IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bushor/v61y2018i1p47-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting the construction of the Empire State Building: Have we forgotten something?

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobsson, Mattias
  • Wilson, Timothy L.

Abstract

What’s past is prologue. Or is it? The construction of the Empire State Building (ESB) was not only the fastest erection of a skyscraper ever, but the construction company that took on the job allegedly began with no equipment or supplies that would be adequate for the job. The project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget; instead of 1year and 6 months as anticipated, it only took 1year and 45 days. The costs totaled $24.7 million instead of the estimated $43 million. So, we ask, how was this possible and is there something we could learn? Based on a review of existing literature describing the history and construction of the ESB, we outline strategic, operational, and contextual explanations for what appears to be a truly successful megaproject. We illustrate how, for example, inspiration from Henry Ford’s assembly line technique, the uniqueness of the logistics during the construction period, the economic decline of the Depression, and early ideas of concurrent engineering and fast-track construction enabled the success. Our conclusion is that there are lessons to be learned in going back to basics when tackling a megaproject.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobsson, Mattias & Wilson, Timothy L., 2018. "Revisiting the construction of the Empire State Building: Have we forgotten something?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 47-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:61:y:2018:i:1:p:47-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681317301258
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry, 2012. "Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 553-581, December.
    2. ., 2000. "History and Scope of TCM," Chapters, in: Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Scherrer-Rathje, Maike & Boyle, Todd A. & Deflorin, Patricia, 2009. "Lean, take two! Reflections from the second attempt at lean implementation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 79-88.
    4. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shankar Sankaran & Mattias Jacobsson & Tomas Blomquist, 2021. "The history and future of projects as a transition innovation: Towards a sustainable project management framework," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 696-714, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diane Coyle & Marianne Sensier, 2020. "The imperial treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 283-295, March.
    2. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    4. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & M. D. Christodoulou & M. Zottoli, 2024. "Uniqueness Bias: Why It Matters, How to Curb It," Papers 2408.07710, arXiv.org.
    6. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    7. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Rizzo, Ilde, 2023. "“One-size-fits-all” public works contract does it better? An assessment of infrastructure provision in Italy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 994-1014.
    8. Love, Peter E.D. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic & Welde, Morten & Odeck, James, 2017. "Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 27-39.
    9. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier, 2018. "Report for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry," Papers 1805.12106, arXiv.org.
    10. Karen Lucas & Ian Philips & Ersilia Verlinghieri, 2022. "A mixed methods approach to the social assessment of transport infrastructure projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 271-291, February.
    11. Shutian Zhou & Guofang Zhai & Yijun Shi, 2018. "What Drives the Rise of Metro Developments in China? Evidence from Nantong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Logandran Naidoo & Ziska Fields, 2019. "Knowledge and Experience of Lean Thinking Amongst Senior Health Care Managers in Selected South African Public Hospitals," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 69(4), pages 21-37, October-D.
    13. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    14. Jin, Zhizhou & Zeng, Saixing & Chen, Hongquan & Shi, Jonathan Jingsheng, 2022. "Explaining the expansion performance in technological capability of participants in megaprojects: A configurational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Ginés de Rus, 2015. "La política de infraestructuras en España. Una reforma pendiente," Policy Papers 2015-08, FEDEA.
    16. Ginés de Rus & Javier Campos & Daniel Graham & M. Pilar Socorro & Jorge Valido, 2020. "Evaluación Económica de Proyectos y Políticas de Transporte: Metodología y Aplicaciones. Parte 1: Metodología para el análisis coste-beneficio de proyectos y políticas de transporte," Working Papers 2020-11, FEDEA.
    17. Muhammad Zeeshan Fareed & Qin Su, 2022. "Project Governance and Project Performance: The Moderating Role of Top Management Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    18. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    19. Peter Adekunle & Clinton Aigbavboa & Opeoluwa Akinradewo & Ayodeji Oke & Douglas Aghimien, 2022. "Construction Information Management: Benefits to the Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Lyudmyla Shkulipa, 2021. "Evaluation of accounting journals by coverage of accounting topics in 2018–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7251-7327, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:61:y:2018:i:1:p:47-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.