IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6273-d567344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Infrastructure Projects: Systemic versus Traditional Delivery Models

Author

Listed:
  • Magnus Hellström

    (Faculty of Science and Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, 20500 Åbo, Finland
    School of Business and Law, University of Agder, 4879 Grimstad, Norway)

  • Kim Wikström

    (Faculty of Science and Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, 20500 Åbo, Finland
    PBI Research Institute, 20100 Turku, Finland)

  • Kent Eriksson

    (Sustainable Finance Lab, Center for Construction Efficiency, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

Sustainability involves multiple environmental, technical, social and economic factors, and such complex analysis requires systemic solutions. Delivery models are key to achieving system benefits and enhancing sustainable development in infrastructure investments. They define the phases of a project, incentive structures, risk sharing and the relationships among the actors in it. They are usually developed early in the project and determine the project dynamics and outcomes. We compared traditional delivery models with systemic ones. We identified and illustrated elements that differ between them through two cases. The contribution is an increased understanding of how systemic infrastructure delivery models can adapt to changes in their environment. We also found that sustainability is vastly under-researched in systemic infrastructure delivery, but that its potential to deliver benefits to PPP infrastructures is substantial.

Suggested Citation

  • Magnus Hellström & Kim Wikström & Kent Eriksson, 2021. "Sustainable Infrastructure Projects: Systemic versus Traditional Delivery Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6273-:d:567344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6273/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6273/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dvir, Dov & Lechler, Thomas, 2004. "Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on project success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Dalziel, Margaret, 2007. "A systems-based approach to industry classification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1559-1574, December.
    3. Per Erik Eriksson, 2010. "Partnering: what is it, when should it be used, and how should it be implemented?," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(9), pages 905-917.
    4. Kreiner, Kristian, 1995. "In search of relevance: Project management in drifting environments," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 335-346, December.
    5. Schein, Edgar H., 1995. "Process consultation, action research, and clinical inquiry : are they the same?," Working papers 3833-95., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    6. Johnson, Hannes & Styhre, Linda, 2015. "Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through decreased time in port," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 167-178.
    7. Roine Leiringer & Jan Brochner, 2010. "Editorial: service-led construction projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(11), pages 1123-1129.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kjell Tryggestad, 2012. "Perspectives on Projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 416-420, February.
    2. Bassma Azzamouri & Vincent Hovelaque, 2024. "An integrated steering approach to improve a phosphate supply chain efficiency," Post-Print hal-04418207, HAL.
    3. Muñoz, Félix-Fernando & Encinar, María-Isabel & Cañibano, Carolina, 2011. "On the role of intentionality in evolutionary economic change," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 193-203, September.
    4. Xing, Hui & Spence, Stephen & Chen, Hua, 2020. "A comprehensive review on countermeasures for CO2 emissions from ships," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Tanskanen, Tiina & Buhanist, Paul & Kostama, Hanna, 1998. "Exploring the diversity of teams," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 611-619, September.
    6. Di Vaio, Assunta & Varriale, Luisa & Alvino, Federico, 2018. "Key performance indicators for developing environmentally sustainable and energy efficient ports: Evidence from Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 229-240.
    7. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    8. Luo, Jianxi & Triulzi, Giorgio, 2018. "Cyclic dependence, vertical integration, and innovation: The case of Japanese electronics sector in the 1990s," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 46-55.
    9. Michalis P. Michaelides & Herodotos Herodotou & Mikael Lind & Richard T. Watson, 2019. "Port-2-Port Communication Enhancing Short Sea Shipping Performance: The Case Study of Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-22, March.
    10. Nenonen, Suvi & Storbacka, Kaj, 2013. "Finding market focus for solution business development," jbm - Journal of Business Market Management, Free University Berlin, Marketing Department, vol. 6(3), pages 123-142.
    11. Vicente Rodríguez Montequín & Joaquín Villanueva Balsera & Sonia María Cousillas Fernández & Francisco Ortega Fernández, 2018. "Exploring Project Complexity through Project Failure Factors: Analysis of Cluster Patterns Using Self-Organizing Maps," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-17, May.
    12. Salman Nazir & Brad Price & Nanda C. Surendra & Katherine Kopp, 2022. "Adapting agile development practices for hyper-agile environments: lessons learned from a COVID-19 emergency response research project," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 193-211, September.
    13. Andy Fodor & Randy D. Jorgensen & John D. Stowe, 2021. "Financial clusters, industry groups, and stock return correlations," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 44(1), pages 121-144, April.
    14. Stefan Olsson & Tove Malmqvist & Mauritz Glaumann, 2015. "Managing Sustainability Aspects in Renovation Processes: Interview Study and Outline of a Process Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-17, May.
    15. Engwall, Mats, 2003. "No project is an island: linking projects to history and context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 789-808, May.
    16. Alshareef, Leena & Dietlmeier, Simon Frederic & Florian, Urmetzer, 2024. "Coopetition For The Greater Good. Exploratory study of coopetition management mechanisms in the pharmaceutical industry," MPRA Paper 120645, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Sugrue, Dennis & Adriaens, Peter, 2021. "A data fusion approach to predict shipping efficiency for bulk carriers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    18. Zis, Thalis P.V., 2019. "Prospects of cold ironing as an emissions reduction option," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 82-95.
    19. Anna Dubois & Lars-Erik Gadde, 2002. "The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 621-631.
    20. Dai, Lei & Hu, Hao & Wang, Zhaojing, 2020. "Is Shore Side Electricity greener? An environmental analysis and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6273-:d:567344. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.