Huge megaprojects' are transforming the lives of millions of people and the landscapes and cityscape in which they live. Megaprojects, conventionally, have numerical thresholds around $1 billion; however, the characteristics that elevate a project to mega-status are much more complex than simply project cost. We can define a megaproject as a unique endeavour, a project whose special conditions include higher time, budget, and/or resources allocated than in similar projects. Risks, requirements, and difficulties to perform it are commonly high as well. Characteristically, megaprojects are risky due to long planning horizons and complex interfaces: are carried out by fluid, dynamic, and shifting project teams; have multiple stake- holders and conflicting interests. Often they are proposed as so unusual and specific that they have a uniqueness bias, which leads to an escalation of commitment in their delivery and a project scope that usually changes significantly over time. Typically, these megaprojects are characterized by complex contracts, subject to highly indexical and contested interpretations, presenting many opportunities for rent-seeking behaviour by stakeholders.

The norm in government work put out for tender was to drive the most competitive bar- gain through what are known as "hard money competitive contracting norms that sought to reward the offer of the lowest price for a contract by a tenderer. However, in this case there were no detailed contract specifications to work from there was no time to produce them. Besides, faith in the competitive approach to tendering ignored the fact that a low bid, once accepted, would inevitably cost much more in practice as skilled project managers exploited the fine detail of the contractual bill of works and sought to charge for variation orders at every opportunity - the price could easily escalate. The legal profession would always be available to fix the accountabilities and responsibilities after the fact, et considerable cost. Despite all the complications, issues, and contingencies, the project was successful: on time and on budget....

Question 

Clearly, this is a very different approach to management and power relations than we would find in the vast majority of similar cases. Why do you think this was so? What are the import- ant power lessons that you take from the case? What are the crucial aspects of the project's design, in your view, that created the success of the megaproject? To answer these questions you will need to consult Clegg et al. (2002) and Pitsis et al. (2003).