04-004 · EVIDENCE B · LOW-RISK READING
Estimate timelines based on actual time taken in past similar tasks, not on plans
估工期时按过去同类任务的实际耗时估,不按计划推
No cost at all. It only requires a few minutes of review to look up how long similar tasks took previously.
Students who estimated they would finish a paper in 33.9 days actually took 55.5 days to complete it; only 29.7% of them met their own estimates. Another group of students was asked to first recall how long similar tasks had taken them in the past before making their estimates. The proportion of students who finished on time rose from 29.3% to 60.0% in this group.
B
Move “Estimate timelines based on actual time taken in past similar tasks, not on plans” to Future Me's calendar
The excuse
If I do not open the notes, no new task has technically appeared.
What feels good now
Today I keep a few minutes and avoid interrupting my default routine.
What the source says
The source summarizes the return this way: “Students who estimated they would finish a paper in 33.9 days actually took 55.5 days to complete it; only 29.7% of them met their own estimates. Another group of students was asked to first recall how long similar tasks had taken them in the past before making their estimates. The proportion of students who finished on time rose from 29.3% to 60.0% in this group.” Evidence grade B. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.
Open the original entry, check who the evidence applies to, then pick one small step that fits.
THE ENGLISH EDITION
Original recommendation and evidence
4. Estimate timelines based on actual time taken in past similar tasks, not on plans
Cost: No cost at all. It only requires a few minutes of review to look up how long similar tasks took previously.
In plain terms: Students who estimated they would finish a paper in 33.9 days actually took 55.5 days to complete it; only 29.7% of them met their own estimates. Another group of students was asked to first recall how long similar tasks had taken them in the past before making their estimates. The proportion of students who finished on time rose from 29.3% to 60.0% in this group.
Benefit: Students originally expected to finish their papers in 33.9 days, but the actual time taken was 55.5 days. Only 29.7% of them completed their work by their own estimates. When researchers asked another group of students to first relate past experiences to the current task before estimating, the proportion of students finishing on time rose from 29.3% to 60.0% compared to the control group. This optimism of underestimating timelines no longer appeared in this group.
Evidence grade: B
Sources: Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. <https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366>; Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15. <https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700302>; Halkjelsvik, T., & Jørgensen, M. (2012). From origami to software development: A review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 238–271. <https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025996>
Notes: Buehler’s study involved only university students in Canada; it was a single study with a small sample size of 37 participants, with roughly 40 participants in each group. Estimating timelines based on historical data from similar projects is known as reference class forecasting; specific engineering applications are described in Flyvbjerg’s work. Halkjelsvik’s review of multiple studies shows that underestimating timelines is more common than overestimating, though the magnitude of the error varies widely depending on the task and research methodology.
Source links
- Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. ↗
- Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15. ↗
- Halkjelsvik, T., & Jørgensen, M. (2012). From origami to software development: A review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 238–271. ↗
- Pinned original chapter on GitHub ↗
Read the complete Chinese source and notes
4. 估工期时按过去同类任务的实际耗时估,不按计划推
成本: 不花钱。估之前花几分钟,翻一下上次同类的事实际做了多久。
说人话: 学生估自己 33.9 天写完论文,实际用了 55.5 天,只有 29.7% 的人按自己估的时间做完。另一组被要求先回想上次同类的事花了多久再估,按时完成的比例从 29.3% 升到 60.0%。
收益: 学生预计 33.9 天完成论文,实际用了 55.5 天。只有 29.7% 的人按自己的估计按时完成。研究者要求另一组人先把过去的经历和眼下这件事挂上钩,再去估。这一组按时完成的比例,从对照组的 29.3% 升到 60.0%。把工期往少了估的那种乐观,在这一组身上不再出现。
证据等级: B
来源: Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. <https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366>;Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15. <https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700302>;Halkjelsvik, T., & Jørgensen, M. (2012). From origami to software development: A review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 238–271. <https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025996>
备注: Buehler 那项只找了加拿大大学生,是单独一项研究,人也少,37 人和每组约 40 人。照同类项目的历史数据来估,这种做法叫参考类预测,工程上具体怎么做见 Flyvbjerg。Halkjelsvik 汇总多项研究后指出,估少比估多更常见,但差多少随任务和研究方法变化很大。
YOUR PRIVATE LIST