Transforming construction: heterarchical megaproject ecologies and the management of innovation

References

• Aime, F., et al., 2014. The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of management journal, 57, 327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin, A. and Cohendet, P., 2004. Architectures of knowledge: firms, capabilities, and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arena, L. and Molloy, E., 2013. The governance paradox in megaprojects. In: V.A.M.B. Lehmann, ed. Communication et grands projets: Les nouveaux défis. Montreal: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
   Google Scholar
• Arena, M., et al., 2017. How to catalyze innovation in your organization. MIT sloan management review, 58, 39–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., 1976. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative science quarterly, 21, 363–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auschra, C., et al., 2019. Patterns of project-based organizing in new venture creation: projectification of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. international journal of managing projects in business, 12, 48–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, R.M., et al., 2016. Temporary organizing: promises, processes, problems. Organization studies, 37, 1703–1719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becerik-Gerber, B. and Kensek, K., 2010. Building information modeling in architecture, engineering, and construction: emerging research directions and trends. Journal of professional issues in engineering education and practice, 136, 139–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becerik-Gerber, B. and Rice, S., 2010. The perceived value of building information modeling in the U.S. building industry. Journal of information technology in construction, 15, 185–201.
   Google Scholar
• Benítez-Ávila, C., Hartmann, A., and Dewulf, G., 2019. Contractual and relational governance as positioned-practices in ongoing public–private partnership projects. Project management journal, 50, 716–733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berggren, C., 2019. The cumulative power of incremental innovation and the role of project sequence management. International journal of project management, 37, 461–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesenthal, C., et al., 2018. Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. International journal of project management, 36, 43–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogenrieder, I. and Nooteboom, B., 2004. Learning groups: what types are there? A theoretical analysis and an empirical study in a consultancy firm. Organization studies, 25, 287–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boland, R.J. and Tenkasi, R.V., 1995. Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization science, 6, 350–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boton, C. and Forgues, D., 2018a. Comprendre l’impact du numérique sur la gestion de projet en construction. Lien social et Politiques, 81, 41–60.
   Google Scholar
• Boton, C. and Forgues, D., 2018b. Practices and processes in BIM projects: an exploratory case study. Advances in civil engineering, 2018, 7259659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, T. and Davies, A., 2004. building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization studies, 25, 1601–1621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockmann, C., Brezinski, H., and Erbe, A., 2016. Innovation in construction megaprojects. Journal of construction engineering & management, 142, 40160591-4016059-9–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes, N. and Locatelli, G., 2015. Power plants as megaprojects: using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction management. Utilities policy, 36, 57–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunet, M., 2019. Governance-as-practice for major public infrastructure projects: a case of multilevel project governing. International journal of project management, 37, 283–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., and Volm, J.M., 2013. The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). International journal of project management, 31, 971–980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science, 15, 555–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, R.J., 2016. A framework for examining the dimensions and characteristics of complexity inherent within rail megaprojects. International journal of project management, 34, 937–956.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clegg, S. and Kreiner, K., 2013. Power and politics in construction projects. In: N. DROUIN, MÜLLER RALF, and SHANKAR SANKARAN, eds. Novel approaches to organizational project management research: translational and transformational. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohendet, P. and Simon, L., 2007. Playing across the playground: paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of organizational behavior, 28, 587–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, R., David, P., and Foray, D., 2000. The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Industrial and corporate change, 9, 211–253.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, A. and Brady, T., 2000. Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions. Research policy, 29, 931–953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, A., 2013. Innovation and project management. In: M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann, and N. Phillips, eds. The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, A., 2017. Projects: a very short introduction. Oxford: University Oxford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, A., et al., 2017. Five rules for managing large, complex projects. MIT sloan management review, 59, 73–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, A., Gann, D., and Douglas, T., 2009. Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at london heathrow terminal 5. California management review, 51, 101–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, A., Macaulay, S.C., and Brady, T., 2019. Delivery model innovation: insights from infrastructure projects. Project Management Journal, 50, 119–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, A., et al., 2014. Making innovation happen in a megaproject: London’s crossrail suburban railway system. Project Management Journal, 45, 25–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, R., et al., 2015. BIM in Europe: innovation networks in the construction sectors of Sweden, France and the UK. In: A.B.A.A.-N.E. Raidén, ed. Procs 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7–9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 1135–1144.
   Google Scholar
• De Blois, M., Lizarralde, G., and De Coninck, P., 2016. Iterative project processes within temporary multi-organizations in construction: the self-, eco-, re-organizing projects. Project management journal, 47, 27–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denicol, J., Davies, A., and Krystallis, I., 2020. What Are the Causes and Cures of Poor Megaproject Performance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Project Management Journal, 51, 328–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Maddaloni, F. and Davis, K., 2018. Project manager’s perception of the local communities’ stakeholder in megaprojects. An empirical investigation in the UK. International journal of project management, 36, 542–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodgson, M., et al., 2015. Innovation strategy in new transportation systems: the case of crossrail. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 77, 261–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drouin, N., et al., 2021. Megaproject leaders: reflections on personal life stories. Chelthenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., and Malach-Pines, A., 2006. Projects and project managers: the relationship between project managers' personality, project types, and project success. project management journal, 37, 36–48.
   Google Scholar
• Eadie, R., et al., 2013. BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: an analysis. Automation in construction, 36, 145–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., 2017. The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., and Rothengatter, W., 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forgues, D., and Becerik-Gerber, B., 2013. Integrated project delivery and building information modeling: redefining the relationship between education and practice. The international journal of design education, 6, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Forgues, D., Koskela, L., and Lejeune, A., 2009. Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning. Journal of information technology in construction, 14, 48–58.
   Google Scholar
• Forsythe, P., Sankaran, S., and Biesenthal, C., 2015. How far can bim reduce information asymmetry in the Australian construction context? Project management journal, 46, 75–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fosbrook, B., 2016. Evolution through heterarchical organization. Business history review, 90, 719–725.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frew, B., 2009. Valuing heterarchy in the public sector. People and strategy, 32, 11–12.
   Google Scholar
• Froese, T.M., 2010. The impact of emerging information technology on project management for construction. Automation in construction, 19, 531–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gannon, B., Wilson, D., and Powell, P., 2014. Investigating the information systems heterarchy. Information systems management, 31, 353–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraldi, J. and Söderlund, J., 2018. Project studies: what it is, where it is going. International journal of project management, 36, 55–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil, N. and Pinto, J.K., 2018. Polycentric organizing and performance: a contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK. Research policy, 47, 717–734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. and Ibert, O., 2011. Project Ecologies: a contextual view on temporary organizations. In: P. W. G Morris, J. K. Pinto, and J. Söderlund, eds. The Oxford handbook of project management. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. and Thiel, J., 2014. Coping with a self-induced shock: the heterarchic organization of the London Olympic Games 2012. Social sciences, 3, 527–548.
   Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. and Thiel, J., 2015. Projects, people, professions: trajectories of learning through a mega-event (the London 2012 case). Geoforum, 65, 328–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabher, G., 2001. Ecologies of creativity: the village, the group, and the heterarchic organisation of the british advertising industry. Environment and planning A: economy and space, 33, 351–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabher, G., 2002. The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams. Regional studies, 36, 245–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, D.M. and Bonanomi, M.M., 2021. Governing collaborative project delivery as a common-pool resource scenario. Project management journal, 52, 250–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargadon, A.B., 2013. Brokerage and innovation. In: M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann, and N. Phillips, eds. The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• He, Q., et al., 2017. Mapping the managerial areas of Building Information Modeling (BIM) using scientometric analysis. International journal of project management, 35, 670–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedlund, G., 1986. The hypermodern MNC – a heterarchy? Human resource management, 25, 9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedlund, G., 2016. Assumptions of hierarchy and heterarchy, with application to the management if the multinational corporation. In: C. Young, S. Ghoshal, & D. E. Westney, eds. Organization theory and the multinational corporation. Macmillan UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, C. and Ostrom, E., 2007. Understanding knowledge as a commons from theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hubert, B., De Turckheim, E., and Messéan, A., 2009. Concevoir et construire la décision: Démarches en agriculture, agroalimentaire et espace rural. Versailles Editions Quae.
   Google Scholar
• Ibert, O., 2004. Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the Munich software ecology. Research policy, 33, 1529–1546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imam, H. and Zaheer, M.K., 2021. Shared leadership and project success: the roles of knowledge sharing, cohesion and trust in the team. International journal of project management.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsson, M. and Hällgren, M., 2016. Impromptu teams in a temporary organization: on their nature and role. International journal of project management, 34, 584–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch-Ørvad, N., et al., 2019. Transforming ecosystems: facilitating sustainable innovations through the lineage of exploratory projects. Project management journal, 50, 602–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujala, J., Brady, T., and Putila, J., 2014. Challenges of cost management in complex projects. International journal of business and management, 9, 48–58.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lehtonen, M., 2014. Evaluating megaprojects: from the ‘iron triangle’ to network mapping. Evaluation, 20, 278–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenfle, S., 2016. Floating in space? On the strangeness of exploratory projects. Project management journal, 47, 47–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P.M. and Treem, J.W., 2020. Behavioral visibility: a new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization studies, 41, 1601–1625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, R.E., 2007. CEM research for the next 50 years: maximizing economic, environmental, and societal value of the built environment. Journal of construction engineering and management, 133, 619–628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundin, R.A., et al., 2015. Managing and working in project society. Managing and working in project society: institutional challenges of temporary organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mahalingam, A. 2021. Megaproject leadership in the developing world: an Indian perspective. In: N. Drouin, S. Sankaran, A. Van Marrewijk, & R. Müller, Eds. Megaproject Leaders: Reflections on Personal Life Stories, 214–230. Chelthenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Mckinsey Global Institute. 2013. Infrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year. London: McKinsey.
   Google Scholar
• Mckinsey Global Institute. 2017. Reinventing construction: a route to higher productivity. London: Mckinsey Global Institute and Mckinsey’s Capital Projects & Infrastructure Practice.
   Google Scholar
• Meng, X. and Boyd, P., 2017. The role of the project manager in relationship management. International journal of project management, 35, 717–728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midler, C., Killen, C.P., and Kock, A., 2016. Project and innovation management: bridging contemporary trends in theory and practice. Project management journal, 47, 3–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, R. and Lessard, D., 2000. The strategic management of large engineering projects: shaping institutions, risks, and governance, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Musawir, A.U., Abd-Karim, S.B., and Mohd-Danuri, M.S., 2020. Project governance and its role in enabling organizational strategy implementation: a systematic literature review. International journal of project management, 38, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolini, D., 2016. Is small the only beautiful? Making sense of ‘large phenomena’ from a practice- based perspective. In: A.A.S.T. Hui, and E. Shove, ed. The nexus of practices connections: constellations, practitioners, 98–113. London; New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5, 14–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obstfeld, D., 2012. Creative projects: a less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization science, 23, 1571–1592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obstfeld, D., 2017. Getting new things done: networks, brokerage, and the assembly of innovative action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Obstfeld, D., Borgatti, S. P., and Davis, J. P., 2014. Brokerage as process: decoupling third party action from social network structure. In: D. J. Brass, G. J. Labianca, A. Mehra, D. S. Halgin, and S. P. Borgatti, eds. Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks, 135–159. Bradford: Emerald Books.
   Google Scholar
• O’leary, T. and Williams, T., 2013. Managing the social trajectory: a practice perspective on project management. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 60, 566–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E., 2015. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papadonikolaki, E., 2017. Unravelling project ecologies of innovation: a review of BIM policy and diffusion. Boston: IRNOP.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, Edith. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Pitsis, A., et al., 2018. Megaprojects redefined – complexity vs cost and social imperatives. International journal of managing projects in business, 11, 7–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clegg, S.R., et al., 2006. Making the future perfect: constructing the olympic dream. In: D. Hodgson and S. Cicmil, eds. Making projects critical. New York: Palgrave, 265-293.
   Google Scholar
• Poirier, E.A., Forgues, D., and Staub-French, S., 2017. Understanding the impact of BIM on collaboration: a Canadian case study. Building research & information, 45, 681–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potts, J., 2018. Governing the innovation commons. Journal of institutional economics, 14, 1025–1047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiu, Y., et al., 2019. Governance of institutional complexity in megaproject organizations. International journal of project management, 37, 425–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott-Young, C.M., Georgy, M., and Grisinger, A., 2019. Shared leadership in project teams: an integrative multi-level conceptual model and research agenda. International journal of project management, 37, 565–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sergeeva, N. and Zanello, C., 2018. Championing and promoting innovation in UK megaprojects. International journal of project management, 36, 1068–1081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderlund, J., 2017. A reflection of the state-of-the-art in megaproject research: the Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Project management journal, 48, 132–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderlund, J., Sankaran, S., and Biesenthal, C., 2017. The past and present of megaprojects. Project management journal, 48, 5–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, D., 2001. Heterarchy: exploiting ambiguity and organizing diversity. Brazilian journal of political economy, 21, 21–39.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, K., 2009. Neither hierarchy nor network: an argument for heterarchy. People and strategy, 32, 4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Sundqvist, E., 2019. The role of project managers as improvement agents in project-based organizations. Project management journal, 50, 376–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suprapto, M., et al., 2016. How do contract types and incentives matter to project performance? International journal of project management, 34, 1071–1087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, A. M. and Perry, J. L. 2006. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 20–32.
   Google Scholar
• Tillmann, P., Berghede, K., Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. D. 2014. Developing a production system on IP D: Considerations for a pluralistic environment [Conference session]. 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production. Oslo, Norway: IGLC, Vol. 1, 317–328.
   Google Scholar
• Vesalainen, J., Valkokari, K., and Hellström, M., 2017. Practices for network management: in search of collaborative advantage. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. and Von Krogh, G., 2003. Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: issues for organization science. Organization science, 14, 209–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, R. 2018. Is heterarchy the answer to the crisis of hierarchy? [Online]. IPMA International Project Management Association. Available from: https://www.ipma.world/heterarchy-answer-crisis-hierarchy/ [Accessed 9 January 2020].
   Google Scholar
• Whyte, J., 2019. How digital information transforms project delivery models. Project management journal, 50, 177–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, J.K. and Hartmann, T., 2017. How digitizing building information transforms the built environment. Building research & information, 45, 591–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, J., Stasis, A., and Lindkvist, C., 2016. Managing change in the delivery of complex projects: configuration management, asset information and big data. International journal of project management, 34, 339–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiewiora, A., Chang, A., and Smidt, M., 2020. Individual, project and organizational learning flows within a global project-based organization: exploring what, how and who. International journal of project management, 38, 201–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winch, G. and Leiringer, R., 2016. Owner project capabilities for infrastructure development: a review and development of the “strong owner” concept. International journal of project management, 34, 271–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum. 2018. Shaping the future of construction: future scenarios and implications for the industry. Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• Worsnop, T., Miraglia, S., and Davies, A., 2016. Balancing open and closed innovation in megaprojects: insights from crossrail. Project management journal, 47, 79–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B.J., 2000. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. Handbook of self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar