Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTSoftware project escalation has been shown to be a widespread phenomenon. With few exceptions, prior research has portrayed escalation as an irrational decision‐making process whereby additional resources are plowed into a failing project. In this article, we examine the possibility that in some cases managers escalate their commitment not because they are acting irrationally, but rather as a rational response to real options that may be embedded in a project. A project embeds real options when managers have the opportunity but not the obligation to adjust the future direction of the project in response to external or internal events. Examples include deferring the project, switching the project to serve a different purpose, changing the scale of the project, implementing it in incremental stages, abandoning the project, or using the project as a platform for future growth opportunities. Although real options can represent a substantial portion of a project's value, they rarely enter into a project's formal justification process in the traditional quantitative discounted cash‐flow‐based project valuation techniques. Using experimental data collected from managers in 123 firms, we demonstrate that managers recognize and value the presence of real options. We also assess the relative importance that managers ascribe to each type of real option, showing that growth options are more highly valued than operational options. Finally, we demonstrate that the influence of the options on project continuation decisions is largely mediated by the perceived value that they add. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.