Search results

A project contractor can promote the success of a delivery project by planning the project well and following a project management methodology (PMM). However, various changes typically take place, requiring changes to the project plan and actions that deviate from the firm’s established PMM. The purpose of this paper is to explore different types of changes and change management activities over the lifecycle of delivery projects.

A qualitative single case study design was used. In total, 17 semi-structured interviews were carried out during a delivery project in a medium-sized engineering company that delivers complex systems to industrial customers.

Both plan-related changes and deviations from the PMM were mapped throughout the project lifecycle. Various internal and external sources of change were identified. An illustrative example of the interconnectedness of the changes reveals the potential escalation of changes over the project lifecycle. Managers and project personnel engage in different change management activities and improvisation to create alternative paths, re-plan, catch up, and optimize project performance after changes.

The empirical study is limited to a single case study setting and a single industry. The findings draw attention to the interconnectedness and potential escalation effect of changes over the lifecycle of the project, and the need for integrated change management and improvisation actions.

Efficient change management and improvisation at the early phase of a delivery project can potentially mitigate negative change incidents in later project phases. Changes are not only the project manager’s concern; project personnel’s skilled change responses are also helpful. The findings emphasize the importance of the project customer as a source of changes in delivery projects, meaning that customer relationship management throughout the project lifecycle is needed for successful change management.

The study offers increased understanding of changes and change management throughout the project lifecycle. The results show evidence of plan-related and methodology-related changes and their interconnections, thereby proposing a lifecycle view of integrated change management and improvisation in projects.

Capabilities are a widely researched subject, but capability development techniques have received considerably less attention. Capability development is a long-term activity, where both how to choose “the right capabilities” and how to develop “the capabilities right” are important. The purpose of this paper is to approach to pick up the most widespread capabilities and development techniques in project-companies, and observes their shift of focus when moving from one lifecycle stage to another.

A long-scale survey was chosen and carried out in EU member state Estonia in 2011, resulting with close to a couple of 100 responses.

The quality of most business capabilities decreases in reaching the decline stage of the lifecycle, but project-related capabilities are improving. The same cannot be concluded for project-led capability development techniques, as they decline, and the quality of traditional and business-led capability techniques are improving. The use of development techniques changes less throughout lifecycle stages than capabilities do – it is not so important how companies develop capabilities, capabilities themselves matter.

Survey was performed in a small country which limits the generalizability to larger countries.

Capabilities and their development techniques are very much practice-oriented, especially development techniques. However, research indicates that it is more important to choose the right capabilities and worry less about their development-specific issues.

Results provide lifecycle-specific information which capabilities and their development techniques prevail at what stage of companies’ lifecycle. Thus far, learning, as the most important technique, has received the most attention, other techniques less – this research gives further information about a wider array of the techniques. Furthermore, the prior research was concentrated on a few specific capabilities or capabilities at an abstract level, this research focuses on a comprehensive set of capabilities.

Infrastructure projects are expected to deliver value to their stakeholders long after completion. Project value is multi-dimensional and subjective and evolves over the project lifecycle. How stakeholders frame the expected value is central to the public debate about proposed infrastructure projects and influences the financing decisions; however, this framing is inadequately understood. The purpose of this paper is to develop new knowledge for shaping infrastructure projects by identifying the ways in which stakeholders frame project value at the project front end.

Three transport infrastructure projects are compared in a qualitative, document-based study. The authors map the dimensions of value at the project front end and identify stakeholders’ approaches to lifecycle-oriented framing of value.

Financial, social and comparative values are dominant in the project front end. The authors frame value into positive and negative dimensions and identify four themes in the lifecycle-oriented framing of value, including uncertainties, timing of cost and benefit realization, project relations and external sponsorship.

The research is limited through the focus on transport infrastructure projects and project front end only, the selection of cases from a single country and the use of document-based data. The systematic analysis approach has yielded novel analytical frameworks that will be useful for further research.

This study identifies value dimensions that are specific to transport infrastructure projects and proposes a framework to assist stakeholders and project managers to better assess and negotiate value when designing their projects.

Regional and comparative values are revealed as novel aspects of value specific to infrastructure projects. The alternative lifecycle-oriented frames offer a new way to understand and structure the co-creation of value and shape negotiation for investment decisions in the project. A portfolio perspective to investment decision making is proposed.

Development and implementation of new process equipment within the process industries frequently necessitate strong collaboration between process firms and their equipment suppliers in joint process development projects. However, collaboration in this setting entails significant challenges over the lifecycle of these projects. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to explore the problems and opportunities faced by equipment suppliers during collaboration with process firms, throughout the various lifecycle stages of process development projects.

The article synthesizes results from 22 interviews in a multiple case study of eight equipment suppliers in the process industries and a comprehensive review of relevant literature to identify critical problems of opportunities during the lifecycle. In total, data were gathered from firms in six different countries.

A deficient pre‐study may create problems due to miscommunication during development when close interaction is required. Purchasing discussions can be done simultaneously to development when a supplier has been selected, although uncertainty is a problem. It is important to get end‐user feedback and commitment during development and later stages. During assembly and installation and start‐up, a variety of actors are working simultaneously which requires coordination and planning from an early stage. Close interaction and education with end‐user is critical for the technology transfer in the start‐up stage. Sharing of experiences enhances operational performance during production.

This study contributes by employing information rich case study data to describe the problem and opportunities faced over the full lifecycle in joint process development projects in the process industry. In particular, key issues over the lifecycle have been identified and described (e.g. purchasing, start‐up, education). Moreover, the adoption of a lifecycle perspective has indicated how activities, issues, and managerial challenges in specific stages are interconnected and affect the joint work in the following stages.

The findings of this article serves as guidelines to managers in equipment supplier firms and their customers by highlighting the problems and opportunities for improvement that occur during the interconnected stages of process development projects.

By focusing on the collaborative activities in different stages, this study higlights the critical problems and opportunities in the lifecycle of process equipment. In addition this article outlines how joint process development activities can facilitate enhanced operational performance, by means of collaborative design, installation and operation of new process equipment – i.e. “open operation”.

This research study aims to develop an alignment model based on a literature review that explains the association between the construction project lifecycle and the innovation process, while considering the integration of all stakeholders in the process in an open innovation context.

The authors conduct an extensive review of the open innovation and the construction project management literature to establish an alignment model through the investigation and analysis of the current scholarly contributions. This research study is based on a theoretical framework; thus, it has not utilized any primary data. Moreover, data collected for this research study was obtained from reliable literary sources.

The study presents an alignment model that has uncovered a strong correlation between project activities, stakeholder integration and innovation. The authors revealed critical factors that require an enhanced inter- and intra-collaboration between the various stakeholders and team members to achieve an effective innovation process in a project context.

This study provides a previously unexplored alignment between the project lifecycle and the innovation process. It signifies several critical factors that influence the effectiveness of innovations in a construction project context. Furthermore, it identifies different zones and knowledge transfer gates that necessitate proper leadership, stakeholder integration and team dynamics throughout the project lifecycle.

Industrialized construction (IC) leverages manufacturing principles and innovative processes to improve the performance of construction projects. Though IC is gaining popularity in the global construction industry, studies that establish the best practices for implementing IC projects are scarce. This study aims to benchmark practical lifecycle-based best practices for implementing IC projects.

The study used a qualitative research design where nine IC cases from Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong were analysed to identify best practices. The methodological framework of the study followed well-established case study research cycle and guidelines, including planning, data collection, data analysis and reflection on findings.

The study identified and allocated key considerations, relevant stakeholders, best practices, typical deliverables and best indicators to the different construction lifecycle phases of IC projects. It also developed a lifecycle-based framework of the best practices for IC projects.

The study provides practitioners with practical insight into how best to effectively implement, manage and evaluate the performance of the IC project lifecycle phases. The proposed framework can serve as a practical diagnostic tool that enables project partners to evaluate the performance upfront progressively and objectively in each project lifecycle phase, which may inform timely corrective actions.

The study’s novelty lies in developing a framework that identifies and demonstrates the dynamic linkages among different sets of best practices, typical outputs and best practice indicators across the IC project lifecycle phases.

This paper has two objectives. The first objective is to examine the important performance indicators of the lifecycle process of public private partnership (PPP) projects. The second objective is to investigate the difference in the perception of the importance of the performance indicators between the public and private sectors.

To achieve the research objectives, the study used a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was distributed via postal mail to officers of government departments and private sector companies who may have been involved in PPP projects. A total of 237 completed questionnaires were received, representing a 51.52% response rate. To examine the importance of performance indicators, the descriptive statistical tests of mean, standard deviation and mean score ranking were used. Independent t-tests were conducted to investigate the differences in the perceptions of the importance of performance indicators between the two respondent groups.

The findings show that all the 16 performance indicators are perceived as important and very important. The top five important performance indicators for a PPP project lifecycle process are “Time management”, “Contractual management”, “Cost management”, “Safety management” and “Effective risk management system”, while “stress or conflicts management” is the least important. In terms of the differences in the perception of the public and private sector groups, the results indicate that four indicators (“environment protection”, “cost management”, “effective risk management system” and “good work environment”), show a significant statistical difference between the perception of the public and the private sector respondents.

This study offers empirical evidence on key performance indicators for a PPP project that are crucial throughout its lifecycle as perceived by two key parties in a PPP contract, i.e. the public and the private sectors.

This paper aims to present a state-of-the-art review of building information modelling (BIM) in the UK construction practice. In particular, the aim is to examine the scope, value and practical implications of BIM implementation in residential projects by evaluating practitioners’ perspectives working in the Greater London Area (GLA).

The paper outlines the general status quo of BIM adoption and maturity in the UK. It then discusses the feasibility of BIM use in residential projects drawing on an online survey and complementary semi-structured interviews with building professionals. The cross-comparison between the evidence base and literature review uncovers the specific benefits, challenges and risks to BIM implementation in the house building sector.

BIM is an evaluation methodology that helps the management of digital information throughout the project lifecycle. At a conceptual level, a BIM-enabled project offers quality assurance and on-time delivery, collaboration and communication improvement, visual representation and clash detection and whole lifecycle value. The findings, however, suggest that the most frequently reported benefits are related to collaboration and the blend of product (software) and process innovation, whilst lifecycle thinking and waste reduction are often overlooked. At present, there is widespread awareness on BIM but with a financial barrier to invest in developing digital capabilities, particularly for small- and medium-sized enterprises.

The paper concludes with a critical commentary on the lack of strategic leadership in both the supply and demand side. The role of policy to streamline commercial drivers for whole lifecycle costing in procurement is endorsed to drive the change management required to address the short-term mind-set of senior management and wider fragmentation of the construction industry, also serving as a research question for further research and development in the field.

There are relatively few studies evaluating BIM perspectives in UK residential projects. This paper explores the feasibility and “real-life” value of BIM in housing practice, drawing on views and experiences of building professionals in GLA. In particular, the research findings provide an evidence base evaluating the extent to which the house building industry has the expertise and capability to operate in a BIM environment and to comply with the Level 2 mandate and explore which of the generic barriers and drivers of BIM-readiness are more relevant to the design and construction of housing projects.

This research presents a review and assessment of the factors affecting the implementation of remodeling projects, during their lifecycle.

A mixed design approach comprising of qualitative and quantitative methods was utilized. The research commenced with a literature review to identify the factors affecting remodeling projects over their lifecycle phases, namely re-programing, design, construction, and operation and maintenance. A survey was administered, to solicit experts' evaluation of importance, on a sample of 90 professionals, including 30 architects, 30 contractors and 30 real estate developers, to obtain a diversified assessment of the factors. Based on the values of their relative importance indices, a set of 27 factors were ranked and correlated, among all areas, to expose the differentiation of their views.

The research has empirically determined that data availability of the remodeling project, contractor competency for carrying out the remodeling project, and safety during the disassembly and demolition (D&D) activities are the most important lifecycle factors leading to a successful delivery of the remodeling projects. These factors provide a practical guide for professionals endeavoring on delivering a successful and effective remodeling of built facilities.

This research explores professional practice in comparison to the literature and the legislative discourses, to ensure an effective delivery of remodeling projects over their lifecycle. This research provides practitioners, and regulators with a lacked area of research, while introducing a thorough investigation upon the factors affecting remodeling projects, their importance and ranking, from a project's lifecycle perception.

This study aims to explore how to identify and manage opportunities successfully in a large multi-organizational infrastructure project. Large projects struggle with exploiting and capturing opportunities because of the lack of practices that support active and continuous opportunity management over the project lifecycle in inter-organizational project networks.

This study provides empirical evidence of a successful opportunity management process based on an investigation of an infrastructure alliance project. The adopted research approach is an inductive case study.

By analyzing an infrastructure alliance project, this paper identifies key activities of opportunity management and furthermore, discusses the enablers of active and continuous opportunity management.

This study supports practitioners by providing knowledge about the possibilities and activities that could be deployed during the project lifecycle to improve opportunity management process and about the enablers – factors that facilitate alliance partners’ capabilities to manage opportunities.

There is limited empirical research on the practices of opportunity management that support continuous, active opportunity management in inter-organizational project contexts, although multidisciplinary project networks have possibilities for taking advantage of opportunities that emerge over the project lifecycle.