IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v69y2018icp109-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public project success as seen in a broad perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Volden, Gro Holst

Abstract

Infrastructure projects in developed countries are rarely evaluated ex-post. Despite their number and scope, our knowledge about their various impacts is surprisingly limited. The paper argues that such projects must be assessed in a broad perspective that includes both operational, tactical and strategic aspects, and unintended as well as intended effects. A generic six-criteria evaluation framework is suggested, inspired by a framework frequently used to evaluate development assistance projects. It is tested on 20 Norwegian projects from various sectors (transport, defence, ICT, buildings). The results indicate that the majority of projects were successful, especially in operational terms, possibly because they underwent external quality assurance up-front. It is argued that applying this type of standardized framework provides a good basis for comparison and learning across sectors. It is suggested that evaluations should be conducted with the aim of promoting accountability, building knowledge about infrastructure projects, and continuously improve the tools, methods and governance arrangements used in the front-end of project development.

Suggested Citation

  • Volden, Gro Holst, 2018. "Public project success as seen in a broad perspective," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 109-117.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:109-117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.04.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917303208
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.04.008?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. Bent Flyvbjerg & Mette K. Skamris holm & Søren L. Buhl, 2003. "How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 71-88, January.
    2. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    3. Knut Samset & Tom Christensen, 2017. "Ex Ante Project Evaluation and the Complexity of Early Decision-Making," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Jonas Eliasson & Maria Börjesson & James Odeck & Morten Welde, 2015. "Does Benefit-Cost Efficiency Influence Transport Investment Decisions?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 49(3), pages 377-396, July.
    5. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    6. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    7. Tom Worsley, 2014. "Ex-post Assessment of Transport Investments and Policy Interventions: Roundtable Summary and Conclusions," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2014/19, OECD Publishing.
    8. Brousselle, Astrid & Champagne, François, 2011. "Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-78, February.
    9. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    10. Bert van Wee, 2007. "Large Infrastructure Projects: A Review of the Quality of Demand Forecasts and Cost Estimations," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 34(4), pages 611-625, August.
    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. Matt Andrews, 2022. "What is public policy success, especially in development?," CID Working Papers 415, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    2. Dorota Kuchta & Ewa Marchwicka & Jan Schneider, 2021. "Sustainability-Oriented Project Scheduling Based on Z-Fuzzy Numbers for Public Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Naqib Ullah Khan & Peng Zhongyi & Heesup Han & Antonio Ariza-Montes, 2023. "Linking public leadership and public project success: the mediating role of team building," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Abeysekara, Baudhi & Perera, Piyaruwan & Chhipi Shrestha, Gyan Kumar & Gunaruwan, Lalithasiri & Kumarage, Amal & Sadiq, Rehan & Hewage, Kasun, 2021. "Improving the capital deployment efficiency: An infrastructure investment planning process in transportation project," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Andreas Økland & Nils O. E. Olsson & Marte Venstad, 2021. "Sustainability in Railway Investments, a Study of Early-Phase Analyses and Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Vittoria Biagi & Riccardo Patriarca & Giulio Di Gravio, 2021. "Business Intelligence for IT Governance of a Technology Company," Data, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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. Locatelli, Giorgio & Invernizzi, Diletta Colette & Brookes, Naomi J., 2017. "Project characteristics and performance in Europe: An empirical analysis for large transport infrastructure projects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 108-122.
    2. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    3. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    6. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    7. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    8. Eliasson, Jonas, 2023. "Tillbaka till framtiden: en nygammal planprocess [Back to the future: a renewed infrastructure planning process]," MPRA Paper 118658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    10. Cantarelli, C.C. & Molin, E.J.E. & van Wee, B. & Flyvbjerg, B., 2012. "Characteristics of cost overruns for Dutch transport infrastructure projects and the importance of the decision to build and project phases," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 49-56.
    11. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    12. Schubert, Daniel & Sys, Christa & Vanelslander, Thierry & Roumboutsos, Athena, 2022. "No-queue road pricing: A comprehensive policy instrument for Europe?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    13. Bert van Wee & Jan Anne Annema & Hugo Priemus, 2013. "Model building for infrastructure initiatives," Chapters, in: Peter Karl Kresl & Jaime Sobrino (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Urban Economies, chapter 17, pages 423-441, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Niek Mouter, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ use of cost–benefit analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1127-1145, September.
    15. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    16. Dunkley, Ria A. & Franklin, Alex, 2017. "Failing better: The stochastic art of evaluating community-led environmental action programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 112-122.
    17. Giezen, Mendel & Salet, Willem & Bertolini, Luca, 2015. "Adding value to the decision-making process of mega projects: Fostering strategic ambiguity, redundancy, and resilience," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 169-178.
    18. Patterson, Laurie B. & Backhouse, Susan H. & Duffy, Patrick J., 2016. "Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 35-47.
    19. Halse, Askill Harkjerr & Fridstrøm, Lasse, 2019. "Explaining low economic return on road investments. New evidence from Norway," MPRA Paper 94389, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Hill, Janice R. & Thies, Jeanie, 2010. "Program theory and logic model to address the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 356-364, November.

    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:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:109-117. 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/evalprogplan .

    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.