Failure to see the Big Picture

It would take an all-knowing being to see the totality of any situation and we mere mortals will always be left with partial information on any given topic. Having said that, being too focused will leave one with a very narrow perspective and conclusion. Also, we have to keep in mind that not all variables are related or relevant. For example, I may be studying topic X and someone suggests that I consider Y also, but it is obvious that Y has nothing to do with the topic. In that case red-herrings could be a factor.   

Yep, sounds like a cognitive bias to me. Getting 'tunnel-vision' on one thing to the neglect of others, or failing to plan for the long term.

Perhaps Fallacy of Selective Attention.

Yes, I agree. I think tunnel vision is more accurate not only for the reason you outline, but because a person may see perfectly but only focus on one item while disregarding everything else.

Interesting question.   But in a way, are we (commenters/answerers) loading the question?   Or is is just me, thinking terms like myopic and tunnel-vision carry a slight negative connotation?   If these words are  universally value-neutral, no goodness or badness implied, then all is well. 

Consider though the word 'focused', which I believe is universally 'positive' (good).

Also the 'goodness' of being focused or hyper focused (tunnel vision) expectations could vary with the expectations of the institution or workplace.  

Finally, in a non-work environment, as a family provider, citizen, etc,  my experience is that the 'goodness' of being myopic (or one of the synonyms) varies with cultural context, and social standing.   

OP's title mentions "failure" so I guess the context of their question was negative (i.e. someone who prioritises X at the expense of, perhaps, Y and Z. They 'tunnel-visioned' on X, and it hurt them in the long-term).

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Indeed, the 'fail' changes my perspective of the question.   So, the 'negative' aspects are indeed what are under consideration due to the implied responsibility to see the larger picture.   

Still, an interesting question, as it can stimulate some thought outside the negative scope of the situation.   

The general examples I cited about when the implied responsibility is to 'keep ones head down and just do the job'  are out of context of the question.   i.e. this was an attempt to show the 'positive side' of tunnel vision.   We could look at 'positive myopia' perhaps, in the case of say, a factory worker?   Their job is not to consider the bigger picture, perhaps global impacts on what the 'machine' (business) is doing.    There appears to be a 'culture of myopia' in many industries.    

An extention of the counter-case I'm poking at may be the failure of a prole to 'mind their own business'.  For instance, the Google workers who signed petitions a few years back over some unethical treatments of data.    Yes indeed, way out in left field here.   ;-)    And the organization of these related cases is become a bit muddy.  I apologize for that, it is beyond me at the moment.

"Or is is (sic) just me, thinking terms like myopic and tunnel-vision carry a slight (sic) negative connotation? "

Dr. Richard's OP is a question and not a claim and therefore there is no fallacy, equivocation, or otherwise. Since the question objectively inquires about alternative definiendum for a specific state of mind, we are at liberty to suggest various candidates: myopic and tunnel-vision were two possible choices offered without any moral determination of good or bad. So I think you are reading a little too much into it.

Dr. Bo and Rationalisimo agree that myopic is one choice. ( I agree). They further suggest that the question describes a cognitive bias more than a logical fallacy.  (Totally agree).

Both myopic and tunnel vision share definiens of a certain type of narrow-mindedness. Myopic (Myopia) implies a possible cognitive bias, whereas tunnel vision could be a conscious choice when focused on a specific project as Dr, Richard describes in the OP. 

Sharon immersed herself into a hyper-focused state of tunnel vision the last two weeks before her editor's deadline.

Sharon often seems myopic in her worldview and too often fails to see the forest through the trees.

Cognitive biases are typically not a conscious choice, and the sufferer in question is often unaware of the affliction. Arguably, that might not always be the case with tunnel vision. But, it could be. 

Thank You, and I am in agreement with the nuances of myopia vs. tunnel vision vis-a-vis cognitive bias vs potentially conscious choice.    And given Rationalissimus comment above, yes, I was in error to not consider the question correctly.

Still, reading too much into the question proved serendipitous, as it lead to some other thoughts.   

Upon further review, I thought of Strassberg and Stanislavsky schools of Method acting, and two of their most celebrated practitioners, Daniel Day Lews, or more recently, Jeremy Strong, of Succession fame.

Both are known for the extreme lengths of isolation, renunciation, process, and discipline they will endure while bringing a character to life. In essence, they will eschew their own names, personalities, diets, personal preferences, and ideologies to fully assume the person they are portraying on stage or film.

Their professional choices will always defer to realism, and the most realistic performance possible no matter how grueling or despicable the character is. Even if the character is the embodiment of evil, they try to find something loveable about them. For months and months, they will immerse themselves in biography, literature, stalking, imitation, adopting facial tics, style choices, and disguise, in the temporary suspension of their identities: Robert De Niro in Raging Bull, Meryl Streep in practically everything she does, etc.

Their meticulous preparation is for every scene and line of dialogue spread out for lengthy periods of time and applied incrementally as the movie comes together - most of the time entirely out of sequence.

For that entire time, they are "oblivious" to the "Big Picture", with little consideration of the movie's editing, denouement, or completion. Oftentimes, these artists emerge from the experience as more deeply aware than before. Some say they were either emotionally scarred or even healed, but either way, they are not the same.