Search results

Exploitation of project opportunities may bring more benefits than stipulated in the initial business case, and even stakeholder benefits that nobody thought of at the project initiation. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a new research area for megaprojects, i.e. the phenomenon of project opportunity exploitation as a means to increase the project benefits.

This is a single case study of an infrastructure megaproject, i.e. the construction and operation of a 50+ years old American bridge. Data cover information regarding 60+ years old historical documents, newspaper articles, interviews and video-recordings.

The findings of this paper are as follows: exploiting all opportunities created by the project and increasing project benefits require involvement from many categories of stakeholders; stakeholders get more involved in exploiting the opportunities created by the project when they are proud of the project; for some of the project-related opportunities, it might take a long time before they can be exploited (and related benefits achieved); and celebrating achievements of the project stimulate stakeholders to exploit opportunities created by the project and contribute to further project benefits.

Only few interviews were conducted. Interviewees were biased as all were very proud of the bridge. This is a single case study of a “rare species”, not representing most megaprojects.

To enhance project opportunity exploitation and increased benefits, the project owner (team) must continuously communicate about the project, also after project execution.

This study contributes to a gap within the literature on the phenomenon “project opportunity exploitation”. This is a very rich case study and of a “rare species”.

The purpose of this paper is to present the findings from a research project in Norway on the role of the project owner. The research was carried out in order to gain a better understanding of how project owners are handling their tasks, to identify areas for improvement and focus on challenges facing those being in this position. The research also studied which factors involving project owners could significantly improve project success.

Empirical studies of the current situation were carried out, aiming at getting a picture of common and best practice. Data on the current situation of project owners were first collected through a survey, giving representative results of all projects. Second, the project carried out in‐depth interviews with very experienced project owners and project managers. The second part of the research was based on the results from the current situation. It studied if changing negative aspects of project owner behaviour could improve project performance. A questionnaire survey was conducted.

The research was based on a certain perspective on the role of the project owner. It focused on the relationships between the base organization and the project and argued that the project owner should take an active role as they are responsible for establishing the project and securing the deliveries of the project to actually create vital changes to the receiving organization. The first survey showed that common practice was not living up to the author's perspective. Interviews with the most professional people showed that they were doing better than the average. The final survey showed that project success could be enhanced when the project owner takes an active part in the socialization activities of the project, directed by implemented project management work guidelines. Project success may also be strengthened by a project management governance structure consisting of close cooperation between project owner and project manager throughout all phases of project work.

The research should be followed up with similar studies in other countries.

There is a need to educate and train project owners to make them more aware of their roles and responsibilities.

The paper demonstrates the importance of focusing on the project owner. It shows that a more comprehensive understanding of the roles of the project owner would contribute to project success.

The purpose of this paper is to present the X model, which is an inputs – processes – outputs (IPO) model well suited to describing and assessing individual projects. It argues and illustrates that this kind of model is appropriate for project control. It shows that X models can be used on the macro level by presenting the typical Norwegian project of 2008 based on several X models.

The theoretical justifications (systems and socio‐technical theories) for IPO models, and the X model in particular, are presented. Empirical data in the form of X models from 54 Norwegian projects are used to illustrate the application of X models.

The findings are on two levels. For the single project, the paper demonstrates that the X model provides an insight into the situation of a project and causal relationships usually not available with other forms of project control. On the macro level based on the sample of X models, the paper presents the situation for the typical Norwegian project of 2008, which appears to be sufficiently robust to adopt. It shows that further improvements in project management and leadership, good information and feedback to the team members, and good cooperation with the base organisation will give even better results.

Further studies are needed to verify the usefulness of X models.

This paper provides practitioners with an insight into how an IPO model like the X model can be applied to project management. The technique is particularly useful for project owners, and even for project managers, in their control of a project.

The paper presents new ways of looking at project control and describing and assessing both a single project and a community of projects.

Does the organizational culture of the base organization affect the way its projects are carried out? The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between one aspect of organizational culture, namely the formal rationality of the base organization and how projects are approached. The concept of McDonaldization is used to describe formal rationality; it covers four aspects: efficiency, predictability, calculability and control. Two types of approaches (here called project perspectives) to project management are studied: the task perspective (focus on a clearly defined endeavour from the start of the project) and the organizational perspective (focus on supporting the base organization in its change efforts). The relationship between formal rationality of the base organization and choice of project perspective is revealed.

Empirical study based on a survey of 164 managers.

The paper shows that the degree of formal organizational rationality affects choice of project perspective: the more rational the base organization, the more dominant the task perspective. The size of the project is of significance, telling us that, in general, larger projects are less task‐ oriented than smaller and medium‐ sized, everything else being equal.

Further studies may be of interest to reveal the relationship between organizational culture of the base organization and project management. Better operationalizations of the constructs of rationality and project perspective are presented, which opens up for further studies on the relationship between rationality and project management.

It is important for managers to know that the way the project work is approached is affected by the organizational rationality of the base organization.

The paper shows the importance of the organizational culture of the base organization, especially the degree of formal rationality, for how project work is done. It presents new operationalizations of formal rationality and project perspective to make way for further studies on the relationship between organizational rationality and project management.

The purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between project success factors and actual project success. It reports on an investigation into those factors within the direct influence of project managers that can make a real difference to the outcome of project endeavours.

Using principal components analysis (PCA) on 60 questions about actual project work performance collected from four culturally different regions (UK, France, Norway and China), nine distinctively different critical success factors were found. Similarly, using PCA on ten project success items, three distinctively different project success criteria were extracted.

The most important factors in improving managerial ability to deliver results in time and at cost were strong project commitment, early stakeholder influence, stakeholder endorsement of project plans and rich project communications. To secure project impact, strong project commitment and rich project communications were the main contributors. A well‐structured and formal project approach and well understood and accepted project purpose, implying high quality management, also scored high. Captured experience was best supported by a well‐structured and formal project approach and rich project communications.

As the project approach increases as a means for implementing strategic goals, project managers should devote increasing energies into rich communication both within the project and towards the project environment.

The study is cross‐cultural. It shows that successful project management, regardless of cultural differences, still depends on “hard features” such as professional planning and cost control, but that “soft skills” such as rich communication and learning from experience are prerequisites for project management to achieve superior project success.