project complexity literature review

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, identifying the definition, measurement, research focuses, and prospects of project complexity: a systematic literature review.

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

ISSN : 0969-9988

Article publication date: 29 April 2022

Issue publication date: 15 August 2023

Project complexity is a critical issue that has increasingly attracted attention in both academic and practical circles. However, there are still many gaps in the research on project complexity, such as the differentiated conceptualization of complexity and disjointed operationalization in the measurements. Therefore, this paper aims to conduct a systematic and detailed literature review on the concept, dimensions, assessment, and underlying mechanisms of project complexity.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic literature review methodology was applied to search and synthesize the research on project complexity, and a final sample of 74 journal articles was identified.

This study first summarizes the concepts of project complexity from three different theoretical perspectives, and then identifies different approaches of measurement, evaluation, or simulation to assess project complexity. This paper finally establishes an integrative framework to synthesize the antecedents, mediators and moderators, and outcomes of project complexity, generating four suggestions for future research.

Originality/value

This study summarizes the definition and operationalization of project complexity to reduce the discrepancies in the existing research and offers an integrative framework to offer a broad overview of the current understanding of project complexity, providing a potential way forward for addressing project complexity.

• Project complexity
• Uncertainty
• Construction projects
• Literature review

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71942006, 72161021, 72162026, 72061025).

Conflict of interest : The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Zheng, J. , Gu, Y. , Luo, L. , Zhang, Y. , Xie, H. and Chang, K. (2023), "Identifying the definition, measurement, research focuses, and prospects of project complexity: a systematic literature review", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 3043-3072. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2021-0425

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• No results found

Project Complexity

Literature review, 2.9 project complexity.

Vidal el al. (2011) define project complexity as,

“the property of a project which makes it difficult to understand, foresee and keep under control its overall behaviour, even when given reasonably complete information about the project system. Its drivers are factors related to project size, project variety, project

interdependence and project context.”

In another definition Remington et al. (2009) define project complexity as,

“a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of characteristics to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control

Project complexity makes a crucial difference to how a project is managed (Baccarini, 1996). Baccarini (1996) further adds that the complexity of a project can effect planning, coordination, control, identification of the goals, selection of organisational form,

selection of project inputs, selection of procurement management, and management of time, cost, and quality. Wozinack (1993) operationalizes project complexity in terms of variables such as: criticality of project, project visibility and accountability; and clarity of scope definition. Gidado (1996) says ,

“Scientists and mathematicians consider a system `complex’ only when it consists of a multitude of interacting elements. The construction process is always made up of a

multitude of interacting parts.”

It can be argued that now days not only in construction, but any project with a big remit will consist of interacting parts, and therefore, some level of complexity will exist in every project. Gidado (1996) concludes his paper by defining project complexity as

“the measure of the difficulty of implementing a planned production workflow in relation to any one or a number of quantifiable managerial objectives.”

Rosen (1987) has defined a generic measure for complexity which consists of two elements: 1) complexity could be quantitatively measured, like any other observable system, if it were to be related to such things as the dimension of a state space, the length of a programme or the magnitude of a `cost’ in money or time and in order to define multiple levels of complexity; (2) there is a threshold of complexity, below in which systems behave in some simple sense.

There has been quite a bit of work done in the area of project complexity for construction.Gidado (1996) identified six variables that have an impact on project complexity. They are: 1) the employed resources; 2) the environment; 3) the level of scientific and technological knowledge required; 4) the number of different parts in the work flow; and 5) the interaction of different parts in the work flow. Wood and Ashton (2009) have taken the work of Gidado forward and have defined project complexity in terms of six elements which are: 1) Inherent complexity; 2) Uncertainty; 3) Number of technologies; 4) Rigidity of sequence; 5) Overlap of phases or concurrency; and 6) Organisational inherent complexity. This definition clearly takes us out of the domain of construction and helps us define it in more generic terms. However, most of the elements defined can be classified as project structural complexity related variables. In another researchCicmil and Marshall (2005) suggest three aspects of complexity in construction projects, which are: 1) complex processes of communicative and power relating among project actors; 2) ambiguity and equivocality related to project performance criteria (success/failure) over time; and 3) the consequence of time flux (change, unpredictability and the paradox of control). These factors are generic enough to be applied to non-

construction projects as well. Leung (2007) has devised a way to measure complexity in construction projects. He has developed a Construction Complexity Index (CCI). There are ten variables defined by him that define project complexity. These variables are: 1) project duration; 2) working spaces; 3) contract sum; 4) site area; 5) type of structure; 6) height of building; 7) site location; 8) client; 9) usage of building; and 10) total floor area. Some of these variables can be generalised for non-construction projects as well.

Crawford et al. (2008) have provided seven reasons for increased project complexity. The first reason is the delivery of complicated artefacts, such as physical infrastructure which adds complexity by design. The second is complexity added due to organisational

change, which is often a part of project management. Projects intending to deliver

organisational change bring about an added level of uncertainty among their stakeholders, and hence, the added complexity. The increase of project lifecycle to include elements of the operational phase and the endeavour to provide long term sustainability to the outputs will result in added complexity as well. New delivery mechanisms of projects such as public-private partnerships add to a new level of complexity in the project. The recent increase in the need for accountability and transparency in corporate governance has added more pressure on project managers and has increased the overall complexity in project management. Advances in communication technologies have benefited project managers, but it has also led to more demands by clients to monitor the project and follow the progress more closely, which in turn has resulted in higher levels of complexity in a project. Changes in societal values with all the different generations, ranging from Baby Boomers to generations X and Y, have further resulted in stakeholder management due to there being increased demands for and expectations of involvement and participation. At the same time, communication and other technologies have made faster response possible and raised expectations, putting practitioners under accelerated time pressures to deliver. All these factors have led to severe increase in complexity of projects and have put additional pressure on the project manager. It is important that we contextualise these additional issues for Abu Dhabi and propose a modified competency based framework for developing the programme and project managers of the future.

Vidal et al. (2011) conclude that in order to measure project complexity, we need to familiarize ourselves with four factors. The first one is project size. This is defined as the sum of sizes of the elementary objects that exist within the project. The second factor is project variety. Project variety is the diversity of the elementary objects that define the project. The third factor is project interdependence. This factor includes the relationships between elementary objects within a project. The last factor is the project context. This refers to the environment or the context in which the project is undertaken. Vidal and Marle (2008) state that as the complexity of the project increases, so does the risk and uncertainty associated with it. Geraldi et al. (2011) have reviewed the evolution of project complexity and have noted that we have evolved from earlier definitions of project

complexity that talked about structural complexity of the project to a point where we talk about issues such as socio-economic impact of the project, pace of the project, dynamics of the project, uncertainty in a project, and structural complexity of the project. This evolution in the definition clearly indicates that there is an acknowledgement that the complexity of a project is dependent not only on the internal elements but external micro and macro factors as well. Thomas and Mengal (2008) contend that given the rise in complexity of the projects,

“project managers must be both technically and socially competent to develop teams that can work dynamically and creatively toward objectives in changing environments across

Figure 2.6 below indicates that for complex projects, it is important for the project manager to develop emotional competence in project management along with the intellectual competence.

Fig 2.6: Three-dimensional model of project management knowledge (Thomas and Mengal, 2008)

The literature review presented in this chapter has covered a range of issues starting from career path, project and programme manager competency, project and programme

competency, and project and programme complexity. This wide range of literature review has provided some key insights into a range of issues that has helped in establishing the current state of the art knowledge and will be used to develop data collection instruments and strategies.

• Career Path
• Career Path of a Project Manager
• Project Management Competency
• Programme Management Competencies
• Project Complexity (You are here)
• Semi-structured Interviews

Related documents

Social network analysis of stakeholder governance landscapes in infrastructure mega projects: a case of the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor project

• Published: 18 May 2024
• Volume 9 , article number  209 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Aritra Halder   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5564-6306 1 , 2  

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Infrastructure mega projects are characterized by a large number of stakeholders, their complexity and many interrelated components, interfaces, and diverse stakeholder objectives. The issue of megaproject stakeholder management has gained considerable interest in recent decades due to their consistent history of underperformance. Social network analysis is a potent tool to analyze and explore stakeholder network formations of megaprojects. The present study has explored the stakeholder governance landscape of the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor megaproject using interpretive policy analysis and social network analysis and captured various network level aspects namely connectedness and power structure, and assessed the actor level attributes like authority, coordination ability, power and information accessibility of various key stakeholders. The study is exploratory in nature and utilizes publicly available data and grey literature to explore various megaproject coordination issues through network theory. The preliminary findings suggest that megaprojects of the scale of industrial/economic corridors tend to show low network density. Density is observed to be equivalent to coordination complexity in megaproject stakeholder networks. The focal organizations namely the nodal agencies or the project specific special purpose vehicles (SPV) play an important role in overall governance efficacy of well-connected stakeholder landscapes. From the network perspective, eigenvector centrality is a better representative of a focal organization's coordination effectiveness in regional subnetworks where the central SPVs or nodal agencies are not considered. For overall networks, closeness centrality was observed to be a better predictor of ease of information retrieval. Degree centrality is observed to be analogous to power of the focal organization. Finally, it was observed that states like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh show lower information asymmetry in stakeholder governance due to the high focal organization centralities and high overall network density. The paper emphasizes on the potential of applying a novel and robust analytical tool like Social Network Analysis in the context of megaproject stakeholder management and paves way for future researchers to conduct similar studies in different geographic and socio-political contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

(Source: NICDC)

(Source: Compiled by Author)

(Source: Author)

Similar content being viewed by others

Urban marginality: Everyday practice of building resilience to flood in the informal Settlement of Dar es Salaam

The Role of Community Engagement in Urban Innovation Towards the Co-Creation of Smart Sustainable Cities

Social Impact Assessment: A Systematic Review of Literature

Data availability.

All the relevant data used in the study are included in the article. However, other secondary data, if necessary, can be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Winch G (2017) Megaproject stakeholder management. In: Flyvbjerg B (ed) The Oxford handbook of megaproject management, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 339–361

Google Scholar  

Woetzel J, Garemo N, Mischke J et al (2016) Bridging global infrastrucutre gaps

Flyvbjerg B (2014) What you should know about mega projects and why. Proj Manag J 45:6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409

Article   Google Scholar  

Hu Y, Chan APC, Le Y, Jin R (2015) From construction megaproject management to complex project management: bibliographic analysis. J Manag Eng 31:4014052. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000254

Williams NL, Ferdinand N, Pasian B (2016) Online stakeholder interactions in the early stage of a megaproject. Proj Manag J 46:92–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj

Amoatey C, Hayibor MVK (2017) Critical success factors for local government project stakeholder management. Built Environ Proj Asset Manag 7:143–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-07-2016-0030

Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang RJ, Li CZ (2017) Investigating key challenges in major public engineering projects by a network-theory based analysis of stakeholder concerns: a case study. Int J Proj Manag 35:78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.017

Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manag Rev 22:887–910. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022107

Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

Gellert PK, Lynch BD (2003) Mega-projects as displacements. Int Soc Sci J 55:1–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.5501009_1

Crosby P (2017) Shaping complex mega-projects: practical steps for success. Aust J Civ Eng 15:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2017.1362806

Van MA, Clegg SR, Pitsis TS, Veenswijk M (2008) Managing public—private megaprojects: paradoxes, complexity, and project design. Int J Proj Manag 26:591–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.007

Flyvbjerg B (2017) Introdcution: The iron law of megaproject management. In: Flyvbjerg B (ed) The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 568

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Biesenthal C, Clegg S, Mahalingam A, Sankaran S (2018) Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. Int J Proj Manag 36:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006

Wang Z, Zhang Y, Zheng K et al (2023) A review of mega-project management research from an organization science perspective: CURRENT status and future directions. Dev Built Environ 16:100254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100254

Mahalingam A (2022) How institutional intermediaries handle institutional complexity in vanguard megaproject settings. Int J Proj Manag 40:320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.007

Wu H, Xue X, Zhao Z et al (2019) Major knowledge diffusion paths of megaproject management: a citation-based analysis. Proj Manag J 51:242–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819850232

Lu Y, Li Y, Pang D, Zhang Y (2015) Organizational network evolution and governance strategies in megaprojects. Constr Econ Build 15:19–33

Zhai Z, Ahola T, Le Y, Xie J (2017) Governmental governance of megaprojects: the case of EXPO 2010 Shanghai. Proj Manag J 48:37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800103

Derakhshan R, Turner R, Mancini M (2019) Project governance and stakeholders: a literature review. Int J Proj Manag 37:98–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.007

Xue J, Shen GQ, Deng X et al (2023) Evolution modeling of stakeholder performance on relationship management in the dynamic and complex environments of megaprojects. Eng Constr Archit Manag 30:1536–1557. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2021-0504

Aaltonen K, Kujala J, Lehtonen P, Ruuska I (2010) A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects. Int J Manag Proj Bus 3:564–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011076055

Liu K, Liu Y, Kou Y et al (2023) Formation mechanism for collaborative behaviour among stakeholders in megaprojects based on the theory of planned behaviour. Build Res Inf 51:667–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2023.2188444

Wang T, Owusu EK, He Q et al (2022) Empirical assessments of the determinants of construction megaprojects’ success: evidence from China. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214730

Bourne L, Walker DHT (2005) Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Manag Decis 43:649–660. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597680

PMI (2017) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 6th edn. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania

Olander S, Landin A (2005) Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. Int J Proj Manag 23:321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002

Clarkson ME (2011) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20:92–117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994

McElroy MW (2000) Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. J Knowl Manag 4:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270010377652

Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience : defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105

Newcombe R (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. Constr Manag Econ 21:841–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000072137

Mainardes EW, Alves H, Raposo M (2012) A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Manag Decis 50:1861–1879. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279648

Wang T, Chan APC, He Q, Xu J (2022) Identifying the gaps in construction megaproject management research: a bibliographic analysis. Int J Constr Manag 22:1585–1596. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1735610

Mashali A, Elbeltagi E, Motawa I, Elshikh M (2023) Stakeholder management challenges in mega construction projects: critical success factors. J Eng Des Technol 21:358–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-09-2021-0483

Park H, Kim K, Kim Y-W, Kim H (2017) Stakeholder management in long-term complex megaconstruction projects: the Saemangeum project. J Manag Eng 33:05017002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000515

Bhangale K, Joshi K, Gupta R, Gardas B (2024) Assessing project complexity factors for railway megaprojects: a Delphi-BWM approach. J Eng Des Technol. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2022-0398

Xia N, Zou PXW, Griffin MA et al (2018) Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: a systematic literature review and future research agendas. Int J Proj Manag 36:701–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.006

Shi Q, Chen X, Xiao C, Han Y (2022) Network perspective in megaproject management: a systematic review. J Constr Eng Manag 148:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002304

Xue J, Shen GQ, Yang RJ et al (2020) Mapping the knowledge domain of stakeholder perspective studies in construction projects: a bibliometric approach. Int J Proj Manag 38:313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.07.007

Yang J, Shen Q, Ho M (2009) An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management and its implications for the construction industry. J Facil Manag 7:159–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960910952532

Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang J (2015) Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: a review and future directions. Int J Proj Manag 33:446–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007

Lee C-Y, Chong H-Y, Liao P-C, Wang X (2018) Critical review of social network analysis applications in complex project management. J Manag Eng 34:04017061. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000579

Nohria N, Eccles RG (1994) Networks and organizations: structure, form and action, 1st edn. Harvard Business School Press

Pryke SD (2007) Towards a social network theory of project governance. Constr Manag Econ 23(9):927–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500184196

Ruan X, Ochieng EG, Price ADF, Egbu CO (2012) Knowledge integration process in construction projects: a social network analysis approach to compare competitive and collaborative working. Constr Manag Econ 30:5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.654127

Ding R, Liu F (2011) A social network theory of stakeholders in China’s project governance. iBusiness 3:114–122

Helms R, Ignacio R, Brinkkemper S, Zonneveld A (2010) Limitations of network analysis for studying efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge sharing. Electron J Knowl Manag 8:53–68

Loosemore M (1998) Social network analysis: using a quantitative tool within an interpretative context to explore the management of construction crises. Eng Constr Archit Manag 5:315–326

Chinowsky P, Diekmann J, Galotti V (2008) Social network model of construction. J Constr Eng Manag 134:804–812. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:10(804)

Corazza L, Cottafava D, Torchia D, Dhir A (2023) Interpreting stakeholder ecosystems through relational stakeholder theory: The case of a highly contested megaproject. Bus Strateg Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3601

Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 22:501–518. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315748771

Lienert J, Schnetzer F, Ingold K (2013) Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. J Environ Manag 125:134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.052

Gan X, Chang R, Wen T (2018) Overcoming barriers to off-site construction through engaging stakeholders: a two-mode social network analysis. J Clean Prod 201:735–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.299

Dadpour M, Shakeri E, Nazari A (2019) Analysis of stakeholder concerns at different times of construction projects using social network analysis (SNA). Int J Civ Eng 17:1715–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00450-1

Yang RJ, Zou PXW (2014) Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: a social network model. Build Environ 73:208–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.12.014

Wang D, Wang X, Liu M et al (2021) Managing public–private partnerships: a transmission pattern of underlying dynamics determining project performance. Eng Constr Archit Manag 28:1038–1059. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2020-0034

Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang RJ (2017) A network theory-based analysis of stakeholder issues and their interrelationships in large construction projects: a case study. Int J Constr Manag 17:210–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1187246

Wu G, Qiang G, Zuo J et al (2018) What are the key indicators of mega sustainable construction projects?—A stakeholder-network perspective. Sustainability 10:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082939

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Boutilier RG, Zdziarski M (2017) Managing stakeholder networks for a social license to build. Constr Manag Econ 35:498–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1289229

Pryke S, Badi S, Almadhoob H et al (2018) Self-organizing networks in complex infrastructure projects. Proj Manag J 49:18–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281804900202

Pryke SD (2004) Analysing construction project coalitions: exploring the application of social network analysis. Constr Manag Econ 22:787–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000206533

Nangoli S, Ahimbisibwe A, Namagembe S, Bashir H (2013) Social networks: a strategy for enhancing project-stakeholder commitment. J Strateg Manag 6:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-02-2013-0012

Hossain L (2009) Communications and coordination in construction projects. Constr Manag Econ 27:25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802558923

Hossain L (2009) Effect of organisational position and network centrality on project coordination. Int J Proj Manag 27:680–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.11.004

Hossain L, Wu A (2009) Communications network centrality correlates to organisational coordination. Int J Proj Manag 27:795–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.003

Lee Y-S, Kim J-J, Lee TS (2016) Topological competiveness based on social relationships in the Korean Construction-Management Industry. J Constr Eng Manag 142:05016014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001175

Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543

Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

Provan KG, Fish A, Sydow J (2007) Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. J Manag 33:479–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302554

Yang J, Shen PQ, Bourne L et al (2011) A typology of operational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement. Constr Manag Econ 29:145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010.521759

Akgul BK, Ozorhon B, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT (2017) Social network analysis of construction companies operating in international markets: case of Turkish contractors. J Civ Eng Manag 23:327–337. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1073617

Uddin S (2017) Social network analysis in project management—A case study of analysing stakeholder networks. J Mod Proj Manag 5:106–113

DeFillippi R, Sydow J (2016) Project networks: governance choices and paradoxical tensions. Proj Manag J 47:6–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700502

Xie L, Han T, Skitmore M (2019) Governance of relationship risks in megaprojects: a social network analysis. Adv Civ Eng 2019:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1426139

Fernando S, Jha P (2021) Exploring the impacts of economic corridors on South Asian countries. India Q 77:404–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/09749284211027145

Roberts M, Melecky M, Bougna T, Xu Y (2020) Transport corridors and their wider economic benefits: a quantitative review of the literature. J Reg Sci 60:207–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12467

Xu C, Yu D, Yang H, Yu S (2021) 20 years of economic corridors development: a bibliometric analysis. J Appl Econ 24:173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2021.1880246

Zafar I, Shen GQ, Zahoor H et al (2020) Dynamic stakeholder salience mapping framework for highway route alignment decisions: China-Pakistan economic corridor as a case study. Can J Civ Eng 47:1129–1309

Zafar I, Wuni IY, Shen GQ et al (2020) A decision support framework for sustainable highway alignment embracing variant preferences of stakeholders: case of China Pakistan economic corridor. J Environ Plan Manag 63:1550–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1672524

Farooq M, Rao ZR, Shoaib M (2023) Analyzing the determinants of sustainability of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects: an interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:12385–12401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22813-3

Sulzenko A, Koch K (2020) Governance options for a Canadian Northern Corridor. Sch Public Policy Publ 13:27

Luthuli N, Houghton J (2019) Implementing regional economic development : exploring stakeholder engagements and project governance in the formation of the Durban Aerotropolis. J Public Adm 54:677–692

Orr GL (2014) Understanding multi-state, stakeholder directed, corridor coalition building: an interstate-81 case study. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Holt AR, Moug P, Lerner DN (2012) The network Governance of urban river corridors. Ecol Soc 17:22

Husnain G (2022) Governance of cross border regions and SEZs: the case of Gwadar under China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Politecnico Milano

Carrai MA (2021) Adaptive governance along Chinese-financed BRI railroad megaprojects in East Africa. World Dev 141:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105388

Anand S, Sami N (2016) Scaling up, scaling down-states rescaling along the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor. Econ Polit Wkly L1:50–58

Jain M, Jehling M (2020) Analysing transport corridor policies: an integrative approach to spatial and social disparities in India. J Transp Geogr 86:102781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102781

Garg A, Kapshe M, Shukla PR, Ghosh D (2002) Large point source (LPS) emissions from India: regional and sectoral analysis. Atmos Environ 36:213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00439-3

Sircar A, Shah M, Sahajpal S et al (2015) Geothermal exploration in Gujarat: case study from Dholera. Geotherm Energy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-015-0041-5

Mittal J, Kashyap A (2015) Real estate market led land development strategies for regional economic corridors—A tale of two mega projects. Habitat Int 47:205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.026

Singh A (2016) An exploratory study of DMIC water uses. IRA Int J Manag Soc Sci (ISSN 2455-2267) 3:486–498

Mukhopadhyay C (2018) Is the Delhi Mumbai industrial corridor (DMIC) an emerging ‘Megaregion’ in India? Plan Theory Pract 19:305–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1392136

Schindler S, Sharma S (2017) Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor: economic and environmental consequences. Econ Polit Wkly 52:12–16

Yin RK (2003) Case study research design and method, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, California

Adams RJ, Smart P, Huff AS (2017) Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int J Manag Rev 19:432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102

van Zanten JA, van Tulder R (2021) Analyzing companies’ interactions with the Sustainable Development Goals through network analysis: four corporate sustainability imperatives. Bus Strateg Environ 30:2396–2420. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2753

Castañer X, Oliveira N (2020) Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. J Manag 46:965–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565

Rowley TJ (2017) The power of and in stakeholder networks. In: Wasieleski DM, Weber J (eds) Stakeholder management, 1st edn. Emerald Publishing Ltd., Bingley, pp 101–122

De P, Iyengar K (2014) Developing economic corridors in South Asia, 1st edn. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City

Ruan X, Ochieng EG, Price ADF (2011) The evaluation of social network analysis application’s in the UK construction industry. In: 27th annual conference of the association of researchers in construction management, ARCOM 2011. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Bristol, pp 423–432

Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet 6 for windows: software for social network analysis

Doloi H (2012) Assessing stakeholders’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects. Facilities 30:531–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771211252351

Jackson ET, Gariba S (2002) Complexity in local stakeholder coordination: decentralization and community water management in Northern Ghana. Public Adm Dev 22:135–140

Sainati T, Brookes N, Locatelli G (2017) Special purpose entities in megaprojects: empty boxes or real companies? Proj Manag J 48:55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800205

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the valuable inputs provided by Late Prof. K Chandrashekhar Iyer, PhD while conceptualizing the study.

The author received no funding/grant to conduct the present study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Construction, NICMAR University, Pune, NICMAR University Campus, 25/1, NIA Post Office, Pune, Maharashtra, 411045, India

Aritra Halder

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, 110016, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The corresponding author, being the sole author of the paper, had conceptualized the study, collected relevant data, conducted literature review, performed the case analysis, developed the graphics and written the original draft of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aritra Halder .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any study with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 2930 KB)

Supplementary file2 (xlsx 35 kb), supplementary file3 (xlsx 12 kb), supplementary file4 (xlsx 12 kb), supplementary file5 (xlsx 12 kb), supplementary file6 (xlsx 13 kb), supplementary file7 (xlsx 13 kb), supplementary file8 (xlsx 13 kb), rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Halder, A. Social network analysis of stakeholder governance landscapes in infrastructure mega projects: a case of the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor project. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 9 , 209 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01521-6

Download citation

Received : 27 November 2023

Accepted : 30 April 2024

Published : 18 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01521-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Infrastructure
• Megaprojects
• Economic Corridor
• Stakeholder
• Social Network Analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research