Toward a Systemic View to Cost Overrun Causation in Infrastructure Projects: A Review and Implications for Research

Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D.; Love, Peter E.D.; Smith, Simon; Ackermann, Fran

doi:10.1177/875697281704800207

Cited by 56 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This claim is further justified by Ahiaga-Dagbui et al [97] that identified methodological gap in current research that lack system thinking and demonstrable causality. By applying system thinking to the problem of design changes by understanding the types of design changes and factors influencing the occurrence of these changes at various times in the project, system thinking can lead the construction industry towards realizing how to prevent or mitigate delay and disruption impacts by anticipating when and where design changes are most likely to occur.…”

Section: System Dynamics In Managing Design Changesmentioning

confidence: 91%

A Conceptual Framework for Managing Design Changes in Building Construction

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Design changes have always been an innate feature of the construction industry. Despite the various project management techniques, many building construction projects still fail to achieve their time and cost objectives. This paper aims to focus on design changes as a major cause of time delays and cost overruns. It seeks to discuss the causing factors of design changes in building construction projects and highlighting the resulting rework that is detrimental to project performance. Hence, this paper also aims to present a conceptual framework which was developed to better manage design changes through clued-up management decision to avoid future claims and disputes. Recent and current literature is examined and reviewed. The review approach was based on related literature to identified themes. The existing literature is summarised into five discrete themes of "design changes", "rework", "time and cost overruns", "communication" and "decision-making". The synthesised literature is subsequently utilised in the development of conceptual map which provided the direction for designing the conceptual framework. Extensive review of preceding studies on causes of time and cost overruns reveals that design changes is identified as one of the significant factors. However, there are limited studies in this domain. The discussion presents a knowledge gap of linking design changes and rework with decision-making in project management. This finding suggests the need for further empirical study. The framework stresses the importance of communication and management decision as the control mechanism. Researchers and practitioners in construction management field will find this study useful in understanding the causing factors of design changes and its detrimental impacts to project performance which risk the project to claims and disputes. The conceptual framework presents an imperative outcome to encourage further research in developing conceptual causal model of design changes which shows the key causal variables and their feedback loops.

show abstract

Section: System Dynamics In Managing Design Changesmentioning

confidence: 91%

A Conceptual Framework for Managing Design Changes in Building Construction

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Key reasons for this behavior are proposed to be optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation. Love and colleagues [14], [25]- [28] argued that the performance of complex projects (in both short-and longterm) is not as negative as depicted by Flyvbjerg's group. Moreover complexity and uncertainty are key determinants for cost overrun [14], [26].…”

Section: Real Options Reasoning In Complex Projectsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Our study offers four broad theoretical implications related to ROR. First, prior to our study, there have been few attempts to formulate perspectives that allow the simultaneous study of multiple causes of an inadequate development process [19], [28], [62]. In addition, few studies have shown that decision-makers apply the logic of real options in project settings [4], [16], [43].…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking About Futureproofing: Real Options Reasoning in Complex Infrastructure Projects

Krystallis¹,

Locatelli

Murtagh³

2022

IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex infrastructure projects often attract criticism regarding their short-and long-term performance. An effective development process requires thinking about both present and future requirements. We employed the lens of real options reasoning to investigate the power of verbal theorizing, without the aid of analytical modeling, to add flexibility in the development process. Drawing on 32 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers involved in health estate projects, we examined if and how informal talks in the development process can lead to futureproof outcomes. Our findings synthesize and conceptualize relevant insights on iterative design thinking, affordability, bounded rationality, and motivational gaps as causal mechanisms for futureproofing talks and thus real options reasoning. The paper contributes to the planning and project studies literature dealing with futureproofing complex infrastructure projects.

show abstract

“…For example, as the work of the complexity scholars show many of the complexity dynamics, and inherently the 'emergent' ones, exhibit their greatest influence on project delivery risk during project execution rather than project planning. The exclusion of the effect of the complex project execution stage on project outcomes is an important criticism of Reference Class Forecasting research (Ahiaga-Dagbui et al, 2017;Love, 2011).…”

Section: Considering the Question "What Is The Available Research Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Major Project Risk Management: Reconciling Complexity During Delivery with the Inside View in Planning

Chapman¹,

Cuang²

2021

EPOJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on the origins of risk during the planning and delivery of major projects broadly addresses two root causes: (i) complexity at the planning phase and also during project delivery, and; (ii) ‘the inside view’ at the planning phase and the associated issues of strategic misrepresentation and cognitive biases such as optimism bias. This paper presents the results of a systematic review that finds a schism in the literature showing theoretical and empirical treatment of project delivery risk polarises into considering either the effect of complexity or the inside view; rarely are they considered jointly. This work discusses the implications for theory and practice and identifies Case Based Decision Theory and Bayesian modelling, both of which are outside view techniques, as having potential to reconcile complexity and the inside view and thus provide for their joint treatment.

show abstract

Toward a Systemic View to Cost Overrun Causation in Infrastructure Projects: A Review and Implications for Research

Cited by 56 publications

References 47 publications

A Conceptual Framework for Managing Design Changes in Building Construction

A Conceptual Framework for Managing Design Changes in Building Construction

Talking About Futureproofing: Real Options Reasoning in Complex Infrastructure Projects

Major Project Risk Management: Reconciling Complexity During Delivery with the Inside View in Planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About