Locatelli, G and Mancini, M (2012) Looking back to see the future: Building nuclear power plants in Europe. Construction Management and Economics, 30(8), pp. 623-637. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The so-called 'nuclear renaissance' in Europe is promulgated by the execution of two large engineering projects involving the construction of two European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) in Flamanville, France and Olkiluoto in Finland. As both projects have faced budget overruns and delays, this paper analyses their governance and history to derive lessons useful for the construction of future projects. Analysis indicates that the reasons for these poor outcomes are: overoptimistic estimations, first-of-a-kind (FOAK) issues and undervaluation of regulation requirements. These pitfalls have the potential to impact on many other engineering construction projects and highlight fruitful areas of further research into project performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost escalation; delay; large engineering projects; nuclear power plants; optimism bias |
| Index terms: | regulation, governance, cost escalation, France, history, optimism bias, project performance, construction project, Finland, budget overrun, Europe, nuclear power, estimation |
| Subjects: | architectural and construction history, business, cognitive psychology, physical geography and landforms, political science, economics, financial and cost management, energy systems, project management theory and practice, Geography, production management |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Governance, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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