Cited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Creating a 'sustainability sublime' to enable megaprojects to meet the united Nations sustainable development goals

Sankaran, Shankar, Müller, Ralf, Drouin, Nathalie·2020·Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Abstract

Despite cost and schedule overruns and benefits shortfalls, megaprojects (which are large‐scale projects that typically cost over a billion dollars and take years to develop and build) continue to be promoted and built creating a megaproject paradox. Prominent megaproject scholar Bent Flyvbjerg (2014) argued that this could be motivated by four ‘sublimes’—technological, political, economic and aesthetic that drive new megaprojects being put forward despite their poor performance. Recent evidence shows that better governance practices are helping to improve the overall performance of megaprojects. Despite the United Nations setting 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030, there are severe shortfalls in initiatives from governments, public organizations and private businesses endangering the achievement of targets set for these goals. In addition, time is running out to achieve these goals with only a decade left. The current initiatives contributing to these goals appear to be focused on individual SDGs even though many of these are interrelated. This article proposes that if politicians, engineers and scientists, businesses leaders and design thinkers could be motivated by a ‘sustainability sublime’ to create megaprojects that contribute to SDGs, it could benefit both the society and the planet. It also argues that a more integrated view of UN SDGs and a suitable governance structure should be applied to ensure that megaprojects created as a result of the sustainability sublime deliver benefits towards achieving UN SDGs.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sres.2744

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This confirms previous research on sustainability in project results, where a broader perspective than traditional cost, time, and quality is called for.

    “This confirms previous research on sustain­ ability in project results, where a broader perspective than the tradi­ tional cost, time, and quality is called for”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Aras G., 2010, A handbook of corporate governance and social responsibility, 265
  2. 10.1016/j.ccs.2017.09.006 · DOI
  3. Beer S., 1972, Brain of the firm: The managerial cybernetics of organization
  4. Beer S., 1979, The heart of enterprise
  5. Beer S., 2003, Diagnosing the system for organizations
  6. 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006 · DOI
  8. Bradley G., 2016, Benefits realization management, 10.4324/9781315569055 · DOI
  9. Busco C., 2017, Sustainable development goals: Integrating sustainability initiatives with long term value creation, Strategic Finance, 2020
  10. Cleland D. I., 1975, Systems analysis and project management
  11. 10.1111/isj.12138 · DOI
  12. Costanza R., 2014, An overarching goal for the UN sustainable development goals, Solutions, 5, 13
  13. 10.1177/8756972819896113 · DOI
  14. Devi T. R., 2012, Work breakdown structure of the project, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2, 683
  15. Eckerson W. W., 2010, Performance dashboards: Measuring, monitoring, and managing your business
  16. Er M., 2013, Novel approaches to organizational project management research: Translational and transformational
  17. 10.1002/pmj.21409 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198732242.001.0001 · DOI
  19. 10.1017/CBO9781107050891 · DOI
  20. Frick K. T., 2008, Decision‐making on mega‐projects
  21. 10.1111/1468-2451.5501002 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/495305a · DOI
  23. 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000254 · DOI
  24. Jaradat R. M., 2015, Complex system governance requires systems thinking ‐ how to find systems thinkers, International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 6, 53, 10.1504/IJSSE.2015.068813 · DOI
  25. Joslin R., 2017, Governance and governmentality of projects, 159
  26. Juárez A.B. Padilla R.J.&Piña I.B.(2012).Using viable systems model as a diagnostic tool of the sustainable tourism (pp.397–409) Proceedings 56thAnnual Meeting to the International Society of the Systems Sciences 15–20 July San Jose California.
  27. Jugdev K., 2012, Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin and Prescott—The elucidation of project success, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5, 757
  28. Keating C. B. (Ed.). (2014).Governance implications for meeting challenges in the system of systems engineering field. 20149th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering (SOSE): IEEE. pp.154–159. · DOI
  29. 10.1332/030557312X655431 · DOI
  30. Lieberman A., 2018, SDGs show slow progress, not on track to reach 2030 targets, UN reports, Devex News, 2020
  31. 10.1177/875697281704800506 · DOI
  32. Morris P., 1988, The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management
  33. Menga F., 2018, Bigger is better or how governments learned to stop worrying and love megaprojects, Studies of Transition States and Societies, 1, 3
  34. Merrow E. W., 2011, Industrial megaprojects
  35. Meuleman L., 2008, Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: The feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations
  36. 10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0 · DOI
  37. Müller R., 2020, Springer Handbook of Systems Science
  38. 10.4337/9781788110976 · DOI
  39. Müller R., 2019, Modeling organizational project management, Project Management Journal, 50, 1, 10.1177/8756972819847876 · DOI
  40. Nevell M., 2011, Bridgewater 250: The archaeology of the world's first industrial canal
  41. Nhamo G., 2020, Scaling up SDGs implementation, 3, 10.1007/978-3-030-33216-7_1 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.005 · DOI
  43. Ninan J., 2019, Systems thinking using SSM and TRIZ for stakeholder engagement in infrastructure megaprojects, Systems, 7, 1, 10.3390/systems7040048 · DOI
  44. Nunes A. R., 2016, The importance of an integrating framework for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: The example of health and well‐being, BMJ Global Health, 1, 3, 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000068 · DOI
  45. Nye D. E., 1994, American technological sublime
  46. OECD, 2015, Effective delivery of large infrastructure projects: The case of the new international airport of Mexico City, 10.1787/9789264248335-en · DOI
  47. Oisen R. P., 1971, Can project management be defined?, Project Management Quarterly, 2, 12
  48. Pelham N.(2019).An investigation into the impact of governance on megaprojects PhD Thesis University of Melbourne Australia.
  49. Pich M. T., 2002, On uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity in project management, Management Science, 48, 955
  50. PMI, 1989, A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide)
  51. PMI, 2016, PMBOK guide
  52. 10.1108/IJMPB-07-2017-0080 · DOI
  53. PWC, 2014, Successful capital project delivery: The art and science of effective governance
  54. Roorda C., 2012, Guidance manual
  55. Sabel C. F., 2012, Experimentalist governance, The Oxford Handbook of Governance, 1, 2
  56. Sheffield J., 2015, Systems thinking: Taming complexity in project management, On the Horizon, 20, 126, 10.1108/10748121211235787 · DOI
  57. 10.1177/875697281704800602 · DOI
  58. 10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3 · DOI
  59. UN SDG Report, 2020, The sustainable development goals report
  60. 10.1515/9780804776554 · DOI
  61. Williams T., 2005, Learning from project failure, International Journal of Project Management, 13, 151
  62. 10.1002/pmj.20099 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sankaran, S., Müller, R., & Drouin, N.
Affiliations
School of the Built Environment University of Technology Sydney Ultimo NSW Australia
Venue
Systems Research and Behavioral Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-09
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
813-826
ISSN
  • 1092-7026
  • 1099-1743
Cited by
35
References
2
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review