The uncertainty management theory has become well established over the last 20–30 years. However, the authors suggest that it does not fully address why opportunities often remain unexploited. Empirical studies show a stronger focus on mitigating risks than exploiting opportunities. This paper therefore addresses why so few opportunities are explored in large projects. The theory claims that risks and opportunities should be equally managed in the same process. In two surveys, conducted in six (private and public) companies over a four-year period, project managers stated that uncertainty management is about managing risk and opportunities. However, two case studies from 12 projects from the same companies revealed that all of them had their main focus on risks, and most of the opportunities were left unexploited. We have developed a theoretical explanation model to shed light on this phenomena. The concept is a reflection based on findings from our empirical data up against current project management, uncertainty, risk and stakeholder literature. Our model shows that the threshold for pursuing a potential opportunity is high. If a potential opportunity should be considered, it must be extremely interesting, since it may require contract changes, and the project must abandon an earlier-accepted best solution.

Background: Research has revealed an inadequate understanding of the owners’ and users’ strategic objectives and a lack of methodology for translating these objectives into functional buildings. Fulfilment of owners’ and users’ objectives is fundamental in creating value through a project. Management and design processes can be decisive in achieving the desired objectives. Hence, knowledge about what creates value applied into a management framework will enable higher value creation. Objectives: Providing a framework to enhance value creation in projects by addressing: i) what means and principles should be considered in the front end of a project to secure value creation?; and ii) how can these principles be structured in a framework to maximize the project’s value creation? Methods/Approach: A literature study, two questionnaires, a focus group workshop, 8 interviews, and two case studies. Results: Fulfilment and alignment of users’ needs and owners’ strategies combined with innovative thinking is required for value creation. Challenges and obstacles for value creation are identified, and a framework is suggested. Conclusions: The framework suggests principles that contribute to value creation in each phase of a project. Implementing this methodology will help decision makers towards a better understanding of the objectives and translating them to functional solutions.

Purpose: Standardizing the development, planning and construction of public building projects can contribute to timely and efficient project delivery. This is especially relevant when there are urgent needs for capacity. The purpose of this paper is to share the experiences from the development of standardized concepts for school extensions and prison building in Norway. Design/methodology/approach: The research questions posed in this paper are on the interaction between public entities project delivery models and standardizing building types and the construction method. To investigate the research questions, the paper presents the findings from two case studies: school and prison development and construction projects. It is based on a literature review, semi-structured interviews, document studies and quantitative data on time and cost for the planning and construction phases. Findings: Standardization and use of modularized building systems can contribute to shortened delivery time by reducing the duration of both the planning and construction phase. The most significant time reduction resulted from less time spent on quality assurance of cost estimates prior to the funding of the projects. Project costs increased in the school case, but were reduced in the prison case. An important challenge faced in both cases is a shallow pool of capable suppliers; the actors have approached the challenge with different strategies, yet neither actor has been successful in their attempts. Originality/value: The paper provides empirical data to add to the collective knowledge on the project management aspects of using standardized project delivery models and standardized (modular) building. However, by emphasizing the interaction between project delivery models and standardization of the planning and execution of the projects, additional insight into the benefits and challenges are highlighted.

Today, in new product development projects, “NPDs”, time is the cutting edge. The time to market in new product development projects is a key factor in the competition between innovative companies. Research has shown that time can be managed, and speed too. Our concern in this paper is to study the time factor in the case of new product development projects based on a time-cost trade-off curve, which is important for the project success by delivering the product as fast as possible. We will explain the motivation behind delivering fast in NPD projects. In construction projects, a customer initially contracts for a project from a contractor based on specifications, budget and delay. Time to market is a key success factor in new product development projects. Does time to delivery have high importance in construction projects? We conclude by showing the significance of NPD projects’ speed with respect to management in construction projects.