Search results

During the planning and delivery, iron triangle criteria, are essential for internal stakeholders (e.g. owner, sponsors and delivery company), mostly ignoring external stakeholders such as local communities (often perceived as inconvenient) or end users. In the medium-long term, infrastructure cost and benefit are far more important for external stakeholders and the environment.

The iron triangle criteria, i.e. delivering on time, budget and quality/scope, is the traditional perspective to assess the success of infrastructure projects. Delivering on cost and time is significant, but particularly for infrastructure, there are more relevant success criteria. The authors argue which criteria are important, and explain why.

The authors challenge the traditional view of judging projects based on respecting time, budget and quality/scope. The authors explain that discussing the social value and contribution to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is extremely relevant. Crucially these metrics keep changing, even after the project is terminated.

The authors provide a new seven-step action plan for decision-makers to improve infrastructure provision by reflecting on SDGs and engaging with external stakeholders, particularly minorities and the weaker members of their communities. Such an action plan is focused on the cost and value for different stakeholders on different timeframes and progress toward social value and achieving SDGs.

Megaprojects provide an ideal context for exploring the dynamic characteristics of stakeholders within a collaborative innovation system. This research aims to examine the changes in stakeholder salience and functional roles during the evolution of such a system.

This study is empirically grounded on the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) megaproject in China, analyzed with the stakeholder salience, stakeholder functional role, stakeholder dynamics and collaborative innovation system theoretical lens.

The megaproject collaborative innovation system can be divided into four stages: the birth stage, development stage, mature stage and re-innovation stage. Stakeholder salience generally remains unchanged throughout the lifecycle of the collaborative innovation system, except for engineering consulting firms (ECF). ECF transitioned from a definitive stakeholder to an expectant stakeholder upon project completion. The number of definitive stakeholders during the first three stages increases gradually. Besides, stakeholder functional roles shift in eight different directions throughout the lifecycle of the megaproject collaborative innovation system because they possess different core resources necessary for implementing innovations and are positioned differently within the collaborative innovation system.

This study contributes to the theory and practice of collaborative innovation in megaprojects. First, it offers insights into the evolution of megaproject collaborative innovation systems from the perspective of stakeholder interactions. Second, it has significant implications for managing stakeholder relationships based on their salience and functional roles at different stages of the collaborative innovation system.

Megaprojects can play a crucial role in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and tackling Global Challenges. However, they are often criticized for their massive resource consumption, poor cost/time performance and significant social-environmental impacts, including irreversible environmental damage. This study aims to chart the evolution of research on megaprojects sustainability and to offer a roadmap for future developments.

This study adopted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify emerging themes and gaps. This study follows a three-step process of planning, conducting and reporting, based on the Tranfield approach. The overview of megaprojects sustainability research was captured through bibliometric analysis. In addition, content analysis was carried out to reveal the development of this field and get an insight into the future directions towards sustainability transition.

This study provides a longitudinal, in-depth analysis of megaprojects sustainability studies. Drawing on sustainability science and project management theories, we introduce a three-dimensional analytical framework consisting of sustainability, scope and stakeholder. This framework explains the evolution of megaprojects sustainability research from sustainability of megaprojects, to sustainability for megaprojects and then to sustainability by megaprojects. Three future avenues are proposed: (1) SDGs orientation at multi-level; (2) scope enlargement at temporal and spatial scales and (3) inclusive development for stakeholders.

This research contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive and forward-looking analysis of megaprojects sustainability research. The framework and three research agendas provide a comprehensive picture of megaproject sustainability research; the agenda for future research is intended to inspire more studies and disruptive actions towards sustainability transition.

The literature lacks a single and universally accepted definition of major and megaprojects: usually, these projects are described as projects with a budget above $1 billion and a high level of innovation, complexity, and uniqueness both in terms of physical infrastructure and stakeholder network. Moreover, they often provide fewer benefits than what were originally expected and are affected by delays and cost overruns. Despite this techno-economic magnitude, it is still extremely hard to gather lessons learned from these projects in a systematic way. The purpose of this paper is to present an innovative methodology based on benchmarking to investigate good and bad practices and learn from a portfolio of unique megaprojects.

The methodology combines quantitative and qualitative cross-comparison of case studies and statistical analysis into an iterative process.

Indeed, benchmarking offers significant potential to identify good and bad practices and improve the performance of project selection, planning, and delivery.

The methodology is exemplified in this paper using the case of Nuclear Decommissioning Projects and Programmes (NDPs).

Indeed, due to their characteristics, NDPs can be addressed as megaprojects, and are a relevant example for the application of the methodology presented here that collects and investigates the characteristics that mostly impact the performance of (mega)projects, through a continuous learning process.

Transport megaprojects often struggle to offer social value (SV) that meets local communities' needs. This problem is embedded in how local communities' views are captured and incorporated into SV plans through local community engagement (LCE). By problematising the literature, this article aims to identify LCE issues and their impacts on SV plans at the front-end of transport megaprojects.

The theoretical lens of the study is the practice theory developed by Schatzki (2016, 2005). The authors conceptualised LCE as a practice and conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with UK practitioners. The authors collected data in three steps from three types of practitioners involved in LCE practice and SV planning: project managers, LCE experts and SV experts.

The authors identified 18 LCE issues with thematic analysis and clustered them into five themes. These issues impact LCE with five mechanisms. Findings show that a weak link between LCE and SV plans due to the issues reduces LCE to a tick-box exercise and presents a distorted view of local communities. This reduces SV plans to the bare minimum for project approval instead of offering relevant SV to local communities. Addressing the issues goes beyond changing the approach of project teams to engagement (from instrumental to normative) and requires changing the practices.

For the first time, the study uses practice theory to conceptualise LCE as a practice, following the notion of project as practice. The study problematises the literature to address the under-represented link between LCE and SV plans.

Organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment (OCBEs) represent a crucial element of environmental sustainability for a wide range of organizations. However, the leadership mechanisms underlying OCBEs are as yet unexplored, particularly regarding the delivering megaprojects. The paper aims to investigate how transformational leadership (TFL) and transactional leadership (TSL) styles shape the environmental commitment (EC) of subordinates, motivating OCBEs in megaprojects.

Partial least squares modeling and hierarchical regression were performed on data obtained from 140 experts who have been involved in megaprojects.

Both TFL and TSL styles are effective in motivating OCBEs, although the EC of subordinates partially mediates these relationships. The power distance (PD) orientation significantly moderates the relationship between TFL and OCBEs, with the relationship being more positive when the PD of subordinates is lower. Unexpectedly, a collectivist orientation (CO) was found to elevate the effect of TSL but weaken the effect of TFL.

The mixed and contradictory findings regarding TFL and TSL styles are reconciled in the current study by integrating the contextual factors of PD and CO. The findings of the study shed new light on “playing the cards right” when using the leadership practices, i.e. how leadership can be better leveraged to cultivate subordinates' OCBEs. They also provide targeted guidance for shaping contextual factors to increase the environmental sustainability of megaprojects.

Megaprojects present an intricated pattern of leadership activities, which evolve over their planning and delivery and comprises several stakeholders. A framework is useful to navigate this complexity; it allows to identify and cluster the key elements. This paper aims to introduce a novel framework based on boundary spanners to describe the structural pattern of shared leadership in megaprojects.

A systematic literature review about boundary spanning and shared leadership is used to identify and cluster the key elements of shared leadership in megaprojects. The systematic literature review provides a rich theoretical background to develop the novel shared leadership framework based on boundary spanners.

There are three key dimensions characterizing shared leadership topology in megaprojects: stakeholders, boundary spanning leadership roles and project phases. The novel framework shows how project leadership dynamically transfers among different stakeholders, showing the importance of shared leadership as a leadership paradigm in megaprojects.

The novel framework epitomizes shared leadership in megaprojects by exploring its antecedents with social network metrics. This paper stresses that shared leadership is the envisaged form of leadership in megaprojects. By modeling complex project leadership in a simple, yet effective way, the framework fosters critical thinking for future research. The modeling introduced by this framework would also benefit practitioners in charge of megaprojects.

The paper moves the project leadership research to the network-level by taking boundary spanners as shared leadership roles in megaprojects. It shows how shared leadership is a valuable management tool for planning and delivery megaprojects.