Jobling, P E and Smith, N J (2018) Experience of the role of contracts in megaproject execution. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 171(1), pp. 18-24. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
The majority of megaprojects fail to achieve their objectives. Studies suggest that up to two-thirds of them do not meet time, cost or performance targets, a much higher proportion than that for conventional projects. Failures are attributed to various causes: stakeholder biases, lack of investment in front-end planning and optimistic estimates and/or schedules, among other factors. Further, it is evident that owners increasingly require larger, more complex projects within compressed timescales. However, even if experience shows that the objectives are unrealistic, there is almost invariably a contractor that is willing to provide a competitive tender for the work. Despite recent improvements in management capability and enhancements to procurement and contracting practices, risk assessment, project planning and control, there has been little noticeable improvement in the outcomes of most megaprojects. This paper, based on both authors’ academic and industrial experiences of megaprojects, focuses on another factor, the contract, and provides an alternative view of the contractual context in which megaprojects are to be delivered and how this affects the current practice of scaling up contracts and procedures in an attempt to offer megaprojects levels of certainty similar to those of traditional projects. Indeed, the existing contracting practice may act to militate against the adoption of more appropriate delivery approaches.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts & law; management; project management |
| Index terms: | scaling, complex project, bias, megaproject, estimate, risk assessment, owner, project management, project planning |
| Subjects: | probability and distributions, strategic project management, control systems, organization, sociology, financial and cost management, financial risk, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Project Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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