Do nothing, do minimum or do something? Why public project appraisals “always” recommend large projects

Abstract

Purpose: In the project initiation phase, an appraisal is needed to clarify the strategic problem and alternative solutions. Full-scale construction projects and simple solutions (do-minimum alternatives) should be assessed. The do-nothing alternative is the baseline for the appraisal and an option in itself. The paper explores the role of do-nothing and do-minimum alternatives in public project appraisal, which may significantly impact the attractiveness of a construction project. Design/methodology/approach: The paper presents an empirical study from Norway, which requires external quality assurance (QA) of early project appraisals. The data include an extensive document review of 112 projects and interviews with 41 experts involved in the appraisal processes. Findings: Of 112 appraisals, 110 recommended a major construction project, including cases where the benefits and value were low or uncertain. The do-nothing alternative was generally included as a reference but not treated as a viable option. Do-minimum alternatives were often not explored. By contrast, the external QA reports recommended do-nothing or do-minimum in 28 cases. Interestingly, although political decision-makers rarely reject projects, they may put them on hold indefinitely, implying that the actual outcome in many cases is still do-nothing. Originality/value: The paper addresses a topic that has been understudied in the literature. The findings contribute to the broader literature on project initiation processes, project appraisal and how to reduce the risk of bias and manipulation in appraisals.