This article was submitted to Construction Management, a section of the journal Frontiers in Built Environment
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
In the built environment, a megaproject is a large-scale new development or redevelopment project that is typically worth over $1bn and can make gigantic impacts on the society, the economy, and the environment at the local, regional, national, and even international levels in short and longer terms. The sustainability of megaprojects, with regard to their continuous abilities at particular levels throughout lifecycle, is therefore crucial for not only individual but also consensus decision-making in both engineering and management sessions across interactive layers and clusters at various project stages.
According to literature review on current professional services, sustainability in megaproject practice is normally measured and reported separately on the social, economic, and environmental aspects on an annual basis in many corporate reports such as those provided by
While there are discussions worldwide on the need for implementing integrated sustainability reporting at the corporate level, an integrated sustainability measurement for either existing or new megaprojects throughout lifecycle is in need to fill in the gap in the theory and practice of megaproject management in terms of developing and using new advanced techniques for integrated MAS. In response to this need, a new research project on an analytic approach to sustainability assessment in urban megaprojects has been set up recently at the University of Strathclyde, and this article describes the preliminary findings from research into a research roadmap for the technical advancement of MAS in the next decade or longer term.
This article focuses on the description about how such a research roadmap was developed and what has been included in this research roadmap with regard to its usefulness in the integrative measurement of megaproject sustainability at the eight project stages well defined by
It is the initiative of the research described in this article to yield useful outcomes that can support the development of a technical guidance on megaproject sustainability. Therefore, this article consists of descriptions on the following key issues: • the background detection for research justification, • the methodology for establishing the research roadmap, • the framework of the megaproject sustainability body of knowledge, • the research roadmap toward megaproject sustainability, and • the system reliability analysis of megaproject sustainability.
A preliminary literature review has been conducted at the early stage of this research to justify the aim and objectives of the research so as to establish a concrete background to further deploy research activities. The literature review has focused on two issues, including the assessment of megaproject sustainability, and the development of research roadmaps in related areas. This section describes the findings from this literature review.
The characteristics of sustainability within megaprojects (typically worth over $1bn each) can make gigantic impacts on the society, the economy, and the environment at the local, regional, national, and even international levels depending on the nature of the project in short and longer terms, and the pursuit of megaproject sustainability in development and operation is to satisfy the need for a sufficient address on dynamically interactive issues relating to social, technical, economic, ecological, and political (STEEP) aspects throughout project lifecycle. Therefore, it is an important but challenging task to do a reliable assessment on the overall sustainability of individual megaprojects to ensure the target is met in practice.
The consideration, decision-making, and actions on megaproject sustainability (
Academic research into MAS has been gradually developing in the past decade. For example,
The pursuit on sustainability in megaprojects through lifecycle has become more popular in the construction sector. One particular demonstration is the • the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) ( • the sustainability checkpoints specified for individual work stages in • the SPeAR® (Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine) (
In the meantime, there are many sustainability-oriented industry awards prompting best practices in the construction sector at the global scale each year. These professional initiatives have demonstrated that it has been widely accepted by the construction industry across the world that sustainability is essential for projects no matter which stage they might be at, and it has become a necessary part of work to pursue sustainability toward specified levels in all types of projects including new construction, reconstruction, and redevelopment projects. From this point of view, there is an anticipated demand for tools for MAS to support better decision-making by professionals at either engineering or management positions to work toward specified milestones in accordance with the sustainability checkpoints specified by
It is an assumption of the described research that milestones can be established in accordance with all the main work stages specified with the sustainability checkpoints given by • Q1 on whether there is already such a research roadmap for MAS, and • Q2 on what a new research roadmap for MAS should cover.
The answers to the two questions above can further justify the need for and the contents of the described research.
To find the answer to Q1, there are two checking points upon the publication of this article, and the following two combined search terms are used to identify relevant academic research and professional practices on Google: • Search term A: “mega project” AND sustainability AND “research roadmap,” and • Search term B: megaproject AND sustainability AND “research roadmap.”
The first checking point is on June 30, 2017, and the answer to Q1 was simply a null set according to the results returned from Google. The second checking point is on April 4, 2021, and the answer to Q1 was also negative despite new results (see
Search results from Google and the Web of Science as of April 4, 2021.
Search terms | Search engines | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
A | 240 | 26 | 0 |
B | 952 | 54 | 0 |
C | 212 | 5 | 0 |
D | 9 | 5 | 0 |
Notes: 1. Search term A: “mega project” AND sustainability AND “research roadmap.” 2. Search term B: megaproject AND sustainability AND “research roadmap.” 3. Search term C: megaproject AND “sustainability assessment” AND “research roadmap.” 4. Search term D: "megaproject sustainability” AND “research roadmap.”
According to the search results collected at the second checking point, it looks there is an increase in terms of the information related to megaproject, sustainability, and research roadmap; however, it is also found that research into either sustainability assessment or megaproject sustainability with regard to research roadmap was only conducted by
It was therefore assumed that the described research into MAS for a research roadmap has its originality to make a contribution to the body of knowledge of megaproject sustainability, which is one important part of professional practice on megaprojects.
To find the answer to the second question, the literature review was conducted to look into representative research roadmaps developed in related areas. The following research roadmaps were reviewed regarding their structures and contents in specific areas: • • • • •
It has been found from the review into these research roadmaps that the generic contents that need to be considered and covered include research themes and areas, and research timescale and milestones. As a result, the findings on the generic format adopted in research roadmaps have provided useful information for developing a new research roadmap for MAS.
The literature review into megaproject sustainability assessment and research roadmaps has justified the need for a new research roadmap for MAS. It has been identified that the new research roadmap will need to specify research themes and areas in relation to sustainability assessment in megaprojects throughout the lifecycle, and it is also necessary for the research roadmap to clarify the timescale to achieve milestones set up for MAS.
The strategy made for the research described in this article focuses on the aim and objectives of research and the methodology to ensure the use of appropriate methods to derive reliable outcomes. The literature review conducted for this research has focused on the assessment of megaproject sustainability and the need for planning on the development of innovative solutions with clear identities on a research roadmap so as to improve sustainability-oriented practice in megaprojects, and this has eventually led to this research into a roadmap for a comprehensive understanding and guide of further research relating to MAS, which also has numerous connections to other tasks throughout the whole life of megaprojects. The research toward such a roadmap was conducted through considering the following three objectives: • To identify a set of research areas through a comprehensive literature review to form the theoretical framework of the body of knowledge for MAS. • To draw a research roadmap of MAS by connecting all identified research areas in related sustainability domains into a reliable work procedure. • To specify technical details of MAS at different work stages alongside the chosen work procedure such as RIBA Plan of Work 2020.
To achieve the goal of this research, a set of research methods was used. The preliminary research findings described here have been derived through the use of TRIZ integrated with EBL and system analysis and design. An extensive literature review sustained by TRIZ was used to justify research aim and objectives as well as essential research themes and areas to establish a framework of the body of knowledge for megaproject sustainability (MSBOK). A process on system analysis and design was then used to derive a research roadmap for MAS, and this includes a technical framework as the procedure of MAS, and its related research tasks in short, medium, and long terms. It was considered when the research roadmap was developed to reflect the progress of current research and practice with regard to the best practice in related areas for megaproject sustainability.
TRIZ as a useful tool to establish a comprehensive understanding of problem under solving was chosen as a research method to identify themes and specific areas so as to form the research roadmap. TRIZ is the Russian acronym for “Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch” and means the “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving” in English. It was developed in 1946 by the Soviet inventor Genrich Altshuller and his colleagues (
The literature review on knowledge-driven assessment for the sustainable built environment indicated a lack of research into EBL to support decision-making in lifecycle-oriented facilities management and the necessity of new research to bridge over the gap between EBL and knowledge-driven multicriteria assessment for the design (
In the field of MAS, it has been of both academic interest in and professional need for specifying the MSBOK to support best practice in research and services on megaprojects. To derive a reliable set of MSBOK through an extensive review on the literature and practice, and to verify its suitability to clustered research themes and areas at individual work stages and the whole life of megaprojects, the TRIZ was chosen to facilitate an expected inventive process to establish the framework and elements of MSBOK. For such a dedicated research, the nine-square process (NSP), which is one practical TRIZ tool, was chosen to qualitatively identify and justify the framework of MSBOK and the clusters of research tasks.
A TRIZ approach to identifying research areas for MAS.
An illustrated procedure of MAS.
An overview with further descriptions about these nine windows is presented in
An overview of nine processes/windows for EBL.
Processes/Windows | Descriptions |
---|---|
1. Academic research | The review focuses on research projects, publications, and knowledge exchange activities. |
2. Individual professional practice | The review focuses on professional services, training, and reports. |
3. Industry leadership | The review focuses on international initiatives on megaproject sustainability. |
4. Collaborative professional practice | The review focuses on strategies, and interdisciplinary collaborations. |
5. Supply chain network | The review focuses on guidance, product specifications, strategies, and reports at the macro-system level. |
6. Professional organizations | The review focuses on guidance, industry standards, statistics, and reports at the macro-system level. |
7. Government | The review focuses on consultations, policy, plans, regulations, statistics, and reports at the macro-system level. |
8. MSBOK | A framework of the body of knowledge for megaproject sustainability. |
9. MAS | Research tasks specified for R&D in megaproject sustainability. |
It is expected that this dedicated review can ensure a systematic study on MSBOK from the past through present to the future at three main levels on microsystem, system, and macrosystem in the scope of MAS-related practice and research, and derive useful solutions of the knowledge framework of MSBOK and the clusters of research tasks for MAS.
For the framework of MSBOK, this research has identified three knowledge domains across five research themes through the TRIZ-driven literature review described above. The three knowledge domains include the built environment, the social environment, and the natural environment, which are recognized as critical technical domains relating to MAS. The five research themes focus on social issues, technical issues, economic issues, environmental issues, and political issues, that is, STEEP issues, in megaproject development and management when sustainability is under consideration across the whole life.
MAS-oriented research themes and areas within MSBOK framework.
STEEP themes |
Environmental domains and areas of research |
||
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Social issues | 1.1 Social needs | 2.1 Social activities | 3.1 Social interactions |
Technical issues | 1.2 Technical assurance | 2.2 Technical usefulness | 3.2 Technical interactions |
Economic issues | 1.3 Economic performance | 2.3 Economic value | 3.3 Economic risks |
Environmental issues | 1.4 Environmental impacts | 2.4 Environmental concerns | 3.4 Environmental degradation |
Political issues | 1.5 Political impacts | 2.5 Political actions | 3.5 Political interactions |
The procedure of MAS is a series of connected actions to be taken at individual work stages in the whole project life to achieve the particular milestones on sustainability assessment in megaprojects.
The procedure of MAS as illustrated in
The research to support the implementation of MAS according to the illustrated procedure in
Strategic description about outcome-driven research tasks for MAS.
Research outcomes | Time scales and focuses for research into MAS | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Models | Developing models | Improving models: - Refining evaluation criteria. - Improving individual models | Improving models - Developing individual evaluation techniques. |
- Defining evaluation criteria | |||
- Choosing individual evaluation techniques | |||
- Developing individual models | |||
Toolkits | Consideration on toolkits | Developing toolkits | Improving toolkits |
- Considering the interactions between models, and their integration to form toolkits | - Defining the functions of toolkits, and the interactions between models | - Improving the functions of toolkits, and the interactions between models | |
- Considering the functions of toolkits to be supported by models | - Developing individual toolkits | - Improving individual toolkits | |
Systems | Consideration on systems | Consideration on systems | Developing systems |
- Considering the interactions between models, and their integration in toolkits to form systems | - Considering the interactions between toolkits, and their integration to form systems | - Defining the functions of systems, and the interactions between toolkits | |
- Considering the functions of systems | - Considering the functions of systems | - Developing individual systems | |
Case studies | Applications of models | Applications of toolkits | Applications of systems |
The main tasks of research into MAS, as described in
For the short term, which is the fast pace, the research into MAS is expected to focus on developing models that can be used to conduct reliable assessment on specific targets on either specific or overall aspects relating to STEEP issues at individual work stages, and research work will need to deal with key technical issues such as assessment criteria, evaluation techniques, and useful tools, that is, models for MAS through experimental case studies; in addition, research work during this term will also need to consider how models developed at the initial time period can still be useful in the longer term with regard to their integrations with toolkits and systems for assessment.
For the medium term, the research into MAS is expected to focus on a continuous all-round improvement of models developed already, in addition to developing toolkits that are integrations of developed modules that have functions allocated in technical clusters in relation to various work stages, and consideration on how toolkits under development can still be useful in the longer term with regard to their integrations with systems for assessment. Moreover, an evidence base will be ideally developed during this time period toward computer-aided assessment, and it could rely on a commercial software tool at an initial stage.
For the long term, the research into MAS is expected to focus on continuous all-round improvements of models and toolkits developed already, in addition to developing systems that are integrations of models as well as toolkits including the evidence base toward developing a powerful tool for assessment.
For case studies, the research into MAS is expected to focus on continuous tests of tools including models, toolkits, and systems developed at individual time periods, and trying to find problems and potentials for further improvement through experiments on case projects.
The general view on research tasks and outcomes over the three time periods described above is to outline what research can do to support implementing the procedure of MAS. Due to the constraints on available resources for research, there will be a long way to achieve the goal of long-term research that can provide an integrated assessment tool at the system level. With regard to identified need for MAS, it is therefore necessary to specify all research tasks and expected outcomes at individual work stages so that the time length of knowledge exchange from research to practice can be reduced. Based on this consideration, the outcome-driven research tasks described in
To specify details of research activities alongside the three time scales, the research tasks specified in • Stage Cluster 1 Planning, which includes Stages 0 and 1; • Stage Cluster 2 Design, which includes Stages 2 to 4; • Stage Cluster 3 Construction, which includes Stages 5 to 6; • Stage Cluster 4 Operation, which is the same to Stage 7; and • Stage Cluster 5 Redevelopment, which is the same to Stage 8.
Details about the five stage clusters of research tasks for MAS are given in
Clusters of research tasks for MAS in the short term.
Project stage-clusters and sustainability milestones | Short-term (ST) tasks for research into MAS |
---|---|
|
ST1 Defining criteria to evaluate project strategies, specifications, feasibility, etc. |
M1.1 Assessment of strategy | ST2 Developing evaluation models for possible usage by developers and local authorities |
M1.2 Assessment of preparation and brief | ST3 Collecting evidence for MAS at planning stage |
|
ST4 Defining criteria to evaluate architectural and engineering design with specifications |
M2.1 Concept design assessment | ST5 Developing evaluation models for possible usage by designers, other contractors, and developers |
M2.2 Developed design assessment | ST6 Collecting evidence for MAS at design stage |
M2.3 Technical design assessment | |
|
ST7 Defining criteria to evaluate construction strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M3.1 Assessment of construction | ST8 Developing evaluation models for possible usage by construction contractors and developers |
M3.2 Assessment of handover | ST9 Collecting evidence for MAS at construction stage |
|
ST10 Defining criteria to evaluate operation strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M4.1 Assessment of operation | ST11 Developing evaluation models for possible usage by developers and/or owners |
M4.2 Assessment of maintenance | ST12 Collecting evidence for MAS at operation stage |
|
ST13 Defining criteria to evaluate redevelopment strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M5.1 Assessment of decommission | ST14 Developing evaluation models for possible usage by developers and redevelopment contractors |
M5.2 Assessment of recommission | ST15 Collecting evidence for MAS at redevelopment stage |
Clusters of research tasks for MAS in the medium term.
Project stage-clusters and sustainability milestones | Medium-term (MD) tasks for research into MAS |
---|---|
|
MT1 Improving criteria and models to evaluate project strategies, specifications, feasibility, etc. |
M1.1 Assessment of strategy | MT2 Developing evaluation toolkits for developers and local authorities |
M1.2 Assessment of preparation and brief | MT3 Collecting more evidence for developing an evidence base for MAS at the planning stage |
|
MT4 Improving criteria and models to evaluate architectural and engineering design with specifications |
M2.1 Concept design assessment | MT5 Developing evaluation toolkits for possible usage by designers, other contractors, and developers |
M2.2 Developed design assessment | MT6 Collecting more evidence for developing an evidence base for MAS at the design stage |
M2.3 Technical design assessment | |
|
MT7 Improving criteria and models to evaluate construction strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M3.1 Assessment of construction | MT8 Developing evaluation toolkits for possible usage by construction contractors and developers |
M3.2 Assessment of handover | MT9 Collecting more evidence for developing an evidence base for MAS at the construction stage |
|
MT10 Improving criteria and models to evaluate operation strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M4.1 Assessment of operation | MT11 Developing evaluation toolkits for possible usage by developers and/or owners |
M4.2 Assessment of maintenance | MT12 Collecting more evidence for developing an evidence base for MAS at the operation stage |
|
MT13 Improving criteria and models to evaluate redevelopment strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M5.1 Assessment of decommission | MT14 Developing evaluation toolkits for possible usage by developers and redevelopment contractors |
M5.2 Assessment of recommission | MT15 Collecting more evidence for use at the redevelopment stage |
Clusters of research tasks for MAS in the long term.
Project stage-clusters and sustainability milestones | Long-term (LT) tasks for research into MAS |
---|---|
|
LT1 Improving models and toolkits to evaluate project strategies, specifications, feasibility, etc. |
M1.1 Assessment of strategy | LT2 Developing evaluation systems for possible usage by developers and local authorities |
M1.2 Assessment of preparation and brief | LT3 Developing an evidence base for MAS at the planning stage |
|
LT4 Improving models and toolkits to evaluate architectural and engineering design with specifications |
M2.1 Concept design assessment | LT5 Developing evaluation systems for possible usage by designers, other contractors, and developers |
M2.2 Developed design assessment | LT6 Developing an evidence base for MAS at the design stage |
M2.3 Technical design assessment | |
|
LT7 Improving models and toolkits to evaluate construction strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M3.1 Assessment of construction | LT8 Developing evaluation systems for possible usage by construction contractors and developers |
M3.2 Assessment of handover | LT9 Developing an evidence base for MAS at the construction stage |
|
LT10 Improving models and toolkits to evaluate operation strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M4.1 Assessment of operation | LT11 Developing evaluation systems for possible usage by developers and/or owners |
M4.2 Assessment of maintenance | LT12 Developing an evidence base for MAS at the operation stage |
|
LT13 Improving models and toolkits to evaluate redevelopment strategies, plans, activities, resources usages, etc. |
M5.1 Assessment of decommission | LT14 Developing evaluation systems for possible usage by developers and redevelopment contractors |
M5.2 Assessment of recommission | LT15 Developing an evidence base for MAS at the redevelopment stage |
With regard to megaproject sustainability, it is necessary to include Redevelopment, as one particular work stage in the lifecycle of capital project development. As mentioned in
The description about the research into a research roadmap for megaproject sustainability in this article focuses on two issues, including the first one about research themes and related areas, and the second one about specific research tasks, and the solutions put forward in this article consider the process chain consisting of individual work stages of megaproject lifecycle, and the nature of a BIM pervasive working environment for development and redevelopment of the built environment. Besides its originality in the subject field of megaproject sustainability, the research roadmap was built upon a novel procedure of MAS in connection with megaproject practice. The purpose to develop a procedure for MAS was to ensure that the research roadmap can reflect true need for and real-world requirements on sustainability assessment in megaproject practice across all work stages. From this point of view, the research roadmap presented here has achieved the goal and has a good potential on its usefulness in further research and development.
In the described research, both work stages, as for the depth of research in terms of processes to be considered on technical issues, and time scale, as for the length of research in terms of time to be used for technical solutions, have been considered to develop the research roadmap for megaproject sustainability. A short discussion about the two scopes is given below.
There are two assumptions made for the research described in this article with regard to the need for the following: • the achievement of sustainability, that is, megaproject sustainability, and • the consideration of dynamics, that is, megaproject dynamics.
A short discussion about the two assumptions is given below.
An assumption is made for MAS in terms of sustainability in the whole life of a megaproject. The term “megaproject sustainability” (
Another assumption is further made for MAS in terms of the general dynamic status of sustainability in the whole life of a megaproject. According to a preliminary literature review via NSP (see • project dynamics and sustainability ( • urban regeneration ( • organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) ( • official development assistance (ODA) ( • construction supply chain ( • STEEP risks ( • patterns of circular transition (
It has been learned from current research into dynamic megaproject management with regard to the sustainability that “megaproject sustainability dynamics” can be introduced as a new technical term that describes the dynamic whole-life status and processes of megaproject development. This lifecycle-oriented new term as a concept has become fundamental here to develop the research roadmap toward megaproject sustainability.
It is also an attempt in the described research to further illustrate the research roadmap with an event tree diagram, and this diagram can enable an overall view on routes to sustainability across work stages in megaproject delivery.
An event tree diagram for megaproject sustainability analysis.
• Gate 1 from 2 milestones at the planning stage, • Gate 2 from 3 milestones at the design stage, • Gate 3 from 2 milestones at the construction stage, • Gate 4 from 2 milestones at the operation stage, and • Gate 5 from 2 milestones at the redevelopment stage.
It is anticipated that, for one megaproject, the overall goal on sustainability can be measured by a combination of the evaluation of individual goals upon the achievement of 11 milestones on this event tree, which is derived from the identified research roadmap. Therefore, the described research roadmap can also facilitate MAS by using the event tree diagram.
Two calculations can be conducted by using the event tree for megaproject sustainability. The first calculation is to derive an overall sustainability score of one megaproject under assessment, and the second calculation is to measure the reliability of the megaproject under assessment in terms of its achievement of sustainability with the calculated score. Therefore, two equations below are proposed.
Regarding the two measurements on megaproject sustainability via the event tree diagram, • • • • • •
Regarding the two above-mentioned equations to measure the status of megaproject sustainability via the event tree diagram, two more equations are proposed by incorporating the measurement of events. For the score of sustainability, • • • •
A scenario-based experiment was then conducted to perform an event tree analysis (ETA) to demonstrate the proposed measurement of system reliability in the entire process toward megaproject sustainability. Two scenarios were set up with regard to how well a sustainability milestone could be achieved across 11 events, which are connected with the 11 sustainability milestones illustrated in
A scenario-based comparison on ETA.
Events ( |
Scenario A | Scenario B | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unavailability | Contribution | Reliability | Unavailability | Contribution | Reliability | |
1 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.050 | 0.270 | 0.950 |
2 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.050 | 0.270 | 0.950 |
3 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.020 | 0.108 | 0.980 |
4 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.010 | 0.054 | 0.990 |
5 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.010 | 0.054 | 0.990 |
6 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.010 | 0.054 | 0.990 |
7 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.010 | 0.054 | 0.990 |
8 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.010 | 0.054 | 0.990 |
9 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.005 | 0.027 | 0.995 |
10 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.005 | 0.027 | 0.995 |
11 | 0.001 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.005 | 0.027 | 0.995 |
|
1.10% | 100% | 98.9% | 18.5% | 100% | 82.9% |
Notes: 1. The unavailability of an event is based on scenarios. The entire value to form an overview of unavailability was generated by using the Minimal Cut Sets method from the TopEvent FTA software. 2. The contribution and its figures were generated from the event tree diagram (see
It has been noticed in comparing differences under the two scenarios in this experiment that, with regard to the contributions of all the 11 events toward megaproject sustainability, the following observations can be useful to inform further research into megaproject sustainability alongside the described research roadmap: • The reliability (%) can be used to quantitatively measure megaproject sustainability in terms of its status upon either project delivery or research effort driven by related goals and tasks. • ETA is a useful tool to incorporate system reliability analysis into probabilistic risk assessment on megaproject sustainability. • For each event, which can represent either practical activity or research task, there is a negative correlation (see • The system reliability of megaproject sustainability can drop significantly when the values of individual event reliability decrease. • The reliability of each event needs to be precisely defined by considering characteristics of proposed tasks in research and development for megaproject sustainability. • The reliability value is dynamic in the process of research and practices for megaproject and needs to be adjusted.
The negative correlation between reliability and unavailability.
Gann’s square of nine (
The Chunrong–Minggao sequence of thousandths.
|
Sequences of thousandths to determine unavailability upon megaproject sustainability.
Sequence of optimistic unavailability (‰) | Sequence of pessimistic unavailability (‰) | Sequence of the most likely unavailability (‰) | Expected unavailability (‰) |
---|---|---|---|
{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8} | {100, 105, 110, 115, 120} | {10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 85, 90, 95} | To be jointly decided by experts |
Table of unavailability upon megaproject sustainability.
Unavailability scale | Suggestion for subjective judgment* |
---|---|
0.000 | Full availability to support the sustainability goal at one specific work stage. |
0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.002 | Very high availability with 2‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.003 | Moderate higher availability with 3‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.004 | Slight higher availability with 4‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.005 | High availability with 5‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.006 | Low availability with 6‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.007 | Slight lower availability with 7‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.008 | Moderate low availability with 8‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.009 | Moderate lower availability with 9‰ chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.010 | Poor availability with 1% chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.020 | Poor availability with 2% chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.030 | Poor availability with 3% chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.040 | Poor availability with 4% chance of failure toward the goal. |
0.050 | Poor availability with 5% chance of failure toward the goal. |
Note: Although it is widely accepted that limited subjective judgments must be made regarding the estimator to use, confidence level, and so forth in reliability assessment (
Unavailability upon megaproject sustainability in the ETA experiment: Scenario A.
ETA event | Sustainability milestone | U/A rate | Assumption according to |
---|---|---|---|
Scenario A | |||
1 | M1.1 Assessment of strategy | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the strategy stage. |
2 | M1.2 Assessment of preparation and brief | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the preparation stage. |
3 | M2.1 Concept design assessment | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the concept design stage. |
4 | M2.2 Developed design assessment | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the developed design stage. |
5 | M2.3 Technical design assessment | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the technical design stage. |
6 | M3.1 Assessment of construction | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the construction stage. |
7 | M3.2 Assessment of handover | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the handover stage. |
8 | M4.1 Assessment of operation | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the operation stage. |
9 | M4.2 Assessment of maintenance | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the maintenance stage. |
10 | M5.1 Assessment of decommission | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the decommission stage. |
11 | M5.2 Assessment of recommission | 0.001 | Very high availability with 1‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the recommission stage. |
Unavailability upon megaproject sustainability in the ETA experiment: Scenario B.
ETA event | Sustainability milestone | U/A rate | Assumption according to |
---|---|---|---|
Scenario B | |||
1 | M1.1 Assessment of strategy | 0.050 | Poor availability with 5% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the strategy stage. |
2 | M1.2 Assessment of preparation and brief | 0.050 | Poor availability with 5% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the preparation stage. |
3 | M2.1 Concept design assessment | 0.020 | Poor availability with 2% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the concept design stage. |
4 | M2.2 Developed design assessment | 0.010 | Poor availability with 1% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the developed design stage. |
5 | M2.3 Technical design assessment | 0.010 | Poor availability with 1% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the technical design stage. |
6 | M3.1 Assessment of construction | 0.010 | Poor availability with 1% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the construction stage. |
7 | M3.2 Assessment of handover | 0.010 | Poor availability with 1% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the handover stage. |
8 | M4.1 Assessment of operation | 0.010 | Poor availability with 1% chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the operation stage. |
9 | M4.2 Assessment of maintenance | 0.005 | High availability with 5‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the maintenance stage. |
10 | M5.1 Assessment of decommission | 0.005 | High availability with 5‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the decommission stage. |
11 | M5.2 Assessment of recommission | 0.005 | High availability with 5‰ chance of failure toward the sustainability goal at the recommission stage. |
This article describes findings from a recent research into megaproject sustainability in the context of a research roadmap, MAS, and reliability analysis. It established a TRIZ-driven literature review amid related areas to form the structure of MSBOK and developed a research roadmap with milestones and reliability assessment for megaproject sustainability. These efforts have been made to support further research and development that explore interconnected and integrative ways to quantitatively measure STEEP issues relating to megaproject delivery across individual work stages, and therefore the whole-life sustainability and its reliability in megaproject delivery can be measured. In addition, the concept and measurement of the system reliability of megaproject sustainability have been put forward and incorporated into the described research, which has made it possible to detect how well the individual and overall sustainability goals could have been achieved among megaproject lifecycle processes. All the research outcomes described in this article were based on TRIZ-guided EBL and the authors’ long-term experiences and observations in relevant research and practices in megaprojects.
It is expected that the research described in this article can be recognized valuable in terms of a good contribution to the megaproject management body of knowledge. In particular, research findings can be useful to advance continuous research and development for reliable megaproject sustainability and its assessment, to enhance the reliability of megaproject sustainability, and to support well-informed decision-making across megaproject work stages toward sustainability goals.
As a study on research roadmap, the described research in this article has yielded useful outcomes that can inform the development of a professional guidance on megaproject sustainability, and this guidance can consist of a series of relevant technical issues, which have been described in this article, including the research roadmap toward megaproject sustainability, the structure of MSBOK, the methodology of MAS, and the reliability of megaproject sustainability.
This article describes the research and its outcomes at the strategic level only and based on some theoretical assumptions. With regard to anticipated megaproject sustainability, the research described here has limited explorations to establish an entire methodology with detailed guidance and a series of related business cases to foster research and development for the best practices. The current research outcomes described in this article were based on limited multiple source verification, although there are relevant experiences and observations, which are combined for more than 100 years, from the authors to support their subjective judgment and assumptions. In addition, the experiment on reliability assessment was based on scenarios only to which specific case studies can be incorporated in the future so as to better inform further research and professional practices.
In addition to the usefulness of research outcomes to develop individual research tasks, which include a novel evidence base, the described research roadmap can support a new research cluster to foster research into the assessment and enhancement of megaproject sustainability within BIM pervasive project environment (
Based on what has been achieved from the described research here, further efforts can be made to improve the research roadmap through a validation process based on peer review so that professional guidance could be eventually developed for best practices on megaproject sustainability.
It is an important implication from the research roadmap described in this article that the pursuit of megaproject sustainability at various work stages needs to add the adaption to environmental dynamics on the agenda. While this article does not make it specific regarding how the STEEP issues could be dealt with, EBL has been highlighted to make the described research roadmap generic and clear at the strategic level. It is therefore necessary in the adoption of the described research roadmap to include specific EBL from research and practices in related areas. For example, • at the planning stage, the location selection of megaprojects such as transport megaproject ( • at the construction stage, the health and safety management such as the control of the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on the Tseung Kwan O-Lam Tin (TKO-LT) Tunnel project ( • at the operation stage, the dependability of services provision such as the maintenance of air quality in London Underground ( • across multiple work stages, the protection of water infrastructure from contamination (
In response to grand challenges in megaproject delivery (
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
The study presented in this article has thorough ethical considerations and involves no human or animal subject.
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
The research described in this paper was part of COST Action TU1003 (The Effective Design and Delivery of Megaprojects in the European Union) (2011-2015), which was funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) under the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The authors of this article would like to acknowledge the contributions and/or support from colleagues in peer reviews and production prior to the publication. Part of the research described in this article was presented at the
ANP, Analytic Network Process; BIM, Building Information Model/Modelling/Management; BREEAM, Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method; CEDD, Civil Engineering and Development Department (Hong Kong SAR); CIE, International Commission on Illumination; CMBOK, Construction Management Body of Knowledge; COST, Cooperation in Science and Technology (EU); DTI, Department of Trade and Industry (UK); EBL, Evidence-Based Learning; ETA, Event Tree Analysis; HS2, High Speed Two (project); ICCPM, International Centre for Complex Project Management; ICE, Institution of Civil Engineers; IPA, Infrastructure and Projects Authority; IPMA, International Project Management Association; MAS, Megaproject Assessment on Sustainability; MSBOK, The Body of Knowledge for Megaproject Sustainability; NSP, Nine-Square Process; OED, Operations Evaluation Department (The World Bank Group); PRA, Probabilistic Risk Assessment; PMI, Project Management Institute; RIBA, Royal Institute of British Architects; SPeAR®, Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (from Arup); STEEP, Social, Technical, Economic, Environmental and Political (aspects/issues/risks); TRIZ, Theory of Inventive Problem Solving.
This acronym stands for the Construction Management Body of Knowledge. It refers to a set of structured descriptions about professional knowledge and underpinned techniques to sustain dependable quality services of construction management at both macro and micro scale in the built environment. Please refer to article Grand Challenges in Construction Management, which was published at Frontiers in Built Environment (5:31. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2019.00031) (Chen, 2019), for details about a preliminary framework of CMBOK.
A method to facilitate learning from cases including those in academic research and professional practices.
A large-scale capital project typically costing more than USD1bn.
The whole process to provide multidisciplinary bespoke professional services across various work stages throughout the lifecycle of megaproject. It covers all relevant acts in association with the use of resources in megaproject development and operation as well as the dynamic social and natural environment in a local area.
The quality of a megaproject with regard to the use of resources and the functions of its services in relation to social, technical, economic, environmental and political (STEEP) aspects/issues across all lifecycle work stages in both short and longer term. The need for substantiating sustainability in megaproject delivery can be specified by focusing on people, process and product in the context of STEEP issues. The megaproject sustainability can be measured in both qualitative and quantitative way.
A qualitative and/or quantitative approach to validation through checking and comparing targeted issue/s by using evidence collected from independent sources in the same subject area.
STEEP (Social, Technical, Economic, Environmental and Political) forces or processes that produce dynamic interactions inside a group or system towards sustainability goals.
The quality of sustainability under specified goals to be achieved in a dynamic system process driven by STEEP (Social, Technical, Economic, Environmental and Political) forces.
This abbreviation stands for the Russian acronym for ‘Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch’ which means the ‘Theory of Inventive Problem Solving’ in English.