Yes. Let's rephrase the idea a little more formally. Few hypotheses are necessary for a thought experiment that reproduces the issue. Given a project: * some

Yes. Let's rephrase the idea a little more formally. Few hypotheses are necessary for a thought experiment that reproduces the issue. Given a project: * some people/teams produce accurate estimates * some people/teams produce overly optimistic estimates If decision-maker is not aware, it can easily conflate optimistic estimate with a more efficient team (or just more enticing). If the possibility of overly optimistic estimates are not taken seriously, the more accurate team can seem just less efficient / lazy / trying to charge more for the same work / etc. For example if the decision-maker is actually a client comparing several suppliers. Extra risk if decision-making is diluted among many people (harder to get clear and consistent view). This puts the teams in a competition similar to the prisoner's dilemma. Honest estimates get punished, treacherous estimates are favored. No wonder so many projects are over-budget, when they are not too over-budget to complete at all. The only actual hypothesis here is: "decision-maker conflating optimistic estimates with better value". It seems very common. If decision-maker doesn't fall into this trap, the problem disappears, right? What can we do to shift the equilibrium? A manifesto?