Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

5.2. Flexibility in decision process vs. flexibility in productOlsson and Samset [7] analysed flexibility in decision process and flexibility in product. Figure 2 is agraphical illustration of such an analysis. Each project is represented by two marks; grey for plannedflexibility and black for actual flexibility. The two mars for each project are connected with an arrow toillustrate any shift in flexibility approach. The arrows pointing to the right illustrate a shift from low plannedflexibility in decision process, to medium or high actual flexibility in decision process. This shift wasobserved for projects with all degrees of flexibility in the product (low, medium or high).Flexibility in productLow Medium High= Planned flexibility= Actual flexibility= No change in flexibilityapproachLow Medium HighFlexibility in decision processFigure 2. Flexibility in product versus planned and actual decision process.The majority of the projects (16 out of 18) had medium or high actual flexibility in the decision processes.All three projects that were prepared for highly flexible decision process also experienced highly flexibledecision process during the course of the projects. Seven projects did not have an observed shift in theflexibility approach (indicated in Figure 2 by a black and grey dot lying close to each other). Note that five ofthe seven projects had a medium or high planned flexibility in decision process. These projects whereprepared for a flexible decision process. Of the 13 projects that had a low planned flexibility in the decisionprocess, only two projects had also a low actual flexibility in decision process. None of the projects hadlower actual than planned flexibility in the decision process.Related to efficiency, Olsson and Samset [7] found that highly flexible decision processes resulted in morethan 100% cost overrun, compared to the initial budgets, regardless of the flexibility in the product, Mostprojects were subject to changes, extensions and iterations (summarized as “flexibility in the decisionprocess”).6. Concluding discussionA framework for understanding project flexibility has been presented. Based on the framework, the paper hasdiscussed flexibility to selected aspects individually and in two-dimensional combinations. With largersamples, this type of analysis would benefit from regression analysis along the different aspects. In thefollowing, the results presented in the previous section are briefly discussed and some implications forprojects management practice are proposed.6.1. Flexible decision processes – intended or safety valve?In the beginning of this research, it was expected that the decision process related to the project can be fairlystraight forward if flexibility in the product was high, because the result of the project was prepared foralternative use. Furthermore, it was assumed that a low flexibility in the product could be combined withhigh flexibility in the decision process because scope definitions could be postponed in order to gain as muchknowledge as possible. These assumptions are only partially confirmed by the study.