Langdon, M (2021) Towards a shift of values in rail infrastructure project evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
The rail industry, despite its iconic value and status as a key economic infrastructure, faces significant challenges today: An ageing, historically underinvested system has had to accommodate an unprecedented increase in demand with limited financial resources at its disposal. Now, following the Covid pandemic the same historically underinvested infrastructure has had to address the reality of an unprecedented reduction. In order to meet these polarised challenges, brought sharply into focus by its imminent restructuring (initiated by the recent White Paper) it needs more than ever, to harness the positive socio-economic impact of its interventions on its key resource: its human potential. In this work the author argues that the value of enhanced skill, knowledge and expertise derived from projects should be recognised and incorporated into more meaningful evaluations of project viability and sustainability. The argument draws on the notions of sustainability, the nature of the asset base and a more comprehensive whole life evaluation to inform and make this case. It has been supported through the use of surveys and interviews, within the context of case studies, in order to represent the nature of the relationship between participation in projects and the enhancement of expertise. The findings describe both a strong relationship (80% agreement and strong agreement) between project participation and expertise enhancement as well as providing indications of some of its key qualities. Adding support to the assertion that there is a necessary and contributory causal relationship between project participation and the enhancement of the expertise of the participants. The Interviews, based on grounded theory, also provide further insights through the identification and distillation of themes which emerge as integral to this process and are consistent with the concepts drawn out from the notion of a sustainable intervention in rail assets. Supported by these findings the author concludes that the value derived from harnessing the potential of its key resource in this way needs greater recognition and to be incorporated into a more comprehensive calibration of project value. A more comprehensive form of whole life evaluation, which made greater accommodation of externalities, while at the same time recognising that rather than being an external attribute of asset value, the enhancement of skill, knowledge and expertise is, in fact, intrinsic to it. A recognition requiring a significant shift of emphasis in the realm of project evaluation and governance in order to ensure its rightful place in the effective incorporation and deployment of asset value
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | economic impact; sustainability; case studies; interview |
| Index terms: | socio-economic impact, infrastructure project, pandemic, interview, grounded theory, governance, face, survey, case study, project evaluation, economic impact |
| Subjects: | financial analysis, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, value management, theoretical framing, economic and policy analysis, health risk and incident analysis, psychology, business |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Health and Safety, Governance, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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