Large-Scale Transport Infrastructure Project Performance: Generating a Narrative of Context and Meaning

Abstract

In this article, we go beyond the proverbial appreciation that context matters and provide a deep exploration of how and why it can help make sense of cost deviations in large-scale transport projects (>$500 million). Using abductive inference in combination with a multiple case study approach, the criteria of planning, funding, scope, contract, challenges/issues, and benefits are used to understand and interpret the context and meaning of project cost performance. By comparing two light rail transit systems and conducting an in-depth examination of a road project, this article examines the differences between procurement approaches and worldviews and how they can introduce bias into a project's cost performance outlook. The contributions of this research are threefold as it provides an avenue for a new line of inquiry to help better understand causal inferences, thus contributing to the development of a plausible theory of project cost performance; highlights the ambiguity associated with cost performance assessment and calls for the use of standardized definitions and terminologies so that evidence-based decision surrounding risk and uncertainty can be enacted; and suggests that by engaging in a collaborative benchmarking process of project completion data, the context and meaning of a project's performance can be documented.

Improved reliability in planning large-scale infrastructure project delivery through Alliancing

“…hospitals and prisons) infrastructure projects have received widespread attention by governments, academia and the media due to its negative impact on the public purse and inadequate benefits realisation (Latham, 1994;Egan, 1998;Flyvbjerg et al, 2003;Murray and Langford, 2003;Love and Ika, 2022). Infrastructure project cost/time underperformance studies have tended to focus on conventional delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Design and Construct (D&C), Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) variants (Flyvbjerg et al, 2002;Love et al, 2021b). Repeatedly, the problems of highly differentiated teams with their own goals and objectives, adversarial and opportunistic behaviour, a lack of innovation due to counter incentives through delivering what is designed and/or specified, rather than openly exploring design alternatives are identified as issues stymieing project performance (Latham, 1994;Egan, 1998;Murray and Langford, 2003;Laan et al, 2012;Love et al, 2021a).…”

“…Infrastructure project cost/time underperformance studies have tended to focus on conventional delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Design and Construct (D&C), Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) variants (Flyvbjerg et al. , 2002; Love et al. , 2021b).…”