Megaproject Research Paradigms: The Value of Empirical Evidence

During the past decade, megaprojects have had an enormous impact on the global economy and the advancement of transition and developing countries. Major investments in capital intensive projects are needed for projects around the globe to build pipelines, supply natural gas, create new technology, provide food security, develop plant life and agriculture sites, build alternative energy resources such as wind farms, relieve urban congestion, build better schools and medical facilities, and to rebuild and modernize bridges, tunnels, and highways as they reach the end of their life. Thus, understanding how to develop better research for critical infrastructure is essential to ensure that through transparency and public knowledge, better oversight of these projects is secured. Research on megaprojects tends to focus on their failures, in terms of cost overruns, delays, and endemic stakeholder conflicts. However, there are also great benefits that are associated with project development and implementation processes that are rarely discussed. One of the primary reasons for project management research is the development of a body of lessons learned that can be applied to future projects across industries, cultures and continents. Megaprojects generate a tremendous amount of scrutiny and public concern, but also serve as generators of environmental, economic and social sustainability. As noted by scholars in the field of project management research, the nature of megaprojects brings together significant tacit knowledge that is embedded within particular groups in the project (Bresnan et al 2003). Megaprojects are also evolving paradigms requiring unique and adaptable research methodologies. This paper analyzes the use and value of empirical evidence in megaproject research. The paper provides insight into the challenges of developing a case study from the perspective of a core manager on the project executive team, yet contrasts these experiences with objective analysis and investigation (Greiman 2013). The research methodology is based not only on empirical evidence, the academic and professional literature, data collection and analysis, but also the narratives of policymakers, government officials, project management professionals, constructors and engineers, technical consultants, local businesses, community participants, oversight authorities and other engaged stakeholders. This paper describes the challenges of integrating actual experience with theory, and whether the actual lessons learned correlate with the project management literature. The research draws upon qualitative methodologies including examples of autoethnography and narrative inquiry. The research conducted on America's largest megaproject, Boston's Central Artery Tunnel/Project, serves as a massive case study in the management of risk, cost and schedule, and particularly the interrelation of the technical, legal, political and social factors. The research methodologies provide new ways of understanding the difficult planning and execution phases of large scale projects and the differing perspectives and assumptions of project participants.