earned value training Archives - Page 4 of 5

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) – Over-Application of EOCs – Part 2

By Humphreys & Associates / April 1, 2019 / CAR, Corrective Action Requests, earned value training, EIA-748-C, Elements of Cost, EOC, EVM Standard 748, EVM Training

CAR, Corrective Action Requests, earned value training, EIA-748-C, Elements of Cost, EOC, EVM Standard 748, EVM Training

<< Review Part 1

In part one of our series on Elements of Cost (EOC), we explained what EOCs are and gave an analogy of how EOCs would relate to building a patio. We also reviewed how EOCs can be “over thought” and emphasized the importance of properly applying indirect cost rates. This post is going to be focused on the Over-Application of EOCs.

Over-Application of EOCs

During some government reviews, the teams issued Corrective Action Requests (CARs) citing multiple examples of ACWP occurring on “zero-budgeted” Work Packages within Control Accounts. On the surface, this sounds pretty serious, but there were several “over-applications” in play here.

First, the review was being performed at (and in some cases below) the Work Package (WP) level, when the intent of the Guidelines has always been for variance analysis to be performed at the Control Account (CA) Level;
Second, the CAR assumption was that a charge against an Element Of Cost (EOC) equals a charge against a “zero-budgeted WP”.

For the first point we’ll look at Guideline 22 in the EVM Standard 748:

GL 22. At least on a monthly basis, generate the following information at the Control Account and other levels as necessary for management control using actual cost data from, or reconcilable with, the accounting system:

1) Comparison of the amount of planned budget and the amount of budget earned for work accomplished. This comparison provides the schedule variance.

2) Comparison of the amount of the budget earned and the actual direct costs for the same work. This comparison provides the cost variance.

Even the government’s sub-question e. under GL 22 reiterates this requirement:

e. Are the following elements for measuring performance available at the levels selected for control and analysis (at a minimum at the control account level):

1) Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS)?

2) Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP)?

3) Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP)?

While the intent of the words “and other levels” and “at a minimum” was to ensure that contractors did not only perform analysis at some higher, summary level, the government’s choice of those sub-question words also opens up the application of the analysis at lower levels. Be that as it may, the over-application still exists where it should not. Variance Analysis is supposed to be at the CA level and rolled up to higher levels for analysis. The bottom line for each of the CARs written is that BCWS, BCWP, and ACWP existed at the Control Account level, and the EOC visibility was available for variance analysis explanations at the lower levels in the contractors’ systems.

For the second point, let’s look at all the EVM Standard 748 Guidelines, specifically Guideline 16.

There is no Guideline that specifically requires BCWP to be claimed the exact same way BCWS was planned; however, it is intuitive that this has to be true in order for cumulative values for BCWP and BCWS to equal BAC so that the work can be considered complete. [While the government’s sub-question b. under Guideline 22 expects BCWP to be calculated “consistent with the way the work is planned”, GL 22 itself (above) is silent on that inferred expectation.] The Guideline 16 and its sub-question b. also require consistency of the direct costs:

GL 16. Record direct costs in a manner consistent with the budgets in a formal system controlled by the general books of account.

Are elements of direct cost (labor, material, subcontractor, and other direct costs) accumulated within control accounts in a manner consistent with budgets using recognized acceptable costing techniques and controlled by the general books of account?

In the examples noted for the CAR referenced above, the work package task was a specific Element Of Cost (EOC) and was planned and completed in the same period, but no ACWP was accumulated for that specific EOC because the work was accomplished using another resource that fell into another EOC category. When the team looked at that EOC containing the ACWP, they interpreted the finding as a “zero-budgeted Work Package” with ACWP against it. [They also cited the original Work Package itself for having BCWP with no ACWP for the element of cost that was planned and earned.]

Humphreys & Associates is available for consulting and information on this topic. Give us a call!

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) – Over-Application of EOCs – Part 2 Read Post »

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) Example: Building a Backyard Patio – Part 1

By Humphreys & Associates / March 1, 2019 / Control Account, earned value management, earned value training, Elements of Cost, EVM, EVM Training, Planning Package, Work Package

Control Account, earned value management, earned value training, Elements of Cost, EVM, EVM Training, Planning Package, Work Package

What are “Elements of Cost”?

Labor, Materials, Subcontracts, Other Direct Costs, and their Indirect Costs (Overhead including General and Administrative —G&A) are the typical building blocks for any project: personal projects and projects we manage for the customers we support. These items are also what the Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Guidelines call elements of cost (or EOCs). So, when the Guidelines call for us to plan and manage by EOC, it really should not cause us any undue anxiety – it is just the natural way to manage any project.

Example: Outdoor Backyard Patio

Let’s use a simple home project example of building an outdoor backyard patio: What do you have to do to determine how much it will cost for this Backyard Patio Project (BPP if you like acronyms)? Generally, you look at such things as:

How much concrete; lumber for decking; nails, screws, bolts, washers, and other hardware, etc.; and weather-coating and paints/stains you will need (Material Element of Cost – EOC).
Work you cannot do by yourself: electricity for lights and power, and natural gas for the Barbecue/fireplace (Subcontract EOC).
Work you will do yourself (Labor EOC).
Costs unique to this project’s completion, such as: Home Owners Association permits, building code permits, local excavation application fee, etc. (Other Direct Cost EOC).
Costs incurred that do not necessarily go into the final product, such as: cleaning supplies, brooms, solvents, turpentine, weather tarpaulins, lighting and electricity, etc. (Indirect Costs/Overheads).

Unfortunately, when operating under the EVM requirement, often managers tend to overthink, and sometimes over apply the management of EOCs. Let’s look at the overthinking part first.

Overthinking EOCs

Guideline 9 of the EIA Standard 748 (Revision D) for EVM Systems requires:

Establish budgets for authorized work with identification of significant cost elements (labor, material, etc.) as needed for internal management and for control of subcontractors.

Some might propose: “I’ll have one Work Package for the Control Account with all the EOCs in it, and I’ll be okay.” That might meet the intent of that first part of the guideline, but would probably fail the requirement that says “as needed for internal management and control of subcontractors.” For example, what EV technique would you use for a “work package” that had labor, material, and subcontract work in it? The labor occurs as the work is performed, the material might be earned at the point of receipt on the dock, and the subcontract might earn value with the receipt of an Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) dataset at the end of a month. Since the Control Account (CA) has one total dollar budget, the “identification of significant cost elements” has to occur at the Work Package (WP) and Planning Package (PP) level within the CA, which requires each WP and PP to be identified as one of the EOCs mentioned above.

For Instance

In our example, if we lumped concrete and lumber into one “Material WP” and we incurred a serious overrun in material, how would we identify what caused the overrun: the concrete pour or the lumber portion? These are different categories of material that would “earn value” (be accomplished) in different ways and at different times. In order to determine the “guilty party” in the overrun, we should also have separate WPs for the different significant material categories. Some might call these major, or high value, or critical material items, which should be tracked separately.

On the other hand, for the lower-value materials, it may not be significant enough to management to know that a variance might have been caused by a 1-cent washer or a pint of deck stain. Consequently, a grouping of these low-value material items may be all that is required for visibility. Conversely, Management might actually want to break out categories such as, separating the paints/stains, and weather-coating from the nuts, bolts, washers and other hardware, since they are different categories of low-value material that could also earn value differently.

Indirect Cost Rates Must be Applied Properly

For Indirect Costs, some contractors put the burden of planning and managing these overhead costs on the CAMs, while others apply the indirect rates at a summary level of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) or organizational structure. Regardless of how a particular contractor does it, the indirect cost rates must be applied properly to the various direct elements of cost:

Material handling charges applied to material items
Indirect Labor rates applied to the direct labor hours
Subcontract overhead applied to the subcontract direct costs
ODC overheads charged to the ODCs identified.

Applying and managing overheads at the CA level would entail hundreds of applications across the number of Control Accounts on a project, but applying these at a summary level would require only a handful of Overhead lines in reports. Doing so would significantly reduce the number of possible errors in application – which is why many contractors do not require CAMs to “manage” overheads in their Control Accounts. [Our BPP example does not have the above types of Indirect Costs that are related to specific Direct Costs, but it does have its own specific Overheads related to the labor to build the Patio.]

Humphreys & Associates is available for earned value training and consulting. Give us a call!

Planning and Managing EVM by Elements of Cost (EOC) Example: Building a Backyard Patio – Part 1 Read Post »

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger – Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 4

By Humphreys & Associates / October 1, 2018 / Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

This is the fourth and final blog in this series about the human tendency toward misjudgment. In Parts 1, 2, and 3 we learned about Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet, and his listing of 25 innate human tendencies toward misjudgment that we harbor. In those three blogs we learned much from him and we will continue that learning in this blog. Charlie was born in 1924 so, at the time of this blog, Charlie he is 94, a wise old man from whom we should learn.

As mentioned previously, I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that are defined and discussed by Charlie and tried to think about how the tendency could disadvantage or could potentially aid decision making.

Kantian Fairness

The first of the tendencies discussed here is the “Kantian Fairness Tendency.” This does not apply to all people from all cultures around the world, but it certainly does to those you are most likely to be engaged with; those at your place of work. The tendency is that people tend to give and expect fair treatment. It is something innate and reinforced with something learned. An example would be the way people line up to wait and the way they expect others to obey the unwritten rules of waiting in line. People expect to be treated fairly and will wait their turn for that. Applying this tendency to decision-making, people expect the decision process to be fair. If it were to be skewed and unfair, they would hesitate to participate. Being unaware that there is such a bias can be dangerous to the decision-making process. If unfairness could be introduced and carefully hidden, the outcome could be skewed. Any unfairness must be rooted out, no matter how difficult.

Influence-from-Mere-Association

The second tendency covered in this fourth blog is subtle. It is the “Influence-from-Mere-Association Tendency.” Munger points out the problem with this tendency by explaining that if something good happened to us in the past, we will be more influenced by things that were associated with that good event or outcome. Something that is associated with a known good thing is not weighed and measured by the same standards as something that is a stand-alone non-associated item. But we do not really know in all cases that the things we are considering really factored into the previous success at all. If we are told that or assume that or just plain “know that” from company lore, we are on dangerous ground. We would need to know the exact cause and effect chain for the good outcome in the past to be sure we are dealing with a positive associated influence. About the best we can do is be skeptical and challenge things that are presented as associated with previous good outcomes. Our process should require proof of association when association is a factor.

Social-Proof

The third tendency here is one we should all be very familiar with. Munger calls it the “Social-proof Tendency.” You might know it by the name “groupthink” or “the herd instinct.” We need to understand that people tend to act and think as the others around them act and think. This tendency can become an issue in a team or group charged with deciding a crucial issue. Will the members have the strength for independent thought and action or will many of them “go along to get along”? The instinct can be much worse if the situation is a high stress one. The herd must react quickly to stress and the first movement, of the first spooked members, could lead to a stampede. Our decision process has to be sensitive to this and counter it is if needed. Deciders must be coached to avoid being a blind follower and to value independent thought and action. If necessary, the process might have to require mixing the attendance or substituting more independent-minded people.

Contrast Mis-reaction

Another powerful tendency is also one that can be easily exploited against the process. This is the so-called “Contrast Mis-reaction Tendency.” This can be seen as the reaction toward what is perceived as the lesser of two evils. We have all been taught that it is good to compare and contrast choices; but that is only useful when enough truth is known about the choices. A manipulative manager might use this tendency for mis-reaction by explaining to the deciders that there are two outcomes. The first is Outcome A which is described by the manager in such terms as to leave no doubt this is a terrible choice. The second one is Outcome B, also not good, but which appears to be so much better that A; by contrast, our reaction is a mis-reaction toward the one that is automatically more appealing. In this way, the unknowing members of the team see the obvious contrast and are drawn to the outcome favored by the manager while, to them, the whole process appears above board. Our process must be made to present all the choices and to treat them factually, so an uninfluenced choice is made. A good decision-making process does not make false contrasts.

There is not enough time to cover all the tendencies fairly. To do that, you should attend a Humphreys & Associates workshop to explore the entire subject of decision making.

Crucial Decision

In closing, I am going to postulate a situation where the authority to make a crucial decision is assigned, in a high stress situation, to a weak “groupthink team” with a strong leader who has a bloated opinion of himself. The team has been shown some very limited choices, some of which have been described as distasteful ones. The leader is in denial and trying to avoid loss. He wants to force a quick decision. How do you rate the chances of this scenario yielding a good well-considered decision, now that you can see the underlying tendencies to misjudgment?

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger – Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 4 Read Post »

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 3

By Humphreys & Associates / September 3, 2018 / Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 3

Are Your People Being Manipulated?

In part 1 and part 2 of this topic we learned about Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet, and his listing of 25 innate human tendencies toward misjudgment that we harbor. In those two blogs we started to learn from him and we will continue that learning in this blog. Charlie was born in 1924 so, at the time of this blog, Charlie is 94, a wise old man from whom we should learn.

As mentioned in Parts 1 and 2, I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that are defined and discussed by Charlie and tried to think about how the tendency could disadvantage or could potentially aid decision making.

Is there a possibility that people in your decision-making processes are being manipulated? Have you ever been manipulated and known it? Have you ever been manipulated but didn’t know it? Of course, that question can only be answered by thinking back now; if you didn’t know it then, maybe you can see it with hindsight.

The Future of the Industry

Very recently a representative from a company called our leadership and asked for some help with gaining knowledge about the future of our industry. We are in the same industry and compete sometimes, so it seemed odd that this was happening. Along with the request for a favor came an offer; an offer to attend a session with others of their clients and associates on the future of the industry during which we would be given the chance to make even more valuable inputs.

What was going on? What a massive ego-stroking effort. I think it was application of the Ben franklin effect. Simply stated in Franklin’s own words about a situation where he had an opposition figure he needed to deal with, “Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce and curious book, I wrote a note to him, expressing my desire of perusing that book, and requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it immediately, and I return’d it in about a week with another note, expressing strongly my sense of the favour. When we next met in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions, so that we became great friends, and our friendship continued to his death.” In this story notice the use of the words “serve me.” Just asking for and receiving the smallest favor from the man changed the man’s attitude toward Franklin.

Enhancing Opinions

It can be analyzed like this: asking someone at work, with whom we may be opposed or with whom we are ‘on-the-outs’ can tell them that we consider them to have something valuable that we do not have, and we need. It might be made to sound as if they have more information, more under-standing, more ability. If they respond positively and give us something as slight as their time and attention, we stand a chance of enhancing their opinion of us because they then cannot see us as someone simultaneously unworthy and worthy. They just saw us as worthy of their time and atten-tion, so obviously we recognize and have acknowledged their value.

How does this play into decision-making? You need to be aware of the dynamics of any situation and to watch out for the subtle ways that influence can be used to maneuver a decision to the spot desired by someone or some faction. You need to be especially watchful if the person or faction doing the maneuvering is one you believe to not have the best interests of the project at heart.

More Tendencies

Let’s cover more of the tendencies and carry on our discussion about developing a sound decision making process farther. Please note that Charlie Munger named these tendencies, and sometimes I think he made up words that do not sit well with Microsoft spell checking tools.

Tendency #9

Tendency #9 is the one just discussed as the Ben Franklin effect. Munger named it the “Reciprocation Tendency.” It is the tendency to reciprocate favors and disfavors and can be a strong subconscious motivator. If the person being manipulated by Franklin had thought, “There’s that wily Ben again trying to win me over by asking me for help,” the ploy would not have worked. It must be subconsciously received. Isn’t this tendency why procurement departments prohibit buyers from taking favors from sellers? Judges do not associate with defendants. That is a procedural way to stop the potential for misuse of the tendency.

Tendency #12

Tendency #12 could be easily related to the Ben Franklin effect. Munger calls this the “Excessive Self-regard Tendency.” We have all known someone who has a very highly inflated opinion of themselves and we may even have seen the risk in that. This person can, and often does, misjudge his/her own knowledge, competence, capability to the high side. These people choose to associate with people like themselves, and they definitely are partial to their own ideas and conclusions. These people also can be negatively motivated when provided with a counter argument. They are dangerous in decision making because they may not be motivated by facts. They may just be on that personal voyage known as the ego trip. You could even worry that someone else has used the Ben Franklin ploy to get this ego-challenged person to align with this thinking.

Tendency #13

Tendency #13 may align with #12 since it is Munger’s “Over-optimism Tendency.” This is the human tendency to err on the side of optimism when thinking about the future, the work required, and the outcomes possible. For this person there is no time spent better than time walking down the primrose path trying out their new rose-colored glasses. There are so many opportunities for optimism to cause damage on a project, it is sobering. An overly aggressive schedule or budget that is seen as do-able is not going to work. A defined product or set of tasks that would be very hard to achieve could be seen as not-that-tough with the disastrous outcome you would expect. Your deci-sion-making process should force a way to look at facts realistically. Quickly committing to the impossible would be a death warrant. Also, a decision-making process should avoid the potential that an overly optimistic person is also one who has excessive self-regard. Using experts or others, who are not going to have to live with the decisions, can help bring reality into the process. Don’t you go to the doctor to hear the truth?

Conclusion

This is the third blog on the topic of Munger’s human tendencies toward misjudgment. Analyses like these blogs can be helpful to us at Humphreys & Associates in our support of clients and in our formulation of training materials. Hopefully this information has started you or helped you on your way to creating or beefing up a process for decision making that curbs or circumvents these human tendencies.

Review:
EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1
EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 2

EVM Training – Decision Making and Charlie Munger Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 3 Read Post »

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 2 – Tendency Toward Misjudgment

By Humphreys & Associates / August 1, 2018 / Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Dedecision-making, earned value training, EVM Consultant, EVM Training

Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 2

Tendency Toward Misjudgment

In part 1 of this topic we learned about Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet and his listing of 25 innate human tendencies toward misjudgment that we harbor. I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that are defined and discussed by Charlie and tried to think about how the tendency could disadvantage or could potentially aid decision making.

Decision-Making is Critical

Humphreys & Associates emphasizes in its EVM training material that the process of decision-making is critical, and I was greatly pleased to learn that Charlie thought that same way. In the first part of the blog we discussed just two of the list of tendencies Munger provided. It appears we humans are fraught with innate tendencies that, if not blocked, can lead us to make a misjudgment. A misjudgment would be a wrong decision in terms of this blog. With all that follows in the blog about misjudgment, we are trying to discern a sound process for decision making, with tools like decision trees, that can help avoid or counter the influences of the counterproductive tendencies. Developing your decision-making process should involve findings tactics that help you avoid or defeat or neutralize these tendencies in your processes.

Liking/Loving Tendency

Tendencies #2 and #3 are total opposites but very much related. Tendency #2 is called the “Liking/Loving Tendency.” It should be familiar to us all. The foundational notion is that people seek affection and approval. Maybe not all people do this, but it is a basic human tendency and we believe that most people have it. This tendency can be a problem when it gets in the way of rational thinking; for example, if people on your team ignore faults of people they like then how will they fairly evaluate proposals floated by those they like? What about when they favor the products, actions, or ideas of those they like? People may not even consciously understand the underlying bias is operating in any given situation, so we need to find a way to circumvent this tendency when we are processing a decision. We need to make a neutral playing field in order to get a fair evaluation.

Disliking/Hating Tendency

Tendency #3 is the opposite of that. It is the “Disliking/Hating Tendency” that can motivate people to ignore or devalue the works or opinions or ideas of those they dislike simply because they do not like the person. This tendency can be strong enough to lead to distortion of facts or judgment. Maybe you have worked with someone that you have strong negative “feelings” about. Can you remember that and imagine if you had that bias operating in a decision-making environment? Maybe the negative tendency toward bias would be operating below the conscious level just far enough to be influencing them, but without their understanding. They sincerely think they do not like the idea and that has nothing to do with the person posing the idea. Our problem is to devise a decision-making process that can work in the face of such underlying, and perhaps invisible, motivations.

Doubt/Avoidance Tendency

Tendency #4 is unrelated to those two. It is the “Doubt/Avoidance Tendency.” That is our tendency to avoid being in doubt and our penchant for moving to certainty. This can be a powerful motivator to move to a quick decision; perhaps before all the homework of deciding has been accomplished. It is human nature to make quick decisions and certainly we can understand that hasty decisions may not be the best decisions. This tendency can potentially rise to the level where it creates irrationality and the pressing need to remove doubt. Unfortunately, this tendency becomes stronger when we are under pressure; that means just when we need to be at our level-headed coolest and most deliberative, unfortunately, our motivation is to just make a decision and get on with it to rid ourselves of doubt. Again, our challenge is to not let this tendency dictate our decision-making process. A little pressure can be a good thing. Too much pressure, along with the unchecked tendency to want to move quickly away from doubt, can be ruinous.

Curiosity Tendency

Perhaps tendency #6 can help us here. This is a beneficial tendency of human nature; the tendency to be curious. Charlie Munger simply called it the “Curiosity Tendency.” It is our nature to be curious and that curiosity has brought humankind from the cave dwellers to the high-rise dwellers. If we can harness that tendency in our decision-making process, maybe it will help counter some of the negative and damaging tendencies. Maybe our curiosity will want to lead us to getting the facts before we decide emotionally.

Hopefully you get the idea now. The first two blogs together have not covered the entire list of tendencies; far from it. When things permit, the rest of the list developed by Charlie Munger will be presented here in terms of the process of decision-making. Meanwhile you can certainly look at your decision-making processes at work and maybe even at home to see if you have planned to subvert these tendencies.

Review EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 2 – Tendency Toward Misjudgment Read Post »

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1

By Humphreys & Associates / July 2, 2018 / Charlie Munger, Decision Making, Earned Value Consultant, earned value training, EVM Training, EVMS

Charlie Munger, Decision Making, Earned Value Consultant, earned value training, EVM Training, EVMS

Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 1

Charlie Munger and EVM Training

So, what does Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet have to do with EVM training? Decision Making. You can imagine the big-money decisions he has helped Buffett make during the many years of building up the legendary outfit. Along the way, he kept track of the happenings around him that through various speeches and writings espoused some clear thinking. Born in Omaha in 1924, Charlie began working with Warren at Buffett & Son, a grocery store owned by Warren Buffett’s grandfather. Eventually graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law in 1948, Charlie moved into the business world.

Psychology of Human Misjudgment

This blog is narrowly focused on what I gleaned from Charlie’s writings about the “psychology of human misjudgment.” Looking to see how this information could be used to help guide a EVM training workshop on the topic of decision making, I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that he defined and discussed. I would never have guessed that we humans have 25 tendencies that impinge on our thinking processes, but after studying his list, I think he nailed it. Most of the tendencies are backed up with some reference to psychological studies; so be assured Charlie did not make them up. This blog will treat them in numerical order and will add thoughts from the Humphreys & Associates earned value training material on decision making that will make the Charlie Munger points more specific to the subject at hand.

In our EVM training material, we emphasize the process of decision making is critical, and Charlie thought so way before I did. Bad decisions can come from good processes, but that is less likely than bad decisions coming from no process or, even worse, from a bad process. At one point Munger advises the use of checklists can help navigate through the minefield of human tendencies toward misjudgment. An amazingly timely idea, because here at Humphreys & Associates we are just wrapping up our work on “The Big Book of Project Management Checklists” that is aimed at doing just that.

Blocking Human Misjudgement

What about human misjudgment? It appears we humans are fraught with innate tendencies that, if not blocked, can lead us to make misjudgments. A misjudgment would be a wrong decision in terms of this blog. With all that follows in the blog about misjudgment, we are trying to discern a sound process for earned value decision making, with tools like decision trees, that can help avoid or counter the influences of the counterproductive tendencies. Developing your decision-making process should involve findings tactics that help you avoid or defeat or neutralize these tendencies in your EVMS processes.

Tendency #1 – Reward and Punishment Super-Response

Let’s cover one tendency as an example. Tendency #1 is called the “Reward and Punishment Super-Response Tendency.” The word “super” attached to the idea of response to reward is to emphasize that this is a case of over responding. We all know people move toward what is incentivized; they seek the reward. It must be obvious that, if the wrong thing is incentivized, people will be moving in the wrong direction. According to Munger, there is a strong tendency to move toward the reward; an overly strong tendency. Charlie cites some great examples from his experience. Your decision-making process should include some “clearing the minefield” efforts early on in the process to make sure that the decision will not be made in a move toward a reward that would be wrong for the situation. A simple example could be that you are involved in deciding about launch-ing a long-term effort that would cost quite a bit that does not have certainty to the outcome. If you are incentivized toward short terms profits, then you have the biased tendency to discard the idea in favor of short term gains.

Deprival Super-Reaction Tendency

There is a potentially related tendency called the “Deprival Super-Reaction Tendency.” This is the tendency to feel more pain from a loss than to feel pleasure from a gain of the same amount or thing. According to this tendency, there is more motivation associated with avoiding pain than making a gain. The see-saw is weighted in one direction. How counterproductive is that tendency toward carefully considered decision-making? If we are trying to make a gain in our decision process, we are not only fighting the facts of the situation but also our innate bias against taking a risk. The idea can be seen in the commonly observed action of throwing good money after bad. A loss is imminent, so the decision is to spend more to head it off to potentially save the day and avoid the pain; is that wise? Think about the situation where someone says or is known to think that “I will not be denied no matter the cost.” You probably do not want that kind of thinking involved in your decision making. Now think about a situation where tendency #1 and tendency #2 both align against one of the options being considered. Would an option that faces the tendency to risk some pain of loss and to move against a potential reward stand a chance if those tendencies were not neutralized?

Blog Series

Hopefully you get the idea now. This blog will be followed by another that covers some of the remaining tendencies identified by Charles T. Munger. I hope to learn more from and will translate what I learn here and in our EVM training material. Stay tuned.

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1 Read Post »