As I finished my case study sketch in OneLargeEvolutionaryAttempt I began to think about the reasons of the "super-manager" there in choosing WaterFall to the detriment of his own project and how they fitted with the four options I've posited on Wiki, IgnoranceFearPrideOrFraud.

Simplifying only a little the results came out as follows:

	* Ignorance 25% 
	* Fear 25%
	* Pride 25%
	* Fraud 25% (not just money in this case but kudos within the organisation)

As others have pointed out, you can view the "it's the only way I know how to control and I can't afford to experiment on this one" as a positive reason in many circumstances so let's add fifth 25% for that, which was certainly present too!

This mix (or something better) is very common I'm sure.  But if you dare even to mention the "extreme" possibility of Fraud as a factor in commercial choices, I think people hear you as saying "it's pretty much the only factor" or "by far the most important factor".  In IgnoranceFearPrideOrFraud I wasn't asserting that, I was genuinely trying to ask the question of what mix people had experienced. I just couldn't possibly in good conscience have left fraud out completely.

----

Here's a parallel example:

I don't know (and nor do you) what is going to happen as a result of Y2K system failures starting (wrong but give me some slack here) in nine days time.  The probabilities as I see it are (for illustrative purposes only):

	* No problem at all 25%
	* Minor bump in the road 25%
	* Major depression 25%
	* TEOTWAWKI 25%

How come I get attacked for the gravely irresponsible paranoia of the last one but not for the laughable optimism of the first one?

Because MostExtremeIsHeardLoudest.

Now perhaps I understand.