Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

3. CONCLUSIONSWhat seems to be implied by authors quoted above is that flexibility is primarily useful to improveeffectiveness of projects rather than efficiency. The arguments in favour of flexibility emphasise thepossibility for increased effectiveness while the arguments against highlight the problem of reducedefficiency. Flexibility is often seen as a threat to delivering the project on time and within budget. Insuch a perspective, a project needs to be clearly defined in the front-end phase and executed accordingto the plans with as few adjustments or remaining decisions as possible, in order to maximiseefficiency. On the other hand, flexibility is also seen as a help to achieve the project’s purpose. Aproject with sufficient flexibility to utilize opportunities to increase the value for owners and usersmight in the end prove to be more effective.The literature gives indications as to whom and when flexibility is beneficial or harmful: The financing party or owner is more likely to be interested in flexibility than the contractor On average, flexibility in the front-end phase increases the probability of success The active use of flexibility in the execution phase is likely to reduce efficiency Industrial development projects, including IT system development, are more likely to benefitfrom flexibility than civil engineering projects are Flexibility appears desirable in high uncertainty environments and less important in situationswith low uncertaintyChange orders are not popular and flexibility may increase the probability of changes. However, achange requires that something already has been decided. The logic behind late locking of projects andthat a decision shall not be taken until it really has to means that changes should be reduced by lockingsolutions as late as possible.Flexibility appears as a double-edged sword: the flexibility for one project stakeholder can be another'srisk. The case against project flexibility highlights the negative effects of changes along with thepossibilities for frustration due a lack of decisions and commitment. Flexibility can thus be used tojustify the opinion that decisions do not need to be taken or can always be revised. On the other hand,the case for project flexibility emphasises the possibility to utilise opportunities that arise and tomanage the uncertainty, particularly in the front-end phase of projects.Finally, project flexibility is found to not necessarily be a question of good or bad, right or wrong. Withproper precaution and knowledge, the drawbacks of flexibility might be avoided or reduced and thebenefits utilised.REFERENCESAmram, M., Kulatlaka, N., 1999. Real Options : Managing Strategic Investment in an UncertainWorld, Financial Management Association Survey and Synthesis Series, Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston.Ballard, G., Howell, G.A., 2003. Lean project management, Building Research & Information, Vol 31,issue 2, pp 119-133.Bettis, R. A., Hitt, M. A., 1995. The New Competitive Landscape, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.16, 7-19.Blakstad, S. H,. 2001, A Strategic Approach to Adaptability in Office Buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, theNorwegian University of Science and Technology.Boehm, B., Turner, R., 2003, Observations on Balancing Discipline and Agility, Proceedings of theAgile Development Conference ADC’03, IEEE Computer Society.Brand, S., 1994. How Buildings Learn, What happens After They’re Built, Viking Penguin, PenguinBooks USA Inc., NY.4