See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343481642

Integrating hierarchical and network centric management approaches in

construction megaprojects using a holonic methodology

Article  in  Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · August 2020

DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-01-2020-0072

CITATIONS READS

2 294

5 authors, including:

Alex Gorod Leonie Hallo

University of Adelaide University of South Australia
66 PUBLICATIONS   947 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   89 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Larissa Statsenko Tiep Nguyen

University of South Australia International University - Vietnam National University HCMC
24 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Designing for reverse logistics (DfRL) within the building life cycle: Practices, drivers and barriers View project

PROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION SKILLS IN SOUTH AFRICA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Larissa Statsenko on 06 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

Integrating hierarchical and Holonic

methodology
network centric management in construction

approaches in construction
megaprojects using a
holonic methodology Received 30 January 2020
Revised 23 April 2020
16 June 2020
Alex Gorod and Leonie Hallo Accepted 13 July 2020
Adelaide Business School, Entrepreneurship, Commercialisation and Innovation Centre,
The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Larissa Statsenko
University of South Australia, UniSA STEM,
Scarce Resources and Circular Economy (ScaRCE), Adelaide, Australia
Tiep Nguyen
Department of Transport Economics, Ho Chi Minhh City University of Transport,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and
Nicholas Chileshe
University of South Australia, UniSA STEM,
Scarce Resources and Circular Economy (ScaRCE), Adelaide, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – Traditional “hierarchical” and “network-centric management” approaches often associated with
the management of well-defined construction projects lack the adaptability to cope with uncertainty,
standardised practices and the required conformance to industry standards. The purpose of this paper is to
propose an integrative “holonic” methodology for the management of megaprojects in the construction
industry, which incorporates both adaptability and conformance to standards, and to illustrate the associated
benefits of such a methodology.
Design/methodology/approach – A multi-case study comprising three cases delivered in the USA and
Australia, namely the Adelaide Desalination Plant (ADP), the Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, and the
Olmsted Locks and Dam Replacement project were utilized to demonstrate the key features of the hierarchical,
network-centric and holonic approaches to managing megaprojects.
Findings – The case studies demonstrate incorporating the holonic approach into the management of complex
construction projects results in increased management effectiveness and project success. The proposed
“holonic” methodology provides the potential to efficiently manage megaprojects navigating through high
degrees of uncertainty.
Practical implications – The adoption of the holonic view by project management (PM) practitioners will help
them manage megaprojects that are characterised by greater complexity. Second, the proposed methodology
enables the discipline of PM to evolve in alignment with rapidly unfolding global transformation trends.
Originality/value – This paper demonstrates the application of the “holonic” methodology to the domain of
the management of construction megaprojects. Such an approach is needed as construction projects become
increasingly more complex across the world due to technological, political and social uncertainties, larger scale,
changing environmental and safety regulations, and the growing involvement of human factors germane to
this research.
Keywords Megaprojects, Network centric management, Hierarchical management, Holonic management
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management
Megaprojects are defined as large scale projects that involve multiple stakeholders, exerting a © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
notable impact on communities, and characterised by significant structural, political, technological DOI 10.1108/ECAM-01-2020-0072
ECAM and socio-economic complexity and extended execution timeframes that make them hard to
manage using conventional practices (Flyvbjerg, 2014). Complexity of megaprojects is
determined by uncertainty and changes in the socio-economic and political environments
that are increasingly interconnected (Chapman, 2016) and politics associated with funding,
managing and governing complex social and organizational relations (Pitsis et al., 2018).
However, the understanding of complexity in megaprojects is fraught with challenges (He
et al., 2015). Scholars acknowledge that innovative approaches to managing megaprojects
are required, given the unprecedented rate of change and uncertainty the project manager
faces (Holmberg et al., 2016). The scale and impact of megaprojects, as well as frequent
budget overruns and failures (Flyvbjerg, 2014), require novel management skills and
frameworks (Flyvbjerg and Turner, 2018).
Within construction project management (PM), there is a preponderance of a
hierarchical management style, characterised by a high degree of control (Haupt, 2003),
and this often limits innovations. Within the context of team leadership/management
styles, studies have also found a preference for relationship-oriented styles as a more
flexible and innovation-encouraging alternative. Other studies have shown that the
attributes of relational leaders were rated highly by various construction stakeholders, as
compared to those of more basic leaders who managed at a transactional level (Toor and
Ogunlana, 2008). The use of authority and punishment were rated among the least popular
and least effective of leadership behaviours. Although the network-centric management
style is appreciated in the construction industry (CI), singular usage can lead to difficulties
with maintaining sufficient control.
There is also a growing awareness that existing PM styles are no longer adequate in
managing megaprojects (Gorod et al., 2008; Lord and Hall, 2005; Mumford et al., 2007). There
is an increasing call for innovative decision-making frameworks to assist managers to deal
with complexity of megaprojects (Boateng et al., 2015) and to enhance existing classical PM
theories. These classical PM styles have proved to be efficient in stable and predictable
environments, with little push for innovations, but they do not always work in managing
megaprojects, characterised by emergent qualities, interconnected stakeholder networks,
systemic risks and the increasing importance of human relationships (Daniel and Daniel,
2019; Boateng et al., 2015).
The hierarchical management style is a top-down somewhat mechanical approach to
management. Managers using this approach depend on a hierarchy with tasks determined at
the top and the functions mechanically divided into individual work components. Planning is
based on control and predictability. This has been a dominant paradigm within management
over many decades. However, this approach does not take account of the dynamic nature of
the environment surrounding complex projects. The main limitations of the hierarchical style
are that it sets up a barrier between managers and workers (OECD, 1996; Humphrey, 2013),
the valuable opinions and knowledge of employees are lost (Yukl, 2016) and employees may
feel excluded if they prefer a more participative work environment (Powley et al., 2004).
Command and control management limits innovation and novelty (Darabi et al., 2013; Ireland
and Gorod, 2016).
Business processes are now more complex and interconnected. As a result, many authors
have argued that a new approach to management is required. A more participative bottom-up
approach to management enables collaboration and the building of trust, allowing
participants to contribute their ideas and feedback. This approach to management is
dynamic, adaptive and can help to react rapidly and flexibly to changes in the environment
(Mansouri et al., 2009a, 2009b). However, the downside is that there is a diminished
controlling ability. This may result in insufficient conformance and can lead to the situation
becoming chaotic (Darabi et al., 2012). There can be competition and conflict in this type of
work environment (Jemielniak, 2016). Given the massive amount of information flowing
through networks it might be difficult to select relevant information for decision-making Holonic
(Ross et al., 2015). When information is freely shared, management loses authority. This could methodology
be a problem in some circumstances (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Northouse, 2016).
While there are dysfunctions and inefficiencies in both hierarchical and participative
in construction
approaches, a holonic approach which selects advanced features of both these styles would
both improve the system’s flexibility while retaining sufficient controlling ability. This
approach could assist with minimising conflicts which often arise in collaborative
environments (Jemielniak, 2016). Application of the holonic approach to megaprojects
would maximise the chance of reaching consensus between the key stakeholders as well as
satisfying technical benchmarks that are compulsory requirements for the implementation of
critical projects in states and nations.
In order to address the research and knowledge gap identified, this paper proposes an
innovative approach to the management of megaprojects that allows for better outcomes amid
project complexity. The holonic approach introduced herein takes a broader and more inclusive
view of construction management. It is qualitatively different from the hierarchical management
style, where manageability is high, but flexibility is low. The holonic approach is also different
from the network centric management style, which is high in malleability but low in control. It is
similar in nature to the leaderless organization concept arising from the growth in decentralized
organizations. The holonic approach reflects a more optimal management approach somewhere
between the two extremes of total control and total flexibility, containing a more balanced and
resilient proportion of decentralized and centralized features.
Construction management researchers have begun to investigate how systemic
innovations can best be managed. The holonic approach can be considered as a systemic
innovation in construction management. Some authors have criticised the CI for its lack of
innovation. Yet megaprojects contain many innovations of various types, and not all are in
production or construction technology (Pitsis et al., 2018). As Brockmann et al. (2016)
commented: “The CI, with its bewildering diversity of products and services, provides results
on a continuum from repetition to innovation, with megaprojects situated at the innovative
end.” Therefore, to address the gaps as identified in literature, this paper aims to propose an
integrative “holonic” methodology for the management of megaprojects in the CI.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows; first, a review of the extant literature on
megaproject complexity, management styles and holonic approach as a systemic innovation
is undertaken in Section 2. This is followed by the research design and methodology in
Section 3. Three illustrative cases of management styles in megaprojects are presented in
Section 4. Section 5 discusses and compares three management styles, highlighting how a
holonic approach contributes to megaproject success in a systemic way. Finally, the paper
concludes with theoretical contributions and practical implications.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Complexity in construction megaprojects
A number of studies have investigated complexity issues within construction megaprojects
ranging from unpredictable problems (Limsila and Ogunlana, 2008; Kim et al., 2015); safety
issues and stress levels (Jepson et al., 2017; Grill et al., 2019); to exploring the linkages between
construction megaprojects and triple constraints (Cantarelli et al., 2012; Tinoco et al., 2016;
Nyarirangwe and Babatunde, 2019). For example, Tinoco et al. (2016) compared the variables
causing the cost overruns among Dutch infrastructure projects to worldwide findings and
found them to have lower cost overruns. In contrast, Nyarirangwe and Babatunde (2019)
attributed the underperformance of construction megaprojects to inherent complexity issues
and PM competencies mismatch, whereas Cantarelli et al. (2012) acknowledged that the CI
presented significant and unique challenges for management with characteristics that
ECAM separate it from other industries (i.e. project characteristics, contractual arrangements,
project life cycle and environmental factors). Such complex undertakings require
sophisticated management and high-level technical skills.
The traditional PM method’s shortcomings (Remington and Pollack, 2007) and
technological advances (Luo et al., 2017) are acknowledged as influencing the ability to
address complexity in the environment. Varying interpretation of success by various
stakeholders from either a micro or macro perspective also affects construction megaprojects
(Lim and Mohamed (1999). This is exacerbated by constant newsfeed influencing people’s
perceptions of the external environment. Stakeholders’ needs and expectations are also often
conflicting (Xie et al., 2019; Olander, 2007), and complex system structures require a wide
range of expertise in various knowledge domains (Lin et al., 2008). Thus, communication and
coordination issues develop with a high level of risk.

2.2 Definitions of complexity

There is no universally accepted definition of construction project complexity (Luo et al.,
2017). Complexity has been defined in several different ways. Typically, the characteristics of
a complex project are believed to include difficulty (Efatmaneshnik and Ryan, 2016),
uncertainty (Williams, 2002), uniqueness (Crawford, 2005), indirect communication among
elements (Luhman and Boje, 2001), dynamism (Kallinikos, 1998) and lack of clarity about the
goals of the project (Turner and Cochrane, 1993). These characteristics unfold when we deal
with different complexity models. The type of complexity is dependent on the objective or
purpose of the management endeavour. Geraldi (2008) differentiates three types of
complexity: complexity of faith, complexity of fact and complexity of interaction. The
approach of Remington suggests four types of complexity as follows: structural, technical,
directional and temporal (Remington and Pollack, 2007; Remington et al., 2009). The
importance of complexity in PM is widely acknowledged by Baccarini (1996), and this was re-
affirmed by authors such as Bennett (1991) and Bubshait and Selen (1992), as cited by
Baccarini (1996). Within megaprojects, some types of complexity will be likely to influence
PM styles, including technological, organizational, goal, environmental, cultural and
information complexities (He et al., 2015).

2.3 Management style in megaprojects

Management involves coordinating and overseeing the work activities of others towards the
achievement of organizational goals with efficiency and effectiveness (Robbins and Coulter,
2010). Management can be defined as: “The capacity to create a work environment in such a
way that each person is uniquely motivated to achieve the organizational goals and feels
recognized for so doing” (Carlopio and Andrewartha, 2011, p. 17). With simple projects,
hierarchical management can be used. As projects become more complex, network-centric
management needs to be introduced. These approaches are sometimes called “hard” and
“soft” (Karrbom et al., 2014) or vertical and horizontal (M€ uller et al., 2018). The holonic
approach allows combining and utilizing the benefits of both of those management styles.
2.3.1 Hierarchical management style. Traditional, linear management approaches can be
appropriate for relatively simple and unambiguous projects but are not suitable for more
complex or ambiguous projects, where there may be time pressure and the coordination of the
many various specialists is more challenging (Barlow, 2000). Table 1 summarises the main
features, advantages and disadvantages of the hierarchical management style.
Conventional construction management is undertaken in a hierarchical direction. In
simple construction projects such as building a house, the relationship is transactional
between the manager and the subordinates who are responsible for implementing separate
tasks, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Styles Features
Hierarchical On a construction site, top
management issues all the
directives for what work to
do and how to do it and they
judge performance on that
basis. This is common in
many contexts (Chen et al.,
2017)
Advantages
Power at the top is used to
explain strategies
(Heckscher and Donnellon,
1994)
This approach makes it
easier for managers to
control quality (Huang et al.,
2015)
If employers want to be
directed and feel comfortable
with this type of
environment, and therefore
people should be recruited
who are happy to follow
instructions (Booth and
Winzar, 1993; Gilbert et al.,
2008)
Disadvantages
Holonic
methodology
It is more difficult to motivate in construction
people using this approach,
and workers have no freedom
to adapt the information they
receive (Nielsen and
Vedsmand, 1999)
People may feel alienated and
the development of trust may
be impeded (Chen et al., 2017)
Valuable input may be lost
without alternative channels
for feedback (Todorova and Table 1.
Vasilev, 2017) Three management
This style tends to be styles within a
negatively viewed within construction
Western cultures (Aktas organization -
et al., 2016) Hierarchical

Figure. 1.
Hierarchical
management style in
construction

As illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 1, a hierarchical management structure is commonly

used for this project type because managers can ensure that the command and control of the
organization is transacted from the top management level to the lowest management level. In
a simple construction context, project managers are responsible for providing specific
guidelines and support to their employees to ensure that the project can be completed on time
and can satisfy customers’ requirements. Thus, the hierarchical management style is the
appropriate style for managers to optimize the outcome of simple projects (Ireland et al., 2013).
Some hierarchical management tools and techniques that are suggested for use in PM include
scope development, work breakdown structure (WBS) and scheduling.
ECAM 2.3.2 Network-centric management style. To accommodate the viewpoints of users beyond
the construction stage and adapt to rapid changes arising in the external environment, the
management structure needs to change from a hierarchical approach to a network-centric
structure. Table 2 summarises the main features, advantages and disadvantages of the
network-centric management style.
Construction managers not only focus on managing the project through managerial skills
but also need to discover cause and effect relationships that may not be immediately apparent
(Ireland et al., 2013). Therefore, it is important to introduce feedback mechanisms and identify
non-linear behaviour as soon as possible, as shown by Figure 2.
From Figure 2, complex projects with a network-centric structure can be viewed as agent-
based systems (ABS), enabling the emergence of global behaviour as a result of the
interactions of self-motivated agents, including employees, subcontractors and stakeholders
(Deen, 2013). However, ABSs can impede project success and require motivation to belong
and to cooperate to achieve the project objectives. Therefore, it is the project manager’s
responsibility not only to provide specific guidelines but also to motivate the agents by
encouraging their participation (Bass et al., 2003). Consequently, in such a greatly expanded
capacity, project managers need to work on building relationships, in which leadership plays
a key role as it acts as a “glue” and “lubricant”, facilitating various stakeholders to collaborate
to achieve the shared goal. The proposed approach thus enables the solving of problems via
the participation of stakeholders during project processes. The outcome of this would be
relationship-oriented leadership, associated with quality decision-making which is a crucial
part of management (Choy et al., 2016). Whilst the approach has the disadvantage of a lower
level of management control, the advantages of the information and collective intelligence
arising from the involvement of a wider range of people outweighs the disadvantages.

Styles Features Advantages Disadvantages

Network Team members participate There is more flexibility and It may be time consuming and
centric and decision making is approachability (Tsai and expensive to engender wider
shared (Flynn, 2015) Beverton, 2007) consultation (Nielsen and
Employees can use their The team can modify Vedsmand, 1999)
experience to make specifications Senior managers may resist
suggestions and this is of It’s easier to engage people and this approach which could
benefit to management this leads to competitive dilute their power and status
(Rothenberg, 2003) advantage (Albrecht et al., There may need to be a culture
2015) change (Haupt, 2003)
There is freer sharing of Decentralisation can lead to
information (Oyanedel et al., chaos due to the amount of
2016) interactions and information
This approach can lead to flowing around (Fullan, 1993)
better decisions and more
efficient use of resources (Shin
et al., 2017)
On a construction site, lower-
level subcontractors share
their knowledge with the
Table 2. prime contractor, and this can
Three management be of great benefit
styles within a This style leads to greater
construction levels of organisational
organization – Network commitment and loyalty (Xu
centric et al., 2006)
 Holonic
methodology
in construction

Figure 2.
Network-centric
management style in
construction

2.3.3 Using a holonic approach to manage megaprojects as a systemic innovation. Holarchy

was first introduced by Smuts (1926) and later rediscovered by Koestler (1967) to describe
a hierarchical structure of holons. The term “holon” is a combination of the Greek word
“holos” which stands for a whole, with the suffix “on”, which stands for a part, as in
proton or neutron. A holon is both a whole in itself, as well as a part of the superior system.
The strengths and benefits of holarchy are summarized by Giret and Botti (2004):
“. . .enables the construction of very complex systems that are nonetheless efficient in the
use of resources, highly resilient to disturbances (both internal and external), and
adaptable to changes in the environment in which they exist”. The “holarchical view”
allow us to observe holarchy through a dualist perspective. This theory has been known
by various terms: chaordic, orgs, integron and panarchy are just some of the terms used to
describe this phenomenon (Gorod et al., 2008).
Due to their complexity, megaprojects require a systemic change in project organisation
and communications, embracing the balance between a hierarchical command and control
style with the benefits of stakeholders’ participation. Reaching this equilibrium requires an
ability to create a positive influence on diverse groups of key stakeholders, which creates the
need for systemic innovations. For example, various innovation types including incremental,
radical, system, modular, and architectural innovations have been reported in construction
management research (Gambatese and Hallowell, 2011; Lloyd–Walker et al., 2014). A holonic
approach to management can be considered a systemic innovation as it offers a holistic
framework for project managers (Colvin et al., 2014). This requires a change of multiple
processes involving various stakeholders in a synchronized fashion (Taylor and Levitt, 2007)
and has effects on inter-organizational relationships (Powell, 1998), thus influencing the
whole construction project, including actors and resources (Lindgren and Emmitt, 2017;
Taylor and Levitt, 2007).
This concept of “holarchical” or “holonic” has been applied to many different domains,
including management, and has been extended to construction applications (Naticchia
et al., 2019; Zekavat et al., 2014). The analogy is that of a “Janus face”, with one side facing
towards simple issues and requiring hierarchical management, and the other side facing
towards complex issues and requiring network centric management. The new holonic
approach, depicted in Figure 3, presents an integrative style, blending hierarchical and
network centric views in an evolutionary manner.
ECAM Figure 3 shows how the pressure is created for a holonic approach in CI due to the conflict
emerging after selecting any particular management style as all management styles have
strengths and weaknesses. For example, the hierarchical style allows project managers to
gain control of a project. However, it is too rigid to deal with the dynamic nature of complex
projects. Similarly, the network- centric management style is more flexible but does not allow
for an adequate level of control. Consequently, there is constant pressure for an integrative
holonic approach, which makes it possible for managers to then make decisions at each stage
concerning the degree of complexity being faced and the mix of hierarchical and network-
centric management that should be applied. The holonic view brings management of
construction megaprojects to another level (Figure 4).
As illustrated in Figure 4, layers are used to demonstrate the options available to the
manager in selecting the appropriate management style, along with the tools and techniques
that can be utilized to solve issues emerging in construction megaprojects. The holonic
approach integrates network-centric and hierarchical management in different proportions
as appropriate, to bring greater sophistication and efficiency to management. This makes it
possible to anticipate and adjust more readily when issues emerge. Such architecture enables
flexibility and facilitates emergence of self-organizing communities (Van Brussel et al., 1998).
2.3.4 Summary of management styles. The first two management styles for the
construction environment, hierarchical and network-centric (Tables 1 and 2), are well known
and accepted. A third, hybrid style (“holonic”) as shown in Table 3 is proposed as a solution to
current issues and discussed further below.
The proposed holonic approach attempts to address the long-standing issue about the
dilemma between having enough control as well as enough flexibility. The holonic
management framework combines the two different approaches in an optimal way. As
Table 1 shows, in hierarchical management, projects are much easier to manage and control
when there is a chain of command, but they are not sufficiently flexible. On the other hand,

Figure 3.
Holonic approach in
complex construction
projects. Adapted from
Gorod et al. (2008)
 Holonic
methodology
in construction

Figure.4.
Holonic management
style of a complex
construction project

Styles Features Advantages Disadvantages

Holonic Offers control along with
flexibility (McDermott et al.,
2015)
There are opportunities to
better cope with changing
environment through the
balancing of these two
opposing forces (Darabi et al.,
2012)
A self-organising network is
created
Groups are adaptable enough
to cope with changes, but still
governable
There can be continuous
adaptation to a varying
external environment
(Boersma et al., 2019)
The project governance style
can evolve, ensuring effective
and efficient management of
production changes and
disturbances
This is a very challenging
stance for managers
Managers may need
comprehensive training
(Szentes, 2018)
There is increasing interest in
combining control and
flexibility in large construction
projects (Szentes, 2018)
High-quality teams will be
needed, as well is superior
leaders Table 3.
There will need to be a Three management
collaborative attitude and a mix styles within a
of engineering and PM construction
mindsets organization - Holonic

Table 2 shows that network-centric approaches are very flexible and can adapt to a changing
environment, but this makes it difficult to control the project. A holonic approach allows
integration and interchangeable use of both styles, making systemic changes at all levels and
across systems in megaprojects. This leads to the identification of the following research
question:
RQ. Can a holonic management style based on the principles of holarchy be used as a
methodology to effectively integrate hierarchical and network-centric management
styles in construction megaprojects?
In order to answer the research question as identified, Figure 5 illustrates how the impact of
“Megaproject complexity” on ’Project performance, outcomes and benefits realisation’ and
the moderating role the “Management style in construction megaprojects” contributes in
achieving these outcomes.
ECAM
Management style in
construction
megaprojects

Megaproject Project performance,

complexity outcomes and benefits
realisation
Figure 5.
Research framework

3. Research methodology
We adopted critical realism as a research philosophy for the study, which recognises objective
and measurable reality, while acknowledging subjective interpretation of this reality depending
on the context of the phenomenon under investigation (Saunders et al. 2009). We used abductive
reasoning to develop a mid-range theory explaining how different management styles, and
particularly the holonic management style, impact megaproject performance, outcomes and
benefits realisation. Abduction allows integrating deductive reasoning from existing
theoretical frameworks with inductive reasoning grounded in researcher interpretation of
the empirical data (Lin et al., 2019, Alvesson and Sk€oldberg, 2009).
We used replication logic, cross-case comparisons, combining theoretical propositions drawn
from the literature with empirical data to establish and refine key concepts and causal relationships
(Bourgeois, 1979) in order to develop a mid-range theory (Lehtinen and Aaltonen, 2020). A multiple
case study research design was adopted (Eisenhardt, 1989). In the case selection we followed
replication logic, providing that each following case may confirm or disprove the corollaries drawn
from the previous case (Yin, 2017). To maximise the possibility of developing plausible and rich mid-
theory through understanding the dynamics and emergent patterns of megaproject development
and eliciting the cause–effect relationships between the management styles and project
performance, outcomes and benefits realization, we applied within and cross-case thematic
analysis and coding. The key research activities and phases are illustrated in Figure 6.

3.1 Case selection

We used theoretical (Eisenhardt, 1989a) and purposive sampling (Etikan et al., 2016) to select
three megaprojects subject to external changes that forced the management team to use
various management styles that had an impact on the projects’ performance, outcomes and
benefits realization (Daniel and Daniel, 2019).
To enhance the credibility of the mid-range theory developed, the case selection approach was
informed by replication logic, when each case is treated as a distinct experiment representing a
unit of analysis: that is, selected cases replace a set of experiments enabling the researcher to draw
theoretical inferences and generalisations (Lin et al., 2019; Lehtinen and Aaltonen, 2020; Qiu et al.,
2019). Further, the selected cases comply with the principle of typicality (Lin et al., 2019).
Purposive sampling is used in qualitative research to identify and select information-rich cases for
the most proper utilization of available resources (Etikan et al., 2016).
The key criteria for the case selection were: (1) The case can be considered a construction
megaproject that exerts a significant impact on communities, includes multiple
 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Holonic
methodology
in construction
Literature review Abductive multi-case study Data analysis and findings
research design

• Case sampling: replication • Case analysis: within case –

• Megaproject complexity logic, typicality constrains
• Management styles
• Data collection: publicly
• Holonic approach available data: documentation,
archival records, academic
articles and media press releases
Research gap
Research question (RQ)
content analysis, causal
relationships, pattern identification
• Cross case – cross case analysis,
similarities and differences,
content analysis
• Theory development: developing
theoretical propositions and
framework
Figure 6.
Key research process
and phases

interconnected stakeholders, is characterised by significant structural, political,

technological and economic complexity and has an extended execution timeframe; (2) The
megaproject design, construction and management issues have to be described in sufficient
detail in publicly available sources and exhibit clear traits of the traditional, network-centric
or holonic management styles to be able to draw comparisons, elicit causal relationships and
refine theoretical assumptions to arrive to the conclusions; (3) The megaproject cases should
differ substantially in their performance, outcomes and benefits realization. The rationale for
criterion 3 was based on the information-oriented strategy advocated by Eisenhardt (1989b),
which states that cases should differ strongly to enable clear identification of difference.
The cases selected are represented by one Australian and two US civil construction
megaprojects: Adelaide Desalination Plant (ADP), Seattle Tacoma International Airport (Sea-
Tac) expansion and Olmsted Lock and Dam (OLD). The primary considerations for the case
selection were megaproject scale and features, comparable cultural and institutional context
that ultimately affects enterprises management practices, and, most importantly, different
management styles adopted to tackle megaproject complexities, which affected project
performance, outcomes and benefits realisation.
The summary of the selected cases is presented in Table 4.

3.2 Case studies and data collection

According to the best practices of case study research, but constrained to only publicly
available information sources, the authors strove to obtain secondary data from a variety of
sources, including media releases, reports and contractor case studies, electronic magazines
and publicly available project documentation on government websites. Table 5 presents a
summary of the sources of publicly available data used in the three case studies.
We considered that data collection was saturated when additional data had no effect on
the coherence of the causal relationships, concept clarity and logical inferences that informed
theory development.

3.3 Data analysis

3.3.1 Within case analysis. Three subsequent iterations of thematic analysis and coding of the
collected data sources were performed to identify common categories and patterns within
each case. The initial coding aimed to understand the phenomena in depth, including
 Table 4.
ECAM

Cases selection
Complexity (socio- Project performance,
Scale, Time- economic, political, outcomes and benefits
Megaproject case Location $$1 frame Impact Stakeholders structural) realisation

Case 1 Adelaide 1.824B 2013– Designed with an initial government Stakeholder Performance: Project has been
Adelaide South 2018 capacity of 50 GL of drinking NGOs local conflicting agendas discussed as a success, on time
Desalination Plant Australia water per annum. The industries ongoing and under budget,
project was planned to landholders subsidisation of the acknowledged by PMI award
provide 150 ML/day of major plant have led to Outcomes: the projects
drinking water by June 2012, contractors controversy delivered to specifications
with infrastructure for community Benefits realisation: the plant
100GL/annum in the future indigenous operation and maintenance
groups costs are too high compared
with alternative means of
freshwater production, the
plant is in the standby mode
and public reaction is highly
negative
Case 2 USA $2.6 B 1998– Aims to prevent critical more than 50 Construction needed Performance: project was
Expansion of Port of $450M* 2021 delays of as airport capacity stakeholders to occur while the delivered on time and within
Seattle–Tacoma Seattle 2017– expands moving 66 million terminal was fully budget
International Airport 2018 people by 2035 operational Outcomes: the project
(Sea-Tac) – North Diversity of sub- delivered to specifications
Satellite terminal contractors twenty Benefits realisation: Public
plus different native opinion and stakeholders
software packages consider the project as a
and design tools success, and discussed as an
example of using innovative
and collaborative approach at
the design phase, with
minimal disruptions to the
airport operations

(continued )
 Complexity (socio- Project performance,
Scale, Time- economic, political, outcomes and benefits
Megaproject case Location $$1 frame Impact Stakeholders structural) realisation

Case 3 USA, border $3.1 B 1998– Enabling US$22 billion US Congress Spanning six U.S. Performance: The project has
Olmsted locks and between 2018 turnover through the Ohio Local presidents and been delivered significantly
dam project Illinois and River per annum government tripling its original over initially estimated
Kentucky Community budget was close to a timeframe and budget;
States local industries shutdown however the milestone
funding and its delivery timelines and budget
timing were were reviewed and the
dependent on the subsequent stages were
legislative schedule delivered under new schedule
seasonal nature of and budget
construction works Outcomes: the project
significant cost delivered beyond initial
increase for the major specifications
equipment Benefits realisation: The
project is acknowledged as a
success, incorporating
innovative methods and non-
traditional approach to
management and construction
Note(s): 1According to Davies et al. (2009), a megaproject is an investment of $1B or more to build a physical infrastructure that enable people, resources, and information
to move within buildings and between locations throughout the world; *The whole project spans through 1998–2021
Holonic
methodology
in construction

Table 4.
 analysed
Table 5.
ECAM

Publicly available data

Number of
Data type sources Source origin organizations

Case 1: Adelaide desalination plant construction

Newspapers 2 The Conversation, The Advertiser
Media press releases 3 Government of South Australia, Department for Environment and Water, SA Liberal party
Technical reports 2 SA water, water research technical report, Goyder Institute for water research technical report series
Government and contractor 3 Acciona Australia, Nova systems
company websites
Academic papers 6 Desalination, Marine Policy, Water Journal of Australian Water Association, Journal of the Australian Water
Association, CSCE Annual Meeting, Desalination and Water Treatment
Case 2: Seattle Tacoma international airport expansion
Newspapers* 5 Seattle Post-Intelligencer (x3), The Seattle Times (x2)
The Seattle Times, K5News
Electronic magazines 3 Puget Sound Business Journal, Sunset Magazine
Media press releases 3 Port of Seattle, Alaska Airlines
Technical reports
Government and contractor 7 Port of Seattle website, Airport technology , Alaska Airlines, iConstruct, Hermanson, Hensel Phelps, Aecom,
company websites FentressArchitects
Academic papers 1 Footbridge 2017 Berlin - Tell A Story, 6–8.9.2017, Technische Universit€at Berlin (TU Berlin)
Case 3: Olmsted lock and dam construction
Newspapers 5 Water News, New York Times
Electronic magazines 2 The waterways journal weekly
Media press releases 3 Louisville District, American Society of Civil Engineers US Army Corps of Engineers, Circle of Blue
Technical Reports 2 US Army Corps of Engineers
Government and contractor 3 Louisville District Website, Moran Environmental Recovery (MER), US Corps of Engineers, AECOM
company websites
Academic papers 3 PM Network PMI, The Military Engineer
Note(s): *The majority of the articles on the Seattle Tacoma National Airport expansion were drawn from the following local newspapers: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (x3),
The Seattle Times (x2), Technical Report, Seattle Tacoma National Airport expansion
chronological and causal relationships, and interpret them in the light of pre-established Holonic
theoretical concepts. Initial coding was informed by deductive search for support of the methodology
theoretical assumptions based on identifying complexity traits in megaprojects, distinctive
management styles and project performance, outcomes and realised benefits. In parallel,
in construction
throughout the case analysis, inductive interpretation also took place to accommodate the
insights that fell outside or enriched the initial theoretical assumptions with which the coding
started. We iteratively developed and refined the categories based on the additional evidence
and comparing it with the initial coding. Further, based on identified categories and patterns,
causal and chronological links between events and managerial actions, we refined
management styles and their relationship to the project success criteria, interpreting them
in the respective contexts of each case (Lin et al., 2019).
3.3.2 Cross-case analysis. To verify and validate the specificities of management styles
obtained through case-specific interpretations and to establish a common basis for the theoretical
framework, we performed cross-case analysis. Cross-case analysis involved refinement of the
concepts and categories that emerged as a result of within case thematic analysis. We used tables
to elicit similar themes and highlight causal links across the three cases. The cases were
comprehensively compared based on the evaluation of the project context, project stages
(i.e. construction and operation), management styles and the lessons learned.

3.4 Validity and reliability of findings

As Yin (2003) suggested, this study used several sources of evidence to triangulate findings
and ensure the validity and reliability of the case study findings. Reliability and validity of
the findings were ensured by sources and method triangulation. The study used multiple
sources of publicly available data. The authors endeavored to bring as many sources as
possible to build a rich description of the case, clarify the causal relationships and refine the
theoretical framework.
External and internal validity of the findings can be an issue for the explanatory case study
(Kahkonen, 2011). Sound theoretical underpinning of the study and pattern matching techniques
were used to provide a good evidence base for the propositions made in the paper. The multi-case
study approach enabled the enhancement of the external validity and generalizability of the
findings (Merriam, 1998). According to Eisenhardt (1989a), the use of multiple investigators
enables enhanced creative potential of the study through complementary insights, adding to the
rich data and increasing confidence in the findings and convergence of observations. The study
employed five investigators in the data analysis and interpretation process. The researchers
discussed the interpretation of findings, bringing together different perspectives and
observations. Mind mapping techniques and graphical representation of the concepts assisted
in a deeper understanding of the relationships and the context.

4. Findings
4.1 Within-case analysis
In this section, some of the individual case-specific arrangements or descriptors of the three
cases is undertaken across the following three aspects: complexity factors; management
styles, and project performance and benefits realization. For brevity, the issues around
complexity factors and performance and benefits realization are summarized in Table 4
addressing the case selection. Therefore, the main discussion is around the management style
and detailed performance and benefits realization.
4.1.1 The Adelaide desalination plant (ADP).
Case study descriptor 1. South Australia is well known as being “the driest state in the driest
continent” (Government of South Australia, 2014). Severe water shortages are often
experienced during periods of drought. From about 2000, the entire continent of Australia
ECAM experienced what became known as the “millennium drought” (Van Dijk et al., 2013). Water
shortages became particularly acute during 2006/2007, and these led to the introduction of
harsher water restrictions and urgent actions by the government.
4.1.1.1 Management style. In terms of the governance structure, communication and
information flows, under a hierarchical management type, all systems of the ADP were
controlled by the project manager via a hierarchical structure. The procurement for the ADP
was implemented through a DBOM (design, build, operate and maintain) process. All
instructions of the project manager were transacted one-way from the top, Project Controls
and Reporting Group (PCRG) to the bottom, sub-contractors. Information regarding task
completion flowed up to the PCRG. The advantages of the hierarchical approach include the
enhanced controlling ability of the PM team, leading to improvements under differing project
circumstances and provision of clear messages from the project manager to staff.
Despite the engagement of the PMO to liaise with all stakeholders through the life of the
project, adverse public reaction had been significant and occurred throughout this
construction project as well as during the sustainment phase. Resolution of this issue
could have been improved if there had been a management approach that allowed the PCRG
and sub-contractors to have a bottom-up communication structure in place that allowed
access to updated current information in relation to these issues.
4.1.1.2 Performance and benefits realization. In terms of the delivery, ADP won many
awards and international recognition, including the 2013 PMI Project of The Year Award,
recognising exemplary application of PM principles and processes (Kumar, 2015). The project
was delivered 19 days ahead of time, within budget, with excellent build quality, and setting a
new standard for desalination plants globally. Omar and Nehdi (2015) asserted that this
project delivered its promised objectives and produced outstanding results and suggested
using it as a great learning example for project managers. In relation to benefits realization,
alternative sources of water and the return of rains to Eastern Australia from about 2008 was
followed by flooding. The high cost of construction of the plant led to increases in the price of
water, even though the plant is now in standby. It has a high ongoing operating cost despite
the fact that it only produces 2% of the state’s water supply (ABC, 2017). When the plant was
put into standby mode, SA water authorities described it as “an insurance policy against
future droughts”, and stated that the department was favouring lower cost water supplies
over the more expensive water produced by the ADP (Jon, 2012).
4.1.2 Network-centric approach: the North Satellite terminal of the Seattle–Tacoma
(Sea-Tac) international airport.
Case study descriptor 2. The Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (Sea–Tac), being the
largest airline in the US Pacific Northwest, is operated by the Port of Seattle and is the hub of
Alaska Airlines (Manuela et al., 2019). The design and construction of the North Satellite
terminal of the Sea–Tac project is an example of the use of the principles of network-centric
management and demonstrates the effective organization of information flows and the
advantage of participatory decision-making with stakeholders. The Sea–Tac has experienced
seven years of unprecedented growth, with the volume of passengers expected to reach 66m
people by 2035 (Conroy, 2019). To cope with this forecasted growth, the Port of Seattle and
Alaska Airlines initiated a $450m expansion and renovation of the ageing North Satellite
terminal as a joint investment and collaboration project (iConstruct, 2019).
4.1.2.1 Management style. From the governance structure, communication and information
flows perspective, the project involved more than 50 stakeholders, including designers,
architects, subcontractors, engineers, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and
plumbing consultants, and so on (iConstruct, 2019). The project had a complex program
governance structure to ensure minimal disruption for normal airport operations (Satyamurti
et al., 2018). The project team set up a collaborative pre-planning phase using a virtual
collaboration platform. The project team had access to accurate and reliable information and
was able to quickly identify clashes, track underperforming systems and areas of the project, Holonic
validate different scenarios, quickly identify and report problems, resolve conflicts, and methodology
approve and implement changes (iConstruct, 2019). In terms of effective communication, this
was achieved through rapid feedback and collective decision-making that saved time and
in construction
allowed delivery of the project on time with minimal disruption of operations. In relation to the
culture, the PM team was able to create a culture of openness and trust, breaking down the
barriers between subcontractors to make them confident enough to share information freely
(iConstruct, 2019).
4.1.2.2 Performance and benefits realization. The project was successfully delivered in
2019 on time, within budget and to specifications. The size and scope of the project are
significant, and construction has had to progress while the airport terminal is operating at its
full capacity. All temporary facilities including walls, lighting, escalators and elevators were
fully operational during the construction phase to ensure that the airport and airline remained
operational while construction work progressed (iConstruct, 2019).
As shown in Table 4, in terms of benefits realisation, the project was acknowledged as a
great success, and the project has progressed to the next stage. Phase 2, the renovation of the
old facility, is currently underway, scheduled to open in first quarter 2021 (Phelps, 2019). The
project was delivered with the minimum disruption of airport operations. Some process
innovation was evident on this project. For instance, the project team, led by the prime
contractor, used a virtual design and construction (VDC) platform to foster collaboration
between the project team, architects, engineers and traders in a virtual environment, where
the team was able to forecast and address schedule clashes before construction works began.
One federated project model was collaboratively developed and maintained by the prime
contractor and included all subcontractors. VDC collaborative tools allowed the
implementation of collaborative decision-making through joint validation, resolution and
approval (iConstruct, 2019). When the plan was established, rigorous hierarchical
mechanisms were put in place to ensure delivery of the strictly defined project outcomes.
4.1.3 Holonic approach: the Olmsted locks and dam (OLD) replacement project.
Case descriptor 3. The Olmsted Locks and Dam replacement project is a US$3.1bn
megaproject commissioned on the Ohio River at Southern Illinois, US (Parsi, 2019). It is aimed
at supporting and maintaining one of the key trader sea lanes, significantly contributing to
the US economy with US$22bn worth of cargo passing the river every year. When old locks
and dams began causing serious transit delays, the US government decided to substitute
ageing structures with more efficient and reliable locks (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2018b).
This large civil works megaproject undertaken by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (2018a) was launched in 1988 and celebrated its successful completion in 2018.
4.1.3.1 Management style. In terms of the governance structure, communication and
information flows, a number of initiatives were employed on the project. For instance, to ensure
the most efficient use of resources, the project team worked closely with contractors to identify
scheduling efficiencies. Construction works could only proceed from June till November, when
water levels are low (Parsi, 2019). The contractor was empowered to extend the construction
season, but only at its risk. Not surprisingly, the contractor asked the government to share that
substantial risk. In the end the project team agreed with this sharing arrangement. By having
the contractor ready to set shells early, the project was ahead of schedule by a full month over
two separate years (Parsi, 2019). The team forged close collaboration among contractors
(Murray, 2018). In 2012, the project team established a project office that integrated members of
all teams, breaking down silos between them. Government and the contractor teams
established annual joint meetings focussed on strategic planning tracking activities on the
critical path, reviewing budget and milestones. Meetings were held on a daily, weekly and
monthly basis amongst the stakeholders to determine cost and schedule production plan
adherence (Parsi, 2019).
ECAM The project is also an example of effective stakeholder engagement. For instance, to
resolve budgeting issues, the project team engaged more than 50 internal and external
experts, including Corps professionals and barge industry top management, to produce a
reviewed project plan with recommendations to the US government, which pushed through
an extended US$3.1bn budget and completion in 2026 (Parsi, 2019). The team was able to
present a strong case to the US government and managed to change year-by-year funding to
full funding. The revised plan with updated budget was approved by the US Congress in
October 2013 (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2018b; Murray, 2018).
There was also some evidence of the role of culture aspects on the project’s success. An
entrepreneurial attitude was a part of the selection criteria for the project teams, and the team
specifically focussed on hiring engineers with a PM mindset (Parsi, 2019). The strong
leadership and collaborative approach helped to increase morale and sustain the challenges
when external stakeholders wanted to shut the project down. The team focussed on building
on each success to maintain a strong team spirit, and the whole team remained committed to
the project.
4.1.3.2 Performance and benefits realisation. The project was delivered in 2018 under a
revised budget with US$325m savings (Parsi, 2019). The dam was operational in 2018, four years
ahead of schedule (AECOM, 2018). Currently the team is removing the old structures and
planning to finish by 2020, six years ahead of schedule. The project experienced numerous
hurdles and was close to a shutdown at one point: however, the project team managed to
continuously adapt its plan and steer the project back on track. Relative to the benefits realisation,
the project now delivers a net economic benefit of US$640m a year (Parsi, 2019). It has been
declared as a tremendous success by the US government (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2018a).
The project received an Occupational Safety and Health Administration Voluntary Protection
Programs Star status and received Corps’ Innovation of the Year award (AECOM 2018).
Apart from an innovative management style the project also produced some technical
innovations. For instance, the project team experienced ongoing challenges during the
construction phase. Construction works could only be performed when the water level was
low (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2018c; Braden, 2017). The water in the Ohio River rises and
falls by around 50 feet (15 m) each year, and these seasonal shifts are not foreseeable. After
extensive research, the US Army Corps of Engineers selected an innovative construction
methodology called “In-the-Wet”. The Olmsted dam shells were prefabricated in a precast
yard, then transported into the river and installed like a “lego” constructor (US Army Corps of
Engineers, 2018c).

4.2 Cross-case comparison

As indicated in the research methods section, the third and last phase of the study was “cross-
case” analysis. Tables 6 through 8 present the summary of cross-case analysis across the
following three themes: complexity factors (Table 6); performance and benefits realisation
(Table 7) and management styles in construction megaprojects (Table 8).
4.2.1 Complexity factors. All three cases of megaprojects are characterised by substantial
political, socio-economic, structural and technological complexities that required budget
revisions, and in the cases of ADP and OLD, schedule revision. From the perspective of
structural and technological complexity, all three projects had environmental constraints that
made construction challenging: however, in all three cases PM teams were able to overcome
these challenges.
4.2.2 Performance and benefits realisation. The situation is more controversial in terms of
meeting project triple constraint and benefits realisation in the cases of ADP and OLD. While
the ADP team was focussed on fast-tracking the schedule and streamlining the construction
to deliver the project on time, OLD requested budget and schedule revision, when more
information became available, putting the end benefits before the triple constraint. As a
Complexity Megaproject case
factors ADP Sea–Tac OLD

Political The funding was drawn from to sources
complexity
(1) State government of South Australia
(2) Federal government
(3) Additional federal funding was spent on
project fast tracking and doubling the scope of
the desalination plant
Structural (1) Complex engineering with multiple
complexity subsystems delivered by multiple
subcontractors
Socio-economic (1) Stakeholder conflicting agendas ongoing
complexity subsidization of the plant have led to
controversy
(2) Significant push from the community against
construction and utilization of the ADP due to
high costs and inefficiencies of the desalination
method
Technological (1) Due to drought in South Australia, the project
complexity had to be fast-tracked with streamlined
planning and procurement program
(2) 600,000 m3 of fill had to be cut and re-
compacted in the highly reactive clays of the
area
(3) Groundwater had to be managed, to avoid
potential contamination from an adjacent
decommissioned oil refinery
The funding comes from a combination of
(1) Airline fees
(2) Airport Development Fund
(3) Passenger facility charge revenues
(1) The size and scope of the project were
significant
(2) Diversity of subcontractors
(3) 20 plus different native software
packages and design tools
(1) International team of designers was
involved
(1) Complexity of scheduling the work
while the airport terminal continued to
operate at full capacity
(2) The piping had to be reworked to
facilitate the structural seismic and
architectural enhancements being
performed on the existing building
(3) Increase in budget by $105.6m to
$790m due to construction
complexities
(1) Spanned six U. presidents and tripling its
original budget
(2) Funding and its timing were dependent on
the legislative schedule. As a result, each
year the funding was delayed by a few
months
(3) The budget was not available as a one lump
sum appropriation; instead the US
Congress approved the budget in annual
increments as in civil works projects
requirements
(1) Changes in project design
(2) Unforeseen engineering problems
(3) Request to produce a project budget
forecast for the next two years made
generation of accurate estimates difficult
(1) The construction boom in China stimulated
increases in prices for construction
materials, such as concrete
(2) Significant cost increase for the major
equipment
(1) In-the-wet construction
(2) Seasonal nature of construction works
(3) The project team had to accommodate civil
works not only with the difficult marine
environment but also with an annual-
appropriation funding stream
(4) In 1997 the cofferdam constructed to create
a large area of dry riverbed to allow
building the locks flooded, causing a three-
month delay and a significant increase in
costs
Holonic
methodology
in construction

Table 6.

– Complexity factors
Cross-case comparison
 Table 7.
benefits realisation
– Performance and
Cross-case comparison
Performance and
benefits realisation ADP
Triple constraint (1) The project was completed
19 days ahead of the original and
within the approved budget,
with excellent build quality, and
setting a new standard for
desalination plants globally
Benefits realisation (1) Despite the intended strategic
outcome, since 2016 ADP
capacity was reduced to 10% due
to greater water availability from
other sources
(2) The ADP is now costing
taxpayers $41m annually, and
public reaction to the ongoing
cost has been highly negative
(3) Received multiple awards
Innovations* (1) An innovative diffuser design for
the saline concentrate that
ensures adequate mixing back
into the marine environment and
fulfils the environmental criteria
(2) Award for sustainable construction practices and
Note(s): *According to Davies et al. (2009), megaprojects can be improved through learning and innovation
ECAM
Megaproject case
Sea–Tac OLD
(1) The project was successfully delivered in 2019 on time, (1) The project was delivered in
on budget and to specifications 2018 under a revised budget with
US$325 million savings
(2) The dam was operational in
2018, four years ahead of revised
schedule
(1) Project continue to be acknowledged as a great success, (1) It has been declared as a
and the project has progressed to the next stage tremendous success by the US
(2) The project was delivered with the minimum disruption government
of airport operations (2) The project now delivers a net
(3) Received multiple awards economic benefit of US$640m a
year
(3) Received multiple awards
(1)
The project team adopted a virtual design and (1) Innovative construction
construction (VDC) collaborative platform to foster methodology called “In-the-Wet”
collaboration between the project team, architects, (2) Project received Corps’
engineers and traders in a virtual environment, where the Innovation of the Year award
team was able to forecast and address schedule clashes
before construction works began
building operations
result, although completed several years later, the OLD has delivered unquestionable benefit Holonic
to society as compared to ADP, which has received numerous awards but failed to sustain methodology
long-term operation, becoming financially non-viable. In the case of Sea–Tac, the project
budget was also reviewed, but the project was on time and delivered the expected benefits.
in construction
4.2.3 Management styles in construction megaprojects. Governance and communication
Three projects possess similarities and differences in their governance and communication
approaches. ADP adopted a process- based, hierarchical governance structure with the PMO
and PCRG being the “command centre” of the project. Information flowed top- down, and
reports were delivered back to the PCRG. In case of Sea–Tac terminal construction,
collaborative network-centric governance allowed for collective design and decision-making
that avoided clashes and schedule slippages. In case of OLD, the project team used both
hierarchical and network-centric approaches depending on the issue encountered by the
project: for example, when there was the need to source expert ideas to justify revised budget
and schedule to US Congress and sub-contractor management, a network-centric governance
style was adopted. At the same time, a hierarchical rigorous communication mechanism was
also applied to ensure project delivery on time with clear top-down project execution
framework and associated regular operational communications.

External stakeholder engagement

External stakeholder engagement was much more successful in the cases of Sea–Tac and
OLD, while the ADP project with its hierarchical structure failed to recognise early signs of
the negative attitude from the broader community. In contrast, in the Sea–Tac case,
community and external stakeholder engagement was successful through a participatory
approach.

Culture
Culture seems to be an important attribute of network-centric and holonic management styles.
In both cases, Sea–Tac and OLD, building trust and a collaborative culture have been noted
as key prerequisites of the project success. In the case of ADP, the authors were unable to find
any discussion of the culture in publicly available sources: however, it became evident that a
process-oriented approach was dominant as is common in command and control hierarchical
project systems.

5. Discussion
This section presents a discussion structured around emergent propositions from the
management approaches as employed within the three case studies. As illustrated in Figure 6,
within the last phase of the research process, we developed several propositions which
demonstrate the conditions where the hierarchical management, network-centric management
and holonic management styles work well. Most importantly, these propositions were used as
a basis for developing the proposed framework as well as contributing to theory
development. Such an approach of using propositions has been used in previous
megaproject-related studies (e.g. Lehtinen et al., 2019; Lehtinen and Aaltonen, 2020).

5.1 Hierarchical management approaches

The three case studies presented in this paper illustrate the application of different
management approaches in different settings and the effectiveness of the holonic approach in
managing construction megaprojects. Some parts of a project, such as performing standard
operations or fixing faults, are indeed simple or complicated tasks, while significant
complexity is usually associated with coordination and integration of multiple parts of the
 Table 8.
ECAM

– Management styles
Cross-case comparison
Megaproject case
Management style ADP Sea-Tac OLD

Governance and (1) A purpose-built project management
communication office (PMO) has been created to address
many diverse and mutually dependent
needs of the project
(2) Project controls and reporting group
(PCRG) has been established with several
ongoing responsibilities including design
and construction, environmental
regulatory approvals, project tracking
and reporting, risk management and
safety
(3) All systems of the ADP were controlled
by the PCRG via a hierarchical structure.
All instructions were transacted one-way
from the top (PCRG) to the bottom
(subcontractors)
(4) Information regarding task completion
was communicated up to PCRG
External (1) Adverse public reaction has been
stakeholder significant and has occurred throughout
engagement project life cycle as well as during the
sustainment phase
(1) The project had a complex program
governance structure. The project
manager, together with the project team,
set up a collaborative pre-planning phase
that ensured minimal disruption for
normal airport operations
(2) Virtual collaborative tools allowed the
implementation of collaborative decision-
making through joint validation,
resolution and approval
(3) When the plan was established, rigorous
governance mechanisms were put in
place to ensure delivery of the strictly
defined project outcomes
(1) The project involved more than 50
stakeholders, including designers,
architects, subcontractors, engineers,
heating ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) and plumbing consultants, and
so on
(1) A rigorous and robust risk management
framework was developed, so that
stakeholders understood precisely the
objectives of the revised project plan, and
how the team would mitigate the
associated risks
(2) Internal stakeholders received regular
updates and were making fortnightly calls
to ensure timely coordination of all project
activities
(3) Monthly construction works progress
review boards, and quarterly user board
briefings were established. Senior leaders
received monthly summary reports and
attended twice-a-year formal partnering
meetings
(1) Project team successfully engaged with the
US government resulting in changes to the
plan and funding stream from “year-by-
year” to full funding
(2) To resolve budgeting issues, the project
team engaged more than 50 internal and
external experts to produce a reviewed
project plan with recommendations to the
US government, which proposed a new
budget and completion date

(continued )
 Megaproject case
Management style ADP Sea-Tac OLD

Subcontractor (1) The ADP was implemented through a
management DBOM (design, build, operate and
maintain) approach to take advantages of
streamlined procurement processes
(2) Contractors were selected using multiple
criteria to ensure the competitiveness of
the bid process
Culture
(1) One federated project model was
collaboratively developed and
maintained by the prime contractor and
included all subcontractors
(1) The project management team was able
to create a culture of openness and trust,
breaking down the barriers between
subcontractors to make them confident
enough to share information freely
(1) Corps shared risks with contractors, by
using “cost-reimbursable” contracts,
allowing contractors to include build in
costs as they incurred
(2) The project team forged close collaboration
among contractors and worked closely
with them to identify scheduling
efficiencies
(3) In 2012, the project team established a
project office that integrated members of
all teams, breaking down silos
(4) Government and the contractor teams
established annual joint meetings focussed
on strategic planning tracking activities on
the critical path, reviewing budget and
milestones. They also held meetings on a
daily, weekly and monthly basis to
determine cost and schedule production
plan adherence
(1) The strong leadership and collaborative
approach helped to increase morale and
sustain the challenges when external
stakeholders wanted to shut the project
down
(2) The team focussed on building on each
success to maintain the team spirit, and the
whole team was committed to the project
(3) An entrepreneurial attitude was a part of
the selection criteria for the project teams,
and the team specifically focussed on
hiring engineers with a PM mindset
Holonic
methodology
in construction

Table 8.
ECAM project, and at the same time constant screening and navigation through changes in the
environment are required. Project managers must deal with these competing demands.
Hierarchical management approaches are suitable to address well-defined project parts with
minimal uncertainty and predictable outcomes, often at the construction phase, but network-
centric approaches are necessary to engage with complex issues that require scenario planning
and input from multiple participants. Combining these two approaches in a malleable way can
lead to greater efficiencies. Furthermore, integration of such approaches is considered as
innovative (Lee et al., 2012; cited in Roehrich et al., 2019). This kind of implementation of
innovation has been found to lead to improvements in megaproject performance (Davies et al.,
2009). Taking the example of ADP, if project managers during the construction stage had been
aware of the complex issues of dealing with the public perception of the project and other
factors that would arise during the operation phase, they would have been able to anticipate
and adapt accordingly, or may even have cancelled the project altogether. This situational
awareness would have led to a potential significant reduction in costs and risks.
From the standpoint of the actual benefits realisation, the ADP megaproject was clearly a
failure. It is evident that the hierarchical traditional management style and simple assessment
of the project success based on the triple constraint were not adequate. While managing a
megaproject, managers need to consider the environment and be able to incorporate timely
information into decision- making, as well as consulting with a broader range of stakeholders.
The disadvantage of the hierarchical management approach is the loss of valuable input that
may have been obtained had wider consultation occurred.
The cross-case analysis further demonstrated that, within small- or medium-scale
construction projects, hierarchical management approach is appropriate. However, if there are
radical changes in the environment, the construction project may no longer be viable,
requiring systemic innovations in the PM approach. With hierarchical management,
uncertainties are not accounted for, and all aspects of the project need to be controlled. When
the situation becomes complex, a better management style would be network-centric because
this approach allows autonomy, collaborative participatory decision-making, and rapid
feedback, resulting in greater adaptability. However, this latter approach suffers from a lack
of clear frameworks and guidelines that allow the project manager to control risks (that is,
conformance to requirements, and so on), and is usually best suited to the initiation and
design phases, when multiple parties contribute to scenario generation. Complex projects
require both hierarchical management and network-centric management simultaneously, to
effectively adapt and navigate through uncertainty.
Based on the above findings, we propose:
P1. The hierarchical management style works well in addressing technological
complexity in the absence of other complexity factors, such as structural, political
and socio-economic complexity and hinders systemic innovations.

5.2 Network centric participatory approach

According to Davies et al. (2019), despite the challenges around the execution of megaprojects,
performance outcomes and implementation could be improved through learning and
innovation. This subsection highlights some of the benefits of the network- centric
participatory approach that further emerged from the analysis:
(1) Decentralised communication leading to efficient design and planning through an
enhanced quality of decision-making
Clearly, the network-centric participatory approach allowed the team to update project
information rapidly and to seek alternative solutions in collaboration with multiple
stakeholders during the design and construction stages of the project. It also allowed easy
analysis, validation and approval of actionable information to the project team and Holonic
subcontractors, providing better decision-making support. This comes at a cost for project methodology
subcontractor teams that of having to put in effort to learn and develop interfaces between
their proprietary systems and the shared platforms to participate.
in construction
(2) Benefits to all stakeholders
The network-centric approach translates into benefits of participation across stakeholders.
Rapid feedback and collective decision-making save time, enabling on-time delivery with
maximum efficient use of resources for all subcontractors and minimal disruptions to the
ongoing operations. The use of a federated model allowed the PM team to be able to engage
with a broad range of systems and experts, both internal and external to the organization.
(3) Benefits outweigh the costs
Although a costly and time-consuming exercise at the beginning of the project, concurrent
design and cross-functional collaboration lead to significant gains for the entire team in the
long run.
(4) Need for extraordinary skills
In order for extremely complex and challenging megaprojects to succeed, extraordinary
management skills and high performing teams with a creative and entrepreneurial mindset
are required.
(5) Engagement with external experts
In the case of OLD, collective decision-making to review the budget was utilised with external
experts engaged and self-organised to assist with the budget review.
(6) Collaboration through self-organisation
Collaboration among subcontractors to generate scenarios for project development is another
example of the network-centric management style enabling self-organisation, as is the
delegation to subcontractors of the responsibility of decision-making regarding when to start
construction works depending on the water level.
Based on the above findings, we propose the following:
P2. The network-centric management style works well in addressing structural, political
and economic complexity and enables systemic innovations; however it is
insufficient to exercise the necessary control required to execute megaprojects to
ensure adherence to triple constraint and quality requirements.

5.3 Holonic management style

Hierarchical management is necessary to exercise the execution of the master plan with
rigorous control mechanisms in place, while network centric approach is more appropriate
under complex conditions, during which the project pivots in response to emerging
challenges or changes in the political and economic environment. The holonic approach
combines and uses both hierarchical and network-centric approaches interchangeably, thus
ensuring a combination of flexibility and control.
In the Sea–Tac project, a collaborative virtual environment enabled integration of
multiple systems used by subcontractors and the leveraging of their knowledge to
develop a well-synchronised federated model. However, in the construction phase, a
hierarchical approach with rigorous control mechanisms is still needed to deliver the
required outcomes. Thus, holonic PM, as illustrated in case of the OLD project, requires
the project manager to have the ability to recognise the type of problem, whether it is
ECAM simple, complicated or complex, and to be able to use an appropriate approach to deal
with that problem (Snowden and Boone, 2007). At the same time, however, it is difficult to
verify and validate the effectiveness of the holonic approach to management because
cause and effect are separated in time. As has been illustrated in this paper, some projects
are initially celebrated as a success but are not able to be sustained over the longer term,
while others may experience struggles but can in due course turn out to be a significant
achievement.
The following benefits of the holonic approach further emerged from the analysis:
(1) Benefits of holonic management style during uncertainty
The project manager was able to use a holonic management style, applying both hierarchical
and network-centric approaches, when the project experienced pivots facing political, socio-
economic, technological and structural. They were able to generate solutions to get as close as
possible to budget and schedule targets.
(2) Combination of network-centric and hierarchical approaches
Clearly in this case the advantages of the holonic approach were present in the ability to
recognize critical issues arising at different stages of the project and being able to identify the
types of risks at the various stages and apply relevant mechanisms to address them.
Based on the above findings, we propose the following:
P3. The holonic management style as a systemic innovation incorporates both
hierarchical and network-centric approaches and is best suited to achieve high
performance and benefits realisation in complex megaprojects.

6. Conclusion
This paper contends that existing approaches to construction PM do not evince suitable
characteristics for megaprojects operating in the current increasingly complex and fast-
changing environment. The developed theoretical framework illustrates the benefits of the
holonic management style in megaprojects by reconciling the theoretical assumptions
derived from the literature concerned with the application of holarchical view to the
management body of knowledge with the empirical findings based on case analysis.
A holonic style for managing construction megaprojects was proposed and illustrated
based upon a multi-case study approach of three case studies of megaprojects in Australia
and the US. The paper exemplifies and explains the advantages and drawbacks of these three
management styles and highlights the benefits of using a holonic approach in managing
construction megaprojects. This systemic innovation, the holonic approach, has the potential
to cope more effectively with the ever-increasing complexity present in 21st-century
construction megaprojects.

6.1 Theoretical contribution

The primary contribution of this research to the megaproject innovation literature (Flyvbjerg,
2014) is in developing empirically supported theoretical propositions drawn from the body of
knowledge of holarchy (Smuts, 1926) that construction megaprojects now require an
innovative holonic approach to management, as opposed to conventional project control
practices.
This study echoes previous research discussing methods of construction project control
stating that hierarchical management is not always adequate for projects with significant
complexities, operating in high uncertainty (Kasapoǧlu, 2014). Hierarchical communication
structures lack flexibility and often do not support effective management of changes and
innovations (Todorova and Vasilev, 2017). Lack of a sufficiently flexible and adaptable Holonic
communication structure that enables the manager to respond to frequent changes in the methodology
external environment and to manoeuvre between multiple conflicting agendas and dynamic
constraints undermines trust between the project participants (Chen et al., 2017). This is a serious
in construction
shortcoming that exposes a project to a significant risk of being unable to cope with and adapt to
the changing environment and operate within dynamic constraints. Furthermore, such projects
may deliver outcomes that cannot ensure sustainable operations over a long-term horizon.
On the other hand, network-centric management that involves a participatory approach
based on trust, collaboration, indirect influence and motivation (Oyanedel et al., 2016) is not
always sufficient, given the technical and technological complexity, strict regulations and
compliance to requirements needed in construction projects (Szentes, 2018). The CI, being
highly regulated, still demands a high degree of hierarchical command and control
management.
The paper has contributed to the PM literature by introducing a holonic management style
as an integrative approach, providing a comparative analysis of existing management styles
for construction megaprojects, and has identified that there is a spectrum of different
approaches, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. The paper concludes that there is a
need for an integrative approach and proposes a methodology for integrating two key
management styles based upon the concept of holarchy to provide a more powerful PM
vehicle. The integrated holonic approach can be viewed as a risk mitigation strategy in the
face of uncertainty by focussing simultaneously on technical excellence and relational and
social aspects of the project.

6.2 Managerial implications

The paper suggests that PM practitioners adopt a holonic view when managing
megaprojects characterised by a high degree of complexity. While classical PM techniques
and methods cannot be discarded to ensure robust planning, execution and control of the
technical aspects of megaprojects, the layers of political, economic and relational complexity
implicit in such projects require soft skills, participatory and network-centric approaches. PM
teams should be prepared to manage projects in a holonic manner, flexibly switching between
hierarchical and network-centric management style in megaprojects depending on the
situation at hand. As exemplified, a high-quality team with the right mindset is required. To
make the whole project operate in a holonic way, the entire team and the ecosystem around it
should be prepared to switch between the modes of operations easily, and this requires
enough organisational system and process maturity. A systemic approach is required to
bring the entire project ecosystem to the level where it can self-organise, without collapsing
into chaos.

6.3 Limitations
While there are clear advantages in the use of the proposed approach, there are limitations,
mainly due to the need for a range of new frameworks, tools and techniques to be developed to
support its application. The authors are currently involved in developing a complex systems
toolbox for handling complex projects, including a holonic approach to PM. Clearly high risk,
capital-intensive industries will benefit from incorporating a holonic perspective into the
management of complex projects to ensure more sustainable outcomes and long-term
success. The second limitation relates to the nature of the data collected as this relied on one
source only, namely that of archival data. This was due to the retrospective nature of the
research design and case studies reviewed. As such, the benefits of triangulation, despite its
noted shortcomings, could not be achieved. Future studies could collect data from two or
more sources such as interviews and questionnaires.
ECAM References
ABC (2017), Adelaide Desalination Plant Too Expensive, Liberals Say, Despite Falling Electricity Bill,
ABC News, available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-28/adelaide-desal-plant-too-big-
and-too-expensive/9096046 (accessed 30 October 2017).
AECOM (2018), “Olmsted dam”, available at: https://www.aecom.com/projects/olmsted-dam/ (accessed
5 January 2020).
Aktas, M., Gelfand, M.J. and Hanges, P.J. (2016), “Cultural tightness–looseness and perceptions of
effective leadership”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 294-309.
Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H. and Saks, A.M. (2015), “Employee engagement,
human resource management practices and competitive advantage: an integrated approach”,
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-35.
Alvesson, M. and Sk€oldberg, K. (2009), Reflexive Methodology, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications,
London, p. 350.
Baccarini, D. (1996), “The concept of project complexity—a review”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 201-204, (accessed 1 August 1996).
Barlow, J. (2000), “Innovation and learning in complex offshore construction projects”, Research Policy,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 973-989, (accessed 1 August 2000).
Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., Avolio, B.J. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2,
pp. 207-218.
Bennett, J. (1991), International Construction Project Management: General Theory and Practice
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Boateng, P., Chen, Z. and Ogulana, S.O. (2015), “An analytical network process model for risks
prioritisation in mejaprojects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 8,
pp. 1795-1811.
Boersma, K., Kraiukhina, A., Larruina, R., Lehota, Z. and Nury, E.O. (2019), “A port in a storm:
spontaneous volunteering and grassroots movements in Amsterdam. A resilient approach to
the (European) refugee crisis”, Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 728-742.
Booth, P. and Winzar, H. (1993), “Personality biases of accounting students: some implications for
learning style preferences”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 109-120.
Bourgeois, L.J. (1979), “Toward a method of middle-range theorizing”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 4, pp. 443-447.
Braden, M. (2017), “Turning around the olmsted project”, The Military Engineer, Vol. 109 No. 707, pp. 50-53.
Brockmann, C., Brezinski, H. and Erbe, A. (2016), “Innovation in construction megaprojects”, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 11, 04016059.
Bubshait, K.A. and Selen, W.J. (1992), “Project characteristics that influence the implementation of
project management techniques: a survey”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 43-46.
Cantarelli, C.C., van Wee, B., Molin, E.J. and Flyvbjerg, B. (2012), “Different cost performance: different
determinants?: the case of cost overruns in Dutch transport infrastructure projects”, Transport
Policy, Vol. 22, pp. 88-95.
Carlopio, J. and Andrewartha, G. (2011), Developing Management Skills: A Comprehensive Guide for
Leaders, Pearson Australia, Frenchs Forest NSW.
Chapman, R.J. (2016), “A framework for examining the dimensions and characteristics of complexity
inherent within rail megaprojects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 937-956.
Chen, T., Li, F. and Leung, K. (2017), “Whipping into shape: construct definition, measurement, and
validation of directive-achieving leadership in Chinese culture”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 537-563.
Choy, J., McCormack, D. and Djurkovic, N. (2016), “Leader-member exchange and job performance: the Holonic
mediating roles of delegation and participation”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 104-119. methodology
Colvin, J., Blackmore, C., Chimbuya, S., Collins, K., Dent, M., Goss, J., Ison, R., Roggero, P.P. and Seddaiu,
in construction
G. (2014), “In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: a design praxis
emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 760-771.
Conroy, B. (2019), Sea-Tac Airport’s $658M North Satellite Facelift, Part 1, Is Revealed. Business
Seatlle, available at: https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/transportation/sea-tac-airports-658m-
north-satellite-facelift-part-1-revealed (accessed 5 January 2019).
Crawford, L. (2005), “Senior management perceptions of project management competence”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, pp. 7-16.
Daniel, E. and Daniel, P.A. (2019), “Megaprojects as complex adaptive systems: the Hinkley point C
case”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1017-1033.
Darabi, H.R., Gorod, A. and Mansouri, M. (2012), “Governance mechanism pillars for systems of
systems”, System of Systems Engineering (SoSE), 2012 7th International Conference on,
pp. 374-379.
Darabi, H., Mansouri, M. and Gorod, A. (2013), “Governance of enterprise transformation: case study
of the FAA NextGen project”, System of Systems Engineering (SoSE), 2013 8th International
Conference, IEEE, pp. 261-266.
Davies, A., Gann, D. and Douglas, T. (2009), “Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at
London heathrow terminal 5”, California Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 101-125.
Davies, A., MacAulay, S.C. and Brady, T. (2019), Delivery Model Innovation: Insights from
Infrastructure Projects SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, CA.
Deen, S.M. (2013), Agent-based Manufacturing: Advances in the Holonic Approach, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin.
Efatmaneshnik, M. and Ryan, M.J. (2016), “A general framework for measuring system complexity”,
Complexity, Vol. 21 No. S1, pp. 533-546.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989a), “Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 543-576.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989b), “Building theories from cae study research”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S. (2016), “Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive
sampling”, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Flynn, S.I. (2015), “Authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership”, Research Starters:
Sociology, available at: http://www.academicpub.com/map/items/29737.html.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014), “What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 6-19.
Flyvbjerg, B. and Turner, J.R. (2018), “Do classics exist in megaproject management?”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 334-341.
Fullan, M. (1993), Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Education Reform, Falmer, London.
Gambatese, J.A. and Hallowell, M. (2011), “Factors that influence the development and diffusion of
technical innovations in the construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 507-517.
Geraldi, J. (2008), “Patterns of complexity: the thermometer of complexity”, Project Perspectives,
Vol. 24, pp. 4-9.
Gilbert, G.R., Sohi, R.S. and McEachern, A.G. (2008), “Measuring work preferences: a multidimensional
tool to enhance career self-management”, Career Development International, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 56-78.
ECAM Giret, A. and Botti, V. (2004), “Holons and agents”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 645-659.
Gorod, A., Sauser, B. and Boardman, J. (2008), Paradox: Holarchical View of System of Systems Engineering
Management, 2008 IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, IEEE, pp. 1-6.
Government of South Australia (2014), SA Water Regulatory Business Proposal 2016-2020, SA Water
Corporation, available at: https://www.sawater.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/26921/RBP-
2016.pdf.
Grill, M., Nielsen, K., Grytnes, R., Pousette, A. and T€orner, M. (2019), “The leadership practices of
construction site managers and their influence on occupational safety: an observational study
of transformational and passive/avoidant leadership”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 278-293.
Haupt, T. (2003), “A study of management attitudes to a performance approach to construction
worker safety”, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 87-100.
He, Q., Luo, L., Hu, Y. and Chan, A.P.C. (2015), “Measuring the complexity of mega construction
projects in China-A fuzzy analytic network process analysis”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 549-563.
Heckscher, C. and Donnellon, A. (1994), The Post-bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on
Organizational Change, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holmberg, R., Larsson, M. and B€ackstr€om, M. (2016), “Developing leadership skills and resilience in
turbulent times: a quasi-experimental evaluation study”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 154-169.
Huang, X., Xu, E., Chiu, W., Lam, C. and Farh, J.L. (2015), “When authoritarian leaders outperform
transformational leaders: firm performance in a harsh economic environment”, Academy of
Management Discoveries, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 180-200.
Humphrey, R.H. (2013), Effective Leadership: Theory, Cases, and Applications, SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
iConstruct (2019), Hensel Phelps Soars to New Heights with the Help of iConstruct, available at: https://
iconstruct.com/case-study/hensel-phelps/ (accessed 5 January 2020).
Ireland, V. and Gorod, A. (2016), “Contribution of complex systems to entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-41.
Ireland, V., Gorod, A., White, B., Gandhi, J. and Sauser, B. and IPM Association (2013), “A contribution
to developing a complex project management BOK”, Project Perspectives, Vol. 2013, p. 10.
Irvin, R.A. and Stansbury, J. (2004), “Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 55-65.
Jemielniak, D. (2016), “Wikimedia movement governance: the limits of a-hierarchical organization”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 361-378.
Jepson, J., Kirytopoulos, K. and London, K. (2017), “Exploring project managers’ perception of stress
when working in increasingly complex construction projects”, Construction Economics and
Building, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 47-67.
Jon, C. (2012), Adelaide Desalination Plant Mothballed, InsideWaste, Adelaide, available at: https://
www.insidewaste.com.au/general/news/1006224/adelaide-desalination-plant-mothballed
(accessed 20 April 2017).
K€ahk€onen, A.K. (2011), “Conducting a case study in supply management”, Operations and Supply
Chain management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Kallinikos, J. (1998), “Organized complexity: posthumanist remarks on the technologizing of
intelligence”, Organization, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 371-396.
Karrbom Gustavsson, T. and Hallin, A. (2014), “Rethinking dichotomization: a critical perspective on
the use of “hard” and “soft” in project management research”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 568-577.
Kasapoǧlu, E. (2014), “Leadership styles in architectural design offices in Turkey”, Journal of Holonic
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 140 No. 2, p. 10.
methodology
Kim, S., Kim, J., Shin, Y. and Kim, G.H. (2015), “Cultural differences in motivation factors influencing
the management of foreign laborers in the Korean construction industry’”, International Journal
in construction
of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 1534-1547.
Koestler, A. (1967), The Ghost in the Machine, Penguin group, London, Hutchinson.
Kumar, M. (2015), The Adelaide Desalination Plant, available at: http://www.psdmud.co.uk/images/
ADP%20-%20Celebration.pdf (accessed 20 April 2017).
Lee S.M., Olson, D.L. and Trimi, S. (2012), “Co-innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, and co-
creation for organizational values”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 817-831.
Lehtinen, J. and Aaltonen, K. (2020), “Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-
organizational projects: opening the black box”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 85-98.
Lehtinen, J., Peltokorpi, A. and Artto, K. (2019), “Megaprojects as organizational platforms and
technology platforms for value creation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Lim, C. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), “Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-248.
Limsila, K. and Ogunlana, S. (2008), “Performance and leadership outcome correlates of leadership
styles and subordinate commitment”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 164-184.
Lin, J., Qi, E.S. and Du, B. (2008), “Study of the characteristics of large-scale construction projects with
the view of complexity”, IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 1-4.
uller, R., Zhu, F. and Liu, H. (2019), “Choosing suitable project control modes to improve the
Lin, L., M€
knowledge integration under different uncertainties”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 896-911.
Lindgren, J. and Emmitt, S. (2017), “Diffusion of a systemic innovation: a longitudinal case study of a
Swedish multi-storey timber housebuilding system”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 25-44.
Lloyd-Walker, B.M., Mills, A.J. and Walker, D.H. (2014), “Enabling construction innovation: the role of
a no-blame culture as a collaboration behavioural driver in project alliances”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 229-245.
Lord, R.G. and Hall, R.J. (2005), “Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 591-615.
Luhman, J.T. and Boje, D.M. (2001), “What is complexity science? A possible answer from narrative
research’, Emergence”, A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 158-168.
Luo, L., He, Q., Jaselskis Edward, J. and Xie, J. (2017), “Construction project complexity: research
trends and implications”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 7,
04017019.
Mansouri, M., Gorod, A., Sauser, B. and Gandhi, S.J. (2009a), “A systemic approach to adopting
effective management styles based on typology of systems”, Paper Presented at 30th Annual
American Society of Engineering Management Conference, October 14-17.
Mansouri, M., Gorod, A., Wakeman, T.H. and Sauser, B. (2009b), “A systems approach to governance
in maritime transportation system of systems”, System of Systems Engineering, 2009. SoSE
2009. IEEE International Conference, pp. 1-6.
Manuela, W.S., Jr, Rhoades, D.L. and Curtis, T. (2019), “Market power at the seattle-Tacoma
international airport: the case of Alaska airlines”, Transport Policy, Vol. 76, pp. 90-99.
ECAM McDermott, A.M., Hamel, L.M., Steel, D., Flood, P.C. and Mkee, L. (2015), “Hybrid healthcare
governance for improvement? Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to public sector
regulation”, Public Administration, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 324-344.
Merriam, S.B. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Jossey-Bass
education seriesJosse-Bass, San Francisco.
uller, R., Sankaran, S., Drouin, N., Vaagaasar, A.-L., Bekker, M.C. and Jain, K. (2018), “A theory
M€
framework for balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 83-94.
Mumford, T., Campion, M. and Morgeson, F. (2007), “The leadership skills strataplex: leadership
skill requirements across organizational levels”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 154-166.
Murray, D. (2018), Olmsted Locks and Dam Formally (And Finally) Dedicated. The Waterways Journal
Weekly, available at: https://www.waterwaysjournal.net/2018/08/30/olmsted-locks-and-dam-
formally-and-finally-dedicated/ (accessed 5 January 2020).
Naticchia, B., Carbonari, A., Vaccarini, M. and Giorgi, R. (2019), “Holonic execution system for real-
time construction management”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 104, pp. 179-196.
Nielsen, J.R. and Vedsmand, T. (1999), “User participation and institutional change in fisheries
management: a viable alternative to the failures of ‘top-down’ driven control?”, Ocean and
Coastal Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Northouse, P.G. (2016), Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage publications, Singapore.
Nyarirangwe, M. and Babatunde, O.K. (2019), “Megaproject complexity attributes and competences:
lessons from it and construction projects”, International Journal of Information Systems and
Project Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 77-99.
OECD (1996), Synthesis Report for the Study on the Economic Aspects of the Management of Marine,
living resources, Paris.
Olander, S. (2007), “Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 277-287.
Omar, T. and Nehdi, M. (2015), Lessons Learned from Adelaide Desalination Project, Paper Presented at
CSCE Annual Meeting, Regina, SK, Canada.
Oyanedel, R., Marın, A., Castilla, J.C. and Gelcich, S. (2016), “Establishing marine protected areas
through bottom-up processes: insights from two contrasting initiatives in Chile”, Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 184-195.
Parsi, N. (2019), “Change of current: despite decades of delays, a U.S. Team’s river infrastructure
project deliver long-term value”, PM Network, Vol. 33, pp. 36-43.
Phelps, Hensel (2019), Sea-Tac Airport Celebrates Phase 1 of the North Satellite Terminal
Modernization Project, available at: https://www.henselphelps.com/sea-tac-airport-celebrates-
phase-1-north-satellite-terminal-modernization-project/ (accessed 5 January 2020).
Pitsis, A., Clegg, S., Freeder, D., Sankaran, S. and Burdon, S. (2018), “Megaprojects redefined –
complexity vs cost and social imperatives”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-34.
Powell, W.W. (1998), “Learning from collaboration: knowledge and networks in the
biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries”, California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 228-240.
Powley, E.H., Fry, R.E., Barrett, F.J. and Bright, D.S. (2004), “Dialogic democracy meets command and
control: transformation through the appreciative inquiry summit”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 67-80.
Qiu, Y., Chen, H., Sheng, Z. and Cheng, S. (2019), “Governance of institutional complexity in megaproject
organizations”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 425-443.
Remington, K. and Pollack, J. (2007), Tools for Complex Projects, Gower Publishing, Farnham.
Remington, K., Zolin, R. and Turner, R. (2009), “A model of project complexity: distinguishing Holonic
dimensions of complexity from severity”, Proceedings of the 9th International Research Network
of Project Management Conference, IRNOP. methodology
Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M. (2010), Management, Pearson Education, London.
in construction
Roehrich, J.K., Davies, A., Frederiksen, L. and Sergeeeva, N. (2019), “Management innovation in
complex products and systems: the case of integrated project teams”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 79, pp. 84-93.
Ross, W., Gorod, A. and Ulieru, M. (2015), “A socio-physical approach to systemic risk reduction in
emergency response and preparedness”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics:
Systems, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 1125-1137.
Rothenberg, S. (2003), “Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at
NUMMI”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1783-1802.
Satyamurti, S., Eng, P. and Asce, M. (2018), “Expert paper 2018-03 rev 0 expert’s corner paper 2018-03
case study: implementation of program control management on a multibillion dollar project:
seatac airport upgrade”, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17789.00482.
Saunders, Lewis, M.P. and Thornhill, A. (Ed.), (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed.,
FT Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Shin, H., Picken, J. and Dess, G. (2017), “Revisiting the learning organization”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 1 No. 46, pp. 46-56.
Smuts, J. (1926), Holism and Evolution, Little and Ives, New York, NY.
Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007), “A leader’s framework for decision making”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 85 No. 11, p. 68.
Szentes, H. (2018), “Reinforcing cycles involving inter- and intraorganizational paradoxical tensions
when managing large construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 125-140.
Taylor, J.E. and Levitt, R. (2007), “Innovation alignment and project network dynamics: an integrative
model for change”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 22-35.
Tinoco, R.A., Sato, C.E.Y. and Hasan, R. (2016), “Responsible project management: beyond the triple
constraints”, Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 81-92.
Todorova, T. and Vasilev, A. (2017), “Some transaction cost effects of authoritarian management”,
International Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 295-314.
Toor, S.U.R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008), “Leadership skills and competencies for cross-cultural
construction projects”, International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 192-215.
Tsai, Y. and Beverton, S. (2007), “Top-down management: an effective tool in higher education?”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 6-16.
Turner, J.R. and Cochrane, R.A. (1993), “Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill
defined goals and/or methods of achieving them”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 93-102.
US Army Corps of Engineers (2018a), Olmsted Locks and Dam Media Kit, available at: https://www.lrl.
usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/CWProjects/Olmsted_MEDIA_KIT_August_30_2018.pdf?
ver52018-08-30-201313-897 (accessed 5 January 2020).
US Army Corps of Engineers (2018b), Olmsted Facts, available at: https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/
64/docs/Ops/Navigation/Olmsted/OlmstedFactsheet10-25-13.pdf (accessed 5 January 2020).
US Army Corps of Engineers (2018c), Olmsted Dam Construction Methodology, available at: https://
www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/Ops/Navigation/Olmsted/OlmstedDamConstruction
Methodology.pdf (accessed 5 January 2020).
Van Brussel, H., Wyns, J., Valckenaers, P., Bongaerts, L. and Peeters, P. (1998), “Reference architecture
for holonic manufacturing systems: PROSA”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 255-274.
ECAM Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Beck, H.E., Crosbie, R.S., Jeu, R.A.M., Liu, Y.Y., Podger, G.M., Timbal, B. and Viney,
N.R. (2013), “The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): natural and human
causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society”, Water
Resources Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 1040-1057.
Williams, T. (2002), Modelling Complex Projects,[sl], Wiley, Chichester.
Xie, L., Han, T., Chu, H., Xia, B. and Wang, E. (2019), “Behavior selection of stakeholders toward
megaproject social responsibility: perspective from Social Action Theory”, Advances in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 2019, 4956067, p. 14, doi: 10.1155/2019/4956067.
Xu, H., Kan, S., Zhijie, Z. and Yat, L. (2006), “The impact of participative leadership behavior on
psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned
enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 345-367.
Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage publications, Newbury Park.
Yin, R.K. (2017), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, Sage publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yukl, G. (2016), Leadership in Organizations, 7th edn., Pearson Education, New Jersey, NJ.
Zekavat, P.R., Moon, S. and Bernold, L.E. (2014), “Holonic construction management: unified
framework for ICT-supported process control”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31,
No. 1, A4014008.

Further reading
Ballesteros-Perez, P., Campo-Hitschfeld, M.L.D., Gonzalez-Naranjo, M.A. and Gonzalez-Cruz, M.C.
(2015), “Climate and construction delays: case study in Chile’, Engineering”, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 596-621.
Blaikie, M. and Pelekani, C. (2010), “Adelaide desalination project piloting experience”, Water Journal
of Ausralian Water Association, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 46-53.
Crisp, G.J. (2012), “Desalination and water reuse—sustainably drought proofing Australia”, Desalination
and Water Treatment, Vol. 42 Nos 1-3, pp. 323-332, doi: 10.1080/19443994.2012.683250.
Dixon, M.B., Lasslett, S. and Pelekani, C. (2012), “Destructive and non-destructive methods for
biofouling analysis investigated at the adelaide desalination pilot plant”, Desalination, Vol. 296,
pp. 61-68.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 219-245.
Hargadon, A.B. and Douglas, Y. (2001), “When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of
the electric light”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 476-501.
K€ampf, J. and Clarke, B. (2013), “How robust is the environmental impact assessment process in South
Australia? Behind the scenes of the Adelaide seawater desalination project”, Marine Policy,
Vol. 38, pp. 500-506.
Kildea, T., Kumar, M., Ayala, V., Gago, G.H. and Artal, J. (2013), “‘Environmental performance of the
Adelaide desalination plant’, Water”, Journal of the Australian Water Association, Vol. 40
No. 8, p. 62.
Lenfle, S. (2011), “The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable uncertainty: the
Manhattan case in retrospect”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 359-373.
Meyer, A.D., Gaba, V. and Colwell, K.A. (2005), “Organizing far from equilibrium: nonlinear change in
organizational fields”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 456-473.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), “The case for qualitative research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Murmann, J.P. (2013), “The coevolution of industries and important features of their environments”, Holonic
Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 58-78.
methodology
Port of Seattle (2019), North Satellite Modernization, available at: https://www.portseattle.org/projects/
north-satellite-modernization (accessed 5 January 2020).
in construction
Smyth, E. and Vanclay, F. (2017), “The Social Framework for Projects: a conceptual but practical
model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects”, Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 65-80.
Statsenko, L., Gorod, A. and Ireland, V. (2018), “A complex adaptive systems governance framework for regional
supply networks”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 293-312.
Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R. and Samson, D. (2002), “Effective case research
in operations management: a process perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 419-433.
Taylor, J. and Levitt, R. (2005), Modeling Systemic Innovation in Design and Construction Networks, Citeseer,
Stanford.
Vaara, E. and Lamberg, J.A. (2016), “Taking historical embeddedness seriously: three historical
approaches to advance strategy process and practice research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 633-657.
Van Marrewijk, A., Ybema, S., Smits, K., Clegg, S. and Pitsis, T. (2016), “Clash of the titans: temporal
organizing and collaborative dynamics in the Panama Canal megaproject”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 1745-1769.
Yin, R. (2013), “Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations”, Evaluation, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 321-332.

Corresponding author
Larissa Statsenko can be contacted at: larissa.statsenko@unisa.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats