Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. Project stakeholdersFigure 6 is a summary of the observed approach on external flexibility seen in a timeperspective, as presented in Paper 1. Project management was the only type ofstakeholder that showed the expected shift from promoting a flexible front-end,hesitating towards a flexible planning phase and finally being negative to a flexibleexecution phase. As a possible explanation, the project management might be thestakeholder that is most likely to see the effects of flexibility, both on the benefit andcost side.In general, project owners appeared as advocates of flexible projects. Contractorswere not observed as advocates of flexible projects. Figure 6 also shows that usersand project management have different and potentially conflicting needs for externalflexibility in different project phases. As long as the funding model for projects meansthat the users have nothing to lose from demanding changes and extensions, they haveincentive to push for scope changes. This is typically, though not always, the case inthe Norwegian public sector, which accounts for the majority of the projects in theanalysis in Paper 1.OwnerUsersFront-end+Planning++Execution+++/-Projectmanagement++/--ContractorN/A--Figure 6. Stakeholder perspectives on external flexibility in project phases.+ indicates that flexibility is advocated; - indicates a desire for flexibilityminimisation; +/- indicates that both approaches were observed. (Paper 1, fig. 2.)Kreiner (1995) termed project management ‘the guardian of efficiency’. The resultsfrom Paper 1 indicate that this guardian role is dependent upon the organisationalconnection to the project owner. In cases where the project management was found tobe in the same organisation as the owner, project management was more likely to bepositive to flexibility, compared to cases where project management had a weakerorganisational connection to the project owner and the guardian role could beexercised more freely.Incentives open to the stakeholders is an explaining factor for the stakeholders’perspective on project flexibility. Flexibility options have a value for stakeholders thatbenefit from changes and late locking of final scope. In the study presented in Paper1, the stakeholders that had their incentives related to achieving the project’s purposewere the advocates of flexibility. Stakeholders that had their incentives related todelivering the project on time and within budget saw flexibility as a threat. Externalflexibility usually means that the contractors have to spend resources on adapting.However, contractors may also have incentives to embrace change because this givesthem room to ask for additional payments. This is discussed by Garel & Midler(2001) in relation to contract structures.20
4. Project stakeholdersBased on results presented in Paper 1 and Paper 3, Figure 7 indicates that the room forexternal flexibility decreases over time. As the project scope becomes clarified, therelative focus on internal flexibility increases. The analysis of scope reductionspresented in Paper 3 can be seen as an illustration of external flexibility. The shape ofthe right half of Figure 7 is based on these results, where external flexibility decreasesrapidly after the final approval of a project.Relative shareExternal flexibilityInternal flexibilityFront-endExecutionProjecttimeFigure 7. External and internal flexibility in a time perspective.21
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 31 and 32: 4. Project stakeholders4. Project s
Page 33: 4. Project stakeholdersmandatory qu
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 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 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 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 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
show all

Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?