What impacts the performance of large-scale government projects?

Abstract Government projects and programs contribute to national growth at a great magnitude. However, records show that they are not well managed, even when project teams follow established project management principles. As a result, this study aimed at identifying key characteristics of government projects and programs, and recommending how they can be used to improve performance. This paper analyzed 39 public projects undertaken in the U.S., UK, and Australia and reviewed officially by the national audit offices and government agencies, including the Los Angeles Metro, London Heathrow's Terminal 5, and the fatal Australia's Homeowner Insulation Program. Based on this analysis the paper suggests six key characteristics, 17 practical recommendations, and six research propositions. These findings can support government project managers to utilize project management approaches according to project characteristics. This paper can support policy makers and government officials in improving the approaches for the management of government projects and programs

[1]  David Baldry,et al.  The evaluation of risk management in public sector capital projects , 1998 .

[2]  Bent Flyvbjerg,et al.  Cost Overruns and Demand Shortfalls in Urban Rail and Other Infrastructure , 2007, 1303.7402.

[3]  Peerasit Patanakul,et al.  Earned readiness management for scheduling, monitoring and evaluating the development of complex product systems , 2014 .

[4]  Dov Dvir,et al.  Transferring projects to their final users: The effect of planning and preparations for commissioning on project success , 2005 .

[5]  Terry Williams.  Identifying the hard lessons from projects – easily , 2004 .

[6]  David Preece,et al.  Project management and the integration of human factors in military system procurement , 1999 .

[7]  Seung Heon Han,et al.  Analyzing Schedule Delay of Mega Project: Lessons Learned From Korea Train Express , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[8]  Werner Rothengatter,et al.  Big Decisions, Big Risks: Improving Accountability in Mega Projects , 2002 .

[9]  Paul L. Francis.  Defense Acquisitions. Future Combat System Risks Underscore the Importance of Oversight , 2007 .

[10]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Classical Content Analysis: a Review , 2000 .

[11]  Christian Navarre,et al.  Large-scale projects, self-organizing and meta-rules: towards new forms of management , 1996 .

[12]  Challenges and Best Practices of Managing Government Projects and Programs , 2014 .

[13]  Aaron J. Shenhar,et al.  Reinventing project management : the diamond approach to successful growth & innovation , 2007 .

[14]  D. Arditi,et al.  Reasons for delays in public projects in Turkey , 1985 .

[15]  Young Hoon Kwak,et al.  History, Practices, and Future of Earned Value Management in Government: Perspectives from NASA , 2012 .

[16]  Søren L. Buhl,et al.  How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? , 2003 .

[17]  Young Hoon Kwak,et al.  What can we learn from the Hoover Dam project that influenced modern project management , 2014 .

[18]  P. Patanakul,et al.  Common Problems and Lessons Learned from Managing Large-Scale US Government IS/IT Projects , 2011 .

[19]  Paul L. Francis.  Defense Acquisitions: Future Combat Systems Challenges and Prospects for Success , 2005 .

[20]  Kumar Neeraj Jha,et al.  Critical Factors Affecting Schedule Performance: Evidence from Indian Construction Projects , 2006 .

[21]  Bernt E. Tysseland.  Life cycle cost based procurement decisions: A case study of Norwegian Defence Procurement projects , 2008 .

[22]  Ofer Zwikael,et al.  Project benefit management: a conceptual framework of target benefit formulation , 2015 .

[23]  Young Hoon Kwak,et al.  Managing risks in mega defense acquisition projects: Performance, policy, and opportunities , 2009 .

[24]  J. Smyrk.  A General Framework for Gauging the Performance of Initiatives to Enhance Organizational Value , 2012 .

[25]  Ofer Zwikael,et al.  Project governance: Balancing control and trust in dealing with risk , 2015 .

[26]  Søren L. Buhl,et al.  What Causes Cost Overrun in Transport Infrastructure Projects? , 2004, 1304.4476.

[27]  Tzvi Raz,et al.  An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success , 2003 .

[28]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[29]  Peerasit Patanakul,et al.  Managing large-scale IS/IT projects in the public sector: Problems and causes leading to poor performance , 2014 .

[30]  Ronald McCaffer,et al.  FACTORS OF NON-EXCUSABLE DELAYS THAT INFLUENCE CONTRACTORS' PERFORMANCE , 1998 .

[31]  Sadi Assaf,et al.  Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects , 1995 .

[32]  Terry Williams,et al.  Assessing Extension of Time delays on major projects , 2003 .

[33]  Nadia Bhuiyan,et al.  The use of continuous approval methods in defence acquisition projects , 1999 .

[34]  Shamsuddin Ahmed,et al.  The moderating effect of risk on the relationship between planning and success , 2014 .

[35]  J. Capka,et al.  MEGAPROJECTS--THEY ARE A DIFFERENT BREED , 2004 .

[36]  Jacob Oluwoye,et al.  SIGNIFICANT FACTORS CAUSING DELAY AND COST OVERRUNS IN CONSTRUCTION OF GROUNDWATER PROJECTS IN GHANA , 2003 .

[37]  Marcel Veenswijk,et al.  Managing public–private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design , 2008 .

[38]  Dan Lovallo,et al.  Delusions of Success , 2003 .

[39]  K. T. Yeo,et al.  Planning and learning in major infrastructure development: systems perspectives , 1995 .

[40]  Mohan M. Kumaraswamy,et al.  A study of the factors affecting construction durations in Hong Kong , 1995 .