Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Guiding Principles
- Part II Deviating from Plans
- Part III Practical Tips
- Chapter 13 Setting Realistic Project Goals
- Chapter 14 At the Brink of a Project
- Chapter 15 The Roles of Governance Mechanisms to Manage Misbehaviors in the Project Front-End
- Chapter 16 Coping with Changes to the Plan
- Chapter 17 Project Behavior, Disruptions, and the Antifragility Spectrum
- Chapter 18 Curbing Cost Increases and Benefit Shortfalls
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Chapter 13 - Setting Realistic Project Goals
from Part III - Practical Tips
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2025
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Guiding Principles
- Part II Deviating from Plans
- Part III Practical Tips
- Chapter 13 Setting Realistic Project Goals
- Chapter 14 At the Brink of a Project
- Chapter 15 The Roles of Governance Mechanisms to Manage Misbehaviors in the Project Front-End
- Chapter 16 Coping with Changes to the Plan
- Chapter 17 Project Behavior, Disruptions, and the Antifragility Spectrum
- Chapter 18 Curbing Cost Increases and Benefit Shortfalls
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
Many projects fail to achieve their expected goals, partly because their goals were unrealistic to start with. The objective of this chapter is to enhance knowledge of the reasons why managers set unrealistic project goals. First, we identify key biases in the project management literature that might motivate a manager to set unrealistic project goals. We then analyze seven case studies of well-known project failures to determine which of these biases contributed the most to unrealistic goal setting. Our findings indicate that of these biases, two cognitive biases (optimism bias and overconfidence bias), the planning fallacy and escalation of commitment had the highest impact on these projects. We conclude by proposing ten practical recommendations managers can use to set more realistic project goals in future. These recommendations cover the following key areas: Effective goal setting, effective goal appraisal and effective project appraisal.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 201 - 215Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Andersen, J., and Hovgaard, G. (2003). Welfare and urban planning in transition: A Copenhagen case study. Research Papers/Department of Social Sciences, 8(58), 1399–1396.Google Scholar
Asadabadi, M. R., Chang, E., Zwikael, O., Saberi, M., and Sharpe, K. (2020). Hidden fuzzy information: Requirement specification and measurement of project provider performance using the best worst method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 383, 127–145.10.1016/j.fss.2019.06.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asadabadi, M. R., and Zwikael, O. (2024). Unrealistic project goals: Detection and modification. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(3), 04023166.10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-13665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., and Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian government – Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP). (2016). Australian transport assessment and planning guidelines on optimism bias. Australian Transport Assessment and Planning, Canberra, ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
Australian government – Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities. (2018). Ex-post economic evaluation of national road investment orojects. Report 145, vol. 1. Canberra, ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
Bingham, C. B., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.10.1002/smj.965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39–61.10.2307/258647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caffieri, J. J., Love, P. E. D., Whyte, A., and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. (2018). Planning for production in construction: Controlling costs in major capital projects. Production Planning and Control, 29(1), 41–50.10.1080/09537287.2017.1376258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charette, R. N. (2017). Low clearance ahead: Can predictable IT crashes be avoided? Computer, 50(10), 86–91.Google Scholar
Denicol, J., Davies, A., and Krystallis, I. (2020). What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 328–345.10.1177/8756972819896113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Reyck, B., Grushka-Cockayne, Y., Fragkos, I., Harrison, J., and Read, D. (2017). Transport optimism bias study recommended adjustments to optimism bias uplifts. Prepared for the UK Department of Transport.Google Scholar
Doran, G. (1981). There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.Google Scholar
Dunar, A. J., and Waring, S. P. (1999). The Hubble Space Telescope (ch. 12) In Power to Explore – History of Marshall Space Flight Center 1960–1990. US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Feris, M., Zwikael, O., and Gregor, S. (2017). QPLAN: Decision support for evaluating planning quality in software development projects. Decision Support Systems, 96, 92–102.10.1016/j.dss.2017.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filliben, E., and Colley, J. L., Jr. (1993). The project manager/customer interface. Case UVA-OM-0739-PER, Charlottesville, VA: Darden Graduate Business School Foundation.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Design by deception: The politics of megaproject approval. Harvard Design Magazine, Spring/Summer, 22, 50–59.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: Reference class forecasting in practice, European Planning Studies, 16(1), 3–21.10.1080/09654310701747936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.10.1002/pmj.21409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2016). The fallacy of beneficial ignorance: A test of Hirschman’s hiding hand. World Development, 84, 176–189.10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top ten behavioural biases in project management: An overview. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 531–546.10.1177/87569728211049046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Ansara, A., Budzier, A., Buhl, S., Cantarelli, C., Garbuio, M., Glenting, C., Holm, M.S., Lovallo, D., Lunn, D., Molin, E., Rønnest, A., Stewart, A., and van Wee, B. (2018). Five things you should know about cost overrun. Transportation Research Part A, 118, 174–190.Google Scholar
Gil, N., and Pinto, J. K. (2018). Polycentric organizing and performance: A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK. Research Policy, 47(4), 717–734.10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. R., and Szyliowicz, J. S. (1997). Revisiting transportation planning and decision making theory: The case of Denver International Airport. Transportation Research Part A, 31(4), 263–280.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., and Murray, D. R. (2015). The evolution of cognitive bias (pp. 1–20). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Wiley.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., and Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup cognitive bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604.10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, G. P., and Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 171–180.10.1002/smj.4250060206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., Love, P. E., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). Moving beyond the planning fallacy: The emergence of a new principle of project behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3310–3325.10.1109/TEM.2020.3040526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayatilleke, S., and Lai, R. (2018). A systematic review of requirements change management. Information and Software Technology, 93, 163–185.10.1016/j.infsof.2017.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. R., and Euske, K. J. (1991). Strategic misrepresentation in budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(4), 437–460.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias: anomalies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.10.1257/jep.5.1.193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, C., and Kock, A. (2023). The performance effects of optimistic and pessimistic project status reporting behavior. International Journal of Project Management, 41(7), 102514.10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotha, S., Olesen, D. E., Nolan, R., and Condit, P. M. (2005). Boeing 787: The Dreamliner, Harvard Business School Case 9-305-101, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2012). Goal setting theory (pp. 23–40). In Motivation: Theory and research. Routledge.Google Scholar
Lovallo, D., Cristofaro, M., and Flyvbjerg, B. (2023). Governing large projects: A three-stage process to get it right. Academy of Management Perspectives.10.5465/amp.2021.0129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P. E., Ika, L. A., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). Homo heuristicus: From risk management to managing uncertainty in large-scale infrastructure projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3170474.10.1109/TEM.2022.3170474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P. E., Edwards, D. J., and Irani, Z. (2011). Moving beyond optimism cognitive bias and strategic misrepresentation: An explanation for social infrastructure project cost overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 560–571.10.1109/TEM.2011.2163628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major Projects Association. (2020). Project terminology. https://majorprojects.org/project-terminology/.Google Scholar
Makridakis, S., and Moleskis, A. (2015). The costs and benefits of positive illusions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 859.10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00859CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, P. K. (2012). NASA’s challenges to meeting cost schedule and performance goals, audit report no. IG-12-021. Office of Inspector General. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
Mazur, A., Pisarski, A., Chang, A., and Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014). Rating defence major project success: The role of personal attributes and stakeholder relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 944–957.10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCray, G. E., Purvis, R. L., and McCray, C. G. (2002). Project management under uncertainty: The impact of heuristics and biases. Project Management Journal, 33(1), 49–57.10.1177/875697280203300108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., and Mantel, S. J., Jr. (2018). Project management: A strategic managerial approach, 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Meredith, J., and Zwikael, O. (2019). When is a project successful? IEEE Engineering Management Review, 47(3), 127–134.10.1109/EMR.2019.2928961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merikhi, E., and Zwikael, O. (2017). Customizing modern portfolio theory for the project portfolio selection problem. The Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montealegre, R., and Kell, M. (2000). De-escalating information technology projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport. MIS Quarterly, 24(3), 417–447.10.2307/3250968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2009). OECD Territorial Reviews: Copenhagen, Denmark. ISBN Number: 9789264060029.Google Scholar
Ostrower, J., and Viswanatha, A. (2016). Boeing’s unique accounting helped lift profit. Wall Street Journal, October 4, p. B2.Google Scholar
Pinto, J. K., and Slevin, D. P. (1988). Critical success factors across the project life cycle. Project Management Institute, Drexel Hill, PA.Google Scholar
Samset, K., Andersen, B., and Austeng, K. (2014). To which extent do projects explore the opportunity space? A study of conceptual appraisals and the choice of conceptual solutions. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(3), 473–492.10.1108/IJMPB-08-2013-0038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samset, K., and Volden, G. H. (2016). Front-end definition of projects: Ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 297–313.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schloh, M. (1996). Analysis of the Denver International Airport baggage system. California Polytechnic State University.Google Scholar
Serra, C. E. M., and Kunc, M. (2015). Benefits realisation management and its influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenhar, A., and Holzmann, V. (2017). The three secrets of megaproject success: Clear strategic vision, total alignment, and adapting to complexity. Project Management Journal, 48(6), 29–46.10.1177/875697281704800604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenhar, A., Holzmann, V., Melamed, B., and Zhao, Y. (2016). The challenge of innovation in highly complex projects: What can we learn from Boeing’s Dreamliner experience? Project Management Journal, 47(2), 62–78.10.1002/pmj.21579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, B. (2008). Systematic biases and culture in project failures. Project Management Journal, 39(4), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinel, W., and De Dreu, C. K. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 419.10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szyliowicz, J. S., and Goetz, A. R. (1995). Getting realistic about megaproject planning: The case of the new Denver International Airport. Policy Sciences, 28, 347–367.10.1007/BF01000249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK government. (2011). The Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in central government, treasury guidance. HM Treasury.Google Scholar
UK government. (2018). The Green Book: Central government guidance on appraisal and evaluation. HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Unterhitzenberger, C. (2021). Special issue on project behavior. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 527–530.10.1177/87569728211054716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Bergen, C. W., and Bressler, M. S. (2011). Too much positive thinking hinders entrepreneur success. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 30–52.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, S. C. (1996). Biogen Inc.: rBeta interferon manufacturing process development. Harvard Business School Case 9-696-083, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Williams, T., Klakegg, O. J., Magnussen, O. M., and Glasspool, H. (2010). An investigation of governance frameworks for public projects in Norway and the UK. International Journal of Project Management, 28(1), 40–50.10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, C., Smith, L., and Killen, C. (2021). How power influences behavior in projects: A theory of planned behavior perspective. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 607–621.10.1177/87569728211052592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youssef, C. M., and Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace the impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.10.1177/0149206307305562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O. (2016). Editorial. Special issue on project benefit management. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 734–735.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Bar-Yoseph, B. (2004). Improving the capabilities of project team management using the Gestalt cycle of experience. Team Performance Management, 10(7), 137–144.10.1108/13527590410569850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., Chih, Y., and Meredith, J. (2018). Project benefit management: Setting effective target benefits. International Journal of Project Management, 36, 650–658.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., Cohen, Y., and Sadeh, A. (2006). Non-delay scheduling as a managerial approach for managing projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 330–336.10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Gilchrist, A. (2022). The logic of the project front end (pp. 43–68). In Williams, T., Samset, K., and Holst Volden, G. (eds.). The front-end of large public projects: Paradoxes and ways ahead. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.10.4324/9781003257172-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Levin, G., Rad, P. (2008). Top management support – the project friendly organization. Cost Engineering Journal, 50(9), 22–30.Google Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Meredith, J. R. (2019). How can comprehensive goal setting enhance project investment decisions? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 2781–2790.10.1109/TEM.2019.2958041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Meredith, J. R. (2019). The role of organizational climate in setting project goals. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(12), 1281–1294.10.1108/IJOPM-02-2019-0150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Meredith, J. R. (2022). How can comprehensive goal setting enhance project investment decisions? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 2781–2790.10.1109/TEM.2019.2958041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Smyrk, J. (2012). A general framework for gauging the performance of initiatives to enhance organizational value. British Journal of Management, 23, S6–S22.10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00823.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.