How do you avoid bias and overconfidence in expert judgment estimation?

In my experience, defining clearly what the assumptions are when using expert judgment is essential to avoid duplicity of impacts when using for instance, three-point estimating. If worse-case scenario is taking our expected value to where it should be already with the desired confidence level, make sure you are not adding on top of that, the impact of the same materialized variable from the worse-case as contingency. It might lead to super conservative baselines without noticing it.

Bias and overconfidence often arise when experts provide subjective estimates based on incomplete data or personal experience. It is crucial to clearly define the scope and uncertainties of the problem to identify areas where judgment errors might occur. Acknowledging the existence of biases and understanding their potential impact on decision-making is the first step to mitigating them.

A few items to consider: - Estimate Procedure/Techniques (ex. Providing a takeoff in the same way you would build the specific project). - Schedule "B" Clear definition on SOW (scope of work). Clearly defined specifications detailing pre-selected materials and/or manufacturers. - Schedule - overall timelines. Long lead items, weather and of course, critical path. - Resources - who will build? Subcontractor evaluations and previous project experience (portfolio). - Budgeting - Class C to Class A or hard number. CCDC 5B or Lump Sum? CM contracts are definitely on the rise. Being transparent, company stakeholders/clients/owners prefer this route. - Risk Factors - unforseen site conditions, inflation and so on... Just a few....

Civil engineering experts play a crucial role in estimation, involving cost, scheduling, and risk assessment. To ensure accurate judgments, it is essential to define the problem clearly. This consists of articulating the estimation objective and scope, outlining assumptions and constraints, and acknowledging sources of uncertainty and variability. Experts can focus on relevant information, avoid ambiguity, and provide more accurate and unbiased judgments by limiting the issue. This approach helps minimise bias and overconfidence in expert judgment estimation and promotes transparency and realistic expectations.

I totally agree. Putting together a group of 3 consulting firms per division provides diversity in opinion and experience.

Choosing the right experts is key to reducing bias. This involves not only selecting individuals with relevant expertise but also ensuring diversity in the perspectives gathered. Consulting multiple experts from different domains or backgrounds can reduce the risk of groupthink and promote a more balanced view. Group discussions can also help counter individual biases, leading to more well-rounded estimates.

Consulting experts with domain expertise can enhance the reliability of expert judgments. This involves assessing their track record, potential conflicts of interest, and diversity of perspectives. The process can be more objective and reliable by providing clear communication, structured elicitation techniques, and aggregating expert opinions. This ensures that the expert's judgments are unbiased and accurate, supporting informed decision-making and project success. Documenting the specialist consultation process to ensure transparency and future review is crucial. Civil engineers can leverage their expertise for accurate and unbiased estimates by selecting and consulting experts with relevant expertise.

Train experts on cognitive biases, statistical reasoning, and decision-making principles to develop critical thinking skills and improve judgment accuracy. Provide feedback on calibration performance to assist in recalibrating judgments and increasing awareness of biases and overconfidence. Encourage experts to provide probabilistic estimates, such as ranges or probability distributions, to acknowledge uncertainty and avoid overconfidence. Foster critical evaluation of data sources, assumptions, and uncertainties to minimize bias in judgment estimation.

At MarvinWindowSales.Com, we take pride in our expertise and commitment to delivering top-quality window & door services. With over 3 decades of experience in the industry, we have established ourselves as a trusted name specializing in new window/door construction, window/door replacements. Our extensive portfolio of successful projects stands as a testament to our dedication and craftsmanship. What sets us apart is our team of passionate professionals who bring their expertise and creativity to every project. From skilled architects and engineers to experienced managers and craftsmen, our team is dedicated to executing projects with thoroughness and precision. We understand that each project is unique.

Implementing structured estimation techniques is one of the most effective ways to minimize subjective judgment errors. Methods such as the Delphi technique, Monte Carlo simulations, or historical data analysis can provide more accurate and objective estimates. These techniques are particularly useful in situations of uncertainty, as they rely on data-driven insights rather than gut feelings or assumptions.

In my opinion, without a structured approach, expert judgement is often full of biases. Experts are often people with experience finding a trend from their past experience and trying measure costs, time and risks based on one parameter or the other. An expert judgement not properly validated can lead to under or over estimation, and if done in pre-construction/execution stage, it can lead to adverse strategic impact which are difficult to recover from.

As an estimator, to get the best of expert judgement, one has to: - Be as explicit as possible about the assumptions, conditions and constraints known at the time of estimation - State the uncertainty and risks identified - Validate the assumptions - use parametric approach to compare with past works if data is available - Anchoring and confirmation bias can be common in a group setting, facilitate discussion by projecting alternatives and asking why's and why nots.

Once the estimates are made, they should be validated against historical data, expert consensus, or alternative scenarios. Documenting the assumptions, rationale, and the sources of uncertainty behind the estimate is critical. This provides transparency and a foundation for revisiting and refining the estimate as new information emerges.

In my opinion, validating the cost estimate through expert is an essential for projects, and individuals working on putting these estimates. To validate an estimate, a comparison has to be made among the experts, this comparison would have a clear formatted with criteria to achieve a the purpose of the validation.

To avoid bias and overconfidence in expert judgment estimation in renewable energy projects, employ diverse expert panels, use structured decision-making frameworks, and regularly update assumptions with real-world data. For instance, in subsea wind power, consider factors like turbine reliability and seabed conditions; in offshore wind, account for weather patterns and installation logistics; for grid code compliance, factor in evolving regulations and technical standards; in manufacturing and battery storage, assess supply chain risks and technology advancements. Regularly reassessing assumptions and incorporating diverse perspectives mitigates biases and enhances accuracy.