Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 98 references

A Hetero-functional Graph Theory Perspective of Engineering Management of Mega-Projects

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that model-based systems engineering and hetero-functional graph theory can give megaproject management a unified quantitative foundation and help bring runaway costs and schedules back under control.

desk verdict A clearly written proposal mapping HFGT to megaproject management, but the central claim that it can bring costs and schedules under control is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24045 v1 pith:FO2JMR7H submitted 2025-05-29 eess.SY cs.SY

Amirreza Hosseini , Amro M. Farid This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords megaprojectsengineeringmanagementhetero-functionalgraphtheorymodel-basedsystemsproductionsystemsystem-of-systemscostoverrunprojectcomplexity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Megaprojects—projects over a billion dollars that take years and affect millions of people—almost never come in on budget, on time, and on benefits; a widely cited review [1] concludes that no single framework yet accounts for their repeated failure. This paper argues that model-based systems engineering (MBSE) and hetero-functional graph theory (HFGT) together can provide that missing framework. HFGT, built for mass-customized factories, models an enterprise as sentences of the form 'resource + process + operand,' so physical and informational flows share one quantitative language. The authors claim this language can represent a megaproject as a convergent system-of-systems, simulate its behavior as a stochastic discrete-event system, and thereby bring costs and schedules back under control while giving the field a unified theoretical foundation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hetero-functional graph: a graph whose nodes are capabilities (a resource paired with a process applied to an operand) and whose edges are the logical sequences of such capabilities, built on the meta-architecture of operands (matter, energy, living beings, information, money), resources (physical and digital), and processes (transformation, transportation, holding, measurement, decision, digital transformation, digital transportation). This object replaces the node–edge abstraction of graph theory and the layered abstraction of multi-layer networks with a domain-agnostic subject–verb–object ontology. It does the argument's work by making heterogeneous physical and informatic flows commensurable, by supporting stochastic discrete-event simulation, structural vulnerability and resilience analysis, alternative-pathway search for decision-making, and supply-chain models, and by converting SysML models from MBSE into quantitative form.

What would settle it

Take a well-documented past megaproject with public ex-ante forecasts and ex-post outcomes, build a hetero-functional graph of its management enterprise from data available at the start, and run the paper's stochastic discrete-event simulations; if the simulations cannot reproduce the realized cost and schedule overruns, or if the informal social factors must be added ad hoc to match outcomes, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the recurring failures of megaproject management are, at bottom, a modeling problem, and that the HFGT meta-architecture gives the field a way to model what other graph-based methods cannot. Where ordinary graph theory abstracts a system by nodes and edges and multi-layer networks add separated layers, HFGT starts from subject–verb–object sentences: physical and digital operands (the megaproject, its matter, energy, people, information, and money) are acted on by physical and digital resources through transformation, transportation, holding, measurement, and decision processes. Each resource–process pair is a capability and forms a node; the logical sequence of two capabilities forms an edge. This makes the resulting hetero-functional graph simultaneously a model of structure and function, of physical execution and decision-making, and of the stakeholders who hold agency. The paper argues that this architecture addresses the four research directions and six performance themes of the systematic review [1] it is organized around, and that MBSE supplies the participatory graphical modeling layer while HFGT supplies the quantitative analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that a modeling language built for factories can represent a megaproject's management—including its informal norms, politics, and conflicts—without losing what makes megaprojects hard.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Megaproject management gains a production-systems foundation, so the analytical tools of reconfigurable manufacturing—stochastic simulation, minimum-cost flow, resilience measures—apply to one-off, billion-dollar projects.
  • A live digital twin of the megaproject management enterprise becomes feasible: SysML models can be translated algorithmically into hetero-functional graphs, and the graph can be simulated and optimized as decisions change.
  • Structural analysis on the hetero-functional graph can expose single points of failure and cascading-risk paths before they materialize, making resilience a computable life-cycle property rather than an afterthought.
  • Behavioral failure modes named in the literature—optimism bias, escalating commitment, strategic misrepresentation—can be countered with realistic stochastic simulation and by presenting decision-makers with lower-risk alternative pathways in the graph.
  • Stakeholder conflicts and supply-chain fragmentation can be represented explicitly, including conflicting agency, contract nets, and commercial relationships, so governance mechanisms can be designed and tested in the model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's evidence is analogical rather than empirical: it maps HFGT concepts onto megaproject themes but does not build a megaproject model. The natural next step, and the strongest test of the thesis, is to construct a hetero-functional graph of a completed megaproject with public cost and schedule records and ask whether the model reproduces the overrun.
  • If the meta-architecture truly is domain-agnostic, the same model that manages construction could carry over into operations, closing the gap between delivering a project and achieving its intended benefits—the 'successful surgery, dead patient' problem.
  • Because the paper concedes HFGT has not yet modeled socio-cultural differences, informal norms, or conflict psychology, a testable extension is to couple the formal decision graph with socio-psychological propagation models so that informal norms enter as stochastic influences on decisions.
  • The headline promise that HFGT can 'bring costs and schedule back under control' is a future claim; a concrete benchmark would be comparing HFGT-based stochastic forecasts with the realized cost and schedule distributions of past megaprojects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a perspective/review article that proposes the use of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Hetero-Functional Graph Theory (HFGT) as a unified framework for the engineering management of megaprojects. It organizes its argument around four research directions derived from Denicol et al.'s (2020) systematic literature review and maps HFGT concepts—operands, resources, processes, capabilities—onto six themes of megaproject performance: decision-making behavior, strategy/governance/procurement, risk/uncertainty, leadership/capable teams, stakeholder engagement, and supply chain integration. The central claim is that MBSE and HFGT can model the complexity of megaprojects and support analyses that can bring cost and schedule performance under control, and that they address many of Denicol et al.'s concluding recommendations. The paper provides no quantitative demonstration, no worked megaproject model, and no comparative evaluation against existing project management frameworks.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a meaningful step toward a unified theoretical and computational foundation for megaproject management, connecting a mature production-systems formalism (HFGT) to a domain where quantitative, architecture-based analyses are lacking. The paper's systematic mapping of HFGT constructs onto Denicol et al.'s six themes is a useful organizational contribution, and the argument for convergence between production system management and megaproject management is well motivated by the existing literature. However, the paper's significance is currently limited because it puts forward ambitious claims without demonstration: no HFGT model, equation, simulation, or case study of a megaproject appears in the manuscript. The strength of the paper lies in its agenda-setting potential rather than in any verified result. The authors should be credited for explicitly acknowledging some of the framework's limitations, but those acknowledgments cut against the strength of the claims as currently phrased.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Section I / Section III] The central claim that MBSE and HFGT "can model the complexity of megaprojects and support analyses that can bring their costs and schedule back under control" is asserted but not demonstrated. Section III maps HFGT concepts onto megaproject management by analogy, but no megaproject model is instantiated, no SysML diagrams are given, no equations are written, and no analysis (cost, schedule, resilience, or otherwise) is performed on even a stylized example. In an empirical or systems-engineering contribution, a proof-of-concept would be load-bearing; in a perspective, the claims should be explicitly scoped as a research agenda. The authors should either add a concrete illustrative HFGT model of a megaproject (even a simplified one) or substantially weaken the wording of the central claim.
  2. [Section IV-D and Section IV-E] The manuscript's own stated limitations undermine the strong version of the central claim. Section IV-D says "HFGT has yet to address the subtle socio-cultural differences of leadership and conflict management," and Section IV-E says "the formality of HFGT is less able to describe informal norms and other 'unwritten rules' of an organization." Yet Section I identifies organizational culture, opportunism, strategic misrepresentation, and escalating commitment as central causes of megaproject failure. If the formal framework cannot represent these socially constructed mechanisms, then the conclusion that HFGT "can model the complexity of megaprojects" in a way that addresses the causes of poor performance is not supported. The authors should either propose concrete extensions or hybrid approaches to cover these factors, or explicitly limit the claim to the technical and formal organizational dimensions of megaprojects.
  3. [Section IV-A] The treatment of strategic misrepresentation is internally inconsistent with the paper's coverage claim. The paper states that "An HFGT model is unlikely to resolve such a problem because all models are only as good as the data they are built upon," and then asserts that a consistent framework creates a "moderate deterrent" through transparency. This is a concession that the framework does not address the behavioral root cause. The theme is nevertheless presented as one that HFGT "addresses." The paper should clearly distinguish between what HFGT can mitigate directly, what it can only expose, and what it cannot handle at all. Without this differentiation, the reader cannot assess which of the six themes actually support the concluding claim that MBSE and HFGT "provide a means for addressing many of the concluding recommendations."
  4. [References [32], [33], [43]-[56]; Section II-C] The evidence for HFGT's versatility and domain-genericity is drawn almost entirely from self-authored references, including the HFGT textbook [32], the tensor formulation [33], and a long series of papers by one of the co-authors [43]-[56]. No independent application of HFGT outside the authors' own group is cited. Given that the paper's central claim depends on HFGT's maturity and broad applicability, the authors should either provide independent validation or explicitly acknowledge and discuss the heavy reliance on their own prior work. As written, the review's persuasion rests substantially on a closed citation loop, which weakens the claim that HFGT is a well-established, domain-agnostic framework.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and stray artifacts, including "one-o ff" in the abstract, "distruptions" in Section I, "Corrresponding Author", "di fferent", "o ffers", and "e ffective". A careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.
  2. [Section II-C] The phrase "Quite interesting" is informal for a journal article; suggest "It is noteworthy that" or similar.
  3. [Section II-B] The eighth limitation of multi-layer networks, "Limited number of aspects for each layer," is listed but not explained; a sentence elaborating its meaning would help readers understand why megaproject management might exhibit this limitation.
  4. [References] Reference [54] (Hingorani and Gyugyi on FACTS devices) appears unrelated to the HFGT energy systems applications cited in the surrounding sentence; please verify that this is the intended citation.
  5. [Section IV-F] The sentence "According to some works in the literature [1], [12], [92]–[94], Denicol et. al, the supply chain integration and coordination theme focuses on..." is grammatically broken; please rephrase.
  6. [Figure 4] The text refers to "decomposition arrows (in black) and association links (in green)" in Fig. 4, but the figure is not included in the manuscript text provided; ensure that the final version includes the figure with these elements clearly visible and labeled in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an analogical perspective, not a derivation chain, and its self-citations do not smuggle in the megaproject conclusion.

full rationale

This paper is a conceptual and argumentative perspective rather than a derivation or prediction exercise. Its central claim, that MBSE and HFGT can model megaproject complexity and address Denicol et al.'s recommendations, is supported by an analogy: Section III maps megaproject management elements onto HFGT categories (operands, resources, processes), and Section IV asserts correspondences between each Denicol theme and HFGT modeling capabilities. These are mappings and interpretive claims, not equations or fitted inputs, so there is no point where a derived quantity is equivalent by construction to a model input. The self-citations to prior HFGT applications in transportation, energy, water, and healthcare are used as evidence of the framework's versatility, but they do not assume the megaproject conclusion as a premise; they are externally grounded applications in other domains. Even if one doubts the strength of the analogy, the paper's own admissions that HFGT has not yet addressed socio-cultural leadership differences (Section IV-D) and informal norms (Section IV-E) weaken the argument's scope rather than make it circular. A weak or overstated inductive argument is not the same as a self-definitional reduction, and no specific step in the paper reduces to its own input. Accordingly, no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities; it relies on reusing the HFGT framework as a given. Its load-bearing assumptions are domain assumptions about the genericity and sufficiency of the framework for megaprojects, and about the dispensability of socio-cultural factors. These are stated or implied at multiple points, especially in Sections II-C and IV.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The HFGT meta-architecture is domain-agnostic and can be applied generically across different domains, including megaprojects.
    Invoked in Sec. II-C to justify transferring a manufacturing framework to megaprojects; no independent validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Megaproject complexity is primarily structural and can be captured by modeling operands, resources, processes, and decision-making architectures.
    Underlies all of Sec. III, where sociotechnical challenges are translated into HFGT constructs without evidence that this translation preserves essential complexity.
  • domain assumption Socio-cultural factors such as informal norms, conflict, and leadership psychology can be omitted from the core model without invalidating its conclusions.
    Acknowledged as limitations in Secs. IV-A and IV-D; the paper assumes these gaps can be patched by future work, but the central claim includes addressing megaproject management broadly.
  • domain assumption SysML models can be algorithmically converted into HFGT models, enabling participatory modeling.
    Stated in Sec. IV-E; no algorithm or demonstration is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hetero-functional Graph Theory Perspective of Engineering Management of Mega-Projects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FO2JMR7H

@misc{pith2026250524045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hetero-functional Graph Theory Perspective of Engineering Management of Mega-Projects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FO2JMR7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24045}
}
read the original abstract

Megaprojects are large-scale, complex, and one-off engineering endeavors that require significant investments from a public or private sector. Such projects generally cost more than a billion dollars, take many years to develop and construct, involve stakeholders both in the public and private sectors, and impact millions of people. Most of the extant megaproject research is concerned with understanding why the engineering management of megaprojects fails so frequently and which dimensions make them so difficult to manage, including size, uncertainty, complexity, urgency, and institutional structure \cite{denicol:2020:00}. Recently, the literature on mega-projects has advocated for a convergence of the engineering management and production system management literature. To that end, this paper proposes the use of Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) and Hetero-Functional Graph Theory (HFGT), where the latter, quite interestingly, finds its origins in the mass-customized production system literature. More specifically, HFGT was developed so that the physical and informatic parts of production system planning, operations, and decision-making are readily reconfigured to support production customization at scale. As the literature on megaprojects is rapidly evolving with a significant amount of divergence between authors, this report builds upon the recent and extensive megaproject literature review provided by Denicol et. al. \cite{denicol:2020:00}. The paper concludes that MBSE and HFGT provide a means for addressing many of the concluding recommendations provided by Denicol et. al. MBSE and HFGT not only align with current research on megaprojects but also push the boundaries of how the engineering management of megaprojects can gain a unified theoretical foundation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24045 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Block Definition Diagram of the Graph Theory Meta Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-layer Network Meta Architecture Representations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A Hypothetical Four-Layer Network including transportation, electric power, water distribution, and decision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Block Definition Diagram of the HFGT Meta Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    W. C. Schoonenberg, I. S. Khayal, and A. M. Farid, A Hetero-functional Graph Theory for Modeling Interdependent Smart City Infrastructure . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99301-0

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99301-0 2019

  2. [33]

    A Tensor-Based Formulation of Hetero-functional Graph Theory,

    A. M. Farid, D. Thompson, and W. C. Schoonenberg, “A Tensor-Based Formulation of Hetero-functional Graph Theory,” Nature Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 18805, pp. 1–22, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19333-y

    doi:10.1038/s41598-022-19333-y 2022

  3. [43]

    Reconfigurability Measurement in Automated Manufacturing Systems,

    A. M. Farid, “Reconfigurability Measurement in Automated Manufacturing Systems,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge Engineering Department Institute for Manufacturing, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://liines.net/publications/

    work page 2007

  4. [56]

    Axiomatic Design Based Volatility Assessment of the Abu Dhabi Healthcare Labor Market,

    I. S. Khayal and A. M. Farid, “Axiomatic Design Based Volatility Assessment of the Abu Dhabi Healthcare Labor Market,” Journal of Enterprise Transformation, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 162–191, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19488289.2015.1056449

    work page arXiv 2015

  5. [1]

    What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? a systematic literature review and research agenda,

    J. Denicol, A. Davies, and I. Krystallis, “What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? a systematic literature review and research agenda,” Project management journal , vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 328–345, 2020

    2020

  6. [2]

    What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview,

    B. Flyvbjerg, “What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview,” Project management journal , vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 6–19, 2014

    2014

  7. [3]

    Oxford University Press, 2017

    ——, The Oxford handbook of megaproject management . Oxford University Press, 2017

    2017

  8. [4]

    Complex project management as complex problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective,

    T. Ahern, B. Leavy, and P . Byrne, “Complex project management as complex problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective,” International Journal of Project Management , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1371–1381, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786313000860

    2014

Show all 98 references
  1. [5]

    Flyvbjerg, Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition

    B. Flyvbjerg, Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition . Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  2. [6]

    The fundamentals of boosting high-quality development by megaprojects: a systematic literature review,

    Y. Han, Q. Yang, and P . Tian, “The fundamentals of boosting high-quality development by megaprojects: a systematic literature review,” Project Leadership and Society , p. 100140, 2024

    2024

  3. [7]

    Managing global megaprojects: Complexity and risk management,

    I. Kardes, A. Ozturk, S. T. Cavusgil, and E. Cavusgil, “Managing global megaprojects: Complexity and risk management,” International business review, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 905–917, 2013

    2013

  4. [8]

    Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects: two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster,

    B. Flyvbjerg, M. Garbuio, and D. Lovallo, “Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects: two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster,” California management review , vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 170–194, 2009

    2009

  5. [9]

    Temporal clustering psha based on smoothing: a case study in the new madrid seismic zone of the central usa,

    S. Yaghmaei-Sabegh, E. Shokrgozar-Yatimdar, and P . Shoaeifar, “Temporal clustering psha based on smoothing: a case study in the new madrid seismic zone of the central usa,” Journal of Seismology , pp. 1–17, 2022

    2022

  6. [10]

    Measuring performance within the supply chain of a large scale project,

    C. D. Wickramatillake, S. L. Koh, A. Gunasekaran, and S. Arunachalam, “Measuring performance within the supply chain of a large scale project,” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 52–59, 2007

    2007

  7. [11]

    Systems engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments,

    G. Locatelli, M. Mancini, and E. Romano, “Systems engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments,” International Journal of Project Management , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1395–1410, 2014

    2014

  8. [12]

    What are the strategies to manage megaproject supply chains? a systematic literature review and research agenda,

    G. Stefano, J. Denicol, T. Broyd, and A. Davies, “What are the strategies to manage megaproject supply chains? a systematic literature review and research agenda,” International Journal of Project Management , vol. 41, no. 3, p. 102457, 2023

    2023

  9. [13]

    Keeping it simple? a case study into the advantages and disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning,

    M. Giezen, “Keeping it simple? a case study into the advantages and disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning,” International Journal of Project Management , vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 781–790, 2012

    2012

  10. [14]

    Competing management approaches in large engineering projects: The dutch randstadrail project,

    J. Koppenjan, W. Veeneman, H. Van der Voort, E. Ten Heuvelhof, and M. Leijten, “Competing management approaches in large engineering projects: The dutch randstadrail project,” International Journal of Project Management , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 740–750, 2011

    2011

  11. [15]

    Old mega-projects newly packaged? waterfront redevelopment in toronto,

    U. Lehrer and J. Laidley, “Old mega-projects newly packaged? waterfront redevelopment in toronto,” International journal of urban and regional research, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 786–803, 2008

    2008

  12. [16]

    Data-driven approach to risk identification for major transportation projects: A common risk breakdown structure,

    A. Erfani, Q. Cui, G. Baecher, and Y. H. Kwak, “Data-driven approach to risk identification for major transportation projects: A common risk breakdown structure,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , vol. 71, pp. 6830–6841, 2024. 11

    2024

  13. [17]

    Five things you should know about cost overrun,

    B. Flyvbjerg, A. Ansar, A. Budzier, S. Buhl, C. Cantarelli, M. Garbuio, C. Glenting, M. S. Holm, D. Lovallo, D. Lunn et al. , “Five things you should know about cost overrun,” Transportation research part A: policy and practice , vol. 118, pp. 174–190, 2018

    2018

  14. [18]

    Causes of delay in large construction projects,

    S. A. Assaf and S. Al-Hejji, “Causes of delay in large construction projects,” International journal of project management , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 349–357, 2006

    2006

  15. [19]

    How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?

    B. Flyvbjerg, M. K. Skamris Holm, and S. L. Buhl, “How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?” Transport reviews, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 71–88, 2003

    2003

  16. [20]

    Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie?

    B. Flyvbjerg, M. S. Holm, and S. Buhl, “Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie?” Journal of the American planning association, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 279–295, 2002

    2002

  17. [21]

    Designing the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects: Strategy, structure, process, and people,

    X. Zhang, J. Denicol, P . W. Chan, and Y. Le, “Designing the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects: Strategy, structure, process, and people,” Journal of Operations Management , vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 107–136, 2024

    2024

  18. [22]

    Managing public–private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design,

    A. Van Marrewijk, S. R. Clegg, T. S. Pitsis, and M. Veenswijk, “Managing public–private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design,” International journal of project management , vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 591–600, 2008

    2008

  19. [23]

    The culture of project management: understanding daily life in complex megaprojects,

    A. Van Marrewijk and M. Veenswijk, “The culture of project management: understanding daily life in complex megaprojects,” 2006

    2006

  20. [24]

    Martin, Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain

    J. Martin, Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain . Sage publications, 2001

    2001

  21. [25]

    The ambiguous project concept (s),

    M. Engwall, “The ambiguous project concept (s),” Projects as Arenas for Renewal and Learning Processes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, pp. 25–36, 1998

    1998

  22. [26]

    O. E. Williamson, The economic institutions of capitalism. Firms, markets, relational contracting . Springer, 2007

    2007

  23. [27]

    Uncertainty: a typology and refinements of existing concepts,

    D. Dequech, “Uncertainty: a typology and refinements of existing concepts,” Journal of economic issues , vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 621–640, 2011

    2011

  24. [28]

    Collaboration and opportunism in megaproject alliance contracts: The interplay between governance, trust and culture,

    P . Galvin, S. Tywoniak, and J. Sutherland, “Collaboration and opportunism in megaproject alliance contracts: The interplay between governance, trust and culture,” International Journal of Project Management , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 394–405, 2021

    2021

  25. [29]

    Boosting coordination and employee motivation in mega-project sustainable performance through quality relationships: The key role of quality management system,

    L. Ma, A. Ali, M. S. Farooq, and J. Musonda, “Boosting coordination and employee motivation in mega-project sustainable performance through quality relationships: The key role of quality management system,” Buildings, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 936, 2025

    2025

  26. [30]

    van Steen, Graph Theory and Complex Networks: An Introduction

    M. van Steen, Graph Theory and Complex Networks: An Introduction . Maarten van Steen, 2010, no. January

    2010

  27. [31]

    Multilayer networks,

    M. Kivel ¨a, A. Arenas, M. Barthelemy, J. P . Gleeson, Y. Moreno, and M. A. Porter, “Multilayer networks,” Journal of complex networks , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 203–271, 2014

    2014

  28. [34]

    The four coordination roles of clients when designing megaproject organizations,

    C. M. Zani, J. Denicol, and T. Broyd, “The four coordination roles of clients when designing megaproject organizations,” Project Management Journal, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 558–579, 2024

    2024

  29. [35]

    Organisation design in megaprojects: A systematic literature review and research agenda,

    ——, “Organisation design in megaprojects: A systematic literature review and research agenda,” International Journal of Project Management, p. 102634, 2024

    2024

  30. [36]

    Complexity for megaprojects in the energy sector,

    E. Kian Manesh Rad, M. Sun, and F. Bosch ´e, “Complexity for megaprojects in the energy sector,” Journal of Management in Engineering , vol. 33, no. 4, p. 04017009, 2017

    2017

  31. [37]

    Megaproject complexity attributes and competences: lessons from it and construction projects,

    M. Nyarirangwe, K. Babatunde et al. , “Megaproject complexity attributes and competences: lessons from it and construction projects,” International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 77–99, 2019

    2019

  32. [38]

    Construction practitioners perception of key drivers of reputation in mega-construction projects,

    O. A. Olawale, L. O. Oyedele, and H. A. Owolabi, “Construction practitioners perception of key drivers of reputation in mega-construction projects,” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1571–1592, 2020

    2020

  33. [39]

    Innovation potential of megaprojects: a systematic literature review,

    C. C. Cantarelli and A. Genovese, “Innovation potential of megaprojects: a systematic literature review,” Production Planning & Control , vol. 34, no. 14, pp. 1350–1370, 2023

    2023

  34. [40]

    Megaprojects redefined–complexity vs cost and social imperatives,

    A. Pitsis, S. Clegg, D. Freeder, S. Sankaran, and S. Burdon, “Megaprojects redefined–complexity vs cost and social imperatives,” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 7–34, 2018

    2018

  35. [41]

    A review of mega-project management research from an organization science perspective: Current status and future directions,

    Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, K. Zheng, R. Zeng, H. Yuan, and J. Liu, “A review of mega-project management research from an organization science perspective: Current status and future directions,” Developments in the Built Environment , p. 100254, 2023

    2023

  36. [42]

    Gaps in megaproject management system literature: a systematic overview,

    S. Ashkanani and R. Franzoi, “Gaps in megaproject management system literature: a systematic overview,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1300–1318, 2023

    2023

  37. [44]

    Powering and Watering Agriculture: Application of Energy-Water Nexus Planning,

    A. M. Farid and W. N. Lubega, “Powering and Watering Agriculture: Application of Energy-Water Nexus Planning,” in GHTC 2013: IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference , Silicon Valley, CA, USA, 2013, pp. 1–6. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.mit.edu/10.1109...

    2013

  38. [45]

    Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Axiomatic Design Model and Measures,

    A. M. Farid, “Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Axiomatic Design Model and Measures,” IEEE Systems Journal , vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–12, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2015.2428284

    2015

  39. [46]

    Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Part I – Axiomatic Design Model,

    ——, “Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Part I – Axiomatic Design Model,” in 4th International Engineering Systems Symposium. Hoboken, N.J.: Stevens Institute of Technology, 2014, pp. 1–8. [Online]. Available: https://liines.net/publications/

    2014

  40. [47]

    Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Part II – Axiomatic Design Measures,

    ——, “Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Part II – Axiomatic Design Measures,” in 4th International Engineering Systems Symposium. Hoboken, N.J.: Stevens Institute of Technology, 2014, pp. 1–8. [Online]. Available: https://liines.net/publications/

    2014

  41. [48]

    Product Degrees of Freedom as Manufacturing System Reconfiguration Potential Measures,

    ——, “Product Degrees of Freedom as Manufacturing System Reconfiguration Potential Measures,” International Transactions on Systems Science and Applications – invited paper , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 227–242, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://liines.net/publications/

    2008

  42. [49]

    An axiomatic design approach to passenger itinerary enumeration in reconfigurable transportation systems,

    A. Viswanath, E. E. S. Baca, and A. M. Farid, “An axiomatic design approach to passenger itinerary enumeration in reconfigurable transportation systems,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 915–924, 2014

    2014

  43. [50]

    An Axiomatic Design Approach to Reconfigurable Transportation Systems Planning and Operations (invited paper),

    E. E. S. Baca and A. M. Farid, “An Axiomatic Design Approach to Reconfigurable Transportation Systems Planning and Operations (invited paper),” in DCEE 2013: 2nd International Workshop on Design in Civil & Environmental Engineering , Worcester, MA, USA, 2013, pp. 22–29. [Onlin...

    2013

  44. [51]

    An Axiomatic Design Approach to Passenger Itinerary Enumeration in Reconfigurable Transportation Systems,

    E. E. S. Baca, A. M. Farid, I.-T. Tsai, and A. Viswanath, “An Axiomatic Design Approach to Passenger Itinerary Enumeration in Reconfigurable Transportation Systems,” in Proceedings of ICAD2013 The Seventh International Conference on Axiomatic Design , vol. PP, no. 99, Worceste...

    2013

  45. [52]

    Multi-Agent System Design Principles for Resilient Coordination and Control of Future Power Systems,

    A. M. Farid, “Multi-Agent System Design Principles for Resilient Coordination and Control of Future Power Systems,” Intelligent Industrial Systems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 255–269, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40903-015-0013-x

    2015 doi

  46. [53]

    Multi-Agent System Design Principles for Resilient Operation of Future Power Systems,

    ——, “Multi-Agent System Design Principles for Resilient Operation of Future Power Systems,” in IEEE International Workshop on Intelligent Energy Systems , San Diego, CA, 2014, pp. 1–7. [Online]. Available: https://liines.net/publications/

    2014

  47. [54]

    N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS : concepts and technology of flexible AC transmission systems . New York: IEEE Press,

  48. [55]

    Quantitative engineering systems modeling and analysis of the energy–water nexus,

    W. N. Lubega and A. M. Farid, “Quantitative engineering systems modeling and analysis of the energy–water nexus,” Applied Energy, vol. 135, pp. 142–157, 2014. 12

    2014

  49. [57]

    (2024) Collaborative research: Gcr: Convergent anthropocene systems (anthems) - a system-of-systems paradigm

    National Science Foundation. (2024) Collaborative research: Gcr: Convergent anthropocene systems (anthems) - a system-of-systems paradigm. [Online]. Available: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD ID=2317877&HistoricalAwards=false

    2024

  50. [58]

    Big decisions, big risks. improving accountability in mega projects,

    N. Bruzelius, B. Flyvbjerg, and W. Rothengatter, “Big decisions, big risks. improving accountability in mega projects,” Transport Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 143–154, 2002

    2002

  51. [59]

    The influence of optimism bias on time and cost on construction projects,

    A. Chadee, S. R. Hernandez, and H. Martin, “The influence of optimism bias on time and cost on construction projects,” Emerging Science Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 429–442, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    Beyond the socio-economic impact of transport megaprojects,

    A. Montrimas, J. Bruneckien ˙e, and V. Gaidelys, “Beyond the socio-economic impact of transport megaprojects,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 15, p. 8547, 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    The future of economic decision making in project management,

    B. J. Galli, “The future of economic decision making in project management,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 396–413, 2020

    2020

  54. [62]

    Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects,

    P . E. Love and D. D. Ahiaga-Dagbui, “Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects,” Transportation research part A: policy and practice , vol. 113, pp. 357–368, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Evaluating megaprojects: From the iron triangleto network mapping,

    M. Lehtonen, “Evaluating megaprojects: From the iron triangleto network mapping,” Evaluation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 278–295, 2014

    2014

  56. [64]

    Options for reducing external costs from freight transport along the brenner corridor,

    S. Nocera, F. Cavallaro, and O. Irranca Galati, “Options for reducing external costs from freight transport along the brenner corridor,” European Transport Research Review , vol. 10, pp. 1–18, 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    An analytical network process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects,

    P . Boateng, Z. Chen, and S. O. Ogunlana, “An analytical network process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects,” International journal of project management , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1795–1811, 2015

    2015

  58. [66]

    A Dynamic System Model for Personalized Healthcare Delivery and Managed Individual Health Outcomes,

    I. S. Khayal and A. M. Farid, “A Dynamic System Model for Personalized Healthcare Delivery and Managed Individual Health Outcomes,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 138 267–138 282, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3118010

    2021

  59. [67]

    Navigating institutional demands: Organizational responses to institutional complexity in megaproject delivery,

    Y. Fu, R. Leiringer, and S. C. Gottlieb, “Navigating institutional demands: Organizational responses to institutional complexity in megaproject delivery,” International Journal of Project Management , p. 102602, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Relational network of megaproject governance mechanism based on risk prevention and control: experiences from china,

    K. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Kou, X. Yang, and G. Hu, “Relational network of megaproject governance mechanism based on risk prevention and control: experiences from china,” Production Planning & Control , vol. 35, no. 14, pp. 1860–1872, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Participatory governance in megaprojects: the lyon–turin high-speed railway among structure, agency, and democratic participation,

    G. Esposito, A. Felicetti, and A. Terlizzi, “Participatory governance in megaprojects: the lyon–turin high-speed railway among structure, agency, and democratic participation,” Policy and society , vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 259–273, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Completing projects on time and budget: A study on the analysis of project monitoring practices using real data,

    T. Kose, T. Bakici, and . Hazir, “Completing projects on time and budget: A study on the analysis of project monitoring practices using real data,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , vol. 71, pp. 4051–4062, 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    A hetero-functional graph structural analysis of the american multi-modal energy system,

    D. Thompson and A. M. Farid, “A hetero-functional graph structural analysis of the american multi-modal energy system,” Sustainable Energy, Grids, and Networks , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 101 254–101 269, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    A Reference Architecture for the American Multi-Modal Energy System,

    ——, “A Reference Architecture for the American Multi-Modal Energy System,” Journal of Industrial Information Integration , vol. 36, pp. 100 521–100 531, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14486

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Hetero-functional Network Minimum Cost Flow Optimization,

    W. C. Schoonenberg and A. M. Farid, “Hetero-functional Network Minimum Cost Flow Optimization,” Sustainable Energy Grids and Networks, vol. 31, no. 100749, pp. 1–18, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2022.100749

    2022

  66. [74]

    Collaborative management framework for interorganizational risk in megaprojects based on metanetwork,

    Y. Xue, Y. Le, K. Jiang, and X. Gan, “Collaborative management framework for interorganizational risk in megaprojects based on metanetwork,” Journal of Management in Engineering , vol. 40, no. 5, p. 04024038, 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Development of a risk breakdown structure in mega projects based on di fferent case studies,

    S. A. Othman, D. K. I. Ja ff, and A. Oztas, “Development of a risk breakdown structure in mega projects based on di fferent case studies,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 15 625–15 630, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Using fuzzy approach in determining critical parameters for optimum safety functions in mega projects (case study: Irans construction industry),

    M. Younesi Heravi, A. Yeganeh, and S. B. Razavian, “Using fuzzy approach in determining critical parameters for optimum safety functions in mega projects (case study: Irans construction industry),” Frontiers in nature-inspired industrial optimization , pp. 183–200, 2022

    2022

  69. [77]

    Combining stakeholder and risk management: Multilayer network analysis for complex megaprojects,

    G. Castelblanco, E. M. Fenoaltea, A. De Marco, P . Demagistris, S. Petruzzi, and D. Zeppegno, “Combining stakeholder and risk management: Multilayer network analysis for complex megaprojects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , vol. 150, no. 2, p. 04023161, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Framework for integrated project portfolio selection and adjustment,

    G. A. B. Marcondes, R. C. Leme, and M. M. Carvalho, “Framework for integrated project portfolio selection and adjustment,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 677–688, 2019

    2019

  71. [79]

    Project risk response decision making under uncertain project interdependencies,

    X. Zhang, M. Goh, S. Bai, Z. Wang, and Q. Wang, “Project risk response decision making under uncertain project interdependencies,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , vol. 71, pp. 7364–7378, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    From construction megaproject management to complex project management: Bibliographic analysis,

    Y. Hu, A. P . Chan, Y. Le, and R.-z. Jin, “From construction megaproject management to complex project management: Bibliographic analysis,” Journal of management in engineering , vol. 31, no. 4, p. 04014052, 2015

    2015

  73. [81]

    Exploring the both-and success paradox in mega construction projects: multi- dimensional assessments of paradoxical leadership, project agility and megaproject success,

    U. Zaman, L. Florez-Perez, S. Abbasi, and M. S. Nawaz, “Exploring the both-and success paradox in mega construction projects: multi- dimensional assessments of paradoxical leadership, project agility and megaproject success,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Managem...

    2024

  74. [82]

    Exploring mega-construction project success in china’s vaunted belt and road initiative: the role of paternalistic leadership, team members’ voice and team resilience,

    G. Yunpeng and U. Zaman, “Exploring mega-construction project success in china’s vaunted belt and road initiative: the role of paternalistic leadership, team members’ voice and team resilience,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 3801–3...

    2024

  75. [83]

    The right stu ff: Identifying and developing e ffective champions of innovation,

    J. M. Howell, “The right stu ff: Identifying and developing e ffective champions of innovation,” Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 108–119, 2005

    2005

  76. [84]

    The demands of industry 4.0 on project teams,

    C. Marnewick and A. L. Marnewick, “The demands of industry 4.0 on project teams,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 941–949, 2020

    2020

  77. [85]

    Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: the role of enterprise-level knowledge, complementarities, and (dynamic) capabilities,

    D. J. Teece, “Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: the role of enterprise-level knowledge, complementarities, and (dynamic) capabilities,” in Handbook of the Economics of Innovation . Elsevier, 2010, vol. 1, pp. 679–730

    2010

  78. [86]

    A clash of clans: an empirical study of conflicting institutional logics and their impact on megaproject collaboration,

    A. af H ¨allstr¨om, “A clash of clans: an empirical study of conflicting institutional logics and their impact on megaproject collaboration,” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 47–71, 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    Top government hands-on megaproject management: the case of istanbuls grand airport,

    F. Eren, “Top government hands-on megaproject management: the case of istanbuls grand airport,” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 666–693, 2019

    2019

  80. [88]

    Meta-organizing and responsibilization: Government strategies for community engagement and high-quality development in public–private megaprojects,

    U. E. Afieroho, Y. Li, Y. Han, and M. Radujkovic, “Meta-organizing and responsibilization: Government strategies for community engagement and high-quality development in public–private megaprojects,” Project Leadership and Society , vol. 5, p. 100151, 2024

    2024

  81. [89]

    Sense and sensibility: Narrative strategies shaping megaproject development,

    L. A. Arda, G. Esposito, and R. Wilderom, “Sense and sensibility: Narrative strategies shaping megaproject development,” Project Leadership and Society, vol. 5, p. 100118, 2024

    2024

  82. [90]

    Social value for whom, by whom and when? managing stakeholder dynamics in a uk megaproject,

    C. Mulholland, P . W. Chan, K. Canning, and O. A. Ejohwomu, “Social value for whom, by whom and when? managing stakeholder dynamics in a uk megaproject,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law , vol. 173, no. 2, pp. 75–86, 2020

    2020

  83. [91]

    Tackling tensions between project owner and project manager in benefits realization of public projects: A paradox perspective,

    N. Sun, Y. Ning, and Y. Li, “Tackling tensions between project owner and project manager in benefits realization of public projects: A paradox perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , vol. 71, pp. 14 640–14 654, 2024

    2024

  84. [92]

    Old theories, new contexts: Extending operations management theories to projects,

    H. Maylor, J. R. Meredith, J. S ¨oderlund, and T. Browning, “Old theories, new contexts: Extending operations management theories to projects,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1274–1288, 2018. 13

    2018

  85. [93]

    Collaborative supply chain management (scm) tools for improved teamwork in construction projects,

    S. R. M. Riazi, M. N. M. Nawi, N. A. Salleh, and M. Ahmad, “Collaborative supply chain management (scm) tools for improved teamwork in construction projects,” International Journal of Supply Chain Management , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 473–480, 2019

    2019

  86. [94]

    Creating relational capital through socialization in project alliances,

    K. Aaltonen and V. Turkulainen, “Creating relational capital through socialization in project alliances,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1387–1421, 2018

    2018

  87. [95]

    The international journal of production research in the past, the present and the future: a bibliometric analysis,

    Q. Wang and X. Sun, “The international journal of production research in the past, the present and the future: a bibliometric analysis,” International Journal of Production Research , vol. 57, no. 15-16, pp. 4676–4691, 2019

    2019

  88. [96]

    E fficiency in project networks: the role of inter-organizational relationships in project implementation,

    T. Ahola, “E fficiency in project networks: the role of inter-organizational relationships in project implementation,” 2009

    2009

  89. [97]

    Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at london heathrow terminal 5,

    A. Davies, D. Gann, and T. Douglas, “Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at london heathrow terminal 5,”California management review, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 101–125, 2009

    2009

  90. [2000]

    Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/bkabstractplus.jsp?bkn=5264253

    [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/bkabstractplus.jsp?bkn=5264253

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.