Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the interdependencies between temporary and permanent aspects of project organizing and how they affect the management of public infrastructure operation and maintenance (O&M) activities.

The paper applies a case study approach and uses Lundin and Söderholm's (1995) framework of the temporary organization (with the themes of time, task, team and transition) to distinguish between temporary and permanent aspects of organizing two infrastructure O&M projects.

This paper adds to the literature on temporary organizations by recognizing a mixture of temporary and permanent aspects of project organizing in an empirical project-level example. In line with previous research, the themes of time, task, team and transition were shown to be interdependent. Furthermore, the paper broadens the theory of temporary organizations by presenting a project organization with significant permanent aspects.

Project managers of public sector projects need to be aware of the possible mixture of temporary and permanent aspects of project organizing. Management of projects that are found to have a mixture of temporary and permanent aspects should combine the perspectives and management practices of both temporary and permanent organizing. Not acknowledging permanent aspects could lead to management that is not adapted to the prerequisites of project organizing in this context.

The findings further develop the literature on temporary organizations by recognizing that there is not only a mixture of temporary and permanent aspects between the temporary organization and its permanent environment but there is also a mixture of temporary and permanent aspects of organizing within project organizations.

Risks are considered a significant obstacle to Green Building (GB) development and have recently received significant attention from both construction practitioners and academics. This study aimed to identify critical GB risks and explore the relationship between participants' characteristics and risk assessment.

Firstly, a list of GB risks was developed based on a comprehensive literature review and interviewing GB experts. After that, a survey of 207 construction professionals was then conducted to validate these GB risk factors. Finally, this research adopted the ANOVA test and hierarchical regression analysis to examine the relationship between participants' characteristics and risk assessment.

The results provided a list of GB risks classified and evaluated according to the GB project life cycle and, thus, may serve as a helpful reference for GB practitioners. Notably, the ANOVA analysis revealed that risk assessment negatively correlates with participants' GB experience, while their industry experience does not affect risk assessment. Furthermore, the hierarchical regression analysis proved that participant roles do not moderate the association between risk assessment and GB experience.

This study contributed to GB literature by implementing empirical research on GB risks in a developing country. The results implied the essential role of professionals with rich GB experience in risk management in GB projects. Furthermore, this research could help construction practitioners understand GB risks adequately and thereby have better risk-management strategies for future GB projects.