Asbjørn Rolstadås and Per Morten Schiefloe
The purpose of this paper is to enhance the understanding of what project complexity is, what drivers and factors that influence complexity and how consequences for organizational…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to enhance the understanding of what project complexity is, what drivers and factors that influence complexity and how consequences for organizational performance can be assessed.
Design/methodology/approach
The research is explanatory and based on literature review, model development, interviews and case studies. The model is validated through a case study.
Findings
The findings are a model for identifying and analyzing complexity drivers and complexity factors. The model starts with generic complexity drivers such as ambiguity, uncertainty, unpredictability and pace. These drivers are in each project influenced by nature and by socio-political, economic and technological surroundings to result in complexity factors that are specific to the project analyzed. The model can be used to analyze project complexity and to define requirements for the organization of the project and guidelines for the execution.
Research limitations/implications
The research is limited to large projects with a technical delivery of some kind of facilities.
Practical implications
The model can be used to assess the required capability of the organization for successful project execution.
Originality/value
The contribution of the research is a new model for understanding project complexity. The distinction between project complexity drivers and factors is essential as well as the taxonomy for the factors building on and adding to already published research.
Details
Keywords
Sjur Børve, Asbjørn Rolstadås, Bjorn Andersen and Wenche Aarseth
Due to observed problems in real-life projects stemming from the lack of a unified definition, the purpose of this paper is to formulate a new definition of project partnering…
Abstract
Purpose
Due to observed problems in real-life projects stemming from the lack of a unified definition, the purpose of this paper is to formulate a new definition of project partnering (PP) through documenting the specific characteristics researchers attribute to this approach.
Design/methodology/approach
PP definition phrases extracted from a literature review were sorted into a basic framework of who, what, how, when and where. In a web-based survey, a group of experts marked the phrases from the literature review as being specific, generic, or irrelevant to PP. The expert group comprised highly ranked and experienced PP researchers. Based on the survey results, a new definition was formulated. The new definition specifies the participants, the objectives and the knowledge, skills, tools and techniques applied to pursue the objectives in PP. A verification survey of the expert group gave a 78-96 per cent combined approve and support score for each element of the new definition.
Findings
PP and a partnering project are defined by a framework encompassing three basic dimensions: participants, objectives, knowledge, skills, tools and techniques applied to pursue the objectives. The new definition is: “project partnering is a relationship strategy whereby a project owner integrates contractors and other major contributors into the project”. Through commitment to mutual project objectives, collaborative problem solving and a joint governance structure, partners pursue collaborative relationships, trust and improved performance. The new definition indicates that PP neither varies with early contractor involvement nor gain and pain share, but varies with the degree of mutual project objectives, collaborative problem solving and joint governance structure.
Originality/value
PP is a complex concept with no widely accepted definition. The basic framework applied to the formulation of the definition in this project can also be applied to define and implement a partnering project and to define and distinguish between other relationship-based procurement forms.
Details
Keywords
The future trends with respect to globalisation, customer orientation, process orientation, and high productivity have led to increased focus on productivity and enterprise…
Abstract
The future trends with respect to globalisation, customer orientation, process orientation, and high productivity have led to increased focus on productivity and enterprise competitiveness. In order to improve competitiveness, it is necessary to measure performance. The classical approach to this is to apply the Sink and Tuttle model describing seven performance criteria. A more modern approach has been advised by the TOPP program. TOPP measures performance along three dimensions: efficiency, effectiveness and adaptability. TOPP uses questionnaires to collect data. Another approach is applied in the EU ENAPS project where the goal is to build a European benchmarking database. ENAPS provides a set of tools to a number of agents actually doing the benchmarks. Performance measurement requires an enterprise model. The EU FOF project developed such a model. This was further developed by TOPP and then further refined in ENAPS.
Details
Keywords
Asbjørn Rolstadås, Iris Tommelein, Per Morten Schiefloe and Glenn Ballard
The purpose of this paper is to show that project success is dependent on the project management approach selected, relative to the challenges posed by the project, and to develop…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to show that project success is dependent on the project management approach selected, relative to the challenges posed by the project, and to develop an analytical model for analyzing the performance of the project organization.
Design/methodology/approach
The research is based on literature review, model development, interviews, and case studies.
Findings
The findings define two different approaches in project management: The prescriptive approach focusses on the formal qualities of the project organization, including governing documentation and procedures. The adaptive approach focusses on the process of developing and improving a project organization, project culture and team commitment. The two approaches have been identified through studies of three different case projects. An analytical model, referred to as the Pentagon model, has been applied for analyzing the performance of the project organization and explaining the project management approach. The model focusses on five different organizational aspects: structure, technologies, culture, social relations and networks, and interaction.
Research limitations/implications
The research is limited to megaprojects and to project management success.
Practical implications
It is suggested that project teams consider and select their project management approach at project initiation, and accordingly decide on relevant success factors to focus on. The adapted Pentagon model can be applied to develop the project management organization and assess its performance in the course of project delivery.
Originality/value
The contribution of the research is the application of the analytical model, and the identification as well as illustration of the prescriptive, vs adaptive management approach.
Details
Keywords
Wenche Aarseth, Asbjørn Rolstadås and Bjorn Andersen
The purpose of this paper is to complement the research that has been done in global projects so far and has two objectives: to study organizational challenges in global projects…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to complement the research that has been done in global projects so far and has two objectives: to study organizational challenges in global projects, compared with those of traditional projects; and to define and analyze the main organizational challenges the project team members and project managers meet when assigned to global projects.
Design/methodology/approach
The research is based on a survey sent to 550 project managers and people working in a global environment, data from 246 respondents, and 30 interviews with senior project team members.
Findings
The results show that the main organizational challenges are managing the external stakeholders in the global project; the local government in the country, local content demand, local authorities, local industry, and lack of support from the base organization and management. One of the conclusions is that companies need a relationship management approach to managing these challenges in global projects.
Originality/value
Organizational challenges are an underestimated area in projects and when it comes to an in-depth understanding of organizational challenges in global projects only a very few studies have been published compared with other project management issues. This article contributes to existing research by presenting the organizational challenges in global projects and how they differ from traditional projects.
Details
Keywords
Rouzbeh Shabani, Tobias Onshuus Malvik, Agnar Johansen and Olav Torp
Uncertainty management (UM) in projects has been a point of attention for researchers for many years. Research on UM has mainly been aimed at uncertainty analyses in the front-end…
Abstract
Purpose
Uncertainty management (UM) in projects has been a point of attention for researchers for many years. Research on UM has mainly been aimed at uncertainty analyses in the front-end and managing uncertainty in the construction phase. In contrast, UM components in the design phase have received less attention. This research aims to improve knowledge about the key components of UM in the design phase of large road projects.
Design/methodology/approach
This study adopted a literature review and case study. The literature review was used to identify relevant criteria for UM. These criteria helped to design the interview guide. Multiple case study research was conducted, and data were collected through document study and interviews with project stakeholders in two road projects. Each case's owners, contractors and consultants were interviewed individually.
Findings
The data analysis obtained helpful information on the involved parties, process and exploit tools and techniques during the design phase. Johansen's (2015) framework [(a) human and organisation, (b) process and (c) tools and techniques)] was completed and developed by identifying relevant criteria (such as risk averse or risk-taker, culture and documentation level) for each component. These criteria help to measure UM performance. The authors found that owners and contractors are major formal UM actors, not consultants. Empirical data showed the effectiveness of Web-based tools in UM.
Research limitations/implications
The studied cases were Norwegian, and this study focussed on uncertainties in the project's design phase. Relevant criteria did not cover all the criteria for evaluating the performance of UM. Qualitative evaluation of criteria allows further quantitative analysis in the future.
Practical implications
This paper gave project owners and managers a better understanding of relevant criteria for measuring UM in the owners and managers' projects. The paper provides policy-makers with a deeper understanding of creating rigorous project criteria for UM during the design phase. This paper also provides a guideline for UM in road projects.
Originality/value
This research gives a holistic evaluation of UM by noticing relevant criteria and criteria's interconnection in the design phase.