原文标题：Managing troubled projects If people are involved, it's a troubled project. Here's why.由ACFE China进行翻译，如需转载，请提前告知。During their careers, fraud examiners will inevitably run into major problems on a high-profile project such as a forensic investigation. Human interaction can be a messy affair and often a major hindrance in project management. Here are tips to minimize cognitive bias and other psychological pitfalls that sabotage the best-laid plans.在舞弊审查师的职业生涯中，不可避免地会在取证调查等备受瞩目的项目中遇到重大问题。人际互动可能是一件麻烦事，并且通常是项目管理中的主要障碍。这里有一些技巧可以最大限度地减少认知偏差和其他破坏最佳计划的心理陷阱。
If you’ve ever attended project management training, you learned about the factors that help control the various project phases: planning/goals, project scope, timeline, budget, work breakdown structure (WBS), quality, communications and the project team. Following these practices helps place guardrails on your project, barring of course a highly improbable and consequential occurrence, commonly known as a “black swan event.”如果您参加过项目管理培训，您就会了解有助于控制各个项目阶段的因素：计划/目标、项目范围、时间表、预算、工作分解结构 (WBS)、质量、沟通和项目团队。遵循这些做法有助于为您的项目设置护栏，当然，除非发生极不可能的后果性事件，通常称为“黑天鹅事件”。I once believed that a project’s weakest link was “scope creep,” the uncontrolled growth of a project that accommodates the need for more labor, budget and time. I quickly learned, however, that this had an easy solution. Just ask the project stakeholder “which of these other priorities should I cut back on to make room for this additional unplanned effort?” That usually got them to reconsider their request.我曾经认为，一个项目最薄弱的环节是“范围渐变”，即项目不受控制的增长，以适应对更多劳动力、预算和时间的需求。然而，我很快了解到，这有一个简单的解决方案。只要问项目利益相关者“我应该削减哪些其他优先事项，以便为这些额外的计划外工作腾出空间？” 这通常会让他们重新考虑他们的请求。When I was leading projects at Motorola, my team and I attended two weeks long programs, “Managing Projects in Large Organizations” and “Project Risk Assessment,” administered by George Washington University. On day one, an instructor made this memorable statement: “Too few people on a project can’t solve the problems; too many create more problems than they solve.”当我在摩托罗拉领导项目时，我和我的团队参加了乔治华盛顿大学管理的两个为期一周的项目，“大型组织中的项目管理”和“项目风险评估”。第一天，一位讲师发表了这样令人难忘的话：“项目中少有人解决问题；制造问题比解决问题的人多。”Humans are the weakest links in the chainThat’s when I learned that the weakest links in the project management chain are people. Even when you budget for extra time, a project is likely to take longer than you expected either because of a post-factor decision — or a failure to make one. No matter how focused and committed the team may be, projects often stumble due to bad decisions. And the more people involved, the more likely the project will suffer from “variance” — project-management parlance for the difference between what was planned and what actually happens. (See “Variance,” Project Management Knowledge.)那时我才知道，项目管理链中最薄弱的环节是人。即使你为额外的时间做预算，一个项目可能需要比你预期的时间更长，要么是事后决定——要么是没有做出决定。无论团队多么专注和投入，项目经常会因为错误的决定而失败。参与的人越多，项目就越有可能遭受“差异”的影响——项目管理用语，即计划中的内容与实际发生的情况之间的差异。（参见“差异”，项目管理知识。）“People are indeed the weak link in managing projects,” Jeremy Clopton, CFE, director of Upstream Academy, tells Fraud Magazine. “人确实是管理项目的薄弱环节，”上游学院主任 CFE 杰里米·克洛普顿告诉舞弊杂志。“Individuals’ unconscious biases, previous experiences, and personal beliefs will influence how they approach each forensic project, even if that isn’t the intent. This weakness is likely most prevalent in determining where to look for fraud, evaluating the types of fraud that may or may not be possible, and the plausibility of other explanations.”“个人的无意识偏见、以前的经历和个人信仰将影响他们处理每个取证项目的方式，即使这不是本意。这种弱点可能最常见于确定在哪里寻找舞弊行为、评估可能或不可能发生的舞弊类型以及其他解释的合理性。”We can’t help it if our first inclination is to run to the “been there, done that” answer or solution. The brain selects that which is familiar and quickly accessed from memory. It’s called cognitive bias.如果我们的第一个倾向是去寻找“去过那里，做过那件事”的答案或解决方案，那我们就无能为力了。大脑从记忆中选择熟悉且快速访问的内容。这叫做认知偏差。The Dunning-Kruger effect (cognitive bias)Individuals on a project team may favor different approaches to even the smallest task on the WBS. And while rules to restrict subjective judgment and variability can help keep inconsistencies at a minimum, the decision-making process remains vulnerable to all types of psychological pitfalls. These include a tendency for our brains to jump to System 1 “rapid cognition” thinking. That, in turn, can lead to systemic, predictable errors of judgment if the more rational, logical (and slower) System 2 thinking isn’t invoked as a check on System 1 impressions. (See “Thin-Slicing Experience,” by Donn LeVie Jr., CFE, Fraud Magazine, Inside the interview, September/October 2021.)项目团队中的个人可能会倾向于采用不同的方法来完成WBS中最小的任务。虽然限制主观判断和可变性的规则可以帮助将不一致的情况保持在最低限度，但决策过程仍然容易受到各种心理陷阱的影响。其中包括我们的大脑倾向于跳到系统 1 的“快速认知”思维。如果不调用更理性、更合乎逻辑（和更慢）的系统 2 思维来检查系统 1 的印象，那么这反过来又会导致系统性、可预测的判断错误。（参见“薄切片体验”，作者 Donn LeVie Jr.，CFE，舞弊杂志，采访内容，2021 年 9 月/10 月。）There is also a type of cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. It appears when people with limited knowledge or competence in a field (fraud investigation, for example) critically overestimate their own abilities in that specialty when compared to objective standards or performance of their peers. (See “Dunning-Kruger effect” in Britannica online.)还有一种认知偏差，称为邓宁-克鲁格效应。与客观标准或同行的表现相比，当在某个领域（例如舞弊调查）知识或能力有限的人严重高估自己在该专业中的能力时，就会出现这种情况。（参见《大英百科全书》在线版中的“邓宁-克鲁格效应”。）Project managers would do well in taking heed of Charles Darwin’s well-known quote: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”项目经理最好注意查尔斯·达尔文的名言：“无知比知识更能产生信心。”Ryan C. Hubbs, CFE, global anticorruption and fraud manager for Schlumberger and former ACFE Board of Regents member, describes an interesting variation on the Dunning-Kruger effect. “If we were to really dissect big project failures, we would probably find several instances where managing by position or seniority was a contributing factor in the failures, and managing by experience and expertise had less instances of failure,” he says.Ryan C. Hubbs，CFE，斯伦贝谢全球反腐败和舞弊经理，前 ACFE 董事会成员，描述了邓宁-克鲁格效应的一个有趣变化。他说：“如果我们真的要剖析大型项目的失败，我们可能会发现，根据职位或资历进行管理是导致失败的一个因素，而根据经验和专业知识进行管理的失败案例较少。”“A title alone does not imbue the holder with instant knowledge. Yet some individuals may exhibit ‘position bias’ or evoke the ‘I’m the boss’ attitude in making critical decisions.”“仅一个头衔并不能让持有者立即获得知识。然而，有些人在做出关键决策时可能会表现出‘职位偏见’或唤起‘我是老板’的态度。”
资料来源：Donn LeVie, Jr., CFEIf the Dunning-Kruger effect wasn’t enough to worry about, we humans are also unreliable decision-makers simply because a whole host of external factors can influence our moods while we work on a project.如果邓宁-克鲁格效应还不足以令人担忧，那么我们人类也是不可靠的决策者，仅仅是因为在我们进行项目时，大量的外部因素会影响我们的情绪。Concern about the weather, worrying about the expense of a new roof, or anxiety over that upcoming root canal can change our disposition. When that happens, the brain unleashes serotonin, dopamine, glutamate and noradrenaline, all of which have an effect on our judgment — as do adrenaline, cortisol and melatonin. (See “How brain chemicals influence mood and health,” UPMC, Sept. 4, 2016.) It’s called cognitive noise.担心天气，担心新屋顶的费用，或对即将到来的根管治疗的焦虑会改变我们的情绪。当这种情况发生时，大脑会释放血清素、多巴胺、谷氨酸和去甲肾上腺素，所有这些都会影响我们的判断力——肾上腺素、皮质醇和褪黑激素也是如此。（参见“大脑化学物质如何影响情绪和健康”，UPMC，2016 年 9 月 4 日。）它被称为认知噪音。Invisible influences affect decisions, judgmentNobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, co-author of “Noise: The Flaw in Human Judgment,” has highlighted how psychological or cognitive noise (as separate from bias) impacts our judgment. Kahneman, along with his co-authors, Cass Sunstein and Olivier Sibony, cite research where judges pronounced stiffer sentences for juvenile offenders on Monday morning if the local football team lost a game over the weekend. (See “Judges give harsher penalties when their favorite football team loses unexpectedly,” by Mihai Andrei, ZME Science, July 6, 2018.) The book also illustrates how judges are also more likely to hand out harsher punishments if they’re hungry. When cognitive bias is ruled out, such correlations (not necessarily causation) are likely attributable to one thing: noise. (See “Dissecting “Noise,” by Vasant Dhar, Los Angeles Review of Books, Aug. 9, 2021.)诺贝尔奖获得者、心理学家丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman）是《噪音：人类判断的缺陷》的合著者，他强调了心理或认知噪音（与偏见不同）如何影响我们的判断。卡尼曼和他的合著者卡斯·桑斯坦和奥利维尔·西博尼引用了一项研究，如果当地足球队在周末输掉一场比赛，法官会在周一早上对少年犯作出更严厉的判决。（参见“当他们最喜欢的足球队意外失利时，法官会给予更严厉的惩罚”，Mihai Andrei，ZME Science，2018 年 7 月 6 日。）这本书还说明了如果法官饿了，他们也更有可能给予更严厉的惩罚。当排除认知偏差时，这种相关性（不一定是因果关系）可能归因于一件事：噪音。（看 ”剖析“噪音”，Vasant Dhar，洛杉矶书评，2021 年 8 月 9 日。）Understanding different types of system noiseSystem noise consists of two components: level noise and pattern noise. Nearly every decision-making process involves level noise — how people have different levels of judgment in a particular system. Employee performance evaluations are a good example of level noise. One manager may be magnanimous in their evaluations of subordinates, while another — using identical evaluation criteria — may be more mean-spirited. We see the same ambiguity with “on a scale of 1 to 10” ratings. One manager’s employee ranking of a “7” is another manager’s ranking of a “5” for the same criteria. (See “Daniel Kahneman Says Noise Is Wrecking Your Judgment. Here’s Why, and What to Do About It,” by Beverly Goodman, Barron’s, May 28, 2021, and “How noisy is your company?” by Theodore Kinni, strategy + business, Business Books, May 19, 2021.)系统噪音由两部分组成：水平噪音和模式噪音。几乎每个决策过程都涉及水平噪音——人们在特定系统中的判断水平如何不同。员工绩效评估是水平噪音的一个很好的例子。一位经理对下属的评价可能很宽宏大量，而另一位经理——使用相同的评价标准——可能更刻薄。我们在“从 1 到 10 分”的评级中看到了同样的模糊性。对于相同标准，一位经理的员工排名为“7”，而另一位经理的员工排名为“5”。（请参阅“丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman）说噪音正在破坏您的判断力。这就是为什么，以及如何处理它，”贝弗利·古德曼（Beverly Goodman），巴伦周刊，2021 年 5 月 28 日，以及“您的公司有多嘈杂？”，Theodore Kinni，战略 + 商业，商业书籍，2021 年 5 月 19 日。）Pattern noise is harder to predict and is a significant source of inconsistent decision-making. It results from how people see the world differently from one another. We believe what we believe for various rational and irrational reasons justifiable only to ourselves. As Sibony describes it, pattern noise comes from our idiosyncrasies. It’s why a tough judge might be more lenient with white-collar criminals. (See “Beyond Bias with Olivier Sibony,” The Decision Lab, May 24, 2021.)模式噪音更难预测，是不一致决策的重要来源。它源于人们看待世界的方式彼此不同。我们相信我们出于各种理性和非理性原因而相信的东西，只有我们自己才有理由相信。正如 Sibony 所描述的，模式噪音来自我们的特质。这就是为什么一个严厉的法官可能对白领罪犯更宽容。（参见“ Olivier Sibony 的《Beyond Bias》，”决策实验室，2021 年 5 月 24 日。）Take the recent Winter Olympics, for example. Any event where judges are involved introduces level noise, pattern noise and occasion noise (when, for example, an external event like winning the lottery changes the mood of the judge). Each of the judges has their own individual interpretation of objective ranking criteria when judging athletes, which is level noise. When judges disagree individually as to whether an athlete should advance to the medal round or go home, they exhibit pattern noise. When the judges disagree among themselves, they display occasion noise.以最近的冬奥会为例。任何涉及裁判的事件都会引入水平噪音、模式噪音和场合噪音（例如，当像中奖这样的外部事件改变了裁判的情绪时）。每个裁判在评判运动员时对客观排名标准都有自己的个人解释，即水平噪音。当裁判们就运动员是否应该晋级奖牌轮或回家时个别存在分歧时，他们会表现出模式噪音。当裁判之间存在分歧时，他们会表现出场合噪音。That’s why judging scores for skating individuals or pairs has variability. Judges can check all the objective criteria boxes on the score cards. But having to assign a numerical score is where noise comes into play — especially in situations where judges harbor strong nationalistic tendencies.这就是为什么对个人或双人滑冰的成绩进行评判时会有变化的原因。评委可以检查记分卡上的所有客观标准框。但是必须分配一个数值这才是噪音发挥作用的地方——尤其是在法官怀有强烈民族主义倾向的情况下。How to clean up the noiseIn “Noise,” the authors describe a process for reducing noise in decision-making:1. Have individuals on the project team agree to remain independent of each other as each investigates potential causes and factors of a problem or defect. Staying independent of others helps individuals gather more information about the problem without the temptation of arriving at the most logical or obvious solution at the beginning of the process.1. 让项目团队中的每个人同意在各自调查问题或缺陷的潜在原因和因素时保持相互独立。保持独立于他人有助于个人收集有关问题的更多信息，而不会在流程开始时就试图找到最符合逻辑或最明显的解决方案。2. Aggregate responses. Postpone a universal view or decision of the underlying cause of the defect until all information has been gathered, processed and discussed to avoid jumping to premature conclusions.2. 综合应对。推迟对缺陷根本原因的普遍看法或决定，直到收集、处理和讨论了所有信息，以避免过早下结论。Years ago, I facilitated meetings at Intel Corporation to address defects and bugs during the microprocessor design process. At these meetings, which were formerly run by engineering project leads, engineers would get bogged down in discussions about each defect. (Imagine 10 people on a team with 10 different opinions on whether an “issue” was a true defect.)多年前，我在英特尔公司主持会议，以解决微处理器设计过程中的缺陷和错误。在这些以前由工程项目负责人主持的会议上，工程师们会陷入对每个缺陷的讨论中。（想象一个团队中的10个人对“问题”是否是真正的缺陷有10种不同的看法。）By the end of a two-hour meeting, they’d only discussed a handful of the 60 to 100 logged defects. The engineers were trying to solve individual defect problems too early in the process, and the project leads were only supposed to lead the meetings, not be involved in the discussions.在两个小时的会议结束时，他们只讨论了60到100个记录缺陷中的一小部分。工程师在过程中过早地试图解决个别缺陷问题，项目负责人只应该领导会议，而不是参与讨论。Engineering management saw that there was an issue with how the meetings were run, so I offered to run them instead. I allocated a time limit for each defect discussion — if the issue couldn’t be resolved quickly by consensus at the end of two minutes, I would appoint two engineers to examine the defect outside of the meeting and report back at the next scheduled meeting. That way, we were able to get through 100 or more defects in a two-hour meeting by preventing participants from jumping to conclusions and trying to find remedies on the fly. The former approach was too noisy and costly; the later approach was less noisy and less costly.工程管理人员发现会议的运作方式存在问题，因此我提出我来主持会议。我为每个缺陷讨论分配了一个时间限制——如果问题不能在两分钟结束时以协商一致的方式快速解决，我会任命两名工程师在会议之外检查缺陷，并在下一次预定会议上报告。这样一来，我们就能够在两个小时的会议中解决100个或更多的缺陷，防止参与者草率下结论并试图即时找到补救措施。前一种方法噪音太大，成本太高；后一种方法噪音更小，成本更低。Can a rules-based approach to decision-making using bias-free and noise-free algorithms do a better job than humans? According to Kahneman, decidedly so. The short answer is because mechanical approaches are free of noise. (See “Should Humans Be More Like Machines?” by Arnold Cling, Econlib, Book Review, Aug. 2, 2021.) That said, the best managers are arguably necessary. They can look beyond the noise and successfully bring together the expertise of their team to reach a successful conclusion to any project.使用无偏差和无噪声算法的基于规则的决策方法能比人类做得更好吗？根据卡尼曼的说法，确实如此。简短的回答是因为机械方法没有噪音。（请参阅“人类应该更像机器吗？ ”，Arnold Cling，Econlib，书评，2021 年 8 月 2 日。）尽管如此，最好的管理者无疑是必要的。他们可以超越噪音，成功地将团队的专业知识汇集在一起，从而成功完成任何项目。“Without individuals’ expertise, judgment, and intuition — and being properly aware of the influence of cognitive bias and noise — we would not move from evaluation to conclusion in a project,” says Clopton. “The most successful examiners can balance the strengths and weaknesses of their people to lead a forensic project.”“如果没有个人的专业知识、判断力和直觉——以及正确意识到认知偏差和噪音的影响——我们就不会在项目中从评估转向结论，”克洛普顿说。“最成功的审查师可以平衡其人员的优势和劣势来领导一个取证项目。”And finally, one last pearl of wisdom from the George Washington University project management instructor on working with a team of people with different psychological propensities. “Change is inevitable — except from vending machines.”最后，乔治华盛顿大学项目管理讲师在与一群具有不同心理倾向的人合作方面的最后一颗智慧之珠。“改变是不可避免的——除非像自动售货机一样。”
Donn LeVie Jr., CFE是舞弊杂志ACFE 全球舞弊会议的演讲者和领导定位/影响力战略家。他是 Donn LeVie Jr. STRATEGIES, LLC 的总裁，负责领导项目并就执行问题发表演讲影响技术和情境影响策略。他的网站是donnleviejrstrategies.com。通过donn@donnleviejrstrategies.com与他联系。
原文链接:https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4295017575
