The Impact of Cognitive Distortions on Decision Making in Agile Project Management Frameworks: Current Positions and Perspectives in the Academic Community

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.

1. 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.).

2. Wegemer G.B., ed. New Atlantis (1626) by Francis Bacon. Irving, TX: CTMS Publishers at the University of Dallas; 2020. 47 p.

3. 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.2014.5601

4. 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.

5. McDaid 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.pdf

6. Sillitti 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.2005.29

7. 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).

8. Shenhar A., Dvir D. Project management research — the challenge and opportunity. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2008;36(2):112–121. DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2008.4534315

9. Özkan D., Mishra A. Agile project management tools: A brief comparative view. Cybernetics and Information Technologies. 2019;19(4):17–25. DOI: 10.2478/cait-2019–0033

10. Hoda R., Salleh N., Grundy J. The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Software. 2018;35(5):58–63. DOI: 10.1109/MS.2018.290111318

11. Mokhtar R., Khayyat M. A comparative case study of waterfall and agile management. SAR Journal. 2022;5(1):52–62. DOI: 10.18421/SAR51–07

12. Cooper 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: 10.1080/08956308.2018.1421380

13. Poth 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_11

14. 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.).

15. 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/s10664–021–09967–3

16. Ngo-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_12

17. 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.

18. Montgomery O. What is agile decision-making in project management? Software Advice. Jan. 02, 2020. URL: https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/agile-decision-making

19. 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.).

20. Vikhman A.A., Popov A. Yu. Cognitive biases: A single factor or compensatory interactions? Nauchnoe mnenie = Scientific opinion. 2013;(6):174–180. (In Russ).

21. 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.

22. Arkhipova. 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.).

23. Yakovchuk A.I. Behavioral economics and project management: Cognitive distortions in project planning. Ekonomicheskii vector = Economic Vector. 2022;(22):44–47. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.36807/2411–7269–2022–2–29–44–47

24. Loginov 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: 10.17323/1813–8918–2020–3–444–453

25. 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.).

26. Orive R. Group consensus, action immediacy, and opinion confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1988;14(3):573–577. DOI: 10.1177/0146167288143016

27. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 1954;7(2):117–140. DOI: 10.1177/001872675400700202

28. Asch 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/h0093718

29. Janis I.L. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1972. 277 p.

30. Stoner J.A.F. A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1961. 224 p.

31. 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.).

32. Barminskii 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.).

33. Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica. 1954;22(1):22–36. DOI: 10.2307/1909829

34. Simon H.A. Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic Review. 1978;68(2):1–16.

35. Kapeliushnikov 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: 10.31063/2073–6517/2018.15–3.1

36. Gigerenzer 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.103.4.650

37. 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.).