How might a project be considered a technical success but an economic, political and project management disaster?
Some projects can be technically good, successful and innovative, but economically and politically they can be inefficient and unprofitable, especially in the long run.
We can consider the Channel Tunnel as an example.
It is still considered a technical success, because although the tunneling process that was used was new, and presented a degree of technical novelty.
But both politically and economically, it was a disaster, because as a feature of many large 'political' projects, the real cost was not politically acceptable, and also the tonnel and the freeway through it created economical losses for the city near it in the long run.
Comments
Leave a comment