Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

100 %First official estimateApproval90 %Room for manuvering80 %70 %60 %50 %40 %30 %20 %10 %0 %0 %7 %14 %21 %28 %34 %41 %48 %55 %62 %69 %76 %83 %90 %97 %Relative time span of projectsFigure 4. The size of the reduction lists as percentage of total budget at different phases of the projects. Theobservations indicate average plus one standard deviation. The trend line is only a linearization betweenobservations. N=19The observations and indicated curve in Figure 4 have similar features as the model presented in Figure 1, whichmeans that these quantitative results support the illustrative models used in many text books.Another way of quantifying the remaining flexibility at the time for final approval of projects is to see the reductionlists and allocated reserves in combination. On average, the reduction lists amounted to 6% of the total projectbudget. At the same time, an average of 8% of the project budgets was allocated as reserves, to cover unexpectedexpenses. Adding these two types of flexibility gives an approximate total remaining flexibility of 14% of totalbudget at the time of parliamentary approval. This number shall be used as an approximation. Table 4 shows thatwhen calculating the recommended budget, 13 out of 42 projects subtracted the reduction list value before therecommended budget was set. These numbers indicate that a remaining flexibility ranging between 9 and 14% of thetotal budget appears manageable at the time of final project approval, measured by the relative size of reduction listsand allocated reserves.6. ConclusionThe purpose of this paper was to use experiences from the Norwegian Quality-at-entry regime for majorgovernmental investments to illustrate aspects on project flexibility. From a flexibility perspective, projectmanagement as a discipline was compared to other managerial disciplines. Projects are described as trapped in theirfreedom. The potential freedom of projects as temporary organizations is so large that major emphasis in projectmanagement must be directed towards reducing and controlling the freedom, or flexibility, of projects.Theoretical traditions in project management were discussed. The analysis of the Norwegian Quality-at-entry regimefor major governmental investments indicate that the regime have its theoretical roots in the engineering tradition ofproject management. However, the extension to include an early analysis on project alternatives appears to havemore in common with the social science tradition that the engineering one. This means that the quality assuranceregime, including both QA1 and QA2, is an attempt to use the best of the two worlds divided by the time scale; usesocial science “glasses” when analyzing the alternatives, then switch to engineering “glasses” to execute the project.Models for illustration of project flexibility in a time perspective were presented. An attempt was also made toquantify one dimension in project flexibility models based on empirical data. Remaining flexibility has been17