Data analysis

In all the articles, a qualitative content analysis approach to the data analysis was

followed (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). In addition, Article IV took a qualitative

event-oriented approach to the data analysis (Morgeson et al., 2015). In the literature, the

term “content analysis” is used quite vaguely at times. In this dissertation, content

analysis refers to the systematic classification process of coding and categorization (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005), there are three general approaches to qualitative content analysis: conventional, directed, and summative content analysis. For this dissertation, the relevant approaches were the conventional and the directed approaches, with the main difference between the two being the use of the existing literature in the coding framework (more inductive vs.

more deductive) (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The data analysis was mostly inductive (i.e., the conventional approach) in all five articles, but especially in Article IV where the prior literature played a strong role in data analysis as well.

In Article I, qualitative content analysis was used for both data sets, but the analysis took place in two rounds. Evidence of sustainability-related actions in the projects was sought in the first round of analysis. This round of coding focused on the newspaper articles. Before coding the newspaper articles, the irrelevant articles were excluded. A newspaper article was considered relevant only if it focused directly on the project and did not only mention it in passing. This process reduced the number of articles from 350 (the original dataset) to 76 (the number of relevant articles in the final dataset). In the second coding round, the interview data were analyzed with a focus on the control practices targeting sustainability. In both coding rounds, the analysis took place inductively. However, earlier literature was utilized in developing the coding frameworks (the three dimensions of sustainability were used in both coding rounds; the concepts of a controller, a controllee, and control mechanisms were used in the second coding round).

In Article II, qualitative content analysis was used for analyzing the interview data.

The analysis took place in two coding rounds. In the first round, the focus was on the integration mechanisms utilized and the two integration interfaces (project-to-project and program-to-parent). The inductively identified integration mechanisms were categorized under five integration tasks. At this point, the preliminary results were recorded. From the preliminary results, the potentially interesting concept of agency in the practice of integration was identified. A second coding round was performed with a focus on the different program actors and their agency in integration. In both coding rounds, the analysis took place inductively. However, earlier literature was utilized in developing the coding frameworks (the concept of an integration mechanism and the two integration interfaces in multi-project programs were used in both coding rounds; the concept of agency was used in the second coding round).

Qualitative content analysis was utilized similarly in Articles III and V. The

analysis began by coding all the relevant quotations in the interview transcripts (i.e.,

an open coding strategy). For instance, in Article V, a quotation was considered relevant if it discussed a perceived benefit of or challenge to the new way of working, a characteristic of the old way of working, or a perceived difference between the two.

In the second phase, similar codes were merged and renamed. For instance, in Article III, the open codes were re-coded according to the types of changes, the reasons for the changes, and the different types of response actions taken by the project personnel. In the final phase, an inductive categorization of the findings was conducted. For instance, in Article III, the result of the final coding phase was the identification of four change management patterns/response actions.

As in Article I, the first step in the data analysis in Article IV was narrowing down the dataset. Of the 1293 newspaper articles in the original dataset, 746 articles turned out to be relevant and 336 articles were relevant to stakeholder influences (i.e., the final dataset). An article was included in the original dataset if the project name appeared anywhere in the full text of the article. However, an article was considered relevant only if it focused on the project, not if the project was simply mentioned in passing and the true focus of the article was something else. This explains the large difference in the numbers of articles in the original dataset and the final dataset.

Once the relevant articles had been identified, the data analysis was conducted using a qualitative content analysis combined with a qualitative event-oriented approach (Morgeson et al., 2015). Article IV focused on stakeholder influences on infrastructure projects, and the efforts to influence were conceptualized as events.

The event-oriented approach highlighted the possible interconnections between the events and the stakeholders’ actions. In addition to the event structure, three viewpoints were coded using content analysis: the active stakeholders (i.e., who was doing the influencing or being influenced?), the influence strategies utilized (i.e., how was influence pursued?), and the related dimensions of project value (e.g., how was an effort to influence justified by project value?). Earlier literature was utilized to develop the coding framework in terms of the potential stakeholder influence strategies and the potential dimensions of project value. Despite the preliminary coding framework, the coding took place inductively, and the final coding framework was relatively different.

Several methodological issues affected the validity and reliability of the empirical

findings in this research. The article-specific considerations are included in the

respective articles, and a more general overview of validity and reliability is presented

in section 6.3.

4 FINDINGS

4.1 Sustainable project management through project control in infrastructure projects

4.1.1 Rationale and positioning

Sustainability is an important dimension of project value. This applies both to the project implementation phase (i.e., the sustainability of the project delivery) and the use phase (i.e., the sustainability of the project deliverables). While there are numerous definitions of sustainability (Aarseth et al., 2017), most scholars agree on the viewpoint of the triple bottom line (Silvius and Schipper, 2014). In other words, sustainability balances the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of value.

The previous research on sustainable project management has focused mostly on the design and planning phases (i.e., the project front end). In Article I, it was proposed that actions promoting project sustainability take place in the project implementation phase as well, but the control of sustainability in the implementation phase is not yet sufficiently understood. The focus of Article I was on the three dimensions of sustainability, especially during the project implementation phase of an infrastructure project. This idea was addressed from the viewpoint of project control. The following research questions were formulated:

1. How does the project organization implement the three dimensions of sustainability?

2. How does the project organization use project control for sustainable project management?

Regarding this dissertation, Article I focuses on the relationships between control

and value. The article follows the control package viewpoint of control and

highlights how different control mechanisms target different dimensions of value.

4.1.2 A control package for promoting project sustainability

The findings of Article I highlighted the sustainability related actions in the project and the control practices promoting sustainability. Examples of the sustainability-related actions include cost savings (economic value), dust and noise reductions (environmental value), and communication directed toward the general public (social value).

Regarding control practices, the article conceptualized project control as a control package. Five control mechanisms were identified: alliance model, project planning, measurements and indicators, regulations, and external communication. The five control mechanisms were used in different ways with respect to the three dimensions of sustainability (Figure 6).

Figure 6. A control package promoting sustainability in an infrastructure project (Article I).

The alliance model was a contract model between the customer and the main contractor. The alliance model included a financial incentive model and various performance indicators, all of which included financial bonuses and sanctions. All three dimensions of sustainability were included to some extent in the alliance model.

The alliance model encouraged project planning in a collaborative way between

the customer and the main contractor. The interviewees described how, due to

collaborative project planning, sustainability became a built-in element of daily

project work in the project implementation phase.

Due to the public nature of the project, various regulations set by the respective public sector authorities affected the project as well. Most of the regulations were rules and limitations (including measurements and indicators) set to prevent environmental or social disturbance or damage.

Finally, the evaluation of the public image of the project was included in the incentive model of the alliance model. This encouraged the main contractor to invest more in external communication, including appointing a person responsible for addressing stakeholders’ worries and inquiries, for example.

4.1.3 Contribution of Article I

Article I highlighted the dependencies between the three dimensions of sustainability. These dependencies have been acknowledged in previous studies (Silvius and Schipper, 2014), but this article contributes to the earlier literature by demonstrating how the alliance model fostered this balance. The article emphasized the role of the social dimension of sustainability as well. The social dimension is underexplored in the previous literature (Edum-Fotwe and Price, 2009).

The article conceptualized project control as a package of control mechanisms.

This conceptualization is widely acknowledged in the project control literature (see section 2.2). However, the literature on project sustainability has focused mostly on the role of performance indicators in promoting and ensuring sustainability (Boz and El-adaway, 2015; Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López, 2010; Hwang and Tan, 2012; Klakegg, 2009; Shen et al., 2011). This article demonstrated a wider range of control mechanisms promoting project sustainability.

The article contributes to the value creation literature by proposing a link between control and the delivery of value. In terms of traditional success measures, the case project was delivered under budget and ahead of schedule with little scope alterations, so it can be considered successful. However, the control package targeted other dimensions of value as well, in this case the three dimensions of sustainability.

For instance, the control package encouraged the project actors to focus on the public image of the project, and to pay special attention to safety or environmental aspects. This way, the findings of Article I illustrate how control can be used to promote the achievement of multidimensional value-oriented project goals, in addition to the traditional iron triangle objectives.

There were also control mechanisms originating both outside (external) and

within (internal) the project. The importance of external control differentiates this

article from the majority of the project control literature, in which the dominant

theme is control between a project manager and project team members. From the

perspective of value creation, the different sources of control illustrate the subjective

nature of value and the issue of various stakeholders with different value perceptions.