4.2 The Conceptual Model/Framework
4.2.3 Dependent Variables
120 1993). Leaders of the projects interrelate with one another resulting in an interchange of characters and traits. The change of these traits leads to a change of attitudes as well and this leads to conflicting behaviours and traits. As a result, cognitive dissonance is a concept to be figured in this.
Internal conflicts at times affect the decision-making capacity of a person especially those persons mainly tasked with the role of making resolutions. This is because internal conflicts result in attitude change as well as behavioural change (Rabin, 1991). The way that a person is likely to address subordinates, peers, or even seniors result to change in the approach of decision making (Rabin, 1991). Further, perceptions of the resolution to be made also plays an important role in the traits, desired attitude and behaviours of the particular leader (Elliot, 1994). Where a project leader has been coerced to make a particular decision his attitude to the particular decision shall not be the same to that which he agreed to make the decision wilfully. In order to understand the impact of independent and mediating variables on mega projects, it is also important to contextualize the dependent variables of the study.
121 significant ventures. Attempting to work out the impact of the vast majority of these factors at the beginning phase of a venture when cost targets are set, can be a thorough errand, if not purposeless. There is additionally an abnormal state of vulnerability around a large portion of these components at the initial stages of the venture as verified by Jennings (2012). Consequently, the reasons for venture underperformance or cost overruns include but are not limited to: scope changes, demand deficit risk, mechanical vulnerability, unforeseen topographical highlights, venture intricacy, and negative majority power, for example, restricting partner voices. Most likely, these components at some time add to cost invades and advantage deficits, however, it might be contended that they are not the genuine, or root, source.
Cost overrun is among the major problems in Megaprojects. In the on-going thesis, cost overrun is a research variable that is related to decision making. In turn, cost overrun is known to be affected by personality traits and over-optimism as discussed in earlier sections; thus, the relationship between cost overrun and cognitive bias can be theorized through the interactions of the components influencing cognitive bias such as personality traits and over-optimism. Evidently, cost overrun models to a large extent the decisions of project managers; thus, the on-going section aims to elaborate on the interaction of the variables with each other. Cost overrun occurs when the actual cost of a project exceeds the budgeted, estimated, original, or target cost (Larsen, 2015).
Bearing in mind its ambiguities and complexities cost overrun cannot be linked to a single source but several causes. Wroblewski (2018), states that there are various causes of project cost overrun all revolving around the managers’ personality traits and
decision-making processes. The reasons are given above clearly show that there is a relationship between cost overrun, personality traits and decision making. Notably, this
122 research poses that personality traits influence projects managers ability to effectively manage cost overrun in Megaprojects. Thus, different personality traits may have an influence on one or more of the causes of cost overrun identified above.
As discussed above, cost overrun arises as a result of several variables;
however, the focus of the on-going section is to determine how the construct affects decision making. The link between cost overrun and decision making can be understood by enlisting a clear definition of decision making. Wroblewski (2018) defined the decision making as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options which include weighing positive and negatives of each option and consider all the alternatives. The person must also be able to forecast the outcome of each option or alternative and determine which option is the best for that particular situation
(Wroblewski, 2018).
Over time scholars have noted that costs are frequently understated in the initial preparation for the execution of extensive projects (Flyvbjerg, et al., 2008). The
underlying variables leading to underestimation of project costs is often attributed to psychological biases related to personality traits and the innate characteristics of megaprojects. Projects managers and the stakeholders involved in mega projects often play down costs due to optimism bias (Flyvbjerg, 2017); this happens when they underestimate costs and overstate the benefits of the project. Moreover, scholars claim that pessimism in megaprojects does not seem to reduce cost overrun as erroneous estimates are often magnified instead of cancelling each other out (Flyvbjerg, 2017).
With regard to the characteristics of megaprojects, the supposed “uniqueness” of most major projects leads to the adoption of novel designs and limits the ability of managers, CEOs and other stakeholders to learn from other projects (Flyvbjerg, 2017).
123 Specifically, Flyvbjerg (2017) refers to the latterly described phenomenon as
“uniqueness bias”.
Projects experience overrun as a result of unrealistic cost estimates and
inadequate funding. These are factors that are arrived at through the process of decision making. The managers and coordinators of a project brainstorm and come up with the project estimated cost which is an issue of decision making (Cantarelli, 2010). Where managers arrive at a decision grounded on wrong estimates then it is prudent enough that the project will experience overrun. Coordination and contingency plans are guaranteed where decision making is rational. Irrational decisions result in poor coordination and unachievable contingency plans. Resulting to an overrun since where coordination is poor there is loss of project funds and also where the contingency plan is not clear or unachievable more funds are used in procurement of services or even
materials that are not necessary for the project.
Poor decision making process sometimes may lead to delays which potentially impact on project performance and cost overruns (Williams, 2010). Also, where leaders underestimate the toughness or complexity of a project, chances are high that they will allocate a small amount of money for the purpose of achieving the end result during their decision making process (Katongole, 2013). Later on, it becomes clear that the project is not as clear as it had been deemed to be necessitating the need of pumping more resources into the project in order to supplement the earlier given estimates leading to cost overrun. The variable of risk relates with a cost overrun in the sense that the framers of the project may fail to take into consideration the most probable risks that the project might encounter and the effects that the risk might pose on the project
(Kazaz, 2012). The project then encounters risks that the framers did not have in mind
124 that it would occur and at times finding the project uninsured against the particular risk thereby causing a loss that cannot be redressed by any other means apart from more funding by the project owners (Kazaz, 2012).
Confirmation is the other variable that relates with a cost overrun in the sense that at many times the project plan fails to conform to the realities of life and as a result, the whole plan ends up being just but a fiction which cannot be realized (Hole, 2011).
The quality of decisions made can be inferred from the resultant effects once the particular action is taken (Love,2013). Among the effects of decisions made and actualized is the resultant cost of the particular project. Decisions, therefore, play a major role in the resultant cost of the projects. Key decisions such as the employees to carry out the project, the remuneration of the employees, the source or supplier of the project requirements and the cost of procurement of the project requirements have an impact on the eventual cost of the project (Love, 2013). Cost overrun is as a result of poor decision making that result in decisions which do not take into consideration the cheap alternative options existing. In his study, Shepher (2014) argues that project managers should come up with decisions which strike a balance between cost and quality because both can result to a cost overrun in one way or the other. Further, Love (2013) argues that individuals have a tendency to hike prices with an aim to create the impression that the products are of high quality, in essence, they capitalize on biases such as anchoring where individuals use a specific feature to make judgments on every occasion. Meshack (2016) further argues that in pursuit to curb the chances of an occurrence of a cost overrun project managers should learn to strike a balance between quality products and low-cost products.
125 Shepher (2014) states that decisions of project managers are usually designed to curb cost overrun therefore mainly they seek to procure cheap products and services so as to spend little, however, this places the project at a high risk of a cost overrun since the durability of the cheap products is not guaranteed. Love (2013) goes ahead to state that projects should mainly focus more on quality than spending little or else that
project will end up spending more than what was budgeted for. Pearce (2013) states that decisions made should be those that are meant to ensure that a project of the desired quality is achieved because where decisions are designed to curb cost overrun then the quality of the project shall be ignored. Projects fail for lack of synchronization of the quality and the desired outcomes (Hugo, 2010).The relationship between cost overrun and decision making is also looked from the angle of the perception of the project managers to the project (Hugo, 2010). The complexity of a project is an essential factor in attempting to curb the occurrence of a cost overrun. Project costs are products of an estimation which relies much on the perceived complexity of the project (Hugo, 2010).
Where the complexity is underestimated the cost estimate will be underestimated to and eventually completing the project with the estimated value will be impossible resulting in a cost overrun. This is also affirmed by Hillary (2013) who states that the complexity and cost of a project are directly proportional. Decision making also may result to cost overrun in the sense that project managers make judgments that do not take into consideration the fluctuations in prices of services and materials in the market (Berechman, 2011). The market where products and services are sourced is dynamic and changes within a short period of time. Project managers are therefore required to have in mind the chances of hiking of prices of services and projects in the market where they are sourced from (Berechman, 2011). The managers are therefore expected
126 to come up with prices that will not be rendered too low once the prices hike as a result of economic fluctuations.
Statistics proved that framers of unsolicited project plans fail to take into consideration the high chances of occurrence of fluctuation for the fear that the plans may be rejected for lack of reasonability. Approximately 25% of such projects fail as the result of a cost overrun which at times is as high as 33% of the estimated cost of the project (Berechman, 2011). In explaining this statistical data Jackson (2009) states that it is for the lack of considering fluctuations that would occur in the economy because most organizations and corporations compare project cost estimates with the
contemporary prices, therefore, choose projects plans that are within the scope of the contemporary prices (Jackson,2009). Placing the fear of being left out by firms seeking to undertake a project as a result of the competition from other firms, therefore, firms decide to under-quote the prices so as to win the particular project (Jackson, 2009).
Decision making in solicited project plans is different from that in the unsolicited project plan. This is because as the former is oriented and motivated on the achievement of the project, the latter is motivated by beating the existing competitions (Jackson, 2009). Cantarelli (2010) states that the duty of disclosure of all material information bestowed on the project planners is usually violated in cases where the project is unsolicited. This explains why decision making in unsolicited projects is impaired and mostly results in decisions that give rise to cost overrun (Cantarelli, 2010). In addition, this leads to lack of client satisfaction given that such projects are eventually completed at higher budgets than initially planned for, they take longer time than planned for, and may end up being of poor quality. Ideally, these are the performance indicators
conceptualised in this study’s framework to indicate how the process of decision
127 making is impaired by a number of constraints, leading to poor project performance.
Further, in expounding on the associations that have been explained on the conceptual framework, it is important to review the theories that have been proposed to shape the impact of cognitive biases on project decisions and performance.