Research Propopal First Draft
Research Propopal First Draft
Research Propopal First Draft
Contents
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................................................2
Contents......................................................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................3
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY............................................................................................................3
1.2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................................5
1.3 Research Questions...........................................................................................................................5
1.4 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................5
1.4.1 General Objectives......................................................................................................................5
1.4.2 Specific Objectives......................................................................................................................5
1.5 JUSTIFICATION of the STUDY.......................................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................6
2.1. Crises in large construction projects.................................................................................................6
2.2. Crises Management in large construction projects..........................................................................7
2.3. Recovery of the large construction projects.....................................................................................8
2.4. Recovery Interventions being used by the project managers during project crises.........................9
2.4.1. Types of recovery intervention of a large construction project crises.........................................10
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY of the STUDY.......................................................................................10
3.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................10
3.2. Study Area......................................................................................................................................11
3.3. Study Procedures............................................................................................................................12
3.4. Sample Size and Selection..............................................................................................................14
3.4.1 Sampling Techniques and Procedure........................................................................................14
3.5. Study variables...................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The uniqueness of construction projects, the relatively uncontrollable construction environment,
the small-batch nature of the production process, the lack of mechanization and the
temporary multi-organizational nature of construction project organizations, make
construction an uncertain activity. This increasing uncertainty has to be dealt with, in an
ever more pressurized and lean environment, and the problems of doing so lie at the very
heart of the construction industry’ s problems.[1]
To define construction crisis management is to identify those characteristics which
distinguish it from crisis management in other contexts. In this sense, construction crisis
management is about dealing with problems that arise when what actually happens differs
seriously from what was anticipated during the process of construction. Construction crisis
management is distinguished by being about dealing with a major disturbance to a
multitude of condensed and intricately interdependent activities carried out by distinct
organizations with a diverse range of interests which often are opposing. This creates special
problems of social adjustment, behavioral instability, information management and conflict
management [1]
However, various unwelcome situations can occur during the implementation of a construction
project, which are based on natural phenomena (i.e., hurricane, flood, earthquake etc.), on socio-
political conditions (i.e., war, political crisis, financial recession etc.), on technical and
complexity reasons (i.e., inexperienced workers’ faults) or even due to site’s conditions (i.e.,
ground failures). Each of the unwanted situation can cause damages to the project, which vary
from delays, extended costs and changes, to complete cancellation (i.e., in cases of entire site’s
demolition). These unwelcome phenomena are called disasters (Blackhard, 2006), “crises”
(Loosemore, 1999) or “failures” (Kerzner, 2011). [2]
Disasters vary according to their sources, to their size and to their effects on a project, while a
project could recover from a disaster that does not affect its definition and feasibility. Project
managers and project management international standards suggest detecting dangers with
multiple available techniques, while they promote controlling uncertainty and avoid taking risks
that expose the project to hazards. This paper explores the context of disaster recovery in
construction, while it studies existing project recovery frameworks, methods and techniques,
which can be capitalized by project managers for recovering constructions from feasible
disasters. A recovery model is proposed that consists of appropriate perspectives that suggest the
proper reviving procedure. This model is based on the knowledge areas of the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) (PMI, 2007) and it could be considered generic for
construction projects. The effectiveness of this model is questioned by a group of expert
construction engineers, who provided this paper with their experiences for project recovery and
with the proper review directives of the proposed model. [2]
By the way, this research is related to the management of large construction project in
Somaliland. Ageing infrastructure, increasing global population and urbanization are trends that
drive the demand for large construction projects. When a crisis occurs in the context of large
construction projects, the cost overruns can quickly rise to millions if not billions of euros
(Hällgren & Wilson, 2008). In collaboration with the ministry of transport and a private
consultancy firm, where the project managers often encounter a large construction project which
they have to recover from a crisis, the researcher pursues his personal fascination for
investigating this phenomenon, referred to as project recovery.
The recovery of Berbera Corridor project that are carried out in Somaliland is the central theme
in this thesis. This project is mostly initiated and funded by Dubia government and monitored
and owned by public bodies such as the Somaliland Ministry of Transport and Road
Development, or other national government and it exist in the form of dry infrastructure and non-
residential projects. The aim of this project is to create public value and because they are funded
with international donor, terminating the construction at the moment of crisis often is not an
option. As a result, interventions are required and a project recovery manager can be appointed
to recover the project from the crisis.
Inspecting carefully Berbera Corridor project, this thesis focuses on the perspective and
interventions of the public project recovery manager: a public project manager who has received
the responsibility of recovering the project from a crisis. The manager can already be involved
in the project or may be newly assigned.
1.4 OBJECTIVES
2.4. Recovery Interventions being used by the project managers during project crises
Based on the definitions of crises mentioned above, the concept of recovery interventions
refers to the activities for improving the situation in between the moments of collectively
acknowledging the crisis and collectively endorsing the successful outcomes. Because of the
normative nature of this concept, it will be specified along the line of crisis management and
resilience theory.
Crisis management can be divided into proactive and reactive management, see Figure 1. First,
proactive management deals with catching early warning signals and preparing for a potential
crisis. Next, reactive management deals with taking the crisis under control and recovering to
the former position (Pearson & Mitroff, 1993).
Recovery interventions match with the activities of reactive crisis management, except for the
claim that the aim is to recover to the former position. It is highly questionable whether this is
desired when the former position is what contributed to the crisis in the first place. This will be
explained from a resilience perspective. There are two ways to recover to the former position
after a crisis reveals itself: simply restoring to the prior order or emerge stronger from a crisis,
which requires the capacity to learn. Resilience literature introduces two models for handling a
crisis.
The first is precursor resilience, which relates to the capacity to absorb changes without
destructive consequences. The second is recovery resilience, which concerns the capacity to
respond to unique events, that is, a crisis (Boin & van Eeten, 2013).
Building on the idea of recovery resilience and emerging stronger from a crisis, recovery
interventions are seen as activities for taking the crisis under control after a triggering event
and recovering to a stronger position.
For any research, the decision between qualitative versus quantitative, breadth versus depth,
empirical versus desk research (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010, pp. 160-161), and inductive
versus deductive (Bowen, 2006) is of great importance for determining the research
methodology.
Qualitative versus quantitative: qualitative research aims at understanding and discovering
why certain phenomena happen. This research focusses on understanding the recovery
interventions applied by public project managers. Hence, this research adopts a qualitative
approach.
Depth versus breath: depth research focusses on a small approach with an in-depth, detailed
and strong foundation of the results. This research explores the virgin area of recovery
interventions, which are bounded by the context they are applied in. For this reason, specific
founded recommendations are of more relevance than hasty generalized statements. Hence,
this research adopts an in-depth approach.
Empirical versus desk research: empirical research can be done in the case of unavailability of
literature. The literature review done for this research disclosed that a knowledge gap exists in
scientific research on recovery interventions of a public project manager. Hence, this research
adopts an empirical approach.
Inductive versus deductive: inductive research suits qualitative research and can be used for
exploring new phenomena or already researched phenomena from a different perspective. This
research aims at exploring the recovery interventions from the perspective of a public project
manager. Hence, this research adopts an inductive approach.
3.2. Study Area
This study will be conducted in Berbera – Hargeisa - Wechale, Somaliland. The road that
connects the port of Berbera in the Gulf of Aden to the Ethiopian border and which continues to
the Ethiopian highlands was at the heart of the process of formation and consolidation of the neo-
state of Somaliland. It is, indeed, no exaggeration to argue that this road ‘made’ the state.
Filed Survey
Research Design
Review of Literature
Data Analysis
Research Findings
Systematic random sampling will be used to get the final sample size and to avoid sampling bias. Large
sample size is not preferable for qualitative data because it may result in the repetitiveness of data.
Some researchers prefer to use medium-sized samples between 10- 15 respondents for interviews.
3.4.1 Sampling Techniques and Procedure
This type of research is a descriptive case study, which will focus on (Assess how recovery interventions
by public project managers in crisis construction projects). Based on systematic random sampling, the
researcher will collect qualitative data using structured interviews and Unstructured Questionnaires.
First, the structured interview method can be advantageous when researchers have a complete list of
interview questions since it assists target the specific case study that the researcher is investigating. It
makes for resource interviewing, and will gather the correct information that you need, so there should
not be much need for you to do follow-up interviews for missed or forgotten questions.
Secondly, unstructured questionnaires consolidate qualitative data. The questions are more open-ended
to collect specific data and to get further information from participants.
RECOVARY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
INTERVENTIONS