KHEOPS RESEARCH PROGRAM

KHEOPS RESEARCH PROGRAM 

The KHEOPS research program is intended to develop knowledge on major infrastructure projects from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Definition of major infrastructure projects

Major infrastructure projects (MIPs) are projects whose development and construction spread over several years and require complex, large-scale investments. MIPs involve numerous stakeholders (internal and external, public- and private-sector), are transformative, and are characterized by their significant economic, environmental and social impacts. Because of their large scope, they require appropriate governance and management practices, and are generally subject to a legislative and regulatory framework specific to this type of project.

KHEOPS brings together a network of researchers from a variety of disciplines in humanities and social sciences and natural and technical sciences.

Research at KHEOPS covers three areas from a multidisciplinary perspective:

  • Energy and natural resources
  • Transportation
  • Built environment

 The KHEOPS research program is structured around two main areas:

AREA – SOCIETY AND MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

RETHINKING THE VALUATION OF MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Team:
> Sofiane Baba (Université de Sherbrooke)
Marie-Andrée Caron (École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal)

Work in this area concerns the societal valuation of major infrastructure projects (MIPs): What conditions are necessary to take societal valuation into account in decision-making, throughout the MIP life cycle, including during dismantling?

In the current context, MIPs are often criticized by various stakeholders due to their inability to prove to society that they are useful and desirable, that they are a vector of inclusive, equitable development, or that they are in harmony with natural ecosystems. However, MIPs are common goods, which can enhance access to health care, education, energy or drinking water, for example. Thus, MIPs are a tool for providing essential services. That is why it is important to ensure a balance between the execution constraints they are subject to and society’s needs, starting with the design phase.

To do this, we need a new way of thinking about the valuation of major infrastructure projects. Hitherto, MIPs’ value was measured essentially with financial indicators. It is no longer sufficient to think of “doing the project right.” Growing social preoccupations mean that one must also be sure of “doing the right project.” Thus, the valuation of MIPs must rely on other indicators.

Objectives of the research area

The essential objective of this area is to rethink the valuation of MIPs in light of the quality of their relations with society.

More specifically, this research area is based on three complementary sub-objectives:

  • Understand the interests, needs and motivations of the various stakeholders that make up society in relation to infrastructure projects;
  • Articulate how infrastructure projects can fit into society from a sustainable development perspective, bearing spatiotemporal characteristics in mind;
  • Develop an in-depth understanding of the processes that ensure that a project will be seen as a common good that generates value within a pluralistic conception of benefits, both financial and non-financial.
Research activities structured around three interrelated components

The research activities in this area are structured around three interrelated components related to:
1.     the background of society’s relation with MIPs;
2.     the dynamics and processes governing the interaction between society and MIPs;
3.     the expected and actual outcomes.

Component 1: The background of society’s relation with MIPs.
This component investigates both society, understood as a plurality of stakeholders, and MIP proponents. Regarding society, this component aims to understand, for example, who the stakeholders are, their interests, their forms of engagement and mobilization, and how past experiences affect their social judgment of an infrastructure project. From the point of view of MIP proponents, this first component focuses particularly on the organizational resources, skills and know-how that facilitate a constructive, sustainable relationship between society and the infrastructure project in question.

Component 2: The dynamics and processes governing the interaction between society and MIPs.
This second component concerns the interaction between society and MIPs and investigates, among other things, stakeholders’ involvement in governance mechanisms, stakeholders’ mobilization and resistance strategies for or against an infrastructure project, and processes that enable different stakeholders to cultivate an understanding of what an infrastructure project could or should be. Adding an Indigenous dimension to this component, it could examine how traditional Indigenous knowledge can be integrated into MIP design to make such projects more economically, socially and environmentally viable.

Component 3: The expected and actual outcomes.
Finally, the third component covers the outcomes and spinoffs of infrastructure projects and the processes of interaction between society and MIPs. The research interests at the core of this component include the different kinds of social, environmental and economic impacts that infrastructure projects may generate, projects’ capacity to create sustainable value for the various stakeholders, and the conceptualization of projects’ social, economic and environmental spinoffs throughout their life cycle.

AREA – GOVERNANCE OF MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS:

DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE GOVERNANCE

 
Team:
> Maude Brunet (HEC Montréal)
> Nathalie Drouin (KHEOPS, École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal)

Work in this area concerns the governance of major infrastructure projects (MIPs) from a sustainability perspective: How can MIP governance incorporate social values and, more broadly, the principles of sustainable development?

Regarding governance, there are several obstacles to the development of sustainable infrastructures, such as a short-term political vision ruled by electoral cycles, and the lack of appropriate legislation, standards and codes. In addition, since governments have to manage concurrent priorities, project ranking may prioritize speedy economic growth over environmental and social protection. The difficulty of reconciling economic, environmental and social development in a fair balance is increased by the silos that exist within governments and among the parties responsible for the different phases of MIP development. Fostering collaboration among different entities and stakeholders without stimulating corruption is no easy matter, given the huge sums of money at play in MIP development.

Objectives of the research area

The main objective of this research area is related to considering the design of sustainable governance for MIPs.

More specifically, this research area is based on two sub-objectives:

– Propose a multidisciplinary understanding of MIP governance;
– Design, develop and promote the appropriation of models, processes, formal and informal frameworks and other practices to support the implementation of renewed MIP governance.

Research activities structured around two interrelated components

The research activities in this area are structured around two interrelated components related to:

  1. the study of MIP governance from a multidisciplinary perspective;
  2. the operationalization of a sustainable, innovative form of MIP governance.

  

Component 1: The study of MIP governance from a multidisciplinary perspective

This first component examines the multidisciplinary study of MIP governance to contribute to the revaluation principle proposed in area 1 of the program. It makes it possible to combine different disciplinary and theoretical approaches in order to reflect on MIP governance from different angles. For example, the work done within this component will enable us to consider MIP governance from the project angle (project, program and portfolio management, organizational project management) and from the public action angle (policy articulation, links between nations and territories, power struggles). This work will allow for a better understanding of the links and dynamics involved between players in the field throughout the territory, or between different levels of government. It will open up the study of potential innovations in decision-making processes or the management of partnerships and relations among the various stakeholders. This component is also intended to broaden the field of study of MIP governance from different perspectives or disciplines within the social sciences and humanities, such as history, law, geography, anthropology, public health and philosophy. In this way, it aims to produce new knowledge in the field of MIP management, from a sustainable innovation point of view.

 

Component 2: The operationalization of a sustainable, innovative form of MIP governance

The second component is dedicated to the implementation or operationalization of a renewed form of MIP governance. By using participatory research methods, such as action research and partnership research, this component allows for the design and development of new integration models, tools, practices, and MIP governance structures. It also facilitates the appropriation of these new elements by the stakeholders and key players in the field. In particular, the work done in this component concerns the design of models and frames of reference that target more relational or participatory governance of MIPs. It will make it possible to consider the design of models of citizen engagement and how they are integrated into the decision-making process. This component also investigates how managers act and operationalize MIP governance and the choices they make, bearing in mind institutional values, organizational structures and processes, formal frameworks and management tools. The work will result in analytical frameworks for sounder, more sustainable network governance. The question of compliance attestation for greener, more social governance will be considered. Ultimately, the various kinds of approaches used in this component will make it possible to better align governance, MIPs and the innovation needed to enact more sustainable governance.

The KHEOPS research program is intended to develop knowledge on major infrastructure projects from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Definition of major infrastructure projects

Major infrastructure projects (MIPs) are projects whose development and construction spread over several years and require complex, large-scale investments. MIPs involve numerous stakeholders (internal and external, public- and private-sector), are transformative, and are characterized by their significant economic, environmental and social impacts. Because of their large scope, they require appropriate governance and management practices, and are generally subject to a legislative and regulatory framework specific to this type of project.

KHEOPS brings together a network of researchers from a variety of disciplines in humanities and social sciences and natural and technical sciences.

Research at KHEOPS covers three areas from a multidisciplinary perspective:

  • Energy and natural resources
  • Transportation
  • Built environment

The KHEOPS research program is structured around two main areas:

AREA – SOCIETY AND MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

RETHINKING THE VALUATION OF MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Team:
> Sofiane Baba (Université de Sherbrooke)
Marie-Andrée Caron (École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal)

Work in this area concerns the societal valuation of major infrastructure projects (MIPs): What conditions are necessary to take societal valuation into account in decision-making, throughout the MIP life cycle, including during dismantling?

In the current context, MIPs are often criticized by various stakeholders due to their inability to prove to society that they are useful and desirable, that they are a vector of inclusive, equitable development, or that they are in harmony with natural ecosystems. However, MIPs are common goods, which can enhance access to health care, education, energy or drinking water, for example. Thus, MIPs are a tool for providing essential services. That is why it is important to ensure a balance between the execution constraints they are subject to and society’s needs, starting with the design phase.

To do this, we need a new way of thinking about the valuation of major infrastructure projects. Hitherto, MIPs’ value was measured essentially with financial indicators. It is no longer sufficient to think of “doing the project right.” Growing social preoccupations mean that one must also be sure of “doing the right project.” Thus, the valuation of MIPs must rely on other indicators.

Objectives of the research area

The essential objective of this area is to rethink the valuation of MIPs in light of the quality of their relations with society.

More specifically, this research area is based on three complementary sub-objectives:

  • Understand the interests, needs and motivations of the various stakeholders that make up society in relation to infrastructure projects;
  • Articulate how infrastructure projects can fit into society from a sustainable development perspective, bearing spatiotemporal characteristics in mind;
  • Develop an in-depth understanding of the processes that ensure that a project will be seen as a common good that generates value within a pluralistic conception of benefits, both financial and non-financial.
Research activities structured around three interrelated components

The research activities in this area are structured around three interrelated components related to:
1.     the background of society’s relation with MIPs;
2.     the dynamics and processes governing the interaction between society and MIPs;
3.     the expected and actual outcomes.

Component 1: The background of society’s relation with MIPs.
This component investigates both society, understood as a plurality of stakeholders, and MIP proponents. Regarding society, this component aims to understand, for example, who the stakeholders are, their interests, their forms of engagement and mobilization, and how past experiences affect their social judgment of an infrastructure project. From the point of view of MIP proponents, this first component focuses particularly on the organizational resources, skills and know-how that facilitate a constructive, sustainable relationship between society and the infrastructure project in question.

Component 2: The dynamics and processes governing the interaction between society and MIPs.
This second component concerns the interaction between society and MIPs and investigates, among other things, stakeholders’ involvement in governance mechanisms, stakeholders’ mobilization and resistance strategies for or against an infrastructure project, and processes that enable different stakeholders to cultivate an understanding of what an infrastructure project could or should be. Adding an Indigenous dimension to this component, it could examine how traditional Indigenous knowledge can be integrated into MIP design to make such projects more economically, socially and environmentally viable.

Component 3: The expected and actual outcomes.
Finally, the third component covers the outcomes and spinoffs of infrastructure projects and the processes of interaction between society and MIPs. The research interests at the core of this component include the different kinds of social, environmental and economic impacts that infrastructure projects may generate, projects’ capacity to create sustainable value for the various stakeholders, and the conceptualization of projects’ social, economic and environmental spinoffs throughout their life cycle.

AREA – GOVERNANCE OF MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS:

DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE GOVERNANCE

 
Team:
> Maude Brunet (HEC Montréal)
> Nathalie Drouin (KHEOPS, École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal)

Work in this area concerns the governance of major infrastructure projects (MIPs) from a sustainability perspective: How can MIP governance incorporate social values and, more broadly, the principles of sustainable development?

Regarding governance, there are several obstacles to the development of sustainable infrastructures, such as a short-term political vision ruled by electoral cycles, and the lack of appropriate legislation, standards and codes. In addition, since governments have to manage concurrent priorities, project ranking may prioritize speedy economic growth over environmental and social protection. The difficulty of reconciling economic, environmental and social development in a fair balance is increased by the silos that exist within governments and among the parties responsible for the different phases of MIP development. Fostering collaboration among different entities and stakeholders without stimulating corruption is no easy matter, given the huge sums of money at play in MIP development.

Objectives of the research area

The main objective of this research area is related to considering the design of sustainable governance for MIPs.

More specifically, this research area is based on two sub-objectives:

– Propose a multidisciplinary understanding of MIP governance;
– Design, develop and promote the appropriation of models, processes, formal and informal frameworks and other practices to support the implementation of renewed MIP governance.

Research activities structured around two interrelated components

The research activities in this area are structured around two interrelated components related to:

  1. the study of MIP governance from a multidisciplinary perspective;
  2. the operationalization of a sustainable, innovative form of MIP governance.

  

Component 1: The study of MIP governance from a multidisciplinary perspective

This first component examines the multidisciplinary study of MIP governance to contribute to the revaluation principle proposed in area 1 of the program. It makes it possible to combine different disciplinary and theoretical approaches in order to reflect on MIP governance from different angles. For example, the work done within this component will enable us to consider MIP governance from the project angle (project, program and portfolio management, organizational project management) and from the public action angle (policy articulation, links between nations and territories, power struggles). This work will allow for a better understanding of the links and dynamics involved between players in the field throughout the territory, or between different levels of government. It will open up the study of potential innovations in decision-making processes or the management of partnerships and relations among the various stakeholders. This component is also intended to broaden the field of study of MIP governance from different perspectives or disciplines within the social sciences and humanities, such as history, law, geography, anthropology, public health and philosophy. In this way, it aims to produce new knowledge in the field of MIP management, from a sustainable innovation point of view.

 

Component 2: The operationalization of a sustainable, innovative form of MIP governance

The second component is dedicated to the implementation or operationalization of a renewed form of MIP governance. By using participatory research methods, such as action research and partnership research, this component allows for the design and development of new integration models, tools, practices, and MIP governance structures. It also facilitates the appropriation of these new elements by the stakeholders and key players in the field. In particular, the work done in this component concerns the design of models and frames of reference that target more relational or participatory governance of MIPs. It will make it possible to consider the design of models of citizen engagement and how they are integrated into the decision-making process. This component also investigates how managers act and operationalize MIP governance and the choices they make, bearing in mind institutional values, organizational structures and processes, formal frameworks and management tools. The work will result in analytical frameworks for sounder, more sustainable network governance. The question of compliance attestation for greener, more social governance will be considered. Ultimately, the various kinds of approaches used in this component will make it possible to better align governance, MIPs and the innovation needed to enact more sustainable governance.