Game Theory in Management

[i] Template is a derivative of one from ProjectManagementDocs.com.

[ii] Retrieved from https://en.tigosolutions.com/the-standish-group-report-839-of-it-projects-partially-or-completely-fail on October 20, 2025, 20:19 MDT.

[iii] Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonsnyder/2025/08/26/mit-finds-95-of-genai-pilots-fail-because-companies-avoid-friction/ on October 20, 2025, 20:21 MDT.

[iv] Retrieved from https://teamstage.io/project-management-statistics/ on October 20, 2025, 20:24 MDT.

Yeah, I know my alter-ego, the “normal” Michael, likes to write about the practical and academic aspects of advancing Project Management within organizations, but can we get real here for a minute?  Talking about Game Theory, payoff grids, and Maccoby Archetype derivatives can only get a PM so far. A recent example of how Normal Michael likes to research PM-related topics came about a few months ago, when he was travelling and picked up a copy of On Mental Toughness, a compilation of Harvard Business Review articles, from an airport news stand, part of HBR’s “Ten Must Reads.” After reading it, the only takeaway that I had was that, if you really want to be tougher mentally, don’t read anything that Harvard Business Review thinks will get you there.

So, since we’re free of observing the trappings of academic niceties, let’s jump straight to the real motives and drivers behind advancing the Project Management sciences, shall we? In this regard, I’m reminded of a group class that I attended at my dojo some years back. There we were, wearing our dogis and lined up for our black belt instructor, ready for our usual drills, when he ups and says “Why do you think you are all here?” We students exchanged confused looks, with some offering that we were there to get in better physical shape, while others asserted that proficiency in the martial arts was the reason.

“Wrong!” the instructor stated flatly. “You’re here because of one thing, and that’s fear. Fear of being bullied, perhaps, or of doing poorly in our next tournament, or even finding yourself in a situation where you truly need unarmed fighting expertise, but, one way or the other, you are here because of fear.”

Meanwhile, Back In The (Dark) PM World…

Normal Michael has pointed out in previous blogs the phenomena of executives in an organization exerting varying levels of support for the creation and/or maintenance of a Project Management Office, and how these varying levels tend to be cyclical. This cycle tends to follow a familiar pattern, to wit:

• One (or more) major projects in the portfolio encounters a significant overrun or schedule delay.
• A fact-finding or post-mortem analysis reveals a deficiency in PM capability, particularly for an organization or project portfolio of that size.
• If a PMO already exists, it receives more attention, resources, visibility, etc., etc. If one does not exist, it is created.
• The new/revamped PMO issues policies and procedures, hires schedulers and Earned Value Management specialists, buys/upgrades software, among other things.
• Full participation in monthly Project Reviews occurs at first, but soon, certain low-risk or low-dollar value Projects are exempted from having to present their cost and schedule performance information.
• As more and more work comes in on-time, on-schedule, the shame and terror of the previous overruns fades away. Attention and an emphasis on “doing PM right” is reduced.
• Our friends, the accountants, teaming up with those in the organization who despise cost and schedule performance measurement systems (because it vividly shows their lack of performance) question the expense and trouble the PMO represents, and seek to undermine – if not out and out get rid of – that same PMO.
• Then, as if on cue, another major or high-profile Project incurs a significant overrun or schedule delay, and the process begins anew.

The cyclical nature of this curve is clearly inefficient and wasteful to the macro-organization, but how does one flatten it out? By reminding those executives that, if they retreat on the capability maturity of the PMO, they are essentially inviting such overruns/delays – and it doesn’t take many of those before your larger customers simply stop awarding the high-value, high-priority work in the first place. Essentially, we’re right back to the same thing that brings karate students in to group classes on a regular basis: fear.

Fear is a powerful motivator, but it typically loses its effectiveness over time. And, again, speaking realistically while sounding cynical, policies and procedures, as they pertain to PM capability, will not reliably prevent the macro-organization from hemorrhaging that same capability to the point that staff gets re-assigned, quality control checks on the Management Information Systems deteriorates, and a vulnerability to high-impact, high-profile overruns returns. You can’t document your way to a minimum-acceptable level of PM competence.

Normal Michael isn’t a big fan of Machiavelli, but I am. One particular quote pops to mind:

You know better than I that in a Republic talent is always suspect. A man attains an elevated position only when his mediocrity prevents him from being a threat to others.[i]

And here we have, at last, an insight that Normal Michael would be loath to point out, but is almost certainly true: the dark reason that successful PMOs actually succeed is because they thread the fear needle, between relieving executives of their anxieties that they are sitting atop a project disaster that no one is telling them about on one side, and not perturbing the Project Teams with what they see as onerous additional administrative tasks to set up baselines, collect status, etc., etc. on the other.

But one area where I will agree with Normal Michael is this: risk management (no initial caps), as currently practiced, still has no place in the PMO, even in the dark paradigm.

[i] Retrieved from https://www.azquotes.com/author/9242-Niccolo_Machiavelli on October 8, 2025, 19:52 MDT.

When we discuss PM in the Real World (ProjectManagement.com’s theme for September), the obvious question becomes “compared to what?” In previous times the answer would be “compared to the version that’s taught in academia,” but here in 2025 that same answer becomes somewhat more ambiguous. Artificial Intelligence is becoming more and more the default source of supposedly advanced insights into whatever realm it’s being invoked, but I’m not sure that’s a good thing. In last week’s blog, I drew the dichotomy between the academic and real-world versions of management. This week, I’d like to take a look at the chasm between real-world PM and AI’s version.

In a sense, the whole world has been digitized. How many people have travelled to the Louvre, and have seen the actual Mona Lisa? Compare that to the number of people who can immediately recognize the Mona Lisa. That image, along with hundreds of thousands of other works of art, has been digitized, and can be recreated with stunning accuracy by anyone with a computer, internet connection, and high-quality printer. Money too. The days of armored trucks travelling the Interstate highways in the United States to bring branch banks stacks of currency are long gone. That money travels over cables, telephone lines, or via satellite, because it has been – everyone say it with me – digitized. Movies, songs, virtually all forms of entertainment, banking, restaurant reservations, doctor’s appointments, this very blog – little of it is done with actual film, vinyl, ledger pads, appointment calendars, or pen and ink. Almost all of it is generated and stored via zeros and ones. There was an extremely successful movie series, The Matrix, built around the premise that everything we perceive in life is actually a simulation, and more than just a few content providers have strongly asserted that that’s what’s actually going on in the world. One interesting part of The Matrix series is that, in order for one to leave the digitized world and return to the real world, they must choose between a blue pill (to stay in the digital world) and a red pill (to exit The Matrix and rejoin the real world).

At the other end of this spectrum are those projects that are worked or have been worked with no computer assistance whatsoever, and a great many of these are impressive, indeed. Impressive to the point that I’m not altogether sure modern-day engineers could duplicate them without the aid of computers, like the Lighthouse at Alexandria, or the Great Pyramid of Giza. In fact, nobody is certain on exactly how the Great Pyramid was constructed with such precise dimensions, with several different theories having been proposed. But whatever method they did use did not involve film, vinyl, ledger pads, appointment calendars, much less digitized processing devices. In a sense, this is the most real-world of real-world projects.

Now I would like to propose a little mental exercise involving these two extremes. If the craftsperson laying conduit for a construction project isn’t really doing Project Management, could it be said that the Control Account Manager in charge of the Work Package development for that task, who never leaves his cubicle, but is engaged in creating baselines in a Critical Path Methodology software and risk analysis (no initial caps) using Monte Carlo simulation software – is that person really doing PM? The reason I’m asking is because, while AI will never replace our conduit-laying craftsperson, it’s not much of a stretch at all to predict that it can – and will – replace our desk-bound CAM in producing such artifacts. At some point in the next century or so, it very well may be that a sort of digital version of PM gets created, a management-model version of The Matrix, just without the extremely violent (but kind of cool), ummm, interactions.

“But Michael!” I can hear GTIM Nation interject, “If someone as vital to PM as a CAM can be largely replaced by AI, where does that leave ProjectManagement.com bloggers?” I’m glad y’all asked, because we ProjectManagement.com bloggers have an easy remedy. All we have to do Ring Around the Collar is to intersperse our text with How PMOs Are Like Uranium nonsense words, in my case titles of Everyone’s Lost Except For Me … And Mr. Spock! previous blogs. You see, AI, in this instance, relies on The Moat Dragon In The Black Box scanning topic-related text to tease out patterns. While GTIM Nation is clever enough to catch my How Is PM Like An Elephant? meaning, AI apps attempting to write an analogous blog will be hopelessly confused, particularly by my titles. (Don’t believe me? The Flesch-Kincaid grade-level assessment for this blog without this paragraph is a full three grade levels higher than said paragraph.)

Just the same, though, if you are being asked to review some Work Packages, and you see “Everyone’s Lost Except For Me” in the scope description, look for a red pill.

My absolute favorite scene from the movie Back to School (1986) is where Rodney Dangerfield’s character, accompanying his son in a management class, confronts the snooty business professor who has just proposed a class project where they will set up a new manufacturing company. The professor has just listed some line items that will go into their basis of estimate, when Dangerfield’s character (Thornton Melon) interjects.

Thornton Melon: Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.

Dr. Phillip Barbay: Oh really? Like what for instance?

Thornton Melon: First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boy scouts.

Dr. Phillip Barbay: That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon! Maybe bribes, kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how YOU do business! But they are NOT part of the legitimate business world! And they are certainly not part of anything I am doing in this class. Do I make myself clear, Mr. Melon![i]

I think this exchange encapsulates perfectly the divide between the academic view of how business is done and its real-world counterparts, albeit in extremis. Neither the self-made successful businessman nor the Ph.D. professor can understand where the other is coming from, and it’s apparent that each holds the other as having an inferior grasp of the management model implications that their view carries.

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

Do not believe for an instant, GTIM Nation, that a similar divide does not exist in the PM World. The analogy here, though, is not one of academia versus real-world realpolitik implications, but rather one of how to actually execute the mores of Project Management. In other words, the gulf we PM-types must deal with, but rarely recognize for its importance, can be summed up in just two words: Implementation Strategy.

It’s kind of ironic, really. When I was in graduate school, the courses I believed to be the most crucial, the “hardest,” were things like statistics, finance, accounting, and business law. Among the courses I thought were – necessary, sure, but not among the “hard” disciplines, was Organizational Behavior and Performance. But this is the exact arena where so many Project Management Offices go to suffer ignominious defeat, and for one simple reason: you cannot advance a capability maturity (like PM) by leveraging organizational power. You can’t make someone get better at something in the management world.

We PM Types tend to be confident in our grasp of the basics of the business model we seek to introduce or modify. We are fluent in things like how to set up a Work Breakdown Structure, fill out a Work Package, set a Cost or Schedule Baseline, etc., etc. That’s not the issue. The problem lies in how to get the rest of the organization to change the way they do things in order to accommodate such modifications. And the assumption that, once the company’s executives have bought into your suggestions for advancing PM capabilities, the rank-and-file will simply fall in line and execute your instructions (because it’s now in official company policy, don’t you know) is not only naïve, it’s absolutely fatal to your capability advancement agenda. A separate implementation strategy, exactly matched to the technical approach, must be developed, one that is both clearly articulatable and practically workable.

Sadly, the so-called implementation strategy that I have seen attempted over and over, and has failed over and over, almost always involves the following steps:

• “Experts” interview execs, and hear their frustrations over the poor cost/schedule performance of the projects in their portfolios.
• They then recommend (or perform themselves) hiring of estimators, project controls specialists, and more PM-oriented personnel.
• Estimating, Earned Value, and Critical Path software packages are purchased and installed, and personnel trained in their use.
• Policy/procedure documents are created or modified to accommodate the new approach, with high-level execs signing off on them.
• Meetings are held, where the new PM initiative is presented, with mid-level management offering tepid endorsement.
• A specific date is set for when the new approach is to go into effect. That date comes, and goes, and…

…nothing really changes. For the next few months, a form of Project Review meetings are held, but the cost/schedule performance information is highly uneven, even when it’s available. Enthusiasm wanes as PMs find excuses for their work to be exempted from the requirements, and those who can’t weasel out find other reasons for less-than-full compliance. The value (or even relevance) of the Project Reviews weakens, the portfolio sees no real change in performance, and the PMO Director becomes increasingly frustrated. When the end comes, they will blame a “lack of willingness to change” or insufficient support from the executives for what has to be accurately described as an utterly unworkable implementation strategy.

So, if Thorton Melon were to be present at the post mortem for the PMO, he might blurt out “Oh, you left out, not a bunch of stuff, but just two words: implementation strategy.”

[i] Retrieved from on https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090685/quotes/, on September 15, 2025, 21:15 MDT.

I believe that one of the most, if not the most, valuable information bits that come from even a basic Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is its ability to accurately predict the at-completion costs and durations of Project work. Decades before “Predictive Analytics” was a thing, EVMSs all across the PM universe were doing an outstanding job of generating this highly coveted bit of management information, and doing so rather easily. So when it comes to discussing Project Management in Real Life (ProjectManagement.com’s theme for September), this management information stream simply has to be the first to consider.

David Christensen is widely acknowledged to have performed the seminal work[i] in evaluating the stability of the Cost Performance Index, or CPI. As a reminder,

CPI = BCWP / ACWP

…where BCWP, or the Budgeted Cost of Work Performed, is the Earned Value figure, and ACWP is the Actual Cost of Work Performed, or just “actuals.” CPI stability isn’t just some wonkish parameter relevant to EV enthusiasts – it’s the heart of the most common (and, as we shall see, the most valuable) way to calculate the Estimate at Completion, or EAC. That formula looks like this:

EAC = BAC / CPI

…where BAC is the Budget at Completion, or total budget, and CPI we’ve already defined. Now, eagle-eyed members of GTIM Nation will immediately recognize an opportunity for algebraic simplification, since:

BCWP = % Complete * BAC

…and they would be correct. Without going into the steps, the EAC formula above can be simplified to:

EAC = ACWP / % Complete.

In other words, all one has to know to calculate an Estimate at Completion is the cumulative actual costs of a project/task/activity, usually readily available from the organization’s general ledger (except in those instances where the GL isn’t set up to collect costs by Work Breakdown Structure), and a reasonable estimate of the project/task/activity percent complete is available from the managers in charge of that piece of scope.

This formula is so simple, and with such readily-available data points needed to feed it, that it’s become fashionable in some PM circles to claim that it couldn’t possibly be reliably accurate. But this is where Dave Christensen’s work comes in, for if the CPI is relatively stable for most of the Project’s life, it follows that the simple EAC formula is reliably accurate. So, what does Christensen’s work indicate? That the CPI, for most of the Project (starting from around 20% complete), is indeed stable, to within ten points. And that means that the BAC / CPI formula is usually reliable to within ten points of the true final costs, and that means that the simplified version of the formula is, as well.

But, wait (as they say in numerous television commercials), there’s more! I believe that the same formula works for duration. Simply take the cumulative duration of your project/task/activity (I recommend in calendar days), and divide it by the cumulative percent complete for total Duration at Completion.

So, what are the real-world implications? For starters, the Estimated Costs at Completion can be reliably calculated, serving as a sanity-check for when your PMs are trying to convince the PMO Director in the Project Reviews that their Project is going to finish on-budget, even with a CPI of .89, and the Project itself over 85% complete. That’s virtually impossible, but if the only source of the EAC is that dopey re-estimate-the-remaining-work-and-add-that-to-the-actuals method, the PMO Director may remain completely unaware of the huge Variance at Completion that awaits until it’s too late to do anything about it.

Then we have those very low-budget, primitive capability PMOs that don’t implement widespread Critical Path Scheduling, instead relying on some form of milestone list. Once documented, these milestones are typically “tracked” by contacting its owner, and asking if they think the milestone is on-time, late, or already accomplished, with the answer invariably being “on-time.” Here’s the fix: rather than polling the PM’s opinion of the make-ability of the milestone, instead ask for an estimate of the percent complete. Take that parameter and divide it into the difference between that milestone’s start date and the date of the closing of the reporting period, and you have its likely duration. Compare that duration to the milestone’s originally scheduled duration, and you have the at-completion variance.

So, yeah, kind of like the PM version of an amazing magic trick, we can “do” predictive analytics, in the real world, with just two easily-obtainable data points. This fact must make the non-PM-types (read: our friends, the accountants) envious, but they need not worry. Outside of GTIM Nation, I’m not convinced that a lot of managers know of this little trick.

[i] Christensen, David, Cost Performance Index Stability – Fact or Fiction?, Journal of Parametrics, January 1991.