Author:
Samset Knut,Andersen Bjorn,Austeng Kjell
Abstract
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to explore a selection of projects to understand how conceptual appraisals and choice of concepts are handled, and to which extent the conceptual opportunity space is exploited.
Design/methodology/approach
– The study is essentially case based, and rooted in a number of in-depth studies of single-project cases. Its study combines information from document studies with interview data, and culminates in normative recommendations.
Findings
– The study found that the projects do indeed not exploit the opportunity space to a very large extent. The lessons from the present study is that the final choice is determined more by decision makers than the analysts, and will often be the result of policy and preferences more than objective reasoning. Which again suggests that the efforts as analysts will often be in vain.
Research limitations/implications
– These findings could influence theoretical models outlining project establishment and decision processes.
Practical implications
– The study has identified many shortcomings in public sector processes that could be utilized to alter such processes.
Originality/value
– The study is original in that it focusses on the concept development phase of projects, rather than the traditional execution phase, and has studied decision processes.
Subject
Strategy and Management,Business and International Management
Reference16 articles.
1. Braybrooke, D.
and
Lindblom, C.E.
(1963), A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, The Free Press of Glencoe Collier-Macmillan, London.
2. Christensen, K.
(1985), “Coping with uncertainty in planning”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
3. Dosi, G.
(1997), “Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 107 No. 444, pp. 1530-1547.
4. Engwall, M.
(2002), “The futile dream of the perfect goal”, in
Sahlin Anderson, K.
and
Soderholm, A.
(Eds), Beyond Project Management, Copenhagen Business School Press, Malmö, pp. 261-277.
5. Lindblom, C.E.
(1959), “The science of muddling through”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 79-88.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献