Talk:Planning fallacy

message: There is no debate about the validity of the "demostration"? I mean as far as the article tell is says that they only made the test in one sample.
Heberto.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.188.86 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unititled

message: Is thee anything out there n procrastination based on overly optimistic estimates? Like, you've got thirty days to do a project but you think you can do it in ten. So you put off even starting it for the first twenty. Then, when it turns out it takes twenty days to do it, you end up running ten days over time, when you would have finished ten days early if you'd pessimistically started on time.... DeistCosmos (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Planning-based procrastination?

message: A psych professor once told me that the worst perpetrators of planning fallacy are, ironically, the ones who are more successful/are more productive in the long run.  I can't remember her exact reasoning for this, if it was a motivation issue, or if the person who takes longer to accomplish something does so because s/he is busy with other tasks.  Regardless, I'm having a hard time finding a concrete source on this issue, but I think it's really interesting and would be something worth adding if it's citable.  UMich215SSG (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting and it would be great to have something about this, but I'm not aware of a source. Will have a look. Any help welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advatages of Planning Fallacy 

message: This statement originally under the explanations section has no citation and I cannot find any credible sources linking these topics:
"Complex projects that lack immutable goals may become subject to mission creep, scope creep, and featuritis."
This statement from the same section seems very similar to the wishful thinking explanation and has no citations either:
"Planners tend to focus on the project and underestimate time for sickness, vacation, meetings, and other "overhead" tasks. Planners also tend not to plan projects to a detail level that allows estimation of individual tasks, like placing one brick in one wall; this enhances optimism bias and prohibits use of actual metrics, like timing the placing of an average brick and multiplying by the number of bricks."
If someone can find the proper citations for these statements they can be moved back to the main page. Smstolz (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Citations 

message: To derive sufficient benefit from the segmentation effect for a complex task, it is essential to break down the task not just into smaller subtasks, but to do this process recursively down several levels, effectively forming a tree of small subtasks. Doing it for just one level instead will lead to minimal benefits only, and while this is better than not segmenting at all, the time estimates will still erroneously remain far too optimistic. The deeper you go, the more overall work you realize exists. --IO Device (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursive segmentation: smaller vs small 

message: The see also are all confirmation biased. The students had 30% complete in time. By only listing the overruns it creates a misleading impression that large projects always overrun. If the students were typical a third should be on time. Please link some that were on time or even early. In civil engineering there are often bonuses paid to make this happen. 91.154.169.156 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation bias