Ashkanani, S and Franzoi, R (2023) Gaps in megaproject management system literature: A systematic overview. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(3), pp. 1300-1318. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to present a structured and comprehensive review of relevant works, collected through a systematic methodology and clustered into nine meaningful categories on megaproject management systems and the current requirements for improved industrial megaprojects. Design/methodology/approach: The methodology employed in this paper retrieves relevant works from available online citation indexes that are published in peer-reviewed journals and other reliable sources from 2000 to 2021. Findings: It has been observed that the literature on megaproject management is still premature and requires further research to understand better the main gaps and effects of large-scale and typically complex megaprojects. Significant improvements are needed towards covering gaps to address the project management system holistically over the entire project life cycle. There are no clear guidelines for achieving a complete and conclusive project management system and enhancing future megaprojects' management capabilities. Originality/value: This paper provides a clear picture of the existing literature on megaproject management systems, contributing insights for successful megaproject projects. Additionally, the holistic analysis identifies gaps in the body of knowledge, revealing avenues for future research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | gaps; megaproject management system; review; risks; success |
| Index terms: | megaproject, management system, journal, life cycle, methodology, project management, body of knowledge |
| Subjects: | knowledge management, research dissemination and communication, project management theory and practice, strategic project management, value management, research methods, management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here