Improving megaproject practice and performance

Abstract

Having learned what we can from the case studies individually, we now consider them collectively by comparing how each project's planning, engineering, financing, construction and project management practices have contributed to its overall performance. We begin by scoring each case according to a common set of 12 performance measures. We also identify the ways each case study either avoids or falls into Flyvbjerg's megaproject outcome traps. Next, we identify 27 good planning, financing, contracting, project management, risk mitigation, commissioning, and asset management practices, and rate each case-study project on each of them. These ratings are then used to build a series of practice quality indices which are compared to each project's summary performance measures. This enables us to identify which practice measures are most closely associated with successful project performance. Next, we list each case study's good and bad lessons and identify a series of eight good practice takeaways that are common to all the case-study projects. We conclude by identifying the critical choices confronting megaproject sponsors, decision-makers and managers, and offer guidance to help them make the most appropriate choices for their projects and situations.