Link to thesis. - Concept - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16project management and the complexities involved in eliciting the true causes of projectperformance. Hence, as set forth in section 1.1, the focus is on a more tractable task than theassessment of effectiveness of projects, as the work mainly has been concerned with the issues oftime, cost and quality. However, the individual projects and their contextual settings undoubtedlyare varied. The question that then begs an answer is how may these challenges be dealt with inthe work presented here? First, there are fundamental aspects of the nature of projects thatrequire attention.2.2 The crucial contextual conditions of projects – uniqueness,asset specificity, and high levels of uncertaintyCrawford and Pollack (2007) address “the paradox of project uniqueness” that reflects thefrequent view that uniqueness is a defining attribute of a project, though it is assumed that allprojects are fundamentally similar and consequently may be managed in a standardized way. Howcan this paradox be dealt with from a research perspective? Crawford and Pollack (2007:94)attempt to mediate the disparity between project uniqueness and the assumption of fundamentalsimilarity by asserting that: ”For a project to be unique does not mean that it is completely dissimilar to allother projects. If this were truly the case, and projects were not just unique, but also incomparable, then it is likelythe field of project management would not exist.” They further state that resolving the disparity is notcrucial, but it should be managed to retain the relevance of project management in variouscontexts. This means that one way to deal with the project uniqueness paradox apparently is toaccept that there is nothing wrong in assuming that projects can be treated as similar andcomparable as long as the projects’ contextual issues are properly managed. Each individualproject undoubtedly contains unique elements, but there are repetitive tasks and similarities in theway we approach projects.Miller and Lessard (2000:6) state that “… each project is unique” and that “generalizations are thereforeimpossible”. But how do they then in practice go about measuring or identifying what leads tosuccess or failure in projects? Their answer is that variables measuring project performanceshould comprise characteristics, traits or attributes that can be meaningful above the level of thesingle project. In other words, they seek insights or explanations at an aggregate, generallyapplicable level.The aim of this work is not to solve or overcome all the challenges posed by obvious disparitiesin the theories and concepts being drawn upon. Nonetheless, I believe that the disparities shouldbe kept in mind so that potential flaws and ambiguities can be dealt with and reduced. Thediscussion above reflects a wish to be explicit about the assumptions that underlie the researchcarried out.In this thesis it is assumed that projects typically exhibit uniqueness, asset specificity, and highlevels of uncertainty. This calls for a methodology that recognizes these critical contextualconditions.In the context of this research in which single projects are the units of analysis, it is assumed thatcertain events or outcomes should be interpreted not from the viewpoint that one single inputcauses a certain effect, but rather that certain inputs might cause certain events or outcomes. Thougha large number of projects and quantitative approaches may be used, there generally will be nosearch for explanations that rely upon identified general patterns based upon cause and effect.Hence, there is no search for an ideal cause-effect relationship. Projects carry critical contextualconditions that must be taken into account; precise and predictable outcomes do not exist in the
17world of projects. The choice of methodology does not imply that it is impossible to judge orobserve the effect of inputs, but that one cannot expect to observe automatic outcomes of aspecified input.2.3 Research design and methodsThe objectives of this research include arriving at answers to basic questions concerning up-frontassessment and quality assurance. Various approaches were employed, because the field wasexplored in a relatively broad manner to answer an array of questions. The underlyingassumptions are discussed above, and the specific approaches and tools in the research activitiesare described in greater detail in the separate papers. However, selected key characteristics arehighlighted and there are some explanations of the approaches to dealing with some of thechallenges related to the scientific requirements outlined above.The key characteristics of the output of the research work are set forth in the papers listed onpage 6. In paper 1, Magnussen and Samset (2005) use a theoretical approach. They summarizethe approval processes of large public projects over five years and concentrate on the descriptionof an approach to up-front assessment, its theoretical underpinnings, embedded principles, andhow it may work in practice. Papers 2 (Magnussen and Olsson (2006)), 4 (Olsson and Magnussen(2007)), 5 (Olsson and Magnussen (2008)), 9 (Magnussen (2009a)) and 10 (Magnussen (2009b))are principally empirical and quantitative contributions that are based on studies of evaluationreports and discuss topics within relevant focus areas. Some major topics include uncertaintyanalyses of costs, differences in estimates, the size of reserves, and the assessment of uncertainty.Papers 3 (Magnussen and Olsson (2007)), 6 (Klakegg, Williams, Magnussen and Glasspool(2008)), 7 (Williams, Klakegg, Magnussen and Glasspool (2008)), and 8 (Williams, Klakegg,Magnussen and Glasspool (forthcoming)) are empirical and mostly qualitative in the sense thatthey deal with in-depth reviews of one or a few selected cases. Paper 3 (Magnussen and Olsson(2007)) is slightly more theoretical, as its focus is on challenging traditional perceptions ofprojects and their environments, based on a social exchange theory approach. Nonetheless, ananalysis of the early phase of a public building project is included to illustrate the practical use ofthe approach. In papers 6 (Klakegg, Williams, Magnussen and Glasspool (2008)), 7 (Williams,Klakegg, Magnussen and Glasspool (2008)) and 8 (Williams, Klakegg, Magnussen and Glasspool(forthcoming)) the question under study is investigated by looking in depth at a small number ofcases. Semi-structured interviews were held with personnel representing the project organizationas w ell as with representatives of the experts responsible for external review, in order to bettercapture context dependent information associated with the selected cases.2.4 Data and information sourcesThe research presented here was conducted in Project Management and Construction researchgroup in the Department of Civil and Transport Engineering of the Norwegian University ofScience and Technology. The research group focuses on project management in general and iscurrently involved in the Concept research programme on the front-end management of projects,funded by the Ministry of Finance. The Concept programme has established and maintainsTrailBase, a database that as of 2008 held records of 100 major public investment projects in
Page 1 and 2: 3PrefaceThe research presented in t
Page 3 and 4: 5Table of contentsPART 1 ..........
Page 5 and 6: 7Summary/abstractThe work reported
Page 8 and 9: 101 IntroductionProjects are increa
Page 10: collection and interpretation of th
Page 13: 15normative agendas, in other words
Page 17 and 18: 19Figure 3 Sources and dataThe proj
Page 19 and 20: 21In line with Flyvbjerg (2006b), t
Page 21 and 22: 233 Concepts and constructs of thep
Page 23 and 24: 25by most BOKs and textbooks in pro
Page 25 and 26: 274 Main topics covered by the rese
Page 27 and 28: 294.2 Empirical indications from ex
Page 29 and 30: 31Budget proposed by the Norwegian
Page 31 and 32: 3330 %Difference (%) from the propo
Page 33 and 34: 3520 00018 000Cost development from
Page 35 and 36: 37In paper 9 (Magnussen 2009a) an a
Page 37 and 38: 395 Conclusions and directions for
Page 39 and 40: 41estimates must be implemented at
Page 41 and 42: 43Klakegg, Ole Jonny, Terry William
Page 43 and 44: 45List of government documents 11Fi
Page 45 and 46: 47Part 2 - Papers1. Magnussen, Ole
Page 47 and 48: Paper 1Magnussen, Ole Morten, and K
Page 49 and 50: AbstractCost overruns and delays ar
Page 51 and 52: Cost effectiveness considerations:
Page 53 and 54: demonstrates another fundamental is
Page 55 and 56: Figure 1 The Extended Quality Assur
Page 57 and 58: Expected effects of the revised qua
Page 59 and 60: ReferencesBerg, Peder, Kilde, Halva
Page 61 and 62: International Journal of Project Ma
Page 63 and 64: O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson / Int
Page 65 and 66:
O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson / Int
Page 67 and 68:
O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson / Int
Page 69 and 70:
Paper 3Magnussen, Ole M., and Nils
Page 71 and 72:
MANAGING THE FRONT-END OF PROJECTS:
Page 73 and 74:
Olsson, Samset, Austeng and Lädre
Page 75 and 76:
1995; Packendorff, 1995), mainly cr
Page 77 and 78:
to a better way of managing the fro
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 1 Basic structure of the ind
Page 81 and 82:
from empirical investigations has b
Page 83 and 84:
among organizations, not individual
Page 85 and 86:
actors, the relationships are repro
Page 87 and 88:
the network approach has been used
Page 89 and 90:
established based on the views of i
Page 91 and 92:
IHFJKGAELDMBCA - The focal projectB
Page 93 and 94:
the NDEA. The communication strateg
Page 95 and 96:
Directorate for Cultural Heritage (
Page 97 and 98:
the project. The basic activity was
Page 99 and 100:
assumed to be more important than o
Page 101 and 102:
Another interesting observation was
Page 103 and 104:
REFERENCESEngwall, Mats. 2003. No p
Page 105 and 106:
Söderlund, Jonas. 2002. On the dev
Page 107 and 108:
Flexibility at Different Stages in
Page 109 and 110:
Reproduced with permission of the c
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115:
Paper 5Olsson, Nils O. E., and Ole
Page 126 and 127:
PAPERSGovernance Frameworks for Pub
Page 128 and 129:
supporting setting of and achieving
Page 130 and 131:
The study proceeded as follows:•
Page 132 and 133:
y the Chief of Defence Materiel, he
Page 134 and 135:
(within MoD but independent of thep
Page 136 and 137:
Norway U.K. (MoD) U.K. (OGC)Charact
Page 138 and 139:
from the external consultants was s
Page 140 and 141:
governance. International StudiesRe
Page 142 and 143:
Paper 7Williams, Terry, Ole Jonny K
Page 144 and 145:
The development of the frameworksUK
Page 146 and 147:
notable characteristic of the Norwe
Page 148 and 149:
Office to the National Audit Office
Page 150 and 151:
highly complex and changing decisio
Page 152 and 153:
ARTICLE IN PRESSAvailable online at
Page 154 and 155:
ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al.
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Paper submitted to the Internationa
Page 166 and 167:
One constraint is that actual costs
Page 168 and 169:
In other words, the QA scheme is a
Page 170 and 171:
author, there apparently are no stu
Page 172 and 173:
20,0 %15,0 %10,0 %5,0 %0,0 %P50 est
Page 174 and 175:
The pre-eminent result is that the
Page 176 and 177:
Results from the analysis of the de
Page 178 and 179:
more fundamental assessments of pro
Page 180 and 181:
Paper 10Magnussen, Ole M. 2009. Exp
Page 182 and 183:
Explaining cost estimate difference
Page 184 and 185:
changes and external factors. Facto
Page 186 and 187:
30 %Difference (%) from the propose
Page 188 and 189:
Table 2 Areas associated with expla
Page 190 and 191:
agency. In this case, the observed
Page 192 and 193:
ReferencesFlyvbjerg, B., Holm, M.K.
show all

Link to thesis. - Concept - NTNU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?