Link to thesis. - Concept - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al. / International Journal of Project Management xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 11experienced contractors appears to have been valuable.Skjold had the problem that the QA consultants werenot allowed to access the suppliers’ personnel. For 2MS, the effect of other governance processes wereinteresting, i.e. NAO, Parliament and Treasury. The ability to look at cost and time issues varied.NEADS had a project-independent cost; there weremethodological issues in IFI2, and the problem of noalternative source of data in Skjold. The cost analysespresented for IFI2 by the project organisation and theQA team may have differed. It is interesting that itwas another governance mechanism (Parliament) thatpicked up the optimism bias for 2MS, in benefits, ratherthan costs.This study has looked at a number of frameworks in astructured way, and provides a checklist for anyone lookingat a particular framework and wondering about itsessential nature, or designing a new framework: the discussionhere outlines how frameworks differ. But the maintopic of this paper was to look at how these frameworksand their differences actually play out in practice, generallyfollowing, but always a little different, from those espousedby the authorities. The two sets of bullet-points above givedetailed conclusions as to what was beneficial and whatwas less so in the actual use of the frameworks.This is a very small sample from which to draw conclusions,although we did try to make it balanced. Clearly,there also were issues in the cases that were provided forthe researchers to study, which limited not only the findings,but also the generalizability of those findings. Thismay partly explain why we found surprisingly little impactof governance frameworks on the projects. Due to the complexityand sensitivity of defence projects, and commercialconsiderations, the authors could not get data on somegovernance aspects, and we also had disappointingly littlevisibility of cost and time estimation. Moreover, thisresearch is just one small step; further research could usefullyseek a wider understanding of the influence betweenframeworks and their context by studying more frameworksin different contexts, together with more programmesand projects.In conclusion, we have characterized the institutionalframeworks and their differences. We have seen how theywork out in practice, and that while the potential effectwas large, the cases we studied did not show their fullpotential, key benefits being legitimization for the projectand reassurance for the project owner. The importance ofgovernance was apparent, particularly in the early stagesof projects where concepts are established.References[1] Malgrati A, Damiani M. Rethinking the new project managementframework: new epistemology, new insights. In: Proceedings of thePMI (Project Management Institute) research conference, Seattle;2002. p. 371–80.[2] Flyvberg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. Megaprojects and risk: ananatomy of ambition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press;2003.[3] Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A. Management research: anintroduction. London: Sage; 1991.[4] Eden C, Huxham C. Researching organisations using action research.In: Clegg S, Hardy C, Nord W, Lawrence T, editors. The SAGEhandbook of organization studies. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2006.[5] Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd ed. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage Publishing; 1994.[6] Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. QualInq 2006;12(2):219–45.[7] Klakegg OJ, Williams TM, Magnussen OM. Governance frameworksfor public project development and estimation. Newtown Square, PA,US: Project Management Institute; 2009.[8] Thomas J, Mullaly M. Researching the value of project management.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2008.[9] Flyvbjerg B. Making social science matter: why social inquiry failsand how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress; 2001.[10] Cicmil S, Williams T, Thomas J, Hodgson D. Rethinking projectmanagement: researching the actuality of projects. Int J Proj Manage2006;24(8):675–86.[11] Detomasi DA. International regimes: the case of western CorporateGovernance. Int Stud Rev 2006;8:225–51.[12] OECD. Modernising government, the way forward; 2005. Availableat www.oecd.org.[13] APM. Directing change, a guide to governance of project management;2002. Available at www.apm.org.uk.[14] Gershon P. Review of civil procurement in central government.London: HM Treasury; 1999.[15] Transforming government procurement. London: HM Treasury;2007. Available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.[16] Enabling acquisition change: an examination of the ministry ofdefence’s ability to undertake through life capability management. Areport by the enabling acquisition change team leader (the McKanereport). London: Ministry of Defence; 2006.[17] Berg P et al. Styring av statlige investeringer. Sluttrapport frastyringsgruppen for prosjektet for styring av statlige investeringer.Finansdepartementet; 1999.[18] Howard C. Experiences of implementing gateway reviews. Presentationat project controls EVA 12. Annual conference of the APMspecial interest group on earned value management. London; 2007.[19] Norwegian official reports. Et styrket forsvar [a strengtheneddefence]. Oslo, Norway: The Norwegian Ministry of Defence; 2007.[20] National audit office. PFI: the new headquarters for the home office.Report by the comptroller and auditor and auditor general HC 954session; 2002–2003.[21] House of Commons committee of public accounts. PFI: the newheadquarters for the home office. Eighteenth report of session 2003–04. London: The Stationery Office; 2004. Also subsequent: treasuryminutes on the fourteenth, fifteenth, eighteenth, and nineteenthreports from the committee of public accounts 2003–04 (Cm 6244).Presented to parliament by the financial secretary to the treasury bycommand of Her Majesty. HM Treasury; 2004.[22] Statsbygg. Project management plan for the new building for theDepartment of Informatics at the University of Oslo (IFI2). Phase:preproject [Styringsdokument for prosjektet Nybygg for informatikkmiljøeneved UiO, IFI2. Fase: Forprosjekt]. Oslo, Norway:Statsbygg (The Directorate of Public Construction and Property);2004.[23] Defence analytical services agency. UK defence statistics; 2006.Retrieved from http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2006/c1/table115.html; 2007.Please cite this article in press as: Williams T et al.An investigation of governance frameworks for public projects in Norway and the UK. Int J Project Manage (2009),doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.04.001
Paper 9Magnussen, Ole M. 2009. Cost development in quality-assured major infrastructure projects.Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Submitted for publicationin International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
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 and 14:
15normative agendas, in other words
Page 15 and 16:
17world of projects. The choice of
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:
Page 67 and 68:
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: Reproduced with permission of the c
Page 113 and 114: Reproduced with permission of the c
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 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?