IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/jumsac/294921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hätte eine Pre-Mortem-Analyse den Tod von eLWIS verhindern können? – Verhaltensorientierte Ansätze für effektives Kostenmanagement in Großprojekten

Author

Listed:
  • Schattevoy, Sonja

Abstract

Im Juni 2018 gab der Discounter Lidl bekannt, dass er das in Kooperation mit SAP durchgeführte IT-Investitionsprojekt "eLWIS" mit sofortiger Wirkung einstellen würde. Die bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt angefallenen Kosten betrugen bereits rund 500 Mio. Euro. Damit reiht sich Lidl in eine durchaus beachtliche Liste jener Unternehmen ein, die ein geplantes IT-Großprojekt nicht im vorgesehenen Kosten- und Zeitrahmen abzuwickeln vermochten. Die enorme Verbreitung dieser Problematik über eine Vielzahl von Branchen hinweg gibt Anlass zu einer intensiven Analyse der Erfolgsfaktoren für effektives Kostenmanagement in Großprojekten. Einen vielversprechenden Ansatz stellt in diesem Kontext das verhaltensorientierte Controlling dar, das vor allem Maßnahmen gegen kognitive Fehlleistungen und Könnensdefizite der handelnden Akteure in den Mittelpunkt der Betrachtung rückt. Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit werden ausgewählte kognitive Verzerrungen dargestellt, die im Kontext von Investitionsprojekten zu dysfunktionalem Entscheidungsverhalten führen können. Darauf aufbauend sollen Lösungsmöglichkeiten dargelegt werden, mit deren Hilfe diese Verzerrungen aufgefangen und negative Konsequenzen für das Unternehmen vermieden werden können.

Suggested Citation

  • Schattevoy, Sonja, 2020. "Hätte eine Pre-Mortem-Analyse den Tod von eLWIS verhindern können? – Verhaltensorientierte Ansätze für effektives Kostenmanagement in Großprojekten," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 5(1), pages 19-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:jumsac:294921
    DOI: 10.5282/jums/v5i1pp19-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/294921/1/5062-3263.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5282/jums/v5i1pp19-34?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bent Flyvbjerg & Nils Bruzelius & Werner Rothengatter, 2013. "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition," Papers 1303.7404, arXiv.org.
    2. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2007. "Policy and Planning for Large-Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 34(4), pages 578-597, August.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sautner, Zacharias & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Stock options and employee behavior," Papers 05-26, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. Servranckx, Tom & Vanhoucke, Mario & Aouam, Tarik, 2021. "Practical application of reference class forecasting for cost and time estimations: Identifying the properties of similarity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 1161-1179.
    3. Koch, Alexander K. & Nafziger, Julia, 2009. "Motivational Goal Bracketing," IZA Discussion Papers 4471, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Brettschneider, Julia & Burro, Giovanni & Henderson, Vicky, 2021. "Wide framing disposition effect: An empirical study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 330-347.
    5. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    6. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    7. T. K. Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 1998. "Time and Entrepreneurial Risk Behavior," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 22(2), pages 69-88, January.
    8. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    9. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    10. Aloysius, John A., 2003. "Rational escalation of costs by playing a sequence of unfavorable gambles: the martingale," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-129, May.
    11. Brockner, Joel & Higgins, E. Tory, 2001. "Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 35-66, September.
    12. List, John A. & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2015. "The behavioralist as nutritionist: Leveraging behavioral economics to improve child food choice and consumption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 135-146.
    13. Bendig, David & Schulz, Colin & Möhwald, Maximilian & Pollok, Patrick, 2025. "Fear the loss or welcome the gains? How stock options influence CEO risk-taking in corporate cleantech investments," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2).
    14. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    15. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791.
    16. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flybjerg & Eric J. E. Molin & Bert van Wee, 2013. "Cost overruns in Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and Their Theoretical Embeddedness," Papers 1307.2176, arXiv.org.
    17. Saito, Hiroharu, 2022. "Loss aversion for the value of voting rights: WTA/WTP ratios for a ballot," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    18. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2014. "Antecendents and effects of decision comprehensiveness: The role of decision quality and perceived uncertainty," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 625-635.
    19. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    20. Lin, Chaonan & Chen, Hong-Yi & Ko, Kuan-Cheng & Yang, Nien-Tzu, 2021. "Time-dependent lottery preference and the cross-section of stock returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 272-294.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:jumsac:294921. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://jums.academy/en/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.