:103–119.Kahneman D., Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D., eds. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:103–119.Архипова Н. Как обойти ловушки мышления? Контур. 27.05.2019. URL: https://kontur.ru/articles/5444Arkhipova. How to overcome cognitive biases? / How to bypass the traps of thinking? Kontur = Contour. May 07, 2019. URL: https://kontur.ru/articles/5444 (In Russ.).Яковчук А.И. Поведенческая экономика и управление проектами: когнитивные искажения в планировании проекта. Экономический вектор. 2022;(2):44–47. DOI: 10.36807/2411–7269–2022–2–29–44–47Yakovchuk A.I. Behavioral economics and project management: Cognitive distortions in project planning. Ekonomicheskii vector = Economic Vector. 2022;(22):44–47. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.36807/2411–7269–2022–2–29–44–47Логинов Н. И., Александрова А. С. Современные тенденции в зарубежных исследованиях когнитивных искажений в процессах принятия решений. Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2020;17(3):444–453. DOI: 10.17323/1813–8918–2020–3–444–453Loginov N.I., Aleksandrova A.S. Current trends in international research on cognitive distortions in decision-making processes. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2020;17(3):444–453. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/1813–8918–2020–3–444–453Бэрон Р., Керр Н., Миллер Н. Социальная психология группы: процессы, решения, действия. Пер. с англ. СПб.: Питер; 2003. 272 с.Baron R.S., Kerr N.L., Miller N. Group process, group decision, group action. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1992. 231 p. (Russ. ed.: Baron R., Kerr N., Miller N. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya gruppy: protsessy, resheniya, deistviya = Social psychology of the group: processes, decisions, actions. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2003. 272 p.).Orive R. Group consensus, action immediacy, and opinion confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1988;14(3):573–577. DOI: 10.1177/0146167288143016Orive R. Group consensus, action immediacy, and opinion confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1988;14(3):573–577. DOI: 10.1177/0146167288143016Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 1954;7(2):117–140. DOI: 10.1177/001872675400700202Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 1954;7(2):117–140. DOI: 10.1177/001872675400700202Asch S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 1956;70(9):1–70. DOI: 10.1037/h0093718Asch S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 1956;70(9):1–70. DOI: 10.1037/h0093718Janis I.L. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1972. 277 p.Janis I.L. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1972. 277 p.Stoner J.A.F. A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1961. 224 p.Stoner J.A.F. A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1961. 224 p.Паскаль Б. Мысли. Пер. с фр. М.: Изд-во имени Сабашниковых; 1995. 480 с.Pascal B. Œuvres complètes. Paris: Éditions du Seuil; 1963. 676 p. (Collection L’intégrale). (Russ. ed.: Pascal B. Mysli = Thoughts. Moscow: Publ. House named after Sabashnikov; 1995. 480 p.).Барминский А.В. Неопределенность, случайность и риск: путь от философского осмысления до освоения. Дубна. 2007. URL: https://www.barminsk.narod.ru/essay.htmBarminskii A.V. Uncertainty, chance and risk: The path from philosophical comprehension to understanding. Dubna. 2007. URL: https://www.barminsk.narod.ru/essay.htm (In Russ.).Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica. 1954;22(1):22–36. DOI: 10.2307/1909829Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica. 1954;22(1):22–36. DOI: 10.2307/1909829Simon H.A. Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic Review. 1978;68(2):1–16.Simon H.A. Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic Review. 1978;68(2):1–16.Капелюшников Р.И. Поведенческая экономика: несколько комментариев о рациональности и иррациональности. Журнал экономической теории. 2018;15(3):359–376. DOI: 10.31063/2073–6517/2018.15–3.1Kapeliushnikov R.I. Behavioral economics: Several commentaries on rationality and irrationality. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii = Russian Journal of the Economic Theory. 2018;15(3):359–376. (In Russ). DOI: 10.31063/2073–6517/2018.15–3.1Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D.G. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review. 1996;103(4):650–669. DOI: 10.1037/0033–295X.103.4.650Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D.G. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review. 1996;103(4):650–669. DOI: 10.1037/0033–295X.103.4.650Клайн Г. Источники силы: как люди принимают решения. Пер. с англ. М.: Дело; 2020. 480 с.Klein G.A. Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2017. 389 p. (Russ. ed.: Klein G. Istochniki sily: kak lyudi prinimayut resheniya = Sources of power: How people make decisions. Moscow: Delo = Business; 2020. 480 p.).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.