Expert judgment in project management : narrowing the theory-practice gap

Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgments -- Executive Summary -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1. Background -- 1.2. Problem Statement -- 1.3. Objectives and Scope -- 1.4. Methodology -- 1.4.1. Phase 1 -- 1.4.2. Phase 2 -- 1.4.3. Phase 3 -- 1.5. Data Analysis -- 1.6. Organization of Report -- 2. State of the Art/Science -- 2.1. Theory-Practice Gap -- 2.2. Method -- 2.3. Data and Sample -- 2.4. Analysis and Results -- 2.4.1. Planning the Elicitation -- 2.4.2. Selecting the Experts -- 2.4.3. Training Experts -- 2.4.4. Eliciting Judgments -- 2.4.5. Analyzing and Aggregating Judgments -- 2.5. Findings and Implications -- 3. State of the Practice -- 3.1. Method -- 3.2. Data and Sample -- 3.3. Analysis and Results -- 3.4. Limitations -- 3.4.1. Population -- 3.4.2. Sample Randomness -- 3.4.3. Sample Size -- 3.4.4. Self-Reported Data -- 3.4.5. Scope of Study -- 3.5. Findings and Implications -- 4. Closing the Gap -- 4.1. Critical Thinking Experiment -- 4.1.1. Participants -- 4.1.2. Protocol -- 4.1.3. Method -- 4.1.4. Results -- 4.2. Numeracy and Fluency Experiment -- 4.2.1. Participants -- 4.2.2. Protocol -- 4.2.3. Method -- 4.2.4. Results -- 4.3. Findings and Implications -- 5. Discussion -- 5.1. Summary -- 5.2. Key Findings -- 5.2.1. State of the Art/Science is Established and Growing -- 5.2.2. State of the Practice in Project Management is Informal and Emergent -- 5.2.3. Expert Judgment Elicitation in Project Management can Mature -- 5.3. Suggested Practices -- 5.3.1. Use a Generic Process -- 5.3.2. Frame the Problem -- 5.3.3. Plan the Elicitation -- 5.3.4. Select Experts -- 5.3.5. Train Experts -- 5.3.6. Elicit Judgments Using Appropriate Methods -- 5.3.7. Analyze Judgments and Combine (If Desired) -- 5.3.8. Document Results and Communicate -- Appendix A -- Appendix B -- Appendix C.