From unitary to distributed objectives

Abstract This article focuses on an important trend in the major-project field. A previous emphasis on unitary types is shifting to encompass also distributed forms. These latter types may indicate a potentially reinvigorated and new role for major projects in worldwide economic and social development. Examples include the Channel Tunnel connecting England and France, a proposed high-speed rail network for northern Europe, the EC ESPRIT, BRITE, RACE, and EUREKA programs the US Strategic Defense Initiative, the Human Genome Initiative, and various MITI-sponsored programs in Japan, such as the Fifth Generation Project. Key attributes of distributed major projects, such as the locus of support, missions and objectives, and managerial requirements, are often dispersed and not precisely centered on an easily pinpointed institution. Such elusive and generalized objectives as enhanced competitiveness, regional revitalization, technological innovation, and building state-of-the-art telecommunication/information systems are often aims. Distributed endeavors tend to be more knowledge-driven. Even in such traditional areas as physical infrastructure and aerospace, knowledge content accounts for a growing proportion of the overall value of large-scale undertakings. Critical resources, such as financing, technical and managerial expertise, and political support, must be sought globally. In such a distributed condition, Major Project Simultaneity — the concurrent application of highly diverse elements — is often required.

[1]  S. W. Chapel,et al.  A Review of Cost Estimation in New Technologies , 1979 .

[2]  M. Horwitch,et al.  Managing large-scale programs: The managerial dilemma , 1984 .

[3]  R. Vietor The Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program: Energy Politics in the Truman Era , 1980, Business History Review.

[4]  M. Munasinghe,et al.  An Integrated Framework for Energy Pricing in Developing Countries , 1980 .

[5]  Robert A. Caro,et al.  The Power Broker , 1974 .

[6]  Richard Schmalensee,et al.  Appropriate Government Policy Toward Commercialization of New Energy Supply Technologies , 1980 .

[7]  L. Sayles,et al.  Managing Large Systems: Organizations for the Future , 1971 .

[8]  Paulo Fernando Fleury The implementation of the Brazilian computer industry , 1988 .

[9]  Mel Horwitch,et al.  Designing and managing large-scale, public-private technological enterprises: A state of the art review , 1979 .

[10]  M Crawford Deficit woes spur drive to kill synfuels. , 1985, Science.

[11]  R. Freeman Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[12]  Mel Horwitch Uncontrolled and Unfocused Growth The US Supersonic Transport, SST, and the Attempt to Synthesize Fuels from Coal , 1980 .

[13]  J. Ronald Fox Evaluating management of large, complex projects , 1984 .

[14]  Richard H.K. Vietor Energy policy in America since 1945 , 1984 .

[15]  Mel Horwitch,et al.  Clipped Wings: The American SST Conflict , 1984 .

[16]  Shigeo Minabe Japanese Competitiveness and Japanese Management , 1986, Science.

[17]  Deep-draft dredging of U.S. coal ports: A cost-benefit analysis , 1984 .

[18]  Frederick I. Ordway,et al.  The Apollo tradition. An object lesson for the management of large-scale technological endeavors. , 1977 .

[19]  Graham Allison,et al.  Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications , 1972 .

[20]  P. F. Rothberg,et al.  Synthetic fuels from coal: status and outlook of coal gasification and liquefaction , 1979 .

[21]  Russell D. Archibald,et al.  Managing high-technology programs and projects , 1976 .

[22]  G. Allison,et al.  Essence of Decision , 1971 .