Classics in megaproject management: A structured analysis of three major works

Pollack, J; Biesenthal, C; Sankaran, S; Clegg, S

Classics in megaproject management: A structured analysis of three major works

Pollack, J

Biesenthal, C

Sankaran, S

Clegg, S

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Project Management, 2018, 36 (2), pp. 372 - 384
Issue Date:: 2018-02-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (356.72 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Pollack, J https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8879-9408	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Biesenthal, C https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3851-4950	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sankaran, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-6216	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Clegg, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6083-4283	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-05-25T19:12:44Z
dc.date.issued	2018-02-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Project Management, 2018, 36 (2), pp. 372 - 384	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0263-7863	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/75630
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 The paper explores three texts in the field of megaproject management that intersubjectively, in terms of community sentiment, might be considered ‘classics’. We deploy four criteria for a structured analysis that determines if the status of the works in question may be considered classic. The works examined are Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition by Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius and Rothengatter; (2003) The Anatomy of Major Projects by Morris and Hough (1987) and Industrial Megaprojects by Merrow (2011). Based on these works we conclude with a prospectus for future research that will serve to develop the field of research into megaproject management.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Project Management	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.003	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Building & Construction	en_US
dc.title	Classics in megaproject management: A structured analysis of three major works	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	36	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management	en_US
utslib.for	1202 Building	en_US
utslib.for	12 Built Environment and Design	en_US
utslib.for	15 Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCDP - Contemporary Design Practice
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CMOS - Centre for Management and Organisation Studies
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	36	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 The paper explores three texts in the field of megaproject management that intersubjectively, in terms of community sentiment, might be considered ‘classics’. We deploy four criteria for a structured analysis that determines if the status of the works in question may be considered classic. The works examined are Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition by Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius and Rothengatter; (2003) The Anatomy of Major Projects by Morris and Hough (1987) and Industrial Megaprojects by Merrow (2011). Based on these works we conclude with a prospectus for future research that will serve to develop the field of research into megaproject management.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/75630