The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Are the Causes and Cures of Poor Megaproject Performance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda
Open accessAbstract
This systematic literature review explores the megaproject management literature and contributes by improving our understanding of the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance. The review analyzes 6,007 titles and abstracts and 86 full papers, identifying a total of 18 causes and 54 cures to address poor megaproject performance. We suggest five avenues for future research that should consider examining megaprojects as large-scale, inter-organizational production systems: (1) designing the system architecture; (2) bridging the gap with manufacturing; (3) building and leading collaborations; (4) engaging institutions and communities; and (5) decomposing and integrating the supply chain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Towards a theory of ecosystems
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2904 · Cited by 3,724
The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.454 · Cited by 912 · cited 3×
“…the number of papers entirely reviewed (AliagaIsla & Rialp, 2013; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Klang et al., 2014; Papamitsiou & Economides, 2014; Podsakoff et al., 2005; Pölkki et al., 2014; Richards et al., 2014; Tompkins & Arendt, 2015; Überbacher, 2014; Wielenga‐Meijer et al., 2010; Zhang et…”
BackgroundMethodOrchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence From the Field.
Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2011) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2011.63886529 · Cited by 441
Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control over Flexibility and Novelty
Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. (2010) · California Management Review · doi:10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32 · Cited by 348
Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects
Bruzelius, N., Flyvbjerg, B., & Rothengatter, W. (2002) · Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/s0967-070x(02)00014-8 · Cited by 220
Love, P. E. D., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D., & Irani, Z. (2016) · Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.007 · Cited by 138
Cited by
Moving goals and governance in megaprojects
Bourne, M., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., & Pesämaa, O. (2023) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102486 · Cited by 41
The dynamics of systems integration: Balancing stability and change on London's Crossrail project
Muruganandan, K., Davies, A., Denicol, J., & Whyte, J. (2022) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.007 · Cited by 36
Self-citationSankaran, S., Müller, R., & Drouin, N. (2020) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.2744 · Cited by 35
Denicol, J. (2022) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.01.004 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Denicol, J., Davies, A., & Krystallis, I.
- Venue
- Project Management Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-02-13
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 328-345
- ISSN
- 1938-9507 (ISSN-L)
- 8756-9728
- OpenAlex
- W3005588761
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 8.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
