Match!

Megaprojects redefined – complexity vs cost and social imperatives

Published on Mar 5, 2018in International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
· DOI :10.1108/IJMPB-07-2017-0080
Alexandra Pitsis3
Estimated H-index: 3
(UTS: University of Technology, Sydney),
Stewart Clegg66
Estimated H-index: 66
(UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)
+ 2 AuthorsSw Burdon5
Estimated H-index: 5
(UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview from the literature on how best to define megaprojects in contemporary contexts. There is a need for a definition that encompasses a complex matrix of characteristics, inclusive of positive and negative aspects, which are not necessarily industry or sector specific. Whilst megaprojects have often been described and defined in terms of cost, they are more accurately delineated by their convolutions. Intricacies arise from political intrigues surrounding funding of such projects and managing and governing complex social and organizational relations. Points for future research are also identified. Design/methodology/approach An analysis of international megaproject literature over the past five years combined with seminal works was undertaken, drawing on the broad literature of project and program management combined with elements of organizational theory. Whilst some examples are cited, in-depth case analysis has not been covered. Findings Albeit that the scale of some megaprojects is comparable to national GDPs, seven more characteristics beyond size have been identified, which distinguish megaprojects from large projects. These include: reach; duration; risks and uncertainties; widely disparate actors; areas of controversy such as dispute resolution; and legal and regulatory issues. Research limitations/implications The paper takes a broad overview and whilst some examples are cited, in-depth case analysis has not been covered. The overview does however provide a good synopsis of the future research areas that warrant exploration. Practical implications The paper identifies a range of analytical areas for major future research including further exploration of institutional analysis. Areas for further analysis include stakeholder issues; collaboration and understanding between technical and business personnel and reforming notions of procurement and contractual arrangements. Social implications Rigorous stakeholder engagement is critical for success in megaprojects, and collaborative learnings need to be exchanged. The longer term social and economic impacts need to be viewed as an imperative rather than a hindrance to the planning and execution of megaprojects and complexity rather than cost more aptly defines megaprojects. Originality/value The paper moves the definition of megaprojects to beyond measurement on the basis of cost to complexity and social and economic variables.
Figures & Tables
  • References (41)
  • Citations (6)
References41
Newest
#1Christopher Biesenthal (WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management)H-Index: 8
#2Stewart Clegg (NOVA: Universidade Nova de Lisboa)H-Index: 66
Last.Shankar Sankaran (UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)H-Index: 16
view all 4 authors...
#1Liisa Naar (UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)H-Index: 1
#2Stewart Clegg (NOVA: Universidade Nova de Lisboa)H-Index: 66
#1Ole Jonny Klakegg (NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology)H-Index: 11
#2Terry Williams (University of Hull)H-Index: 32
Last.Asmamaw Tadege Shiferaw (Norwegian Public Roads Administration)H-Index: 3
view all 3 authors...
#1Johan Fahri (UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)H-Index: 1
#2Christopher Biesenthal (UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)H-Index: 8
Last.Shankar Sankaran (UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)H-Index: 16
view all 4 authors...
#1Yi Hu (PolyU: Hong Kong Polytechnic University)H-Index: 9
#2Albert P.C. Chan (PolyU: Hong Kong Polytechnic University)H-Index: 46
Last.Run-zhi Jin (SNU: Seoul National University)H-Index: 1
view all 4 authors...
Cited By6
Newest
View next paperEvaluating megaprojects: From the ‘iron triangle’ to network mapping