Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

7. Conclusionsefficiency and effectiveness. There are also indications that the drawbacks are largestwhen projects do not prepare for subsequent adjustments. This notion is consistentwith previous works on flexibility, including Sager (1994), Volberda (1997), Abbot &Banerji (2003), and Turner (2004), that view managing flexibility as an orderlyresponse to a changing world.The thesis has identified some characteristics of successful project flexibilitymanagement. These findings can be of value in front-end preparations of futureprojects. The following summary is based on results presented in the literature, alongwith results from the studied projects. Four approaches to project flexibilitymanagement are presented in Table 3, together with a summary of strengths andweaknesses for each approach.Objective Approach Strengths Weaknesses ApplicationsAvoidadjustments(after locking ofscope)1. Late lockingof project scopeand fastexecutionProductdevelopmentprojectsManage(limited)adjustmentsAvoidadjustments (inmodules);Manageadjustments(betweenmodules)Manageadjustments2. Shield offareas ofuncertainty3. IncrementalcommitmentsUtilises thestrengths offront-end(openness) andexecution phase(focus)Allows themajor part of aproject to beexecutedwithoutadjustmentsAllows eachmodule to beexecutedwithout changes4. Absorption More costeffective thandealing withadjustmentswith noavailableresourcesTable 3. Approaches to external flexibility management.Depends on fastlocking of scopeand execution.Lack ofdecisions infront-end phasecan causefrustration.Still-open itemsmust be oflimited size(max. 10-15%).Identifying theright itemsEach modulewill providebenefits. LongertotalimplementationtimeAmount ofadjustments canescalate beyondcontrolTechnicalinstallations inbuildings finallyspecified laterthan the rest ofprojectRoads orrailways dividedinto sectionsOverspecificationoffunctionality.RedundantengineeringcapacityThe four approaches are described in more detail in the following. Each approach isillustrated, including a comparison to the generic figures in Figure 2 and Figure 4. Thedashed ‘high to low’ curve that illustrates decreasing freedom for manoeuvre is thesame in Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18. This curve represents a‘traditional’ project preparation and implementation. The purpose of Figure 15, Figure40