Pre-mortem analysis

2021-02-21T16:32:56Z

S202894:

==Abstract==
The concept of pre-mortem analysis consists in identifying the possible causes of failure of a project. The peculiarity is that the analysis takes place in the very early stages of the project, immediately after the conception of the idea. In fact, we all know the meaning of post-mortem analysis, which in medicine is the process that allows to identify the causes of the patient's death. The same happens with projects. After the failure of a plan, the team tries to understand what went wrong, what may have been the causes of the crash and what led to the "death" of the project. The results of this analysis will certainly be useful in the future because they will allow us not to repeat the same mistakes but one thing is certain: the project died. The time spent, the resources used and the efforts made are now lost. The purpose of the pre-mortem analysis is to prevent this. The basic concept is to assume that the project will fail and, starting from this assumption, to research the causes of death. This method requires negligible application costs and is also inexpensive in terms of time. Furthermore, it has been proven that a psychological factor can bring benefits not obtainable with the more classic post-mortem analysis.
This tool is very useful in project management and allows you to have a greater awareness of the complexity of a project and to reduce the uncertainty factor that is often linked to new plans.

==Relevance of the tool==
It is important to understand why pre-mortem analysis is relevant in project management. The reasons are to be found in some concepts of social psychology, the so-called cognitive biases.
Cognitive bias refers to a systematic (that is, nonrandom and, thus, predictable) deviation from rationality in judgment or decision-making.<ref name="R1" />
In other words, in project management, teams can be unconsciously influenced by certain factors that lead to a wrong perception of the project.

Relevant examples of cognitive biases that can influence decision making are:

*'''Confirmation bias:''' The tendency to selectively search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions or hypotheses.<ref name="R2" />
*Conformity bias: choices of mass populations influence how we think, even if against independent personal judgments. This can result in poor decision making and lead to groupthink.<ref name="R3" />
*'''Authority bias:''' favoring authority figure opinions ideas within innovation teams.<ref name="R3" />
*'''Loss-aversion bias:''' once a decision has been made, sticking to it rather than taking risks due to the fear of losing what you gained in starting something and wishing to see it finished.<ref name="R3" />

These phenomena occur in an unconscious and natural way when analyzing a project. In particular, these biases become more relevant when the project is at an advanced stage.

For example, let's say you've worked hard for six months on a project. The manager requests an update meeting and to ensure that the plan is progressing in line with the established objectives. During the discussion the manager proposes an idea that he believes can bring value to the project.

How many of those present would try to deeply analyze the idea to evaluate potential risks and how many would agree from the start trusting the manager's experience? (authority-bias).

As the meeting progresses, the team finds itself discussing a particular issue. Everyone has the same opinion except one member. It can happen that this person changes his mind conforming to the ideas of the other team members. This can happen either because it is influenced by "mass thinking" (conformity bias) or simply to avoid conflicts and maintain serenity within the team (groupthinking).

Once this situation has also been resolved, someone arises with a proposal: following some research it seems that a complete change of strategy can bring advantages to the project. Is it necessary to make a decision, continue the work done so far or change the plans? How many people would think of all the hard work they have done so far will be lost? And how many after all the efforts made are totally convinced that the initial approach was the right one? (loss-aversion bias and confirmation bias).

At this point the meeting ends, how many did not express all their ideas thinking they were silly, not relevant or for fear of being judged by the other members?

The peculiarity of the pre-mortem analysis consists in being carried out before the project is officially started. In this phase the influence of the cognitive biases listed above is strongly reduced or even canceled. Team members are asked to formulate hypotheses and any ideas are welcome and considered. Participants are encouraged to be proactive, the barriers dictated by the different roles in the company are eliminated. Everyone can apply their skills and experience by opening scenarios that others would not have considered. This allows the team to have a broader vision of the project, evaluate different types of possibilities and therefore reduce the probability of encountering unexpected situations in the future.

Problems such as planning fallacy (the tendency for individuals to underestimate the time required to complete a task <ref name="R4" />) can be prevented as it is very likely that the time constraint will be considered among the many causes.
Moreover, of particular relevance is a research cited by Gary Klein himself in his article on pre-mortem analysis []. The study carried out in 1989 by experts from American universities showed that assuming that an event has already occured increases the ability to correctly identify reasons for future outcomes by 30%.[]

Downstream of all these considerations, the result obtained from the application of the tool is a clear reduction of overconfidence (The pervasive tendency for an individual to be more confident in his or her abilities or judgments than is justified <ref name="R4" />). in other words, awareness of the criticalities of the project increases. By doing so, it is possible to immediately evaluate adequate measures to prevent failure.

==Application==
A correct application of the pre-mortem analysis can be performed following five main steps:
:1.'''Team Selection and Plan Understanding:''' The project manager selects the team members who will have to carry out the analysis. These do not necessarily have to be highly specialized, the important thing is that they are people involved in the realization of the project, from the conception, design, manufacturing or distribution phase. Then the manager proceeds by illustrating and explaining the project.
:2.'''Declare failure:''' the manager declares that the project has failed. Based on the characteristics of the project and the objectives set, he can provide different time horizons (i.e. the project failed after three, six, twelve months of work)
:3.'''Failure Hypothesis:''' At this point each team member is asked to list all possible causes of failure. this phase can take from 10 to 20 minutes and everyone works individually, noting as many hypotheses as possible. When everyone has finished, starting with the project manager, everyone reads one of their reasons and continues in the cycle until they are all read and transcribed in a place where everyone can read them.
:4.'''Suggest fixes:''' now is the time to look for solutions in order to prevent each of the previously hypothesized causes of failure. First of all, priority is given to the causes that are considered most likely to occur and therefore riskier. It is important to take into consideration all hypotheses, even the strangest and, in the case of something that cannot be prevented (i.e. the destruction of the factory due to a natural catastrophe), for example, to declare that in any case there would be no resources. necessary to prevent the event from occurring.
:5.'''Revise the plan:''' after discussing all possible countermeasures the plan is reviewed and the necessary measures are taken so that none of the causes of failure listed during the analysis can take place.

The result will be a more solid project with a limited level of uncertainty. Team members will also be prepared to deal with different types of contingencies and more aware of the importance of each stage of the plan.
An experiment conducted by Beth Veinot, Gary A. Klein and Sterling Wiggins showed that the use of pre-mortem analysis compared to other risk analysis techniques decreases confidence in the initial phase, it makes team members more attentive to possible threats and more aware of the risks. Conversely, confidence increases in the next stage, when the causes and possible solutions to them have been discussed.

==Limitations==

The biggest limitation in applying this tool is the risk of spending so many resources such as time and money trying to prevent possible causes that may never actually happen.

==Annotated bibliography==
*Trost, Armin (2019). ''Human Resources Strategies. Balancing Stability and Agility in Times of Digitization'', Publisher. Springer
*Beth Veinott, Gary A. Klein, Sterling Wiggins ''Evaluating the Effectiveness of the PreMortem Technique on Plan Confidence'', Proceedings of the 7th International ISCRAM Conference – Seattle, USA, May 2010.

==References==

<references>

<ref name="R1"> Blanco, F. (2017). ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'', Publisher: Springer Editors: Jennifer Vonk, Tom Shackelford. </ref>

<ref name="R2"> A. Wilke, R. Mata, Cognitive Bias, Editor(s): V.S. Ramachandran, Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2012, Pages 531-535. </ref>

<ref name="R3"> Mike Pinder, ''16 cognitive biases that can kill your decision making'', https://www.boardofinnovation.com/blog/16-cognitive-biases-that-kill-innovative-thinking/. </ref>

<ref name="R4"> J. Ehrlinger, W.O. Readinger, B. Kim (2016), ''Encyclopedia of Mental Health'' Chapter: Decision-Making and Cognitive Biases. </ref>

Pre-mortem analysis

2021-02-21T16:24:28Z

S202894: /* Bibliography */

==Abstract==
The concept of pre-mortem analysis consists in identifying the possible causes of failure of a project. The peculiarity is that the analysis takes place in the very early stages of the project, immediately after the conception of the idea. In fact, we all know the meaning of post-mortem analysis, which in medicine is the process that allows to identify the causes of the patient's death. The same happens with projects. After the failure of a plan, the team tries to understand what went wrong, what may have been the causes of the crash and what led to the "death" of the project. The results of this analysis will certainly be useful in the future because they will allow us not to repeat the same mistakes but one thing is certain: the project died. The time spent, the resources used and the efforts made are now lost. The purpose of the pre-mortem analysis is to prevent this. The basic concept is to assume that the project will fail and, starting from this assumption, to research the causes of death. This method requires negligible application costs and is also inexpensive in terms of time. Furthermore, it has been proven that a psychological factor can bring benefits not obtainable with the more classic post-mortem analysis.
This tool is very useful in project management and allows you to have a greater awareness of the complexity of a project and to reduce the uncertainty factor that is often linked to new plans.

==Relevance of the tool==
It is important to understand why pre-mortem analysis is relevant in project management. The reasons are to be found in some concepts of social psychology, the so-called cognitive biases.
Cognitive bias refers to a systematic (that is, nonrandom and, thus, predictable) deviation from rationality in judgment or decision-making.<ref name="R1" />
In other words, in project management, teams can be unconsciously influenced by certain factors that lead to a wrong perception of the project.

Relevant examples of cognitive biases that can influence decision making are:

*'''Confirmation bias:''' The tendency to selectively search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions or hypotheses.<ref name="R2" />
*Conformity bias: choices of mass populations influence how we think, even if against independent personal judgments. This can result in poor decision making and lead to groupthink.<ref name="R3" />
*'''Authority bias:''' favoring authority figure opinions ideas within innovation teams.<ref name="R3" />
*'''Loss-aversion bias:''' once a decision has been made, sticking to it rather than taking risks due to the fear of losing what you gained in starting something and wishing to see it finished.<ref name="R3" />

These phenomena occur in an unconscious and natural way when analyzing a project. In particular, these biases become more relevant when the project is at an advanced stage.

For example, let's say you've worked hard for six months on a project. The manager requests an update meeting and to ensure that the plan is progressing in line with the established objectives. During the discussion the manager proposes an idea that he believes can bring value to the project.

How many of those present would try to deeply analyze the idea to evaluate potential risks and how many would agree from the start trusting the manager's experience? (authority-bias).

As the meeting progresses, the team finds itself discussing a particular issue. Everyone has the same opinion except one member. It can happen that this person changes his mind conforming to the ideas of the other team members. This can happen either because it is influenced by "mass thinking" (conformity bias) or simply to avoid conflicts and maintain serenity within the team (groupthinking).

Once this situation has also been resolved, someone arises with a proposal: following some research it seems that a complete change of strategy can bring advantages to the project. Is it necessary to make a decision, continue the work done so far or change the plans? How many people would think of all the hard work they have done so far will be lost? And how many after all the efforts made are totally convinced that the initial approach was the right one? (loss-aversion bias and confirmation bias).

At this point the meeting ends, how many did not express all their ideas thinking they were silly, not relevant or for fear of being judged by the other members?

The peculiarity of the pre-mortem analysis consists in being carried out before the project is officially started. In this phase the influence of the cognitive biases listed above is strongly reduced or even canceled. Team members are asked to formulate hypotheses and any ideas are welcome and considered. Participants are encouraged to be proactive, the barriers dictated by the different roles in the company are eliminated. Everyone can apply their skills and experience by opening scenarios that others would not have considered. This allows the team to have a broader vision of the project, evaluate different types of possibilities and therefore reduce the probability of encountering unexpected situations in the future.

Problems such as planning fallacy (the tendency for individuals to underestimate the time required to complete a task <ref name="R4" />) can be prevented as it is very likely that the time constraint will be considered among the many causes.
Moreover, of particular relevance is a research cited by Gary Klein himself in his article on pre-mortem analysis []. The study carried out in 1989 by experts from American universities showed that assuming that an event has already occured increases the ability to correctly identify reasons for future outcomes by 30%.[]

Downstream of all these considerations, the result obtained from the application of the tool is a clear reduction of overconfidence (The pervasive tendency for an individual to be more confident in his or her abilities or judgments than is justified <ref name="R4" />). in other words, awareness of the criticalities of the project increases. By doing so, it is possible to immediately evaluate adequate measures to prevent failure.

==Application==
A correct application of the pre-mortem analysis can be performed following five main steps:
:1.'''Team Selection and Plan Understanding:''' The project manager selects the team members who will have to carry out the analysis. These do not necessarily have to be highly specialized, the important thing is that they are people involved in the realization of the project, from the conception, design, manufacturing or distribution phase. Then the manager proceeds by illustrating and explaining the project.
:2.'''Declare failure:''' the manager declares that the project has failed. Based on the characteristics of the project and the objectives set, he can provide different time horizons (i.e. the project failed after three, six, twelve months of work)
:3.'''Failure Hypothesis:''' At this point each team member is asked to list all possible causes of failure. this phase can take from 10 to 20 minutes and everyone works individually, noting as many hypotheses as possible. When everyone has finished, starting with the project manager, everyone reads one of their reasons and continues in the cycle until they are all read and transcribed in a place where everyone can read them.
:4.'''Suggest fixes:''' now is the time to look for solutions in order to prevent each of the previously hypothesized causes of failure. First of all, priority is given to the causes that are considered most likely to occur and therefore riskier. It is important to take into consideration all hypotheses, even the strangest and, in the case of something that cannot be prevented (i.e. the destruction of the factory due to a natural catastrophe), for example, to declare that in any case there would be no resources. necessary to prevent the event from occurring.
:5.'''Revise the plan:''' after discussing all possible countermeasures the plan is reviewed and the necessary measures are taken so that none of the causes of failure listed during the analysis can take place.

The result will be a more solid project with a limited level of uncertainty. Team members will also be prepared to deal with different types of contingencies and more aware of the importance of each stage of the plan.
An experiment conducted by Beth Veinot, Gary A. Klein and Sterling Wiggins showed that the use of pre-mortem analysis compared to other risk analysis techniques decreases confidence in the initial phase, it makes team members more attentive to possible threats and more aware of the risks. Conversely, confidence increases in the next stage, when the causes and possible solutions to them have been discussed.

==Limitations==

The biggest limitation in applying this tool is the risk of spending so many resources such as time and money trying to prevent possible causes that may never actually happen.

==References==

<references>

<ref name="R1"> Blanco, F. (2017). ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'', Publisher: Springer Editors: Jennifer Vonk, Tom Shackelford. </ref>

<ref name="R2"> A. Wilke, R. Mata, Cognitive Bias, Editor(s): V.S. Ramachandran, Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2012, Pages 531-535. </ref>

<ref name="R3"> Mike Pinder, ''16 cognitive biases that can kill your decision making'', https://www.boardofinnovation.com/blog/16-cognitive-biases-that-kill-innovative-thinking/. </ref>

<ref name="R4"> J. Ehrlinger, W.O. Readinger, B. Kim (2016), ''Encyclopedia of Mental Health'' Chapter: Decision-Making and Cognitive Biases. </ref>

Pre-mortem analysis

2021-02-21T16:23:28Z

2021-02-11T18:27:47Z

S202894:

=Overview of 2021 Wiki Collections=

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Spring Term 2021 Wiki Collections
|Group name
|First name
|Surname
|Student number
|[[Article name]]
|-
|-
|TAs Example
|Thomas
|Giannoulopoulos
|s192419
|[[APPM Example 2021]]
|-
|-
|Group 12
|Christian
|Frøsig
|s175044
|[[Belbin's 9 team roles]]
|-
|-
|Group 1
|Oliver
|K. Vittrup
|s163754
|[[Top-down vs ground up estimations]]
|-
|-
|44
|Jeyad
|M. Baig
|s153585
|[[Task Management - 3 Levels of Planning Methods]]
|-
|-
|Group 17
|Quoc-Khanh Rose-Marie Therese
|Madsen
|s123462
|[[Applying Tuckman’s model for team development]]
|-
|-
|31
|Haoxiang
|Sang
|s192258
|[[Cost control with statistic tools]]
|-
|-
|Not yet
|He
|Fan
|s192195
|[[Work Break Down Structure]]
|-
|-
|Group 19
|Ángel
|Castro del Olmo
|s193246
|[[Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability in Maritime Spatial Planning]]
|-
|-
|44
|Abdullah Shams
|Turkmani
|s153337
|[[ICT Agreement]]
|-
|-
|Group 17
|Jacopo
|Renzi
|s210445
|[[Double Diamond Model]]
|-
|-
|Group 35
|Helga Sigríður
|Magnúsdóttir
|s202027
|[[Network Planning]]
|-
|-
|12
|Cæcilie
|Kortbæk
|163873
|[[Double diamond]]
|-
|-
|Group 18
|Frithjof Johannes
|Thiem
|s202972
|[[DevOps]]
|-
|-
|12
|Emilie
|Winther Schmidt
|163884
|[[Iron Triangle]]
|-
|-
|12
|Anna
|Fredgaard
|s163887
|[[Active Listening Technique]]
|-
|-
|35
|Ruben
|Raes
|s202029
|[[Iron Triangle of Project Management]]
|-
|-
|21
|Claudia
|Balcells
|s202939
|[[APPPM Issue Tree]]
|-
|-
|35
|Brynja
|Gudmundsdottir
|s202030
|[[FAST goals]]
|-
|-
|16
|Andrea
|Pin Morales
|s205567
|[[The Business Case]]
|-
|-
|16
|Lena Maria
|Thyen
|s202969
|[[The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People]]
|-
|-
|35
|Úlfar
|Viktorsson
|s202022
|[[The 4 Disciplines of Execution]]
|-
|-
|16
|Moritz
|Rindermann
|s202976
|[[Tuckmans model for Team Development]]
|-
|-
|Group 29
|Heiðdís Ósk
|Pétursdóttir
|s202025
|[[Efficiency and Effectiveness]]
|-
|-
|31
|Xabier
|Martínez de Zabarte
|s210323
|[[Scrumban]]
|-
|-
|17
|Aldís Braga
|Eiríksdóttir
|s202045
|[[Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid]]
|-
|-
|32
|Jan Otis
| Ernst
|s210433
|[[RACI Matrix]]
|-
|-
|3
|Julie
| Finne-Ipsen
|s153987
|[[Kahneman - Two Thinking Systems]]
|-
|-
|24
|Maria Eileen
| Hubbuck
|s210444
|[[Risk Management-Identification]]
|-
|-
|11
|Alina
| Barun
|s202514
|[[Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs]]
|-
|-
|24
|Felix Vinzenz
|Wütherich
|s202968
|[[Emotional Intelligence and Leadership]]
|-
|-
|28
|Ariadna
|Ramos
|s191852
|[[The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)]]
|-
|-
|Group 27
|Jakob
|Grønvald
|s164346
|[[Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs, Motivation in the workplace]]
|-
|-
|Group 16
|Martina
|Rampazzo
|s202895
|[[Scientific management]]
|-
|-
|Group 2
|John
|Fritz
|s202967
|[[Learning plan]]
|-
|-
|Group 24
|Henning
|Duwe
|s210450
|[[SWOT Analysis]]
|-
|-
|Group 14
|Søren Emil
|Kjær
|s201528
|[[GANTT]]
|-
|-
|Group 23
|Mathilde Kremmer
|Broberg
|s175074
|[[Corrective and Preventive Actions (CAPA)]]
|-
|-
|Group 14
|Rune Lykke
|Høg
|s165012
|[[The use of the A3 management process]]
|-
|-
|Group 35
|Tinna Hrönn
|Unudóttir
|s202032
|[[Constructive communication]]
|-
|-
|Group 17
|Eva Rún
|Arnarsdóttir
|s203214
|[[Biases in Project Management]]
|-
|-
|Group 24
|Astrid
|Skovhus
|s164499
|[[Getting Things Done (GTD)]]
|-
|-
|Group 7
|Phillip
|Dyrberg
|s164503
|[[Double diamond: A design process model]]
|-
|-
|Group 14
|Amanda Emilie
|Søborg Berthelsen
|s154707
|[[The Johari Window]]
|-
|-
|Group 23
|Nicolai Mossing
|Madsen
|s164515
|[[SMART Goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound)]]
|-
|-
|Group 27
|Marie-Louise Wolfsberg
|Schmidt
|s164417
|[[The Affect Heuristic]]
|-
|-
|Group 4
|Erika Marie
|Strøm
|s203224
|[[Parkinson’s Law]]
|-
|-
|Group 16
|Beatrice
|Ranzato
|s202887
|[[X-Matrix Hoshin Kanri]]
|-
|-
|Group 9
|Helene Waldmann
|Jørgensen
|s173891
|[[Lag & Lead]]
|-
|-
|Group 4
|Zahra
|Al-Mosawi
|s193938
|[[Project Communications Management]]
|-
|-
|Group 14
|William Axel Linderoth
|Michaelen
|s153275
|[[Design-Build]]
|-
|-
|Group 31
|Jesús
|Gracia Yoldi
|s210111
|[[Kanban in APPPM]]
|-
|-
|Group 35
|Katrín Erla
|Bergsveinsdóttir
|s202026
|[[Contingency plans]]
|-
|-
|Group 1
|Cecilie Marie Raagaard
|Christensen
|s160832
|[[Work breakdown structure (WBS)]]
|-
|-
|Group 19
|Ali Jamal
|Jomeh
|s173741
|[[SMART goals: A project management tool]]
|-
|-
|Group 15
|Tobias
|Hyldmo
|s206658
|[[High performing teams]]
|-
|-
|Group 5
|Samah
|Said
|s203228
|[[Business Process Excellence (BPEX)]]
|-
|-
|Group 3
|Emilie
|Torp
|s153320
|[[Goal Hierarchy]]
|-
|-
|Group 3
|Victor Nørregaard
|Schwærter
|s164745
|[[Milestone Planning]]
|-
|-
|Group 9
|Jacob
|Ammitsøe
|s173849
|[[Self-Awareness]]
|-
|-
|Group 18
|Anna
|Bjørn Reland
|s154556
|[[Choosing the appropriate medium (oral – written – hybrids)]]
|-
|-
|Group 10
|Wail
|Atrari
|s170706
|[[The Double Diamond tool]]
|-
|Group 10
|Helená Evin
|Cinar
|s164741
|[[SWOT Analysis Management]]
|-
|-
|Group 10
|Mohammad
|Abou Hassan
|s160101
|[[Implementing SWOT]]
|-
|-
|Group 10
|Ahmet
|Akgül
|s152597
|[[Smart goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely)]]
|-
|-
|Group 2
|Amalie
|N. Müller
|s173675
|[[Big five personality traits (OCEAN model)]]
|-
|-
|Group 29
|Pétursdóttir
|Stefanía Ósk
|s202044
|[[Management vs leadership qualities]]
|-
|-
|Group 10
|Abdulahi
|Hayle Hassan
|s164691
|[[Stakeholder management]]
|-
|-
|Group 27
|Louise
|Landschoff
|s165111
|[[SCRUM - A Project Management Framework]]
|-
|-
|Group 10
|Sara
|Alabiidi
|s164650
|[[The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid]]
|-
|-
|Group 4
|Felix
|Dressel
|s202965
|[[SPALTEN]]
|-
|-
|Group 11
|Sandra
|Nielsen
|s153370
|[[Conflict ladder]]
|-
|-
|Group 11
|Lise Munch
|Nordheim
|s200400
|[[McGregor's X & Y theory]]
|-
|-
|Group 2
|Simon
|Knutsson
|s202041
|[[Earned Value Management (EVM)]]
|-
|-
|Group 12
|Christoffer
|Askgaard
|s165098
|[[Design the team you need to succeed using Belbin's team roles]]
|-
|-
|Group 24
|Gaute Bø
|Aaløkken
|s202065
|[[Diversity in teams]]
|-
|-
|Group 2
|Lukas
|Tanzer
|s200120
|[[When – The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing]]
|-
|-
|Group 7
|Sofie
|Lundsteen
|s170285
|[[Team roles at work]]
|-
|-
|Group 14
|Josefine
|M. Schuler
|s154055
|[[Applying the Hawthorne studies to project management]]
|-
|-
|Group 3
|Amalie Nordstrøm
|Nielsen
|s153272
|[[The seven characteristic principles]]
|-
|-
|Group 14
|LouiseDamborg
|Frederiksen
|s185238
|[[Bias in a Team Setting]]
|-
|-
|Group 1
|Georg Holger
|Waage
|s163819
|[[Fishbone Diagram]]
|-
|-
|Group 28
|Özgenur
|Baştuğ
|s203033
|[[Variation Orders in Construction Projects]]
|-
|-
|Group 9
|Mads
|Møhlenberg
|s173879
|[[A hybrid consisting of Agile and Stage Gate]]
|-
|-
|Group 29
|Svanhvít Birta
|Guðmundsdóttir
|s203174
|[[Project Milestones]]
|-
|-
|Group 23
|Bente
|Meidahl Münsberg
|s175068
|[[Gantt Charts]]
|-
|-
|Group 27
|Frederik
|Carlsson
|s164345
|[[FAST Goals]]
|-
|-
|Group 11
|Tobias
|Rydahl
|s200471
|[[Using DISC assessment for project team management]]
|-
|-
|Group 7
|Mads
|Støjfer-Hønberg
|s174303
|[[SCRUM - An Agile Project Management Framework]]
|-
|-
|Group 21
|Matthieu
|Buy
|s202925
|[[The Five-Factor Model (OCEAN)]]
|-
|-
|Group 18
|Astrid Helene
|Erecius
|s171013
|[[Choosing communication media for negotiation]]
|-
|-
|Group 44
|Zainab
|Jalal
|s165491
|[[Work Breakdown Structure in project management]]
|-
|-
|Group 2
|Anna Felicia Mai
|Lindström
|s202046
|[[Project Status Reporting]]
|-
|-
|Group 28
|Alberto
|Melloni
|s202894
|[[Pre-mortem analysis]]