Talk:Megaproject

Improving the list, and guidelines?

After watching over this list for a while, it's been made pretty clear that this list is in dire need of cleanup; most of the entries are INCREDIBLY arbitrary, likely, as I'd guess, all put up by people trying to simply put whatever local "big project" happens to be underway nearby. Really, this needs perhaps some more stringent criteria, so I'll propose some things to consider when evaluating a project to determine whether or not it might be a megaproject:

• Cost: One thing I've noticed is that people are posting up a LOT of projects local to them, that barely squeak past the $1US billion mark for construction. Really, that benchmark is clearly mentioned as NOT being the sole one. Think on it: in 2009 dollars/Euros, things like the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle program both surpassed 100 times that margin easily. And most famous projects came in at over $10US billion in modern currency, or just under it. Hence, I'd suggest keeping the following benchmarks in mind, perhaps:

• $100US Billion: Almost certainly a megaproject; it passes the annual GDP of 2/3 of the world's countries, the national budget of all of ~22 governments, and the defense budget of every country short of the USA. Anything this expensive will naturally be widely-known just from the scale of the project. Make sure it's an actual project in question, rather than something that isn't a distinct project.
• $10US Billion: Likely a megaproject; this is a massive undertaking even for most governments and massive multi-national corporations. Granted, at this level it's not automatic on its cost alone. However, if the other factors grant it significance, it's likely most would consider it a megaproject.
• $1US Billion: Typical bare minimum for entry. And just because a project passes this mark means it's realy a megaproject; look toward other qualifying factors that would work into here. Projects of this scale pop up by the day, and usually only affect their local municipality, and often aren't particularly noteworthy to anyone not living nearby. (e.g, most airport and metro projects) Exceptions to this level MIGHT happen, such as the Millau Viaduct, which could make up for its reduced cost by its sheer scale and engineering, which was utterly unprecedented.

• Impact: Lots and lots of projects are started, (and completed) with most of them having a relatively minor impact, such as only affecting a specific element of a single city's infrastructure. (such as water or transportation) This really isn't all that much of a megaproject, with a few rare exceptions due to their significance from other factors. At the opposite end from simple municipal projects that merely have a high price tag are those that really do change the world, even if they don't cost quite all that much; many "big science" projects, like the LHC and ITER, would definitely qualify here. Transportation projects might qualify if they happen to seriously change a major transportation route in the world, such as the Channel Tunnel.
• Engineering Challenges: One defining characteristic of a megaproject is the sheer audacity of it. In many cases, the project attempts to produce something for which there is nothing similar. Of course, this should likely be considered in the context of the project, as something that was incredibly bold in its day might be commonplace now, such as examples like the London Underground and the Hoover Dam. Other modern projects may not necessarily be technically challenging, but could be entirely unprecedented, such as the King Abdullah Economic City
• Public Attention: Real megaprojects tend to stand out in the media, be it for good attention or bad attention, generally international, and perhaps more importantly, persistent attention throughout the bulk of the duration of the project until its completion. The media will cover significant advancements, and more keenly, on any setbacks the project suffers. Clear examples from recent memory would be the LHC, the SDI, and Boston's Big Dig).

I think that it might be prudent that all future additions should come with an argument, at least in the edit description, (a talk page post would be better) arguing on merits similar to these as to why the project qualifies as a megaproject. Meanwhile, I'll be applying these criteria and review some of the existing entries; if I get the time, I'll review all of them, and post my own arguments as for why or why not they should remain on the list. Of course, I'd welcome every single bit of constructive feedback and help. Nottheking (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bent Flyvbjerg, in "Megaproject Planning and Management" (Cheltenham, UK and Northampton MA, USA, 2014) describes megaprojects as being large-scale, complex investments that :typically cost a billion dollars and up, take many years to develop and build, involve multiple public and private stakeholders, are transformational, and impact millions of :people. Given the fact that Flyvbjerg is the most cited author in the field of megaprojects I suggest that we use his criteria for Wikipedia.

Benedict Pinches (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Concorde

Surely the Concorde project, which NASA scientist regard as being a greater technical feat than the Apollo missions, meets the criteria?

Which NASA scientist are you speaking of? I am inclined to believe that a near-unanimous majority would agree that the join Aérospatiale-BAC STS program would hardly compare to the Apollo program in the terms of a technical feat, especially given how a rather large portion of the technology was based upon things learned from the American XB-70 Valkyrie project, (which was retired more than two years before the Concorde made its first flight) as is clearly illustrated by the numerous apparent similarities in their airframe design. Additionally, even if it weren't for the roots of the project in the XB-70, technologically it wasn't a huge advance over even some of the previous works of British Aeronautic engineering; as one example, the English Electric Lightning, first flown in 1954, had demonstrated a capability for supercruise just as the Concorde would later, as well as some performance numbers that are impressive even today. Lastly, given that as the page for the Concorde itself implies a total cost equivalent to US$920 million of its current time, it would fall below the US$1 billion mark defined in the very opening line of the article. Nottheking (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wastewater plant & Secret underground base

I there's no source for either of these things. I don't doubt that the former exists but if it is a "megaproject" worthy of note shouldn't there be an article on it. And the secret underground base?? There's nothing about it in the airport article. Is there any credibility to this at all?

Egads. There's probably some good content buried in the last few sections, screaming to fight its way out, but right now it's just overwhelmed by all the original-research-ish sociology hogwash ("utopian frictionlessness"!?). Jpatokal 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem

If there was a copyright issue, it is now solved. --Gsaup 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of the resolution? Until evidence has been provided, the copyvio message should remain in place. Road Wizard 11:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you consider evidence? And what is the copyright problem in this case, exactly? --Gsaup 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you compare the first version of this article, [1] with the webpage I listed on the notice [2], you will notice that they are nearly identical. This is clearly a copyright breach until such time as the creator of that web page advises us that they are happy to licence the material under the GNU Free Documentation License. To provide that evidence, they will need to either:

• Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication.
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.

However, even if they do meet those conditions, this article will need some significant editing as it relies too heavily on a single source. Road Wizard 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

An email of the type requested with a permission as requested has now been sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Thanks for your help. --Gsaup 16:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I think the procedure now is to wait for an administrator to confirm the email has arrived and then remove the notice. Road Wizard 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on a major rewrite, I think that the copyvio problem is now solved. Martinp23 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Space

what about The International Space Station, or the Apollo Project as examples?

Jubilee line extension

I added the Jubilee line extension as an example of a megaproject. It was then removed as "vandalism". However it clearly meets the definition of a megaproject so I can see no reason that it could be considered vandalism. I am therefore putting it back in the article. If anyone thinks that it should not be there could they explain why in the talk page rather than simply deleting it? --83.216.157.38 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the definition of "megaproject" is currently so vague as to be almost meaningless, but I find it hard to consider an extension of anything previously existing to really qualify. The entire Jubilee Line might qualify, but is there a reason why it's substantially different from all the other Tube lines, or other megaprojects? (It's a list of examples, not an exhaustive list.) Jpatokal 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Moscow spend $1,5bln+ on metro construction every year. Should then it be classified as megaproject? Building metro is a pretty expensive thing. If such a routine, but expensive thing will be considered as megaproject, then we have to add nearly all metro systems... Elk Salmon (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm editing the line. It's kinda facetous to list just an upgrade or extension to an existing Metro as a "megaproject." Just being $1US billion or more in cost doesn't really constitute that, otherwise we'd have to add hundreds of such projects every year. Basically, that line means that anything below it DOES get cut off, but being above it isn't necessarily enough. A megaproject should reperesent not just an engineering challenge but a largely unprecedented engineering challenge; challenges are common, and thrown at students in engineering school all the time. So no, the Jubilee Line Extension is most certainly NOT a megaproject, the London Underground itself IS, as it is the oldest underground train network, one of the largest, and filled with so many "firsts." Hence, I'm replacing the line to cite the Underground itself as a megaproject. Nottheking (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Is Apollo Program a megaproject? Is Trans-Siberian railway megaproject? Is Internet megaproject? Why the number of entries in the list is so limited and such major projects not included?--Planemo 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I seriously question whether the Internet could be classified as a megaproject, given that it is not a monolithic creation, having had no clear point of "completion" in the past, no any sign of reaching such "completion" in the future. That, and virtually all parties towards the creation of the Internet are not working together, hence it would not really classify as a single "project." If we take the original creation of the Internet, then it would very much fail to meet the criteria for having a major impact or garnering massive media attention, as it didn't come into widespread use until many, many years later. In other words, its creation wasn't so much a project as an invention. And certainly, this list is not for "megainventions." Nottheking (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian Megaprojects

I fail to understand why the Vision Tower and North-South Bypass Tunnel in Brisbane are on this list of Megaprojects. There are many other tunnels and buildings being built in Australia that are of similar scale, but are not on this list. Furthermore, the impacts of these two projects on (Australian) society are small comapred to those of Parliament House and particulary the Snowy River Scheme, let alone the other megaprojects listed from around the world. I suggest that these Brisbane projects, though significant, are relatively small and certainly do not fit into this category. They should be removed from this list.The Purple Nazz 10:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Do it. Grant | Talk 10:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Demolition of Tenochtilan

Does the genocidal "demolition" of a city really constitute a megaproject? Unlike most every other item on this article, the destructiion of Tenochtilan was undertaken in the spirit of destruction and plunder, not creation. The artificial islands used for farming around the city of Tenochtilan, on the other hand, definitely merit consideration for the status of megaproject. Starsword333 (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You forget one project that was also undertaken with the express purpose of destruction, being the Manhattan Project. As distasteful as it may seem to you or others, Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view dictates that solid criteria be followed, and not bias in favor or against particular projects based upon whether they were beneficial or harmful. In this case, we must rely purely on the completely neutral merits; in short, that the project was very costly, and had a major impact on the surrounding area. In these senses, as evil as destroying the center of another civilization may be to many, it verily fulfils the criteria of a megaproject. Nottheking (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Transport 21

Would the €35 Billion transport 21 investment in Ireland's transport system count as a mega project. ?

M6 Toll

The M6 toll? You've got to be kidding me! 26 miles of 3 lane highway does not a megaproject make. It's not even particularly big for a road in the midlands. Come off it. Deleted, if someone thinks otherwise, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.152.138 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Megaprojects on Wikipedia

There are numerous megaprojects stubs, lists and sublists on Wikipedia; it appears to me that these need to be rolled together and cleaned up. As mentioned above, they also probably need to be pared down; a reasonable criterion might be requiring a reliable source to have referred to the project in question as a megaproject. Jminthorne (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rename

This article looks like a list article to me (with the exception of the megaproject paradox section at the bottom). I propose splitting the "list-y" majority of the article into a new article, List of megaprojects, so we can begin applying a standard criterion to inclusion of projects to the list and compiling all the scattered lists that are on wiki already. The remaining prose material on this page could then be expanded to an encyclopedic article about megaprojects in general (with a also link to the list of course). Jminthorne (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

List

The examples turned from a few representative examples into a (long) list of megaprojects, so I split it off into List of megaprojects so this article can focus on what a megaproject is and how they are created. RJFJR (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

optimism bias

I'm confused. How does optimism bias deserve a mention in the See also section? Are we saying that megaprojects are by definition susceptible to optimism bias? I'm removing the link, its placing in the article seems awfully POV. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the problem at least in part comes from spamming of Flyvbjerg references as detailed here. Much more cleanup is needed. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Article reads biased...

From a newspaper guy, the first two paragraphs of this story strike a consistently anti-megaproject tone. Not to say that any of the assertions are untrue, it's just that this reads like a college term paper on the economic downsides of huge public works projects.

The intro graf comments on optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation are placed to high in this article, and should be included in their own section. The "curious paradox" is opinionated. If included at all, it should be lower in the story. In addition, the parenthetical comments at the top of the second graf should be removed. They are unprofessional and imply bias.

A simple cut and paste reorganization would go a long way toward removing the appearance of bias from this article. I think the entire second graf needs to be sanitized, but I don't want to argue with whoever wrote it.

Here's a reorganization proposal:

A megaproject is an ... expensive, and public.

(Cut 3rd sentence move to below)

(Cut 2nd paragraph move to below)

Megaprojects include ... transportation projects.

Investing in megaprojects in order to stimulate .... Act of 2009.

(***New Section: "Criticism"***)

(Insert third sentence) Care in the project development ... and schedule forecasts.

(Insert second paragraph here.) The logic on which many of the typical ...

→I agree with the above. As a casual reader, I found this article completely unhelpful, as its bias was clear to me immediately. It seems to have been edited by some of the authors cited for anti-megaproject articles, so I have added a COI warning to the page. I do not know enough to edit the page fully, but anybody can see the COI and bias.

→199.107.16.121 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

There are no other programs designed to evaluate large, complex and long-term plans, like RiskAoA. Or maybe there are, let's talk.GESICC (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that "there are no other programs designed to evaluate large, complex and long-term plans" for projects that cost more than a billion dollars. Are you saying that all projects that cost more than a billion dollars use RiskAoA? If that is true then why is it so incredibly difficult to find reliable secondary sources about RiskAoA? If it is not true, then what other decision support systems do megaprojects use? Those are the questions that I would like to see answered. Biogeographist (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Knock yourself out looking. But usually these are planned through agglomerates of bids and proposals, evaluations, if they are done at all, they are ad hoc, and I think you'll agree, that an accounting program, assuming one is used, is not planning, and by then it's too late. That's why they are such a mess. I can't show you something that doesn't exist, and other tools, to the best of my knowledge, don't exist. As to secondary sources, ISO 31000, COSO Enterprise Risk Management, FRM, Luftwaffe, and British Standards used to have references even endorsements to it, but it is Distribution B, and they are not supposed to have it; those links dried up, or were dried up (I don't know for sure - you can see some dead links on previous versions of RiskAoA). There are a few secondary sources, MITRE, AFMC/AC, and AFRL/XPT, AFRL/SEI are different organizations, AFRL is huge, the biggest problem is once a technology is approved for use in the DoD, people use it, not write about it. It meets all notability as I wikiread it. V/RGESICC (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't intend to spend much time looking at this point, but I hope that other editors will take up the task. We are discussing the notability of RiskAoA on its talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

For other editors who wish to research this topic: Searching on Google Scholar for the following keywords returns some interesting and relevant results: risk management "multiple criteria decision" OR "multi criteria decision" megaprojects. Biogeographist (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

OR and UNDUE running rampant

Wow, just wow. This is jam-packed with OR and essentially boils down to criticism. Especially egregious is:

• "electricity for everybody (who can pay), road access (for those that have cars)" - undue weight on people it doesn't benefit
• "However, just like the old megaprojects, the new ones also foreclose "upon a wide variety of social practices, reproducing rather than resolving urban inequality and disenfranchisement"." - says who? This shouldn't be in Wikivoice
• "more and more megaprojects are being proposed despite their consistently poor performance against initial forecasts of budget, schedule, and benefits" - says who? is this a quote?
• general undue weight to the opinions presented by Flyvberg and Megaprojects and Risk - are there alternate views?

This article is in desperate need of a full rewrite, as from what I (a reader who doesn't know anything about engineering) can tell, this appears to just be a regurgitation of Flyvberg's views. A History section would be especially welcome - when did civilisation progress enough for megaprojects to be considered? Could the Pyramids of Giza be considered megaprojects? The Sagrada Familia?

Couruu (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Accounts representing Flyvberg have been aggressively editing this page (and others like it) for some time - it is a real problem. I would support a full rewrite. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)