Feasibility and Potential Benefits of Integrating Antifragile Principles in Major Infrastructure Projects

University of Salford
School of the Built Environment

MSc - Project Management in Construction
Feasibility and Potential Benefits of

Integrating Antifragile Principles in Major
Infrastructure Projects
Student: Supervisor:
Gert-Jan Roelevink Dr Belqais Allali
Student ID: @00447594 b.allali2@salford.ac.uk
G.J.Roelevink@edu.salford.ac.uk
December 2023
G.J. Roelevink Student ID: 00447594
Abstract
Antifragility is the capacity of a system to not only endure shocks and disruptions but to improve and grow
stronger in the face of challenges. Systems characterised as antifragile not only withstand volatility and
unpredictability but also use them as opportunities for adaptation and improvement (Taleb, 2012).
This dissertation explores the application of antifragile principles in the context of major infrastructure
projects, addressing uncertainties and risks inherent in their management.
The key objectives of the study are the conceptual synthesis of antifragile principles through a literature
review, critical examination of alignment with conventional project management principles, exploration of
recurring patterns in a multiple-case study, and examination of effectiveness and real-world relevance
based on expert insights. The research methodology employs triangulation, integrating the literature
review, qualitative secondary data from the multiple-case study, and quantitative primary data from expert
surveys to comprehensively examine the topic.
To effect change within the organizations involved in the project, a proposed solution is the formulation of
an antifragile manifesto. The manifesto serves as a mechanism for articulating and effectively
communicating the visionary approach, promoting a collective understanding and commitment to the
principles of antifragility.
The analysis of the secondary and primary research data concludes that, while not universally applicable,
projects might benefit from integrating selected antifragile principles into infrastructure construction
project management, alongside conventional techniques. Project managers should assess project
uniqueness, objectives, and organizational readiness for a context-specific approach.
Keywords
- Antifragility
- Uncertainty
- Risk
- Major Infrastructure Projects
- Project Management
2
Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 4
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Structure of this document ............................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Aim..................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Antifragility in the Context of Major Infrastructure Projects .................................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Major infrastructure projects ............................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Management of Uncertainty and Risk ............................................................................................. 11
2.4 Introduction to Antifragility............................................................................................................. 12
2.5 The “Triad”....................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Achieving organizational change ..................................................................................................... 20
2.7 The Antifragile Manifesto ................................................................................................................ 20
3 Research Methodology............................................................................................................................ 24
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Triangulation.................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Multiple case studies - Linking to real-world situations .................................................................. 25
3.4 Surveys - Expert review ................................................................................................................... 26
3.5 Sample sizes..................................................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Data analysis .................................................................................................................................... 27
3.7 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 28
4 Case studies ............................................................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Case study 1: Highway A15 MaVA (The Netherlands)..................................................................... 29
4.2 Case study 2: Mersey Gateway Bridge (United Kingdom)............................................................... 31
4.3 Case study 3: Diamar-Basha Dam project (Pakistan) ...................................................................... 32
4.4 Case study 4: Crossrail (United Kingdom) ....................................................................................... 33
5 Survey findings and analysis .................................................................................................................... 34
5.1 Data collection ................................................................................................................................. 34
5.2 Demographics of the participants ................................................................................................... 34
5.3 Familiarity ........................................................................................................................................ 35
5.4 Perceived benefits of applying antifragile principles ...................................................................... 35
5.5 Practicality and real-world relevance .............................................................................................. 36
3
5.6 Open-ended survey responses ........................................................................................................ 37

6 Preliminary findings and discussion ........................................................................................................ 39
6.1 Identification of trends and patterns .............................................................................................. 39
6.2 Shared advantages across case studies and survey ........................................................................ 39
6.3 Shared challenges across case studies and survey .......................................................................... 40
6.4 Differences....................................................................................................................................... 41
7 Conclusions and limitations ..................................................................................................................... 42
7.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 42
7.2 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 42
References ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix A The Antifragile Manifesto ........................................................................................................ 47
Appendix B Survey invitation and questionnaire........................................................................................ 48
Appendix C Ethical Approval Decision ........................................................................................................ 60
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Structure of the literature review – finding intersections (Wellington et al., 2005)................. 8
Figure 2.2 Concept mapping of common and central themes ................................................................. 14
Figure 2.3 Performance of Fragile, Robust, Agile and Antifragile systems at increasing stress............... 15
Figure 2.4 Behaviour of a fragile system .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.5 Behaviour of a robust system .................................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.6 Behaviour of an agile system ................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.7 Behaviour of an antifragile system .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.8 Outcome probability of Fragile, Robust, and Antifragile systems ........................................... 20
Figure 3.1 Model of research design ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 5.1 Box-and-whisker plot for Likert scale response of application of antifragile principles ......... 36
Figure 5.2 Box-and-whisker plot for Likert scale response of practicality and real-world relevance ...... 37
List of Tables
Table 5.1 Demographics of the survey respondents................................................................................... 34
Total word count: 17681
4
1 Introduction
1.1 Structure of this document
This document has been structured as follows: Chapter 1 provides an introduction that covers the
background, rationale, research questions, and objectives of the study. The subsequent chapter 2 explores
the concept of antifragility within the context of major infrastructure projects. It reviews practices of
managing uncertainty and risk and the application of antifragility supported by existing literature. The
literature review concludes with the formulation of an antifragile manifesto. The research methodology is
addressed in chapter 3. This is followed by case studies on various infrastructure projects in chapter 4.
Surveys, their data collection, and analysis strategies are outlined in the chapter 5. The document then
progresses to present preliminary findings and discussions, particularly focusing on the impact on
organizations and strategies for achieving organizational change in chapter 6. Finally, chapter 7 provides
conclusions and recommendations based on the research.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Alignment with MSc Programme
The present study is part of the coursework for the dissertation phase of the MSc program Project
Management in Construction. This research on the application of antifragile principles aligns with the MSc
Programme by offering an alternative perspective on the management of infrastructure projects by
introducing an antifragile manifesto, in which it is inherently important to effectively deal with
uncertainties. The research will integrate topics that have been taught throughout the MSc Programme
such as Culture and People, Organisations, Lean Integrated Design, Process, and Project Systems. The study
will focus on ways in which the application of antifragile principles could positively impact management
practices in construction projects.
1.2.2 Justification
A global study of cost overruns of major infrastructure projects has shown that cost overruns occur in 9 out
of 10 projects (Aljohani et al., 2017). The average worldwide exceedance for infrastructure projects is 20%
for roads, 45% for railways and 34% for structures (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003). In a study on the categorization
of cost overrun in infrastructure projects within Saudi Arabia, utilizing cluster analysis (Allahaim & Liu,
2006), the research revealed that contributing factors to cost overruns encompassed regulatory uncertainty
(30%), alterations in scope (10%), inadequate planning and control (50%), and site conditions (10%).
Flyvbjerg (2011) argues that conventional literature lists project complexity, scope changes, technological
uncertainty, demand uncertainty, and unexpected geological features as causes for project
underperformance.
Atkinson et al. (2006) highlighted that the management of uncertainty is seen as a necessary condition for
effective project management. According to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (Project
Management Institute, 2017, 6th ed., p. 400), the best approach to dealing with uncertainty and risk is
through an iterative and adaptive project management approach. This approach is often associated with
agile methodologies. In this context, agile project management emphasizes flexibility, collaboration, and
responsiveness to change. Above mentioned studies demonstrate however that with conventional project
and risk management approaches, uncertainties may not have always been adequately addressed in major
infrastructure projects. Construction projects need flexible leadership and management to be able to
respond to the various changes that occur during their execution (Turner, 2014). This justifies the rationale
5
for exploring alternative principles that deal with uncertainties for the management of such projects. This
research focuses on antifragile principles as a feasible tool that can help mitigate cost and time overrun.
The focus of this research will be on the management of major infrastructure construction projects.
According to Flyvbjerg (2014), as a general rule of thumb major infrastructure projects are classified as
costing a hundred million dollars or more. Major infrastructure projects have distinct characteristics due to
differences in scale, complexity, and purpose compared to building construction projects as they are
inherently complex and subject to numerous uncertainties and risks.
1.3 Aim
This research aims to explore the feasibility and potential advantages associated with implementing
antifragile principles in the management practices of major infrastructure construction projects, to enhance
these projects' overall performance by offering an alternative approach towards uncertainties.
1.4 Objectives
The objectives of the research are:
1. To articulate antifragile principles relevant to the management of major infrastructure construction
projects through a comprehensive literature review and conceptual synthesis.
2. To critically examine the alignment between conventional project management principles
addressing uncertainties and volatility and antifragile principles in the context of major
infrastructure construction projects.
3. To explore recurring patterns and themes associated with antifragile principles in a multiple-case
study and analyse their correlation with project success indicators.
4. To examine the potential benefits of antifragile principles in major infrastructure construction
projects through expert insights.
5. Evaluate the practicality and real-world relevance of antifragile principles in the management of
major infrastructure construction projects.
The initial objectives of the research, as formulated in the research proposal have been adjusted for better
alignment with the recommended verb taxonomy based on suggestions by the reviewer.
6
2 Antifragility in the Context of Major Infrastructure Projects

2.1 Introduction
This literature review describes the theoretical framework, which serves as the underpinning of the
research. It synthesizes theories and models related to the development of major infrastructure projects,
project management and antifragility, creating a conceptual scaffolding for the research. This theoretical
foundation not only informs the study's design and methodology but also guides the interpretation of
findings. It makes sure the research is based on well-known principles but also has its place in the larger
picture of antifragility in major infrastructure projects.
2.1.1 Structure of the Literature Review

First, this literature review provides a comprehensive definition and understanding of what constitutes a
major infrastructure project. This involves exploring the scale, complexity, and various characteristics that
differentiate major infrastructure projects from other projects. It provides the framework for what falls
under this category.
Secondly, the literature review investigates the uncertainties associated with major infrastructure projects.
This includes examining various factors such as technical, financial, environmental, and regulatory
uncertainties that are inherent in these projects. Understanding uncertainties is crucial for project
managers and stakeholders as it allows for better preparation, risk mitigation, and adaptive strategies to
navigate unforeseen challenges.
Thirdly, the literature, review explores the attributes that influence the success of major infrastructure
projects. This involves identifying key factors such as stakeholder engagement, regulatory compliance,
environmental considerations, technological innovation, economic impact, and resilience. By synthesizing
existing knowledge, the literature review provides insights into the multifaceted nature of these projects
and the variables that contribute to their success.
Moving forward, it describes the concept of antifragility and examines the existing theoretical frameworks,
models, and empirical studies related to the concept. The review will involve a comprehensive examination
of existing works, including contributions by N.N Taleb, the author who first introduced the concept of
antifragility, and subsequent research by others on antifragility across diverse domains, such as risk
management, computer science and management of organisations. The aim is to extract themes and
relationships, discerning principles applicable to infrastructure projects. The review will critically evaluate
how the concepts of fragile, robust, agile, and antifragile can describe the performance of project
organizations in major infrastructure construction and propose arguments for why organisations should
seek to become more antifragile.
Following this, a methodology will be proposed to systematically capture and communicate antifragile
principles and values in a manner that is both clear and accessible. This method will be designed to serve as
a tool for facilitating a change process within the broader infrastructure construction community.
The literature review will specifically explore the intersections between the key themes of antifragility,
Major Infrastructure, and Organizational Change. As suggested by Ridley (2008), visualizing the structure of
the review as a picture or diagram can aid in comprehending these intersections. The review's structure is
guided by the concept of finding intersections, as recommended by Wellington et al. (2005).
7
Figure 2.1 Structure of the literature review – finding intersections (Wellington et al., 2005)
2.1.2 Sources to Consider

The review will not be restricted to one particular type of publication or information source but will
investigate a broader range of relevant materials including books, journals, articles, published literature and
“grey literature” such as reports, theses dissertations and websites (Ridley, 2008).
The search process will follow stages as proposed by Booth et al. (2012). An initial scoping search will be
conducted on the “ScienceDirect” databases to find existing literature on antifragility to gain familiarity
with the topic. Key search terms will be identified, and a search strategy will be developed. Subsequently, a
comprehensive search will be conducted across other databases using the identified terms, including free-
text and thesaurus terms. Finally, the reference lists and bibliographies of included studies will be searched
for additional relevant studies.
2.2 Major infrastructure projects

2.2.1 Infrastructure
Infrastructure is the system of public works of a country, state, or region (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). With this
study being done as part of an MSc programme in the School of the Built Environment, infrastructure in the
context of the built environment will be considered. In this context, it refers to the structures and facilities
that provide the foundation for urban and regional development. These are essential components that
support the functioning of communities, enhance quality of life, and enable economic activities. It can
include various types of facilities or sectors, including transportation (roads, bridges, airports, ports,
railways), energy (power plants, electrical grids), water and sanitation (dams, water treatment plants),
communication (telecommunications networks), and social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, public
buildings). E.g., in transport infrastructures infrastructure represent the fixed component of the transport
system (Button, 1982).
2.2.2 Infrastructure projects

An infrastructure project in the built environment refers to a large-scale initiative that involves the
planning, design, construction, and maintenance of physical structures and facilities essential for the
functioning of a society or economy. These projects typically involve the development or improvement of
fundamental systems and assets that support and enable various activities and services. The projects often
require significant investment, careful planning, and coordination among various stakeholders, including
government entities, private enterprises, and sometimes international organizations. Infrastructure
development plays a crucial role in supporting economic growth, improving connectivity, and addressing
the needs of a growing population.
8
2.2.3 What defines major infrastructure projects

The focus of this research will be on the management of major infrastructure construction projects.
According to Flyvbjerg (2014), as a general rule of thumb major infrastructure projects are classified as
costing a hundred million dollars or more. Major infrastructure projects have distinct characteristics due to
differences in scale, complexity, and purpose compared to building construction projects as they are
inherently complex and subject to numerous uncertainties and risks.
Major infrastructure projects, characterized by their vast scale, complexity, and substantial impact on
communities, share several key features. Complexity can be defined as the number and type of
components and the number and type of relationships between these (Salet et al., 2013). These projects
are extensive both in physical dimensions and scope, involving significant investment. The technical
complexity is often intricate, requiring coordination across multiple disciplines such as civil engineering,
environmental sciences, and urban planning. These endeavours typically span several years, encompassing
planning, design, construction, and sometimes ongoing maintenance. The financial investment required is
substantial and often sourced from public or private funding. Due to their complexity, these projects
inherently carry risks related to technical, financial, environmental, and regulatory aspects. Unforeseen
events or changes in circumstances can introduce uncertainty, impacting project outcomes (Flyvbjerg,
2009).
Involving diverse stakeholders such as government bodies, private investors, local communities, and
regulatory agencies, major infrastructure projects require effective coordination. Public engagement is
crucial, and public opinion can significantly influence project success. The direct impact on communities
necessitates considerations of social, economic, and environmental consequences. Additionally,
compliance with complex regulatory frameworks, environmental standards, and safety regulations is
essential.
Major infrastructure projects often represent a group of individual elements presented as a unified whole.
Additionally, these projects are developed within existing contexts and do not emerge in a vacuum.
Particularly in urbanized areas, there already exists a significant amount of infrastructure (Salet et al.,
2013).
Infrastructure projects often have a lasting impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, emphasizing the need
for sustainable practices. Technological innovation is integral, influencing project design, construction, and
operation. Many projects adopt collaboration models like Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), sharing
responsibilities and risks between public and private entities. These projects contribute to job creation and
economic development during construction and operation. Designed for durability and resilience,
infrastructure projects must integrate seamlessly with existing infrastructure, requiring careful planning.
The pursuit of architectural and engineering excellence, striving for innovative designs that positively
contribute to the built environment, is a common theme in major infrastructure projects. Studying and
comprehending major infrastructure projects is driven by the following reasons (Merrow, 2011):
1) Their prevalence surpasses that of previous eras, and this trend is expected to persist for decades.
2) The significance of these projects extends to the societies where they are undertaken, the overall
health of the global economy, and the stakeholders investing substantial amounts of capital.
2.2.4 The fragility of major infrastructure projects

Major infrastructure projects are characterized by various uncertainties, often classified by their sources,
such as technical issues, market dynamics, human factors, costs, schedule, and quality (Judson & Paul,
2019). Specific uncertainties affecting construction project costs include risks inherent in prolonged
9
planning horizons, deviations from conventional standards in technology and design, intricate decision-
making involving conflicting stakeholder interests, early fixation on project concepts without robust
alternatives analysis, evolving project scope, and insufficiently prepared budget and time contingencies due
to overlooked unforeseen events (Judson & Paul, 2019).
Typical uncertainty management issues throughout the project life cycle include the level of definition,
determination of appropriate performance objectives, stakeholder management, novelty of design and
technology, control of changes, regulatory constraints, concurrency of activities, dependency relationships,
errors and omissions, resource estimates, contractual terms, coordination, communication, organizational
arrangements, leadership, and continuity in personnel and responsibilities (Atkinson et al., 2006; De Meyer
et al., 2002; Werner, 2011).
Social and historical analyses underscore fundamental tensions complicating infrastructure work, such as
challenges related to time, scale, and agency (Edwards et al., 2007). These tensions involve navigating
short-term funding decisions against the longer time scales of infrastructure development, addressing
disconnects between global interoperability and local optimization, and managing planned versus
emergent change in complex systems.
2.2.5 What defines if a major infrastructure is successful?

The success of major infrastructure projects is nuanced, encompassing various critical factors. Foremost
among these is the project's ability to be completed within the designated timeline and budget. Equally
important is the functionality and performance of the infrastructure. Whether it's a bridge, a water
treatment plant, or a transportation system, success hinges on meeting the intended purpose effectively
and safely. Stakeholder satisfaction is another key determinant. Positive engagement with diverse
stakeholders, including communities, regulatory bodies, and investors, is crucial. Public support is often
indicative of a project's success, reflecting its alignment with the needs and expectations of the broader
community. Economic impact is a vital aspect, as successful infrastructure projects contribute to economic
development by creating jobs, stimulating local businesses, and encouraging increased economic activity
(He et al., 2021; Seidu et al., 2022).
2.2.6 Success is relative

The success of a project is a relative concept, gauged against the forecasted cost and the estimated time
required for project completion. Success is largely determined by the extent to which these expectations
are met. This underscores that project success is not solely contingent on the performance of the project
organization but is equally influenced by the alignment with expectations regarding time and budget.
Historically, it has been challenging to make realistic forecasts for both time and budget, and this challenge
tends to escalate with the growing scale of projects (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003).
Despite the acknowledged difficulty in accurately predicting these elements, this dissertation does not
focus on the potential disparities between forecasts and actual performance. Instead, it centres on the
exploration of strategies to enhance overall project performance, irrespective of initial expectations. In
essence, this research aims to contribute insights into how better performance can be achieved,
acknowledging the inherent complexities in forecasting, and emphasizing a proactive approach to project
management that goes beyond the challenges of meeting initial expectations.
10
2.2.7 What influences the performance of major infrastructure projects?

As per the Project Management Institute (2017), projects are conducted within environments that can
exert various influences, either beneficial or detrimental, on the project's performance. These influences
primarily fall into two major categories: Enterprise Environmental Factors (EEFs) and Organizational Process
Assets (OPAs). The first category stems from external sources, often beyond the project and even the
organization. These external factors can impact the project at different levels, whether it's at the
organizational, portfolio, program, or project level. The second category is internal to the organization.
They can be generated within the organization itself, within a portfolio, a program, another project, or even
through a combination of these internal sources. Beyond these two categories, the functioning of
organizational systems plays a significant role throughout the project's lifecycle. These systemic elements
influence various aspects, including the authority, interests, competencies, and political capacities of
individuals to act within the organizational framework.
2.2.8 The size effect on the performance of major infrastructure projects

Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) concluded that the correlation between an increase in project size and unfavourable
outcomes, coupled with escalating costs due to delays as a percentage of the overall budget, is noteworthy.
On a risk-adjusted basis, big ventures are unlikely to present good value (Ansar et al., 2017).
However, a subtle distinction exists. It is the size per segment of the project that holds significance, not the
entirety of the project. Certain projects can be effectively divided into distinct pieces, while others cannot.
Projects such as bridges, tunnels, and dams necessitate monolithic planning, as they cannot be fragmented
into smaller portions; their cost overruns as a percentage exhibit a marked rise with increasing size. This is
similarly observed in the case of dams. Conversely, road projects, constructed in small segments, do not
manifest a significant size effect. Project managers dealing with small segments encounter only minor
errors, allowing for adaptivity. The progression of small segments occurs one small error at a time, with
little impact from substantial constraints (Taleb, 2012).
This study broadly addresses major infrastructure projects, encompassing those that are inherently
indivisible into smaller segments. The emphasis is on the entirety of such projects, and, as a result, the
study does not discuss into depth the potential advantages associated with reducing project size or
implementing major projects in smaller segments.
2.3 Management of Uncertainty and Risk

2.3.1 Conventional approach to managing uncertainty and risk
The PMBOK (Project Management Institute, 2017) includes a framework for modelling uncertainty and risk.
Although no specific models are prescribed, PMBOK suggests various tools and techniques that project
managers can use to assess and analyse uncertainties. These involve planning risk management, identifying
potential risks, and performing qualitative and quantitative risk analyses. Project managers then plan and
implement risk responses.
2.3.2 Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)

The VUCA framework is used by ISO 31000 (Hutchins, 2018) to describe the current world. It provides a
guide for organizations to interpret challenges and opportunities. It highlights both systemic and
behavioural failures. VUCA represents Volatility (rapid and unpredictable change), Uncertainty
(unpredictability of events), Complexity (intertwined forces making cause-and-effect relationships unclear),
and Ambiguity (unclear realities and potential misunderstandings from mixed messages).
11
2.3.3 Limitations to modelling uncertainty and risk

Makridakis et al. (2009) argue however that risk cannot be adequately managed through models due to
inherent uncertainties and complexities that models may not accurately capture. Their study emphasizes
the limitations of relying solely on quantitative models to predict and manage risks, as these models often
struggle to account for unforeseen events and dynamic changes in the business environment. The authors
contend that while models can provide valuable insights, they are insufficient in handling the full spectrum
of uncertainties, including those arising from human behaviour, external shocks, and systemic factors.
Therefore, Makridakis et al. (2009) advocate for a more comprehensive and flexible approach to risk
management that integrates qualitative assessments, expert judgment, and adaptive strategies to navigate
the unpredictable nature of risks.
2.3.4 Black Swans

Taleb (2007) and Aven (2017) also criticize the limitations of managing uncertainties. Taleb introduced the
concept of "black swans," which are rare, unpredictable events that have a profound impact. Taleb (2007
and 2012) argues that traditional models often fail to account for such extreme events and their
consequences. He emphasizes that uncertainties are not always quantifiable or predictable through
standard statistical models, especially when dealing with complex systems and nonlinear dynamics.
2.3.5 Agile project management

Agility is the ability of an organization or a project to swiftly adapt, respond, and improve in rapidly
changing and uncertain environments. It's characterized by flexibility, quick decision-making, iterative
approaches, and a capacity to embrace change and uncertainty as opportunities for improvement (Tomov,
2019).
The Agile project management approach was formalized and introduced through the agile manifesto (Beck
et al., 2001), which was created by a group of software developers and project managers in 2001. This
management approach introduced a novel way of dealing with uncertainties through its iterative cycles,
continuous communication, and the ability to quickly respond to changes. This approach promotes a more
dynamic and collaborative project environment, enabling teams to better navigate uncertainties, adapt to
unforeseen challenges, and ultimately deliver a product that better aligns with stakeholder needs.
Through a series of case studies, Straçusser (2015) argued that applying agile principles provides beneficial
results and outcomes in construction projects and not only in software development projects.
2.4 Introduction to Antifragility

2.4.1 The inception of the concept
Antifragile principles are derived from the concept of "antifragility," which was introduced by Nassim
Nicholas Taleb in his book "Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder." (Taleb, 2012). Nassim Nicholas
Taleb is a Lebanese-American scholar, philosopher, and author known for his work in probability theory,
risk management, and decision-making under uncertainty. He is best known for his books "Fooled by
Randomness," (Taleb, 2001) "The Black Swan," (Taleb, 2007) "Antifragile," (Taleb, 2012) and "Skin In the
Game" (Taleb, 2018), in which he discusses topics related to randomness, uncertainty, and the impact of
rare and unpredictable events (Black Swans) on various aspects of life, economics, and finance. Antifragility
is the opposite of fragility and refers to systems or entities that not only withstand shocks and volatility but
12
benefit from them, becoming stronger, more resilient, and adaptable amidst uncertainty and stress (Taleb,
2012). Although there are overlying main principles, there is a broader range of theories and ideas
supporting and surrounding the concept of antifragility.
Antifragility is the capacity of a system to not only withstand shocks and disturbances but to improve and
grow stronger because of such challenges. Antifragile systems benefit from volatility and unpredictability,
using them as opportunities for adaptation and enhancement (Taleb, 2012). In the context of construction
projects, an antifragile project management approach embraces uncertainties and disruptions as learning
experiences. It aims to capitalize on unexpected events to improve project performance, enhance
resilience, and create a more adaptive and thriving project ecosystem. It encourages a more organic and
evolutionary approach to managing organizations and projects.
2.4.2 Literature on Antifragility

After the publishing of the books “The Black Swan” (Taleb, 2007 and especially “Antifragility: things that
gain from disorder” (Taleb, 2012), the concept of antifragility has been explored across several domains.
While the idea has gained popularity and recognition, it has not yet become a formalized theory in the
traditional scientific sense. Some of the domains where the concept of antifragility has been studied and
applied are briefly discussed below.
2.4.3 Finance and Economics

N. N. Taleb, a former options trader, originally applied the concept of antifragility to financial markets and
economic systems. The idea is that some systems and investments benefit from volatility and uncertainty
(Taleb, 2012).
Taleb earlier introduced the idea of black swans (Taleb, 2007). A black swan event refers to an
unpredictable and rare occurrence that has a significant impact. The relationship between antifragility and
black swans lies in the acknowledgement that black swan events are inherently unpredictable, and
traditional approaches to risk management may not be sufficient. Antifragility suggests that certain systems
when designed to embrace volatility and uncertainty, can not only survive black swan events but capitalize
on them.
2.4.4 Computer science

A majority of existing publications on the subject of antifragility are situated within the domain of computer
science. The exploration of antifragility within this field specifically focuses on system design, software
development, and network resilience. Within this context, antifragility is frequently linked to the intricate
design and operation of systems and software that exhibit the capacity to not only withstand but improve
amidst uncertainty, disruptions, and evolving conditions (De Florio, 2014; Eckert, 2017; Monperus, 2014;
O'Reilly, 2019; Russo & Ciancarini, 2016; Tomov, 2019; Tomov, 2022).
2.4.5 Risk Management

Aven (2014) proposed to broaden probability-based risk perspectives by integrating ideas from the quality
discourse and organizational learning, specifically incorporating the principles of collective mindfulness
such as preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify, sensitivity to operations, commitment to
resilience, and deference to expertise. This extension to antifragility emphasizes a shift from merely
managing risk to embracing uncertainty and leveraging unforeseen events.
13
2.4.6 Other domains

Some discussions have taken place regarding antifragility in healthcare systems, emphasizing the need for
flexibility and adaptivity to respond effectively to unexpected events, such as pandemics (Tokalic et al.,
2021). The concept has further been applied to biological systems and ecosystems, exploring how certain
organisms and ecological systems can benefit from disturbances (Hyobin et al., 2020).
2.4.7 Concept mapping of common and central themes

Based on the review of the available literature it is concluded that there is no clear definition of
antifragility. However, common themes and central ideas from the available literature on antifragility and
its application in project management have been extracted by concept mapping. Concept maps can serve
as a valuable tool for pinpointing fundamental concepts within a document collection or research domain
(Booth et al., 2012). As suggested by Rowley and Slack (2004) and Alias and Suradi (2008), concept maps
not only assist in identifying additional search terms during literature searches but also contribute to the
clarification of the review's structure before the writing phase. Furthermore, they facilitate a deeper
understanding of theories, concepts, and the intricate relationships between them (Booth et al., 2012). The
essential concepts have been visually arranged, and their relationships and interconnections mapped to
offer an overview of the dominant themes in the literature.
Embrace uncertainty Continuous learning
Cultural shift
Growth from towards Antifragility Organizational
Innovation and
challenges Culture
experimentation
Feedback loops
Flexibility and
Learning
adaptability
organisation
Knowledge sharing
Resilient processes
Antifragility in Redundancy and
Organisational Infrastructure back-up plans
memory projects
Iterative
Ethical and improvement
Consider long term
impact responsible decision
making
Iterative
Agile Project
development
Management
Decentralized
Rapid response to
decision making
Leadership and change
empowerment
Distributed Adaptive planning
leadership
Risk management
Robust contingency
plans
Monitoring and
evaluation
Figure 2.2 Concept mapping of common and central themes
14
Source: Extracted from Aven (2014, 2017), Botjes (2020), De Florio (2014), Eckert (2017), Monperus (2014),
O'Reilly (2019), Russo and Ciancarini (2016), Taleb (2007, 2012), Tolk (2013) and Tomov (2019, 2022).
2.5 The “Triad”

Taleb (2012) articulates his ideas through the framework of the "Triad". After reviewing Taleb's work and
subsequent studies expanding on his concepts, it becomes evident that exploring the domain of major
infrastructure projects through the lens of the "Triad" may help to gain a comprehensive understanding of
antifragility. With the “Triad”, Taleb categorizes things into three distinct concepts: fragile, robust, and
antifragile. Within the context of project management, a fourth concept is added, which is agility. Agility is
closely related to antifragility (Tomov, 2019). While agility focuses on responding to change and
uncertainty, antifragility takes this a step further. Antifragility isn't just about withstanding shocks; it's
about benefiting from them.
The graph in Figure 2.3 has been prepared to visually represent how each concept or system responds to
stressors in terms of performance. This graphical representation illustrates the dynamic relationship
between stress levels (caused by time, uncertainty, and volatility) and the performance of four distinct
project systems: fragile, robust, agile, and antifragile. Plotted along the x-axis represents the intensity of
stressors, capturing the varying degrees of challenges the systems encounter. The y-axis depicts the
corresponding performance outcome or value of each system, providing a visual narrative of how they
respond to and evolve with increasing stressors.
Fragile systems exhibit vulnerability and decline, robust systems maintain stability up to a limit, agile
systems show dynamic adaptation and antifragile systems capitalize on stressors for continuous
improvement, resulting in a convex performance curve. This behaviour is described in more detail in the
paragraphs below.
Performance - value
Fragile
Robust
Agile, Iterative, Adaptive
Antifragile
Stress
(time - uncertainty - volatity)
Figure 2.3 Performance of Fragile, Robust, Agile and Antifragile systems at increasing stress
Source: Adapted from Taleb (2012), Taleb and Douady (2015), Tomov (2019) and Botjes (2020)
15
2.5.2 Fragile systems

Fragile systems exhibit a concave-shaped function, as can be seen in Figure 2.3. This means that as
stressors increase, the performance experiences a disproportionate decline (Taleb & Douady, 2015). Fragile
systems are vulnerable to external pressures, and even minor stressors can lead to significant performance
deterioration (Taleb, 2012). The concave curve signifies the system's inability to withstand and recover
from stressors effectively.
Traditionally there has been a prevailing assumption that even the most complex systems can be
comprehensively understood by breaking them down into elemental components. The idea was that by
gaining a thorough understanding of these elements, one can predict and control the behaviour of the
entire system, viewing it as the sum of its parts. In 1984 a group of scientists proposed however that the
essence of a complex system is more than the sum of its parts but is determined by the interaction
between the components and their environment (Jones, 2014).
Figure 2.4 Behaviour of a fragile system
The concept of fragility is illustrated through the analogy of a growing tree. The young tree is reinforced
with stakes to offer support and stability in its initial growth phases. Relying on these stakes prevents the
stress from storms from triggering premature growth, ultimately fortifying the trunk. However, in an
exceptionally severe storm, the trunk may be at risk of breaking as it missed the incentive to strengthen
itself through stress-induced growth.
Translating the concept of fragility (Taleb, 2012) to the context of project management, it is argued that an
excess of control measures can lead to fragile project performance. This phenomenon is aligned with the
idea that too much control or rigidity in a complex system can make it more vulnerable to disruptions and
less adaptable (Dahlberg, 2015). Such an organisation or project system may operate optimally in stable
and predictable environments with few stressors, where conditions are known and controlled. However, its
limitations become apparent when confronted with unexpected challenges or stressors.
Taleb (2012) argues that as stressors increase, the fragile system's performance deteriorates at an
accelerating rate. It's not a linear relationship; instead, the impact becomes more severe as stressors
intensify. The shape of the curve in Figure 2.3 representing the fragile system is concave, a downward-
pointing curve. In a fragile project organization, the concave nature of its response to increasing stress and
uncertainty implies that the negative impact on the system is disproportionate to the magnitude of the
stressors. Concavity means that the system is more negatively impacted by disturbances than positively
influenced by favourable conditions. The concave nature of fragility further suggests that the consequences
of stress are not merely additive. Instead, they can have an exponential or compounding effect on the
project. For example, a small delay or cost overrun, if not managed properly, might escalate into a more
significant problem, leading to project disruptions, financial losses, and potential failure. Small stressors
might have a manageable impact, but as they accumulate or intensify, the negative effects become more
pronounced. With increasing stress, fragile systems may have a threshold beyond which they may reach a
16
breaking point. The concavity implies that once a certain level of stress is surpassed, the system's ability to
function effectively starts to decline rapidly. This can lead to failures, disruptions, and cascading problems.
Applying and summarizing the concept of fragility as part of Taleb’s “Triad” to the management of major
infrastructure projects yields the following insights:
- Excessive control measures may lead to over-optimization of processes. When every aspect of an
infrastructure project is tightly controlled and optimized for efficiency, the system may become
more vulnerable to unexpected changes or disruptions that were not considered during the
optimization process.
- An excess of control measures can make decision-making processes rigid and slow. If the project
faces unforeseen challenges or needs to adapt to changing conditions, a rigid decision-making
structure can impede quick responses, making the project more susceptible to negative impacts.
- Control measures are often designed to eliminate or minimize uncertainty. However, in a VUCA
environment, it's impossible to eliminate all uncertainties (Hutchins, 2018). An excess of control
may create a false sense of security, leaving the project unprepared for unforeseen events.
- Too much control can create resistance to change within the project team. If the team is
accustomed to strict guidelines and procedures, they may find it challenging to adapt when
unexpected situations arise. This resistance to change can lead to delays and inefficiencies.
- Overly controlled systems may tend to concentrate decision-making or critical functions in a few
key areas. This creates single points of failure, meaning that if something goes wrong in those key
areas, the entire project can be severely impacted (De Florio, 2014).
- Control measures sometimes overlook the importance of redundancy—the presence of backup
systems or processes. Fragile projects lack redundancy, and if a controlled process fails or deviates
from the plan, there might not be alternative measures in place to mitigate the impact.
- Strict control measures may lead to unintended consequences. For example, a rule or process
designed to minimize one type of risk might inadvertently amplify another type of risk or create
new risks that were not initially considered.
- Excessive control can lead to inefficient resource allocation. Resources might be tied up in rigid
structures that don't allow for flexibility in responding to emerging needs or opportunities.
2.5.3 Robust systems

The robust system is represented by a linear function as can be seen in Figure 2.3. In this case, performance
remains relatively stable across a range of stressor intensities. Robust systems are designed to absorb
shocks without significant deviations in performance. However, beyond a certain stress threshold, the
linear function might begin to exhibit declines, indicating that there is a limit to the system's resilience.
Figure 2.5 Behaviour of a robust system

Expanding on the analogy of the growing tree, in a robust system, the stakes are upgraded to stronger
supports, enhancing overall stability, and enabling the tree to withstand even exceptionally heavy storms.
17
Taleb (2012) explains that a robust system aims to maintain consistent and reliable performance even
when subjected to increasing stressors or uncertainties. This resilience is a key characteristic that sets it
apart from fragile systems, as robust systems are less prone to breaking down under adverse conditions.
This robustness is ingrained in the system through the incorporation of safety margins, redundancies, and
fail-safes, all carefully planned to handle unexpected events and disturbances. Robust systems, with their
emphasis on resistance and resilience, can effectively absorb shocks and disturbances to a considerable
extent. They are engineered to be resilient amidst uncertainties, demonstrating a capacity to navigate
through challenges. However, it should be acknowledged that even robust systems have their limits. If the
stress surpasses the system's designed capacity, there might be a sudden decline in performance. This
could manifest as delays, operational inefficiencies, or a reduction in the overall quality of outputs.
Applying the concept of robustness as part of Taleb’s “Triad” to the management of major infrastructure
projects yields the following insights:
- To cultivate organizational robustness, an organisation must strengthen itself against various
stressors and uncertainties. Robustness involves careful planning and the incorporation of safety
margins to withstand difficulties in a VUCA environment.
- Safety margins may act as buffers, allowing the organization to absorb unexpected shocks without
catastrophic consequences. Redundancies involve duplicating critical functions or resources,
ensuring that if one component fails, a backup is readily available (Aven, 2017).
2.5.4 Agile systems

An agile system is characterized by an iterating function as shown in Figure 2.3. As stressors increase, the
performance may exhibit fluctuations but tends to recover quickly. Agile systems embrace change and
adapt dynamically to stressors, allowing for iterative improvements (Aven, 2014). The iterating curve
reflects the system's capacity to iterate through challenges and continually enhance performance through
adaptive responses.
Figure 2.6 Behaviour of an agile system

Revisiting the analogy of the growing tree, within an agile approach, the supporting stakes for the tree are
continually replaced with stronger alternatives as the stress from storms intensifies.
The performance of an agile project organization facing increasing stress and uncertainty is marked by its
adaptivity, learning capacity, and iterative approach. Agile systems emphasize adaptability and flexibility,
responding promptly to change and adjusting to new circumstances (Beck et al., 2001). While the specifics
of concavity or convexity are not explicitly defined, the agile approach enables rapid adaptation to both
positive and negative changes (Tomov, 2019).
Agile methodologies operate on a fundamental principle of iteration, considering stress and uncertainty not
as hindrances but as avenues for improvement. The short feedback loops inherent in agile projects enable
ongoing assessment and rapid adjustments. This immediate feedback becomes particularly valuable in
times of heightened stress, allowing teams to swiftly adapt based on real-time information received during
each iteration (Eckert, 2017). The adaptivity of agile is further emphasized through its openness to change.
18
The iterative nature ensures that agile project organizations can seamlessly incorporate adjustments in
response to unexpected challenges, maintaining project momentum without significant disruptions
(Straçusser, 2015).
2.5.5 Antifragile systems

An antifragile management system is represented in Figure 2.3 by a convex-shaped function. Unlike fragile
and robust systems, antifragile systems benefit from stressors. As the intensity of stressors rises, the
performance experiences a convex increase. Antifragile systems not only withstand adversity but actively
use it as a catalyst for improvement and growth. The convex curve symbolizes the system's ability to thrive
and excel while stressors increase.
According to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's concept of antifragility (Taleb, 2012), a system that is antifragile may
not perform optimally in an environment without or with few stressors. The fundamental idea of
antifragility is that systems benefit from stress, volatility, and uncertainty. In the absence of stressors, an
antifragile system might not experience the challenges that trigger its improvement mechanisms.
Antifragile systems not only withstand volatility but actively benefit from it, displaying a unique
characteristic of convexity. This means that they increasingly gain strength, resilience, and adaptivity
through exposure to stressors and uncertainties. Antifragile organisations or projects are specifically
designed to thrive in conditions of disorder and uncertainty, becoming more robust and resilient through
adversity (Bangui et al., 2022).
Figure 2.7 Behaviour of an antifragile system

In the analogy of the growing tree, within an antifragile approach, no external support stakes are provided.
During normal intensity storms, the trunk experiences stress. Yet, if the tree endures, it triggers growth,
fortifying the trunk. This resilient tree is better equipped to withstand exceptionally heavy storms.
In contrast to systems that seek stability, antifragile systems embrace randomness, uncertainty, and
variability as opportunities for improvement. This distinctive feature sets them apart by allowing them to
not just survive in chaotic environments but to use such conditions as a catalyst for growth and
enhancement (Alhir & Gould, 2015; Aven, 2014; Eckert, 2017; Jones, 2014; Monperus, 2014).
2.5.6 Outcome probability of each system

The graphs below, based on Taleb's work (2012), show these functions in terms of outcome probability. On
the graphs, the horizontal axis represents the different outcomes, and the vertical axis represents the
chances of these outcomes occurring. The fragile function is asymmetric, with a higher chance of
unfavourable outcomes on the left side, making the left tail thicker than the right side tail. This means
there's a greater likelihood of negative results.
Conversely, the robust system is represented by a symmetrical distribution, indicating roughly equal
chances of small positive and negative outcomes. The antifragile function is unique, with a significant
likelihood of positive results and a lower probability of significant negative results. Its right side of the
19
graph, where favourable outcomes are, is larger than the left side, where unfavourable outcomes are. In
simpler terms, the antifragile system is more likely to yield positive results and less likely to produce
negative ones.
Figure 2.8 Outcome probability of Fragile, Robust, and Antifragile systems

Source: Taleb (2012), page 587.
The graph suggests that project managers should aim to adopt an antifragile approach. By doing so, they
can strategically position their projects to be more responsive to uncertainties, disruptions, and changes
and consequently increase the probability of a positive project outcome.
2.6 Achieving organizational change

Integrating antifragile principles into major infrastructure projects requires a change process of the
organizations involved in the project. The focus is on the project organization because this acts as the focal
point where external environmental factors (EEFs) and organizational process assets (OPAs) intersect and
significantly influence project outcomes (Project Management Institute, 2017). Infrastructure projects
operate within intricate environments with various stakeholders, regulations, and uncertainties. The
organization serves as the epicentre where these external influences and internal capabilities converge.
Kotter (1995) developed an 8-step model with an emphasis on promoting a holistic approach towards the
change process of organizations. Important steps within this model are to create a vision (step 3) and to
communicate that vision (step 4). Creating a vision involves developing a clear and compelling image for
the desired change. In the context of integrating antifragile principles, this step requires a definition of
what it means for the organization to become antifragile. Articulating and communicating the vision
requires a suitable communication channel that resonates with the various stakeholders and addresses the
relevant aspects of antifragility. For this reason, an antifragile manifesto is proposed.
2.7 The Antifragile Manifesto

A manifesto serves as an affirmation of principles specific to a particular domain Russo Ciancarini (2016). A
unified and concise statement of the principles guiding the project organization will be provided in the form
of an antifragile manifesto to inform engineering professionals about an alternative management practice
for implementation in their organizations. The essence here resembles that of the agile manifesto (Beck et
al., 2001), intending to benefit the project management community.
The antifragile principles proposed by Taleb (2012) deal with a broad range of subjects and while specific
principles might be well suited to the sectors in which they are initially proposed, not all principles might
20
apply to the construction industry. In the domain of infrastructure projects, the manifesto aims to redefine
the approach towards uncertainty, stressors, optionality, decision-making, failure, adaptivity, agility, and
asymmetry. Inspiration is drawn from the domain of computer science, software development and
medicine, but with a broader, non-IT focus.
The following paragraphs lay out specific statements within the suggested antifragile manifesto. In total,
there are 8 statements highlighted in separate boxes below (S1 to S8). For a quick overview, a summary of
these statements is added in Appendix A.
2.7.1 Approach towards uncertainty and volatility

Avoiding or minimizing uncertainty and volatility in construction projects may initially offer advantages that
contribute to project success. This can result however in rigid planning, avoiding any potential risks or
changes, and seeking predictability at all costs. However, by avoiding volatility, the project may miss out on
opportunities for improvement and fail to adapt to changing circumstances effectively (Monperus, 2014).
In an antifragile approach towards uncertainty and volatility, the organizations within the project recognize
that unexpected events will occur. Such organizations may prepare themselves to adapt and capitalize on
these situations, using them to their advantage and becoming stronger in the process.
S1: Embrace uncertainty and volatility, do not attempt to eliminate, or avoid these.
2.7.2 Exposure to Manageable Risk

Organizations that are not exposed to stressors may become fragile in the long term. Fragile project
organizations may not have contingency plans in place, leading to severe setbacks or even failure when
faced with unexpected challenges.
Antifragile construction projects intentionally expose themselves to controlled stressors and challenges. By
subjecting themselves to manageable risks, they learn to navigate difficult situations and build resilience.
This approach may help them develop better strategies to handle unforeseen disruptions and strengthen
their ability to recover from setbacks. It is well-known that managing risks isn't just about avoiding
problems. It is also about discovering and making the most of opportunities. This holds true at every stage
of a project, from detailed design and construction to the value management/value engineering process,
which ensures that seizing opportunities is prioritized (Institute of Risk Management, 2013).
S2: Allow intentional exposure to manageable risk.
2.7.3 Redundancy and optionality

By making irreversible decisions early in the project without considering alternatives, projects lock into a
single path. This limits their ability to adapt to changing conditions or capitalize on new opportunities,
potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes.
Antifragile construction projects keep multiple options open throughout the project lifecycle. They avoid
making rigid and irreversible decisions early on and instead preserve flexibility. Maintaining optionality
allows them to adjust their course of action as new information becomes available, leading to more optimal
outcomes.
S3: Build in redundancy and maintain optionality.
21
2.7.4 Centralized decision-making

Concentrating decision-making authority in the hands of a few individuals or a central authority can lead to
slow response times, missed opportunities, and a lack of consideration for on-site expertise and knowledge.
Antifragile construction projects distribute decision-making authority among various project team
members. By empowering individuals closest to the issues to make decisions, the project becomes more
responsive to on-site challenges and can capitalize on local expertise and knowledge.
S4: The project organization is characterized by decentralized decision-making.
2.7.5 Learning from Failure

By disregarding failures and mistakes, failing to analyse their root causes, and not implementing corrective
actions, construction projects miss valuable learning opportunities and may repeat the same errors,
hindering improvement and progress. Antifragile projects establish short feedback loops, facilitating
constant evaluation and adjustment.
The antifragile organization view failures and mistakes as opportunities for improvement. They conduct
thorough analyses of failures to identify root causes and implement corrective actions to prevent similar
issues in the future. This learning mindset promotes a culture of continuous improvement.
S5: The project team adopts a learning mindset and treats failures as valuable opportunities for
improvement.
2.7.6 Adaptivity and Agility

By sticking rigidly to initial project plans and resisting any deviations or adjustments, projects may struggle
to respond effectively to changing conditions, which can result in delays, cost overruns, and missed
opportunities.
Antifragile construction projects prioritize adaptivity and agility. They develop flexible project plans that can
respond to changing conditions and adjust their strategies in real time. This allows them to exploit positive
developments and mitigate negative impacts swiftly.
S6: Embrace agile management methodologies.
2.7.7 Asymmetry
In construction projects, risks and opportunities often exhibit asymmetric characteristics. Antifragile project
management acknowledges this and seeks to capitalize on favourable outcomes while managing downside
risks. Project managers should proactively identify potential sources of upside and exploit them to enhance
project performance. At the same time, they should implement risk mitigation measures to minimize the
potential negative impacts of uncertain events.
S7: Identify and capitalize on favourable asymmetries in the project.
2.7.8 Simple rules

Antifragile project organizations adhere to simple rules because simplicity enhances adaptivity and
resilience amidst uncertainty and complexity. Simple rules provide clarity and ease of understanding,
22
allowing teams to make quick decisions and respond effectively to dynamic situations. In antifragile
systems, simplicity acts as a guiding principle, promoting flexibility and facilitating rapid adjustments.
S8: Adhere to simple, clear rules and avoid unnecessary complexity.
23
3 Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
While preparing a summary of the available literature on antifragility it was concluded that there is limited
existing knowledge about or experience with the application of antifragile principles in the domain of the
built environment. This could be explained by the fact that the concept of Antifragility is relatively new, and
that the construction industry is generally accepted as risk-averse when it comes to new methods (Khudzari
et al., 2021).
Yin (2017) suggests that in such cases when the understanding of a phenomenon or concept is not well-
developed exploratory research is particularly valuable. Exploratory research according to Yin (2017) is
characterized by its open-ended, qualitative, and flexible nature. It is used to uncover new insights,
generate hypotheses, and develop an initial understanding when existing knowledge is limited. The
research into the feasibility of applying antifragile principles will therefore be exploratory and will be a
combination of the literature review, validated through mixed method research, combining a multiple-case
study and surveys and the analysis of the obtained data. Mixed methods research involves collecting
quantitative and qualitative data and combining or integrating the data to yield insights or inferences from
the combined data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
3.2 Triangulation
Triangulation involves employing two or more data collection methods. This multi-method approach
enhances the robustness of a study. Triangulation proves especially useful in establishing concurrent
validity, particularly for qualitative research (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
Maxwell (2013) suggests integrating multiple theoretical perspectives rather than applying them
separately. This integration involves looking for connections, overlaps, or contradictions between theories.
By doing so, researchers can develop a more nuanced and robust interpretation of their data.
In the context of this dissertation, theory triangulation is proposed as a model for the research
methodology, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of the research aim and objectives.
Figure 3.1 Model of research design
24
3.3 Multiple case studies - Linking to real-world situations

3.3.1 Relevance
Multiple-case studies are often used in exploratory research when researchers aim to gain an
understanding of a phenomenon from different perspectives (Yin, 2017). Through a comparative qualitative
analysis of cases, this study aims to address the applicability of antifragile principles in real-world situations.
Additionally, these cases are considered to be relevant for identifying recurring patterns and themes
related to antifragile principles and assessing their potential correlation with project outcome.
It is unlikely that antifragile principles will have been consciously applied in the projects that will be
included in the multiple-case study. However, by analysis of the case study projects, the research will study
how the project organization managed the VUCA reality and if this involved antifragile principles. In this
context, conducting the multiple-case study may allow the identification of commonalities with antifragile
principles, and comparable aspects across different cases. A link will be sought with the approach towards
uncertainties and risk and the performance of the project although it is acknowledged that such a link may
be ambiguous.
3.3.2 Data collection

The aim will be to undertake an in-depth assessment of four projects, extracting secondary data from
various sources, including official reports, academic papers, government reports, environmental impact
assessments, industry publications, stakeholder engagement documents, and technical reports.
Additionally, an extensive review of articles from both national and international newspapers, along with
comprehensive internet searches, will be undertaken as a supplementary resource.
The data will first be organized to make it suitable for further qualitative analysis. This will be done by
preparing a descriptive overview of the collected project data from the multiple-case study. For each
project information regarding context, challenges faced, and how the implementation of measures that are
aligned with antifragile practices influenced project outcomes will be organized. Furthermore, basic
statistics will be presented relevant to project scale, project complexity, factors contributing to uncertainty
and volatility, project performance, and application of antifragile principles.
3.3.3 Variables to be investigated

The analysis of project data will aim to gain insights into uncertainties and complexities throughout the
lifetime of the project. The emphasis will be on understanding strategies and decisions made to manage
challenges related to uncertainties and volatility. The assessment will study the alignment or deviation of
project processes and stakeholder organizations from antifragile principles for each case study project. Key
investigation points include project size, duration, uncertainties, complexities, risk factors, and achieving
desired outcomes in time, cost, and stakeholder satisfaction.
3.3.4 Case selection

Following Yin's (2017) recommendations for qualitative research, detailed documentation of case study
procedures, including the establishment of a comprehensive protocol and database, will be undertaken to
ensure transparency and replicability. The chosen cases, although not likely exhaustive in covering all
aspects of antifragility, will be strategically chosen to illustrate relevant aspects related to antifragility.
criteria for case selection include complex, high profile projects with budgets over 100 million euros,
infrastructure construction within the built environment, and completion within the last decade. The
25
available information on the projects requires the ability to offer insights into the complexities and
challenges and potentially provide insight in terms of project management, planning, and risk assessment.
3.4 Surveys - Expert review

3.4.1 Relevance
Surveys, as suggested by Yin (2017), can complement the qualitative exploration of multiple-case studies. In
this context, a survey questionnaire will be distributed to a broader range of professionals. The survey aims
to allow interaction with experts within the domain of infrastructure construction. The survey will be done
through a questionnaire that will be designed to provide quantitative data on the level of acceptance,
familiarity, and potential barriers associated with applying antifragile principles in infrastructure projects.
Additionally, open-ended survey questions will be included to capture qualitative insights, allowing
participants to elaborate on their opinions and experiences related to antifragility.
The survey serves a dual purpose: firstly, to triangulate and validate findings from the literature review and
multiple-case study; and secondly, to assess the feasibility and potential benefits of integrating antifragile
principles into infrastructure construction project management practices and project organizations,
drawing on expert insights.
3.4.2 Sampling
The survey will be conducted among specifically targeted construction professionals such as project
managers, involved in major infrastructure projects. Specific individuals will be selected which are
considered most relevant based on judgment sampling. According to Maxwell (2013), judgment sampling is
a technique that involves selecting participants based on the researcher's judgment. For this survey, an
online form will be used. The survey will be sent along with a personalized message to request participation
and to explain the objective of the survey. By inviting targeted individuals that are involved in the
management of infrastructure projects the study will involve stratification of the sample.
3.4.3 Instrument to collect data

The online survey product Google Forms will be used because it allows easy access for respondents and it
facilitates data collection into organized spreadsheets for data analysis, reducing data entry errors and
accelerating hypothesis testing (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The data will be longitudinal with data
collected over time.
3.4.4 Survey questions

Questions will be developed for this survey having the purpose to verify the applicability as well as the
relevance of the proposed principles, mainly covering the statements of the antifragile manifesto. The
questions will be designed to be as objective as possible, ensuring that they do not lead to predetermined
outcomes. A set of Likert scale questions for quantifiable data and open-ended questions for qualitative
insights will be developed for the survey.
3.4.5 Demographics
Demographic questions will be included in the survey questionnaire to verify the diversity and
representativeness of the sample and alignment with the research aim and objectives. This inclusion
further enhances understanding by enabling the possibility to explore variations across demographic
26
groups. Moreover, demographic data aids in generalizing findings to specific subgroups or populations,
augmenting the study's overall robustness and relevance (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
3.4.6 Familiarity
Familiarity with the topic is considered to be crucial in the survey for several reasons. It allows survey
participants to provide informed and relevant responses. A clear understanding of the subject matter
ensures that respondents can engage meaningfully with the survey questions, facilitating more thoughtful
and considered responses.
Participants' familiarity with antifragility principles will be gauged through a Likert scale in the
questionnaire. Additionally, the survey will offer the option to access supplementary information on
antifragility. In the section addressing the application of antifragile principles, concrete examples will be
provided for each principle, enhancing clarity, and understanding.
3.5 Sample sizes

For both the multiple-case study as well as the survey, the exact size of the population is not determined in
advance. The population will be based on data saturation, where new data no longer yield substantially
new insights or themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
3.6 Data analysis

The qualitative multiple-case study data and quantitative survey data will be analysed against the findings
from the literature review in the analysis phase. The organization of data will involve a systematic and
structured approach, to ensure clarity, accessibility, and reliability throughout the process.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) propose an inductive approach for qualitative research, constructing patterns,
categories, and themes from the ground up by organizing data into progressively more abstract units. This
iterative process involves moving back and forth between themes and the data until a comprehensive set
of themes is established. Subsequently, in a deductive phase, the data from the perspective of these
themes is revisited to assess if additional evidence can further support each theme or if additional
information needs to be collected.
The analysis of the quantitative and qualitative from survey participants is done by forming this information
into themes based on the antifragile manifesto. These themes are compared with personal experiences and
with existing literature on the topic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data reduction involves the process of selecting, simplifying, and summarizing the data collected during the
research. It is a method of condensing and organizing large volumes of qualitative data into manageable
and meaningful units. This process aims to identify patterns, themes, or essential information within the
data set. Techniques such as coding, categorization, and summarization are often employed during data
reduction. The goal is to streamline the data while retaining its core information, making it more
manageable for subsequent analysis and interpretation.
Data display refers to the presentation of condensed or summarized data in a visual or organized format.
Visual representations, such as charts, tables, matrices, or thematic maps, are commonly used to display
qualitative data. The purpose of data display is to provide a clear and accessible overview of the key
findings, themes, or patterns identified through the data reduction process. Well-designed displays
enhance the researcher's ability to interpret and communicate the results effectively. It also allows for a
more systematic examination of the relationships and connections within the data (Guest et al., 2012).
27
3.6.1 Validity
To establish theoretical validity, the study will strive for coherence and alignment with the established
theoretical framework (Maxwell, 1992). The case studies and survey design should contribute to this
coherence, with findings from both methods supporting the central theoretical framework. Any
discrepancies between observed patterns in the case studies and sentiments in the survey will be carefully
addressed to maintain theoretical validity. Recommendations and conclusions should consistently align
with the theoretical framework, ensuring that the proposed antifragile manifesto resonates with both
empirical observations and the initial conceptual framework.
3.7 Ethical Considerations

The research will adhere to ethical guidelines for data collection, storage, and usage as proposed by the
National Academy of Engineering (2009).
The evaluation of projects in the multiple-case study will be organized in a manner that avoids causing
harm to projects or project stakeholders. In this context, it will be ensured that the assessment does not
disproportionately emphasize negative aspects that could harm a project's reputation.
Survey participants will be ensured confidentiality and informed consent, and they will be made aware of
the research's purpose and how the data will be managed through the email invitation. Formal approval
will be sought at the survey's commencement by explicitly asking, "Do you want to participate in this
study?" If the response is "No," the survey will close, and this choice will be duly recorded. No personal
details will be gathered from participants, ensuring the preservation of their anonymity throughout the
study
3.7.1 Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research, the researcher serves as the primary data collection instrument, highlighting the
need to identify personal values, assumptions, and biases at the study's commencement. The researcher's
involvement in the research setting can be constructive and beneficial rather than harmful (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Locke et al., 2013).
Any preconceived notions or biases about the effectiveness of antifragile principles will be set aside to
maintain the integrity of the research. Bias will be minimized through self-awareness and the conscious
monitoring and addressing of any potential bias that might affect the analysis or interpretation of data. This
will be achieved by triangulating data from the multiple-case study and survey, as well as by incorporating
insights from experts and existing literature.
3.7.2 Impact of the research

The research will focus on exploring how the application of antifragile principles could positively impact
construction projects and management practices.
3.7.3 Ethical approval

Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Salford. Ethical approval is a crucial step in
ensuring that research is conducted responsibly and with consideration for the well-being of participants.
The review process aimed to identify and address any ethical issues that may arise during the course of the
research.
28
4 Case studies
The case studies provided in this section have been prepared utilizing secondary data in the form of publicly
accessible literature. While they may not comprehensively cover all aspects of antifragility, their design is
intentional, focusing on relevant aspects to serve illustrative purposes.
4.1 Case study 1: Highway A15 MaVA (The Netherlands)

4.1.1 Project description
The MaVa A15 project, a major endeavour by Rijkswaterstaat in the Netherlands, aimed at widening and
renovating the A15 and N15 highways between the Maasvlakte and the Vaanplein interchange near
Rotterdam. This ambitious project, initiated in 2008 and valued at 1.496 billion euros, included the
construction of two tunnels, 36 viaducts, a sophisticated traffic management system, and maintenance
activities until 2035 (European Investment Bank, 2009). Notably, the project featured the construction of
the largest lifting bridge in Europe, the Botlekbrug. However, the venture encountered substantial
challenges, leading to a cost overrun of nearly a quarter billion euros and financial strain on major
construction firms involved (Houtekamer, 2015).
The complexities arose from factors such as tight deadlines, unforeseen risks in the Botlekbrug design, and
disagreements over responsibilities between Rijkswaterstaat and the construction consortium A-Lanes. The
project, though successful in terms of infrastructure, became a subject of scrutiny and debate due to its
financial and managerial intricacies (Neerlands diep, 2016).
4.1.2 Approach towards uncertainty and risk

The project was executed under a DBFM (Design, Build, Finance, and Maintain) contract. This arrangement
meant that, in addition to design and construction, the contracting party, consortium "A-Lanes," also
shouldered responsibility for finance and maintenance (European Investment Bank, 2009). Consequently,
A-Lanes deliberately and contractually faced the risks and uncertainties linked to the quality of the works in
the long term. This exposure compelled the consortium to operate with intrinsic motivation, driving them
to design and construct solutions that are resilient and antifragile, capable of withstanding potential events
throughout the intended design life. In summary, the inherent uncertainties and risks pushed the
contracting party to deliver a solution characterized by robustness and resilience.
4.1.3 Exposure to manageable risk

The recognition that perceptions of manageable risk exposure can vary among stakeholders is exemplified
in the decision-making process regarding the design of the double Botlek lifting bridge in this project. The
consortium initially proposed an unconventional use of non-reinforced concrete for the bridge, meeting
contractual requirements but instigating apprehension among external stakeholders, including the
municipality of Rotterdam and the Port Authority. Their concern stemmed from the potential catastrophic
consequences, both economically and operationally, if the bridge's foundation were to fail, leading to
accessibility issues in the Maashavens. Faced with these reservations, the project eventually opted for
reinforced concrete, incurring a five-month delay (Koenen, 2015).
29
4.1.4 Decentralization
The breakdown of the works in the A15 Mava project into distinct elements such as bridges and tunnels
(Neerlands diep, 2016), allowing construction in smaller and manageable segments, aligns with the
antifragile principle of decentralization. Decentralization, in the context of antifragility, involves distributing
tasks and responsibilities across various components rather than centralizing them (Taleb, 2012). In the
case of the A15 Mava project, this decentralized approach to construction means that each bridge and
tunnel segment operates somewhat independently. If errors or challenges arise in one segment, they are
confined to that specific element, minimizing the impact on the overall project

The A15 MaVa project demonstrated adaptivity and agility by making adjustments during its course. For
instance, the initial DBFM model, emphasizing placing responsibilities with the market, was later adapted
to a more collaborative model, highlighting the need for flexibility and redundancy in project management
strategies (Neerlands diep, 2016). The ability of the project to adapt and switch strategies mid-course
reflects the principle of agility. Recognizing that the initial approach might not be optimal, the project
opted for a more cooperative strategy, showing the importance of keeping options open and adapting to
changing circumstances.
4.1.6 Learning from failure

The project's ability to learn from its experiences, such as recognizing issues with the initial stakeholder
management strategy and making adjustments (Neerlands diep, 2016), aligns with the antifragile principle
of learning from mistakes. Adapting and improving based on past errors contribute to the project's
resilience. The evolution from a rigid approach to a more adaptable one indicates a certain antifragility in
decision-making. The project team learned from experiences and adjusted its strategies accordingly,
showcasing an antifragile approach by becoming stronger through challenges and uncertainties.
30
4.2 Case study 2: Mersey Gateway Bridge (United Kingdom)

The Mersey Gateway bridge project involves the construction of a cable-stayed bridge with three towers
spanning the expansive mud flats of the Mersey River between Runcorn and Widnes near Liverpool. The
bridge, including approach viaducts, is 2.3km long, with a 1km river span, and features an 80m-high central
tower along with two outer towers reaching 110m and 125m. The main bridge deck is being constructed
using innovative methods, including the use of movable form travellers. The project's strategic planning,
collaboration with stakeholders, adaptability to challenges, engagement with the local community, and
commitment to environmental considerations contribute to its success. The construction process involves
precision in building the pylons, deploying a Movable Scaffold System (MSS), and utilizing wing travellers
for the viaduct construction (New Civil Engineer, 2015; New Civil Engineer, 2017; World Highways, 2016).
The project, with a construction cost of approximately £600 million, faced challenges in aligning with the
Local Transport Plan Major Scheme Programme, leading to tolling as funding solution.
4.2.2 Optionality
The Mersey Gateway Project strategically applied the antifragile principle of "Optionality" in its tolling
system, emphasizing adaptivity to uncertainty. The use of toll revenue as the primary funding mechanism
provided financial flexibility by directly involving users and reducing reliance on a single funding source,
enhancing resilience to economic changes. The project's ability to share additional revenue with the
contracting consortium in case of higher-than-anticipated usage (UK Parliament, 2015) showcased an
opportunity-seizing mechanism aligned with the antifragile principle. Furthermore, the adoption of Open
Road Tolling introduced uncertainty in revenue enforcement, but strategic measures, such as transferring
revenue collection risk to the private sector and employing a flexible procurement approach, demonstrated
a commitment to leveraging optionality in addressing challenges and optimizing the project's financial
structure. The combination of various financing sources added to the project's adaptivity, showcasing a
holistic application of the optionality principle in navigating uncertainties and ensuring successful tolling
system implementation.
The decentralization of the Mersey Gateway Project to the local council, Halton Borough Council, provided
several advantages. It ensured local accountability and decision-making, allowing the project to align
closely with community interests and enabling quicker responses to local issues (UK Parliament, 2015). The
engagement of local stakeholders encourages community support and ownership, contributing to
smoother implementation. With an understanding of the local context, the council could tailor the project
to meet specific regional needs and seamlessly integrate it into the existing infrastructure. Additionally,
decentralization facilitated effective public-private partnerships, enhanced communication with local
stakeholders, and ensured alignment with broader local development plans, ultimately empowering the
local authority for more adaptive and successful project management.
31
4.3 Case study 3: Diamar-Basha Dam project (Pakistan)

The Diamar-Basha Dam project is a major multi-purpose storage dam planned for construction on the Indus
River in Pakistan. Envisioned in 2001 as part of the Water and Power Development Authority's Water Vision
2025 program, the dam aims to provide water storage, extend the life of the Tarbela Dam, and generate
hydropower. The proposed roller-compacted concrete gravity dam, with a maximum height of 272 meters,
is located about 315 km upstream of Tarbela Dam (WAPDA, 2020). The project, facing significant delays and
controversies, has encountered challenges related to resettlement, land compensation, territorial disputes,
and ecological concerns. Despite these issues, the dam holds potential for economic development and
increased energy production in Pakistan. The estimated cost of the project is US$14 billion, and its
implementation is divided into three phases spanning from 2001 to 2025 and beyond (Mirza & Mahmoud,
2023).
4.3.2 Exposure to manageable risk:

The Diamer-Basha Dam project confronts a range of significant risks that encompass social, economic, and
environmental dimensions. Resettlement challenges pose a genuine issue, with concerns about increased
land litigation, rising poverty, and landlessness due to the acquisition of substantial agricultural land. Land
compensation problems, marked by local resistance and even fatal incidents, further complicate the
project. Disputes over territory and boundaries between provinces, particularly Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and
Gilgit Baltistan, contribute to ongoing conflicts. The ecological impact is another critical risk, given the
seismic zone, fault lines, and potential disruptions to the natural flow of water, which could harm aquatic
life (Azam et al., 2020).
Whether these risks are manageable relies on effective stakeholder engagement, fair compensation
resolutions, and ecological considerations in project planning. If the risks prove insurmountable, it
contradicts antifragile principles, as an antifragile system should not only withstand challenges but also
thrive and improve amidst uncertainties. The ability to adapt and enhance resilience in the presence of
these risks is essential for the project to align with antifragile principles.
4.3.3 Centralized decentralizing decision-making

Decision-making in the project appears to be centralized, involving the national government, the Water and
Power Development Authority (WAPDA), and other central bodies. This centralized decision-making
structure, and the disproportionate distribution of costs and benefits contradicts to antifragile principles.
Antifragility advocates for decentralized adaptable systems that thrive on the diversity of inputs and
responses. In this case, the decision-making process is concentrated at the national level, involving entities
like the national government and WAPDA, without adequate representation from the local communities
directly affected by the project (Mirza & Mahmoud, 2023).
This lack of local involvement not only contradicts the principles of inclusivity and adaptive governance but
also displays a sense of alienation among the affected communities. Antifragile systems benefit from local
knowledge, diverse perspectives, and decentralized decision-making. Moreover, the disproportionate
impact on local communities, including displacement, land loss, and ecological consequences, goes against
the antifragile principle of distributing both risks and benefits more evenly across the system. An antifragile
approach would involve local participation in decision-making, ensuring a more balanced and resilient
outcome for all stakeholders.
32
4.4 Case study 4: Crossrail (United Kingdom)

The Crossrail project, officially named the Elizabeth line, is a transformative urban railway initiative in
London designed to connect the Great Western Main Line and the Great Eastern Main Line. The project
involved the construction of a new underground railway from Paddington Station to a junction near
Whitechapel. This underground section splits into branches leading to Stratford in the west and Abbey
Wood in southeast London (Cooke et al., 2019; Tucker, 2017).
The project encountered numerous challenges and setbacks. Delays were a persistent issue, with the
original 2018 opening date being missed, followed by subsequent postponements. Technical challenges,
particularly in implementing and integrating new rail systems, played a significant role in the setbacks
(Muraganandan et al., 2022). Station construction complexities, design changes, supply chain disruptions,
and compulsory property purchases further contributed to delays and financial overruns. The COVID-19
pandemic added an extra layer of complexity, causing construction slowdowns and supply chain
disruptions. Communication and transparency issues also arose, with stakeholders expressing concerns
about the project's progress. Despite these challenges, the central section of the Elizabeth line finally
opened in May 2022.
4.4.2 Approach towards uncertainty and volatility

Crossrail demonstrated a comprehensive and adaptive approach to project management by integrating an
extensive risk and contingency management system. Initiated in 2001, the project underwent an early-
stage risk analysis and restructuring in 2006, aligning it closely with the cost estimation. Independent audits
ensured its alignment with industry standards. Securing funding in 2008, Crossrail implemented staged
intervention points based on cost distribution assessments. The program embraced a shared understanding
that costs evolve dynamically with changing risks. Throughout implementation, Crossrail maintained a
commitment to risk management similar to the London Olympics project, integrating contractors and
incentivizing sound practices. This adaptable approach, including a focus on schedule risk analysis and
performance assurance processes, reflects continuous improvement. The interface risk management
model, particularly with London Underground, showcased effective risk mitigation and serves as a potential
model for future projects, embodying antifragile principles (Institute of Risk Management, 2013). This
flexible and resilient approach aligns with antifragile principles.
4.4.3 Learning from failure

The Crossrail project incorporated lessons from the Olympics in its risk management strategy. This
demonstrated the antifragile principle of learning from failure. The Olympics experience likely provided
insights into the importance of early-stage risk analysis, commitment to risk management by senior
management, and the integration of contractors into the process. By leveraging these lessons, Crossrail
demonstrated adaptivity and resilience, understanding that effective risk management is an evolving
process. The shared understanding that a project won't deliver to a fixed number but involves dynamic
forecasts, aligns with the antifragile concept of thriving on challenges and embracing change. In essence,
Crossrail applied the knowledge gained from the Olympics to create a risk management approach that
learns from past failures, adapting and improving continuously in a VUCA environment.
33
5 Survey findings and analysis

5.1 Data collection
The invitation to participate in the survey was extended to forty-seven targeted construction professionals
actively serving in managerial or engineering roles within infrastructure construction. The invitation
provided direct access to the online questionnaire, resulting in a primary data set resulting from a total of
seventeen respondents who completed the survey. The invitation and survey questionnaire are included in
Appendix B.
5.2 Demographics of the participants

The survey respondents exhibited a diverse range of demographics. In terms of age distribution, the
majority fell within the 35-44 age bracket, comprising 11 participants, followed by 45-54 with 4
respondents, and 55 and older with 2 participants. Educationally, the respondents were highly qualified,
with 15 holding a Master's degree (MSc) and 2 possessing a Bachelor's degree (BSc). Regarding professional
categories, project management and engineering were the dominant roles, with 10 and 7 respondents,
respectively. The respondents represented various types of organizations, including 2 from employer/client
entities, 5 from contractor firms, and 10 from consulting companies. In terms of industry focus, the
majority (14 respondents) were engaged in infrastructure construction, while 3 were involved in industrial
construction. Lastly, when asked about the size of projects they generally undertook, the responses varied,
with 1 respondent engaging in projects ranging from 1 to 10 million US dollars, 9 participants handling
projects between 10 to 100 million US dollars, and 7 respondents managing projects within the 100 million
to 1 billion US dollar range.
Age Size of the projects participant is engaged in

35-44 11 1 to 10 million US$ 1
45-54 4 10 to 100 million US$ 9
55 and older 2 100 million to 1 billion US$ 7
Highest level of education Type of industry

BSc 2 Infrastructure construction 14
MSc 15 Industrial construction 3
Type of organisation Familiarity with the concept of antifragility

Employer/client 2 very unfamiliar 4
Contractor 5 Unfamiliar 3
Consultant 10 somewhat familiar 2
Familiar 8
Professional category
project management 10
engineering 7
Table 5.1 Demographics of the survey respondents
The group of respondents in this survey presents a reasonably representative sample. The diversity in age,
educational background, professional roles, organizational types, industry focus, and project sizes
34
contributes to a comprehensive understanding of how antifragile principles may be perceived and applied
across different dimensions of the infrastructure construction sector. The inclusion of individuals from
various age groups, educational levels, and professional categories ensures a well-rounded perspective,
while the distribution across different types of organizations and industries enhances the survey's
applicability to a broad range of infrastructure contexts. While the sample may not capture every nuance of
the entire industry, it does offer a valuable and diverse cross-section of professionals engaged in major
infrastructure projects, making the findings more likely to be broadly relevant and applicable.
5.2.2 Comment on sample size

It's essential to note that there is no universally fixed minimum requirement for statistical analyses;
adequacy depends on factors such as research design, the statistical test used, effect size, and the desired
confidence level (Norman, 2010). Generally, larger samples yield more reliable results. However, with the
modest size of this sample, caution is warranted in drawing strong conclusions, as findings may have
limitations in reliability. Additionally, due to the limited size of the sample, further statistical analysis on the
variation in respondent demographics has been omitted, as it is challenging to argue that 2 or 3 samples
are representative of anything.
5.3 Familiarity
The respondents' familiarity with antifragile principles varies, with the majority falling into the categories of
"familiar" (8 respondents) and "very unfamiliar" (4 respondents). Additionally, there are respondents who
consider themselves "unfamiliar" (3 respondents) and "somewhat familiar" (2 respondents) with antifragile
principles.
The distribution of respondents across familiarity categories suggests a diverse range of understanding
regarding antifragile principles within the surveyed population. This implies that the survey results may
capture a broad spectrum of perspectives, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of the feasibility,
challenges, and potential benefits. It also highlights the importance of considering and analysing responses
from participants with varying degrees of familiarity to obtain a well-rounded understanding of their
insights and opinions.
5.4 Perceived benefits of applying antifragile principles

The questionnaire incorporated Likert scale questions assessing the application of diverse antifragile
principles, with response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Participants were
requested to indicate the extent to which each principle applies to their current organization and,
separately, to an ideal organization. Including responses related to the current organization serves as a
benchmark for comparison. If participants express a stronger agreement with the applicability of a principle
to an ideal organization compared to their current one, it is interpreted as a positive expectation from the
principle.
The Likert scale responses from the questionnaire have been graphically represented using a box-and-
whisker plot. This method of visualization offers several advantages in conveying the distribution and
variability of the responses. The box in the plot represents the interquartile range (IQR), providing insight
into the central tendency and spread of the data. The median is depicted by the cross within the box. The
lines indicate variability outside the upper and lower quartiles, and any point outside those lines or
whiskers is considered an outlier. This graphical representation allows for a quick assessment of the central
tendency, spread, and potential outliers in the Likert scale responses. The questions have been grouped
35
and condensed following the 8 themes in the proposed manifesto, enhancing the clarity and coherence of
the analysis, and facilitating a more nuanced interpretation of participant sentiments.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Figure 5.1 Box-and-whisker plot for Likert scale response of application of antifragile principles
The Likert scale responses for each theme in both the current and ideal organizations present a nuanced
picture. Participants demonstrated varied sentiments for their current organisation, with some themes
receiving mainly positive responses (e.g., embracing uncertainty and volatility, learning from failure), while
others showed mixed opinions (e.g., exposure to manageable risk). The centralized decision-making theme
also displayed diverse perspectives. In contrast, responses provided for the participant's ideal organisations
generally leaned toward positivity across most themes, reflecting a more aligned and optimistic view of
antifragile principles. The graphical representation highlights the dispersion and central tendency of
responses. The contrast between current and ideal organization sentiments provides insight into the
perceived potential benefit in implementing antifragile principles.
5.5 Practicality and real-world relevance

The practicality and real-world relevance of antifragility were evaluated among participants through a
Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, using the following statements:
1. Antifragility is just a far-fetched theoretical principle.
36
2. The principles of antifragility can be applied in the context of managing infrastructure construction
projects.
3. I anticipate that the implementation of antifragile principles will positively influence project
performance.
4. I read nothing new. The principles linked to antifragility are already embedded in my project
organization, though they might not be explicitly labelled as such.
The results of this part of the questionnaire are presented below using a box and whisker plot.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Figure 5.2 Box-and-whisker plot for Likert scale response of practicality and real-world relevance
The provided responses reflect a diverse range of opinions regarding antifragility. Some participants
express scepticism, viewing antifragility as a far-fetched theoretical principle and assigning negative scores.
Conversely, others endorse its practicality, believing it can be applied effectively in managing infrastructure
construction projects, resulting in positive scores. Additionally, there is a spectrum of anticipations
regarding the impact of implementing antifragile principles on project performance, with scores varying
from highly positive to neutral. Notably, some participants assert that the principles associated with
antifragility are already inherent in their project organizations, even if not explicitly labelled as such. This
diversity in responses emphasizes the subjective and contextual nature of interpreting and embracing
antifragile concepts within the context of project management.
5.6 Open-ended survey responses

Responses to the open-ended request for comments or insight were:
- Respondent 8: “Unfortunately it is difficult to implement such principles in Government Projects”
37
- Respondent 9: “I was not familiar with the term antifragility, and it remains a fuzzy concept to me
on how this concept would be implemented. From a consultant point of view the risks "we" wish to
take are often aligned with those that the client wishes to take. But I suppose more out of the box
and innovative concepts could be suggested to the client for implementation. However, as budgets
are limited the simple straight forward proven and low risk solutions are often more preferred.”
- Respondent 10: “Uncertainty and risks are really scary. The profitability is always a key goal and
stands in the way of antifragility. In practice, it will be hard to convince higher management. Let me
give the example of a Dutch international operating contractor. They were mostly doing higher risk,
higher profitability projects, but decided to step over to low risk, low profitability projects.”
- Respondent 12: "It is an evolution of pm system and thinking approaches and takes already
established systems (if used) to another level of strategic handling of the outputs and practical
circumstances. E.g.: option analysis system, risk management, opportunity management, value
engineering systems, etc. without these systems some of the improved resilience opportunities from
an anti fragile approach would not be identified waiting to be exploited."
Overall, these responses indicate a mix of challenges, limited understanding, and potential areas for
improvement in conveying and implementing antifragile principles in various project management
contexts. The main insights derived from the open-ended responses include:
1. Challenges in implementing antifragile principles in government projects.
2. Limited familiarity and conceptualization.
3. Aligning risk-taking with client preferences.
4. Difficulties in convincing higher management:
5. Recognition that antifragility can complement existing systems but necessitates a mindset shift.
38
6 Preliminary findings and discussion

6.1 Identification of trends and patterns
The qualitative secondary data from the multiple-case study and the quantitative primary survey data will
be used to identify trends or patterns that could provide insights into the potential benefits of introducing
antifragile principles. The data obtained through the multiple-case study will be investigated using thematic
analysis to identify recurring patterns and themes related to antifragile principles by comparing and
contrasting cases (Yin, 2017). Analysing data obtained from the surveys will involve systematically
reviewing and making sense of the qualitative responses provided by participants. Across the case studies,
several commonalities and differences emerge, highlighting diverse applications and challenges associated
with implementing antifragile principles in infrastructure construction projects.
6.2 Shared advantages across case studies and survey

6.2.1 Approach towards uncertainty and Risk
A recurrent theme across both datasets is the recognition of uncertainty and risk as intrinsic components of
major infrastructure projects. The A15 MaVa and Mersey Gateway Bridge projects, faced with unexpected
challenges leading to cost overruns and delays, underscored the importance of exposure to manageable
risk—a sentiment echoed by survey respondents who identified risk assessment and mitigation as crucial
aspects of antifragility.

Another common advantage highlighted in both the case studies and the survey is the principle of
adaptability. The A15 MaVa project exemplifies adaptability by strategically altering its project
management approach mid-course, showcasing a capacity to adjust to changing circumstances. Survey
participants similarly expressed positive expectations regarding the impact of antifragile principles on
project performance, indicating a collective recognition of the need for adaptability to navigate
uncertainties inherent in the construction industry.
6.2.3 Learning from Failure

Learning from failure emerges as a shared element in both datasets. The Crossrail project, examined in the
case studies, demonstrates an ability to incorporate lessons from past experiences, aligning with the
antifragile principle of evolving through challenges. Survey respondents also expressed positive sentiments
toward antifragile principles related to learning from failure, reinforcing the notion that a culture of
continuous improvement and adaptation is perceived as advantageous.
The principle of decentralization for enhanced resilience is evident across both the case studies and the
survey. The A15 MaVa and Mersey Gateway Bridge projects showcase the benefits of breaking down
complex projects into manageable segments, aligning with the antifragile concept of decentralizing tasks to
enhance adaptability and resilience. Survey participants expressed diverse opinions on the practicality of
antifragile principles, suggesting a potential alignment with the idea of decentralization for improved
project outcomes.
39
6.2.5 Optionality
Additionally, both datasets suggest the importance of optionality for flexibility. The Mersey Gateway Bridge
project's tolling system, for instance, exemplifies the concept of optionality by introducing flexibility in
revenue collection and adapting to unforeseen circumstances. Survey participants, while not explicitly
mentioning "optionality," express positive expectations toward antifragile principles, indicating a collective
recognition of the value of flexibility in responding to unforeseen challenges.
Implicit application of antifragile principles within project organizations is a nuanced yet common
advantage identified in the case studies and survey. While not explicitly recognized, the case studies
suggest that certain practices aligned with antifragile principles may be inherently present in project
organizations. Survey respondents, exhibiting varied familiarity with antifragile principles, hint at potential
implicit applications within their respective contexts.
Lastly, both datasets highlight the influential role of leadership and organizational culture. The case studies
emphasize that leadership styles and organizational culture play crucial roles in shaping how project
organizations respond to uncertainties and challenges. This finding aligns with survey respondents who
emphasize the influence of leadership and organizational culture in embracing antifragile principles,
underscoring the significance of leadership in promoting a culture of resilience and adaptability within the
construction industry.
6.3 Shared challenges across case studies and survey

6.3.1 Struggle with risk and uncertainty
One recurrent theme is the struggle with risk and uncertainty. Major projects such as the A15 MaVa and
Mersey Gateway Bridge projects encountered unexpected challenges, leading to cost overruns and delays.
This reflects the sentiment in the survey where respondents emphasized the importance of managing risks
and uncertainties. The inherent unpredictability of major infrastructure projects underscores the challenge
of embracing antifragility in an industry where unforeseen events are not uncommon.
6.3.2 Effectiveness of Managing Volatility

Another shared challenge is the complexity and scale of infrastructure projects. The intricate designs,
numerous stakeholders, and extensive dependencies in projects like the A15 MaVa and Mersey Gateway
Bridge highlight the difficulty of effectively managing volatility. The survey respondents echoed this
sentiment, acknowledging the complexity of large-scale projects and expressing varied sentiments about
the practicality of antifragile principles. The need for adaptability in a complex environment is evident, but
the balance between embracing change and maintaining effective project management becomes a
nuanced challenge.
6.3.3 Long-term stability

Long-term stability and durability pose a particular challenge. Infrastructure projects, such as dams and
bridges, require longevity and robustness. The Diamer-Basha Dam project, for instance, faced challenges
related to resettlement, land compensation, and ecological concerns, emphasizing the tension between
short-term adaptability and long-term structural integrity. Survey participants reflected this diversity of
opinion, indicating a spectrum of perspectives on the balance between short-term flexibility and the
enduring stability required in infrastructure.
40
6.3.4 Time constraints

Time constraints and deadlines present a practical challenge in the application of antifragile principles.
Time-sensitive projects, such as those involving critical infrastructure or emergency repairs, may not afford
the luxury of extensive adaptability. The challenges faced by the Crossrail project exemplify this, aligning
with survey participants who anticipated difficulties in implementing antifragile principles in time-sensitive
government projects. The need for rapid decision-making and action can clash with the principles of
adaptivity and learning from failure, posing a significant challenge in practice.
6.4 Differences
While commonalities exist, differences arise in the extent to which antifragile principles can be identified in
these projects. The application of antifragile principles could be identified in the contractual and project
management approaches of the A15 MaVa and Mersey Gateway Bridge projects. In contrast, the Diamer-
Basha Dam project struggled with centralized decision-making, posing challenges to the decentralized and
adaptive nature advocated by antifragility.
41
7 Conclusions and limitations

The aim of this research was to explore the feasibility and potential advantages associated with
implementing antifragile principles in the management practices of major infrastructure construction
projects, to enhance these projects' overall performance by offering an alternative approach towards
uncertainties.
7.1 Conclusions
The objectives of this research were aimed at advancing the understanding of the application of antifragile
principles in the management of major infrastructure construction projects. Through a literature review
and conceptual synthesis, the study articulated key antifragile principles relevant to this sector. These
principles were captured in the Antifragile Manifesto. The statements of the manifesto are summarized in
Appendix A.
Drawing from the findings of the exploratory research, and taking into account the limitations of the study
it can be broadly asserted that:
1) While antifragile principles may not be entirely applicable to every aspect of infrastructure
construction projects, some elements can still be integrated into project management practices. A
balanced approach that combines conventional project management techniques with selected
antifragile principles may be suitable in some situations. Each project is unique, and project
managers should carefully evaluate the specific context, project objectives, and organizational
readiness before deciding on the most appropriate management approach.
2) Regarding the perceived benefits of applying antifragile principles, the survey responses reveal
mixed sentiments. Participants show positive expectations for certain themes, such as embracing
uncertainty and volatility and learning from failure. However, opinions on other themes, like
exposure to manageable risk, exhibit a more varied range of responses.
In summary, the challenges associated with applying antifragile principles in infrastructure projects, as
revealed in both case studies and the survey, encompass the management of risk and uncertainty, the
complexity and scale of projects, the balance between short-term adaptability and long-term stability,
decentralized decision-making dilemmas, and the practical constraints imposed by time-sensitive projects.
These challenges together emphasize the complex nature of embracing antifragility in the dynamic
environment of major infrastructure projects.
7.2 Limitations
Despite the insights gained from this research, certain limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the
sample size of the survey was modest, which might impact the generalizability of the findings. Additionally,
the reliance on self-reported survey data introduces the potential for response bias and subjective
interpretation.
The case studies, while providing rich contextual information, represent specific projects and may not fully
capture the diversity of the entire infrastructure construction sector. Moreover, the research primarily
focused on antifragile principles without extensively exploring alternative frameworks, potentially limiting a
comprehensive comparison.
42
References
Alhir, S. S., & Gould, D. E. (2015). Exploring the Practice of Antifragility [Kindle version].
Alias, M., & Suradi, Z. (2008). Concept mapping: A tool for creating a literature review. In A. J. Cañas, P.
Reiska, M. Åhlberg and J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallinn and Helsinki: Tallinn University.
Aljohani, A., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D., & Moore, D. (2017). Construction Projects Cost Overrun: What Does the
Literature Tell Us? International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 8(2).
Allahaim, F. S. A., & Liu, L. (2006). An empirical classification of cost overrun in infrastructure projects by
using cluster analysis. Proceedings of the 4th International Utzon Symposium-Sydney Australia.
Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., & Lunn, D. (2017). Big Is Fragile: An Attempt at Theorizing Scale. In The
Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management (pp. 60-95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of
project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 687–698.
Aven, T. (2014). The Concept of Antifragility and its Implications for the Practice of Risk Analysis. Risk
Analysis, 35(3), 476-483.
Aven, T. (2017). A Conceptual Foundation for Assessing and Managing Risk, Surprises and Black Swans: The
Illusion of Risk Control, 23-39.
Azam, T., Nilofar, M., & Malik, S. (2020). An analysis of causes of delay and cost overrun in construction of
hydropower project. Journal of Public Affairs, e2285.
Bangui, H., Buhnova, B., & Rossi, B. (2022). Shifting towards Antifragile Critical Infrastructure Systems. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith,
J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., C., M. R., Mellor, S. J., Ken, S., Sutherland, J., & Thomas, D.
(2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved from https://agilemanifesto.org
(Accessed on 01/10/2020).
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review.
Botjes, E. A. (2020). Defining Antifragility and the application on Organisation Design.
Button, K. (1982). Transport Economics. Heinemann Educational Books.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-
Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Cooke, R., Tiley, L. J., Setti, S. A., Wentworth, H., Chudasama, A., Tufekci, B., Begum, H., & Bowden, T.
(2019). Crossrail: progress review: Ninety-Second Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with
formal minutes relating to the report. Ordered by the House of Commons.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Dahlberg, R. (2015). Resilience and complexity: Conjoining the discourses of two contested concepts.
Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 7(3), 541–557.
De Florio, V. (2014). Antifragility = Elasticity + Resilience + Machine Learning. Procedia Computer Science,
32, 834–841.
43
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. (2002). Managing Project Uncertainty: From Variation to Chaos. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60-67.
Eckert, J. (2017). The Agile Artifact – an Antifragile Approach to Design and Innovation. Universal Journal of
Management, 5(5), 236-242.
Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Bowker, G. C., & Knobel, C. (2007). Report of a Workshop on History & Theory
of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructures. Retrieved from...
European Investment Bank (2009). A15 Maasvlakte – Vaanplein PPP.
https://www.eib.org/en/projects/pipelines/all/20080035 (Accessed on 19-10-2023).
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do
about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), 344–367.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Over Budget, Over Time, Over and Over Again: Managing Major Projects In P. Morris, J.
Pinto, & J. Soderlund (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Project
Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S., & Buhl, S. L. (2003). How common and how large are cost overruns in transport
infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 23(1), 71-88.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE.
He, Q., Wang, T., Chan, A. P., & Xu, J. (2021). Developing a list of key performance indicators for
benchmarking the success of construction megaprojects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 147(2).
Houtekamer, C. (2015). Bluffen en pokeren om de A15. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/23/bluffen-
en-pokeren-om-de-a15-1486920-a931138 (Accessed on 7-11-2023).
Hutchins, G. (2018). ISO 31000: 2018 Enterprise Risk Management. CERM Academy Series on Enterprise
Risk Management. Certified Enterprise Risk Manager(R) Academy.
Hyobin, K., Muñoz, S., Osuna, P. & Gershenson, C. (2020). Antifragility Predicts the Robustness and
Evolvability of Biological Networks through Multi-Class Classification with a Convolutional Neural
Network. PubMed Central.
Institute of Risk Management (2013). Managing Cost Risk & Uncertainty In Infrastructure Projects - Leading
Practice and Improvement: Report from the Infrastructure Risk Group 2013.
Jones, K. H. (2014). Engineering Antifragile Systems: A Change In Design Philosophy. Procedia Computer
Science, Vol 32(1)
Judson, L., & Paul, V. K. (2019). Uncertainty Factors Affecting Construction Project Cost. The SPA Journal of
Planning and Architecture, 23(3-4), 1-17.
Khudzari, F., Rahman, R. A., & Ayer, S. K. (2021). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Emerging Technologies in
the Malaysian Construction Industry. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 641.
Koenen, I. (2015). Prijsvechten: Van bouwfraude tot uitverkoop. Vakmedianet BouwCommunities B.V.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. (2013). Proposals That Work: A Guide for Planning
Dissertations and Grant Proposals Sixth Edition SAGE Publications Ltd.
Makridakis, S, Hogarth, R. M., & Gaba, A. (2009). Forecasting and uncertainty in the economic and business
world. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4), 794-812.
44
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Educational Review, 62, 279–300.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Infrastructure. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 8, 2023,
from merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infrastructure.
Merrow, E. W. (2011). Industrial mega-projects: Concepts, strategies, and practices for success. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Mirza, M. N., & Mahmoud, N. (2023). Securitising and de-securitising water scarcity in Pakistan: a case
study of the Diamer Basha Dam. Water Policy, 25(1), 1-14.
Monperus, M. (2014). Principles of Antifragile Software. eprint airXiv:1404.3056.
Muraganandan, K., Davies, A., Denicol, J., & Whyte, J. (2022). The dynamics of systems integration:
Balancing stability and change on London’s Crossrail project. International Journal of Project
Management, 40, 608-623.
National Academy of Engineering (2009). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research. National
Academies Press. doi.org/10.17226/12192.
Neerlands Diep (2016). Evaluatie projectmanagement A15 Maasvlakte - Vaanplein met behulp van de
Neerlands diep-Spiegel. Retrieved from https://neerlandsdiep.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/EindrapportageSpiegelprojectA15MaVa.pdf (Access on 15-10-2023).
New Civil Engineer (2015). Bridges: The Mersey Gateway project in 7 stages. Retrieved from
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/bridges-the-mersey-gateway-project-in-7-stages-21-09-
2015/ (Accessed on 8-10-2023).
New Civil Engineer (2017). Project: Mersey Gateway. Retrieved from
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/project-mersey-gateway-13-12-2017/ (Accessed on 8-
10-2023).
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health
sciences education, 15(5), 625–632.
O'Reilly, B. (2019). No More Snake Oil: Architecting Agility through Antifragility. The 6th International
Workshop on Computational Antifragility and Antifragile Engineering.
Project Management Institute (2017). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide) (6th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Ridley, D. (2008). The Literature Review; A step-by-step guide for students. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review. Management Research News.
Russo, D., & Ciancarini, P. (2016). A Proposal for an antifragile software manifesto. Procedia Computer
Science, 83, 982-987.
Salet, W., Bertolini, L., & Giezen, M. (2013). Complexity and Uncertainty: Problem or Asset in Decision
Making of Mega Infrastructure Projects? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.
Seidu, R. D., Ayinla, K., Shady, A., Young, B. E., Ofori, G., & Ebohon, O. J. (2022). Success Factors in Mega
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs): Developing Nations Perspectives. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.,
1101.
Straçusser, G. (2015). Agile project management concepts applied to construction and other non-IT fields.
Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2015—North America, Orlando, FL. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
45
Taleb, N. N. (2001). Fooled by randomness: The hidden role of chance in life and in the markets. Random
House.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.
Taleb, N. N. (2018). Skin in the game: Hidden asymmetries in daily life. Random House.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House.
Taleb, N. N., & Douady, R. (2015). Mathematical Definition, Mapping, and Detection of (Anti)Fragility. hal-
01151340.
Tokalic, R., Viđaka, M., Kaknjo, M. M., & Marusic, A. (2021). Antifragility of healthcare systems in Croatia
and Bosnia and Herzegovina: Learning from man-made and natural crises, The Lancet Regional
Health - Europe (9).
Tolk, A. (2013). Implementing Antifragiles: Systems that get better under Change.
Tomov, L. (2019). Is Agile Antifragile?
Tomov, L. (2022). Antifragile Project Management: The Deming Paradigm and Beyond. In Proceedings of
the 9th International Workshop on Computational Antifragility and Antifragile Engineering Elsevier
B.V.
Tucker, W. (2017). Crossrail project–The execution strategy for delivering London’s Elizabeth line. Civil
Engineering: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 170(5), 3-14.
Turner, J. R. (2014). Gower Handbook of Project Management (4th ed.). Gower Publishing Limited.
UK Parliament (2015). Written evidence from Mersey Gateway Crossings Board on Behalf of Halton
Borough Council (SRC0035). Retrieved from https://committees.parliament.uk/work/4807/strategic-
river-crossings/publications/written-evidence/ (accessed on 4-11-2023).
WAPDA (2020). PM Kicks off Mega Construction Work at Diamer-Bhasha Dam, Pakistan Water and Power
Development Authority. Retrieved from http://www.wapda.gov.pk/index.php/newsmedia/news-
views/518-pm-kicks-off-mega-construction-work-at-diamer-bhasha-dam (Accessed 18-10-2023).
Wellington, J., Bathmaker, A., Hunt, C., McCulloch, G., & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding With Your Doctorate.
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Werner, J. (2011). An Investigation of Uncertainty Dynamics within Project Management: Theoretical and
Empirical Insights. PhD Thesis, Heriot Watt University.
World Highways (2016). The Mersey Gateway bridge project continues on schedule. Retrieved from
https://www.worldhighways.com/feature/mersey-gateway-bridge-project-continues-schedule
(Accessed on 3-11-2023).
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications
Ltd.
46
Appendix A The Antifragile Manifesto
1. Embrace uncertainty and volatility, do not attempt to eliminate, or avoid these.
2. Allow intentional exposure to manageable risk.
3. Build in redundancy and maintain optionality.
4. The project organisation is characterized by decentralized decision-making.
5. The project team adopts a learning mindset and treats failures as valuable opportunities for
improvement.
6. Embrace agile management methodologies.
7. Identify and capitalize on favourable asymmetries in the project.
8. Adhere to simple, clear rules and avoid unnecessary complexity.
47
Appendix B Survey invitation and questionnaire
Invitation to survey participants:
48
Screenshot of the survey questionnaire:
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Appendix C Ethical Approval Decision
60

Feasibility and Potential Benefits of Integrating Antifragile Principles in Major Infrastructure Projects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility and Potential Benefits of Integrating Antifragile Principles in Major Infrastructure Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Salford

School of the Built Environment

Feasibility and Potential Benefits of

5.6 Open-ended survey responses ........................................................................................................ 37

Total word count: 17681

2 Antifragility in the Context of Major Infrastructure Projects

2.1.1 Structure of the Literature Review

2.1.2 Sources to Consider

2.2 Major infrastructure projects

2.2.2 Infrastructure projects

2.2.3 What defines major infrastructure projects

2.2.4 The fragility of major infrastructure projects

2.2.5 What defines if a major infrastructure is successful?

2.2.6 Success is relative

2.2.7 What influences the performance of major infrastructure projects?

2.2.8 The size effect on the performance of major infrastructure projects

2.3 Management of Uncertainty and Risk

2.3.2 Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)

2.3.3 Limitations to modelling uncertainty and risk

2.3.4 Black Swans

2.3.5 Agile project management

2.4 Introduction to Antifragility

2.4.2 Literature on Antifragility

2.4.3 Finance and Economics

2.4.4 Computer science

2.4.5 Risk Management

2.4.6 Other domains

2.4.7 Concept mapping of common and central themes

Embrace uncertainty Continuous learning

Figure 2.2 Concept mapping of common and central themes

2.5 The “Triad”

2.5.2 Fragile systems

Figure 2.4 Behaviour of a fragile system

2.5.3 Robust systems

Figure 2.5 Behaviour of a robust system

2.5.4 Agile systems

Figure 2.6 Behaviour of an agile system

2.5.5 Antifragile systems

Figure 2.7 Behaviour of an antifragile system

2.5.6 Outcome probability of each system

Figure 2.8 Outcome probability of Fragile, Robust, and Antifragile systems

2.6 Achieving organizational change

2.7 The Antifragile Manifesto

2.7.1 Approach towards uncertainty and volatility

2.7.2 Exposure to Manageable Risk

2.7.3 Redundancy and optionality

2.7.4 Centralized decision-making

2.7.5 Learning from Failure

2.7.6 Adaptivity and Agility

2.7.8 Simple rules

Figure 3.1 Model of research design

3.3 Multiple case studies - Linking to real-world situations

3.3.2 Data collection

3.3.3 Variables to be investigated

3.3.4 Case selection

3.4 Surveys - Expert review

3.4.3 Instrument to collect data

3.4.4 Survey questions

3.5 Sample sizes

3.6 Data analysis

3.7 Ethical Considerations

3.7.1 Role of the Researcher

3.7.2 Impact of the research

3.7.3 Ethical approval