Term Paper

Super-project Control Information Management Specification

Participants:

Amna Khalid (F2018087018)

Faiza Saleem (F2018087012)

Source Person: Sir Kamran Rashid

University of Management and Technology, Lahore

Introduction
Definition of super-projects

In this article, super-projects are characterized as very big, complex and risky, be they absolute

or relative to the organization that execute them. These can consist of many sub-projects or

initiatives, and can be either regional or global (Parnell, Stone, & Aravopoulou, 2020). Global

projects can consist of a smaller project with unique organizational challenges repeated in many

countries (Fossum, Binder, Madsen, Aarseth, & Andersen, 2019). We include all the mega-

projects that are named(Locatelli, Littau, Brookes, & Mancini, 2014). Super-projects might not

be transformative they might just be very big. Projects of transformation are the ones that result

in some structural change and usually have greater scale, complexity and number and

stakeholder variety (Di Maddaloni & Davis, 2017), governance and duration. Our aims range

from aiming the performance of business processes (Abe et al., 2007) to having long-term effect

and affecting the organizational and technical aspects (Janssen, van Veenstra, & Van Der Voort,

2013). The latter, studying the introduction of a new system, defines it as a transition when it

could be seen as straightforward implementation of systems, although it shared some of the

characteristics of transformation projects, such as the number and variety of stakeholders,

creeping reach, degree of ambition, constant change and complexity and governance, lack of

transparency, lack of insight changes to consumer business model. We call these programs Type

A transformation or transactional (a concept from the literature on leadership, where

transactional leadership relates to the leadership of tasks). We don’t change the customer but

transform other aspects of how partners interact with the consumer because they’re so large and

complex. True transformation projects, including changes in business models, lead to

significant changes in how an organization works. Its risks are not only transactional but also

linked to the concept of tasks, how tasks, relate to each other, and whether the desired result is at
all achievable. One of the biggest changes of all is business model transition, in which a

company transforms itself completely differently to conduct (with consumers, suppliers and

other stakeholders), typically offering a different kind and/or value scale (Eweje, Turner, &

Müller, 2012). It’s harder to control all of those projects. We call these transition projects Type

B. There’s a lot of research going into managing these projects (Merrow, 2011). The

Government IT project failures literature mainly refers to project failures (Tyssen, Wald, &

Heidenreich, 2014) aimed at transforming government service delivery, especially moving

towards e-government. Where here the IT project itself could be Type A transformation, the

overall project is certainly. Type B transformation.

Definition of complexity

Complexity presents its own challenges, both in terms of understanding and evaluating it, and in

terms of having methods to handle it (Dao, Kermanshachi, Shane, Anderson, & Hare, 2016;

Görög, 2016; H. Maylor & Turner, 2017; H. R. Maylor, Turner, & Murray-Webster, 2014), and

sometimes to minimize it. Complexity is defined by the following factors:

The number, variety and novelty (technically and managerially, for the customer and his

suppliers) of the activities,

 The extent and dependency on external partnerships;

 The ‘improper ‘or inherent difficulty of the problem to be solved;

 The ability to predict different aspects of the project and its environments (time and

resources to accomplish the tasks, level of knowledge/ uncertainty/risk relevant to the

tasks and the climate in which they are being carried out (Foss & Saebi, 2018; Ireland,

Rapaport, & Omarova, 2012)); and

  The effect of or on the social, political and economic system in which the project is being 

carried out, and whether the project is a stable state or a real / pot project.

One of the issues concerning complexity management is the need for creativity, particularly in

mega-projects (Davies, Dodgson, & Gann, 2017; Davies, Gann, & Douglas, 2009) to solve

challenges, rather than using tried and tested methods to deal with things. Complex projects are

also more difficult to forecast work on super-projects shows that control failure is often

correlated with predictive failures. Furthermore, the more complex project, the easier it is to

introduce mid/ disinformation, especially in the prediction of costs, timescales and benefits, and

the more difficult it is to detect (Stone, Aravopoulou, Evans, AlDhaen, & Parnell, 2019).

Definition of Control

Control is the process by which a project is kept on track-the processes of data collection,

management, communication to predict, analysis, understand and possibly change the cost

outcomes and time of a project. Classic approaches to information management are essential for

project control, such as:

 Documenting, communicating, securing, knowledge making management accessible and

analyzed, and eventually archiving requirements, plans and performance;

 Transforming data into usable information, using standard, recognizable and easy-to-use

templates where possible; and

 Archiving records to provide an audit trail of improvements and learning-enhancing

content.
How to handle projects, programs, and changes?

The method of project decision making and the execution

The classic life cycle of project management is as follows: initiating, planning, executing,

closing and reviewing. The project’s initiation and planning is seen as taking place at the start of

the cycle, and subsequently the focus is on project execution, to deliver according to project

requirements. This “waterfall” approach contrasts with the” agile” approach, where defined

resources are dedicated to produce goods or results that are produced in each process over a

limited time period.

The latter approach originated primarily in software projects, after several unsuccessful

implementation using the approach to waterfalls. It can be argued that the agile approach fits

situations where much shifts in the context of the projects, while the approach to waterfalls suits

situations with greater stability (Papadakis & Tsironis, 2018).

Waterfall vs. Agile

The theory that a project is better prepared by creating a plan that encompasses the project from

start to finish, in a sequence of phases that can all be foreseen when the project is started, the so-

called waterfall approach, is being called into question, partially because the knowledge needed

to carry out the end-to-end preparation is simply not available at the start. That is for different

reason:

 There are genuine environmental uncertainties in which the super-project is being carried

out;

 The project examines new concepts, ways of doing business, etc.; and

 Unpredictable outcomes arising from anticipated actions.

Another reason for using the agile approach is skepticism about waterfall super-project

preparation, with its central idea that a super-project can be divided into several distinct

components, the exact nature of which cannot be completely described until preceding stages are

complete. Shorts prints could be seen as the best way of delivering projects. Agile approaches,

however, can work for projects that are knowledge projects, such as software development but

the agile approach may not operate in situations where significant physical resources are

involved. It may become even more unclear the details needed to plan and implement later stages

of a super-project. Some inputs to a super-project have very long lead times. Resource planning

can involve the securement of inputs long in advance. So, a combination of waterfall and scrum

approaches handles certain super-projects better. Furthermore, as them of IT projects (Budzier &

Flyvbjerg, 2013) has shown, there is no significant relationship between the use of agile

approaches and success/failure.

Risk Management and Uncertainty

As a project grows larger, more complex and longer (Choo, 2014), knowledge about possible

costs, advantages, resources and context appears to become more dangerous (i.e. with established

statistical risk,) or unpredictable (i.e. with unknown statistical probabilities). Uncertainty

management is an important topic in project management (Johansen, Halvorsen, Haddadic, &

Langlo, 2014; Loch, DeMeyer, & Pich, 2011). In super-projects, monitoring must concentrate

not only on whether the project is being carried out as expected but also on recognizing when

implementation may not be following the schedule, whether the plan itself is realistic and

whether risks and uncertainties have been changed the quantities and times that begin to differ

significantly from what was planned, whether this is likely to be the case and whether re-

planning, acceleration or deceleration is required.

Many facets of Leadership

Certain factors that need special attention in super-project management include:

 The various roles of players at different project levels, in particular the role of managers,

implementers, coordination offices, project management, distant and immediacies stake

holders and the various governance mechanisms (Brunet, 2019; do Rosário Bernardo,

2014).

 The business case for the idea, and how far it depends on the changing needs and costs.

 The role of knowledge in project management and the flow of information between

various stakeholders, enabling them to fulfill their roles and enabling the management of

risk and uncertainty.

 Flexibility of projects, e.g. interdependence between tasks or activities, availability and

resource flexibility (Leach, 2014) and flexibility in start and end times for different

activities.

 Reasons for problems and delays at each point and the fact that new opportunities or

threats that arise during a project including the need to replant to catch or avoid/ mitigate

them (Hillson, 2019; Johansen, Eik-Andresen, Dypvik Landmark, Ekambaram, &

Rolstadås, 2016), but the redesign/ specification of projects during implementation

creates more problems as does non-compliance with progress, leading to rectification.

 Human resources dimensions of project management, in particular capability (determined

not only by resources but also by project manager’s competence and how they work

(Dalcher, 2019) and the systems and processes enabling them), the experience of the

company with respect to project management ( e.g. has a long history of successful

projects), whether the organization is ambidextrous (Khanagha, Volberda, & Oshri, 2014;
 Turner, Swart, & Maylor, 2013; Turner, Swart, Maylor, & Antonacopoulou, 2016)

(capable of continuing operations when overseeing improvements to certain concepts, to

others utilizing, improving and building on established expertise) while

developing( innovation and exploration problem-solving) and attentive ( again this has

different definitions, awareness of what it is, what it can do, what it is planning to do,

what are the risk’s associated and how they could be handled, etc.).

The performance of the project-the role of information management

There are many papers on the success and failure of the project and its evaluation (Budzier &

Flyvbjerg, 2013; Davis, 2018; Parnell et al., 2020). These have been condensed into 12 most

important factors. These are listed below (Table 1), along with their general requirements, and

the requirements for super-project management and control.

A concern with super-projects in building and IT and policy transition projects is systemic

underestimation of costs, difficulties and timescales and, less generally, overestimation of

benefits or underestimation of benefits realization difficulties(Locatelli et al., 2014).

One of the best success factor studies in large programs has come to several key conclusions,

described below, along with our findings on the control implications (Table 11).

Success in transformation of the public sector

Public transition involves several examples of success and failure. The (Parnell et al., 2020)

study defined these concerns as relevant to the sustainability of the transformation:

 Engaging stakeholders, and users in particular.

 Defining scope in various ways, including wide options for early exploration.

 Balancing motivation with reality in setting goals and evidence-based objectives.

 Planning for failure possibilities, including de-scoping possibilities.

  Considering resource, expertise, supply chain, learning curves, implementation and

operability, and device limitations- making decisions about how things work in practice.

 Policy of simplification where possible.

 The need for skilled program management, strong leadership commitment, extreme

prioritization, strong leadership and efficient communication management.

 Realism regarding the size and timing of benefits, and time to change culture and

behavior.

 Quality monitoring in a variety of ways, including intermediate assessment, as well as

final benefits.

 Use research and learning methods instead of big-bang approaches.

Project-Control

Control against the plan

As the center of the discussion on project control is the idea that business case development

project design and project management processes can determine controllability, especially if

their information aspects are early built to facilitate monitoring and control (San Cristóbal, 2017)

projects can be made tradeoffs on the basis of limitations, budget flexibility, external factors and

the complexity of the project.

Table 1 Factors contributing to information management and control leading to success

Factors Specific requirements Illustrating the application of

the factors use in super-
project information
management and the control

Effective governance There must be open It helps in figuring out the

communication between the important levels and specific

Goals and objectives
Committing to project’s success
Capable sponsors
Secure funding
Supportive organizations
End users and operators
Competent project teams
Aligned supply chain
respective parties along with
strong leadership,
responsibilities and reporting
lines.
The goals of the project must be
specified clearly that do not
contradict with the objectives of
the project along with clear
vision of the leaders
All the parties involved must
reflect full commitment and it
has to be the ultimate
responsibility of the leader to
inspire commitment in the
other team members
It is a dire need to have
sponsors for the projects to
take responsibility for the
respective outcomes
Must have a secure funding,
budgets must be controlled
tightly and the funding must be
ensured from the very
beginning of the project
Friendly environment must be
established, smooth access to
shareholders of all the
resources
Engaging in the project design
where team engages with the
end users and deliver effective
results
The professionals in the teams
have to be competent and have
positive attitude that in turn
guarantees success
The suppliers whether direct or
parts where the governance
may play a role
It is often problematic to expect
realism when it comes to the
goals, objectives, resource
management and the
timescales of the project that
makes it unforeseeable in the
future
The team members comprise of
the internal as well as the
external parties related to the
project and it shows that each
one of them are held
accountable for problems
caused and solutions proposed.
Hence, if the leadership is
strong (along with sponsorship)
i.e. transformational in
particular, the chances of
success are higher.
This factor speeds up the use of
financial resources, the inward
flow of funds is improved hence
depicting the risks associated
with funding
Super-projects may require a
different approach than the
conventional one to smoothen
the steps involved in reaching
successful outcomes and to aid
that, use of a new model might
bring efficiency.
The flow of information is
smoothened as the engagement
between the stakeholder
improves
The competent teams might
mean success for small projects
but for super-projects the
scenario might be a little
different hence the need for
certain level assessment may
still be there
Suppliers must be carefully

Proven methods and tools
Appropriate standards
indirect must know the needs of
the project along with the
quality standards. There must
be coordination of the lower
and the higher tier supply chain
as well
The practice tools must be
concrete along with strong
techniques that brings out
flexibility and strength as well.
Standards must be of highest
quality and adhered to other
quality standards along with
best practice delivery
chosen as their involvement
ensures success of the project
with similar size and difficulty
levels.
The need for experiments and
iteration may still be needed
despite of the use of agile
approach. However, the stress
management may be an art on
the leader’s part to avoid the
likelihood of errors
There must be transparency in
every step of the project and
special efforts must be made to
bring visibility that avoids risks
and ensures progress.
Continuous efforts eliminate the
risks of overlooking the interim
and the final metrics of the
super-projects.

Table 2 Success analysis of control implications in a programmer

Finding Control Implications

Positive programs has a more powerful
impact on business strategy and success
whereas on the contrary, the reductionists
proved to be less successful as the costs
involved were extremely high and low
readiness
The successful programs resulted because of
stronger financial case whereas on the
contrary, failure was observed majorly
because of the overestimation of multiple
factors such as financial benefits and the
underestimation of the risks involved.
Nothing can be planned in advance
completely and same is the case with
programmers. The clear vision of the leader
along with commitment of the team
members increases the likelihood of success
and brings innovation and creativity in the
The main focus of implementing control must
be to ensure strategic benefits such as
improving readiness of the programmer as
the project progresses
Control here would be important in
discarding the projects that have proven to
be less productive and risky for the business
while continuing with the ones that are
favorable in nature. However, control here
does not necessarily mean to conform with
the initial estimates but to stay close to the
mean and modify where necessary. Control
overall means to cater financial benefits and
exploit new opportunities that will be
favorable along with discovering new capable
and developing models.
 processes.
Change at a larger scale is often the product
of multiple small change programmers which
hardly few organizations understand and are
able to maintain it in today’s era.
The governance of the project or a
programmer may not be enough for
managing under the controlled system but
the control of the information that helps in
changing capabilities and models may be
crucial for success. Senior team though need
to take the responsibility and work on
improving processes.

Benefits vs Costs – The Longer-Term Problem of Benefit Realization

The need for control does not end at project handover because in most cases, it is at the

start of the flow of benefits (Badewi, 2016), while project costs may continue in the form of

maintenance and operation costs, as well as additional elements of the project that is planned

after the start of the planning is planned Benefits flow. If the benefits are much lower than

planned while post-implementation costs are more or less as planned, the net cost of the project

increases. Therefore, control controls must be applied to achieving benefits.

Transactional or Transformational

Major literature on project control covers information needed to achieve / improve

control, process required information, and research findings on control success and failure

(Klakegg & Lichtenberg, 2016; Perrier, Benbrahim, & Pellerin, 2018). However, it mainly

focuses on projects, where there is relatively little uncertainty about project standards, for

example, costs and schedules. Known methods are applied to situations whose high-level

parameters are well understood (for example, small construction projects, implementation of

stable programs in mature situations, replacing one piece of software with another with the same

function, use of cases and interfaces). Here, most of the risks (as well as failures of control)
relate to estimates of time and resources needed to do the tasks, supplier delivery, testing and the

like.

For high-end projects, the consequences of failure include serious or direct project delays

failure, significant cost overruns, which set the budget for the test sponsors (Flyvbjerg, 2006;

Lind & Brunes, 2015), and sometimes quality - what was produced may not work for purpose.

Many of the problems that lead to these failures are related to how information is used to plan

and then control the project. The intermittent nature of most of these projects and their "cluster"

(the fact that it consists of several subprojects or programs, many of which are not the same as

projects or programs that the organization has previously carried out before) means that there is

little opportunity to learn from past experience.

This means that the information system for controlling high-end projects is not the same

as the regular operating system, which tracks well-understood activity flows (for example in the

supply chain or with large numbers of customers who buy similar products), so that the system in

effect is used and constantly tested for availability and accuracy. Nor is it just a very large

project information system. You should allow several information management problems for

super projects discussed later in this article.

Data-Driven Project Management

The development of the ability to manage (collect, store, interpret and use) large amounts

of information has improved dramatically in recent years (Mallick et al., 2016). This, in theory,

should make a big difference in controlling high-end projects. However, as we shall see, the

problem of controlling the super project is not data management, but with misleading (D. A.

Stone et al., 2019). Many project mission definitions, resource requirements, and timing depend

on expert judgment on what is needed, and this opens the opportunity for mis / misinformation
and bias (Budzier & Flyvbjerg, 2011; Flyvbjerg, 2009; Osmani, Glass, & Price, 2008; D. A.

Stone et al., 2019). In changing a business model, for example, it may not be clear to managers

what information they need to determine whether their business model is working and whether

the model needs to be changed (Pitchford et al., 2018).

One of the specific requirements in some cases is the management of corruption and

fraud across the project cycle (Bach, Dumičić, Žmuk, Ćurlin, & Zoroja, 2018). Here, the Afonso

and Aubyn (2019) on the use of analyzes is pioneering, not in terms of its technical approach but

in terms of its recommendations, which mainly relate to countries where corruption in public

projects is high, although its conclusions can apply to all public projects The big one. A

particularly important part of this report is to identify risks of corruption and fraud at various

stages of the project cycle. The recommendations are not related to specific programs or systems,

but rather to a public, data-based approach to identifying and preventing corruption.

Special Problems That Relate To Information Management - Summary

So, in short, information management for major projects faces many special issues, As

follows:

 Keeping many more stakeholders informed at every stage of the project.

 Uncertainty about what is the real situation for starting a super project in some cases,

which requires important additional fact-finding and problems knowing the current

situation at any stage.

 Predicting costs, benefits and risks when the size and impact of a project are very large.

 Much greater scope to reduce costs and schedules, and to overestimate benefits.
  The use of research methods, biases, denial, misinformation / misinformation, and

excessive confidence in relation to the current situation and what can be achieved, in

situations where much information is appreciated.

 The increased probability of fraud because many things are at stake (financial, reputation)

- this can apply at any stage of the progress from bidding to measurement, evaluation,

and control.

 Various possible interpretations of success and failure, especially when the project is

politicized, including different ways of interpreting costs and benefits as applied to

results or timelines.

Knowing the Unknown

Talib's statement (2007) that we can't really plan because we don't understand the future,

so we must plan with this limitation in mind, is a warning to those who assume that controlling

the plans is only a matter of owning the correct data. As Flyvbjerg and Budzier (2013) point out,

when discussing the idea of a program or program failing, we must be clear what we mean. Do

we mean total failure in providing benefits or severe cost overruns or is the project taking much

longer than planned? Their study determines that cost overruns - in their study of around 300

percent or in the worst case, project collapse or severe delays, up to about 100 percent are

significant limits. Benefit delivery tends to be within a narrow range around the planned figure.

Therefore, this means that there must be two main purposes for control. The first is to

maintain the correct course of a project or program that appears to be well planned or near cost,

time and budget benefits. The second should be to identify projects, which are potentially

negative boundaries, so that any existing governance mechanism can turn into action, for

example, to determine whether the project will be canceled, or the budget to increase costs or
time or seek ways to mitigate Issues that may arise within or outside the organization, for

example, with suppliers or beneficiaries when the project is one of several, whether concurrent or

sequential, either in a program or in a group of projects that are less related to the program

(Filippov, Van der Weg, Van Ogtrop, Beelen, & Mooi, 2014), the other aim of control is to

determine if the other is facing the Hroat the same problems and / or need the same solutions.

As Flyvbjerg (2009) identifies, infrastructure projects have perverse incentives for

promoters to reduce costs and reduce benefits, while the larger the project size, the more likely

this misinformation will occur. He believes that this problem is exacerbated by several other

factors, such as long planning horizons, the use of non-standard technology and design, and the

participation of many different parties in planning and management, the lack of serious analysis

of alternatives, changes in project objectives or scope and the absence of an allowance for risks

and unplanned events. Flyvbjerg's conclusion is that technical factors rarely explain problems.

He rejects optimism bias, on the grounds that the project management profession would have

learned how to avoid this, but over time the incidence of severe problems in the project did not

change. He identifies political and economic interpretations and strategic misinformation as

methodological problems, citing evidence from his studies in which project planners readily

acknowledge the benefits and reduce costs in order to obtain approval. His views have been

confirmed by (Osmani et al., 2008), on their studies of software projects. It also indicates that it

is appropriate for government officials responsible for failures to blame the bias of optimism

(often on the part of others) when the problem is how they carry out the project planning and

bidding process.

Flyvbjerg (2009) recommends using reference class prediction (Lovallo & Kahneman,

2003) to deal with this issue. This means taking an external view of the project and using data
from similar projects to identify true potential outcomes. For example, if projects of a particular

type tend to be overtaken on time or cost by a certain amount, this should be taken into account

when budgeting and planning. However, the reference class control is also required. This means

checking data during project implementation and determining whether the project differs from

the plan at that stage in the same way as similar projects. The use of this approach requires a

major change in project management, including a more transparent approach. It also requires a

large external data set.

Flyvbjerg (2009) suggests that project monitoring officials need intimate knowledge of

how the project is justified in the first place, and whether governance focuses on eliminating

potential exaggeration. It makes a number of very specific recommendations on how to remove

them, including a peer review of the expected costs and benefits, setting standards and

transparency for all stakeholders, and in the case of public sector projects, private capital is at

risk, but these are beyond the scope of this article, other than to say that those responsible for

Project control needs to know if these approaches have been used. A useful contribution comes

from (Martens & Van Weelden, 2014), who argue that the uncertainty (lack of reliable

knowledge about the project) and ambiguity (different perspectives on projects -(Pich, Loch, &

Meyer, 2002)) from the information must be understood.

The above discussion leads to an interesting conclusion. The greater the size of the

project, the more likely it is that it will shift for some or all of the stakeholders, but the greater

the risk of misleading / misleading the planning (D. A. Stone et al., 2019). Those responsible for

controlling high-end projects must take a mysterious approach. Here, "funny" has a different but

related meaning to the one actually used. As discussed above, the project needs to control

transactions - similar to the operational aspect of management covered in the classic theory of
strangeness. This focuses on whether the project, step by step, stage after stage, meets its costs

and timing and then benefits from the objectives and whether the required actions are in place to

keep it on the right track.

However, major projects also need transformational control, which focuses on much

larger questions, such as whether the project plan is largely unrealistic. This may be on the

positive side, given that there are significant untapped opportunities, or the downside (costs and

timing have been greatly reduced and / or benefits have been greatly reduced) so that project

planning needs to be re-planned, the project needs more innovation, there is a need to search for

larger budgets, significant delay and communication must be accepted or the project may need to

be canceled). This conversion monitoring should also focus on how to identify and review key

preliminary project decisions, for example, scope, overall schedule, revised options, total budget,

and who is involved in it, as well as the softer data arising during the project, such as those

related to Perceptions and attitudes of key project stakeholders, as it evolves. The more project is

type B instead of type A (and most high-end projects are a mixture of the two), the greater the

depth and quality of the soft information needed to control.

Due to the completely different nature of transaction control and conversion, it is likely

that the people involved in each team need to be separate from each other, and may need

different skills. Transaction control appears to match the traditional PMO skills, while

transformational control may need a team that combines leadership and analytical talent.

Transformational control cannot be a one-time audit, but it must be continuous, such as

transaction control, where signs of problems may appear at any time, even at the stage of

realizing benefits. The feedback loop of transformational control is especially important because
it should stimulate increased awareness of the failure caused by policy-based super-project

planning.

Implementing Transformational Control in Super-projects

Flyvbjerg (2009) notes that overcoming control issues requires taking a picture from the

outside offer, but it is this very external view that is likely to be resisted by project participants

who have reduced costs, schedules, and exaggerated benefits to a minimum in order to obtain

project approval, and their resistance to it throughout the course of the project may even be The

gaps between the plan and the outcome are so severe that they are no longer hidden. Our opinion

on this is that in the event of such severe governance problems, the issue is not related to the

super project itself, but to the DNA of the organizations concerned as sponsors or providers, so a

search must be sought on a higher level, which can only be political.

The Conclusions and Implications for Information Management in Super-Project Control

Our conclusions from our analysis above are that those responsible for super-project

control management should focus on:

Governance

 The need to involve stakeholders, their approval and commitment to plan for the

provision and use of information, to support control throughout the entire super project

lifecycle.

 The need for strong information provided to those responsible for governance that are

updated and properly allocated at various levels - project, program, board of directors,

etc., to support governance processes and to ensure alignment with business strategy and

change management.
  Provide information on softer issues, such as stakeholders' satisfaction with project

progress, awareness of project status, and project management satisfaction, at every stage

or often, particularly to support the governance process.

 Paying much stronger attention to how to possess and use that information at different

levels of program planning, delivery, and management of different types of stakeholders,

and providing them with information that is appropriate to that and can be understood by

those who hold different positions.

 Provide summaries of information that supports learning from mistakes and successes -

inside and across high-profile projects for better planning and better implementation.

 The need derived from all of the above to obtain control information needs to be

supported by turbulent control.

 Self-awareness / awareness of the maturity of the organization and its suppliers / partners

regarding high-level project management competencies (Daniel & Daniel, 2018), risk

management (Carvalho & Rabechini Junior, 2015; Kutsch, Denyer, Hall, & Lee-Kelley,

2013) and the use of assessment tools to determine this.

 Define information management requirements to audit projects directly from the start of

projects.

Technique

 A graceful approach to determining the information requirements themselves, if the agile

approach is used, that is, the monitoring information requirements will be for each

successive “spring” stage of the project.

 Explore new sources of information, for example using the IoT approach where

appropriate in projects that contain a lot of hardware, and developing user applications
 for the project team, which provide their own information, for example about when,

where and how applications are used and the results of their use, and use artificial

intelligence to determine the true project status.

 To provide better tools for assessing possible ranges of costs, benefits, timing, and

associated risks and uncertainties.

Conclusion

The main research implications of all of the above are that the problem of super project

management is only one example of a more general problem, which has already been identified

(D. A. Stone et al., 2019), but it must be addressed using learning from a wide range of

management disciplines, especially change management. Strategic decision-making processes

(Shepherd & Rudd, 2014), but also other areas such as leadership (Coleman & Bourne, 2018;

Tyssen, Wald, & Spieth, 2014), big data (Merendino et al., 2018), cognitive bias (Montibeller &

Von Winterfeldt, 2015), artificial Intelligence (Katsevich, Frenkel, Prieto, & Yu, 2019)), Military

Strategy (Payne, 2018) and Knowledge Management (Ekamb aram et al., 2018). In some

respects, supreme literature discovers phenomena that have been extensively researched and

documented in other literature, but in an interesting mixture, which needs stronger integration.
References

Abe, N., Akkiraju, R., Buckley, S., Ettl, M., Huang, P., Subramanian, D., & Tipu, F. (2007). On

optimizing the selection of business transformation projects. IBM Systems Journal, 46(4), 777-

795.

Afonso, A., & Aubyn, M. S. (2019). Economic growth, public, and private investment returns in

17 OECD economies. Portuguese Economic Journal, 18(1), 47-65.

Bach, M. P., Dumičić, K., Žmuk, B., Ćurlin, T., & Zoroja, J. (2018). Internal fraud in a project-

based organization: CHAID decision tree analysis. Procedia computer science, 138, 680-687.

Badewi, A. (2016). The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM)

practices on project success: Towards developing a project benefits governance framework.

International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 761-778.

Brunet, M. (2019). Governance-as-practice for major public infrastructure projects: A case of

multilevel project governing. International journal of project management, 37(2), 283-297.

Budzier, A., & Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Double whammy–how ICT projects are fooled by

randomness and screwed by political intent.

Budzier, A., & Flyvbjerg, B. (2013). Making sense of the impact and importance of outliers in

project management through the use of power laws. Proceedings of IRNOP (International

Research Network on Organizing by Projects), At Oslo, 11.

Carvalho, M. M. d., & Rabechini Junior, R. (2015). Impact of risk management on project

performance: the importance of soft skills. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2),

321-340.

Choo, A. S. (2014). Defining problems fast and slow: The u‐shaped effect of problem definition

time on project duration. Production and Operations Management, 23(8), 1462-1479.

Coleman, S., & Bourne, M. (2018). Project leadership: skills, behaviours, knowledge and values:

Association for Project Management.

Dalcher, D. (2019). The return of the hacker: Rethinking projects, progress, innovation and

teams2. PM World.

Daniel, P. A., & Daniel, C. (2018). Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: From a

paradigm of regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management. International

journal of project management, 36(1), 184-197.

Dao, B., Kermanshachi, S., Shane, J., Anderson, S., & Hare, E. (2016). Identifying and

measuring project complexity. Procedia Engineering, 145, 476-482.

Davies, A., Dodgson, M. J., & Gann, D. M. (2017). Innovation and flexibility in megaprojects: A

new delivery model.

Davies, A., Gann, D., & Douglas, T. (2009). Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at

London Heathrow Terminal 5. California management review, 51(2), 101-125.

Davis, K. (2018). Reconciling the views of project success: A multiple stakeholder model.

Project Management Journal, 49(5), 38-47.

Di Maddaloni, F., & Davis, K. (2017). The influence of local community stakeholders in

megaprojects: Rethinking their inclusiveness to improve project performance. International

journal of project management, 35(8), 1537-1556.

do Rosário Bernardo, M. (2014). Performance indicators for enhancing governance of projects.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 55-64.

Eweje, J., Turner, 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.

Filippov, S., Van der Weg, R., Van Ogtrop, F., Beelen, P., & Mooi, H. (2014). Exploring the

Project Portfolio Manager's Role: Between a Data Manager and a Strategic Advisor. Paper

presented at the Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 2014; 27th IPMA World

Congress.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel prize to project management: getting risks right. Project

management journal, 37(3), 5-15.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what

we can do about it. Oxford review of economic policy, 25(3), 344-367.

Flyvbjerg, B., & Budzier, A. (2013). Why your IT project might be riskier than you think. arXiv

preprint arXiv:1304.0265.

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2018). Business models and business model innovation: Between

wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 9-21.

Fossum, K. R., Binder, J. C., Madsen, T. K., Aarseth, W., & Andersen, B. (2019). Success

factors in global project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.

Görög, M. (2016). A broader approach to organisational project management maturity

assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1658-1669.

Hillson, D. (2019). Capturing Upside Risk: Finding and Managing Opportunities in Projects:

Auerbach Publications.

Ireland, V., Rapaport, B., & Omarova, A. (2012). Addressing wicked problems in a range of

project types. Procedia Computer Science, 12, 49-55.

Janssen, M., van Veenstra, A. F., & Van Der Voort, H. (2013). Management and failure of large

transformation projects: factors affecting user adoption. Paper presented at the International

Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT.

Johansen, A., Eik-Andresen, P., Dypvik Landmark, A., Ekambaram, A., & Rolstadås, A. (2016).

Value of uncertainty: The lost opportunities in large projects. Administrative Sciences, 6(3), 11.

Johansen, A., Halvorsen, S. B., Haddadic, A., & Langlo, J. A. (2014). Uncertainty Management–

a methodological framework beyond ‚The six W’s ‘. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences,

119, 566-575.

Katsevich, A., Frenkel, M., Prieto, V., & Yu, Z. (2019). System and method for motion

estimation using artificial intelligence in helical computed tomography: Google Patents.

Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity:

structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a C loud business model.

R&D Management, 44(3), 322-340.

Klakegg, O. J., & Lichtenberg, S. (2016). Successive cost estimation–successful budgeting of

major projects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226, 176-183.

Kutsch, E., Denyer, D., Hall, M., & Lee-Kelley, E. (2013). Does risk matter? Disengagement

from risk management practices in information systems projects. European Journal of

Information Systems, 22(6), 637-649.

Leach, L. P. (2014). Critical chain project management: Artech House.

Lind, H., & Brunes, F. (2015). Explaining cost overruns in infrastructure projects: a new

framework with applications to Sweden. Construction management and economics, 33(7), 554-

568.

Locatelli, G., Littau, P., Brookes, N., & Mancini, M. (2014). Project characteristics enabling the

success of megaprojects: An empirical investigation in the energy sector. Paper presented at the

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Loch, C. H., DeMeyer, A., & Pich, M. (2011). Managing the unknown: A new approach to

managing high uncertainty and risk in projects: John Wiley & Sons.

Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success. Harvard business review, 81(7), 56-

63.

Mallick, S., Li, H., Lipson, M., Mathieson, I., Gymrek, M., Racimo, F., . . . Tandon, A. (2016).

The Simons genome diversity project: 300 genomes from 142 diverse populations. Nature,

538(7624), 201-206.

Martens, K., & Van Weelden, P. (2014). Decision-making on transport infrastructure and

contested information: A critical analysis of three approaches. European Planning Studies, 22(3),

648-666.

Maylor, H., & Turner, N. (2017). Understand, reduce, respond: project complexity management

theory and practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.

Maylor, H. R., Turner, N. W., & Murray-Webster, R. (2014). How can it be? Actively managing

complexity in technology projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 42(3), 54-62.

Merendino, A., Dibb, S., Meadows, M., Quinn, L., Wilson, D., Simkin, L., & Canhoto, A.

(2018). Big data, big decisions: The impact of big data on board level decision-making. Journal

of Business Research, 93, 67-78.

Merrow, E. W. (2011). Industrial megaprojects. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Montibeller, G., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (2015). Cognitive and motivational biases in decision

and risk analysis. Risk analysis, 35(7), 1230-1251.

Osmani, M., Glass, J., & Price, A. D. (2008). Architects’ perspectives on construction waste

reduction by design. Waste management, 28(7), 1147-1158.

Papadakis, E., & Tsironis, L. (2018). Hybrid methods and practices associated with agile

methods, method tailoring and delivery of projects in a non-software context. Procedia computer

science, 138, 739-746.

Parnell, B., Stone, M., & Aravopoulou, E. (2020). Controlling superprojects–information

management requirements. The Bottom Line.

Perrier, N., Benbrahim, S.-E., & Pellerin, R. (2018). The core processes of project control: A

network analysis. Procedia computer science, 138, 697-704.

Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & Meyer, A. D. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in

project management. Management science, 48(8), 1008-1023.

Pitchford, W. S., Accioly, J., Banks, R., Barnes, A., Barwick, S., Copping, K., . . . Hebart, M.

(2018). Genesis, design and methods of the Beef CRC Maternal Productivity Project. Animal

Production Science, 58(1), 20-32.

San Cristóbal, J. (2017). The S-curve envelope as a tool for monitoring and control of projects.

Procedia computer science, 121, 756-761.

Shepherd, N. G., & Rudd, J. M. (2014). The influence of context on the strategic decision‐

making process: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(3),

340-364.

Stone, D. A., Christidis, N., Folland, C., Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S., Perlwitz, J., Shiogama, H., . . .

Krishnan, H. (2019). Experiment design of the International CLIVAR C20C+ Detection and

Attribution project. Weather and Climate Extremes, 24, 100206.

Stone, M., Aravopoulou, E., Evans, G., AlDhaen, E., & Parnell, B. D. (2019). From information

mismanagement to misinformation–the dark side of information management. The Bottom Line.

Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review

and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317-332.

Turner, N., Swart, J., Maylor, H., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2016). Making it happen: How

managerial actions enable project-based ambidexterity. Management Learning, 47(2), 199-222.

Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). Leadership in the context of temporary

organizations: A study on the effects of transactional and transformational leadership on

followers’ commitment in projects. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(4), 376-

393.

Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Spieth, P. (2014). The challenge of transactional and

transformational leadership in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3),

365-375.