Applied Behavioral Project Management - Designed Around ... · Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM Jodi Wilson, PhD President, Leading Projects President, Ins7tute for Neuro & Behavioral Project

Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM

Jodi Wilson, PhDPresident, Leading Projects

President, Ins7tute for Neuro & Behavioral Project Management www.nbpmi.com

Leading

PROJECTS www.leadingprojects.org

Applied Behavioral Project Management – Designed Around the Grey Ma@er

Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project ManagementLeadi

ngPROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!

2

“I am completely opera.onal, all my circuits are func.oning perfectly”



Designing Project Management Around the Brain3



The Missing Pieces in Technical Processes4



The Need for Redesign5

• Over $15 trillion a year in global GDP is projects

• Between $5 and $7 trillion a year in failed schedule and cost

objecFves is due to human factors



Meet … The BRAIN

• Behavior is a part of everything we do.

• Neuroscience and Psychology: explains what we are and do.

6



Human EndeavorsTo Dream…

7



Human Endeavors & Human Factors

• Every great human endeavor ever

accomplished or ever to be

accomplished was and will be a

project.

• Every great project relies on humans

to accomplishment it.

• Every human is prone to error and

irra?onal decisions.

• The success of every great human

endeavor, then, relies on effec?ve

planning and execu?on

8



Applying Science to Project Management9



10 Behavioral Economics & Behavioral Finance……Now, “Behavioral Project Management”



11

Defining Neuro and Behavioral Project Management

• Neuro and Behavioral Project Management is a method of managing projects that applies insights from neuroscience and psychology to explain and mi?gate decision-making human behavior in project environments. Behavior Project

Management

Agile

PMBOK

Prince2



12

Ra#onality, Human Factors, and Predictability

The Behavioral and Neurosciences, then, are the core drivers of all technical and non-technical processes we currently use on a project, including:

• Project management methods

• Leadership

• Teamwork

• MoEvaEonal methods

• EmoEonal intelligence

70% Impact 30% Impact

Behavioral

Technical

Because if we understand the brain, we can understand its outputs in every domain.



13

Disrup'on in Projects

Vola=lity Ambiguity

Complexity Uncertainty



14

What is “Behavioral Project Management”• First and foremost, the ?me constraint is what differen?ates us from

opera?ons; and this ?me constraint changes human behavior.

• Applicability of the judgment and decision-making sciences in a project management context.

• Applicability of organiza?onal psychology to project management and project-based organiza?ons that differs significantly from most opera?ons-based constructs.

• Unique challenges to leadership and teams in project environments.

• Behavioral and neuroscience associated with predic?on, and the role it plays in project planning.

• The unique role that social psychology plays in project integra?on.



15

Project-Based Leadership & Organiza7onal Psychology

Cogni7ve Impacts of Time Pressure

Project-Based Teams

The Neuro/Behavioral Domains Across Project Phases

Behavioral Project ClosingBehavioral Project Execu-onBehavioral Project PlanningBehavioral Project Ini-a-ng

Heuris7cs

Choice Architecture/Nudge

Judgment & Decision Making Sciences

Social Psychology

Uncertainty Sciences

Risk Sciences

Forecas7ng/Predic7on Sciences

Cogni7ve Biases

Neuroscience

Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project Management

Leading

PROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!

16

What’s (me have to do with it?

Megías, A., Navas, J. F., Petrova, D., Cándido, A., Maldonado, A., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Catena, A. (August 01, 2015). Neural mechanisms underlying urgent and evaluaMve behaviors: An fMRI study on the interacMon of automaMc and controlled processes. Human Brain Mapping, 36, 8, 2853-2864.

• Time constraints acMvate an

area of the brain releasing the

motor system from inhibiMon,

someMmes causing faster and

possibly premature decisions.

• Time pressure also reduces

creaMvity, and thus innovaMon.



17

Time Pressure Processing

Inputs Time Pressure

Processing

Reduced Training & Coaching

Reduced Crea7vity

Decision Errors

Increase

Biases Increase

Risky Decision-Making

Increases

Changes Trust,

Ethics, and Governance



18

The %me constraint is changing all thinking

Put simply• projects have >me constraints > • >me constraints create >me

pressure > • >me pressure changes how the

brain reacts



19

Cogni&ve Load & Decision-Making

Cogni=ve Load

Decision fa=gue



20

Your Brain on Op,mis,c Planning

• We are more op>mis>c than

pessimis>c, resul>ng in unrealis>c:

• Risk analysis (Risk KA)

• Schedule dura>on es>ma>on (Time KA)

• Cost es>ma>on (Cost KA)

• Note that future events are more

heavily weighted toward

op>mism. Sharot, T., Riccardi, A. M., Raio, C. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Neural mechanisms mediating optimism

bias. Nature, 450(7166), 102-5. http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/nature06280



21The Future of Forecas.ng and Planning Accuracy

• Forecas=ng is NOT just guesswork.

• Dr. Tetlock, an expert in predic=on, and researcher for the U.S. government

Intelligence Community, found the following regarding predic=on accuracy:

• Forecasters with no training: 36% more accurate than a coin toss.

• Forecasters with training: 41% more accurate than a coin toss.

• Forecasters with training in teams: 44% more accurate than a coin toss.

• Elite forecas=ng teams: 66% more accurate than a coin toss.

• The best forecasters have been shown to increase their accuracy by an average of

83%, and that success is aPributed to how forecasters think.

• We have already tried several mi5ga5ons, with similar results

No Training WithTraining,

Solo

WithTraining,

Team

Elite Team

Time, Resource, Risk, and Cost Knowledge Areas



22

Mapping the Biases to PMBOK and Other Methodologies



23

Applica'on by Project Environment • High =me-pressure projects (Time KA)

• High risk (Risk KA)

• Ambiguous

• Vola=le

• Where predic=on accuracy is cri=cal

• In the Planning phase

• Forecas=ng during Execu$on phase



24

Using Earned Value to Improve Predic7on

• Monitor op=mism by organiza=on, PM, analyst,

etc. (Execu=on phase).

• Infer lifecycle impacts to baseline based on

monthly forecast (Planning phase).

• Measure Op=mis=c Forecast Rate (OFR) through

forecast-BCWP.

• Pinpoint prime contracts (Scope KA),

organiza=ons, or individuals for focused training

where forecasts are consistently inaccurate.

24

Behavioral Earned Value



25

Increase visibility of elements that show project realiBes

VisibilityProvide rouBne feedback to your forecasters on the accuracy of their predicBons

Feedback

Reduce biases through awareness of them and self-monitoring

Awareness We have conscious and unconscious intenBons, drives, and moBvaBons that lead behavior

Inten3onality

Passive Measures Ac$ve Measures

Increasing Accuracy of Project Predic4on using Behavioral and Neuroscience

Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM



26

What Can You Do?• Recognize, first and foremost, that behavior drives

everything. Formally adopt behavioral approaches in

your organizaEon.

• Employ choice architecture in project management

process design.

• Put a new emphasis on planning and forecasEng,

from a perspecEve of predicEon (Planning and

ExecuEon phases).

Ins$tute forNeuro & Behavioral Project Management

Leading

PROJECTS LeadingProjects.org Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!

27

But Don’t Stop There…• Integrate (Integra>on KA).

• Mi>gate the equa>on: Siloed informa>on + biases +

behavior = work-flow breakdown and error.

• Strategic leadership development, hiring, and promo>on

(Integra>on KA).

• Messaging and communica>ons that have more effec>ve

results (Communica>ons KA).

• Using Social Psychology to improve cross-func>onal

integra>on (Integra>on KA).



28

Increasing Your Value

• Increased on->me project delivery (Time KA).

• Higher project management organiza>onal competency.

• Reduced risk realiza>on for your client (Risk KA).

• Fusing a full spectrum of human competencies in your

projects.

• Increased customer trust in project outcomes.

• Being a leader in advanced project management.



29

What we do…

• Ac=on Research

• Integra=ng behavioral science into project educa=on

• Behavior-Informed Project Design

• Training and coaching



30

References• Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (March 01, 2008). Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: An organizational culture perspective. Project Management Journal, 39, 1, 7-15.

• Anderson, A. (February 16, 2012). Unflagging Optimism. Scientific American Mind, 23, 1, 11.

• Bell, L., Van, W. C. C., & Steyn, H. (December 01, 2016). Knowledge-sharing within the project-based organisation : a knowledge-pull framework. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27, 4, 18-33.

• Bendoly, E., Thomas, D., & Capra, M. (August 01, 2010). Multilevel Social Dynamics Considerations for Project Management Decision Makers: Antecedents and Implications of Group Member Tie Development. Decision Sciences, 41, 3, 459-490.

• Butler, Arthur G., Jr. (1973). Project management: A study in organizational conflict. Academy of Management Journal (Pre-1986), 16(1), 84. Retrieved from https://tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/docview/229554925?accountid=34120

• Caputo, A. (2013) A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24 (4). pp. 374-398. ISSN 1044-4068.) Emerald.

• Chen, W. (January 01, 2007). Analysis of Rail Transit Project Selection Bias With an Incentive Approach. Planning Theory, 6, 1, 69-94.

• Chen, T., & Wang, Y.-C. (January 01, 2012). An Integrated Project Management System for Facilitating Knowledge Learning. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (ijeis), 8, 2, 30-51.

• Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Company.

• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (3rd Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

• Creswell, J. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

• Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (September 18, 2013). Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. Bmj Quality & Safety, 22.



31

References• Decisions and Designs Inc. McLean VA, Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos. (1977). Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures.

• Eizakshiri, F., Chan, P. W., & Emsley, M. W. (April 07, 2015). Where is intentionality in studying project delays?. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8, 2, 349-367.

• Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (August 01, 2006). Enhancing Creativity Through “Mindless” Work: A Framework of Workday Design. Organization Science, 17, 4, 470-483.

• Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.

• Fabricius, Golo, Büttgen, & Marion. (2015). Project managers' overconfidence: how is risk reflected in anticipated project success?. Heidelberg: Springer.

• Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (January 01, 1987). Short-Term Projects and Emergent Careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 4, 879-909.

• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15.

• Flyvbjerg, B. (January 01, 2008). Curbing Optimism Bias and Strategic Misrepresentation in Planning: Reference Class Forecasting in Practice. European Planning Studies, 16, 1, 3-21.

• Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Wagenmakers, E. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17538-17542.

• Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (January 01, 2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 1, 35-42.

• Gertman, D. I., Halbert, B. P., Parrish, M. W., Sattison, M. B., Brownson, D., & Tortorelli, J. P. (2001). Review of Findings for Human Performance Contribution to Risk in Operating Events. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Washington, DC: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

• Gevers, Josette M.P., van Eerde, Wendelien, & Rutte, Christel G. (2001). Time pressure, potency, and progress in project groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10:2, 205-221, DOI: 10.1080/13594320143000636

• Gino, F., & Pisano, G. (October 01, 2008). Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10, 4, 676-691.

• Decisions and Designs Inc. McLean VA, Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos. (1977). Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures.

• Eizakshiri, F., Chan, P. W., & Emsley, M. W. (April 07, 2015). Where is intentionality in studying project delays?. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8, 2, 349-367.



32

References• Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (August 01, 2006). Enhancing Creativity Through “Mindless” Work: A Framework of Workday Design. Organization Science, 17, 4, 470-483.

• Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.

• Fabricius, Golo, Büttgen, & Marion. (2015). Project managers' overconfidence: how is risk reflected in anticipated project success?. Heidelberg: Springer.

• Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (January 01, 1987). Short-Term Projects and Emergent Careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 4, 879-909.

• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15.

• Flyvbjerg, B. (January 01, 2008). Curbing Optimism Bias and Strategic Misrepresentation in Planning: Reference Class Forecasting in Practice. European Planning Studies, 16, 1, 3-21.

• Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Wagenmakers, E. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17538-17542.

• Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (January 01, 2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 1, 35-42.

• Gertman, D. I., Halbert, B. P., Parrish, M. W., Sattison, M. B., Brownson, D., & Tortorelli, J. P. (2001). Review of Findings for Human Performance Contribution to Risk in Operating Events. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Washington, DC: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

• Gevers, Josette M.P., van Eerde, Wendelien, & Rutte, Christel G. (2001). Time pressure, potency, and progress in project groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10:2, 205-221, DOI: 10.1080/13594320143000636

• Gino, F., & Pisano, G. (October 01, 2008). Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10, 4, 676-691.

• Grossman, Z. (November 01, 2014). Strategic Ignorance and the Robustness of Social Preferences. Management Science, 60, 11, 2659-2665.

• Haji-Kazemi, S., & Andersen, B. (January 01, 2013). Application of performance measurement as an early warning system: A case study in the oil and gas industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6, 4, 714-738.

• Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (April 01, 2011). A project management research framework integrating multiple theoretical perspectives and influencing factors. Project Management Journal, 42, 3, 4-22.



33

References• Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (February 01, 2002). Intergroup Bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1, 575-604.

• Ioi, T., Ono, M., Ishii, K., & Kato, K. (January 01, 2012). Analysis of a Knowledge-Management-Based Process of Transferring Project Management Skills. Campus-wide Information Systems, 29, 4, 251-258.

• Jacobsson, M., Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (October 01, 2015). Researching Projects and Theorizing Families of Temporary Organizations. Project Management Journal, 46, 5, 9-18.

• Jones, L. R., & Euske, K. J. (January 01, 1991). Strategic misrepresentation in budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 4.

• Jorgensen, M. (2004). Realism in assessment of effort estimation uncertainty: It matters how you ask. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(4), 209-217. doi:http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1109/TSE.2004.1274041

• Jorgensen, M. (2005). Evidence-based guidelines for assessment of software development cost uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(11), 942-954. doi:http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1109/TSE.2005.128

• Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (1979). "Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures". TIMS Studies in Management Science. 12: 313–327

• Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., & Seppi, D. (January 01, 2009). The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38, 2, 95-115.

• Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (June 01, 2006). The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 26, 3, 631-639.

• Knowledge management: The era of shared ideas. (1997). Forbes, 160(6), 28.

• Koudsi, S. (2000). Actually, it is like brain surgery. Fortune, 141(6), 233–234.

• Kutsch, E., & Hall, M. (January 01, 2010). Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 3, 245-255.



34

References• Leybourne, S. A. (January 01, 2007). The Changing Bias of Project Management Research: A Consideration of the Literatures and an Application of Extant Theory. Project Management

Journal, 38, 1, 61-73.

• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, K. L., & Landfield, R. A. (July 01, 2009). Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 4, 390-398.

• Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (January 01, 1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 4, 437-455.

• Lundin, R. A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., & Sydow, J. (2017). Managing and Working in Project Society. S.l.: Cambridge Univ Press.

• Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. H., Clark, C. E., & Fazar, W. (1959). "Application of a technique for research and development program evaluation." Operations research, 7(5), 646-669.

• Megías, A., Navas, J. F., Petrova, D., Cándido, A., Maldonado, A., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Catena, A. (August 01, 2015). Neural mechanisms underlying urgent and evaluative behaviors: An fMRI study on the interaction of automatic and controlled processes. Human Brain Mapping, 36, 8, 2853-2864.

• Min, K. S., & Arkes, H. R. (November 01, 2012). When Is Difficult Planning Good Planning? The Effects of Scenario-Based Planning on Optimistic Prediction Bias. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 11, 2701-2729.

• Nygard, K. E., Bender, L., Walia, G., Kong, J., Gagneja, K., & LeNoue, M. (2011). Collaboration using social networks for team projects. In The International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS'11) (pp. 86-92).

• Oliva, R., & Watson, N. (March 01, 2009). Managing Functional Biases in Organizational Forecasts: A Case Study of Consensus Forecasting in Supply Chain Planning. Production and Operations Management, 18, 2, 138-151.

• Owen, J., Burstein, F., & Mitchell, S. (2004). Knowledge reuse and transfer in a project management environment. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 6(4), 21-35. Retrieved from https://tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/docview/214912051?accountid=34120

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_G._Malcolm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Fazar

http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/PM-History_PERT-Original_Paper.pdf

https://tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/docview/214912051?accountid=34120



35

References• Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Steinmann, F. (January 01, 2012). How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both?. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 18, 3, 314-

30.

• Packendorff, J. (January 01, 1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 4, 319-333.

• Prater, J., Kirytopoulos, K., & Ma, T. (January 01, 2017). Optimism bias within the project management context: A systematic quantitative literature review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10, 2, 370-385.

• Project Management Institute. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (5th ed.). Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

• Project Management Institute. (2016). The High cost of Low Performance | Pulse of the Profession 2016. Retrieved from www.pmi.org: http://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2016.pdf

• Ramasesh, R. V., & Browning, T. R. (May 01, 2014). A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 4, 190-204.

• Rothman, A. J., & Hardin, C. D. (July 02, 2016). Differential Use of the Availability Heuristic in Social Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 2, 123-138.

• Sample, J. A. (January 01, 2015). Mitigating the Planning Fallacy in Project Forecasting: An OD Perspective. Organization Development Journal, 33, 2, 51-66.

• Sharot, T., Riccardi, A. M., Raio, C. M., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias. Nature, 450(7166), 102-5. http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/nature06280

• Shedler, J., & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 26-36. doi:http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.26



36

References• Son, J., & Rojas, E. M. (2011). Impact of Optimism Bias Regarding Organizational Dynamics on Project Planning and Control. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management, 137(2), 147-

157. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000260

• Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.

• Thamhain, H. J., & Wilemon, D. L. (February 01, 1975). Diagnosing conflict determinants in project management. Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 22, 1.

• Thunström, Linda, Nordström, Leif Jonas, Shogren, Jason F., Ehmke, Mariah, & van 't Veld, Klaas. (2013). Strategic Self-Ignorance. Department of Economics, Lund University.

• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (January 01, 1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 2, 207-232.

• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (January 01, 1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 185, 4157, 1124-31.

• Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. OUP Oxford.

• Van der Weele, Joel J., When Ignorance Is Innocence: On Information Avoidance in Moral Dilemmas (August 20, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1844702 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1844702

• Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (January 01, 2001). Implications of Attitude Change Theories for Numerical Anchoring: Anchor Plausibility and the Limits of Anchor Effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 1, 62-69.

• Wieland, J. W. (April 23, 2016). Willful Ignorance. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.

• Wu, W.-L., Hsu, B.-F., & Yeh, R.-S. (January 01, 2007). Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer: a team-level analysis. Journal of Information Science, 33, 3, 326-339. DOI: 10.1177/0165551506070733

https://ssrn.com/abstract=1844702

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1844702



37With Special Thanks for Their Support in the Journey

• Rolf Lundin, PhD

• Jeremy Nicholson, PhD

• Elizabeth Schwab, PhD

• Mark Reeson, RPP, FAPM, PMP, AfCGI

• BriMa Eremit, SSCC, SSC, EBC

• CJ Walker Waite, PhD, PMP

• Tim Kloppenborg, PhD, PMP



38

Contact

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nbpmi.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.leadingprojects.org/



39

“You can design and create and build the most wonderful place in the world. But it takes people to make the dream a reality”

~Walt Disney



Project Management Meets Behavioral and Neuroscience!

Documents

Applied Behavioral Project Management - Designed Around ... · Josh Ramirez, PMP, MSM-PM Jodi Wilson, PhD President, Leading Projects President, Ins7tute for Neuro & Behavioral Project