MEGAPROJECTS: Shaping the Research Agenda
Symposium Record
Location: EURAM 2013, Istanbul Congress Center
Date: 27th June 2013
Participants and Guests:
Naomi Brookes, University of Leeds, (Chair)
Lynn Crawford, Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence
Therese Eriksson, Chalmers University,
Anna Kadefors, Chalmers University,
Paul Littau, University of Seigen
Stephen de Schepper, University of Brussels
Amrik Sohal, Monash University, (Invited Speaker)
Candida Vieira Karhausen, Aston University, (Facilitator)
Terry Williams, University of Hull, (Invited Speaker)
Graham Winch, Manchester Business School
Ofer Zwikael, The Australian National University
Yaser Hawas, United Arab Emirates University
Her Highness Dr. Moza T. Al Nahyan
Introduction
This document acts as a record for the MEGAPROJECTS: Shaping the Research Agenda Symposium
held on 27th June 2013 as part of the EURAM 2013 conference. The aim of the symposium was to
highlight the current experience of researchers grappling with the issues of megaprojects design and
delivery and to use the expertise of the EURAM attendees to guide future efforts in this highly
societally impactive field.
This document first captures the main points given in the introduction to the Symposium by
Professor Naomi Brookes. It then summarizes the contributions of the invited speakers, Professor
Terry Williams and Professor Amrik Sohal. It concludes by delineating the ensuing discussions that
were stimulated by the following questions posed to the symposium:


Do we need new theory for megaprojects?
What would your version of a megaproject research agenda look like?
Megaprojects and their relationship to existing project management theory
Professor Naomi Brookes drew attention to the wide range of projects that are encompassed by the
terminology ‘megaprojects’ including powerplant megaprojects (conventional, nuclear and
renewable), transport megaprojects (associated with travel by sea, road train and air) and even
cultural megaprojects such as the Olympics. Although, conventionally, megaprojects can be
characterised as any project of over $1billion in value, Naomi drew upon Merrows’ definition of a
megaproject that described this construct as a project that can, by its size and character, disrupt or
change its own project environment. She drew attention to the work of the MEGAPROJECT COST
Action in supporting research in this area and its ability to fund short-term scientific missions that
further the megaproject research agenda. Naomi illustrated the disparate nature of current theory
that has been used to interpret megaproject phenomena and juxtaposed this with the differences as
encapsulated by Frick’s 5C’s (colossal, captivating, costly, contested and complex) between projects
and megaprojects.
Complexity in Megaprojects
(Presentation contained in Annex A)
Professor Terry Williams provided a review of his work on complexity and its implications for
megaproject research. Terry’s premise was rooted in the complex causal chains that are in evidence
in complex projects such as megaprojects. He argued that feedback loops in these causal chains
leads to emergent, unpredictable and ‘vicious’ cycles of poor megaproject performance. The
contributing socio-political complexity in evidence in megaprojects exacerbate these cycles even
further. Terry proposed that the emergent phenomenon of poor performance and its relationship to
areas that traditionally lie outside concerns of formal project management means that new theory is
required to design and deliver megaprojects effectively.
Decision Making and Stakeholders of Mega Infrastructure Projects
(Presentation contained in Annex B)
Professor Amrik Sohal used the experience of the Dubai-Fujairah Highway (a road megaproject in the
United Arab Emirates) to explore the utility of a stakeholder perspective when understanding
megaproject performance. Using Mitchell’s framework of stakeholder power, legitimacy and
urgency, Amrik described how the failure effectively to acknowledge or coordinate the influence of
stakeholders led to a budget overrun of over 300% and a completion time of over a decade for the
megaproject. He argued that stakeholder theory should play a much greater role in understanding
the performance phenomena of megaprojects.
The Need for New Theory in Megaproject Research
Following the two presentations by the invited speakers, the Symposium attendees discussed the
need for new theory in megaproject research. It was the strong feeling of the Symposium that
completely new theory was not required but that the use of a wider range of management theories
to understand megaprojects would be useful and desirable. The following points were made by
attendees:



A great deal of ‘old’ organizational theory, especially the work of the Carnegie School and
Williamson ideas on Transaction Cost Economics, could still be effectively employed in
researching megaprojects. Therefore the task is to collate the most appropriate melange of
theories.
The willingness to tackle the holistic complexity of megaprojects demanded a deal of
theoretic ‘bravery.’
The selection of which theory to use in the context of megaprojects (a form of metatheoretic framework) was a substantive activity in its own right. No specific exemplar of



undertaking a similar ‘meta-theoretic’ activity in other areas of management research could
be identified by the Symposium attendees.
There is a marked tendency for researchers to work with a theoretical ‘silo’ (predicated upon
their background and preferences) and a reluctance to pursue cross-theoretic work even
though this may be very amenable to understanding the complex nature of megaproject
phenomena.
A body of empirics needs to be developed in conjunction with and in parallel to theoretical
insights to provide a ‘testing ground’ for the latter’s propositions
A degree of caution needs to be employed when considering megaproject theory: what is
megaproject theory needed for?
Developing A Megaproject Research Agenda
Having identified an approach to using theory in megaproject research, the Symposium attendees
went on to shape their approach to developing a megaproject research agenda. Attendees not only
considered ‘what‘ a megaproject research agenda would comprise but also how its outcomes would
be articulated. Attendees emphasised the need for megaproject research to deliver understanding
that can be used by megaproject decision-makers. Attendees highlighted that a megaproject
research agenda should consider the following issues:

The longevity of megaprojects belies any characterisation of a megaproject as a temporary
phenomenon which sits uneasily with certain current conceptualisations of project
management as a temporary endeavour.

The difficulty in articulating the benefits of megaprojects (not least because of their
emergent, diverse and unpredictable nature)

The need to synthesise models of megaprojects without over simplification

The acknowledgement of the highly political landscape both within and in the environment
of megaprojects.

The relationship between megaproject theory and empirical megaproject ‘reality’
Naomi Brookes
July 2013
Acknowledgements
The Symposium Chair gratefully acknowledges the support of the ESF COST Action MEGAPROJECT
TU1003.