Megaproject Management Research: The Status Quo and Future Directions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- What is the annual publication trend of megaproject management research from 2009 to 2021?
- (2)
- What is the status quo of megaproject management research from 2009 to 2021?
- (3)
- What are the research directions worth further investigation?
2. Overview of Megaproject Management Research
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Selection of Target Scholarly Journals
3.2. Measuring Main Authors’ Contributions
3.3. Classification of the Identified Papers
3.3.1. Research Methods of the Identified Papers in Megaproject Management Research
- Qualitative analysis: This method enables the deep exploration of megaproject management and has satisfied the exploration of the management theories behind real megaproject cases with various characteristics. Multiple methods, such as interviews, case studies, and content analyses (text-based or audio-based encodings), have been adopted by researchers to conduct an in-depth and holistic exploration of the research topics [8,71,103].
- Quantitative analysis: At present, this method is relatively infrequently adopted in megaproject management research. It generally compares the properties, characteristics, and interrelations of several objects to understand the quantitative relationship of the components contained in the research objects [11,88,104].
3.3.2. Research Topics of the Identified Papers in Megaproject Management Research
4. Results, Analyses, and Discussion
4.1. Number of Published Papers
4.2. Main Authors’ Contributions to the Identified Publications
4.3. Citation Analysis for the Identified Publications
4.4. Geographical Spread
4.5. Categories of the Research Methods to the Identified Publications
4.6. Research Topic
4.6.1. Numbers of Publications on Different Research Topics
4.6.2. Future Research Directions
- How can the megaproject management process be understood in depth? Previous papers indicated two features of megaproject management, namely high complexity and unstable performance, since megaprojects are affected by both internal and external factors 3. Such complexity cannot be understood by ignoring various factors and their interconnections. Therefore, attention should be paid to the coupling relationship between internal and external factors, as well as the uncertainty of management. Further research is needed to identify the connotation of megaprojects and their internal mechanism.
- To manage the innovation of megaproject management. Megaprojects need to carry out management innovation similarly to general management. It helps to understand megaproject management processes and guide management decisions based on past experience. Therefore, it is critical for future research in this area to be continuous to develop the theory of megaproject management innovation.
- How can the sustainability of megaprojects be improved? Previous studies have indicated that the sustainable development of megaprojects depends highly on managers rather than on the megaproject itself [138], which undoubtedly emphasizes the importance of the attitudes of stakeholders and managers toward sustainable megaprojects. Therefore, investigating these attitudes toward sustainable megaprojects is helpful to further understand the ways of sustainability and the defects of sustainable behavior, thus providing strategies for improving the implementation of sustainable megaprojects.
- How can a megaproject success framework be established? During the past decade, researchers have analyzed and summarized the driving factors of successful megaproject cases to enhance the chance of future megaproject success [47]. Nevertheless, the driving factors classified in different lifecycle phases of megaproject success have been ignored. In this regard, further studies should be launched to establish a megaproject success framework for the entire lifecycle, which could aid participants in effectively managing megaprojects.
- Effectiveness of the innovation strategy. The present research has established a number of innovation strategies. To what extent these strategies can effectively address the innovation problems that face megaproject management processes, however, is still an unsolved question. Therefore, developing innovation strategies for all lifecycles and examining their effectiveness is probably a promising research direction.
- How can megaproject performance be improved from a megaproject governance perspective? During the past few decades, considerable efforts have been devoted to dealing with the management of social responsibility [15] and social conflict [53] in megaprojects to resolve the problem of megaproject performance from a governance perspective. However, the decentralized research perspective has not formed a complete theoretical framework. Therefore, it is critical for future research in this area to establish a governance framework for improving megaproject management performance.
- How can government policy, stakeholder, and megaproject management be understood? It has been reported that government policy and stakeholder management have been widely occurring in the management of most megaprojects. Generally, these factors all affect the development of megaprojects [3,107]. On the one hand, government policy influences stakeholders and megaprojects themselves [127]. On the other hand, megaproject management takes constraints from stakeholder management and government policy [139]. Therefore, while acknowledging these foundational situations, further in-depth research to understand the relationship among them is urgently needed.
- How can the effectiveness of the identified and assessed risk be promoted? The improvement of the effectiveness of the identified and assessed risk deserves more attention. It plays a crucial role in megaproject risk management and success [86]. Further studies should be carried out to develop ways to improve the effectiveness of the identified and assessed risk, such as improving the present identified and assessed risk methods and categorizing risk in megaproject management in a detailed way.
- How can an effective risk management framework be established? The risk management framework is regarded as the key to resolving risk problems in megaprojects and should be suitable for extensive megaprojects, thus providing a framework for improving the performance of risk management. However, researchers have focused on special cases to establish risk management frameworks based on case characteristics, such as tram networks [112], mega transportation [86], industrial parks [136], and wind farms [38]. It is worth noting that to what extent similar project risk management frameworks should be resolved, however, is still an unsolved question. Therefore, the development of a framework that can suit the universality of different megaprojects is probably a promising research direction.
- Investigating the relationship between megaprojects and risk from a new theoretical perspective. The present study clearly indicates the relationship between megaprojects and risk from different perspectives, including cultural sense-making [140] and temporary organizations [40]. However, megaprojects are more complex and include unclear relationships involving risk. Therefore, it is necessary to rely on different theoretical perspectives to understand the relationship among them, thus realizing more effective megaproject management and easy megaproject success.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Altshuler, A.; Luberoff, D. Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Flyvbjerg, B.; Turner, J.R. Do classics exist in megaproject management? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 2, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flyvbjerg, B. What You Should Know about Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Marrewijk, A.; Clegg, S.R.; Pitsis, T.S.; Veenswijk, M. Managing public–private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pitsis, A.; Clegg, S.; Freeder, D.; Sankaran, S.; Burdon, S. Megaprojects redefined—complexity vs. cost and social imperatives. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2018, 11, 7–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capka, J.R. Issuance of Interim Major Project Guidance; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- IPMA. Ipma Project Excellence (Pe): Pe Award Categories; IPMA: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Le, Y. Understanding the Determinants of Program Organization for Construction Megaproject Success: Case Study of the Shanghai Expo Construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 05014019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Bulan, L.C. Behind an ambitious megaproject in Asia: The history and implications of the Bakun hydroelectric dam in Borneo. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4842–4859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mok, K.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, R.J. Addressing stakeholder complexity and major pitfalls in large cultural building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Li, Y.; Xue, B.; Li, Q.; Zou, P.X.W.; Li, L. Why do individuals engage in collective actions against major construction projects? —An empirical analysis based on Chinese data. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 612–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leigh, A.; Neill, C. Can national infrastructure spending reduce local unemployment? Evidence from an Australian roads program. Econ. Lett. 2011, 113, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.E. Schedule delays of major projects: What should we do about it? Transp. Rev. 2021, 14, 814–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shenhar, A.; Holzmann, V. The Three Secrets of Megaproject Success: Clear Strategic Vision, Total Alignment, and Adapting to Complexity. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, H.; Zeng, S.; Lin, H.; Chen, H.; Shi, J.J. The societal governance of megaproject social responsibility. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1365–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irimia-Diéguez, A.I.; Sanchez-Cazorla, A.; Alfalla-Luque, R. Risk Management in Megaprojects. Procedia 2014, 119, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, Q.; Chen, X.; Wang, G.; Zhu, J.; Yang, D.; Liu, X.; Li, Y. Managing social responsibility for sustainability in megaprojects: An innovation transitions perspective on success. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aung, T.S.; Fischer, T.B.; Azmi, A.S. Are large-scale dams environmentally detrimental? Life-cycle environmental consequences of mega-hydropower plants in Myanmar. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1749–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Söderlund, J.; Sankaran, S.; Biesenthal, C. The past and Present of Megaprojects. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Mi, C. Social responsibility research within the context of megaproject management: Trends, gaps and opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1378–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Han, Y.; Luo, M.; Zhang, Y. Impact of Megaproject Governance on Project Performance: Dynamic Governance of the Nanning Transportation Hub in China. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 050190023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denicol, J.; Davies, A.; Krystallis, I. What Are the Causes and Cures of Poor Megaproject Performance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 328–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansar, A.; Flyvbjerg, B.; Budzier, A.; Lunn, D. Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patanakul, P.; Kwak, Y.H.; Zwikael, O.; Liu, M. What impacts the performance of large-scale government projects? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 452–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gui, B.; Liu, Y.; Ju, Y.; Ye, X. Disruptive Innovation Patterns Driven by Mega-Projects: A Sustainable Development Pattern Case of China’s High-Speed Rail. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ninan, J.; Mahalingam, A.; Clegg, S. External Stakeholder Management Strategies and Resources in Megaprojects: An Organizational Power Perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 625–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, F.; Wang, L.; Yu, M.; Yang, X. Quality of conflict management in construction project context: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1191–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez-Cazorla, A.; Alfalla-Luque, R.; Irimia-Dieguez, A.I. Risk Identification in Megaprojects as a Crucial Phase of Risk Management: A Literature Review. Proj. Manag. J. 2016, 47, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cerić, A.; Vukomanović, M.; Ivić, I.; Kolarić, S. Trust in megaprojects: A comprehensive literature review of research trends. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 39, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mok, K.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, J. Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 446–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cui, Q.; Han, Y. Organizational Behavior in Megaprojects: Integrative Review and Directions for Future Research. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 040190094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Taylor, J.E.; Han, Y. Bibliographic and comparative analyses to explore emerging classic texts in megaproject management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 36, 342–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, H.; Shen, L. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 670–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Chan, A.P.C.; He, Q.; Xu, J. Identifying the gaps in construction megaproject management research: A bibliographic analysis. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zidane, Y.J.T.; Johansen, A.; Ekambaram, A. Megaprojects—Challenges and Lessons Learned. Procedia 2013, 74, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klakegg, O.J.; Williams, T.; Shiferaw, A.T. Taming the ‘trolls’: Major public projects in the making. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 282–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B.; Bruzelius, N.; Rothengatter, W. Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safa, M.; Haas, C.T.; Hipel, K.W.; Gray, J. Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Based on an Electronic Process Management. J. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag. 2013, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Safa, M.; Shahi, A.; Haas, C.T.; Fiander-McCann, D.; Safa, M.; Hipel, K.; MacGillivray, S. Competitive intelligence (CI) for evaluation of construction contractors. Autom. Constr. 2015, 59, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brookes, N.J.; Locatelli, G. Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction management. Util. Policy 2015, 36, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, S.; Siemiatycki, M. Rethinking the role of private capital in infrastructure PPPs: The experience of Ontario, Canada. Public Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 1122–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Le, Y.; Jin, R. From Construction Megaproject Management to Complex Project Management: Bibliographic Analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2013, 31, 04014052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aaltonen, K.; Kujala, J. A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scand. J. Manag. 2010, 26, 381–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.Y. Understanding the hold-up problem in the management of megaprojects: The case of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinsuo, M.; Killen, C.P. Value Management in Project Portfolios: Identifying and Assessing Strategic Value. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Invernizzi, D.C.; Locatelli, G.; Grönqvist, M.; Brookes, N.J. Applying value management when it seems that there is no value to be managed: The case of nuclear decommissioning. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 668–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, J.R.; Xue, Y. On the success of megaprojects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2018, 11, 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siemiatycki, M. The making and impacts of a classic text in megaproject management: The case of cost overrun research. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 362–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E.; Martin, K.; Parmar, B. Stakeholder Capitalism. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 74, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, N.L.; Ferdinand, N.; Pasian, B. Online Stakeholder Interactions in the Early Stage of a Megaproject. Proj. Manag. J. 2015, 46, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koke, B.; Moehler, R.C. Earned Green Value management for project management: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 180–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willumsen, P.; Oehmen, J.; Stingl, V.; Geraldi, J. Value creation through project risk management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 731–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, C.; Won, J.W.; Jang, W.; Jung, W.; Han, S.H.; Kwak, Y.H. Social conflict management framework for project viability: Case studies from Korean megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1683–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeling, D. Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Quality management. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2003, 156, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, S.X.; Ma, H.Y.; Lin, H.; Zeng, R.C.; Tam, V.W. Social responsibility of major infrastructure projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 3, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, D.K.; Goh, Y.M. A Poisson Model of Construction Incident Occurrence. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajendran, S.; Gambatese, J.A. Development and Initial Validation of Sustainable Construction Safety and Health Rating System. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 1067–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaikh, A.Y.; Osei Kyei, R.; Hardie, M. A critical analysis of safety performance indicators in construction. Int. J. Build. Pathol. 2020, 39, 547–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Cheung, C.; Manu, P.; Ejohwomu, O.A. Safety leading indicators in construction: A systematic review. Saf. Sci. 2021, 139, 105250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.H.; Yun, S.; Kim, H.; Kwak, Y.H.; Park, H.K.; Lee, S.H. Analyzing schedule delay of mega project: Lessons learned from Korea train express. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2009, 56, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwak, Y.H.; Walewski, J.; Sleeper, D.; Sadatsafavi, H. What can we learn from the Hoover Dam project that influenced modern project management? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altuncan, İ.Ü.; Tanyer, A.M. Context-Dependent Construction Conflict Management Performance Analysis Based on Competency Theory. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 12, 04018112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, G.; Yang, F.; Wang, G.; Hong, B.; You, R. A study of mega project from a perspective of social conflict theory. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 817–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeb, A.; Mohamed, O.B.; Mohd Danuri, M.S.B.; Zakaria, N.B. Critical Factors for Selecting a Neutral to Support Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods in the Construction Industry. Civ. Eng. J. 2018, 4, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tabassi, A.A.; Abdullah, A.; Bryde, D.J. Conflict Management, Team Coordination, and Performance within Multicultural Temporary Projects: Evidence from the Construction Industry. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, H.S.; Peña-Mora, F.; Tamaki, T. Dynamic Conflict Management in Large-Scale Design and Construction Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2007, 23, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Zhao, X.; Zuo, J.; Zillante, G. Effects of contractual flexibility on conflict and project success in megaprojects. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2017, 29, 253–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Z.; Huang, D.; Fang, J.; Wang, B. Stakeholder Conflict Amplification of Large-Scale Engineering Projects in China: An Evolutionary Game Model on Complex Networks. Complexity 2020, 2020, 9243427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, T. Assessing Extension of Time delays on major projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padalkar, M.; Gopinath, S. Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1305–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toor, S.; Ogunlana, S.O. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shokri, S.; Ahn, S.; Lee, S.; Haas, C.T.; Haas, R.C.G. Current Status of Interface Management in Construction: Drivers and Effects of Systematic Interface Management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 040150702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, X. Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of infrastructure projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moodley, K.; Smith, N.; Preece, C.N. Stakeholder matrix for ethical relationships in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 625–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, D.; Xiang, P.; Jia, F.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Z. An Indicator System for Evaluating Operation and Maintenance Management of Mega Infrastructure Projects in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; He, Q.; Xia, B.; Meng, X.; Wu, P. Impact of Institutional Pressures on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors for the Environment: Evidence from Megaprojects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 040180285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Joop, F.M.K.; Enserink, B. Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability. Public Adm. Rev. 2009, 69, 284–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krane, H.P.; Rolstadas, A.; Nils, O.E.O. Categorizing Risks in Seven Large Projects-Which Risks Do the rojects Focus On? Proj. Manag. J. 2010, 41, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erol, H.; Dikmen, I.; Atasoy, G.; Birgonul, M.T. Exploring the relationship between complexity and risk in megaconstruction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PMI. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide); Project Management Institute, Inc.: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fiori, C.; Kovaka, M. Defining megaprojects: Learning from construction at the edge of experience. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives, San Diego, CA, USA, 5–7 April 2005; pp. 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, R.G. The Emerging Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Megaproject Delivery. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2011, 16, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giezen, M. Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owens, J.; Ahn, J.; Shane, J.S.; Strong, K.C.; Gransberg, D.D. Defining Complex Project Management of Large U.S. Transportation Projects. Public Work. Manag. Policy 2012, 17, 170–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vit, G.B. Competing logics: Project failure in Gaspesia. Eur. Manag. J. 2011, 29, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aladağ, H.; Işık, Z. Design and construction risks in BOT type mega transportation projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 2223–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eweje, J.; Turner, R.; Müller, R. Maximizing strategic value from megaprojects: The influence of information-feed on decision-making by the project manager. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dettman, K.L.; Harty, M.J.; Lewin, J. Resolving megaproject claims: Lessons from Bosto’s ‘Big Dig’. Constr. Lawyer 2010, 2, 5–16. Available online: https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/857d0cb7-7582-3aeb-8fa3-6d72a9dd1d45/ (accessed on 18 November 2021).
- Sousa Júnior, W.C.; Reid, J. Uncertainties in Amazon hydropower development: Risk scenarios and environmental issues around the Belo Monte dam. Water Altern. 2010, 3, 249–268. Available online: https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/volume3/v3issue2/92-a3-2-15 (accessed on 18 November 2021).
- Gil, N.; Miozzo, M.; Massini, S. The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport’s T5 project. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 452–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xenidis, Y.; Angelides, D. The financial risks in build-operate-transfer projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owolabi, H.A.; Oyedele, L.O.; Alaka, H.A.; Ajayi, S.O.; Akinade, O.O.; Bilal, M. Critical Success Factors for Ensuring Bankable Completion Risk in PFI/PPP Megaprojects. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 04019032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, J.; Wu, H.; Zhu, L.; Feng, Y. Influencing Factors on Profit Distribution of Public-Private Partnership Projects: Private Sector’s Perspective. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 2143173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaghbari, E.; Razali Kadir, M.; Salim, A.; Mahamid, I. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management “The significant factors causing delay of building construction projects in Risk matrix for factors affecting time delay in road construction projects: Owners’ perspective. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2007, 18, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassem, M.A.; Khoiry, M.A.; Hamzah, N. Assessment of the effect of external risk factors on the success of an oil and gas construction project. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 2767–2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, H.M. Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Queiroz, M.M.; Wamba, S.F.; De Bourmont, M.; Telles, R. Blockchain adoption in operations and supply chain management: Empirical evidence from an emerging economy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 59, 6087–6103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, G.A.; Davis, K.S.; Zanger, D.; Gerrard-Morris, A.; Robinson, D. Top contributors to the school psychology literature: 1996–2005. Psychol. Sch. 2006, 6, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, G.S.; Cole, D.A.; Maxwell, S.E. Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychology Association. Am. Psychol. 1987, 11, 975–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, Y.; Wang, S.; Chan, A.P.; Cheung, E. Research Trend of Public-Private Partnership in Construction Journals. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 1076–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.C.; Wen, M.C.L. Research and trend in science education from 1999 to 2002: A content analysis of publication in selected journals. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 1, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, Y.; Chan, D.W.M.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yeung, J.F.Y. Critical Analysis of Partnering Research Trend in Construction Journals. J. Manag. Eng. 2012, 28, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, F.C.; Townsend, E.A. Delivering new nuclear projects: A megaprojects perspective. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 12, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, U.; Nawaz, S.; Tariq, S.; Humayoun, A.A. Linking transformational leadership and multi-dimensions of project success. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 13, 103–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rad, E.K.M.; Sun, M.; Bosché, F. Complexity for Megaprojects in the Energy Sector. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04017009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, T.; He, Q.; Lu, Y.; Yang, D. How Does Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Affect the performance of megaprojects? Insights from a System Dynamic Simulation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jalocha, B. The European Union’s multi-level impact on member state projectification in light of neo institutional theory. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 12, 578–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Zuo, J.; Zillante, G. Transformation of water resource management: A case study of the South-to-North Water Diversion project. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldas, C.; Gupta, A. Critical factors impacting the performance of mega-projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2016, 24, 920–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Marrewijk, A.; Smits, K. Cultural practices of governance in the Panama Canal Expansion Megaproject. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syn, T.; Ramaprasad, A. Megaprojects—symbolic and sublime: An ontological review. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 12, 377–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boateng, P.; Chen, Z.; Ogunlana, S.O. An Analytical Network Process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1795–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Fang, S.; Li, K. Dynamic changes of governance mechanisms in mega construction projects in China: The mediating role of opportunism. Eng. Const. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 723–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H. Images of stakeholder groups based on their environmental sustainability linked CSR projects: A meta-analytic review of Korean sport literature. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, H.; Xue, X.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Z.; Luo, X. Major knowledge diffusion paths of megaproject management: A citation-based analysis. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 51, 875697281985023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whyte, J.; Nussbaum, T. Transition and Temporalities: Spanning Temporal Boundaries as Projects End and Operations Begin. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 505–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locatelli, G.; Greco, M.; Invernizzi, D.C.; Grimaldi, M.; Malizia, S. What about the people? Micro-foundations of open innovation in megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollack, J.; Biesenthal, C.; Sankaran, S.; Clegg, S. Classics in megaproject management: A structured analysis of three major works. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 372–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, J.; Zhang, P. Owner organization design for mega industrial construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 828–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Q.; Wang, T.; Chan, A.P.C.; Xu, J. Developing a List of Key Performance Indictors for Benchmarking the Success of Construction Megaprojects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04020164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini, M.R.; Banihashemi, S.; Martek, I.; Golizadeh, H.; Ghodoosi, F. Sustainable Delivery of Megaprojects in Iran: Integrated Model of Contextual Factors. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 05017011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockmann, C.; Brezinski, H.; Erbe, A. Innovation in Construction Megaprojects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 0401605911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brady, T.; Davies, A. From hero to hubris—Reconsidering the project management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahadorestani, A.; Karlsen, J.T.; Farimani, N.M. Novel Approach to Satisfying Stakeholders in Megaprojects: Balancing Mutual Values. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 4019047–4019065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shenoy, D.; Mahanty, B. Measuring the readiness of a megaproject. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2021, 14, 999–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Chong, H. Influence of Prior Ties on Trust and Contract Functions for BIM-Enabled EPC Megaproject Performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ninan, J.; Clegg, S.; Mahalingam, A. Branding and governmentality for infrastructure megaprojects: The role of social media. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Maddaloni, F.; Davis, K. Project manager’s perception of the local communities’ stakeholder in megaprojects. An empirical investigation in the UK. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 542–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eskerod, P.; Ang, K.; Andersen, E.S. Increasing project benefits by project opportunity exploitation. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2018, 11, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehtinen, J.; Peltokorpi, A.; Artto, K. Megaprojects as organizational platforms and technology platforms for value creation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Li, H.; Lu, Y. Factors affecting transaction costs in megaprojects: A qualitative comparative analysis. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2021, 14, 1245–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanson, R.; Sakhrani, V. Appropriating the Value of Flexibility in PPP Megaproject Design. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 05020010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iftikhar, R.; Müller, R.; Ahola, T. Crises and Coping Strategies in Megaprojects: The Case of the Islamabad–Rawalpindi Metro Bus Project in Pakistan. Proj. Manag. J. 2021, 52, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.; Ding, L.; Zhou, C. Cyber physical system for safety management in smart construction site. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 788–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Nahyan, M.T.; Hawas, Y.E.; Raza, M.; Aljassmi, H.; Maraqa, M.A.; Basheerudeen, B.; Mohammad, M.S. A fuzzy-based decision support system for ranking the delivery methods of mega projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2018, 11, 122–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, H.; Huang, J. Handling social risks in government-driven mega project: An empirical case study from West China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 202–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmondson, A.C.; Mcmanus, S.E. Methodological fit in management field research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 4, 1155–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, G.; Qiang, G.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, X.; Chang, R. What are the Key Indicators of Mega Sustainable Construction Projects?—A Stakeholder-Network Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benítez-Ávila, C.; Hartmann, A.; Dewulf, G.; Henseler, J. Interplay of relational and contractual governance in public-private partnerships: The mediating role of relational norms, trust and partners’ contribution. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 429–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dyer, R. Cultural sense-making integration into risk mitigation strategies towards megaproject success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1338–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Number of Authors | Order of a Specific Author | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
1 | 1.00 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
2 | 0.60 | 0.40 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
3 | 0.47 | 0.32 | 0.21 | N/A | N/A |
4 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.12 | N/A |
5 | 0.38 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.08 |
Clusters of Topics | Subtopics |
---|---|
(1) Megaproject management in general | Megaproject management practices in different countries/regions, strategies and tactics for megaproject management (plan, construction, and operation and maintenance). |
(2) Megaproject sustainability | Megaproject success, advanced technology applied in megaprojects, megaproject lifecycle, sustainable development. |
(3) Megaproject governance | Stakeholder management, megaproject decisions, government policies in megaproject management, social response, megaproject cooperation and conflict management, megaproject performance and assessment. |
(4) Megaproject risk management | Risk identification, risk evaluation, risk control, risk management. |
(5) Megaproject investment and finance | Megaproject investment, megaproject finance, partnering, PPP. |
2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Target journals | Total | 287 | 276 | 276 | 309 | 400 | 436 | 547 | 561 | 573 | 535 | 564 | 764 | 520 | 6048 |
MP related | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 17 | 21 | 18 | 22 | 18 | 123 | |
Ratio (%) | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.32 | 0.25 | 1.15 | 0.91 | 1.60 | 2.97 | 3.93 | 3.19 | 2.88 | 3.46 | 2.03 | |
IJPM | Total | 83 | 83 | 100 | 87 | 103 | 129 | 152 | 130 | 128 | 87 | 68 | 42 | 52 | 1244 |
MP related | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 47 | |
Ratio (%) | 1.20 | 2.41 | 2.00 | 1.15 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 1.32 | 3.85 | 6.25 | 9.20 | 7.35 | 9.52 | 13.46 | 3.78 | |
PMJ | Total | 50 | 62 | 65 | 67 | 67 | 67 | 73 | 63 | 47 | 42 | 60 | 50 | 21 | 734 |
MP related | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 18 | |
Ratio (%) | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.99 | 1.37 | 1.59 | 10.64 | 2.38 | 3.33 | 8.00 | 4.76 | 2.45 | |
IJMPB | Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 50 | 41 | 55 | 74 | 84 | 42 | 395 |
MP related | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 17 | |
Ratio (%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.91 | 6.76 | 3.57 | 7.14 | 4.30 | |
JCEM | Total | 120 | 103 | 80 | 105 | 174 | 161 | 112 | 179 | 197 | 173 | 144 | 211 | 202 | 1961 |
MP related | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 15 | |
Ratio (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.24 | 0 | 1.12 | 0.51 | 0.58 | 0.69 | 1.42 | 2.48 | 0.76 | |
JME | Total | 34 | 28 | 31 | 50 | 56 | 79 | 118 | 93 | 88 | 97 | 62 | 130 | 64 | 930 |
MP related | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 13 | |
Ratio (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.69 | 1.08 | 2.27 | 3.09 | 3.23 | 1.54 | 1.56 | 1.40 | |
ECAM | Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 46 | 72 | 81 | 156 | 247 | 139 | 784 |
MP related | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 13 | |
Ratio (%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | 1.39 | 2.47 | 1.92 | 2.43 | 0.72 | 1.66 |
Researchers | Papers | Score | Affiliation |
---|---|---|---|
Li, Y.K. | 4 | 1.68 | Tongji University, China |
Sankaran, S. | 4 | 1.61 | University of Technology Sydney, Australia |
Flyvbjerg, B. | 2 | 1.6 | University of Oxford, England |
Soderlund, J. | 2 | 1.47 | BI Norwegian Business School, Norway |
Kwak, Y.H. | 5 | 1.47 | George Washington University, United States |
Davies, A. | 4 | 1.46 | Imperial College London, England |
Wang, D.D. | 3 | 1.41 | Shandong Jianzhu University, China |
Locatelli, G. | 5 | 1.35 | University of Leeds, England |
Hu, Y. | 3 | 1.27 | Tongji University, China |
Chan, A.P.C. | 5 | 1.21 | Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China |
Researchers | Affiliation | Journal | Total Times Cited |
---|---|---|---|
Flyvbjerg, B. | University of Oxford, UK | PMJ | 384 |
Toor, S.U.R. | University of New South Wales, Australia | IJPM | 200 |
Mok, K.Y. | Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China | IJPM | 157 |
Hu, Y. | Tongji University, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China | JME | 107 |
Eweje, J. | Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company, Nigeria | IJPM | 76 |
Di Maddaloni, F. | Kingston University, United Kingdom | IJPM | 58 |
Zhai, L. | Fudan University, China | IJPM | 56 |
Kwak, Y.H. | George Washington University, United States | IJPM | 54 |
Boateng, P. | Robert Gordon University, United Kingdom | IJPM | 53 |
Liu, Z.Z. | Xi’an Jiao Tong University, China | IJPM | 52 |
Papers | Researchers | Institute/University | Score | |
---|---|---|---|---|
China | 39 | 28 | 19 | 17.31 |
United Kingdom | 20 | 16 | 13 | 12.66 |
Australia | 9 | 9 | 7 | 5.74 |
United States | 9 | 9 | 8 | 5.49 |
Turkey | 6 | 6 | 6 | 3.56 |
Netherlands | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2.19 |
Finland | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1.36 |
Iran | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1.36 |
Methods | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Qualitative | 91 | 77.78 |
Quantitative | 15 | 12.82 |
Mixed | 11 | 9.40 |
Total | 117 | 100.00 |
Qualitative methods | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Case | 38 | 41.76 |
Content analysis | 24 | 26.37 |
Literature review | 16 | 17.58 |
Interview or questionnaire survey | 13 | 14.30 |
Total | 91 | 100.00 |
2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Total | % | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Megaproject management in general | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 33 | 28.21 |
Megaproject sustainability | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 23 | 19.66 |
Megaproject governance | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 43 | 36.75 |
Megaproject risk management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 11.96 |
Megaproject investment and finance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3.42 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yuan, H.; Du, W.; Wang, Z.; Song, X. Megaproject Management Research: The Status Quo and Future Directions. Buildings 2021, 11, 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120567
Yuan H, Du W, Wang Z, Song X. Megaproject Management Research: The Status Quo and Future Directions. Buildings. 2021; 11(12):567. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120567
Chicago/Turabian StyleYuan, Hongping, Wenbo Du, Zeyu Wang, and Xiangnan Song. 2021. "Megaproject Management Research: The Status Quo and Future Directions" Buildings 11, no. 12: 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120567
APA StyleYuan, H., Du, W., Wang, Z., & Song, X. (2021). Megaproject Management Research: The Status Quo and Future Directions. Buildings, 11(12), 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120567