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 18 - Curbing Cost Increases and Benefit Shortfalls
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 experience cost overruns and fail to meet the expectations of users and funding parties. Numerous studies have documented projects that have failed, but there is less advice on what can be done to improve their performance. This chapter builds on research carried out by the Concept Research Programme in Norway, which for more than 20 years has been tasked by the Ministry of Finance to research large government projects. The authors offer advice on how project owners can increase the likelihood of project success. The advice includes the importance of a project governance regime, external review of estimates, and well-aligned incentives. The authors argue that the institutional context through which projects are delivered may have consequences for the ability of individuals and organisations to knowingly or unconsciously bias estimates. They also recommend follow-up activities after project completion, such as active ownership to realise benefits and systematic ex-post evaluation to improve accountability and learning.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 286 - 300Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D., and Smith, S. D. (2014). Rethinking construction cost overruns: Cognition, learning and estimation. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 19, 38–54.10.1108/JFMPC-06-2013-0027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, B., Samset, K., and Welde, M. (2016). Low estimates – high stakes: Underestimation of costs at the front-end of projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9, 171–193.10.1108/IJMPB-01-2015-0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakke, C., Johansen, A., Mahmood, K. M., and Grenland, S. (2019). Feeble project mandate equal higher cost? Procedia Computer Science, 164, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénabou, R. (2013). Groupthink: Collective delusions in organisations and markets. Review of Economic Studies, 80, 429–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, H., Holgeid, K., Jørgensen, M., and Volden, G. H. (2021). Hvordan lykkes med digitalisering? En undersøkelse av nyttestyring i IT-prosjekter i offentlig sektor [How to succeed with digitalisation? A study of benefit management in public IT projects]. Concept-rapport nr. 64. Trondheim: Ex ante akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
Beste, T., and Klakegg, O. J. (2022). Strategic change towards cost-efficient public construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 40, 372–384.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicmil, S., and Braddon, D. (2012). Fading glory? Decision-making around the project – how and why “glory” projects fail (pp. 221–255). In Williams, T. and Samset, K. (eds.). Project Governance: Getting Investments Right. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dysert, L. R. (2006). Is “estimate accuracy” an oxymoron? AACE International Transactions. www.costengineering.eu/images/papers/Is_Estimate_Accuracy_an_Oxymoron.pdf.Google Scholar
Dysert, L. R., and Elliott, B.G. (2020). Early conceptual estimation methodologies. AACE International Transactions. http://ccg-estimating.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/132807526/wp-earlyconceptualestimatingmethodologies.pdf.Google Scholar
Edkins, A., Geraldi, J., Morris, P., and Smith, A. (2013). Exploring the front-end of project management. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 3, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewerhart, C., and Fieseler, K. (2003). Procurement auctions and unit price contracts. The RAND Journal of Economics, 34, 569–581.10.2307/1593747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2013). Quality control and due diligence in project management: Getting decisions right by taking the outside view. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 760–774.10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top ten behavioral biases in project management: An overview. Project Management Journal, 52, 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., and Budzier, A. (2011). Why your IT project may be riskier than you think. Harvard Business Review, 89, 23–25.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., and Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107050891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Stewart, A., and Budzier, A. (2016). The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and cost overrun at the games. WP 2016-20. Oxford, Saïd Business School.10.2139/ssrn.2804554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Ansar, A., Budzier, A., Buhl, S., Cantarelli, C., Garbuio, M., Glenting, C., Skamris Holm, M., Lovallo, D., Lunn, D., Molin, E., Rønnest, A., Steward, A., and van Wee, B. (2018). Five things you should know about cost overrun. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 118, 174–190.Google Scholar
Hofbauer, J., Sanders, G., Ellman, J., and Morrow, D. (2011). Cost and time overruns for major defense acquisition programs. Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
Hollmann, J. K. (2002). Best owner practices for project control. AACE International Transactions. https://validest.com/library.html.Google Scholar
Hoque, J. M., Erhardt, G. D., Schmitt, D., Chen, M., Chaudhary, A., Wachs, M., and Souleyrette, R. R. (2022). The changing accuracy of traffic forecasts. Transportation, 49, 445–466.10.1007/s11116-021-10182-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Infrastructure and Projects Authority (2021). Cost Estimating Guidance. www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-estimating-guidance/cost-estimating-guidance.Google Scholar
Kashiwagi, I. (2018). A global study on ICT project performance. Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information and Value, 10(1), 8–27.10.37265/japiv.v10i1.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L., Pinto, J. K., Love, P. E. D., and Pache, G. (2023). Bias versus error: Why projects fall short. Journal of Business Strategy, 44(2), 67–75
10.1108/JBS-11-2021-0190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovallo, D., and Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63.Google ScholarPubMed
Love, P. E. D., and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. (2018). Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 357–368.Google Scholar
Love, P. E. D., and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D., Smith, S. D., Sing, M., and Tokede, O. (2018). Cost profiling of water infrastructure projects. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 24, 04018023.10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Sing, M.C.P., Ika, L., and Newton, S. (2019). The cost performance of transportation projects: The fallacy of the Planning Fallacy account. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 122, 1–20.Google Scholar
Love, P. E. D., Ika, L. A., and Sing, M. C. P. (2022). Does the Planning Fallacy prevail in social infrastructure projects? Empirical evidence and competing explanations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69, 2588–2602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odeck, J., and Kjerkreit, A. (2019). The accuracy of benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) in transportation: An ex-post evaluation of road projects. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 120, 277–294.Google Scholar
Odeck, J., and Welde, M. (2021). Cost overruns of transportation infrastructure projects (pp. 483-489). In Vickerman, R. (ed.). International encyclopedia of transportation. Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-08-102671-7.10089-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odeck, J., Welde, M., and Volden, G. H. (2015). The impact of external quality assurance of costs wstimates on cost overruns: Empirical evidence from the Norwegian road sector. European Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research, 15, 286–303.Google Scholar
Olsen, O. E., and Lindøe, P. (2004). Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 371–380.10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. E. (2021). Curbing cost overruns in infrastructure investment: Has reference class forecasting delivered its promised success? European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 21, 120–136.10.18757/ejtir.2021.21.2.5504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, S., and Warrel, H. (2021). MoD’s poor practices blamed for project cost overruns and delays. www.ft.com/content/9da15fa5-da6c-4b44-ad9a-7b121f80415c.Google Scholar
Project Management Institute (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK® Guide. 7th ed. Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
Rigsrevisionen (2019). Budgetteringen av Vejdirektoratets vejprosjekter [The budgeting of the Road Directorate’s road projects]. Rigsrevisionen.Google Scholar
Sager, T. (2016). Why don’t cost-benefit results count for more? The case of Norwegian road investment priorities. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 4, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salci, S., and Jenkins, G. (2016). Incorporating risk and uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis. MPRA Paper No. 74161. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/74161/.Google Scholar
Salling, K. B., and Leleur, S. (2011). Transport appraisal and Monte Carlo simulation by use of the CBA-DK model. Transport Policy, 18, 236–245.10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samset, K. (2010). Early project appraisal: Making the initial choices. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle 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, 297–313.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samset, K., and Christensen, T. (2017). Ex-ante project evaluation and the complexity of early decision-making. Public Organization Review, 17(1), 1–17.10.1007/s11115-015-0326-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samset, K., and Welde, M. (2019). Mandater for konseptvalgutredninger. En gjennomgang av praksis [The terms of reference document for conceptual appraisal: A review of current practice]. Concept-rapport nr 58. Trondheim: Ex ante akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
Samset, K., and Volden, G. H. (2022). Closing the loop. Ex ante and es post evaluation in order to learn from mistakes and successes (ch. 7). In Williams, T. M., Samset, K., and Volden, G. H. (eds.). The front-end of large public projects. Paradoxes and ways ahead. Routledge.Google Scholar
Solberg, H. A., and Preuss, H. (2007). Major sports events and long-term tourism impacts. Journal of Sports Management, 21, 213–234.Google Scholar
Volden, G. H. (2019). Public funding, perverse incentives, and counterproductive outcomes. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12, 466–486.10.1108/IJMPB-12-2017-0164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, G. H., and Samset, K. (2017). Governance of major public investment projects: Principles and practices in six countries. Project Management Journal, 48, 90–108.10.1177/875697281704800306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, G. H., and Welde, M. (2022). Public project success? Measuring the nuances of success through ex-post evaluation. International Journal of Project Management, 40, 703–714.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. H. T., Vaz-Serra, P., and Love, P. E. D. (2022). Improved reliability in planning large-scale infrastructure project delivery through alliancing. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15, 721–741.10.1108/IJMPB-02-2022-0035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikipedia (2022). Law of the instrument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument.Google Scholar
Welde, M., and Odeck, J. (2017). Cost escalations in the front-end of projects – empirical evidence from Norwegian road projects. Transport Reviews, 37, 612–630.10.1080/01441647.2016.1278285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welde, M., and Dahl, R. E. (2021). Cost escalation in road construction contracts. Transportation Research Record, 267, 1006–1015.10.1177/03611981211005462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welde, M., and Klakegg, O. J. (2022). Avoiding cost overrun through stochastic cost estimation and external quality assurance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3173175.10.1109/TEM.2022.3173175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T. M. (2022). Project success (ch. 2). In Williams, T. M., Samset, K., and Volden, G. H., (eds.). The front-end of large public projects: Paradoxes and ways ahead. Routledge.10.4324/9781003257172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T. M., Samset, K., and Volden, G. H. (2022). The front-end of large public projects: Paradoxes and ways ahead. Routledge.10.4324/9781003257172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worsley, T. (2015). Ex-post assessment of transport investments and policy interventions: Prerequisites for ex-post assessments and methodological challenges. ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 162. Paris: OECD.Google 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, 6–22.10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00823.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwikael, O., and Gilchrist, A. (2022). The logic of the project front-end (ch. 3). In Williams, M., Samset, K., and Volden, G. H., (eds.). The front-end of large public projects: Paradoxes and ways ahead. Routledge.Google 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.