Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Impact Analysis of Railway Projects in a Flexibility Perspective 569Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S. and Buhl, S. L. (2005) How (in)accurate are demand forecasts in publicworks projects? The case of transportation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2),pp. 131–146.Fransso, J. C. and Bertrand, J. W. M. (2000) An aggregate capacity estimation model for the evaluationof railroad passing constructions, Transportation Research Part A, 34, pp. 34–49.Fröidh, O. (2003) Introduction of Regional High Speed Trains. A Study of the Effects of the Svealand Line onthe Travel Market, Travel Behaviour and Accessibility. KTH TRITA-INFRA 03-041 (Stockholm: KunglTekniska Högskolan).Guiliano, G. (1995) Land use impacts of transportation investments, highway and transit, in: S.Hanson (Ed.) The Geography of Urban Transportation, pp. 305–341 (New York, NY: Guilford).Hall, P. (1980) Great Planning Disasters (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson).Hoff, A. H. and Moen, T. (2000) Konsekvensanalyse av Dobbeltsporet Ski–Moss (Sandbukta) (Oslo: JernbaneverketRegion Øst).JBV Utredning (2004) Utviklingen i persontrafikken på jernbanen. En analyse av årsakene til nedgangen itrafikken i perioden 2000–2003 (Oslo: Jernbaneverket).Jernbaneverket (1997) Modernisering av Vestfoldbanen Jernbaneteknisk rammeplan for Vestfoldbanen. Sør06.05.1997 (Oslo: Jernbaneverket region).Lindfeldt, O. (2001) Tidtabellkonstruktion, trafikledning och rättidighet på Svealandsbanan. ExamensarbeteNr. 01-57 (Stockholm: Kungl Tekniska Högskolan, Institutionen för infrastruktur och samhälsplanering).Mackie, P. and Nellthorp, J. (2003) Transport appraisal in a policy context, in: A. Pearman, P. Mackieand J. Nellthorp (Eds) Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies, pp. 3–16 (Aldershot: Ashgate).Mackie, P. and Preston, J. (1998) Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal,Transport Policy, 5(1), pp. 1–7.Ministry of Transport and Communications (1991–92) Utbygging og finansiering av hovedflyplass forOslo-området på Gardermoen med tilhørende tilbringersystem og konsekvenser for Forsvaret. St. prp. No. 90(Oslo: Ministry of Transport and Communications).Nash, C. (1992) Appraisal of railway projects, Project Appraisal, 7(4), pp. 211–218.NSB (1986) Dobbelsporet Ski–Moss. Report Utredningsoppdrag No. 112 (Oslo: NSB).NSB (1987) Tunga–Finse–Høgheller linjeomlegging Hovudplan (Bergen: NSB).NSB (1989) Modernisering av Vestfoldbanen Planutredning. Bruer IKB Prosjekt 89125-2 (Oslo: NSB).NSB (1991a) Gardermobanen Hovedrapport (Oslo: NSB).NSB (1991b) Bergensbanen Finse-Tunga, Gråskallen samfunnsøkonomiske beregninger (Bergen: NSB).NSB (1992) Modernisert Vestfoldbane Jernbaneutredning Hovedrapport (Oslo: NSB).Olsson, N. O. E. (2004) Flexibility in engineering projects: blessing or curse?, in: Proceedings of theNordnet International Project Management Conference, 29 September–2 October 2004, Helsinki,Finland.Rietveld, P. and Nijkamp, P. (2000) Transport infrastructure and regional development, in: J. B. Polakand A. Hertje (Eds) Analytical Transport Economics, pp. 208–232 (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Short, J. and Kopp, A. (2005) Transport infrastructure: investment and planning. Policy and researchaspects, Transport Policy, 12(4), pp. 360–367.SIKA (2000) Uppföljning av investeringar. Report No. 2000:11 (Stockholm: SIKA). Available at: http://www.sika-institute.se/Skamris, M. K. and Flyvbjerg, B. (1997) Inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and cost estimates on large transportprojects, Transport Policy, 4(3), pp. 141–146.Small, K. A. (1999) Project evaluation, in: J. Gomez-Ibanez, W. B. Tye and C. Winston (Eds) Essays inTransportation Economics and Policy, A Handbook in Honour of John R. Meyer, pp. 137–177 (Washington,DC: Brookings Institution).Tyndall, G., Gopal, C., Partsch, W. and Kamauff, J. (1998) Supercharging Supply Chains: New Ways toIncrease Value Through Global Operational Excellence (New York, NY: Wiley).Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Paper 6.Henriksen, B., Olsson, N. & Seim, A. 2006. ‘Adjustments, effectiveness andefficiency in Norwegian hospital construction projects’. Proceedings CIB W70Trondheim International Symposium. Changing User Demands on Buildings, 12–14June 2006, Trondheim, Norway.
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:
Page 29 and 30:
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:
Page 47 and 48:
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:
Page 75 and 76:
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 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 and 106: 100 %First official estimateApprova
Page 107 and 108: ReferencesAndersen, B., Fagerhaug,
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: 568 N. O. E. Olsson et al.with a wi
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
show all

Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?