When a project in progress has been seriously underestimated, it is essential to figure out how much additional effort is required to complete it within its original scope and delivery date. This article posits that project contingencies should be based on the amount it will take to recover from the underestimation, and not on the amount that would have been required had the project been adequately planned from the beginning, and that these funds should be administered at the portfolio level. A model to calculate the required funds is developed.
GreyS. (1995). Practical risk assessment for project management.New York: Wiley.
9.
KujawskiE., AlvaroM., & EdwardsW. (2004). Incorporating psychological influences in probabilistic cost analysis. Systems Engineering, 3(7), 195–216.
10.
LittleT. (2006). Schedule estimation and uncertainty surrounding the cone of uncertainty. IEEE Software, 23(3), 48–54.
11.
MirandaE. (2001). Project screening: How to say “no” without hurting your career or your company. Paper presented at the European Software Control and Measurement Conference, London, England.
12.
MirandaE. (2003). Running the successful high-tech project office.Boston: Artech House.
13.
ParkinsonC. (1958, November). Parkinson's law: The pursuit of progress.London: John Murray.
14.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (3rd ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Author.
15.
SimS., & HoltR. (1998). The ramp-up problem in software projects: A case study of how software immigrants naturalize. Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 361–370).
16.
TykocinkiO., PittmanT., & TuttleE. (1995). Inaction inertia: Foregoing future benefits as a result of an initial failure to act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 793–803.
