IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity

  • Gil, Nuno
  • Tether, Bruce S.

We explore how risk management and design flexibility interplay in major (infrastructure) projects, using the £4.2bn Terminal 5 project to expand London's Heathrow airport. By juxtaposing these two conceptual frames, we unearth the conditions under which they can be complements for managing the tension between efficiency and effectiveness central to these projects. Building design flexibility - through modular or safeguarded integral architectures - increases adaptability to accommodate evolving requirements which is necessary to attain effectiveness. Efficiency, in turn, demands risk management to deliver the project 'on time, within budget'. We explain variation in the interplay between the two approaches, highlighting the moderating role of the developer's relationship with the customer. Strong co-operation, particularly in a stable environment, encourages investments in design flexibility. Risk management practices prevail when co-operation breaks down. Another insight is that co-location and continuity of key project staff are themselves inadequate conditions to sustain co-operation.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V77-51FP623-2/2/4c42f93be016c2d32ab9a84fac538604
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

Volume (Year): 40 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
Pages: 415-428

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:3:p:415-428
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Christian Terwiesch & Christoph H. Loch, 2004. "Collaborative Prototyping and the Pricing of Custom-Designed Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 145-158, February.
  2. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
  3. Dvir, Dov & Lechler, Thomas, 2004. "Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on project success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-15, January.
  4. Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2008. "Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 155-195, February.
  5. Svenja C. Sommer & Christoph H. Loch, 2004. "Selectionism and Learning in Projects with Complexity and Unforeseeable Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1334-1347, October.
  6. Shenhar, Aaron J. & Dvir, Dov, 1996. "Toward a typological theory of project management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 607-632, June.
  7. Brusoni, Stefano & Prencipe, Andrea, 2001. "Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 179-205, March.
  8. Michael Hobday & Andrew Davies & Andrea Prencipe, 2005. "Systems integration: a core capability of the modern corporation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 1109-1143, December.
  9. Sanderson, Susan & Uzumeri, Mustafa, 1995. "Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 761-782, September.
  10. Gil, Nuno, 2007. "On the value of project safeguards: Embedding real options in complex products and systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 980-999, September.
  11. Cooper, Robert G., 1990. "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 44-54.
  12. Genus, Audley, 1997. "Managing large-scale technology and inter-organizational relations: The case of the Channel Tunnel," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 169-189, May.
  13. Lyra J. Colfer & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2010. "The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-058, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2010.
  14. Hoegl, Martin & Proserpio, Luigi, 2004. "Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1153-1165, October.
  15. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
  16. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal, 2004. "Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 159-173, February.
  17. Thomke, Stefan H., 1997. "The role of flexibility in the development of new products: An empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 105-119, March.
  18. Aaron J. Shenhar, 2001. "One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring Classical Contingency Domains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(3), pages 394-414, March.
  19. Geyer, Anton & Davies, Andrew, 2000. "Managing project-system interfaces: case studies of railway projects in restructured UK and German markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 991-1013, August.
  20. Andrea Prencipe & Stefano Brusoni, 2005. "Making Design Rules: A Multi-Domain Perspective," SPRU Working Paper Series 136, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:3:p:415-428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.