See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308318414

A Problem Solving Approach to Identifying Civil Engineering Infrastructure

Projects

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 9,548

3 authors, including:

Mohamed H. Elmahroug
Rail Power and Construction Ltd
3 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed H. Elmahroug on 23 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH TO IDENTIFYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Mohamed H Elmahroug1,2, Apollo Tutesigensi1 and Nigel J Smith1
1
Institute for Resilient Infrastructure, School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Woodhouse
Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Eljabel Elgharbi, Gherian,
Libya

Civil engineering infrastructure projects are solutions to problems facing

communities, societies or even an entire nation. Addressing societal needs and
problems is a key element of infrastructure project success. However, recent
evidence suggests that decision makers often invest in projects that do not address
clearly defined problems. Therefore, this research aims to contribute towards
improving the identification process of civil engineering infrastructure projects. A
desk study involving mapping of a generic infrastructure project life cycle onto two
problem solving process models was undertaken. It was found that if civil
engineering infrastructure projects are viewed as solutions to problems, ideas of a
problem solving process can be adapted and incorporated into the identification
process of infrastructure projects. This led to the design of a novel two-stage
identification process for civil engineering infrastructure projects. The process brings
together developers and concerned stakeholders to: first agree on the problem to be
addressed, and second generate solutions, assess them and then choose a preferred
solution to be implemented. Identifying civil engineering infrastructure projects in
this manner ensures that public funds are spent on projects that address societal
problems, provide the greatest benefits to society, and that they are spent in the most
efficient way.

Keywords: civil engineering infrastructure, project identification, problem solving

INTRODUCTION
Civil engineering infrastructure projects, such as highways, bridges, airports and
railways, form the backbone of any modern, successful and competitive economy
(HM Treasury 2013). They promote prosperity and growth, improve quality of life
and enhance the well-being of a modern society. The adequacy of infrastructure helps
determine one country’s success and another’s failure. Good infrastructure raises
productivity and lowers production costs, but has to expand fast enough to
accommodate growth (World Bank 1994). Well-developed infrastructure is a critical
factor for ensuring the effective functioning of the economy, as it determines the
location of economic activities that can develop within a country, and integrates the
national market as well as connecting it to markets in other countries and regions
(World Economic Forum 2013). Therefore, client organisations for civil engineering
infrastructure projects (often governments/public sector organisations) seek to ensure

1
[email protected]

Elmahroug, M H, Tutesigensi, A and Smith, N J (2016) A Problem Solving Approach to Identifying

Civil Engineering Infrastructure Projects. In: P W Chan and C J Neilson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK, Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, Vol 2, 853-862.
Elmahroug, Tutesigensi and Smith

they invest in the right project at the right time in order to secure economic
competitiveness in the long term (Gardiner 2005).
Although infrastructure developers strive to invest in the right infrastructure, evidence
from McKinsey Global Institute (Dobbs et al., 2013) suggests that decision makers
often invest in projects that do not address clearly defined problems and improving
project identification process could save $200 billion a year globally (ibid). The
present paper is therefore important because it contributes towards improving the
identification process of civil engineering infrastructure projects, and hence
contributes to achieving this global annual savings. To begin, the importance of
accurate project identification is discussed, and evidence for inaccurate project
identification is presented. After this, the research problem and the approach to
address it are outlined. Findings are then highlighted and discussed.
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project identification is the process of identifying projects. The identification phase,
according to Corrie (1991), comprises the preliminary appraisal of a potential project,
and aims to decide whether a feasibility study should be undertaken. The outcomes of
the identification phase include a list of options to be considered and the ground rules
for the feasibility stage. The authors observe that the identification phase is often
embedded in the concept phase, for example, Turner (2007), Association for Project
Management (2006), British Standards Institution (2000), Abdul-Kadir and Price
(1995) and Adams and Barndt (1988). The concept phase is the first phase in the
project life cycle during which the need, opportunity or problem is confirmed, the
overall feasibility of the project is considered and a preferred solution identified
(Association for Project Management 2006). The tasks that must be accomplished
during this phase often include: identifying need, establishing feasibility, identifying
alternatives, preparing proposal, developing basic budget and schedule and identifying
project team (Adams and Barndt 1988).
In addition, project identification appears to be insufficiently established in the
internationally recognised project management standards and methods. For instance,
the BS 6079 assumes that a project brief is prepared to trigger the project. It supposes
that a preparatory work to prepare a project brief is carried out before the formal start
of the project (British Standards Institution 2010). However, BS 6079 does not offer
much advice on the process through which the project brief is produced. Moreover,
PRINCE2 assumes a project mandate exists to trigger the project (Office of
Government Commerce 2009). Although the project mandate is a “product”,
PRINCE2 gives little information on the process through which this product is
produced. Furthermore, The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of
Work assumes that the project is strategically appraised and defined before a detailed
brief is created (Royal Institute of British Architects 2013). However, the Plan of
Work offers no advice on the process through which the client’s strategic definition is
produced. Here, the authors acknowledge the major strength of these project
management standards and methods, and understand that they are project orientated.
However, focus on these standards and methods has dominated project management
practice and attention has to be given to the documents that trigger a project. The
present paper is a step in this direction.
Although project identification is often not recognised as a discrete phase, previous
research on critical success factors (CSFs) for infrastructure projects have indicated
the importance of the project identification process. In fact, appropriate project

854
 Problem solving and infrastructure

identification is a critical factor for the success of Build–Operate–Transfer (BOT)

projects, as it enhances the possibility of good outcome in the preliminary evaluation
phase of a BOT project (Qiao et al., 2001). Tiong (1996), who studied the CSFs in
winning BOT concessions, states that one of the crucial factors in winning a BOT
contract is to identify and choose the right project to initiate. Building on documented
experiences and lessons learned from successful BOT projects, interviews of BOT
project promoters and government officials and their consultants and questionnaire
surveys, Tiong’s findings show that the ability to predict accurately the need for the
project is the most critical task when identifying projects (ibid). Another research
study into improving the delivery of social development objectives by modifying the
way in which infrastructure projects are procured (Hawkins et al., 2006) concludes
that the biggest potential social impact probably lies in the choice of the project, and
the decisions taken in the early stages of a project (during the project identification
phase) have the greatest impact on the achievement of social development objectives.
The foregoing paragraphs suggest that particular attention needs to be given to the
important identification process of infrastructure needs/projects. This is particularly
vital to the UK government, because ninety-five per cent of government policies is
delivered through major infrastructure projects (National Audit Office 2013a).
Therefore, accurate identification of infrastructure needs is essential to the
government delivering its promises and objectives. This is supported by the fact that
inaccurate identification of the need for infrastructure topped the UK’s National Audit
Office’s list of key risks to value for money (National Audit Office 2013b).
The problem being addressed here is that although the importance of accurate
identification of infrastructure needs is recognised, evidence from McKinsey Global
Institute (Dobbs et al., 2013) suggests that decision makers often invest in projects
that do not address clearly defined problems. Another evidence from the UK
(National Audit Office 2013a) suggests that the UK government often commits to a
‘solution’ without fully understanding the context and exploring alternative options to
determine which solution matches the real problem. According to Dobbs et al.,
(2013) this is because decision makers often default to investments in additional
physical capacity without sufficiently focusing on the underlying needs and finding
the most effective solutions to address that need.
The authors acknowledge that new civil engineering infrastructure projects are often
the means for governments to deliver their policies and thus achieve political gains.
This makes these projects political. However, it should be indicated that the present
paper does not intend to explain why investment often flows into politically preferred
projects. In the authors’ view, the evidence presented above suggests that there is a
need for an overarching identification process that allows the start point of every
infrastructure initiative to be problem identification. Therefore, the aim of the paper is
to contribute to the improvement of the identification process of civil engineering
infrastructure projects in the UK, so that investment flows into projects that address
societal problems. The following section explains the method used to achieve this
aim.
METHOD
A desk study involving a review of two problem solving process models, and a
comparison of the steps in these models with the project phases in a generic civil
engineering infrastructure project life cycle was undertaken. The purpose was to
show that if civil engineering infrastructure projects are viewed as solutions to

855
Elmahroug, Tutesigensi and Smith

problems, the project life cycle can be mapped onto a problem solving process. Ideas
in these models were then adapted and incorporated into the identification process of
civil engineering infrastructure projects.
The generic project life cycle used in the present paper was derived from comparing
and contrasting several project life cycle methodologies (Institution of Civil Engineers
2009; Association for Project Management 2006; Young 2006; Chapman and Ward
2003; Abdul-Kadir and Price 1995; Adams and Barndt 1988). It comprises five
generic phases: identification; planning; construction; operation and termination. The
two problem solving models on which the generic project life cycle was plotted are
best discussed in Proctor (2010) and Bransford and Stein (1993), though the following
paragraphs outline the steps followed in each model and explain them briefly.
Bransford and Stein (1993) proposed a model for problem solving in which
components are represented by the acronym IDEAL, where:
I = Identify problems;
D = Define goals;
E = Exploring possible options;
A = Anticipate and Act; and
L = Look and Learn.
According to Bransford and Stein (1993), problem identification is one of the most
important steps in the problem solving process. Bransford and Stein argue that it is
just as important to actively look for potential problems as simply to respond to them
when they become critical or noticed (ibid). Defining goals often reflects how
different people perceive the same problem. Therefore, defining the goals is a crucial
step in moving towards a solution. Moving straight to the exploration of possible
options without considering alternative goals often leads to difficulties in deciding
which option to choose. Moreover, if goals have not been specified, generated options
may not provide acceptable answers to a given problem. Exploring possible options
involves reanalysing goals and considering alternatives that might be implemented to
achieve those goals. Following the selection of an option, contingency plans should
be made and the chosen option implemented. The last component of the IDEAL
model is to look back at the effects of the implemented option and learn from the
experience.
Proctor (2010) proposed a creative problem solving process based on the IDEAL
model consisting of six stages as follows: define the problem area; gather information;
define the problem correctly; generate solutions to the problem; evaluate and choose
between possible solutions; and implement chosen idea correctly. According to
Proctor, each stage involves activities that require first divergent thinking and then
convergent thinking (ibid). In divergent thinking the task is to generate as many ideas
and solutions as possible. Once an exhaustive number of ideas have been reached,
convergent thinking takes place. The aim of this thinking is to focus on obtaining
solutions to the problem based on the ideas from the divergent thinking.
In support of our argument, we have plotted the generic project life cycle to the two
problem solving models, as illustrated in Figure 1. The purpose of this diagram is to
show that if civil engineering infrastructure projects are viewed as solutions to
problems, the project life cycle can be mapped onto problem solving process.
Interestingly, the first three steps of the IDEAL model and the first five steps of

856
 Problem solving and infrastructure

Proctor’s model map on the project identification phase. Therefore, we adapt ideas in
these steps and then incorporate them into the identification process of civil
engineering infrastructure projects. The findings resulted from implementing this
method are outlined and discussed in greater details in the subsequent section.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Implementing the method explained in the foregoing section resulted in a two-stage
identification process for civil engineering infrastructure projects, Figure 2. The
proposed identification process allows civil engineering infrastructure projects to
begin with problem identification. It brings together infrastructure developers and
concerned stakeholders at a sufficiently early stage to: first agree upon the problem(s)
to be addressed, and second to generate solutions, assess them and then agree on a
preferred solution to be implemented.
The two-stage identification process involves activities that require first divergent
thinking and then convergent thinking. Divergent thinking is the thinking that moves
away in diverging directions so as to involve a variety of aspects and which
sometimes lead to novel ideas and solutions. In contrast, convergent thinking is the
thinking that brings together information focussed on solving a problem. In the
divergent thinking, the task is to generate as many ideas as possible. There should be
no limits to the ideas formed during this thinking. Once a satisfactory level of ideas
has been reached, convergent thinking must be used. The purpose of the convergent
thinking is to focus on obtaining solutions to the problem based on the ideas from the
divergent thinking. The following sub-sections discuss the components of the
proposed two-stage identification process in more details.

857
Elmahroug, Tutesigensi and Smith

Stage 1: Agree on a problem

The product of Stage 1 is a well-defined, agreed upon problem. This stage involves
five steps as discussed below.
Identify affected stakeholders
During this step infrastructure developers need to effectively identify all concerned
stakeholders using a variety of stakeholder identification techniques. Stakeholder
identification should be carried out constantly throughout the process. This is
important because according to Warner (1984), problems and their corresponding
solutions can be defined only within the context of the communities in which they
exist. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the communities and the people who live in
them before any attempts at generating solutions are made.

Define the problems faced by stakeholders

Establishing and defining the problem to be addressed is probably the most important
step in Stage 1 of the two-stage identification process, for unless the problem is
already correctly defined it is unlikely that an effective solution can be found.
Defining the problems involves divergent thinking to generate a list of problems
encountered by the stakeholders. These problems are then assessed to a level that
enables developers and stakeholders to prioritise them. Thus, ownership, priority and
urgency of the problems should also be identified at this stage. Once the problems
have been assessed, the most pressing problem can be identified and the next step
(gather information about the most pressing problem) begins.
Gather information about the most pressing problem
This step can be considered as a fact finding mission. Developers and concerned
stakeholders collect relevant information about the most pressing problem in order to
increase the overall comprehension of the problem. As a result, new ideas will be

858
 Problem solving and infrastructure

generated and the previously identified problem may now be seen from a new
perspective. This requires the move to the next step of the process in order to define
the most pressing problem correctly.
Define the most pressing problem correctly
This step considers a variety of problem perspectives. At this stage, developers and
concerned stakeholders examine the information obtained during the previous step to
generate possible problem redefinitions. Here, it should be indicated that since
different stakeholders may have different perspectives of the most pressing problem,
and hence different views to its precise nature, there is a need to consult all concerned
stakeholder before the most pressing problem is finally fully specified. The objective
of this step is a precise definition of the most pressing problem.
Agree on the most pressing problem to be solved
It is likely that the number of stakeholders in a civil engineering infrastructure project
can be large, and involving all of them in agreeing on the problem to be solved can be
challenging. Therefore, we introduce this stage gate – agree on the problem. Once
the most pressing problem has been precisely defined and communicated to all
concerned stakeholders, consensus must be sought. In order to facilitate this,
infrastructure developers will need to work closely and collaboratively with concerned
stakeholders in a spirit of openness and transparency throughout the whole process.
Although specifying a consensus building mechanism is outside the scope of this
paper, voting can be considered whenever a consensus on the problem cannot be built.
However, it should be stated that what is more important than building toward a
consensus on a problem is defining the problem correctly. Once the most pressing
problem to be addressed has been precisely defined and agreed upon by stakeholders,
Stage 2 of the two-stage identification process begins.
Stage 2: Agree on a solution
The product of Stage 2 is a workable, agreed upon solution. This stage involves four
steps as described below.
Define project objectives
The first task to be carried out (once the most pressing problem has been well-defined
and agreed upon) is to carefully define the project objectives in the problem situation.
Defining objectives is a crucial step in moving towards a solution to a problem
because if objectives have not been specified, solutions generated may not provide
acceptable answers to the problem. Here, the authors recommend that alternative
objectives should also be considered before moving to the exploration of possible
solutions, because solutions may well be generated which solve a given problem, but
deciding which solution to choose then becomes a difficult problem.
Generate possible solutions
This involves ideas finding to help structure the search for potential solutions. This
step uses mainly divergent activity to generate many ideas using a variety of idea-
generation aids. The aim is to explore alternative approaches to solving the problem.
It should be noted that this may involve reanalysing the objectives (defined during the
previous step) and considering options that might be employed to achieve those
objectives. Once a number of possible solutions/options have been identified, the
developers and concerned stakeholders are ready to move to the next step.

859
Elmahroug, Tutesigensi and Smith

Assess and choose between possible solutions

In this step developers and concerned stakeholders choose the idea that can be
transformed into a workable solution. It should be noted that the process of choosing
a solution is likely to have a set of alternatives and also a set of assessment criteria.
Therefore, assessing a list of alternative solutions involves measuring, trading-off or
even scoring alternatives in terms of the assessment specified criteria.
Agree on a preferred solution
Once all possible, viable solutions have been assessed by the developers and
concerned stakeholders, a preferred solution can be chosen and agreed upon.
Communication with concerned stakeholders is significantly important in reaching
agreement on the preferred solution. This requires developers and concerned
stakeholders to work closely and collaboratively in a spirit of openness and
transparency. It should be indicated that although specifying a consensus building
mechanism is outside the scope of this research, voting can be considered whenever a
consensus on a solution cannot be built.
In the two-stage identification process, infrastructure developers would work closely
and collaboratively in a spirit of openness and transparency with other concerned
stakeholders who have relevant knowledge and a stake in the infrastructure need/issue
that is being tackled. This would enhance the understanding of the needs/problems
where various stakeholders with different knowledge, stakes and values are involved.
Bringing together infrastructure developers and concerned stakeholders to work
cooperatively would also increase the likelihood that the nature of the problem can be
better understood. Moreover, collaboration, openness and transparency increase the
likelihood that solutions to problems faced by stakeholders can be found and agreed
upon, because greater cooperation improves the prospect that diverse stakeholders
may reach an understanding about what actions to take to address the problem.
Moreover, the divergent thinking involved in the process when identifying problems
and generating ideas/solutions allows greater room to discover alternative means of
solving problems. Thus, any problem to be addressed will be a legitimate problem,
and any chosen solution to address it will be the most appropriate and will not become
subject to controversy at later stages of the project life cycle. In addition, using a
problem solving process as a means of developing and delivering civil engineering
infrastructure projects paves the way for the start point of every infrastructure
initiative to be a problem identification.
The authors acknowledge that some problems may not be definitively described.
These problems have been called “wicked problems” – those that are complex,
unpredictable, ill-formulated or intractable, and any proposed solution to address them
often turns out to be worse than the symptoms (Rittel and Webber 1973; Churchman
1967). However, the proposed two-stage identification process helps facilitate a more
understanding of the seriousness of these problems and puts forward possible
responses to them through collaborative working, divergent and convergent thinking,
openness and transparency. These strategies for dealing with wicked problems have
been proposed by (Head and Alford 2015).
The establishment of the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) by the UK
government shows that there is an emerging direction of travel consistent with the
ideas in the present paper in the UK. NIC is expected to provide expert, independent
advice on pressing infrastructure issues, produce an in-depth assessment of the UK’s
major infrastructure needs and give advice on how to meet them (HM Treasury 2015).

860
 Problem solving and infrastructure

Although recommendations made by NIC will be based on robust analysis and

evidence, and will subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, it is the government who will
have the upper hand over what infrastructure projects to be built. This suggests that
the introduction of NIC changes structure and actors, but not practice. Therefore, the
potential for NIC to improve the process of identifying and delivering infrastructure
needs will be low, and the present paper can be considered as a step for improvement.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper was to contribute towards improving the identification
process of civil engineering infrastructure projects, so that these projects are identified
to address societal problems. This aim was achieved by adapting problem solving
ideas and incorporating them into the identification process of civil engineering
infrastructure projects. The research findings reveal that if civil engineering
infrastructure projects are accepted to be solutions to problems, they can be identified
through a problem solving process. One of the more significant findings to emerge
from this paper is the proposed two-stage identification process. The process brings
together infrastructure developers and concerned stakeholders at the earliest stage of
the project life cycle to: first agree on the problem to be addressed, generate
worthwhile solutions and assess them for consensus or near consensus project that can
be implemented with minimal disruption and conflicts. Developing and delivering
civil engineering infrastructure projects in this manner ensures that public funds are
spent on projects that address clearly legitimate problems, provide the greatest
benefits to society, and that they are spent in the most efficient way.
An in-depth evaluation of the proposed two-stage identification process lies outside
the scope of this paper. Future studies will consider the benefits of the proposed
process and work is currently on-going in this area. The research reported here was
conducted in the UK, so its findings may have reflected the UK environment.
REFERENCES
Abdul-Kadir, M R and Price, A D F (1995) Conceptual phase of construction projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 13(6), 387-393.
Adams, J R and Barndt, S E (1988) Behavioral implications of the project life cycle. In: D I
Cleland and W R King (Eds.) Project Management Handbook 2nd Edition. USA:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Association for Project Management (2006) APM Body of Knowledge 5th Edition. UK: APM.
Bransford, J D and Stein, B S (1993) The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide For Improving
Thinking, Learning, and Creativity 2nd Edition. New York: W H Freeman.
British Standards Institution (2000) BS 6079-2: 2000. Project Management - Part 2:
vocabulary. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution (2010) BS 6079-1: 2010. Project management - Part 1:
Principles and guidelines for the management of projects. London: BSI.
Chapman, C B and Ward, S (2003) Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and
Insights 2nd Edition. Chichester: John-Wiley and Sons.
Churchman, C W (1967) Free for all. Management Science, 14(4), B-141-B-146.
Corrie, R K (1991) Project evaluation. London: Telford.

861
 Elmahroug, Tutesigensi and Smith

Dobbs, R, Pohl, H, Lin, D, Mischke, J, Garemo, N, Hexter, J, Matzinger, S, Palter, R and

Nanavatty, R (2013) Infrastructure Productivity: How To Save $1 Trillion A Year.
McKinsey Global Institute. [Accessed 08 November 2015]. Available from:
http://goo.gl/LI7Y7U.
Gardiner, P D (2005) Project Management: A Strategic Planning Approach. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hawkins, J, Herd, C and Wells, J (2006) Modifying Infrastructure Procurement to Enhance
Social Development. UK: Institution of Civil Engineers and Engineers against
Poverty. Available from: http://goo.gl/rZ07aW.
Head, B W and Alford, J (2015) Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and
management. Administration and Society, 47(6), 711-739.
HM Treasury (2013) National Infrastructure Plan: 2013. London: Crown. [Accessed 20
January 2014]. Available from: http://goo.gl/Espq4R.
HM Treasury (2015) Infrastructure at heart of spending review as chancellor launches
national infrastructure commission. London: Crown. 30 October 2015. Available
from: https://goo.gl/g8lrgT.
Institution of Civil Engineers (2009) Client Best Practice Guide. UK: Thomas Telford
Limited. Available from: http://goo.gl/SjsFFi.
Qiao, L, Wang, S Q, Tiong, R L K and Chan T S (2001) Framework for critical success
factors of BOT projects in China. Journal of Structured Finance, 1(1), 53-61.
National Audit Office (2013a) Over-Optimism in Government Projects: Report. UK: NAO.
[Accessed 14 January 2014]. Available from: http://goo.gl/FTPXJD.
National Audit Office (2013b) Planning For Economic Infrastructure. London: The
Stationery Office. [Accessed 12 September 2014]. Available from:
http://goo.gl/vPIB9s.
Office of Government Commerce (2009) Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 5th
Edition. London: TSO.
Proctor, T (2010) Creative Problem Solving For Managers: Developing Skills for Decision
Making and Innovation 3rd Edition. London: Routledge.
Rittel, H W J and Webber, M M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Royal Institute of British Architects (2013) RIBA Plan of Work 2013: Overview. London:
RIBA. [Accessed 29 January 2014]. Available from: http://goo.gl/qRUR5e.
Tiong, R (1996) CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(3), 205-211.
Turner, J R (2007) Projects and their management. In: J R Turner (Ed.) Gower Handbook of
Project Management 4th Edition. England: Gower Publishing Ltd.
Warner, D B (1984) Rural water-supply and sanitation planning: The use of socioeconomic
preconditions in project identification. Journal of Hydrology, 68(1), 443-459.
World Bank (1994) World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure For Development.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from: http://goo.gl/7v0asY.
World Economic Forum (2013) The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Economic Forum. [Accessed 24 March 2015]. Available from:
http://goo.gl/E3rtAj.
Young, T L (2006) Successful Project Management 2nd Edition. London: Kogan Page.

862

View publication stats