No abstract

Abstract:The uncertainty management theory has become well established over the last 20-30 years. However, the authors suggest that it does not fully address why opportunities often remain unexploited. Empirical studies show a stronger focus on mitigating risks than exploiting opportunities. This paper therefore addresses why so few opportunities are explored in large projects. The theory claims that risks and opportunities should be equally managed in the same process. In two surveys, conducted in six (private and public) companies over a four-year period, project managers stated that uncertainty management is about managing risk and opportunities. However, two case studies from 12 projects from the same companies revealed that all of them had their main focus on risks, and most of the opportunities were left unexploited. We have developed a theoretical explanation model to shed light on this phenomena. The concept is a reflection based on findings from our empirical data up against current project management, uncertainty, risk and stakeholder literature. Our model shows that the threshold for pursuing a potential opportunity is high. If a potential opportunity should be considered, it must be extremely interesting, since it may require contract changes, and the project must abandon an earlier-accepted best solution.

This paper is about developing a holistic framework for project evaluation; it is applied in a case study of an Algerian highway megaproject. This project has attracted the attention of all the local media and even many of the international media. Several media discussions on the project are limited to the completion of the project itself seen in a short-term perspective. In this regard, the discussions were notably associated with delays and expenditures coming in over budget, which is project efficiency signified by aspects such as time, cost and the scope. One reason that made the media focus only on these aspects is that they can easily be measured and are usually the first criteria against which the project can be assessed. The relevance of the project and its effects, whether it attains its goals and objectives measured in terms of effectiveness, including impact and sustainability -all these four measures can only be verified at a later stage, after the project has delivered its results. These are much broader aspects and are therefore difficult to measure. This paper is about developing an ex-post evaluation framework model. This is achieved by going through the different definitions of the measures of project success or failure and then reflecting on them with respect to the whole project life cycle by considering all the process groups in the project (i.e., conception phase, front-end analysis phase, planning and design phase, engineering phase, procurement phase, construction phase, closing phase and operating phase). This would provide us with a holistic way of evaluating projects.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to discuss measurement of project success in an ownership perspective.Design/methodology/approach -The research is based on a case study of owner structures in 11 projects. For each case, an analysis was made of which stakeholder that held six different roles related to project ownership. Multiple sources of information are used, including archives, interviews and observations.Findings -Results from the study indicate that owner responsibilities are not always concentrated to one individual stakeholder in a project. While a traditional owner can be identified for some projects, it is a more complex picture for many other projects.Research implications/limitations -This paper has primarily analysed project ownership on a macro level, between organisations. Challenges related to identifying owners can to a certain extent also be found on a micro level, within the most involved organisations, but this has not been the aim of the research.Practical implications -Measurement of project success in a project owner perspective needs to be adjusted to fit the projects in question. While the question ''Who owns a project'' is easy to answer in some cases, it requires a more differentiated answer in other cases.Originality/value -Most literature on project ownership focuses on one owner who has all the characteristics of the owner. It is based on one stakeholder who takes the risk related to the cost and future value of the project. The study shows that owner responsibilities are not necessarily concentrated to one individual stakeholder in a project.

The paper focuses on the development of the ex-post conceptual holistic framework for Project Evaluation on Strategic, Tactical and Operational Levels, the PESTOL model, by reviewing different definitions of project success and/or failure and combining the findings with the logic framework. The model reflects the project life cycle by considering all project phases, such as identification and conception. To demonstrate the relevance of the developed model, the authors applied it to a project case, the Algerian East–West Highway megaproject. The project has attracted media attention and a number of media discussions of the project have been limited to the completion of the project in a short-term perspective. In this regard, the discussions have been notably associated with delays and expenditures coming in over budget, referring to project efficiency. One reason for the media focus on these aspects alone is that they can easily be measured. The relevance of the project and its effects - whether it attains its goals and objectives measured in terms of effectiveness, including impact and sustainability - can only be verified at a later stage, after the project has delivered its results. These are much broader aspects and are therefore difficult to measure.

No abstract