designing effective governance structures for large...

Designing effective governance structures for large projects. LPG Report 2013, Aalto University, 2013, Helsinki.

LPG contact:

Dr. Inkeri Ruuska ([email protected])

LPG university partners:

Aalto University, Prof. Karlos Artto ([email protected])

University of Oulu, Prof. Jaakko Kujala ([email protected])

Åbo Akademi University, Prof. Kim Wikström ([email protected])

Copyright © Aalto University, University of Oulu, Åbo Akademi University

i

THE LPG RESEARCH PROJECT

The Large Project Governance (LPG) project was a four year (2009-2013) research project financed by Tekes and carried out by a consortium of Aalto University, University of Oulu and Åbo Akademi University.

The mission of LPG was to develop understanding of and enhance governance of large projects involving multiple firms and non-business organizations with diverse purposes and different organization-specific management approaches. The results of the LPG project improve the competitiveness of Finnish industry by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of large projects. Large projects are highly important for the economy and have often significant impact on the society. The LPG project has advanced academic research in the field of project management through active research efforts, high-quality publications and in-depth collaboration with the international and national research network. The LPG project has linked academic and industry partners to study and implement key lessons from several on-going and completed large projects. The studied cases have represented a large variety of industries.

The research was conducted in a spirit of engaged scholarship1, a continuous discussion between academia and industry during all phases of the research. Fortum, Neste Oil, Nokia Siemens Networks and The Finnish Defence Forces, and Ministry of Employment and the Economy have participated as industrial partners.

The LPG project was a cross-disciplinary research project in collaboration with several international universities; Stanford University, USA; New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA; Stevens Institute of Technology, USA; University of Brighton, UK; University of Manchester, UK; Politecnico di Milano, Italy; University G. d'Annunzio, Italy; Tongji University, China; Tsinghua University, China; and Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.

International collaboration has involved professor and researcher exchange, international seminars, academic and industry-oriented knowledge-sharing seminars and joint research papers and publications. The International Forum on Complex Project Management was jointly arranged in Shanghai with Tongji University attracting more than sixty leading experts of project management and project governance from all over the world. A joint workshop - The 2nd Joint Seminar on Global Projects, Business Networks and Project Business - involving forty international academic and corporate representatives, was organized at the Stanford campus in California in collaboration with Stanford University. The 1st Project Business Workshop at the Bengtskär lighthouse brought together 15 international professors and researchers to discuss topical themes on large projects.

1 Van de Ven, 2007

Contents

THE LPG RESEARCH PROJECT ........................................................................................... i

1. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................... 1

2. STEP 1: KNOW YOUR CONTEXT ................................................................................ 1

2.1 Contextual challenges in large projects ...................................................................... 1

2.2 Evaluate the contextual factors of your project .......................................................... 2

3. STEP 2: DESIGN YOUR PROJECT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ............................. 4

3.1 Framework for designing a project governance structure ........................................... 4

3.2 Elements of a project governance structure ................................................................ 4

4. CASE EXAMPLE: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Evaluating the context ............................................................................................... 9

4.2 Governance structure............................................................................................... 10

5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 12

LPG PUBLICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 14

1

1. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

The report presents a tool for evaluating the contextual factors of a project (Table 1 in Chapter 2) and a framework for designing effective governance structures for large projects (Figure 1 in Chapter 3) and the associated tool for selecting the contents of the governance structure of a project (Table 2 in Chapter 3). A real-life case project demonstrates how these tools and frameworks are used.

This report is a joint writing effort of Tuomas Ahola, Karlos Artto, Tim Brady, Hansi Hautamäki, Magnus Hellström, Jaakko Kujala, Inkeri Ruuska, and Kim Wikström.

2. STEP 1: KNOW YOUR CONTEXT

2.1 Contextual challenges in large projects

Large projects are significant undertakings characterized by the involvement of multiple organizations (including private firms and public organizations) seeking success with differing objectives. Large projects both impact and are dependent on society, and are thus often subject to the influence of a wider socio-political environment. A large project can be viewed as a dynamic network of organizations that combines the resources, capabilities and knowledge of the network members to fulfil the needs of the project owner. In addition to the shared goal (for example, the design and construction of a refinery), each member of the network is directed by its own objectives that often, to an extent, conflict with each other. Large projects are important for society and its welfare, but their track record is often poor: they may fail either partially or completely due to lack of appropriate governance. Their impact on an individual firm’s future is often significant if not fundamental. Large projects pose several managerial and governance challenges for their owners:

Large projects are massive undertakings that require capabilities from a wide range of disciplines. No single firm possess all the required capabilities, but a significant share of them must be sourced from outside the company’s boundaries. Therefore project owners need to engage in a myriad of relationships.

Large projects are inherently complex due to the large network of participating actors and the high level of interdependencies between them, which makes coordination a challenging issue.

Large projects are under constant public scrutiny and require close collaboration of many non-business actors, such as safety authorities and different non-governmental organizations, which adds to the complexity and tends to require different kinds of relational approaches.

2

Due to uniqueness of technologies and discontinuity in relationships, capability building in large projects is challenging.

These challenges mean that traditional project management tools and techniques alone do not provide the necessary means for dealing with them in an appropriate manner. A broader view on governing and managing large projects is needed. This report addresses such a broader view by introducing a tool for evaluating the contextual factors in the following section, and a framework for designing effective governance structures for large projects in Chapter 3.

2.2 Evaluate the contextual factors of your project

The contextual factors of the project - for example the project owner’s capabilities or the market environment – pose requirements for designing an effective governance structure for the project in question. In other words, a governance structure needs to fit the context in which the project operates.

When designing a project governance structure four contextual factors need to be considered:

Owner attributes Network attributes Project attributes Market environment

These four factors set the requirements to the design of the governance structure of the project in a complicated way. Table 1 provides a tool to evaluate the contextual factors: the table demonstrates how the evaluation occurs by choosing between two options a) or b) for respective question in each row.

3

Table 1. Evaluate the contextual factors of your project that set requirements to the design of the governance structure [evaluate by choosing either a) or b) in each row]

Contextual factor

Question to be addressed in evaluation

Evaluation: choose either a) or b) in each row Either a): tick

a) Or b): tick

b) Owner attributes

Clarity of owner’s goals?

Clear Unclear

Owner’s technological capability?

Good technological capability

Deficient technological capability

Owner’s supply chain orchestration capability?

Good supply chain capability

Deficient supply chain capability

Network attributes

Capabilities of network actors?

Good network capability Deficient network capability

Distance between objectives of central actors?

Low distance High distance

Relationships between actors?

Good relationships from the past activities

Limited experience of working together

Project attributes

Technological complexity?

Non-complex technology Complex technology

Location (e.g. target country)?

Non-complex local environment for operations of the project

Complex local environment for operations of the project

Cultural spread among participating actors?

Non-complex cultural setting

Complex multi-cultural setting

Market environment

Economic situation of industries of participating actors?

Anticipated favorable economic implications from the overall industry/market situation

Anticipated unfavorable economic implications from the overall industry/market situation

Regulatory and public environment?

Non-complex regulatory and public environment

Complex regulatory and public environment

Uncertainty in the business environment?

No significant potential for exceptions or interruptions

Potential for unexpected requirements/difficulties during the project

4

3. STEP 2: DESIGN YOUR PROJECT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

3.1 Framework for designing a project governance structure

Figure 1 illustrates the elements of a project governance structure. Furthermore, the figure illustrates alternative element contents (a, b or c) to select from. In Table 2, the framework of Figure 1 is shown in a table format that serves as a tool for selecting one alternative for each element by ticking in either a) , b) or c) in each row.

Each element entails the selection of an appropriate way to execute the elements. The way to execute an element is chosen from a set of alternatives. The governance elements and their different alternatives constitute the framework for designing a project governance structure as illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 2. The governance elements and their different alternatives are discussed in more detail in the next section.

3.2 Elements of a project governance structure

The definition of project governance structure is:

A project governance structure consists of mechanisms and policies for coordinating and safeguarding exchanges between firms participating in a project.

These “mechanisms and policies for coordinating and safeguarding exchanges” are contained in the concept of elements (see Figure 1) – and more specifically, in the alternative contents of those elements.

Figure 1 shows a project governance structure through “key element areas”, “elements”, and “alternatives”. The five key element areas are:

Roles and responsibilities Contracts Supply chain management Collaboration Control and monitoring

Each key element area is described in the following.

Roles and responsibilities Analogously to creating a winning team in any sport involving several players the roles and responsibilities need to be clear for all the firms participating in the project as well. Clearly and carefully specified roles enable each participating actor to leverage its strengths and several actors to work together in a seamless manner. A key principle is that roles and responsibilities should closely match the capabilities of participating firms (e.g. a subcontractor should not carry risks it is not capable of carrying in case they should realize). Roles and responsibilities consist of three elements, project type, main coordinator role, and the allocation of risk.

5

Contracts The primary purpose of contracts is to define the obligation between all firms involved in the project. Thus, a carefully prepared contract will help to align the objectives of participating firms and enable them to work efficiently towards the shared goal of completing the project. In addition, a carefully prepared contract will reduce the need for participating firms to engage in potentially harmful zero-sum games (such as filing claims) during the course of the project. Contracts consist of three elements: level of detail, contract type, and goal alignment.

Supply chain management The core objective of supply chain management is to secure the right capabilities at the right time, place and price for the benefit of the project. Inherently, supply chain management is all about selecting the best possible team of organizational actors for the project. The outcome of the process (what you get) is highly dependent on what factors are emphasized during the process (what you ask for). Large complex projects can rarely be completed with bulk components and services alone, which give rise to the need to carefully evaluate whether the potential suppliers possess the required resources and capabilities to complete their tasks in the project. Supply chain management consists of three elements: procurement approach, supplier selection criteria, and supply chain length.

Collaboration For several firms to be able to work effectively and efficiently together, shared and universally agreed principles of how to collaborate need to be in place. These principles address how multiple firms jointly engage in developmental activities (e.g. how a section of the project can be built more cost efficiently than ever before) and how problems –which inevitably arise during the course of the project – are tackled. Collaborative practices in large projects vary considerably. Some projects can be accurately described as team efforts while others can be described as ventures where several firms work more or less independently to fulfil their own individual goals. Collaboration consists of three elements: co-development, problem solving and communication.

Control and monitoring An effective project governance structure enables the participating firms to focus their work on what is essential (target setting) and to rapidly respond to any unexpected event or challenge that might arise. To achieve these objectives, the main coordinator (or coordinators) needs to have access to timely information concerning both the realized progress and availability of resources throughout the project supply chain. In addition, no factors limiting the flow of information vital for evaluating project progress should be at play (e.g. a firm faces an unfavourable response for disclosing information about a potential disruption in its own manufacturing process). Control and monitoring consists of three elements: target setting, planning and monitoring, and owner’s line of visibility in the supply chain.

Figure 1 illustrates the elements of a project governance structure. Furthermore, the figure illustrates alternative element contents (a, b or c) to select from.

In Table 2, the framework of Figure 1 is shown in a table format that serves as a tool for selecting one alternative for each element by ticking in either a) , b) or c) in each row.

6

Figure 1. Framework for designing a project governance structure

Contracts

Collaboration

Control and monitoring

Level of detail of contract items

Planning and monitoring

Contract type

Goal alignment

Co-development

Communication

Target setting

Owner’s line of visibility in the supply

chain

Several contract items specified in

detail

Emphasis primarily on safeguards (e.g.

penalty clauses)

Lump sum Cost plusUnit price

Visibility to all central actors also in

2nd, 3rd, etc. tiers

Balance betweensafeguards &

incentives

Emphasis primarily on incentives (shared gains)

Centralized to one or few actors

Information openly available to all

actors

Focus on resultsFocus on processes

Various actor-specific practices in

monitoring

Decentralized in the supply chain

Some shared development

activities

Each organization develops

individually

Limited (only need-to-know

information)

Semi-open (someinformation is shared openly)

Problem solving Cross-organizational teams

Emphasis on manager level

problem solving

Emphasis on engineer level

problem solving

Roles and Responsibilities Main coordinator OwnerMain supplier Management

contractor

Risk allocationShared risks

between owner and suppliers

Risks mostly carried by suppliers

Risks mostly carried by owner

Project type Turnkey Split into two or

three main packages

Supply chain management

Procurement approach

Supplier selection criteria

Emphasis on price Emphasis on product attributes

Future-oriented and performance-based

agreements

Competitive tendering

Emphasis onsupplier attributes

Level of detail based on industry standards

Supply chain length Low (central actors limited to 2 tiers)

Unlimited number of tiers

Moderate number of tiers (3-4 tiers

with central actors)

Focus on innovation across project

participants

Key element areas Elements Alternatives (of element contents)

Split into several main packages

High priority for using experiences

from past collaboration

Focus on resources

Sharing of business critical knowledge

Visibility based on reporting from 1st

tier suppliers

Mutually agreed principles rather

than details

a) b) c)or: or:

7

Table 2. Select the element contents of project governance structure [select by choosing one from alternatives a) or b) or c) in each row]

Key element areas

Elements Evaluation: choose either alternative a), b) or c) in each row Either a): tick

a) b): tick

b) Or c): tick

c) Roles and responsi-bilities

Project type Turnkey Split into two or three main packages

Split into several main packages

Main coordinator Main supplier Management contractor

Owner

Risk allocation Risks mostly carried out by suppliers

Shared risks between owner and suppliers

Risks mostly carried by owner

Contracts Level of details of contract items

Several contract items specified in detail


Mutually agreed principles rather than details

Contract type Lump sum Unit price

Cost plus

Goal alignment Emphasis

primarily on safeguards (e.g. penalty causes)

Balance between safeguards and incentives





High priority for using experiences from past collaboration

Future-oriented and performance-based agreements



Emphasis on supplier attributes

Supply chain length


Moderate number of tiers (3-4 tiers with central actors)

Low (central actors limited to 2 tiers)

Collaboration Co-development Each organization develops individually

Some shared development activities

Focus on innovation across project participants

Problem solving Emphasis on

engineer level problem solving

Emphasis on manager level problem solving

Cross-organizational teams

Communication Limited (only

need-to-know information)

Semi-open (some information is shared openly)


Control and monitoring

Target setting Focus on processes

Focus on resources

Focus on results



Various actor specific practices in monitoring

Decentralized in the supply chain

Owner’s line of visibility in the supply chain


tier suppliers

Visibility to all central actors in 2nd, 3rd, etc. tiers

Information openly available to all actors

8

4. CASE EXAMPLE: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT

Next the Heathrow Terminal 5 case2 is used to illustrate how the tools could potentially be applied in designing a governance structure that is based on collaboration. The case is used for demonstrating the evaluation tool and how the framework could be used, by using our interpretations on an ex-post basis to illustrate the governance structure of the project.

The Terminal 5 project was of major strategic importance to Heathrow’s owners, British Airports Authority (BAA). The airport was massively overloaded with up to 67 million passenger journeys a year in facilities designed to handle 45 million passengers. Furthermore, Heathrow was facing increasing competition from other European hub airports – in Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt – to attract the lucrative business market. If a new Terminal building wasn’t built this could affect Heathrow’s future as a leading hub airport which could seriously damage BAA’s competitive position.

As with all airport developments this was a high-profile project with multiple stakeholders. The planning for T5 started in 1986 and the original design was drawn up in 1989. The public enquiry went on from May 1995 – March 1999 (the longest planning enquiry in UK history which laid down 700 conditions under which the project could take place) – but consent to go ahead with its construction was not given until November 2001 and site work on the project did not commence until September 2002.

This long passage of time enabled BAA to prepare thoroughly for this large project. During the mid-to-late 1990s BAA developed a standardized project process, CIPP (Continuous Improvement of the Project Process), for its large portfolio of capital projects, but this approach applied to low-risk/low complexity projects whereas T5 was high risk and highly complex. In 2000, BAA carried out a benchmarking study of all large projects undertaken in the previous ten years and all airport openings in the previous 15 years. Their research revealed that these suffered major delays, were over budget or poorly integrated and were subject to disputes, adversarial practices, and protracted legal fights between the client and the contractors.

BAA found that whether the projects were conducted under fixed-price, or private finance initiative the client shifted the risk onto the supply chain, but it was the client who ultimately paid for the risk if the project got into difficulties. They realized that they needed to develop a radically new approach if T5 was to be delivered on time, to budget and delivering the benefits it was supposed to. This new approach was encapsulated in the T5 Agreement – a novel type of cost plus incentive contract -under which BAA accepted all the risks on the project and integrated team working with first-tier suppliers to work collaboratively and avoid the kind of confrontation that was typical in previous large construction projects.

This new governance approach in which BAA, the client, took on the role of systems integrator and accepted all the risk, together with the incentives for exceptional performance enabled the suppliers to work with the client to seek innovative ways of working to solve

2 Brady et al., 2008; Brady and Davies, 2010; Brady, 2011; Davies et al.,2009; Davies et al., 2011; Gil, 2009

9

problems that inevitably arise during a complex project. The integrated teams (one for each of the 147 sub-projects that together make up the T5 project) shared the same information (facilitated by use of a single digital model across the program) and shared the same goal – to deliver their sub-project as fast and as cheaply as possible.

T5 can be considered to be a highly successful large construction project completed on time and within budget. Perceptions of success suffered from the disastrous opening when numerous flights were cancelled, luggage lost and passengers stranded at the new Terminal. The problems were largely resolved very quickly (within two weeks) and the Terminal is performing very well now. It is interesting that the T5 agreement did not cover BAA and its intended customer for T5, British Airways (BA). The culture of collaboration and integration that was nurtured in the construction project was not reproduced in the handover to operations phase.

4.1 Evaluating the context

The evaluation tool is used to illustrate the contextual factors and the context of the T5 project.

10

Table 3. Contextual factors of the T5 project

4.2 Governance structure

We use the governance structure framework for illustrating the anatomy of the project governance structure in the T5 project.

Contextual factors

Question to be addressed in evaluation

Evaluation: choose either a) or b) in each row Either a): tick

a) Or b): tick

b) Owner attributes

Clarity of owner’s goals?

Clear x

Unclear

Owner’s technological capability?

Good technological capability x

Deficient technological capability

Owner’s supply chain orchestration capability?

Good supply chain capability x

Deficient supply chain capability

Network attributes

Capabilities of network actors?

Good network capability x

Deficient network capability

Distance between objectives of central actors?

Low distance x

High distance

Relationships between actors?

Good relationships from the past activities x

Limited experience of working together

Project attributes

Technological complexity?

Non-complex technology x

Complex technology

Location (e.g. target country)?

Non-complex local environment for operations of the project

Complex local environment for operations of the project

x Cultural spread among participating actors?

Non-complex cultural setting

Complex multi-cultural setting x

Market environment

Economic situation of industries of participating actors?

Anticipated favorable economic implications from the overall industry/market situation

x Anticipated unfavorable economic implications from the overall industry/market situation

Regulatory and public environment?

Non-complex regulatory and public environment x

Complex regulatory and public environment x

Uncertainty in the business environment?

No significant potential for exceptions or interruptions

Potential for unexpected requirements/difficulties during the project x

11

Table 4. Illustrates the composition of the resulting governance structure. The selected alternatives for each element are highlighted

Key elements

Elements Evaluation: choose either alternative a), b) or c) in each row Either a): tick

a) b): tick

b) Or c): tick

c) Roles and responsi-bilities

Project type Turnkey Split into two or three main packages

Split into several main packages x

Main coordinator Main supplier Management contractor

Owner x

Risk allocation Risks mostly carried out by suppliers

Shared risks between owner and suppliers

Risks mostly carried by owner x

Contracts Level of details of contract items

Several contract items specified in detail


Mutually agreed principles rather than details

x Contract type Lump sum Unit price

Cost plus

x Goal alignment Emphasis

primarily on safeguards (e.g. penalty causes)

Balance between safeguards and incentives


x




High priority for using experiences from past collaboration

x Future-oriented and performance-based agreements



Emphasis on supplier attributes x

Supply chain length


Moderate number of tiers (3-4 tiers with central actors)

x Low (central actors limited to 2 tiers)

Collaboration Co-development Each organization develops individually

Some shared development activities

Focus on innovation across project participants

x Problem solving Emphasis on

engineer level problem solving

Emphasis on manager level problem solving

Cross-organizational teams

x Communication Limited (only

need-to-know information)

Semi-open (some information is shared openly)


x Control and monitoring

Target setting Focus on processes

Focus on resources

Focus on results x



Various actor specific practices in monitoring

x Decentralized in the supply chain

Owner’s line of visibility in the supply chain


tier suppliers

Visibility to all central actors in 2nd, 3rd, etc. tiers

Information openly available to all actors

x

12

5. CONCLUSION

This report presents a framework for designing effective governance structures for large projects and a tool for evaluating the contextual factors of a project.

Ideally there should be a fit between the contextual factors and the choice of the governance structure as that enables efficiency and effectiveness.

The report presents a tool for evaluating the contextual factors of a project (Table 1 in Chapter 2) and a framework for designing effective governance structures for large projects (Figure 1 in Chapter 3) and the associated tool for selecting the contents of the governance structure of your project (Table 2 in Chapter 3) .

You can use these tools to evaluate the contextual factors of your project and consider how they impact the governance structure of your project. Designing the governance structure you can select between the alternatives which best suits your project and its context. Please contact the LPG contact person Inkeri Ruuska if you wish to have the tools (Table 1 and Table 2) in an electronic format.

To help you in using these tools we have illustrated how to design an effective project governance structure based on the interpretations on an ex-post basis to illustrate the governance structure of the Heathrow Terminal 5 project.

14

LPG PUBLICATIONS

The LPG research project has produced 54 conference papers. Below are listed only journal articles, working papers, and masters theses, but information on conference papers will be delivered on request.

Journal articles

Aaltonen, K. 2013. The establishment of legitimacy: The case of international projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1): 13-35.

Aaltonen, K. 2011. Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental interpretation process. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2): 165-183.

Aaltonen, K. 2011. Project stakeholder management in global projects. Project Perspectives, XXXIV: 108-114.

Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J. 2010. A lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4): 381-397.

Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Lehtonen, P., Ruuska, I. 2010. A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(4): 564-588.

Aarseth, W., Andersen, B., Ahola, T., Jergeas, G. 2012. Practical difficulties encountered in attempting to implement a partnering approach. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(2): 266-284.

Ahola, T., Kujala, J., Laaksonen, T., Aaltonen, K. 2013. Constructing the market position of a project-based firm. International Journal of Project Management, 31: 355-365.

Ahola, T., Davies, A. 2012. Insights into the governance of large projects: Analysis of organization theory and project management: Administering uncertainty in Norwegian offshore oil by Stinchcombe and Heimer. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4): 661-679.

Hellström, M., Ruuska, I., Wikström, K., Jåfs, D. (forthcoming). Project governance and path creation in the early stages of Finnish nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management.

Ruuska, I., Brady, T. 2011. Implementing replication strategy in uncertain and complex investment projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4): 422-431.

Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., Mancini, M. 2011. A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6): 647-660.

Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Martinsuo, M., Westerholm, T. 2013. Supplier capabilities in large shipbuilding projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31: 542-553

15

Ruuska, I., Artto, K., Aaltonen, K., Lehtonen, P. 2009. Dimension of distance in a project network: Exploring Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant project. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2): 142- 153.

Sallinen, L., Ahola, T., Ruuska, I. 2011. Governmental stakeholder and project owner’s views on the regulative framework in nuclear projects. Project Management Journal, 42(6): 33-47.

Sallinen, L., Ruuska, I., Ahola, T. 2012. How governmental stakeholders influence large projects – The case of nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1): 51-68.

Vuori, E., Artto, K., Sallinen, L. 2012. Investment project as an internal corporate venture. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6): 652-662.

Working papers

Chi, C., Ruuska, I., Levitt, R., 2011. A relational governance approach for large infrastructure projects – Case studies of Beijing T3 and Bird’s Nest projects in China. CRGP Working Paper #0068. Stanford University, CA, USA.

Master’s theses

Alifrosti, K. 2012. Project governance framework for a nuclear power plant project

Lajunen, E. 2010. Replication in large multi-firm projects

Liiri, A. 2011. Routines in consecutive projects

Mäki, T. 2011. Criteria for business performance in projects

Rantanen, T. 2011. Modular architectures in delivery projects

Salli, M. 2011. Organization of a project-based multinational corporation

designing effective governance structures for large...

Documents