This paper analyzes the shortcomings of applying expected monetary value (EMV) as a tool for assessing risks and response options. It presents a more relevant set of measures based on the subjective view of stakeholders (the “utility function”) and uses these to explain apparently illogical behaviors. The analysis includes the theory of “regret” and extends this concept to include positive (“rejoice”) outcomes as well as after-the-event reviews, for which a “resentment” value is described. The challenge of managing project risk in line with stakeholder expectations requires balancing these three variables.
BernouilliD. (1738). Specimen theoriae novae de men-sara sortis.Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae (trans. in 1954, Econometrica).
3.
ClelandD. (1999). Project management: Strategic design and implementation (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
FishburnP. (1988). Nonlinear preference and utility theory.Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
5.
FrameJ.D. (1995). Managing projects in organizations: How to make the best use of time, techniques, and people (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
6.
HillsonD. (1999). Developing effective risk responses. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute's 30th annual seminars & symposium.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
7.
InmanJ.J., DyerJ.S., & JiaJ. (1997). A generalized utility model of disappointment and regret effects on post-choice valuation. Marketing Science, 16(2), 97–111.
8.
KahnemanD., & TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
9.
KerznerH. (1998). Project management—A systems approach (6th ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons.
10.
MarkowitzH. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60(2), 151–158.
11.
MeredithJ.R., & MantelS.J.Jr. (1995). Project management: A managerial approach. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
PineyC. (2002). Risk response planning: Selecting the right strategy. Proceedings of the 2002 European PMI conference, Cannes.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
13.
Project Management Institute. (2000). A guide to the project management body of knowledge.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
14.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. (2002). Advanced information on the prize in economic sciences 2002.Stockholm, Sweden: Information Department.
15.
SavageL.J., & FriedmanM. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279–304.
