Uniqueness bias is definitely a problem (see also: This time is different!) and this paper's conclusions make a lot of intuitive sense. Less competent planners

Uniqueness bias is definitely a problem (see also: This time is different!) and this paper's conclusions make a lot of intuitive sense. Less competent planners are more likely to see their situation as unique. However, the measures to establish that perceived uniqueness != uniqueness seem a little bit limited to me. I've seen projects go belly-up because senior management refused to accept that the situation on the ground at one location was different to the usual situation in most other locations, leading to cost blow outs and project failures. I don't think the treatment in this article would pick that dynamic up. So while it is true that exceptional engineering projects (paper's example - the Apollo project) are much more mundane than they might seem, it is also true that seemingly mundane projects can be unique and therefore it is difficult to compare with other projects of a similar nature.