quantified during the life cycle of projects and the result is a curve similar <strong>to</strong> the illustrative models used in manytext books on project management. Around the time for final approval, the project management consultants saw itmanageable <strong>to</strong> have an average of 6% of the <strong>to</strong>tal project budget still open, with a standard deviation of 5%,maximum 18% and minimum 0.2%. These numbers are based on the 23 projects that did use reduction list with duedates. Another representation of the remaining flexibility at the time of final approval is the fact that 8% of theproject budgets were allocated as reserves, <strong>to</strong> cover unexpected expenses. An approximation of the manageable <strong>to</strong>talremaining flexibility at the time of parliamentary approval is therefore estimated <strong>to</strong> be in the range between 9 and14% of <strong>to</strong>tal budgets.The applied methodology is partly prospective in the meaning that the projects and parameters <strong>to</strong> be studied wereselected prior <strong>to</strong> conducting the analyses. The methodological discussion in the paper on prospective andretrospective research designs is inspired by medical research. Regarding future research, continued use ofprospective research designs in project management is interesting and desired. Such designs have the possibility <strong>to</strong>contribute <strong>to</strong> enhancing the credibility of project management as a research field.18
ReferencesAndersen, B., Fagerhaug, T., Rolstadås, A. (1998). Practical Productivity Measurement, Proceedings of the 10 thWorking Seminar on Production Economics, Innsbruck/Igls, AustriaAsbjørnslett, B.E. (2003). From Agile <strong>to</strong> Lean. PhD Thesis 2003:2, Trondheim, Norway: The Norwegian Universityof Science and TechnologyBerg, P, Andersen, K., Østby, L-E, Lilleby, S., Stryvold, S., Holand, K., Korsnes, U., Rønning, K., Johansen, F.,Kvarsvik, T. (1999). "Styring av statlige investeringer", Prosjektet for styring av statlige investeringer”,Finans- og <strong>to</strong>lldepartementet, the Departement of Finance, Oslo, Norway (Title in English: Management ofGovernmental Investments)Blakstad, S. H,. (2001), A Strategic Approach <strong>to</strong> Adaptability in Office Buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, the NorwegianUniversity of Science and TechnologyBrand, S., (1994). How Buildings Learn, What happens After They’re Built, Viking Penguin, NY: Penguin BooksUSA Inc.,Brennan, M.L., Trigeorgis, L., (2000) Project Flexibility, Agency, and Competition: New Developments in theTheory and Application of Real Options, Oxford University PressChristensen, S., Kreiner, K., (1991). Prosjektledelse under usikkerhet, Universitetsforlaget A/S, Oslo (Title inenglish: "Project Management under Uncertainty")Cleland, D.I. (2004). The Evolution of Project Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol51, No. 4., pp 396-397Crawford, L., Pollock, J (2004). Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis. International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 22., No. 8, pp 645-653Eikeland, P.T. (2000). Teoretisk Analyse av Byggeprosesser, Samspill i byggeprosessen, prosjektnr. 10602 (Title inenglish: "Theoretical Analaysis of the Construction Process")Engwall, M., (2003). No project is an island: linking projects <strong>to</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry and context, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp789-808Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management (translated from the French edition) London : Sir IsaacPitman & SonsGalbraith J.R. (2001). Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide <strong>to</strong> Strategy, Structure, and Process. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2 nd ed.,Galbraith J.R. (1977). Organization design Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Gareis R. (2000). Managing the Project Start. In: Turner J.R. and S.J. Simister (edi<strong>to</strong>rs) (2000). The GowerHandbook of Project Management. UK: Gower Pub Co,.Gareis R. (2004). Maturity of the Project-oriented Organization, Nordnet International project managementconference, 29.9-2.10. 2004, Helsinki, FinlandHall, P., (1980): Great Planning Disasters, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,Hulley, S.B., Cummings, S.R., Browner, W.S., Grady, D., Hearst, N., Newman, T.B (2001). Designing Clinicalresearch: An Episemologic Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,Husby, O., Kilde, H. S., Klakegg, O. J., Torp, O., Berntsen, S. R., Samset, K., (1999). Usikkerhet som gevinst.Styring av usikkerhet i prosjekter: mulighet, risiko, beslutning, handling, Trondheim, Norway: The NorwegianCentre for Project Management at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology,. Report no. <strong>NTNU</strong>99006 (Title in English: "Uncertainty as Benefit. Managing Project Uncertainty: Possibility, Risk, Decision,Action")Jugdev, K. (2004) Through the Looking Glass: Examining Theory development in Project Management with theResource-based View Lens, Project Management Journal, Vol. 35., No. 3, pp 15-26.Kreiner, K., (1995): In Search of Relevance: Project Management in Drifting Environments, Scandinavian Journalof Management, Vol. 11., No. 4, pp 335-346.Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A., (1995). A Theory of the Temporary Organization, Scandinavian Journal ofManagement, Vol. 11., No. 4, pp 437-455Kaderfors, A., (1995). Institutions in building projects: Implications for flexibility and change, ScandinavianJournal of Management, Vol. 11., No. 4, pp 363-375Magnussen, O.M., Samset, K. (2005) Successful Mega projects: Ensuring quality at entry, EURAM 2005conference, May 4-7 th 2005, Munich, Germany19
- Page 1 and 2:
ISBN 82-471-8121-5 (printed ver.)IS
- Page 3:
Preface and AcknowledgementsThe wor
- Page 7 and 8:
Table of ContentsPreface and Acknow
- Page 9 and 10:
Paper OverviewThe following papers
- Page 11 and 12:
AbstractTraditionally, projects ten
- Page 13 and 14:
alternative use. There are indicati
- Page 15 and 16:
1. Introduction1. IntroductionThis
- Page 17 and 18:
1. IntroductionFlexible projects ar
- Page 19 and 20:
1. IntroductionA literature review
- Page 21 and 22:
2. Study design2. Study designThe r
- Page 23 and 24:
2. Study designInformation Content
- Page 25 and 26:
3. Flexibility in different project
- Page 27 and 28:
3. Flexibility in different project
- Page 29 and 30:
3. Flexibility in different project
- Page 31 and 32:
4. Project stakeholders4. Project s
- Page 33 and 34:
4. Project stakeholdersmandatory qu
- Page 35 and 36:
4. Project stakeholdersBased on res
- Page 37 and 38:
5. Effectiveness and efficiency5. E
- Page 39 and 40:
5. Effectiveness and efficiencyconf
- Page 41 and 42:
5. Effectiveness and efficiencyDegr
- Page 43 and 44:
6. Project flexibility categorisati
- Page 45 and 46:
6. Project flexibility categorisati
- Page 47 and 48:
6. Project flexibility categorisati
- Page 49 and 50:
7. Conclusions7. ConclusionsThis th
- Page 51 and 52:
7. ConclusionsProject phasesFlexibi
- Page 53 and 54:
7. ConclusionsEnablersThis thesis r
- Page 55 and 56: 7. Conclusions16, Figure 17, and Fi
- Page 57 and 58: 7. Conclusions4. AbsorptionAbsorpti
- Page 59 and 60: 7. ConclusionsThere appears to be a
- Page 61 and 62: ReferencesAbbot, A. & Banerji, K. 2
- Page 63 and 64: Gareis, R. 2004. Maturity of the Pr
- Page 65 and 66: Miller, R. & Lessard, D. 2000. The
- Page 67 and 68: Part 2.
- Page 69 and 70: Paper 1.Olsson, N.O.E. 2006. Manage
- Page 71 and 72: N.O.E. Olsson / International Journ
- Page 73 and 74: N.O.E. Olsson / International Journ
- Page 75 and 76: N.O.E. Olsson / International Journ
- Page 77 and 78: N.O.E. Olsson / International Journ
- Page 79 and 80: Paper 2.Magnussen, O.M. & Olsson, N
- Page 81 and 82: 282 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
- Page 83 and 84: 284 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
- Page 85 and 86: 286 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
- Page 87 and 88: 288 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
- Page 89 and 90: Projects trapped in their freedom:
- Page 91 and 92: 1. IntroductionThe purpose of this
- Page 93 and 94: project phases: preparation, freezi
- Page 95 and 96: establish realistic cost and time f
- Page 97 and 98: 4. ResultsIn the following, the emp
- Page 99 and 100: lowered the quality but the volume
- Page 101 and 102: Percent ofproject onSize of remaini
- Page 103 and 104: flexibility is introduced by the us
- Page 105: 100 %First official estimateApprova
- Page 109 and 110: Paper 4.Olsson, N.O.E. 2004. ‘Fle
- Page 111 and 112: The concept of project flexibilityF
- Page 113 and 114: 3. CONCLUSIONSWhat seems to be impl
- Page 115 and 116: Paper 5.Olsson, N.O.E. 2006. ‘Imp
- Page 117 and 118: 558 N. O. E. Olsson et al.ex-post s
- Page 119 and 120: 560 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 1.O
- Page 121 and 122: 562 N. O. E. Olsson et al.and actua
- Page 123 and 124: 564 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 3.
- Page 125 and 126: 566 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 7.S
- Page 127 and 128: 568 N. O. E. Olsson et al.with a wi
- Page 129 and 130: Paper 6.Henriksen, B., Olsson, N. &
- Page 131 and 132: In this paper we use the process an
- Page 133 and 134: PROCESS ANALYSIS IN THE PLANNING OF
- Page 135 and 136: final framework for expected patien
- Page 137 and 138: User involvement also generated exp
- Page 139: Paper 7.Olsson, N.O.E. & Samset, K.
- Page 155 and 156: Project flexibility and front-end m
- Page 157 and 158:
uncertainty. External flexibility c
- Page 159 and 160:
5.2. Flexibility in decision proces
- Page 161 and 162:
Degree of redundancySlackPrecisionC