The Role of Engineering Leadership in Delivering National Power Infrastructure Projects: An Archival Multi-Case Study of Eight Large-Scale Projects
Keywords:
engineering leadership, megaprojects, power infrastructure, systems integration, project governance, energy infrastructure, project performance, comparative case studyAbstract
Background: National power infrastructure projects combine high capital intensity, tightly coupled technical systems, public accountability, long asset lives and extensive inter-organizational interfaces. Although megaproject research has documented persistent cost and schedule underperformance, the specific contribution of engineering leadership - understood as a project-level socio-technical integration capability rather than the traits of a single manager - remains under-specified.
Objective: This study examined how engineering leadership architecture relates to delivery outcomes in nationally significant power projects.
Methods: A comparative archival case study was conducted across eight projects in Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, the United States, Finland, France and South Africa. Publicly verifiable regulatory, sponsor, government, multilateral and peer-reviewed records were coded using a six-domain Engineering Leadership Integration Index (ELII; range 0-12): technical authority and systems integration; interface and stakeholder coordination; risk and quality escalation; learning and knowledge transfer; supply-chain and workforce capability; and governance and change control. Delivery was coded independently using a three-domain Delivery Performance Index (DPI; range 0-6) covering schedule, cost stewardship and functional commissioning. Cross-case pattern matching and Spearman rank analysis were used.
Results: ELII scores ranged from 3 to 12 and DPI scores from 1 to 5. Projects with explicit technical integration, early regulator/stakeholder interfaces, institutionalized learning and capability development, and disciplined change governance showed stronger delivery profiles. The ELII was strongly associated with the DPI (Spearman rho=0.900; exact two-sided permutation p=0.0048). Because cost data were not comparably disclosed for three projects, a sensitivity analysis excluding the cost component remained positive (rho=0.710; exact p=0.0417). The strongest contrast was between projects characterized by proactive integration and learning and those in which design defects, fragmented interfaces and corrective action became prominent late in delivery.
Conclusions: Engineering leadership appears to function as an integrative delivery system that connects technical authority, governance, learning and organizational interfaces. The findings do not establish causality, but they provide a reproducible framework for studying engineering leadership in power megaprojects and suggest that owner organizations should institutionalize technical authority, interface governance, early risk escalation and learning before construction intensity peaks.
References
1. Flyvbjerg B. What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview. Project Management Journal. 2014;45(2):6-19. doi:10.1002/pmj.21409.
2. Denicol J, Davies A, Krystallis I. What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal. 2020;51(3):328-345. doi:10.1177/8756972819896113.
3. Sanderson J. Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: a critical discussion of alternative explanations. International Journal of Project Management. 2012;30(4):432-443. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.002.
4. van Marrewijk A, Clegg SR, Pitsis TS, Veenswijk M. Managing public-private megaprojects: paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International Journal of Project Management. 2008;26(6):591-600. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.007.
5. Davies A, Mackenzie I. Project complexity and systems integration: constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International Journal of Project Management. 2014;32(5):773-790. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.004.
6. Brady T, Davies A. Managing structural and dynamic complexity: a tale of two projects. Project Management Journal. 2014;45(4):21-38. doi:10.1002/pmj.21434.
7. Muller R, Turner R. Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. International Journal of Project Management. 2010;28(5):437-448. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.003.
8. Muller R, Turner JR. Matching the project manager's leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management. 2007;25(1):21-32. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.04.003.
9. Aga DA, Noorderhaven N, Vallejo B. Transformational leadership and project success: the mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management. 2016;34(5):806-818. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012.
10. Damayanti R, Hartono B, Wijaya A. Complexity, leadership, and megaproject performance: a configuration analysis. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 2021;14(3):570-603. doi:10.3926/jiem.3476.
11. Bentur A, Zonnenshain A, Blekhman A. Engineering Leadership: Skills and Competencies. Haifa: Samuel Neaman Institute; 2025.
12. Hutchison N, McDermott TA. Why systems engineering skills are critical for successful leadership of large complex projects. INCOSE International Symposium. 2025;35(1):392-408. doi:10.1002/iis2.70008.
13. Maktar A, Khairuddin KN, Saraih UN. Key competencies among engineering leaders in the Malaysian construction industry. e-Bangi: Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 2024;21(4). doi:10.17576/ebangi.2024.2104.34.
14. Shane JS, Strong KC, Gransberg DD. A multidimensional model of project leadership. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2011;39(3):132-139. doi:10.1109/EMR.2011.6019098.
15. Han H, Ma C, Yang D, Zhao W. Transformational leadership and project success: the mediating roles of team reflexivity and resilience. Frontiers in Psychology. 2025;16:1504108. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1504108.
16. Lin W, Wang G, Ning Y, Ma Q, Chen Y. Examining the effect of project planning on megaproject performance: the conditional mediating role of integration. Developments in the Built Environment. 2024;18:100392. doi:10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100392.
17. Wong WKK, Cheung SO, Yiu TW, Pang HY. A framework for trust in construction contracting. International Journal of Project Management. 2008;26(8):821-829. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.004.
18. Halder A. Modeling critical driving factors of stakeholder integration and their influences on construction megaproject performance: a regression-based analysis. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. Published online 14 Nov 2025. doi:10.1108/JEDT-06-2025-0286.
19. Sanchez-Cazorla A, Alfalla-Luque R, Irimia-Dieguez AI. Risk identification in megaprojects as a crucial phase of risk management: a literature review. Project Management Journal. 2016;47(6):75-93. doi:10.1177/875697281604700606.
20. Olaniran OJ, Love PED, Edwards D, Olatunji OA, Matthews J. Cost overruns in hydrocarbon megaprojects: a critical review and implications for research. Project Management Journal. 2015;46(6):126-138. doi:10.1002/pmj.21556.
21. Ashkanani S, Franzoi R. Gaps in megaproject management system literature: a systematic overview. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2023;30(3):1300-1318. doi:10.1108/ECAM-12-2021-1113.
22. Cottafava D, Corazza L, Shams Esfandabadi Z, Torchia D. Megaprojects from the lens of business and management studies: a systematic literature review. Journal of Public Affairs. 2024;24(3):e2937. doi:10.1002/pa.2937.
23. Sekasi J, Harrod S, Andrade V, Madsen JH. Performance controls and accountability in African transport infrastructure megaprojects: a systematic literature review. Project Leadership and Society. 2024;5:100123. doi:10.1016/j.plas.2024.100123.
24. Sekasi J, Harrod S, Andrade V, Madsen JH. Governance, contracts, and culture: a triadic approach to megaproject performance. Project Leadership and Society. 2025;6:100197. doi:10.1016/j.plas.2025.100197.
25. Ninan J, Clegg S, Burdon S, Clay J. Overt obstacles and covert causes: an exploratory study of poor performance in megaprojects. Project Leadership and Society. 2021;2:100011. doi:10.1016/j.plas.2021.100011.
26. McLeod S. Rethinking public infrastructure megaproject performance: theorizing alternative benefits, and the need for open science in project research. Project Leadership and Society. 2023;4:100080. doi:10.1016/j.plas.2023.100080.
27. Ahern T, Leavy B, Byrne PJ. Complex project management as complex problem solving: a distributed knowledge management perspective. International Journal of Project Management. 2014;32(8):1371-1381. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.007.
28. Ansar A, Flyvbjerg B, Budzier A, Lunn D. Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy. 2014;69:43-56. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069.
29. Assaf SA, Al-Hejji S. Causes of delay in large construction projects. International Journal of Project Management. 2006;24(4):349-357. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
30. Boateng P, Chen Z, Ogunlana SO. An analytical network process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management. 2015;33(8):1795-1811. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.08.007.
31. Browning TR. Managing complex project process models with a process architecture framework. International Journal of Project Management. 2014;32(2):229-241. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.008.
32. Bruzelius N, Flyvbjerg B, Rothengatter W. Big decisions, big risks: improving accountability in mega projects. Transport Policy. 2002;9(2):143-154. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00014-8.
33. Cantarelli CC, Molin EJE, van Wee B, Flyvbjerg B. Characteristics of cost overruns for Dutch transport infrastructure projects and the importance of the decision to build and project phases. Transport Policy. 2012;22:49-56. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.001.
34. Chang A, Chih YY, Chew E, Pisarski A. Reconceptualising mega project success in Australian Defence: recognising the importance of value co-creation. International Journal of Project Management. 2013;31(8):1139-1153. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.005.
35. Chen L, Manley K. Validation of an instrument to measure governance and performance on collaborative infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2014;140(5):04014006. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000834.
36. Cuppen E, Bosch-Rekveldt MGC, Pikaar E, Mehos DC. Stakeholder engagement in large-scale energy infrastructure projects: revealing perspectives using Q methodology. International Journal of Project Management. 2016;34(7):1347-1359. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.003.
37. Davies A, Dodgson M, Gann D. Dynamic capabilities in complex projects: the case of London Heathrow Terminal 5. Project Management Journal. 2016;47(2):26-46. doi:10.1002/pmj.21574.
38. Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
39. Morris PWG, Hough GH. The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of Project Management. Chichester: Wiley; 1987.
40. Lovallo D, Cristofaro M, Flyvbjerg B. Governing large projects: a three-stage process to get it right. Academy of Management Perspectives. 2023. doi:10.5465/amp.2021.0129.
41. Whyte J, Stasis A, Lindkvist C. Managing change in the delivery of complex projects: configuration management, asset information and big data. International Journal of Project Management. 2016;34(2):339-351. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006.
42. Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review. 1989;14(4):532-550. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.
43. Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2018.
44. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2018.
45. Private Power & Infrastructure Board, Government of Pakistan. Sahiwal Coal Power Project: salient features and milestones [Internet]. Islamabad: Ministry of Energy (Power Division); [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.ppib.gov.pk/sahiwal.html.
46. China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Secretariat. 1320MW Sahiwal Coal-fired Power Plant: project details and progress update [Internet]. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan; 2017 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://cpec.gov.pk/project-details/2.
47. Emirates Nuclear Energy Company. Sustainability Report 2023 [Internet]. Abu Dhabi: ENEC; 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.enec.gov.ae/.
48. Emirates Nuclear Energy Company. US $2.5B awarded to local companies participating in UAE nuclear energy program [Internet]. Abu Dhabi: ENEC; 2015 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.enec.gov.ae/news/latest-news/us-2-5-billion-in-contracts-awarded-to-local-companies-participating-in-uae/.
49. International Atomic Energy Agency. Safeguards Implementation Practices in States with Small Quantities Protocols and New Nuclear Power Programmes. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. PUB2063 [Internet]. Vienna: IAEA; 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB2063-Web.pdf.
50. World Bank. MA-Noor Ouarzazate Concentrated Solar Power Project (P131256): Implementation Status & Results Report, Sequence No. 8 [Internet]. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2019 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://documents.worldbank.org/.
51. US Energy Information Administration. First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation [Internet]. Washington, DC: EIA; 2023 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=57280.
52. Georgia Public Service Commission. Commissioners approve agreement for Vogtle construction costs [Internet]. Atlanta: Georgia PSC; 2023 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://psc.ga.gov/newsroom/media-advisories/.
53. Georgia Power. Vogtle Unit 4 enters commercial operation [Internet]. Atlanta: Georgia Power; 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.georgiapower.com/news-hub/press-releases/vogtle-unit-4-enters-commercial-operation.html.
54. Teollisuuden Voima Oyj. Regular electricity production has started at Olkiluoto 3 EPR [Internet]. Eurajoki: TVO; 2023 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.tvo.fi/en/index/news/pressreleasesstockexchangereleases/2023/regularelectricityproductionhasstartedatolkiluoto3epr.html.
55. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Effective Frameworks and Strategies for Financing Nuclear New Build. NEA No. 7684 [Internet]. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.oecd-nea.org/.
56. Electricite de France. Update on the Flamanville EPR [Internet]. Paris: EDF; 2022 Dec 16 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/update-on-the-flamanville-epr-0.
57. Electricite de France. Universal Registration Document 2024: Flamanville 3 EPR grid connection and commissioning update [Internet]. Paris: EDF; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.edf.fr/sites/groupe/files/2025-04/2025-04-24-edf-urd-2024-en.pdf.
58. Eskom. Medupi's last unit achieves commercial operation, marking completion of the project [Internet]. Johannesburg: Eskom; 2021 Aug 2 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.eskom.co.za/eskom-medupis-last-unit-achieves-commercial-operation-marking-completion-of-the-project/.
59. Eskom. Kusile Unit 6 achieves commercial operation, unlocking full 9600 MW capacity across Eskom's flagship stations [Internet]. Johannesburg: Eskom; 2025 Sep 29 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.eskom.co.za/kusile-unit-6-achieves-commercial-operation-unlocking-full-9600mw-capacity-across-eskoms-flagship-stations/.
60. Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. Integrated Report 2025 [Internet]. Johannesburg: Eskom; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.eskom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Eskom-integrated-report-2025.pdf.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohammad Jashim Uddin, Joyasree Roy, Mohammad Mohibul Alam, Anik Chanda (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright in their published work. Unless an individual Version of Record identifies different terms, JMRIS articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This permits sharing and adaptation, including commercial use, with appropriate attribution, a link to the license, and indication of changes. Third-party material may be subject to separate terms. Existing articles retain the license originally granted to their Version of Record; a policy update does not retrospectively replace that license.
