Adding value to the decision-making process of mega projects: Fostering strategic ambiguity, redundancy, and resilience

Abstract

Current practice in decision-making about mega projects seems to be aimed at reducing complexity by simplification. However, this is often detrimental to the resilience and added value of these projects. This article uses the concept of strategic capacity for analyzing the decision-making process on mega projects. This concept consists of three elements: strategic ambiguity (the tension between different purposes and goals), redundancy (having more options than necessary from an efficiency perspective) and resilience (is the process reactively or proactively resilient to outside demands?). Two transport mega projects in the Netherlands are analyzed. Our analysis demonstrates that creative solutions and added value are to be found in the recombination of policy options made possible by enhancing strategic capacity.

Coping with strategic ambiguity in planning sustainable road development: balancing economic and environmental interests in two highway projects in Indonesia

“…The analysis of the multiple streamsproblem, policy, and political streamshelps to account for strategic ambiguity by considering the complex decision-making processes that often complicate the planning processes. Strategic ambiguity is seen here as necessary to reassure viable solutions and seek added value (Priemus 2007;Giezen 2013;Giezen et al 2015). This paper also substantiates that strategic ambiguity allows for reflection on what sustainability means to the stakeholders (Kemp and Martens 2007) and mobilizes collaboration for implementation (Scandelius and Cohen 2016).…”

“…Strategic ambiguity in planning sustainable road development Eisenberg (1984) initially uses the term 'strategic ambiguity' to describe instances in which language was deployed in such a way to accomplish organizational goals. In this paper, the concept is adopted to understand a situation in public planning and decision-making in which various interests present and complicate discussions about development project goals (see also Giezen et al 2015). First, this situation occurs because of the level of abstraction of project goals.…”

“…In the Kelok-9 case, the project mission (improving regional connectivity) disputes with an interest of preserving the protected forest. Both cases illustrate that development project missions/goals often contain strategic ambiguity (Giezen et al 2015) that can be resolved through reflection on the problems and the solutions (Salet et al 2013). Such a process includes recognition of problems at a larger scale (international and national) and a lower spatial scale (local).…”

“…In Kelok-9 Highway, the solutions consisted of mitigation measures that 'combined a technical solution (construction of high-pillar bridges to reduce land-use change and tree logging), and landscaping (slope prevention and tourist spots for sightseeing)' (Interview B1). It appears that the appearance of the windows also provided ways for the project leader/ manager to innovate and create added value in coping with strategic ambiguity in large-scale infrastructure projects (Giezen et al 2015).…”

Project characteristics and performance in Europe: An empirical analysis for large transport infrastructure projects

“…The authors agree with Cascetta et al (2015) regarding the fact that the quality of the decision-making process is a key factor for the successful planning and delivery of TIPs: this process should be solutions that also maximizes stakeholders consensus. Also, Giezen et al (2015) scrutinize the decision-making process, grouping three institutional elements (strategic ambiguity, redundancy and resilience) under the notion of strategic capacity. Hensher et al (2015) review the role of local population and how the emotional bias toward certain type of project can shape the decision process and ultimately the project performance.…”