Journal Pre-proof
A New Holistic Framework for Megaproject Portfolio Success
Thomas Tepstad Berge, Bassam Hussein, Haavard Haaskjold
PII:
S2666-7215(25)00015-8
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2025.100190
Reference:
PLAS 100190
To appear in:
Project Leadership and Society
Received Date: 24 January 2025
Revised Date:
19 August 2025
Accepted Date: 24 August 2025
Please cite this article as: Berge, T.T., Hussein, B., Haaskjold, H., A New Holistic Framework
for Megaproject Portfolio Success, Project Leadership and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.plas.2025.100190.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2025 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
A New Holistic Framework for Megaproject Portfolio Success
Authors:
Thomas Tepstad Berge (NTNU)
/
thomastb@stud.ntnu.no (Corresponding Author)
Bassam Hussein (NTNU)
/
bassam.hussein@ntnu.no
Haavard Haaskjold (NTNU)
/
haavard.haaskjold@ntnu.no
oo
f
Address:
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
Institutt for Maskinteknikk og Produksjon, NTNU, 7491 Trondheim, NORWAY
Jo
na
ur
re
lP
ro
-p
of
Title:
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
A New Holistic Framework for Megaproject Portfolio Success
Abstract
re
-p
r
oo
f
Portfolios comprising multiple megaprojects are increasingly prevalent across various
industries, yet literature at the intersection of project portfolio management and megaproject
management remains limited. This study addresses this research gap through a systematic
literature review of 37 peer-reviewed articles, identifying specific practices that significantly
impact megaproject portfolio success. Three critical drivers for success have emerged from
this study: Proactive disposition, emphasizing a culture of continuous knowledge sharing and
uncertainty mitigation; Flexible governance, reflecting adaptable portfolio structures
accommodating diverse contexts; and aligned leadership, highlighting the importance of
strategic involvement and commitment of top management. The identified drivers have been
used to develop a novel framework that is specifically tailored for megaproject portfolio
management. The framework shows how each driver supports core project portfolio
management activities like strategic alignment, resource allocation, and risk management, and
how they influence key success measures including project performance, strategic fit,
portfolio balance, and synergy realization. Our novel contribution is to transcend the potential
silos of the established project portfolio management activities by using the three drivers for
an outcome-based approach, better suited to navigate the complexity of managing multiple
megaprojects.
ur
na
lP
Keywords: Project Portfolio Management; Megaprojects; Project Portfolio Performance;
Systematic literature review
1 Introduction
Jo
Megaprojects are increasingly used to achieve strategic goals across sectors, with portfolios of
such projects now emerging. NASA’s major project portfolio totals $81 billion (USGOA,
2024), while Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, anchored by the $500 billion NEOM programme,
has a total estimated cost of $1.3 trillion (Burke & Abuljadayel, 2024), Even in mature sectors
like Oil & Gas, portfolios comprising multiple megaprojects are becoming more common.
Yet, megaprojects are notorious for poor performance. A study of 258 transportation projects
across 20 countries over 70 years found only 10% avoided cost overruns (Flyvbjerg et al.,
2003). Similarly, 75.1% of 401 reviewed energy infrastructure projects experienced cost
overruns averaging $967 million each (Sovacool et al., 2014). The Olympic Games have a
100% record of budget overruns, with an average of 156% (Flyvbjerg et al., 2016). These
issues have entered public discourse, as exemplified by the Berlin Brandenburg Airport,
which opened 9 years late and €4 billion over budget (Landis & D. Landis, 2022), and was
scrutinized in media such as the Radio Spaetkauf podcast .
While managing a megaproject is evidently a handful, how should organizations then set
themselves up to manage a portfolio of them? According to the Project Management Institute
(PMI), a portfolio is “projects, programs, subsidiary portfolios, and operations managed as a
group to achieve strategic objectives” (PMI, 2021).
Unlike projects and programs, which focus on delivering specific outcomes or coordinating
related efforts, portfolios enable organizations to align initiatives with strategic goals and
optimize resource allocation.
Megaprojects, due to their size and complexity, are frequently structured as programs.
However, organizations, especially in infrastructure, defense, or energy sectors, often manage
several such megaprojects simultaneously. From a corporate or governmental perspective,
these can be viewed as a portfolio of megaprojects, managed to align with overarching
strategic goals, balance risk, and optimize resource distribution across initiatives (Brookes &
Locatelli, 2015).
re
-p
r
oo
f
This paper focuses on the firm-level strategic management of multiple megaprojects,
conceptualizing them as a portfolio. This perspective allows us to explore portfolio-level
challenges such as resource contention, prioritization, and governance, which differ from
intra-program coordination issues. Another contrast between programs and portfolios is that in
the latter there are often competing objectives as each project serves a different purpose in the
overall portfolio objective.
Jo
ur
na
lP
For organizations with several megaprojects, their project portfolio will most likely be their
biggest piece in the overall strategy puzzle. Hence, if the project portfolio is not managed
properly, it directly affects the ability of the organization to deliver on its goals, and ultimately
its vision and mission. Organizations which are project-based are found in an increasing
number of industries, including oil & gas, infrastructure, power and renewable energy, and
construction, to mention some. A famous quote which is attributed to Mark Twain goes:
“History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme”. By proactively embracing portfolio
management as a tool to deliver multiple megaprojects, we might avoid a history of cost and
schedule overruns as we`ve seen for individual megaprojects, not only benefiting the
organizations themselves, but also society at large given the widespread impact of these
projects.
Despite a robust body of research on megaprojects and project portfolios separately, limited
attention has been given to the intersection: portfolios of megaprojects. This paper addresses
that gap through a systematic literature review, aiming to answer the following research
question:
Research Question: How does Project Portfolio Management activities influence
portfolio performance for Megaprojects?
Where Project Portfolio Management (PPM) activities are those activities that are performed
at the portfolio level, above the level of the individual projects. Some activities are specific
for the portfolio like portfolio selection, while others are the same as you would see in
projects, with the only difference that they are addressing the portfolio context like risk
management, governance, etc.
This paper consists of six main parts. Concept introduction will investigate the body of
knowledge related to megaprojects and PPM to establish the required framework to further
assess the research question. Methodology will describe the process used to answer the
research question. Analysis and Findings presents the review-literature and its key findings.
Conceptual framework presents the visualization of how the PPM activities affect PPM
success and which drivers that are at play. Discussion will elaborate on the findings of the
study. Lastly, we`ll conclude and address limitations and future recommendations in the
section Conclusion and recommendations.
2 Concept introduction
re
-p
r
2.1What is a megaproject?
oo
f
The purpose of the concept introduction is to define the key terms that constitutes the research
question. Once we have established what each construct entails, we will use this information
to address all the relevant facets when reviewing and coding our review literature. Building
upon this information we aim to develop a framework which puts all the pieces back together,
but then in the context of managing a portfolio of megaprojects. Figure 1 summarizes the
different concepts which will serve as framework elements in the following sections.
Jo
ur
na
lP
Megaprojects are used by organizations across many industries to achieve their goals.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2023) the word Mega means; “huge, great,
substantial; much, many, a large quantity of”. As a project consists of many attributes, the
question is then; a large quantity of what? Flyvbjerg (2014) defines megaprojects as “…largescale, complex ventures that typically cost US$1 billion or more, take many years to develop
and build, involve multiple public and private stakeholders, are transformational, and impact
millions of people”. While monetary value certainly simplifies the definition, it has also
received criticism as other prominent attributes like complexity, ambiguity, risk, etc. can
require the same organizational approach even though the cost is far below the US$1 billion
(Davies & Mackenzie, 2014; Pollack et al., 2018). While a monetary threshold value has been
used by different governments when scaling their governance towards larger projects, this
approach has since become more granular in countries like the United Kingdom, where
complexity and innovation now also affects the selection of which projects to include
performed by their Infrastructure and Projects Authority (Volden & Samset, 2017). In this
paper we define megaprojects by the following attributes: political sensitivity, long delivery
span, high complexity, high risks, and a large number of both internal and external
stakeholders (Hu et al., 2015). Even though we don’t specifically label the projects with a
monetary value, a relatively high cost is an inevitable consequence of the forementioned
attributes.
2.2 Project Portfolio Management activities
The intention of PPM is to achieve strategic objectives (PMI, 2021). The objectives are,
however at the organizational level, this gives PPM a different context than individual
projects which need to be reflected in its activities. According to Kaiser (2015), structural
alignment is a pre-requisite for successful PPM, meaning that the design of PPM and its
processes should be based upon strategic information so that the organization is customized to
implement its strategies. This notion is supported by Müller et al. (2008) who argues that no
singular PPM system can accommodate the multidimensional performance interests of
organizations, hence a more holistic approach which takes the context of the organization into
consideration should be pursued.
Strategic alignment with the organization is a key element for PPM, which entails ensuring
that the totality of the portfolio is aligned with the strategy of the organization, this is an
activity that requires continuous assessment (Cooper et al., 1997; Kaiser et al., 2015). The
first step to ensure strategic alignment happens in the selection process of which projects to
include in the portfolio. The activity of project selection and monitoring involves selecting
new projects into the portfolio, tracking their performance, and terminating projects as
required (Cooper et al., 1997; Kaiser et al., 2015; Müller et al., 2008). This implies that to be
able to be selective about which projects to include, some projects will not make the cut.
re
-p
r
oo
f
To mature and deliver on the projects in the portfolio it’s important to know current
constraints when it comes to available resources to avoid spreading oneself too thin. The
activity of resource allocation involves allocating the finite resources to the different projects
in line with project prioritization to maximize value creation (Blichfeldt & Eskerod, 2008;
Cooper et al., 1997). This value creation is at the portfolio level; hence this is an area that
requires transparent priorities and collaborative skills among all parties involved.
ur
na
lP
Once the projects have been sanctioned and properly resourced, a key activity to ensure that
the portfolio obtains its objectives is risk management. In the portfolio it involves monitoring
the interaction between project risks and assessing and managing portfolio level risk to ensure
alignment with organizational risk appetite (Pajares & López, 2014; Teller & Kock, 2013).
Jo
Learning from experience and sharing those learnings across the portfolio is part of a
continuous improvement cycle. Knowledge management in the portfolio consists of
capturing, sharing, and implementing knowledge to improve both project and portfolio
delivery (Jonas, 2010; Killen et al., 2008). In the knowledge-based view it is understood that
it is the organization`s ability to effectively apply the existing knowledge to create new
knowledge and then take advantage of this capability which creates competitive advantage
(Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The portfolio level is the ideal arena to foster and facilitate this
advantage.
Portfolio communication is about effective communication with senior management, project
managers, and other key stakeholders to the portfolio (Butler, 2022; Unger et al., 2012). The
communication both enables decision-making by providing senior managers with quality
information to prioritize in line with strategic objectives and provides transparency and
strategic direction to the organization as those decisions and their premise is communicated
across the portfolio (Butler, 2022).
Lastly the PPM provides portfolio governance, which helps to ensure that the framework of
processes, roles and responsibilities, and overall conditions are in place for efficient delivery
of all PPM practices (Butler, 2022) This framework is both at the project and portfolio level,
and it`s important to continuously institutionalize knowledge through it.
2.3 How does success differ from the portfolio to individual projects?
According to Butler (2022), portfolio performance is a topic which is well covered in the
PPM literature, but with the least amount of convergence of concepts. Success for a portfolio
is multidimensional and needs to accommodate both operational and strategic performance
(Unger et al., 2012).
oo
f
Even though portfolio success is not the same as project success; the average performance of
the individual projects is crucial to achieving the overall objectives. We will make a
distinction between project management success, which focuses on the iron triangle of project
management, and project success, which addresses how well the project realized the intended
benefits (Cooke-Davies, 2002). While contextual differences among industries will apply, we
aim to accommodate both aspects of project delivery and we therefore measure 1) success in
relation to achievement of the iron triangle, and customer satisfaction (Meskendahl, 2010).
re
-p
r
Furthermore 2) synergy exploitation is a contribution from PPM which adds value beyond the
contribution from the individual projects (Meskendahl, 2010), as it indicates how well the
portfolio utilizes its resources, knowledge, etc. to deliver the totality of projects.
Jo
ur
na
lP
In addition, Cooper (2002) highlights two other important elements for portfolio success,
namely 3) the strategic fit of the portfolio with the overall strategy of the organization, and 4)
the portfolio balance in relation to resources, risk and cash flow. The achievement of strategic
fit is mostly connected to the activity of ensuring strategic alignment, where the contribution
of the portfolio must be measured in relation to how well it supports the overall strategy of the
organization. It’s important to note that as the strategy changes, it should imply that the
portfolio needs to reflect this as well. The portfolio balance also plays a role in strategic
alignment, as an example the overall risk of the projects needs to be aligned with the risk
appetite of the portfolio. Furthermore, there may be resource constraints which affect the
feasibility of pursuing certain projects, which need to be considered within PPM.
It’s evident that the performance of a portfolio is more complex than for individual projects.
The distinct attributes and scale of megaprojects will require PPM to distribute its efforts in a
certain manner, this setup is not well covered in the literature, hence this is the gap we aim to
address in this paper.
In figure 1 we have summarized what defines a megaproject, and which PPM activities that
support the success measures of the portfolio.
oo
f
re
-p
r
ur
na
3 Methodology
lP
Figure 1: Visualization of the megaprojects` attributes, and the seven PPM activities which constitute the building blocks
towards portfolio success
Jo
The area of use for a literature review is plentiful; it can provide overview of a body of
knowledge within new topics, it can define its limits so that one avoids repeating already well
covered topics, or it can make flaws or issues within current research transparent, etc. (Knopf,
2006). Given its many areas of usage, it also comes in many shapes; a literature review covers
a wide range of subjects with varying degree of details, a scoping review usually quantifies
and reviews the quality of literature within a certain field of study but does so without a
formal quality assessment. We have chosen to perform a systematic literature review which in
contrast has a set quality assessment procedure for which literature to include, it aims for an
exhaustive search within a set topic, and through transparency mitigates biases (Grant &
Booth, 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003). To emphasize transparency and completeness for the
review we adhere to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and MetaAnalyses).
While systematic literature reviews have emerged and been most prevalent within all areas of
healthcare, it has also migrated to other disciplines like management (Tranfield et al., 2003),
though often performed with less rigor than we see within the area of medicine. Through the
systematic literature review we aim for pragmatic research, which balance rigor and relevance
to accommodate the needs of both academics and practitioners alike (Tranfield et al., 2003).
This review used document type and publication language as initial inclusion parameters. The
inclusion criteria and associated justification can be found in table 1.
Table 1: Inclusion criteria used
Parameters
Document
Type
Criteria
Peer-reviewed journal articles
Language
English
Justification
As this is an extending review, focus is on high
quality articles which have gone through a rigorous
scholarly review process.
English is used for academic purposes.
3.1 Searching strategy
This step involves using electronic databases to find relevant articles using search strings. The
process is described in the following steps:
re
-p
r
oo
f
1. Determine which databases to use. To ensure sufficient coverage of the field two databases
are used for searching; Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) (Ewald et al., 2022). These are both
reputable databases which are considered to have wide coverage of bibliometric data and
supports multiple Boolean operators to ensure a comprehensive search. Snowballing
searching was performed by using Google Scholar, Oria and Litmaps to ensure that no
relevant articles were missed in the final selection.
Jo
ur
na
lP
2. Setting the search terms. The two key domains in our research question are Project
Portfolio Management and Megaprojects. A joint effort by the authors was performed to
define all relevant synonyms for both domains, also using the keywords and terminology used
by example-articles as input. The final search string can be found in figure 2. To find literature
entailing both domains the Boolean operator AND was used. Furthermore, OR was used to
include all synonyms for the two domains, while asterisk (*) was used to include both
singular and plural nouns of Megaproject(s). Exact phrases were searched for using quotation
marks (“”). In Scopus the search was performed within article title, abstract and keywords. In
Web of Science the search was run for title, abstract, author keywords, and keyword plus.
3. Search results. Prior to implementing the inclusion criteria WoS generated 138 results,
while Scopus generated 281 results, a total of 419. After applying the inclusion criteria, the
total was 195 (WoS: 71 and Scopus 124). These findings were in stark contrast to the number
of articles within only one topic, as megaprojects resulted in several hundred thousand hits,
while PPM resulted in about twenty thousand.
4. Screening. To perform the screening Rayyan was used. Bibliometric data were exported
from the two databases, and the first step was to identify and remove duplicates. After the
removal of duplicates 141 articles were left for eligibility assessment.
5. Eligibility assessment. Titles and abstract for all remaining articles were assessed in relation
to their relevance to the research question. While most of the articles covered both domains,
we also chose to include some that only covered one domain, as detailed understanding of the
domains by themselves also was deemed relevant to address the research question. This
review ended with 38 included articles. Based on these articles further snowballing searches
were performed using Google Scholar, Oria and Litmaps, resulting in two additional articles,
ending with 40 articles. After full-text reading of all articles three articles were removed due
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
to lack of relevance for the research question, resulting in 37 articles for the review. This
process adhered to a modified PRISMA flow diagram as shown in figure 2, where the
modification is the inclusion of the search string to further enhance the transparency and
replicability of the process.
Figure 2: Modified PRISMA diagram
3.2 Data extraction and Synthesis approach
The chosen synthesis approach was to perform an inductive thematic analysis, as we are
focusing on a particular research question (Xiao & Watson, 2019). The coding process of
open, axial, and selective coding is a non-linear cyclical process which evolves through
reading and re-reading to ultimately develop theory based on the literature (Williams &
oo
f
Moser, 2019). None of the themes were deemed final until all articles were read, and codes
had been assessed several times (Nowell et al., 2017). Prior to starting with the coding, the
authors read several full-text articles to align coding design and its definitions. For open
coding we focused on all elements mentioned in the literature which had impact on portfolio
performance, grouping them together to consolidate meaning and explanation (Williams &
Moser, 2019). Secondly, we developed the axial codes which aims at developing categories by
combining open codes which are interrelated or overlapping (Williams & Moser, 2019).
Lastly, the selective codes transform categories into meaningful expressions at a higher level
of abstraction, the transition from open coding to themes is depicted in figure 3. NVivo was
used for coding of all articles, while Rayyan was used to remove duplicates and to categorize
the remaining articles as they were reviewed based on reading the abstracts. Linking themes
to core contributions is an important part of the reporting process (Tranfield et al., 2003),
hence we`ll provide some justification to our thought process as the codes transformed into
themes.
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
A common thread in many of the articles was to provide arenas within both the projects and
portfolios which would incentivize the sharing of information to address complexity. This was
done through contractual setup, culture of collaboration and decision-making, systems and
processes, proper front-end loading, stakeholder involvement, risk management, etc. This
constitutes most of the theme of proactive disposition together with the cultural aspect. We
also found that a difficult balance of set governance to ensure efficiency needed to be
combined with sufficient adaptability to accommodate different contexts, stakeholders, etc.
While efficiency and legitimacy evolved through the category of governance framework, the
aspect of flexibility progressed as a mix of culture, stakeholder management, and competence
and competency. Furthermore, the literature focused on the role of top management, both
through their activities to ensure strategic alignment, decision-making, etc. but also through
their impact on the wider organization, facilitated by their expressed values, behavior, etc. In
sum we found this aspect to be a separate theme as a key connection between the portfolio
and the organization, but also as an enabler for the other themes.
oo
f
re
-p
r
lP
ur
na
Jo
Figure 3: Thematic analysis
4 Analysis and Findings
4.1 Descriptive Analysis
The reviewed literature primarily includes articles from the International Journal of Project
Management and Project Management Journal, with additional sources listed in Table 2.
Although PPM and megaprojects are individually well-covered, literature explicitly
addressing portfolios consisting of multiple megaprojects remains scarce. To address this gap,
our review incorporates articles focusing separately on PPM or megaprojects, applying a twotier analysis approach (Knopf, 2006). The selected articles range from 2008 to 2024, whereof
nearly half of them were published from 2020 onwards.
re
-p
r
oo
f
Table 2: Literature included in the systematic literature review
4.2 Findings
Jo
ur
na
lP
In this section we will go through findings from the literature. We will present the findings,
which in essence address different ways of positively affecting the performance measures of
the portfolio, per PPM activity as we defined in the concept introduction. There are two
reasons for this, firstly it presents the findings in an objective manner based upon wellestablished PPM literature, secondly it will also provide more insight when reviewing the
conceptual framework as we aim to depict how the different PPM activities affect the
performance measures of the portfolio.
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
Table 3: Overview of which articles in the systematic literature review that contribute to the different PPM activities
Jo
ur
na
4.2.1 Strategic alignment
Strategic alignment ensures that project portfolios directly reflect and support organizational
objectives, balancing both immediate and future value creation (Butler, 2022). Concept
selection critically impacts strategic success, prompting countries like the UK to introduce
formal governance processes prior to concept approval (Volden & Samset, 2017).
Studies in the oil and gas industry highlight that proactive stakeholder management during
project execution significantly boosts long-term strategic value (Eweje et al., 2012).
Similarly, in a European bank, a comprehensive Project Management Office (PMO)
framework integrating processes, structures, relations, and values & goals enhanced long-term
strategic alignment and stakeholder value (Tsaturyan & Müller, 2015).
Further, an analysis of 39 government megaprojects found that aligning projects closely with
legislative and organizational strategic goals effectively reduces negative political influence
(Patanakul et al., 2016). Moreover, active engagement in diverse megaprojects can inform and
evolve an organization's strategic direction, creating new opportunities through internalizing
project advancements (Denicol & Davies, 2022).
4.2.2 Portfolio selection & monitoring
Portfolio selection, also termed portfolio structuring (Jonas, 2010) involves strategically
aligning projects to directly support organizational objectives, thus requiring strong
involvement from senior management (Jonas, 2010; Koh & Crawford, 2012; Tsaturyan &
Müller, 2015).
oo
f
This includes re-prioritizing both projects and resources in the portfolio. In a study of
Norwegian ministries, a weakness that was identified was that some ministries took a passive
role in the governance of their projects, even when it came to project selection (Volden &
Andersen, 2018). Transparency in this selection process is essential to mitigate biases, such as
the development of irrational "pet projects," which can compromise legitimacy and overall
strategic effectiveness (Jonas, 2010). However, purely rational project selection may also be
insufficient, as it can lead to portfolio imbalances (Butler, 2022). Thus, combining rational
methods with a diversity of project types, including explorative projects aimed at long-term
innovation and exploitive projects focused on current capabilities, is beneficial for sustained
organizational growth (Denicol & Davies, 2022). In owner organizations, like the UK
government, several audit reports pointed at the activity of managing the interdependence
between the major projects as crucial, and best managed by aligning on an overall strategic
vision in the portfolio (Winch & Cha, 2020).
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
In many organizations it is the project portfolio manager who is responsible for monitoring
the project portfolio, a task that some label as unreasonable for a portfolio consisting of more
than a few projects (Hopmere et al., 2020). For effective oversight, a milestone-driven
approach balances the need for flexibility with necessary control, particularly useful in largescale and complex scenarios such as mega-events (Locatelli & Mancini, 2014). According to
Jonas (2010) a project portfolio manager is defined as “a central coordination unit that
supports the senior management with its specialized knowledge about project portfolio
practices”. While sufficient empowerment is emphasized, the interplay with bordering
managerial roles should be assessed, as there is great potential for conflict with overlapping or
contradicting responsibilities. In the World Expo 2020 programme, it was found that a type of
interface that often was neglected by project managers were strategic interfaces, as they often
didn`t directly impact project success (Shen & Xue, 2023). This was also echoed in another
study where the explanation for the shortcoming was that most project managers attain their
expertise by managing smaller projects where the strategic view does not play such a vital
role as it does in megaprojects (Eweje et al., 2012). If this is not managed by project managers
it must be addressed by someone else as portfolio monitoring needs to ensure strategic
alignment (Jonas, 2010).
4.2.3 Resource allocation
An organization has finite resources, and a holistic overview is required in order to distribute
them timely, transparently, and aligned with strategic priorities and commitments (Butler,
2022). Absence of a holistic approach can have negative impact on the projects in the
portfolio. One study found this issue to be a result of long duration of the projects, a lack of
synergy, and not having a resource loaded overview contributed to this issue (Cocchiara et al.,
2024).
Jonas (2010) refers to the term allocation quality when addressing the resource allocation
within a project portfolio and highlights its interdependence with access to information and
the organization`s ability to act upon it. At the project level it`s found that when information
feeds reflect the risk exposure of the project, it positions the project managers to make quality
decisions and proactive interventions (Eweje et al., 2012).
Several studies found that one-team mindset strengthened efficiency and performance in the
projects (Hu et al., 2015; van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Allocating resources within the
portfolio has great potential for conflicts as projects compete for the necessary resources to
deliver on their objectives (Butler, 2022), while transparency will increase the legitimacy of
the process, it still challenges key enablers for megaproject delivery like project culture and
trust.
oo
f
4.2.4 Risk management
Risk management at the portfolio level is at a different context than project risk management,
hence it is concerned about objectives that are closer to the goals of the overall organization
and its strategic initiatives (Butler, 2022). When assessing how a PMO can address
complexities, risk management was defined as one of the most important functional
capabilities to do so (Ershadi et al., 2022). It was found especially important in relation to
multi-project risks which could negatively affect several projects. It is however defined as a
less mature field compared to project risk management (Mulambya & Zaaiman, 2021).
re
-p
r
During the London Olympics 2012 programme the collaboration model consisted of colocated project teams with members from both the owner’s organization and the contractor,
this lead to alignment on the task and challenges and an increased level of trust which made
emergent issues transparent early on (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014).
ur
na
lP
One study provided insights into how information-feed affected strategic value delivered by
megaprojects in the oil and gas industry (Eweje et al., 2012). One finding was that decisionmakers who use more information tend to be more comfortable in dealing with uncertainty
and ambiguity, which both are prevalent in megaprojects.
Jo
4.2.5 Knowledge management
One study found that knowledge was the greatest asset to be managed in Project Based
Organizations (PBO) as it transforms into project capabilities (Barbosa & Carvalho, 2023).
PPM was seen as the integrator enabling knowledge retainment at the organizational level,
transforming it into a sustainable competitive advantage. One case study saw this in practice
where the company used exploratory projects to extend the knowledge in the organization
(Denicol & Davies, 2022). Project management and knowledge management can be seen as
input and output to each other, as relevant knowledge is required to perform good project
management, while successful projects contribute to building knowledge in the organization
(Cocchiara et al., 2024).
A key ability is to transform the acquired knowledge into improved project delivery, also
defined as knowledge exploitation (Jonas, 2010). In Room for the River programme in the
Netherlands they identified several improvement areas at the PPM level, all of which
contributed positively towards mutual trust between the stakeholders (Rijke et al., 2014).
Another example is the World Expo in China, where a governance model for such a megaevent was already in place following the learnings from similar mega-events (Li et al., 2018).
Sharing of explicit knowledge is easy as it can be coded, documented and made available
through the use of different tools to the wider organization (Cocchiara et al., 2024), and PPM
clearly holds a strong position to facilitate this process. It is however the tacit knowledge that
holds greater potential to create a competitive advantage for the businesses (Sanz & OrtizMarcos, 2019). Tacit knowledge is challenging to share as it is generated through individual
experiences and is difficult to express and extract.
One approach to sharing tacit knowledge is to actively distribute resources. In one company
key leaders from a successful megaproject were distributed into the delivery of London
Olympics 2012 (Denicol & Davies, 2022). While this benefitted this project, the wider
portfolio did not benefit until after the finalization of the project. A key takeaway was that for
a portfolio of megaprojects, with long-time spans, knowledge integration should be a
continuous process rather than an activity that takes place at the end of the project.
re
-p
r
oo
f
An alternative is that rather than moving resources in between different projects one can
dedicate resources to specific project phases, that way they would become specialized in a
specific phase in addition to capture and share learnings between the projects (Cocchiara et
al., 2024). In a study that assessed how PMO`s could address complexity it was determined
that knowledge sharing between multidisciplinary team members enhanced their coordination
to manage interfaces, and thereby mitigating complexity (Ershadi et al., 2022).
ur
na
lP
According to Duryan and Smyth (2019), Communities of Practice (CoP) is an approach which
can provide hierarchical PBO`s with flexibility through organizational learning. This
approach is, however, dependent on senior management support and guidance to be effective.
Eikelenboom and van Marrewijk (2024) also pointed at the role that senior management and
the parent organization plays in relation to enabling knowledge sharing from the projects.
Jo
A study found that communication skills were important for transfer of know-how knowledge,
but the most decisive factor was trust (Sanz & Ortiz-Marcos, 2019). The key to strengthening
these factors was found to be periodic face-to-face interaction between the remote teams. The
barriers found also seemed to be more dependent on project characteristics than industry, as
similar findings were reported within other industries like Oil & Gas.
4.2.6 Portfolio communication
In a case study of the Shanghai Expo construction in China, the importance of communication
was ranked as a top three factor in relation to managing their program (Hu et al., 2015). The
client focused on regular cross-functional communication activities, and experienced
improved efficiency through increased motivational capability, and ability to address
complexity.
The Hoover Dam megaproject is well-known. While the health & safety performance of more
than 1000 deaths on site obviously would be unacceptable today, there are other experiences
to investigate (Kwak et al., 2014). The project had a very close collaboration between the
contractor and the governmental agencies who followed up the project, leading to joint efforts
to overcome technical and operational challenges.
A key factor to accommodate complexity through PPM was found to be improved
coordination. The coordination especially addresses the organizational and environmental
complexity (Ershadi et al., 2022). An obstacle to coordination across the portfolio can be the
lack of a common taxonomy. In a study of two space missions, which were run in parallel, but
using different naming conventions (Cocchiara et al., 2024). This made sharing of knowledge
difficult, and this effect will be carried along into the operational phase where operational
procedures etc. differ and further complicates the use of staff across missions.
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
4.2.7 Portfolio governance
When assessing owner challenges in the UK, project governance received the second highest
score, only surpassed by the category technology and systems (Winch & Cha, 2020). The
study stressed the importance of a governance model which would aid in addressing
interdependence, clarifying roles and responsibilities, as well as leadership and decisionmaking. These findings were echoed in a review of 39 public projects in the US, UK and
Australia, where most of the projects struggled with control and oversight, and proposed
better use of project management processes and empowering the project owners to fulfil their
role properly (Patanakul et al., 2016). Another study reviewed how six different countries
performed governance of major projects. The authors found two essentially different
approaches: governance through projects, and governance of projects. While the former
focused on doing the individual projects efficiently, the latter focused more on the portfolio
view and had as a result established functions at the portfolio level (Volden & Samset, 2017).
A commonality found among most of the countries was that the focus on the front-end stage
of the projects was strengthened as the organizations matured, giving more weight to the
strategic premises and not only project efficiency.
Jo
ur
na
Brunet (2021) found that the governance structure had three central objectives at different
levels in the organization. At the project level the objective was efficiency, at the portfolio
level, it was accountability, and lastly at the institutional level it was legitimacy. The
challenge is to find the balance between these three levels, as their objectives often lack
alignment.
An aspect to address complexity in the 2012 London Olympics programme was flexibility in
the project organization to deal with emergent events that could not have been foreseen in
advance. Credit for this flexibility was partly given by project members to the contractual
setup which enabled tight collaboration and the required transparency to be able to detect
emerging issues at an early stage (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014). Another study of a megaevent, the World Expo 2010 in China, also concluded that project governance continuously
needs to evolve in line with the project during the entire life cycle to ensure sufficient
capabilities within adaptability and resilience to be positioned to deliver on the defined vision
and goals (Li et al., 2018).
The lack of competency can be an obstacle to obtaining this adaptability; in the case study of
a large European bank, it was found that they recruited project managers internally, as they
valued established network within the company higher than specialized project management
competency. An effect of this approach was that the project managers were more reliant on
following rules and regulations to deliver projects, and less flexible than more experienced
project managers would have been (Tsaturyan & Müller, 2015).
As the project context affects governance, Brunet et al. (2023) proposes that sensemaking and
relational mechanisms are used to decide upon which processes and governance structure to
adhere to in the project. In other words, alignment on culture, vision, and collaboration is seen
as more fitting to decide governance structures than contracts and formal processes.
5 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework (Figure 4) and Figure 5 visually represents how key PPM
activities impact megaproject portfolio success, structured through three key themes:
Proactive Disposition, Flexible Governance, and C-suite Advocacy. Although interconnected,
each theme distinctly contributes to specific aspects of portfolio success.
oo
f
Resource allocation illustrates a mixed impact; reallocating resources can strengthen strategic
or knowledge transfer benefits across the portfolio but may negatively affect individual
projects experiencing resource reduction.
lP
re
-p
r
The proposed framework aligns closely with Unger et al.’s (2012) roles within a PMO.
Specifically, C-suite Advocacy corresponds to the coordinator role, emphasizing strategic
alignment and stakeholder collaboration. Proactive disposition aligns with the controlling
role, which provides timely information to support strategic decision-making. Lastly, flexible
governance reflects the supporting role, facilitating effective methodologies and knowledgesharing practices.
Jo
ur
na
While we see similarities with our framework, we do present a more specific and granular
insight into how a portfolio of megaprojects is improved through PPM activities, and its
connection to portfolio success. Unger et al. (2012) also called for research which explored
many different contexts, which we indeed have addressed. By depicting which drivers that
come into play across the different PPM activities to affect portfolio success, we draw a
clearer picture of how different efforts affect performance outcomes. Our framework further
alleviates the activity-based focus by a strengthened attention to outcomes, a model better
suited to accommodate the complexity of megaproject portfolios.
oo
f
re
-p
r
lP
Jo
ur
na
Figure 4: Framework displaying how PPM activities influence portfolio success measures
Figure 5: Supplement to the conceptual framework, providing reasoning behind how each theme contributes to the success
measures per PPM activity
6 Discussion
“Determining a code for emergent themes from the data can be more art than science”
(Williams & Moser, 2019) a sentiment we endorse. While other themes could also reflect the
literature, our selection—Proactive Disposition, Flexible Governance, and C-suite
Advocacy—was guided by their conceptual weight and relevance. These interconnected yet
distinct themes represent core dimensions of effective megaproject portfolio management:
leadership, adaptability, and proactivity. Together, they capture the cultural and strategic
foundations needed to navigate the complexity inherent in megaprojects. The following
sections elaborate on each theme in relation to the research question.
6.1 Proactive disposition
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
Bateman and Crant (1993) wrote about how some individuals had a proactive disposition to
actively create environmental change, we argue that the construct of having a proactive
disposition is beneficial in relation to managing a portfolio of megaprojects as the ability and
importance of mitigating uncertainty is more vital than for smaller projects. The objectives of
megaprojects are more strategic and long-term, this profoundly affects how the projects needs
to be managed; as an example we`ve seen increased focus on front-end loading for
megaprojects (Brunet et al., 2023; Kwak et al., 2014; Thiel & Grabher, 2023; Volden &
Andersen, 2018; Volden & Samset, 2017) to ensure alignment with business strategy,
customer expectations, and overall mitigation of uncertainty.
Jo
ur
na
Knowledge is a powerful tool which underpins proactivity at its core by learning from
previous experience and sharing it across the portfolio of projects. PPM plays a crucial role in
facilitating this activity and acts as a repository of knowledge which should be managed as an
enabler for fulfillment of the organizational strategy. Timely information is key, and for
megaprojects the knowledge needs to be shared continually to achieve full effect across the
portfolio, given their long-term duration (Denicol & Davies, 2022). Managers of
megaprojects who consistently use quality information through established risk management
processes are better positioned to make value-creating decisions in the project (Eweje et al.,
2012). By having close collaboration with partners and contractors, the threshold for
communication is lowered, and in turn the projects get access to timely information to address
several forms of complexity (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014; Eweje et al., 2012). Several of the
case studies highlighted this aspect of megaprojects, and Denicol & Davies (2022) even
argued that a natural evolution of megaprojects is that they should be managed as fully
integrated teams between clients and delivery partners. While the project design is important,
it needs to be supplemented with a culture that facilitates collaboration (van Marrewijk et al.,
2008), and our statement is that a proactive disposition needs to be engrained in this culture to
be best positioned for megaproject portfolio success.
As can be seen in figure 4 we find that this theme is most prominent in the operational
performance of individual projects and the portfolio. It does however also enable strategic
decision-making by top management through relevant and timely information.
6.2 Flexible governance
The standard for portfolio management (Project Management, 2017) emphasizes the
importance of evaluating and determining the key components of a portfolio, as they affect
how portfolio governance should be performed. Megaprojects certainly bring aspects that
need to be accommodated in the governance design.
re
-p
r
oo
f
Uncertainty is a challenge for governance models to accommodate, but when adding
flexibility, we provide the resilience that is required. In Room for the River programme,
adaptation to regional context was required at the project level. Additionally, the PMO
provided the identification of early warning signals across the portfolio, and the knowledge
management capability to coordinate learnings to mitigate them. All of which were enabled
through a flexible and adaptable governance design from the start of the programme (Rijke et
al., 2014). This resonates well with the findings of Muller et al. (2014) who found that while
flexibility is important for successful governance, the requirements differ at the different
levels of the organization. At the lower levels, like the individual projects in Room for the
River programme, the flexibility needed was to adjust methods and processes to fit the
project. At the higher levels flexibility needs to address cultural aspects of the organization, as
the forementioned programme achieved through knowledge sharing across the different
projects.
ur
na
lP
We also find this theme to be mainly concerned with the operational performance of
individual projects and the portfolio, perhaps not surprising as it provides the framework for
the given context to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. While we have chosen not to
emphasize a substantial impact on the formation of strategy, it does provide legitimacy to the
strategic decisions made by the c-suite.
Jo
6.3 C-Suite advocacy
Top management involvement has a positive impact on portfolio management through
ensuring strategic fit, and their ability to terminate projects which do not contribute to the
strategy of the organization (Martinsuo, 2013), too much involvement however can generate
negative effects. One example is the nurturing of so called “pet projects”, where top
management support goes beyond rationality (Jonas, 2010). Top management are best
positioned to ensure strategic fit and portfolio balance. As the project portfolio implements the
organizational strategy it’s imperative that the C-suite takes the reins, by taking ownership in
making sure the portfolio enables the overall strategy. This is what Kopmann et al. (2017)
defines as deliberate strategy implementation which is seen as a pre-requisite to PPM success.
The other pre-requisite mentioned is emergent strategy recognition, which we saw
exemplified where explorative projects were used to widen the scope and future
competitiveness of the company by providing input to their company strategy formulation
(Denicol & Davies, 2022). Taking the reins means establishing the governance framework of
which will deliver the project portfolio (Volden & Andersen, 2018), play an active role in
strategic fit and balancing the portfolio while adhering to their own governance regulations to
ensure legitimacy (Jonas, 2010), ensure sufficient resources and nurture a proactive culture by
ensuring psychological safety through their own behavior.
Top management also plays a crucial role in enabling cross-functional knowledge arenas like
Communities of Practice to function efficiently in hierarchical organizations (Duryan &
Smyth, 2019), and to provide support to knowledge sharing by using their holistic overview
of the organization to aid the projects in learning from each other (Eikelenboom & van
Marrewijk, 2024). It`s also found that top management rhetoric comes short to expressed
preferences and values (Eweje et al., 2012), hence walk-the-walk is the more efficient
approach to affect the organization.
In contrast to the other two themes the top management involvement impacts more evenly on
the different success measures. It’s however important to keep in mind the interdependent
relationship between them, and C-suite advocacy is a key enabler for the other two themes to
generate value.
oo
f
7 Conclusion and Recommendations
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
The overarching topic of megaprojects, and particularly a portfolio of them, requiring
resilience is indeed a critical observation from this study. The three drivers for success
identified in the study - proactive disposition, flexible governance, and C-suite advocacy strengthen the focus within established PPM activities towards being better positioned to deal
with the uncertainty inherent in megaprojects. By fostering a proactive culture that encourages
collaboration and timely information sharing, implementing a flexible governance model
designed to make challenges transparent while navigating changing contexts, and ensuring
that top management provides strategic steering while enabling the culture and governance,
organizations can enhance their chances of achieving portfolio success for their megaprojects.
Jo
It is crucial to acknowledge that this specific area of megaproject portfolio management is
under-researched, despite its high relevance for project practitioners. The novel conceptual
framework presented in this study aims to contribute to the further expansion of expertise
through empirical research, ultimately aiding megaproject portfolios worldwide to effectively
support their organizations' strategies, which undoubtedly also will benefit society at large as
megaprojects are essential for urban and regional development globally.
The framework links key PPM activities to portfolio success measures via the three
forementioned critical drivers. These drivers are grounded in the specific characteristics and
complexities of megaprojects and serve as actionable focal points for improving portfoliolevel outcomes.
Recommendations derived from the framework include:
Establishing context-sensitive governance structures that recognize the distinct nature of
megaproject portfolios and provide both control and flexibility. Identifying and addressing
gaps in areas like stakeholder alignment, risk management, and strategic integration.
Fostering a collaborative culture that enables knowledge sharing and proactive issue
resolution across projects. Clarifying the expected role of senior leadership, emphasizing their
influence on strategic alignment and organizational readiness. Promoting a portfolio-level
perspective that is often overshadowed by the dominance of project-centric management in
megaproject environments, and lastly to use the three critical drivers to focus more on
outcomes rather than activities.
In sum, the value of the framework lies in offering a conceptual lens and practical guidance
for enhancing the governance, alignment, and effectiveness of megaproject portfolios—an
area currently underexplored in the literature.
However, the framework's reliance on thematic analysis introduces a degree of subjectivity
that could influence the identification and interpretation of themes. Additionally, the number
of articles specifically addressing PPM in the context of megaproject portfolios might raise
concerns about the comprehensiveness of the literature review. Therefore, future research
should prioritize:
▪
oo
f
▪
Empirical validation of the framework in real-world settings to solidify its practical
relevance. Longitudinal case studies would be particularly valuable for tracking the
framework's effectiveness over time.
Investigating the impact of PPM activities on individual megaproject success,
enhancing the framework's granularity and providing more targeted guidance.
Developing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) based on the framework to facilitate
ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
re
-p
r
▪
Jo
ur
na
lP
By pursuing these research avenues, the field can move beyond theoretical frameworks and
contribute to the development of evidence-based practices for effective megaproject portfolio
management. This will ultimately empower organizations to better navigate the complexities
of megaproject portfolios and achieve their strategic objectives.
8 References
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly,
25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Barbosa, M. T. J., & Carvalho, M. M. (2023). Toward a Multilevel Framework of Dynamic
Capabilities Through the Lens of Project Management, Project Portfolio Management,
and Project-Based Organizations. Project Management Journal, 55(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728231207028
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
Blichfeldt, B. S., & Eskerod, P. (2008). Project portfolio management – There’s more to it than
what management enacts. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 357365. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.06.004
Brookes, N. J., & Locatelli, G. (2015). Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to shape
policy, planning, and construction management. Utilities Policy, 36, 57-66.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2015.09.005
Brunet, M. (2021). Making sense of a governance framework for megaprojects: The
challenge of finding equilibrium. International Journal of Project Management, 39(4),
406-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2020.09.001
Brunet, M., Petit, M.-C., & Romero-Torres, A. (2023). Interorganizational Design for
Collaborative Governance in Co-Owned Major Projects: An Engaged Scholarship
Approach. Project Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728231208853
Burke, C., & Abuljadayel, F. (2024). Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 Projects Reach $1.3 Trillion in
Value [Article]. Bloomberg.com, N.PAG-N.PAG.
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=179551584&site=
ehost-live
Butler, M. J. (2022). Project portfolio management practices - a theoretical base and
practitioner guidelines. International Journal of Project Organisation and
Management, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPOM.2022.10045708
Cocchiara, C. M., Nigro, G. L., Roma, P., & Ragusa, A. (2024). Project and knowledge
management at European public space agencies: The need for a three-dimensional
project management office. Space policy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPACEPOL.2024.101639
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S02637863(01)00067-9
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1997). Portfolio Management in New
Product Development: Lessons from the Leaders—I. Research-Technology
Management, 40(5), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1997.11671152
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2002). Portfolio management: fundamental
to new product success. The PDMA toolbook for new product development, 1, 331364.
Davies, A., & Mackenzie, I. (2014). Project Complexity and Systems Integration: Constructing
the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(5), 773-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2013.10.004
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
Denicol, J., & Davies, A. (2022). The Megaproject-based Firm: Building programme
management capability to deliver megaprojects. International Journal of Project
Management, 40(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2022.06.002
Dictionary, O. E. (2023). mega, adv. & adj. In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 28.10.2024,
from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/mega_adv?tab=meaning_and_use
Duryan, M., & Smyth, H. (2019). Cultivating sustainable communities of practice within
hierarchical bureaucracies: The crucial role of an executive sponsorship. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-03-20180040
Eikelenboom, M., & van Marrewijk, A. (2024). Tied islands: the role of organizational
members in knowledge transfer across strategic projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2024.102590
Ershadi, M., Jefferies, M., Davis, P. R., & Mojtahedi, M. (2022). The contribution of project
management offices to addressing complexities in principal construction contracting.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(1), 287-306.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2020-0244
Ewald, H., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Heise, T. L., Stratil, J. M., Lhachimi, S. K., Hemkens, L. G.,
Gartlehner, G., Armijo-Olivo, S., & Nussbaumer-Streit, B. (2022). Searching two or
more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 149, 154-164.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.022
Eweje, J., Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2012). Maximizing strategic value from megaprojects:
The influence of information-feed on decision-making by the project manager.
International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 639-651.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2012.01.004
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you Should Know about Megaprojects and Why: An Overview.
Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L. (2003). How common and how large are cost
overruns in transport infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 23(1), 71-88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640309904
Flyvbjerg, B., Stewart, A., & Budzier, A. (2016). The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and
Cost Overrun at the Games. Strategy & Microeconomic Policy eJournal.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108.
Hopmere, M., Crawford, L., & Harré, M. (2020). Proactively Monitoring Large Project
Portfolios. Project Management Journal, 51(6).
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820933446
Hu, Y., Chan, A., & Le, Y. (2015). Understanding the Determinants of Program Organization for
Construction Megaproject Success: Case Study of the Shanghai Expo Construction.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(5).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000310
Jonas, D. (2010). Empowering project portfolio managers: How management involvement
impacts project portfolio management performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 28(8), 818-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2010.07.002
Kaiser, M. G., Arbi, F. E., & Ahlemann, F. (2015). Successful project portfolio management
beyond project selection techniques: Understanding the role of structural alignment.
re
-p
r
Megaprojects for Megacities. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803920634
oo
f
International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 126-139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2014.03.002
Killen, C. P., Hunt, R. A., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2008). Learning investments and organizational
capabilities: Case studies on the development of project portfolio management
capabilities. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(3), 334-351.
Knopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 127-132.
Koh, A., & Crawford, L. (2012). Portfolio Management: The Australian Experience. Project
Management Journal, 43(6), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/PMJ.21300
Kopmann, J., Kock, A., Killen, C. P., & Gemünden, H. G. (2017). The role of project portfolio
management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy. International
Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 557-570.
Kwak, Y. H., Walewski, J., Sleeper, D. M., & Sadatsafavi, H. (2014). What can we learn from the
Hoover Dam project that influenced modern project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 256-264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2013.04.002
Landis, J., & D. Landis, J. (2022). Megaprojects for Megacities: A Comparative Casebook
Jo
ur
na
lP
10.4337/9781803920634.00017
Li, Y., Lu, Y., Ma, L., & Kwak, Y. (2018). Evolutionary Governance for Mega-Event Projects
(Meps): A Case Study of the World Expo 2010 in China. Project Management Journal,
49(1). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/875697281804900105
Locatelli, G., & Mancini, M. (2014). Controlling the delivering of projects in mega-events: An
application on EXPO 2015. Event Management, 18(3), 285-301.
https://doi.org/10.3727/152599514X13989500765763
Martinsuo, M. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International
Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 794-803.
Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management
and its success—A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project
Management, 28(8), 807-817.
Mulambya, E., & Zaaiman, H. (2021). A literature- and senior stakeholder-informed model of
southern African programme risk management challenges. African Journal of Science,
Technology, Innovation and Development, 14(5).
https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2021.1947175
Müller, R., Martinsuo, M., & Blomquist, T. (2008). Project portfolio control and portfolio
management performance in different contexts. Project Management Journal, 39(3),
28-42.
Müller, R., Pemsel, S., & Shao, J. (2014). Organizational enablers for governance and
governmentality of projects: A literature review. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(8), 1309-1320.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis:Striving to
Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Pajares, J., & López, A. (2014). New Methodological Approaches to Project Portfolio
Management: The Role of Interactions within Projects and Portfolios. Procedia - Social
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 645-652.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.072
Patanakul, P., Kwak, Y. H., Zwikael, O., & Liu, M. (2016). What impacts the performance of
large-scale government projects? International Journal of Project Management, 34(3),
452-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2015.12.001
PMI. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) –
Seventh Edition and The Standard for Project Management (ENGLISH) (Vol. Seventh
edition) [Book]. Project Management Institute.
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=2942429&site=
ehost-live&scope=site
Pollack, J., Biesenthal, C., Sankaran, S., & Clegg, S. (2018). Classics in megaproject
management: A structured analysis of three major works. International Journal of
Project Management, 36(2), 372-384.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.003
Project Management, I. (2017). The Standard for Portfolio Management (Vol. Fourth Edition)
[Book]. Project Management Institute.
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1640653&site=
ehost-live&scope=site
Rijke, J., van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., Hertogh, M., & Heuvelhof, E. t. (2014).
Adaptive programme management through a balanced performance/strategy
oriented focus. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1197-1209.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2014.01.003
Sanz, M. M. M., & Ortiz-Marcos, I. (2019). Dimensions of knowledge governance in a multiPMO project context. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-11-2018-0244
Shen, W., & Xue, J. (2023). Managing project-to-project interfaces for large-scale
programmes: A network study in world expo 2020. International Journal of Project
Management, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2023.102438
Sovacool, B. K., Gilbert, A., & Nugent, D. (2014). An international comparative assessment of
construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure. Energy Research & Social
Science, 3, 152-160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.016
Teller, J., & Kock, A. (2013). An empirical investigation on how portfolio risk management
influences project portfolio success. International Journal of Project Management,
31(6), 817-829. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.012
Thiel, J., & Grabher, G. (2023). Abolish, Accept, Apply: Coping With Ignorance in Project
Ecologies. Project Management Journal, 55(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728231179812
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of
management, 14(3), 207-222.
Tsaturyan, T., & Müller, R. (2015). Integration and governance of multiple project
management offices (PMOs) at large organizations. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(5), 1098-1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2015.01.003
Unger, B. N., Gemünden, H. G., & Aubry, M. (2012). The three roles of a project portfolio
management office: Their impact on portfolio management execution and success.
International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 608-620.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.015
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
oo
f
USGOA. (2024). Report to Congressional committees: NASA - Assessments of Major Projects.
Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf
van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S., Pitsis, T. S., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). Managing public–private
megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International Journal of
Project Management, 26(6), 591-600.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2007.09.007
Volden, G. H., & Andersen, B. (2018). The hierarchy of public project governance frameworks:
An empirical study of principles and practices in Norwegian ministries and agencies.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(1), 174-197.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2017-0040
Volden, G. H., & Samset, K. (2017). Governance of Major Public Investment Projects:
Principles and Practices in Six Countries. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 90-108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800306
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative
research. International management review, 15(1), 45-55.
Winch, G., & Cha, J. (2020). Owner challenges on major projects: The case of UK government.
International Journal of Project Management, 38(3), 177-187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2020.03.001
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal
of planning education and research, 39(1), 93-112.
2023
2021
2023
2022
2021
2024
2014
2019
2022
2019
2024
2022
2012
2014
2020
2020
2015
2016
2010
2015
2021
2012
2014
2018
2022
2014
2021
2016
2014
Project Management Journal
International Journal of Project Management
Project Management Journal
International Journal of Project Organisation and Management
Project Management Journal
Space Policy
International Journal of Project Management
International Journal of Project Organisation and Management
International Journal of Project Management
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
International Journal of Project Management
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
International Journal of Project Management
The Journal of Modern Project Management
Project Management Journal
Project Management Journal
Journal of Management in Engineering
Journal of Management in Engineering
International Journal of Project Management
International Journal of Project Management
The Journal of Modern Project Management
Project Management Journal
International Journal of Project Management
Project Management Journal
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Event Management
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development
International Journal of Project Management
International Journal of Project Management
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of
Journal
Jo
Barbosa, Marcos T.J.; Carvalho, Marly M.
Brunet, Maude.
Brunet, Maude; Petit, Marie-Claude; Romero-Torres, Alejandro
Butler, Martin J.
Chenger, Denise; Woiceshyn, Jaana
Cocchiara, Chiara Maria; Nigro, Giovanna Lo; Roma, Paolo; Ragusa, Antonio
Davies, Andrew; Mackenzie, Ian
Delphine,; Prakoso, Yudhi Timor Bimo; Witte, Patrick; Spit, Tejo
Denicol, Juliano; Davies, Andrew
Duryan, Meri; Smyth, Hedley
Eikelenboom, M.; van Marrewijk, A.
Ershadi, Mahmoud; Jefferies, Marcus; Davis, Peter Rex; Mojtahedi, Mohammad
Eweje, John; Turner, J. Rodney; Müller, Ralf
Grönevall, Richard; Danilovic, Mike
Guo, Ning-sheng; Guo, P.; Madhavan, Ravi; Zhao, Jingrui; Liu, Yang
Hopmere, Michael; Crawford, L.; Harré, M
Hu, Yi; Chan, A.; Le, Y.
Hu, Yi; Chan, A.; Le, Y.; Xu, Yelin; Shan, M.
Jonas, Daniel
Kaiser, Michael G.; Arbi, Fedi El; Ahlemann, Frederik
Kannan, Selvi; Adebayo, Olanrewaju
Koh, Aileen; Crawford, L.
Kwak, Young Hoon; Walewski, John; Sleeper, Dana Marie; Sadatsafavi, Hessam
Li, Yongkui; Lu, Yujie; Ma, Liang; Kwak, Y.
Liu, Mingqiang; Zhu, Yongsong; Wei, Jianjun; Le, Y.; Zhang, Xinyue
Locatelli, Giorgio; Mancini, Mauro
Mulambya, Emmanuel; Zaaiman, H.
Patanakul, Peerasit; Kwak, Young Hoon; Zwikael, Ofer; Liu, Min
Rijke, Jeroen; van Herk, Sebastiaan; Zevenbergen, Chris; Ashley, Richard; Hertogh, Marcel;
Heuvelhof, Ernst ten
Sanz, Maria Mercedes Martinez; Ortiz-Marcos, l.
Shen, Wenxin; Xue, Jin
Thiel, Joachim; Grabher, Gernot
Year
ur
Authors
2019
2023
2023
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
International Journal of Project Management
Project Management Journal
Citations*
8
59
9
2
18
0
376
1
33
45
5
7
333
11
18
26
88
118
410
365
1
47
93
58
5
23
3
206
112
34
5
2
Tsaturyan, Tamara; Müller, Ralf
van Marrewijk, Alfons; Clegg, Stewart; Pitsis, Tyrone S.; Veenswijk, Marcel
Volden, Gro Holst; Andersen, B.
Volden, Gro Holst; Samset, K.
Winch, Graham; Cha, Jonghyuk
2015
2008
2018
2017
2020
International Journal of Project Management
International Journal of Project Management
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
Project Management Journal
International Journal of Project Management
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of
*source: scholar.google.com 30/11/2024
112
756
61
80
47
Strategic
alignment
Barbosa & Carvalho, 2023
Portfolio selection
& monitoring
Resource
allocation
x
x
Risk
management
Knowledge
management
Portfolio
communication
x
Brunet, 2021
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Brunet et al., 2023
Butler, 2022
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Chenger & Woiceshyn, 2021
Cocchiara, 2024
x
x
Duryan & Smyth, 2019
x
Grönevall & Danilovic, 2014
Guo et al., 2020
Hopmere & Crawford, 2020
Jo
ur
na
Eweje et al., 2012
lP
Eikelenboom & van Marrewijk,
2024
Ershadi et al., 2022
ro
x
re
-p
Denicol & Davies, 2022
x
x
of
Davies & Mackenzie, 2014
Delphine et al., 2019
x
x
x
x
Hu et al., 2015
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hu et al., 2016
Jonas, 2010
Kaiser, 2015
x
x
Kannan & Adebayo, 2021
Koh & Crawford, 2012
x
x
x
x
x
x
Portfolio
governance
x
x
x
Kwak et al., 2014
x
Li et al., 2018
x
Liu et al., 2022
Locatelli & Mancini, 2014
x
Mulambya & Zaaiman, 2021
Patanakul et al., 2016
Rijke et al., 2014
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ro
x
van Marrewijk et al., 2008
Volden & Andersen, 2018
Volden & Samset, 2017
Winch & Chia, 2020
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
lP
x
Jo
ur
na
Tsaturyan & Müller, 2015
re
-p
Thiel & Grabher, 2023
x
x
x
x
x
of
Sanz & Ortiz-Marcos, 2019
Shen & xue, 2023
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Highlights:
oo
f
re
-p
r
lP
ur
na
•
•
•
Portfolios of megaprojects have distinct features that need to be accommodated
The suggested framework accommodates the unique features of megaproject
portfolios.
Sufficient resilience is enabled through close collaboration with key stakeholders
Portfolio success requires active involvement from top management
Focus on outcomes rather than activities better accommodates complexity
Jo
•
•
Thomas Tepstad Berge
Thomas Tepstad Berge is a PhD Candidate of Project
Management at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU). He has 15 years of experience as a
practitioner of project management within the Oil and Gas
industry, spanning from front-end to execution within both
brownfield and greenfield developments.
oo
f
Bassam Hussein
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
r
Bassam Hussein is a Professor of Project Management at
the Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), where he has been a leading educator and
researcher for over 25 years. He has authored or coauthored more than 80 publications in the field of project
management. His research interests span a range of critical
areas, including project success, project complexity,
innovative learning, agile development, digital
transformations, and organizational learning. In recognition
of his excellence in teaching, he was named one of
Norway’s top ten lecturers by the Morgenbladet newspaper
in 2016. In 2023, he was further honored with the status of Excellent Teaching Practitioner at
NTNU, reflecting his continued commitment to fostering innovative learning environments
and advancing the discipline of project management.
Haavard Haaskjold
Haavard Haaskjold has a PhD degree within project
management from the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU). Haaskjold currently holds a position
as Associate Professor in Project Management at NTNU. He
is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) from
the Project Management Institute and is also a reviewer for
several international journals. He has 15 years of experience
as a practitioner of project management.
Declaration of interests
☐ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
☒ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of
Thomas Tepstad Berge reports financial support was provided by Aker BP ASA. If there are other
authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.