SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
Citation Information : Transport Problems. Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 103-115, DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/tp.2016.11.2.10
License : (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Received Date : 22-January-2015 / Accepted: 03-June-2016 / Published Online: 02-February-2017
Summary. Previous studies have indicated that the majority of infrastructure projects have cost overruns. The root causes are traced to political, technical and psychological reasons at the initial stage of the project. The consequence is either unintentional overoptimistic forecasting of perceived results or calculated interpretation of facts in favour of personal and political interests. These phenomena are called planning fallacies and strategic misrepresentation, respectively. A step-wise procedure to avoid planning fallacies and strategic misrepresentation is called the outside view. The outside view bypasses human biases by using past experience and empirical data from past projects. It has evolved into a professional practice through a method called reference class forecasting which has been shown to provide improved cost forecasting accuracy in the initial stage of a project. The study reported in this paper examined reference class forecasting as a means of improving cost forecasting in the planning stage of the project lifecycle. Data from the Icelandic Road Administration (ICERA) were assembled in a cost forecasting model to determine if it might be possible to improve forecasting accuracy. The results proved inconclusive; however, a comparison with findings from similar projects in the UK showed that although cost overruns followed a similar curve, the chance of occurrence is significantly lower at the planning stage after the decision to proceed has been taken.
AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduc. American Planning Association. 2005. Available
Planners called to help end inaccuracies in public project revenue, news release. American Planning Association. 2005. Available at http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/2005/apr07.htm
Flyvbjerg, B. Design by deception: the politics of megaproject approval. Harvard Design Magazine. 2005, Spring/summer. No. 22. P. 50-59.
Flyvbjerg, B. From Nobel Prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Management Journal. 2006. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 5-15.
Flyvbjerg, B. Over budget, over time, over and over again. In: Morris, P.W. & Pinto, J.K. & Söderlund, J. The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. P. 321-344.
Flyvbjerg, B. Quality control and due diligence in project management: getting decisons right by taking the outside view. International Journal of Project Management. 2013. Vol. 31. No. 5. P. 760-774.
Flyvbjerg, B. and COWI. Procedures for dealing with optimism bias in transport planning. Guidance document. London: Department for Transport. 2004.
Flyvbjerg, B. & Skamris, M. & Buhl, S. Underestimating costs in public works projects – error or lie? APA Journal. 2002. Vol. 68. No. 3. P. 279-295.
HM Treasury: The Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government. Treasury Guidance. London: TSO. 2003.
Jennings, W. Why costs overrun: risk, optimism and uncertainty in budgeting for the London 2012 Olympic Games. Construction Management and Economics. 2012. Vol. 30. No. 63. P. 455- 462.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, New Series. 1974. Vol. 185. No. 4157. P. 1124-1131.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 263-292.
Lovallo, D. & Kahneman, D. Delusions of success: how optimism undermines executives' decisions. Harvard Business Review. 2003. July. Vol. 81. No. 7. P. 56-63.
Vanston, J.H. & Vanston, L.K. Testing the tea leaves: evaluating the validity of forecasts. Research-Technology Management. 2004. Vol. 47. No. 5. P. 33-39.
Wachs, M. When planners lie with numbers. Journal of the American Planning Association. 1989. Vol. 55. No. 4. P. 476–479.
Wachs, M. Ethics and advocacy in forecasting for public policy. Business and Professional Ethics Journal. 1990. Vol. 9. No. 1-2. P. 141-157.