Monitoring the Performance of Complex Projects from Multiple Perspectives over Multiple Time Frames

When complex projects go wrong they can go horribly wrong with severe financial consequences. We are undertaking research to develop leading performance indicators for complex projects, metrics to provide early warning of potential difficulties. The assessment of success of complex projects can be made by a range of stakeholders over different time scales, against different levels of project results: the project’s outputs at the end of the project; the project’s outcomes in the months following project completion; and the project’s impact in the years following completion. We aim to identify leading performance indicators, which may include both success criteria and success factors, and which can be measured by the project team during project delivery to forecast success as assessed by key stakeholders in the days, months and years following the project. The hope is the leading performance indicators will act as alarm bells to show if a project is diverting from plan so early corrective action can be taken. It may be that different combinations of the leading performance indicators will be appropriate depending on the nature of project complexity. In this paper we develop a new model of project success, whereby success is assessed by different stakeholders over different time frames against different levels of project results. We then relate this to measurements that can be taken during project delivery. A methodology is described to evaluate the early parts of this model. Its implications and limitations are described. This paper describes work in progress.

An evaluation framework for educational reform projects for teacher quality improvements in developing countries : a case study of Egyptian education reform

The role of the evaluation for Official Development Assistance (ODA) enterprises including educational development has become critical after increasing “aid fatigue” experienced by the international community in the 1990s. To date, however, monitoring and evaluating outcomes of the projects has been limited to the project life. Consequently these have been mainly through the international aid agencies. Furthermore, the monitoring and evaluation led by international aid agencies have paid little attention to aspects of the sustainability of technical cooperation in educational development. To sustain the impact of technical cooperation, the reinforcement of evaluation has drawn increasing attention in light of the emerging modalities in international development. Therefore this research was inspired to investigate alternative evaluation frameworks for an educational reform project for teacher quality improvement that may increase possibilities for long term sustainability. Importantly, the new modalities in international development and educational issues provide new options. In addition, the research reviewed theoretical and practical issues surrounding evaluation in general, and highlighted the evaluation of education reform projects. The research reported explored via case studies, the evaluation processes employed by the Egyptian education reform projects implemented by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The case studies used three data sources (archival and relevant documents, a survey questionnaire and interviews) to illuminate the contextually-embedded evaluation processes. The research found that process evaluation is a potential alternative method since it is likely to be locally institutionalised, which may yield long-term sustainability of the projects.

An evaluation of viability of public private partnerships in social infrastructure procurement projects in Queensland, Australia

Public private partnerships (PPP) have been widely used as a method for public infrastructure project delivery not only locally and internationally, however the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure procurement has still been very limited. The objective of this paper is to investigate the potential of implementation of current PPP framework in social affordable housing projects in South East Queensland. Data were collected from 22 interviewees with rich experiences in the industry. The findings of this study show that affordable housing investment have been considered by the industry practitioners as a risky business in comparison to other private rental housing investment. The main determents of the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure project are the tenant-related factors, such as the inability of paying rent and the inability of caring the property. The study also suggests the importance of seeking strategic partnership with community-based organisation that has experiences in managing similar tenants’ profiles. Current PPP guideline is also viewed as inappropriate for the affordable housing projects, but the principle of VFM framework and risk allocation in PPPs still be applied to the affordable housing projects. This study helps to understand the viability of PPP in social housing procurement projects, and point out the importance of developing guideline for multi-stakeholder partnership and the expansion of the current VFM and PPPs guidelines.

Practice briefing : Is BOT the best financing model to procure infrastructure projects? A case study of the Hong Kong-Shuhai-Macau Bridge

Abstract: Purpose – Several major infrastructure projects in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) have been delivered by the build-operate-transfer (BOT) model since the 1960s. Although the benefits of using BOT have been reported abundantly in the contemporary literature, some BOT projects were less successful than the others. This paper aims to find out why this is so and to explore whether BOT is the best financing model to procure major infrastructure projects. Design/methodology/approach – The benefits of BOT will first be reviewed. Some completed BOT projects in Hong Kong will be examined to ascertain how far the perceived benefits of BOT have been materialized in these projects. A highly profiled project, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, which has long been promoted by the governments of the People's Republic of China, Macau Special Administrative Region and the HKSAR that BOT is the preferred financing model, but suddenly reverted back to the traditional financing model to be funded primarily by the three governments with public money instead, will be studied to explore the true value of the BOT financial model. Findings – Six main reasons for this radical change are derived from the analysis: shorter take-off time for the project; difference in legal systems causing difficulties in drafting BOT agreements; more government control on tolls; private sector uninterested due to unattractive economic package; avoid allegation of collusion between business and the governments; and a comfortable financial reserve possessed by the host governments. Originality/value – The findings from this paper are believed to provide a better understanding to the real benefits of BOT and the governments' main decision criteria in delivering major infrastructure projects.

Value-mapping for major economic infrastructure projects

The establishment of corporate objectives regarding economic, environmental, social, and ethical responsibilities, to inform business practice, has been gaining credibility in the business sector since the early 1990’s. This is witnessed through (i) the formation of international forums for sustainable and accountable development, (ii) the emergence of standards, systems, and frameworks to provide common ground for regulatory and corporate dialogue, and (iii) the significant quantum of relevant popular and academic literature in a diverse range of disciplines. How then has this move towards greater corporate responsibility become evident in the provision of major urban infrastructure projects? The gap identified, in both academic literature and industry practice, is a structured and auditable link between corporate intent and project outcomes. Limited literature has been discovered which makes a link between corporate responsibility; project performance indicators (or critical success factors) and major infrastructure provision. This search revealed that a comprehensive mapping framework, from an organisation’s corporate objectives through to intended, anticipated and actual outcomes and impacts has not yet been developed for the delivery of such projects. The research problem thus explored is ‘the need to better identify, map and account for the outcomes, impacts and risks associated with economic, environmental, social and ethical outcomes and impacts which arise from major economic infrastructure projects, both now, and into the future’. The methodology being used to undertake this research is based on Checkland’s soft system methodology, engaging in action research on three collaborative case studies. A key outcome of this research is a value-mapping framework applicable to Australian public sector agencies. This is a decision-making methodology which will enable project teams responsible for delivering major projects, to better identify and align project objectives and impacts with stated corporate objectives.

Developing an integrated decision model for the enhancement of sustainability deliverables for Australian road infrastructure projects

Road and highway infrastructure provides the backbone for a nation's economic growth. The versatile dispersion of population in Australia, from sparsely settled communities in remote areas to regenerated inner city suburbs with high density living in metropolitans, calls for continuing development and improvement on roads infrastructure under the current federal government policies and state governments' strategic plans. As road infrastructure projects involve large resources and mechanism, achieving sustainability not only in economic scales but also through environmental and social responsibility becomes a crucial issue. Current efforts are often impeded by different interpretation on sustainability agenda by stakeholders involved in these types of projects. As a result, sustainability deliverables at the project level is not often as transparent and measurable, compared to promises in project briefs and designs. This paper reviews the past studies on sustainable infrastructure construction, focusing on roads and highway projects. Through literature study and consultation with the industry, key sustainability indicators specific to road infrastructure projects have been identified. Based on these findings, this paper introduces an on-going research project aimed at identifying and integrating the different perceptions and priority needs of the stakeholders, and issues that impact on the gap between sustainability foci and its actual realization at project end level. The exploration helps generate an integrated decision-making model for sustainable road infrastructure projects. The research will promote to the industry more systematic and integrated approaches to decision-making on the implementation of sustainability strategies to achieve deliverable goals throughout the development and delivery process of road infrastructure projects in Australia.

Why new business development projects fail : coping with the differences of technological versus market knowledge

Managing through projects has become important for generating new knowledge to cope with technological and market discontinuities. This paper examines how the fit between the creation of technological and market knowledge and important project management characteristics, i.e. project autonomy and completion criteria, influences the success of new business development (NBD) projects. In-depth longitudinal case research on NBD projects commercialised from 1993 to 2003 in the consumer electronics industry highlights that project management characteristics focusing only on the creation of technological knowledge contributed to the failure of those NBD projects that required new market knowledge as well. The findings indicate that senior management support and engaging in an alliance with partners possessing complementary market knowledge can offset this misalignment of the organisation of NBD projects.

Extending life-cycle costing (LCC) analysis for sustainability considerations in road infrastructure projects

Sustainable development is about making societal investments. These investments should be in synchronization with the natural environment, trends of social development, as well as organisational and local economies over a long time span. Traditionally in the eyes of clients, project development will need to produce the required profit margins, with some degrees of consideration for other impacts. This is being changed as all citizens of our society are becoming more aware of concepts and challenges such as the climate change, greenhouse footprints, and social dimensions of sustainability, and will in turn demand answers to these issues in built facilities. A large number of R&D projects have focused on the technical advancement and environmental assessment of products and built facilities. It is equally important address the cost/benefit issue, as developers in the world would not want to loose money by investing in built assets. For infrastructure projects, due to its significant cost of development and lengthy delivery time, presenting the full money story of going green is of vital importance. Traditional views of life-cycle costing tend to focus on the pure economics of a construction project. Sustainability concepts are not broadly integrated with the current LCCA in the construction sector. To rectify this problem, this paper reports on the progress to date of developing and extending contemporary LCCA models in the evaluation of road infrastructure sustainability. The suggested new model development is based on sustainability indicators identified through previous research, and incorporating industry verified cost elements of sustainability measures. The on-going project aims to design and a working model for sustainability life-cycle costing analysis for this type of infrastructure projects.

Framework and processes for enhancing sustainability deliverables in Australian road infrastructure projects

Road and highway infrastructure provides the backbone for a nation’s economic growth. The versatile dispersion of population in Australia and its resource boom, coupled with improved living standards and growing societal expectations, calls for continuing development and improvement of road infrastructure under the current local, state and federal governments’ policies and strategic plans. As road infrastructure projects involve huge resources and mechanisms, achieving sustainability not only on economic scales but also through environmental and social responsibility becomes a crucial issue. While sustainability is a logical link to infrastructure development, literature study and consultation with the industry found that there is a lack of common understanding on what constitutes sustainability in the infrastructure context. Its priorities are often interpreted differently among multiple stakeholders. For road infrastructure projects which typically span over long periods of time, achieving tangible sustainability outcomes during the lifecycle of development remains a formidable task. Sustainable development initiatives often remain ideological as in macro-level policies and broad-based concepts. There were little elaboration and exemplar cases on how these policies and concepts can be translated into practical decision-making during project implementation. In contrast, there seemed to be over commitment on research and development of sustainability assessment methods and tools. Between the two positions, there is a perception-reality gap and mismatch, specifically on how to enhance sustainability deliverables during infrastructure project delivery. Review on past research in this industry sector also found that little has been done to promote sustainable road infrastructure development; this has wide and varied potential impacts. This research identified the common perceptions and expectations by different stakeholders towards achieving sustainability in road and highway infrastructure projects. Face to face interviews on selected representatives of these stakeholders were carried out in order to select and categorize, confirm and prioritize a list of sustainability performance targets identified through literature and past research. A Delphi study was conducted with the assistance of a panel of senior industry professionals and academic experts, which further considered the interrelationship and influence of the sustainability indicators, and identified critical sustainability indicators under ten critical sustainability criteria (e.g. Environmental, Health & Safety, Resource Utilization & Management, Social & Cultural, Economic, Public Governance & Community Engagement, Relations Management, Engineering, Institutional and Project Management). This presented critical sustainability issues that needed to be addressed at the project level. Accordingly, exemplar highway development projects were used as case studies to elicit solutions for the critical issues. Through the identification and integration of different perceptions and priority needs of the stakeholders, as well as key sustainability indicators and solutions for critical issues, a set of decision-making guidelines was developed to promote and drive consistent sustainability deliverables in road infrastructure projects.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

Responding to sustainability challenge and cost implications in highway construction projects

Highway construction often requires a significant capital input; therefore it often causes serious financial implications for developers, owners and operators. The recent industry-wide focus on sustainability has added a new dimension to the evaluation of highway projects, particularly on the economical scale of ‘going green’. Comprehensive analysis of the whole-of-life highway development that responds to sustainability challenges is one of the primary concerns for stakeholders. Principles of engineering economics and life cycle costing have been used to determine the incremental capacity investments for highway projects. However, the consideration of costs and issues associated with sustainability is still very limited in current studies on highway projects. Previous studies have identified that highway project investments are primarily concerned with direct market costs that can be quantified through life cycle costing analysis (LCCA). But they tend to ignore costs that are difficult to calculate, as those related to environmental and social elements. On a more positive note, these studies proved that the inclusion of such costs is an essential part of the overall development investment and a primary concern for decision making by the stakeholders. This paper discusses a research attempt to identify and categorise sustainability cost elements for highway projects. Through questionnaire survey, a set of sustainability cost elements on highway projects has been proposed. These cost elements are incorporated into the extension of some of the existing Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA) models in order to produce a holistic financial picture of the highway project. It is expected that a new LCCA model will be established to serve as a suitable tool for decision making for highway project stakeholders.