Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

4. ResultsIn the following, the empirical data are presented. To begin with, we present results from a re-analysis of thematerial that served as a decision basing when the Quality-at entry regime was established. Secondly, there areresults based on performed Quality-at entry analyses. Finally, there is a brief presentation of the next steps in thedevelopment of the regime.4.1 Background for the quality assurance regime re-analyzedBased on the available reports from the analysis that was done as a preparation for the Quality-at-entry regime, wehave re-analyzed the projects in a flexibility perspective. The type of projects in this part of the study is shown inTable 1. The analyzed projects were been initiated between 1986 and 1998.The types of flexibility that was observed in the projects have been analyzed. As can be seen in Table 2, scopechanges were common, particularly during the planning phase. Only one project could be executed as planned.The original analysis (Berg et al. 1999) claimed that unsatisfactory project results, mostly cost overruns, often cameas a consequence of poor preparations of the projects before they were presented to the parliament for final approval.In a flexibility perspective, this re-analysis indicates that the analyzed projects were subject to project flexibilityparticularly in the planning and execution phases. The background for the Quality-at entry regime thereforeindirectly point to project flexibility as a major problem in governmental investments.Front-end Planning Execution No phaseScope changes 0 7 2 N/AIterations 2 2 0 N/ANo flexibility 0 0 0 1Total 2 9 2 1Table 2. Type of flexibility applied in the first set of studied projects (N=14)4.2 Results from quality-at-entry reports seen in a flexibility perspectiveMandatory Quality-at-entry analyses of governmental investments were carried out by external consultants on behalfof the responsible ministry. The consultants present a report that compiles the results from the quality assurance. Bythe time this paper was drafted, 54 projects had been subject to quality-at-entry analysis. General information wasobtainable for 48 of these projects. Table 1 shows a summary of the type and size of the projects.Flexibility is, with some exceptions, not directly addresses as a term by its own in the QA2 analyses. However,several issues discussed previously in this paper as different aspects of flexibility are to be found. The QA2 reportsinclude an overview of critical success factors and pitfalls. Table 3 shows a summary of how frequent three aspectsof flexibility were mentioned in the summaries of the Quality-at-entry reports. The aspects were changemanagement, structured approach to flexibility and finally predictable funding. Issues related to scope changemanagement are summarized in the column for change management in Table 3. Iterative decision processes andflexibility in the technical solutions are summarized in the column labeled structured approach to flexibility. Thiswas the only area where the term “flexibility” was explicitly used. Finally, management of uncertain funding iscovered in the column labeled predictable funding. Table 3 shows a summary of how frequent these aspects offlexibility were mentioned as one of the top issues in the project analyses. The overview only covers occurrence inthe summaries of the reports, meaning that a prioritization has been made.9