Company (or team, or individual) A "the best" is perceived to not work hard. They are perceived to be underutilized. They miss out on so much potential revenue

Company (or team, or individual) A "the best" is perceived to not work hard. They are perceived to be underutilized. They miss out on so much potential revenue they don't make it to the next round. Company B is obviously incompetent, and doesn't make it to the next round. Meanwhile, company C, barely competent, is perceived to make best use of resources and remain fully utilized. They are received to work really hard. They get not just the initially agreed upon budget but a top off in addition. They have the most profit to compete in the next round. If company (or individual A) makes it to the next iteration, they know how to manage expectations, stretch the budget, and make a theater of working hard.. thus turning into company C. After enough iterations everyone kind of ends up like company C. Just good enough to complete the task with estimated level of effort some double digit percentage over the original estimate, but not incompetent enough to flop altogether. It is to this I attribute why software is usually behind schedule and over budget to a reliably predictable degree