Lawson, B; Statsenko, L and Shokri-Ghasabeh, M (2022) Value co-creation in asset integrity and improvement portfolio: Evidence from the Australian mining industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 20(2), pp. 516-542. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: Adopting a qualitative research design and following a single case study research methodology 21 semi-structured interviews with asset integrity project managers (PM), project sponsors (PS) and members of the project management office (PMO) were conducted. These were complemented with company’s project management framework documents and tools and direct observation by the researcher’s observation. Design/methodology/approach: The data on the value creation in the mining asset integrity and improvement project portfolio was collected through 21 interviews with PM, PS and members of the PMO and complemented by observational data and the analysis of the Australian mining company process documentation. Findings: The study finds that establishing a culture of delivering value supported by functional governance is critical for effective value creation practice in asset integrity and improvement project portfolios. In addition, early engagement of the key stakeholders with clearly defined roles and utilisation of project value management artifacts, enables effective value delivery throughout the project lifecycle. Originality/value: The research offers an empirically grounded framework to facilitate value creation throughout the project lifecycle in asset integrity and improvement project portfolios drawing on a benchmarking case of an Australian mining company.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; mining industry; portfolio management; value creation; value management |
| Index terms: | integrity, value co-creation, benchmarking, case study, documents, project manager, project management, value creation, project sponsor, direct observation, methodology, mining, improvement project, project lifecycle, documentation, drawing, research methodology, qualitative research, artifact, portfolio management, interview, value management, evidence, governance |
| Subjects: | production management, project management theory and practice, technical documentation, geotechnical engineering, economic analysis, economic development, management, evaluation and assessment methods, business, professional development, project completion, research methods, health safety and environment, data collection methods, research design and methodology, sociology, value management, profession, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Research Practice, Project Management, Quality Management, Information Management, Value Management, Business Strategy, Governance, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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