Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to describe the transfer of experiences to improve the basis for overcoming the dilemma of trying to achieve analyses and systems that are both good and simple. The quality of decisions relating to projects depends on how well the assumed basis for the project actually fit the reality of the situation in which the consequences occur. Good value and cost estimations support good decisions about projects insofar as the assumptions on which they are based mirror the reality, and the decision makers can understand the analysis. Design/methodology/approach -The paper uses a longitudinal case study and qualitative analysis. Data relating to a large number of cases have become available to the authors through many years of research and consulting activities. Through joint experience and discussion the patterns are analysed. This paper is descriptive with respect to the challenges and empirical examples. The analysis itself ends with a rather normative conclusion. Findings -There is a dilemma embedded in the processes used to analyse uncertainty and risks associated with projects. On the one hand, an important task is to reduce the complexity of a given situation to render the issues sufficiently simple for them to be understood and assessed. On the other hand, the models and assumptions upon which an analysis is based have to be sufficiently precise and detailed in order to make sense. The same dilemma is found when considering actions to address risks and uncertainties, as well as in designing management systems. It is concluded that the dilemma is real. Solutions have to be found among both good and simple options.Research limitations/implications -The paper does not answer questions on "how to" and does not dig deep into theoretical perspectives on the current dilemma. More research to understand all aspects of the issue is needed. Practical implications -Uncertainty analysis and management systems have to be good (precise enough) and at the same time simple (practical). There is no value unless it is used. Practical examples in the paper are intended to help practitioners identify alternative options. Originality/value -The dilemma of good and simple has not been explicitly addressed before in light of practical experience and theory. The value added is increased awareness of an important problem in analytical processes.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore a selection of projects to understand how conceptual appraisals and choice of concepts are handled, and to which extent the conceptual opportunity space is exploited. Design/methodology/approach -The study is essentially case based, and rooted in a number of in-depth studies of single-project cases. Its study combines information from document studies with interview data, and culminates in normative recommendations. Findings -The study found that the projects do indeed not exploit the opportunity space to a very large extent. The lessons from the present study is that the final choice is determined more by decision makers than the analysts, and will often be the result of policy and preferences more than objective reasoning. Which again suggests that the efforts as analysts will often be in vain.Research limitations/implications -These findings could influence theoretical models outlining project establishment and decision processes. Practical implications -The study has identified many shortcomings in public sector processes that could be utilized to alter such processes. Originality/value -The study is original in that it focusses on the concept development phase of projects, rather than the traditional execution phase, and has studied decision processes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.