Rollo, Michael John (2020) Managing mega infrastructure projects: Linking theory with practice. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
Mega infrastructure projects in Australia have grown substantially in size, scale and number in the ten years to 2020. However, evidence suggests that the project managers of these mega infrastructure projects are struggling to manage the levels of complexity involved, and to successfully realise the project objectives. Literature relating to the management of mega infrastructure projects suggests that traditional project management, which has been described as reductionist and mechanistic, is not suited to the management of mega infrastructure projects due to the size, scale, pace, levels of complexity and uncertainty that these mega infrastructure projects involve. Limited research, testing these theories in practice from a delivery construction contractor's perspective, was identified as a research gap. To address this gap, research was designed, applying contingency theory as a lens, to explore the actual practices being adopted by construction contractors in managing mega infrastructure projects, with a focus on their approach to organisational systems and the relationship between the approach adopted and the achievement of project objectives. A qualitative research methodology was applied, using four case studies embedded in two mega infrastructure projects. Data was collected from semi-structured interviews with 35 project participants, participant observations and project artefacts, as well as through the use of a research questionnaire. Analysis followed a pragmatic approach. The research findings contribute to theory and practice by providing support for a number of the theoretical approaches proposed for managing mega infrastructure projects, while challenging others. Previous research has suggested that an organic approach to organisational systems is required to manage the complexity of megaprojects. This was found to be valid for implicit organisational factors relating to employee engagement and commitment. However, complex mega infrastructure projects, as temporary organisations, were found to need to establish routines and processes to maintain a level of control and to ensure efficiency. This requirement calls for a mechanistic approach, particularly in relation to establishing roles and responsibilities, clear levels of authority and project controls.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Crawford, Lynn |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | mega infrastructure projects; complexity; self-management; self-organisation |
| Index terms: | organizational factor, efficiency, case study, project manager, Australia, temporary organization, contingency theory, testing, infrastructure project, project control, project management, observation, interview, routine, commitment, qualitative research, methodology, employee engagement, artefact, questionnaire, evidence, self-organization, construction contractor, complexity, megaproject |
| Subjects: | control systems, research design and methodology, business, profession, data collection methods, systems engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, project management theory and practice, performance management, strategic project management, professional practice, psychology, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, Geography, organizational theory, research methods |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| 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