IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v37y2010i5p792-807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lock-in and its Influence on the Project Performance of Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Investigating the Way in Which Lock-in Can Emerge and Affect Cost Overruns

Author

Listed:
  • Chantal C Cantarelli

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Bent Flyvbjerg

    (BT Centre for Major Programme Management, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP, England)

  • Bert van Wee
  • Eric J E Molin

Abstract

Lock-in, the escalating commitment of decision makers to an ineffective course of action, has the potential to explain the large cost overruns in large-scale transportation infrastructure projects. Lock-in can occur both at the decision-making level (before the decision to build) and at the project level (after the decision to build) and can influence the extent of overruns in two ways. The first involves the ‘methodology’ of calculating cost overruns according to the ‘formal decision to build’. Due to lock-in, however, the ‘real decision to build’ is made much earlier in the decision-making process and the costs estimated at that stage are often much lower than those that are estimated at a later stage in the decision-making process, thus increasing cost overruns. The second way that lock-in can affect cost overruns is through ‘practice’. Although decisions about the project (design and implementation) need to be made, lock-in can lead to inefficient decisions that involve higher costs. Sunk costs (in terms of both time and money), the need for justification, escalating commitment, and inflexibility and the closure of alternatives are indicators of lock-in. Two case studies, of the Betuweroute and the High Speed Link-South projects in the Netherlands, demonstrate the presence of lock-in and its influence on the extent of cost overruns at both the decision-making and project levels. This suggests that recognition of lock-in as an explanation for cost overruns contributes significantly to the understanding of the inadequate planning process of projects and allows development of more appropriate means.

Suggested Citation

  • Chantal C Cantarelli & Bent Flyvbjerg & Bert van Wee & Eric J E Molin, 2010. "Lock-in and its Influence on the Project Performance of Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Investigating the Way in Which Lock-in Can Emerge and Affect Cost Overruns," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(5), pages 792-807, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:37:y:2010:i:5:p:792-807
    DOI: 10.1068/b36017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b36017
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b36017?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    2. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    3. Flyvbjerg,Bent & Bruzelius,Nils & Rothengatter,Werner, 2003. "Megaprojects and Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521009461, January.
    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. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bert van Wee & Eric J. E. Molin & Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Different Cost Performance: Different Determinants? The Case of Cost Overruns in Dutch Transportation Infrastructure Projects," Papers 1307.2179, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    2. Cantarelli, C.C. & van Wee, B. & Molin, E.J.E. & Flyvbjerg, B., 2012. "Different cost performance: different determinants?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 88-95.
    3. Dotti, Nicola Francesco, 2018. "Knowledge that matters for the ‘survival of unfittest’: The case of the new Brussels' rail junction," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 131-140.
    4. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    5. 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.
    6. Daniel Albalate & Germá Bel, 2015. "La experiencia internacional en alta velocidad ferroviaria," Working Papers 2015-02, FEDEA.
    7. Bert van Wee & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "CBA: ex ante evaluation of mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 12, pages 269-290, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Marleau Donais, Francis & Abi-Zeid, Irène & Waygood, E. Owen D. & Lavoie, Roxane, 2022. "Municipal decision-making for sustainable transportation: Towards improving current practices for street rejuvenation in Canada," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 152-170.
    9. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791.
    10. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Quality Control and Due Diligence in Project Management: Getting Decisions Right by Taking the Outside View," Papers 1302.2544, arXiv.org.
    11. Flyvbjerg, Bent & Ansar, Atif & Budzier, Alexander & Buhl, Søren & Cantarelli, Chantal & Garbuio, Massimo & Glenting, Carsten & Holm, Mette Skamris & Lovallo, Dan & Lunn, Daniel & Molin, Eric & Rønnes, 2018. "Five things you should know about cost overrun," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 174-190.
    12. 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.
    13. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Mega-projects’ cost performance and lock-in: problems and solutions," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 15, pages 333-355, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Love, Peter E.D. & Sing, Michael C.P. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Newton, Sidney, 2019. "The cost performance of transportation projects: The fallacy of the Planning Fallacy account," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-20.
    15. Pansera, Mario & Lloveras, Javier & Durrant, Daniel, 2024. "The infrastructural conditions of (de-)growth: The case of the internet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    16. Chiara Pancotti & Matteo Pedralli & Geert Smit & Silvia Vignetti, 2020. "Understanding transport project appraisal in its institutional dimension," Working Papers 201902, CSIL Centre for Industrial Studies.
    17. 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).
    18. EEA Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2018. "‘Time to move on’ or ‘taking more time’? How disregarding multiple perspectives on time can increase policy-making conflict," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 340-356, March.

    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. Atif Ansar & Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Daniel Lunn, 2016. "Does infrastructure investment lead to economic growth or economic fragility? Evidence from China," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 32(3), pages 360-390.
    2. Petter Osmundsen & Kristin Helen Roll, 2016. "Rig Rates and Drilling Speed: Reinforcing Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 5895, CESifo.
    3. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2007. "Policy and Planning for Large-Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 34(4), pages 578-597, August.
    4. Ansar, Atif & Flyvbjerg, Bent & Budzier, Alexander & Lunn, Daniel, 2014. "Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 43-56.
    5. EEA Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2018. "‘Time to move on’ or ‘taking more time’? How disregarding multiple perspectives on time can increase policy-making conflict," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 340-356, March.
    6. Jerker Denrell & Christina Fang, 2010. "Predicting the Next Big Thing: Success as a Signal of Poor Judgment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1653-1667, October.
    7. Bent Flyvbjerg & Eamonn Molloy, 2011. "Delusion, Deception and Corruption in Major Infrastructure Projects: Causes, Consequences and Cures," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Sandro Fabbro & Marco Dean, 2012. "More realistic national infrastructure strategies to connect regions with the global networks: the Italian case," ERSA conference papers ersa12p392, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Øglend, Atle & Osmundsen, Petter & Lorentzen, Sindre, 2016. "Cost Overrun at the Norwegian Continental Shelf: The element of surprise," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2016/3, University of Stavanger.
    10. Bent Flyvbjerg & J. Rodney Turner, 2017. "Do Classics Exist in Megaproject Management?," Papers 1710.09678, arXiv.org.
    11. Francesca Gambarotto & Marco Rangone & Stefano Solari, 2023. "Moral and Institutional Foundations of Sustainable Technological Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-12, September.
    12. Gil, Nuno & Miozzo, Marcela & Massini, Silvia, 2012. "The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport's T5 project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 452-466.
    13. Maria Minniti & William Bygrave, 2001. "A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 25(3), pages 5-16, April.
    14. 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).
    15. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    16. Narduzzo, Alessandro & Warglien, Massimo, 1996. "Learning from the Experience of Others: An Experiment on Information Contagion," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(1), pages 113-126.
    17. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    18. Michele Dell'Era & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2011. "Entrepreneurial Overconfidence, Self-Financing and Capital Market Efficiency," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 11.06, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie, revised Nov 2012.
    19. Beomjin Choi & T. S. Raghu & Ajay Vinzé & Kevin J. Dooley, 2019. "Effectiveness of standards consortia: Social network perspectives," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 405-416, April.
    20. Ahsan Nawaz & Xing Su & Qaiser Mohi Ud Din & Muhammad Irslan Khalid & Muhammad Bilal & Syyed Adnan Raheel Shah, 2020. "Identification of the H&S (Health and Safety Factors) Involved in Infrastructure Projects in Developing Countries-A Sequential Mixed Method Approach of OLMT-Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envirb:v:37:y:2010:i:5:p:792-807. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.