| Derek H.T. Walker, Co-Lead Guest Editor Royal Melbourne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia derek.walker@rmit.edu.au Jane Matthews Deakin University, Geelong, Australia jane.matthews@deakin.edu.au Jaakko Kujala University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland jaakko.kujala@oulu.fi Peter E.D. Love, Co-Lead Guest Editor Curtin University, Perth, Australia p.love@curtin.edu.au Kirsi Aaltonen University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland kirsi.aaltonen@oulu.fi Jere Lehtinen University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland jere.Lehtinen@oulu.fi |
Theme
This special issue (SI) will focus on a narrow but emerging phenomenon in the infrastructure megaproject field of study. We see many examples of megaprojects managed as a “program of projects”, some more successfully than others. For example, the British Airports Authority Terminal Five (T5) at Heathrow airport successfully delivered its physical infrastructure using a program of projects (Doherty, 2008; Gil, Miozzo and Massini, 2012; Brady and Davis, 2010;2014) But T5 was confronted with disastrous commissioning and testing of its baggage handling system, which was dealt with as a separate sub-project; it should have formed part of the original program of works. Arguably, project owners often seem to either bundle disparate but highly linked projects into a single megaproject management organizational structure, missing the importance of smaller but vital project components at the expense of a strong focus on the main project delivery output, or else they simply neglect to consider interfaces between linked projects in what could be viewed, as a “program of projects”.
This SI concentrates on the organizational arrangements for “infrastructure megaproject programmes of work” that comprises a set of linked stand-alone projects within that programme of works. Usually, this requires high levels of both integration and collaboration. We are particularly interested in how organizations are specifically designed to manage programs of projects rather than, for example, a government’s public works type organization responsible for new projects, maintenance, and operations of infrastructure facilities.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a project delivery contract approach in which participants from the project owner, design team, delivery contractor (usually including the major services sub-contractors), and often the facilities management team form an integrated team entity with a collaborative culture and united best-for-project mindset. Its contractual form and performance routines are designed for team integration and collaboration (Walker, Vaz Serra and Love, 2022).
Alliancing is a specific form of IPD used for several decades in Australia. The Victorian State Government’s Department of Finance and Treasury (2006, p.9) – defines Alliancing as “… delivering major capital assets, where a public sector agency (the Owner) works collaboratively with private sector parties (Non-Owner Participants or NOPs). All participants must work together in good faith, acting with integrity and making best‐for‐project decisions. They work as an integrated, collaborative united team and make unanimous decisions on all key project delivery issues. The alliance structure capitalizes on the relationships between the Participants, removes organizational barriers and encourages effective integration with the Owner.”
In the USA, IPD has emerged as a growing choice of project delivery (Hall and Scott, 2019) through the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) and in several other countries such as Australia, Finland, The Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK, Alliancing is also growing in popularity with project owners through Project Alliance Agreements (PAAs). The UK’s NEC3/4 contract forms also follow similar values and contractual requirements.
The adoption and adaptation of Project Alliancing for infrastructure projects are growing globally (Lahdenperä, 2012; Walker and Rowlinson, 2020). In Australia, it has a decade long pedigree with many billions of projects delivered via this form of project procurement. While Project Alliancing has demonstrated many advantages and efficiencies at the project level, discussions with PA experts reveal that this has not been frequently translated across projects. Experienced IPD and Project Alliancing practitioners observe that people with extensive Alliancing experience often effectively transfer tacit knowledge about the approach and its intricacies. Still, the fragmented nature of project work inhibits wider knowledge and innovation diffusion unless this is designed-into PAAs. This may be facilitated by cohesively bundling alliance projects that contribute to achieving a shared strategic goal into a programme of works, forming a Program Alliance.
We see this with two examples of a Program Alliance in Victoria, Australia. The Regional Rail Link Authority (RRLA) led the planning and delivery of the A$4 billion-plus RRL project (2009-2015) through a mix of several project alliances, a PPP project and a design and construct (D&C) rail infrastructure program of works (Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 2018). This upgraded existing brownfield rail lines and facilities combined with new rail lines and substantial upgrading and modernization of rail signalling communication systems.
The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) presents a second example through their Level Crossing Rail Program (LXRP). The A$16 plus billion programs involve removing 85 level crossing over 11 years through rail-road grade separations and replacing old stations and other operational infrastructure. In both cases, a special purpose organization was formed as the Alliance Program manager group was established to manage all Alliance Projects within the program and interface with other government agencies and departments. This resembled a Project Office, as seen in many public and private organizations (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010; Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay, 2017). However, these two Program Alliance delivery organizations fulfil roles more akin to a large temporary corporation. They are mainly independent entities with responsibility and accountability for managing a wide range of organizational interfaces and leveraging the benefits from innovation, learning and continuous improvement across projects. The Program Alliance’s PAAs reflect this strategic goal by designing key results areas (KRAs) and contractual requirements to enhance productivity and deliver team integration, collaboration, and learning diffusion.
Worldwide, we see examples of megaprojects of many billions of dollars in value, where a temporary organization (often 5, 10 or several decades lifespan) is designed to deliver the infrastructure where they disband upon completion of the program. Central to this concept is the temporary organizational form (even if it is a 10+ year lifespan), the strategic separation of its project output (the infrastructure) from the day-to-day operation of the completed infrastructure.
This special issue is looking for examples of this kind of organizational entity (the program delivery organization) such as the LXRA, CrossRail and HS2, in which the way that the entity was conceived to operate, how it designs its processes and routines within a collaborative and integrative cultural ambience to deliver the intended infrastructure’s value and benefit.
Research issues that we are interested in this SI are how program delivery organizations:
- Facilitate continuous improvement and innovation diffusion across projects in a program of projects;
- Manage interfaces between projects in a program to create holistic value;
- Decided (their motivation and rationale) to form a special purpose organization to manage the program of integrated projects;
- Create, develop and support the knowledge, skills, and attributes necessary to work in and with the program of projects;
- Link program governance effectively with individual project governance arrangements; and
- Measure performance in moving toward achieving the program’s strategic goals.
Other perspectives that fit this SI’s intent will be welcomed.
The SI guest editors aim to present a global perspective through these papers that will provide a valuable go-to source on state of the art in the collaborative integration of projects within a program of works. While most case study examples will illustrate IPD/Alliancing delivery forms, we also expect to see case study examples where a purposefully chosen range of project delivery approaches may be experienced within a program. Not all projects within a program may be appropriate to be delivered by IPD/Alliancing; however, program management organizations may have developed ways in which continuous improvement and innovation diffusion and other benefits can be leveraged across the program—this would also be of interest to SI readers.
References
Aubry, M. and Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2017). Chapter 9 Organizing for the Management of Projects The Project Management Office in the Dynamics of Organizational Design. Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management. Sankaran S., R. Müller and N. Drouin. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press: 119-133.
Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2010). “From hero to hubris – Reconsidering the project management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5.” International Journal of Project Management. 28 (2): 151-157.
Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2014). “Managing Structural and Dynamic Complexity: A Tale of Two Projects.” Project Management Journal. 45 (4): 21-38.
Doherty, S. (2008) Heathrow’s T5 History in the Making, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Gil, N., Miozzo, M. and Massini, S. (2012). “The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport’s T5 project.” Research Policy. 41 (2): 452-466.
Hall, D. M. and Scott, W. R. (2019). “Early Stages in the Institutionalization of Integrated Project Delivery.” Project Management Journal. 50 (2): 128-143.
Hobbs, B. and Aubry, M. (2010) The Project Management Office (PMO) – A quest for understanding, Newtown Square, PA, Project Management Institute.
Lahdenperä, P. (2012). “Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery.” Construction Management and Economics. 30 (1): 57-79.
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (2018). Assessing Benefits from the Regional Rail Link Project, Melbourne: 71.
Walker, D. H. T. and Rowlinson, S. (2020). The Global State of Play of IPD. The Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery. Walker D. H. T. and S. Rowlinson. Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge 41-66.
Walker, D. H. T., Vaz Serra, P. and Love, P. E. D. (2022). “Improved reliability in planning large-scale infrastructure project delivery through Alliancing.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. early cite: 21pp
Notes for Prospective Authors
We invite the submission of original manuscripts that advance empirical, theoretical, and conceptual understanding of the consequences and effects of the various uses of Program Alliances. Manuscripts must have substantial implications for theory and practice and need to contribute to the existing body of knowledge. We welcome both empirical papers and conceptual theory development papers, as well as other genres. Manuscripts need to incorporate a sound methodological rigor to give the reader confidence that the results are valid and generalizable.
Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Conference papers may only be submitted if the paper has been completely re-written and if appropriate written permissions have been obtained from any copyright holders of the original paper. Submissions will be reviewed according to the journal’s rigorous standards and procedures through a double-blind peer review by at least three qualified reviewers.
Submission Process
Please prepare the manuscript according to IEEE-TEM’s guidelines (http://ieee-tmc.org/tem-guidelines) and submit it to the journal’s Manuscript Central site (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tem-ieee). Please upload the paper to the IEEE TEM Editorial Manager indicating it is a submission for the IEEE TEM Special Issue on Infrastructure Megaproject Delivery: Delivering Programs of Work with Alliances
Schedule
Papers will be evaluated on a rolling basis with the deadline of submission on 15th March 2023
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management is the journal of the Technology and Engineering Management Society of IEEE, published quarterly since 1954. It is dedicated to the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions, by researchers and practitioners, regarding the theory and practice of engineering, technology, and innovation management.
Editor in Chief
Tugrul U Daim, PhD PICMET Fellow
Professor and Director
Technology Management Doctoral Program
Department of Engineering and Technology Management
Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science
Portland State University, Portland OR
United States
Add Comment