1,721,045 research outputs found
A Business Case to make sustainability work in project management
No full textSustainability in the triple bottom line (TBL), also referred as 3P framework (People,
Planet, Profit) is becoming a key driver for business strategy in the 21st century
(Elkington, 1999). The question “How can we develop prosperity without compromising
the life of future generations?” is today generally recognized worldwide as a basic
need for setting strategic goals of organizations (Tharp, 2012). In scientific literature,
sustainability is a fair new topic (Aarseth et al, 2016). What is missing today is the deployment
of these strategic goals related to sustainability into the operational activities
of organization (Brook, 2014). The discipline that can help organizations achieve their
strategic goals is project management: in fact, in order to survive and prosper in a global
environment that is continuously evolving, organizations must endlessly develop
changes in their way of doing business, and project management is a key skill capable
to execute these changes in a structured manner (Silvius et al., 2012).
Currently, no Project Management frameworks (PMI and IPMA above all) include
sustainability knowledge areas or specific processes (VV.AA., 2017; Macelino-
Sabada, 2015). Moreover, no specific input nor output in project management
frameworks considers sustainability in the 3P approach, but only some (rare) specific
points referring to one of the three pillars can be found (Silvius et al., 2012).
A project manager, alone, can’t succeed in including sustainability goals in
his/her project, if these goals are competing with goals set by the project sponsor
and/or PMO in the project charter (Martens, 2017). In order to influence the way project management is carried out, and to include sustainability into project goals,
decisions must be made during the business analysis phase (i.e. the phase during
which decision on what project solution is the best to solve the problem addressed
is taken), analysed and included into the business case, approved through a formal
Go/NoGo decision, so that project managers are fully empowered to develop projects
in a controlled manner (Gimenez, 2012; Carvalho, 2017). In fact, no organization
would leave the discretionary power to make decisions related to sustainability
to individual project managers (Martens, 2016). Indeed, sustainability decisions
cause expenses that cannot be justified simply from the project’s point of view, because
sustainability has long-term goals, whereas project goals are generally shortterm
oriented (Silvius et al., 2012).
Decisions on sustainability must be made at a strategic level and, then, cascaded
to professionals managing the tactic level, otherwise not even the best project managers
have the power to implement sustainability principles (Sanchez, 2015). For
example, in civil (mega)projects, sustainability rating systems, such as LEED for
buildings or Envision for infrastructures, can be applied. These frameworks cause
direct cost of resources to carry them on all along the project duration, and indirect
cost for extra-design required and for non-standard solutions to address sustainability
goals (Chandratilake 2013; Oluwalaiye, 2019): these direct and indirect extracosts
cannot be decided in the project phase, but must be decided before the decision
of developing the project is taken.
This approach is potentially in conflict with the definition of project management:
“The application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities
to meet the project requirement” (VV.AA., 2017). In fact, if project requirements
only include project goals and requirements needed for the project’s specific
purpose, probably sustainability has no chance to be present in project management.
Instead, project requirements must include points that consider the organization’s
long term strategy: in this way, sustainability can be seen as sustainable for
business purposes (Oakland, 2015). For this reason, this paper identifies principles for developing a business case
for a (mega)project including sustainability, in order to evaluate the implications of
incorporating a 3P framework in the way projects are selected. It is the Author’s
opinion that, as long as the cost for sustainability implementation has not been
clearly included into project budget, sustainability will still resemble one of the
“good intentions”, without a concrete possibility to be implemented through projects.
In the following section of this paper, the Author will list strategies to implement
sustainability in projects within a 3P framework, classified within distinct
business sectors, and provide hints for evaluating direct and indirect costs and benefits,
to work as an input for a business case and an economic evaluation of the
project (Banihashemi, 2017; Beske, 2014; Chong, 2017; Clinning, 2017; Shah,
2018; Terrapon-Pfaff, 2014; Xue, 2018).
Sustainability goals are economically sustainable if considered in the organizational
framework (long-term). If the short-term focus is maintained, sustainability
goals cannot be supported because violating the economic sustainability.
The preliminary topics to be considered by this research are:
Direct cost savings due (mainly) to environmental sustainability, such as reducing
the use of material and energy during project development;
Increase in the market share of the performing organization due to the increasing
demand of sustainable products worldwide
Reduction of risks occurrency and impact by implementing sustainable practices
Increase in the organization’s share value and received investments due to implementation
of sustainable practices
Personnel turn over reduction, and attractiveness for qualified professional, in
implementing sustainability principles
Better decision-making process due to the resolution of ethical dilemmas
Increasing the performing organization’s brand value
In the following steps, the research will develop in detail the balancing of costs
for sustainability and benefits both in the short term and in the long term of implementing
it
Paving the way to an Italian Hyperloop: a survey and analysis of main stakeholders
No full textThis research aims to investigate how the perspective of industrial stakeholder
can influence a megaproject in its earliest stage, that is an Hyperloop
development project on Italian routes.
The Hyperloop conceptualization was born in 2013 from an idea of Elon
Musk (Taylor et al., 2013), who first described it as a new mode of
transport, the fifth, in addition to car, plane, train and ship. The goal was to
create an alternative means of transport both cheap and fast. The infrastructure
consists of capsules, for passengers and/or freight, inserted in a low pressured tube, in order to limit the aerodynamic resistance, and to accelerate
them by means of magnetic levitation linear accelerators (NOACA,
HTT. AND TEMS, 2019). Most of the feasibility studies up to now realized,
provide HY to be powered entirely by solar energy, or at least renewable.
Moreover, since very little energy will be consumed by HY due to air resistance
(NOACA et al., 2019), surplus energy can be stored and reused,
thus making the infrastructure sustainable.
To date, numerous feasibility studies have been carried out, highlighting
the engineering and technological feasibility of the system (Van Goeverden
et al., 2018; NOACA et al., 2019; AECOM, 2020).
By analyzing a project such as Hyperloop, the Author recognizes that
stakeholders will play a key role. In fact, large projects as HY, have impacts
on a wide range of stakeholders (interested in the project both from the point
of view of the realization of the infrastructure and its future use), who will
express perceptions and judgements about the infrastructure not only before,
during and at the end of the construction phase, but also over the months,
years, and even decades following project completion (Turner et al., 2012)
Sustainability as a turning point for the success of megaprojects. The Italian approach
No full textSince their birth, megaprojects, defined as projects with a budget of more
than one billion (USD) (Warrack, 1985), have encountered considerable difficulties
in producing the results initially expected: “Over budget, over time,
under benefits, over and over again.” as “the Iron Law of Megaprojects” by
B. Flyvbjerg states. Some authors highlights that most of Megaprojects have
facing problems in producing the expected outcome because of the traditional
adoption of the triple constraint as success parameter, which tends to evaluate project’s success on the basis of a delivery that respects costs, time
and quality (Silvius, 2017).
However, megaprojects usually have an impact that can go well beyond
the immediate completion of the project (Turner, 2012). The different stakeholders
tend to evaluate the success of a megaproject at different times and
considering non-univocal criteria. The literature (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007;
Zolin, 2012; Turner, 2014) generally highlights that the project participants
(project manager and team) evaluate project success immediately after the
delivery phase, while consumers judge success in the months following the
end of the project based on how well it achieves its immediate business objectives.
In addition, investors and megaprojects’ sponsors are able to assess
the project success only after two or three years, evaluating (a) the financial
ability to refund the investment and (b) the alignment of the project output with the company strategy goals (Derakhshan, 2019)
PROPOSING A SUSTAINABILITY-CENTERED APPROACH TO OVERCOME CRITICAL ISSUES IN MEGAPROJECTS
No full textIn project management field sustainability is increasing his importance
due to the holistic approach that is assumed to be achieved to assess the correlated
effectiveness and performance. The aim of this study is to introduce a multidimensional
implementation of the triple bottom line model in the context of the
life cycle of megaprojects. The paper proposes an integration of new dimensions
that, from a theoretical point of view, are highlighted as best practices to be adopted
in the context of project management field. The review is based on a combination
of a qualitative and a bibliometric Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology.
At first is critically analyzed the potential application of these dimension
of control in addiction to “the iron law triangle” traditional parameters. Secondly
the implementation of sustainability principles is emphasized, in a long-term strategic
approach, including the dimensions priorly involved. The measurement of
impacts and the executive role covered by the project manager in this process are
considered. Outputs and benefits exceeding those related to project are evaluated
as result of the inclusion of sustainability principles concerning both the economic,
social and organizational areas. Further steps of the research could propose applied
case studies in megaprojects field and best practice developed in the operational
field
Sustainability in (Mega)Project Management—A Business Case for Project Sustainability
No full textSustainability in a 3P framework is becoming a key driver in megaproject
feasibility assessment according to International Financial Institutions. Currently, in
several cases, sustainability is still used as a fair topic to talk about by CEOs and
presidents ofCompanies and Institutionswithout a concrete plan to implement it.This
paper aims to explore the strategies for a real implementation of 3P sustainability
in projects and megaprojects, integrating the three pillars of sustainability into a
cohesive whole to make it works not only at year-end speeches to shareholders, but
also to fruitfully include sustainability into the strategy of organizations
A NEW WAY FOR PHYSICAL PROGRESS MONITORING IN HIGH TECH INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
No full textThis paper presents the project of designing an agile physical progress measurement
system for the construction management department of a multinational company operating
in turnkey railway projects field. It has been pointed out that the classical physical progress
measurement, based on Earn Value Management (EVM) and so financially based, is not suitable
for modern high-tech and, in one word, complex, construction projects. So it has been looked
for something different, more agile, to easily fix the problem of monitoring on a weekly basis
the physical progress of sites. The work starts by describing the process of choosing KPIs,
defines an overall physical progress index, than discusses the choice of a baseline to measure against, and at the end it illustrates the visual management implemented
Project Management per Comuni Mortali
No full textIl project manager che opera per organizzazioni italiane si trova ad affrontare problemi specifici di cui, spesso, non si trova traccia nei testi e negli standard internazionali, perché questi ultimi sono noti e si sono sviluppati principalmente nella scuola inglese ed americana, e perché, nell’assoluta maggioranza dei casi, la trattazione viene mantenuta ad alto livello e non entra nei casi specifici dell’applicazione quotidiana. In questo testo l’autore - che è stato e continua ad essere project manager sui progetti nei settori più diversi, oltre che docente universitario – ha raccolto la sua esperienza relativa alla gestione dei progetti nelle organizzazioni italiane, con un punto di vista privilegiato che viene dal suo aver gestito progetti internazionali nelle industry più diverse (infrastrutture, automazione, ricerca e sviluppo, ICT, change management) ed avendo avuto come interlocutori in tutta la supply chain di questi progetti, dalle funzioni più operative al top management, da fornitori a clienti finali. I problemi che si riscontrano nella quotidianità sono spesso molto modesti se confrontati con quelli descritti nei testi classici di project management, anche se ricorrenti ed estremamente critici per i progetti, come, ad esempio la mancanza di obiettivi chiari, il multitasking di gran parte dello staff di progetto, un budget chiaramente insufficiente già all’avvio del progetto e budget non ben identificato per la gestione dei rischi ed eventi incerti (che invece sono alla base della gestione dei progetti), gravi carenze nell’assunzione delle decisioni, mancanza nell’affrontare i problemi anche più evidenti e ricorrenti, e così via. La trattazione dell’autore, pur facendo riferimento ai framework internazionali di project management, non si vergogna di scendere nel merito dei problemi più pratici classici del contesto italiano, cercandone le radici e proponendo delle soluzioni o, comunque, consigliando il lettore nell’affrontare queste situazioni. Questo tipo di approccio nella trattazione, molto pragmatico e scritto nella lingua che si parla nelle aziende italiane, è la cifra caratterizzante di questo libro
More is different
No full textMegaprojects have characterized all civilizations since the dawn of mankind. In the
last decades, they are spreading not only in developed and rich countries, but almost
anywhere in the world. In addition, their dimension is growing in terms of cost,
impact, and complexity. Research on megaprojects is pretty recent: the first broad
study has been carried out by Miller and Lessard (2000), having as a core concept
that megaprojects are shaped, not chosen or planned. The message of Miller and
Lessard is still valid: makes no sense to apply a planning or selection process for a
megaproject, as it will not become a piece of the environment where it will be
placed, but it will literally make the environment, dramatically modify the environment
where it is located. Miller and Lessard focused their attention on large
engineering projects (LEPs); today, researches expanded the perimeter of such
studies to megaprojects, including large-scale events such as Olympics and large IT
projects. The three major contributors to current megaproject research are Bent
Flyvbjerg, Edward Merrow, and Peter E. D. Love. Determining whether a project is
a megaproject is not immediate: there is a threshold related to the budget invested
(some authors set a lower limit to 100 M€/); in addition, it is
pretty clear that phenomena characterizing megaprojects are emerging even in
project investing an order of magnitude less, but facing a large variety of stakeholders:
this is the case of several IT projects. It is pretty clear that it is a matter of
complexity in the project’s (internal and external) environment, but it stays unclear
how to assess the level of complexity first, and how to govern it, later. What is
evident is that traditional management is not working for a megaproject. More
simply, traditional management is not enough. Applying a traditional “Deming”
approach Plan-Do-Check-Act simply is not enough: organizations performing
megaprojects still need good managers able to apply traditional management at
tactic level, but what is missing in this approach is the long-run strategy enabling a
megaproject to shape the environment where is operating in the best possible way.
At the same time, the public debate on megaprojects is far from being agreed
upon. In the last few years, the topic is particularly relevant at the EU level. In fact the decision-making process on which infrastructure (LEP) should be funded and which not by the public sector has been criticized by new “sovranist” political
parties. For example, studies both in favour and against the funding of the same
infrastructure have been published by different academics, even belonging to the same institution
Reducing Complexity in Urban Infrastructure Projects
No full textAbstractThis paper presents results of an analysis of the most relevant urban guided transportation projects of the last decades, to understand root causes of failures and relevant variances from previously estimated parameters. We collected information from all side of the project – history of the transportation network, social environment, technical choices – reading documentation and interviewing stakeholders. Major problems emerging during the executing phases turn out to be managerial and referable to project management areas. So we addressed to the modern theory of project management based on complexity, which seemed to be fit for urban transportation projects
- …
