Xia, X and Xiang, P (2023) Dynamic network analysis of stakeholder-associated social risks of megaprojects: A case study in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(10), pp. 4541-4568. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Managers of megaprojects face social risk management challenges throughout the various design, construction, and operation stages, owing to the various conflicts of interest among stakeholders, public skepticism, and opposition. However, most existing studies have not focused on the dynamic analysis of integrating social risks in these stages. This study developed a dynamic analysis approach to explore the dynamics of critical social risk factors and related stakeholders of megaprojects and built the managerial maps for various stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the social analysis network (SNA), a dynamic network analysis approach for understanding the dynamics of social risk and related stakeholders has been developed by literature and case analysis. The approach comprises the following steps: (1) generating social risk–stakeholder networks in different stages; (2) analysis of the critical stakeholders and social risk factors; (3) dynamic analysis of social risk factors; and (4) developing social risk management maps for various stakeholders. To verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the approach, 40 megaprojects from China were analyzed. Findings: According to the results, the local government is a critical stakeholder during all stages, inadequate information promotion (IIP) and imperfect communication and coordination mechanism (ICCM) are key social risk sources throughout the megaproject life cycle. Furthermore, the management maps for government organizations, project implementation groups, and external stakeholders were constructed. Originality/value: This research has three contributions. First, a dynamic analysis approach of stakeholder-associated social risks in megaprojects is developed, which enriches the social risk management theory of megaprojects and provides inspiration for future research focus. Second, the social risk–stakeholder networks and critical social risks in different stages are confirmed to provide a more valid and accurate picture of social risk management in megaprojects. Third, the social risk managerial maps for different stakeholders built in this research will be beneficial for governments, project implementation groups, and external stakeholders to optimize management strategies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | dynamic analysis; megaprojects; social risk management; stakeholder |
| Index terms: | implementation, coordination, dynamics, risk management, risk factor, effectiveness, life cycle, network analysis, conflicts of interest, management strategy, promotion, external stakeholder, China, megaproject, methodology, stakeholder network, face, manager, local government, maps |
| Subjects: | research methods, spatial and geospatial analysis, performance management, management, Geography, sociology, environmental hazards, systems engineering, professional ethics, administrative law, risk assessment, practitioner, value management, psychology, strategic project management, participation process, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Quality Management, Human Resources, Legal Issues, Procurement, Sustainability, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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