Governments are engaged in unprecedented fiscal support, particularly regarding public infrastructure, as stimulus to economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a necessary response to increased unemployment and the collateral damage to consumer confidence and spending. Keeping people employed via nation-building projects, especially involving transport infrastructure, and their supply chains is a key objective and has the potential to deliver assets that support long-term productive capacity. Nevertheless, it is critical that public infrastructure is of appropriate quality to ensure projects are progressive, governments manage long-term benefits realization and critical resources are not wasted through hidden future liabilities. This research explores and discusses the extent of agreement between the G20 policy framework on quality infrastructure investment (process theory) against a leading project success evaluation method (process practice) by mapping both artefacts using qualitative content analysis. It is found that project success evaluation offers a ‘high’ thematic match against G20 policy ideals and therefore provides an opportunity for project managers to ensure investments in quality infrastructure are indeed realized. This contributes to progressive infrastructure outcomes that take into consideration financial, social, ethical and environmental consequences. Fiscal success is equated to project success in this context.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there has been increased reliance on new infrastructure projects to counter economic fallout and underpin employment security. Urban and inter-urban transportation projects, such as major road, rail and port facilities, are popular choices for national and state governments in Australia as they provide broad fiscal support across all sectors of the economy. The problem with stimulus is making sure that the quality of the new infrastructure provides collective utility to a community or region. Whether the benefits will be worthwhile and represent best use of resource inputs requires financial, social, ethical and environmental consequences to be evaluated in a comparable format. The aim in this paper is to analyse the Gold Coast Light Rail (GCLR) Stage 1&2 project using a method that is capable of merging tangible and intangible criteria using an ordinal ranking algorithm. While the GCLR case study is undertaken with the benefit of hindsight, normally these types of evaluations are performed in real time as a project progresses from initiation (design) to implementation (deliver) and influence (delight). The method adopted in this study represents a modern form of multi-criteria decision-making, which enables successful projects to be distinguished from unsuccessful ones using a time period from commencement until one full year of operation has occurred. The i3d3 model, developed by a team from Bond University, has the unique benefit of ranking projects from best to worst across an organisational portfolio, geographic region or industry sector. It also supports past project performance to inform new design through application of a continuous improvement process of recording lessons learned. The GCLR case study calculated 100% of the critical success factors in the model to be positive and produced an overall success ranking of 23 (on a scale of -100 to +100). This paper presents the approach taken to evaluate GCLR’s level of success and the calculations that took place to reach this finding. This is the first time i3d3 has been used on an Australian project.

No abstract