From perceptions to value: a multi-stakeholder framework for public infrastructure design

Public infrastructure projects are designed to generate and deliver value to society at large across their lifecycle (Caron et al., 2020, 2024). The need for generating value beyond economic value has gained momentum, but it has clashed with the challenge posed by differing stakeholder perceptions of value (Kujala et al., 2021; Vuorinen and Martinsuo, 2019). Furthermore, the lack of a universal definition of project value and social value has a relevant impact on the discussion among parties, as a limited understanding reduces the potential for value creation, which goes beyond the economic one. The final generation and delivery of value associated with a particular project is thus determined by a complex interplay between all the involved stakeholders (Di Maddaloni and Sabini, 2022; Kier et al., 2023; Martinsuo et al., 2019a, b), which requires a proper understanding of the context of the project, together with the involvement of secondary stakeholders starting from the early phases of the project lifecycle (Babaei et al., 2023; Caron et al., 2024; Di Maddaloni and Davis, 2017; Di Maddaloni and Sabini, 2022).

Over the years, the academic literature has addressed these challenges by explicating the need for, and importance of, engaging with secondary stakeholders and local communities (Di Maddaloni and Davis, 2017; Di Maddaloni and Sabini, 2022), linking it to the generation of value (Gil and Fu, 2022; Li et al., 2024; Martinsuo et al., 2019a, b; Vuorinen and Martinsuo, 2019). The lack of a universally recognized definition with regard to project value (Chih et al., 2019) has encouraged academics to deepen the discussion and identify the main recurring elements that characterize it. Barima (2010) sheds light on the tendency in the literature to use a variety of terms interchangeably to refer to value in construction projects. Laursen and Svejvig (2016) identified a set of terms and perspectives related to project value creation and management, providing a review of the literature on the topic. Among the underlying principles related to the value concept, two pivotal principles were identified by the academics. The first claims that value is multifaceted, so it encompasses multiple dimensions on different time horizons (Chih et al., 2019; Pargar et al., 2019), while the second highlights how each stakeholder perceives value differently (Keeys and Huemann, 2017; Laursen and Svejvig, 2016; Toukola et al., 2023). The aspect of being multifaceted can represent an obstacle to value creation if relevant dimensions beyond the economic ones are not properly addressed, identified and understood (Martinsuo, 2020), especially in terms of social value (Caron et al., 2024; Edum-Fotwe and Price, 2009). Building on this discussion, the co-creation concept has also been explored in the project studies literature. It further stresses the relevance of the interplay among stakeholders, hence the “co-” in co-creation and proposes a way to increase value generation by benefitting all the parties involved (Chih et al., 2019; Keeys and Huemann, 2017; Toukola et al., 2023).

In this paper, we build on the concept of sustainable development to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of project value in the design phase of public infrastructure projects. Achieving this objective would enable a more informed discussion between the project owner and project team, supporting the identification of the objectives of the project in the design phase. The concept of sustainable development is rooted in the definition of sustainability provided by the World Commission on Environment and Development in the report “Our Common Future” which is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). Sustainable development combines economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability, taking into account temporal and spatial constraints (Cerne and Jansson, 2019). We argue that two intrinsic elements of sustainable development can enhance the generation of project value. First, the presence of the term “sustainable” implies that the focus should shift from short-term objectives to long-term ones, aiming at net benefits which “continue, or are likely to continue” (Ika and Pinto, 2022). Second, the three elements combined within the concept of sustainable development, namely economic, social and environmental, provide a generalizable, yet comprehensive overview of the multidimensionality of value. Despite the fact that more subdimensions can be identified depending on the context, we claim that these three dimensions are pre-eminent and addressing them is a necessary condition for achieving a comprehensive understanding of project value. Given these premises, from now on the discussion will revolve around sustainable value (Hart and Milstein, 2003; Ma et al., 2017), namely project value sustainable in the long-term for both shareholders and stakeholders.

This paper addresses the following research question:

How can stakeholders' differing perceptions be integrated to support the planning of sustainable value during the design phase of public infrastructure projects?

To answer this research question, a design-oriented approach (Gregor and Hevner, 2013; Hevner et al., 2004; Peffers et al., 2007) rooted in pragmatism (Goldkuhl, 2012) is adopted. The outcome of this study is a conceptual framework addressing the three identified dimensions of sustainable value, i.e. economic, social and environmental, and three levels of analysis combined in a 3 × 3 matrix. The three levels of analysis relate to the project owner, the project team and the public, and we claim that their combination provides a comprehensive understanding of the different perceptions of value in the context of a public infrastructure project. Indeed, the project team engages with a wide variety of stakeholders throughout different internal and external engagement activities in the design phase, and the potential for sustainable value generation can emerge from each of the activities performed. The three levels of analysis proposed refer to the three main activities which we claim are necessary to provide a thorough overview of the different perceptions of value. First, the project owner’s assessment of the parent organization’s needs that will be addressed to some extent by the project; second, the project team’s internal processes and its evaluation of objectives and constraints; and third, the public engagement activities. These three levels should not be considered individually. Rather, the combination of their outcomes offers a comprehensive overview of the potential of the project in terms of the generation of sustainable value. Their outcomes represent the input for populating the proposed framework, which is meant as a supporting tool for the discussion between the project owner and the project team in the design phase. We argue that achieving a comprehensive understanding of the relevant topics of interest related to sustainable value generation for all the actors involved is a pivotal condition for obtaining a more fruitful discussion. Indeed, such an understanding would facilitate the identification of synergies, contrasts and trade-offs to explore among the different stakeholders’ perceptions, supporting the identification of the project’s objectives in the design phase.

The paper is structured as follows, in compliance with the publication schema for Design Science Research proposed by Gregor and Hevner (2013). The first section explores the theoretical background of project sustainability and its linkage with value, the different perceptions of value on the part of stakeholders, and their impact on the design phase of public infrastructure projects. Next, a literature-based framework that intersects the three aforementioned levels of analysis, i.e. project team, external experts and secondary stakeholders, and the three identified dimensions of sustainable value is presented. The conceptual framework is then validated in two steps. The first takes the form of a round of interviews with experienced practitioners coming from diverse countries, which focuses on the three levels of analysis proposed, validating their relevance. The second phase involves the analysis of public project documents through the framework, to present its practical application and the relationship between the topics that have emerged in terms of the three levels of analysis. This validation is performed through the analysis of the public documents related to the ESA4 project (Evoluzione Sostenibile dell’Autostrada A4 tra Brescia e Padova). The results are then discussed, followed by an identification of future developments in the research.

Building on the aforementioned definition of sustainability provided by the report “Our Common Future” (WCED, 1987), academics have deepened the discussion with regard to the implications and evolution of sustainability over time (Cerne and Jansson, 2019; Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; IPMA, 2024; Keeys and Huemann, 2017; Sabini and Alderman, 2021). Furthermore, the complexity of implementing sustainability objectives is increased by the necessity for global cooperation, as sustainable development needs to be pursued both locally and globally (Cerne and Jansson, 2019). From a global point of view, sustainable development calls for a world growing economically, while social trust and environmental protection are ensured. These three dimensions gave birth to the Sustainable Development Goals, which aim to incorporate them in a balanced and action-oriented way (Sachs, 2015). However, a proper structure is needed to coordinate the management of development and change, and the project form was first recommended by the WCED report (1987) as an enabler for sustainable development. Cerne and Jansson (2019) built on this recommendation, claiming that the project form is well suited to disrupt traditional coordination forms, paving the way for more innovative solutions that are less influenced by bureaucracy and mass market production, which represent a further challenge for future sustainable development. Projects are indeed “agents of change,” fundamental to driving innovation and change, and they are enablers for organizations to tackle grand challenges (Locatelli et al., 2023).

A pivotal element for the whole discussion is the shift from short-term to long-term orientation (Yazici, 2020), the latter relating to development and future generations. Ika and Pinto (2022) add that “sustainability measures the extent to which the net benefits of the project continue or are likely to continue,” with a long-term focus on financial, environmental and social impacts. These three dimensions are rooted in the work of Elkington (1998), who proposed a framework that aids in putting the concept of sustainability into practice. This framework, known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), suggests that organizations should complement their financial bottom line with social and environmental bottom lines, adopting longer-term viewpoints in their decision-making. This requires a wider rethinking of all the practices of the organization, setting strategic and tactical sustainability goals, together with the development of sustainable supplier practices, sustainable policies and competencies (Li et al., 2019). However, reconciling sustainable objectives in the face of economic constraints is a challenge that projects often have to deal with, that is determining the value brought to project management by sustainability (Sabini and Alderman, 2021). These sustainability challenges need to be emphasized and addressed in the design phase of the project, when identifying roles, responsibilities and decision-making structures (Aarseth et al., 2017; Li et al., 2019).

The orientation toward sustainability has thus expanded the discussion with regard to value, highlighting the potential to create value beyond the economic one, introducing the ecological and social dimensions of value (Freudenreich et al., 2020). Indeed, as pointed out by Freudenreich et al. (2020), the value creation processes need to reflect also the ecological and social outcomes considered valuable by the stakeholders, expanding the total pool of “shared value” (Porter and Kramer, 2011). This concept is among the core foundations of the literature concerning sustainable business models, which aim at creating, delivering and capturing economic, social and environmental value for all the stakeholders (Kurucz et al., 2017; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Each stakeholder is characterized by different needs and perception, so what constitutes value depends on the perception of the recipient (Freeman, 2010; Freudenreich et al., 2020). Because of its underlying principles (WCED, 1987), sustainable development can thus represent a source of value creation for both the organization and society at large (Baumgartner, 2014). This potential can be exploited if these dimensions are integrated, without overlooking the interrelations between the three dimensions (Silvius, 2017), as their separation emphasizes potentially competing interests (Agarchand and Laishram, 2017). Building on these notions, many definitions of sustainable project management have emerged and, as reported by Silvius and Schipper (2014), a common element among most of them is indeed the generation of benefits in the long run. Silvius and Schipper themselves proposed a definition which includes many relevant elements for this work:

This definition identifies the three dimensions of sustainable development, namely environmental, economic and social, and highlights the final aim of realizing benefits in such a way as to deliver value to society. In addition, it finally introduces the need for proactive stakeholder participation. As was introduced above, and will be considered in greater depth in the following sections, stakeholders have different perspectives on value, and so different points of view must be included in the discussion to increase the potential for the value generation of the project. This paper specifically focuses on the design phase in which the value is estimated, and key decisions for the subsequent phases are taken (Williams et al., 2019; Zerjav et al., 2021). In the design phase, the value is thus envisioned to materialize through benefits for different stakeholders and different sectors of the economy, on multiple levels and with a deeper understanding of such benefits (Zerjav et al., 2021).

Value is a key concept in the public infrastructure realm, as public infrastructure projects are meant to be vehicles for the definition, creation and delivery of value to society across its lifecycle, especially with regard to endeavors characterized as being of a public nature (Laursen and Svejvig, 2016; Vuorinen and Martinsuo, 2019). Value is a broad term that traditionally encompasses economic, environmental and social benefits in the short- and long-term, compared to the costs incurred throughout the development of the project (Garcia-Castro and Aguilera, 2015; Laursen and Svejvig, 2016; Morris, 2013). Laursen and Svejvig specifically proposed pursuing a holistic approach for value management, combining benefit and cost management, as one of the future directions for research on project value creation. Integrating these two dimensions means shifting the focus on creating value to more than the outcome itself, justifying the emergence of different solutions which might be more expensive in terms of cost, but also promise a higher generation of value (Laursen and Svejvig, 2016). Even if in the literature there is no universally agreed definition of value, there are some underlying principles that can be identified and deepened.

A paramount principle is that project value is multifaceted (Chih et al., 2019), as different types of value (e.g. economic, environmental, social and technical) can be sought on different time horizons (Pargar et al., 2019). Indeed, academics have explored the opportunities for value generation in different phases of projects (Artto et al., 2016; Martinsuo et al., 2019b). Specifically, the front-end phase is drawing interest among researchers because of the pivotal decisions that are made in this phase, which shape both the subsequent project phases and the project’s long-term impact on society and the stakeholders involved (Aarseth et al., 2017; Martinsuo et al., 2019b; Matinheikki et al., 2016; Toukola et al., 2023; Williams et al., 2019; Zerjav et al., 2021). Another underlying principle is the subjective perception of different stakeholders, which calls for a consideration of different perspectives and contexts (Keeys and Huemann, 2017; Laursen and Svejvig, 2016; Toukola et al., 2023). This principle is crucial for the determination of expected value, as each stakeholder group is characterized by different expectations in terms of value delivery, both in the short- and the long-term, and these expectations are often interrelated to a different extent (Chih et al., 2019; Freudenreich et al., 2020; Keeys and Huemann, 2017; Martinsuo, 2020). The conflicting views of stakeholders require an extensive coordination effort on the part of the project team to sustain a shared vision which takes into account the micro and macro benefits that have to be delivered on different societal levels (Di Maddaloni and Sabini, 2022; Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015). Furthermore, the perception of public infrastructure projects with regard to their stakeholder network is significantly influenced by the media’s standpoint, which may present project outcomes, costs and timelines from diverse perspectives (Choudhury, 2014; Van Marrewijk and Veenswijk, 2006). If excessively polarized, differences in public opinion may ultimately jeopardize the overall success of the project, igniting resentment and distrust (Josefsson, 2024). Thus, value creation needs to reflect the expectations in terms of outcomes of the stakeholders of the project (Freudenreich et al., 2020), as the final generation and distribution of value is determined by a complex and continuous interaction between the project team, the sponsors and clients, the end-users and the non-users of the infrastructure that are affected by its outcome (Caron et al., 2024; de Gooyert et al., 2017; Di Maddaloni and Sabini, 2022; Kier et al., 2023; Martinsuo et al., 2019a).

Fitton and Moncaster (2022) offered a definition of social value in the context of infrastructure: “Social value is derived from an understanding of what the stakeholders and local communities impacted by the infrastructure projects want and need.” Building on this definition, Caron et al. (2024) suggested that infrastructure also creates social value. Infrastructure projects serve as an ideal context for examining the impact of varying stakeholder perceptions with regard to the creation of value due to their complexity, multi-stakeholder involvement and societal significance. These projects, which include essential services such as transportation, energy, water and waste systems (Zerjav et al., 2021), involve diverse stakeholder groups spanning both the public and private sectors.

The differing perceptions of value on the part of these stakeholders require negotiations and justifications when making decisions, especially during the project’s design phase. The design phase of public infrastructure projects is the phase in which the early estimates on project value are established, negotiated and consolidated, justifying the need for the project itself (Edkins et al., 2013; Zerjav et al., 2021). During this stage, stakeholders have to align their goals to create a shared vision of the project through trust-building, joint decision-making and a shift from traditional planning approaches to more collaborative and network-based strategies (Matinheikki et al., 2016). For instance, Martinsuo et al. (2019b) emphasize the lifecycle-oriented framing of infrastructure projects, where the multidimensionality of value emerges in terms of both temporal and spatial dimensions, highlighting the potential long-term social and environmental benefits.

Aaltonen et al. (2016) focus on the intrinsic complexity of infrastructures, arising from stakeholder diversity and the need for joint sense-making, which cannot be effectively addressed through traditional project management methods. Instead, a stakeholder-centric approach is required to navigate the uncertainty and differing priorities that emerge during this phase. For example, the early engagement of stakeholders in designing infrastructure often leads to increased commitment and better alignment of expectations, enabling the creation of value that resonates with multiple stakeholder groups. Moreover, infrastructure projects can be seen as a class of policy interventions, aiming to address societal needs and generate transformative impacts beyond their immediate outputs (Zerjav et al., 2021). These projects often produce both market and non-market benefits, generating value on different dimensions. Understanding how these benefits are perceived and negotiated by stakeholders is essential to justifying investments and reducing the impact of biases (Di Maddaloni and Derakhshan, 2024).

The diverse perceptions of value in infrastructure projects also manifest in the distinction between expected and realized value. Infrastructure owners often develop a vision of value during the project’s design phase, but this may diverge from the value eventually captured by stakeholders. Mulholland et al. (2020) claim that the creation of social value evolves throughout the project lifecycle, requiring continuous engagement with both primary and secondary stakeholders. Secondary stakeholders, such as local communities, often adapt and reinterpret the infrastructure in ways that may differ from the original intent, highlighting the importance of understanding their subjective perceptions and dynamics on the part of the project owner. Furthermore, the integration of sustainability considerations into infrastructure projects cannot be overlooked when considering the perceptions of different stakeholders (Caron et al., 2024). Sustainable development frameworks reveal how infrastructure projects can support or hinder social, environmental and economic activities, offering a lens with which to examine how stakeholders prioritize and negotiate competing objectives (Thounaojam and Laishram, 2022). For example, the inclusion of both expert and lay knowledge in stakeholder engagement processes in order to acquire, share and exploit knowledge has been shown to foster sustainable innovations (Fitton and Moncaster, 2022; Fobbe and Hilletofth, 2021).

This study proposes a conceptual framework grounded in literature, whose dimensions are validated through different approaches. The framework was drafted multiple times and was refined according to the elements that emerged in the different steps of its validation, especially from the analysis of the documentation provided by a variety of public infrastructure projects. This iterative development is grounded in an abductive reasoning approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002, 2014; Ketokivi and Choi, 2014), which implies the integration of theoretical insights and empirical observations.

To develop the framework presented in this paper, we follow a design-oriented approach (Hevner et al., 2004), adapting the seminal framework for Design Science Research (DSR) methodology from Peffers et al. (2007) to the context of our study, and structuring the paper according to the “Publication Schema for a Design Science Research Study” proposed by Gregor and Hevner (2013). Specifically, the framework from Peffers et al. was followed to identify the problem, define the objectives and design the artifact (i.e. our framework). We claim to have adapted it for what concerns the following steps of demonstrating and evaluating, as the validation presented in our work is not performed directly with the final recipients of our framework, as most commonly required in thorough applications of DSR methodology. Instead, we validated its applicability through an illustrative case, demonstrating its usefulness by analyzing data from the design phase of a public infrastructure project.

The relevance of DSR in project management is emphasized by the work from Gregor and Zwikael (2024), who claim that this methodology can help to provide both academic rigor and relevance for managers. In their method note, they propose three levels of design knowledge, namely (1) artifact development, (2) nascent theory and (3) theory development. This paper takes up their model for research contribution by proposing an artifact to support project leaders (Level 1), using the artifact to map the potential in terms of sustainable value from three different levels of analysis (Level 2) and finally offering a way to bond together the different dimensions of value, highlighting the implications of their interrelations (Level 3).

The paradigm followed in the development of this study is rooted in pragmatism, recognizing the role of action and change beyond the observation of the context (Goldkuhl, 2012). This work indeed emphasizes the structure of relations between different actors in public infrastructure projects, but its purpose is to generate a controlled change in the as-is situation. The generation of knowledge is thus meant to promote change and improvement. Moreover, this paper agrees with Tsoukas (2017) on the importance of complexifying the reality to provide meaningful contributions for practitioners. Adopting a pragmatist conceptual lens enables a more complex reframing of the project studied, leading to the change sought (Tywoniak et al., 2021).

The framework development process relied on existing literature, adopting established theoretical concepts as dimensions for the matrix used in this study. The three columns of the matrix were based on the literature related to sustainable development, articulated in its three main dimensions. The three rows, meanwhile, represented three levels of analysis that were selected after analyzing the project studies’ literature in terms of the governance of infrastructure projects and stakeholder engagement. This theoretical foundation provided the structure for the matrix, which aimed to highlight the different perceptions of value associated with the chosen stakeholder groups.

The validation process followed two main steps, namely the validation of the dimensions of the framework structure itself and the validation of its applicability to real projects. To ensure the validity of the framework, the three levels of analysis, namely project owner, project team and public, were subjected to a round of expert interviews, planned through purposive sampling (Yin, 2015). The interviewees come from diverse countries, each with at least ten years of experience and involvement in renowned infrastructure projects. These interviews confirmed the relevance of the levels of the analysis identified, together with the importance of including public perception in the discourse.

The practical application of the framework was demonstrated empirically by observing a real case of a public infrastructure project. The project investigated was the ESA4 (Evoluzione Sostenibile dell’Autostrada A4 tra Brescia e Padova), which aims to upgrade a section of an Italian motorway, widening it by one lane. Publicly available documents related to the project were analyzed, and the data extracted were used to populate the matrix proposed by the framework. This application provided an opportunity to assess the framework’s ability to organize the information on the value topics relevant for different stakeholders, articulating their differing perspectives. Moreover, it further demonstrated the multidimensionality of stakeholder perceptions of value in terms of real-world projects, proposing a supporting tool for the discussion between the project owner and the project team, improving their understanding of the context.

Pursuing sustainable development implies combining economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability, while taking into account temporal and spatial constraints (Cerne and Jansson, 2019; IPMA, 2024). These three dimensions are rooted in the framework of the TBL or People, Planet, Profit, proposed by Elkington (1998). Adopting a TBL perspective implies affirming that sustainability is a matter of harmony between the three aforementioned dimensions (Gilbert Silvius and Schipper, 2016). This is a dominant concept that has gained momentum throughout the years. From this perspective, a consequence of failing to consider the interrelationships between the three dimensions represents a potential shift in focus toward competing interests rather than on the synergies and linkages (Agarchand and Laishram, 2017). Furthermore, Sabini and Alderman (2021) highlighted the challenge represented by translating high-level sustainability objectives into practical indicators. It is even debated in the literature whether or not it is possible to develop a shared list of indicators for assessing because of the relevance of the context itself (Silvius and Schipper, 2015; Silvius, 2017).

This work aims to expand the proposition that, as stated by Marcelino-Sádaba et al. (2015), a TBL perspective enables a more comprehensive understanding of the project context. Moreover, it proposes a tool which can be used to help the understanding of the sustainable value topics relevant to the stakeholders of the project, in order to identify, in the design phase, objectives and indicators to measure their delivery throughout the project’s lifecycle. This contribution has a twofold implication: on the one hand, it supports the translation of high-level sustainability objectives into practical indicators (Sabini and Alderman, 2021), while on the other, it promotes the analysis of stakeholders’ value expectations on different levels.

The proposed framework consists of a 3 × 3 matrix as presented in Figure 1, which crosses the three dimensions of sustainable development with three levels of analysis, namely project owner, project team and public. Each cell of the matrix contains a collection of topics related to one of the three sustainable value dimensions, from the perspective of one of the three levels proposed. The matrix is populated in parallel during the design phase, while growing the understanding of the project’s context. This increased understanding is pursued through different engagement activities performed by the project owner and the project team with different stakeholders, internal and external. In the context of these activities, the stakeholders express their own expectations in terms of value generation and delivery. As claimed above, these can greatly differ and prioritize single dimensions of sustainable value instead of considering the big picture. The first set of activities is internal, and it is tightly connected to the project owner’s role, as the project owner is accountable to the organization for the realization of benefits and for pursuing strategic objectives. This implies the need for articulating sustainable value topics stemming from the organization’s overall strategy, before moving to the project’s level of analysis. The second set of activities is also internal, but it takes place on the project level. It is represented by the exchange of information and knowledge and the outcome of analyses performed within the project team, under the supervision of the project manager. The third set of activities is related to public engagement, with the aim of collecting feedback, identifying needs and considering other relevant topics from the perspective of members of the public affected by the proposed public infrastructure. Analyzing individually the outcomes of single engagement activities enables only a partial understanding of expectations in terms of sustainable value, failing to see the synergies, the challenges and the trade-offs among the dimensions required to pursue sustainable development. Following a pragmatic, design-oriented approach, the matrix (i.e. the artifact) developed is meant as a supporting tool for the strategic decisions of the project owner and the project team, bringing together in a visual tool the relevant topics in terms of sustainable value that emerge throughout the different engagement activities. This means that the final purpose is not only to provide academic rigor but also relevance for managers (Gregor and Zwikael, 2024), and orientation toward change and improvement (Goldkuhl, 2012). Having a comprehensive vision with regard to the outcomes of the engagement activities provides multiple benefits. Indeed, it enables the assessment not only of the single dimensions of sustainable development but also a deeper understanding of the trade-offs among the different stakeholders’ needs or the synergies among them. This would enable a more conscious decision-making, which also takes into account the voice of the public. The need for generating an effective artifact able to impact practice (Baskerville et al., 2018) led to the selection of three dimensions, sufficiently comprehensive to capture the theoretical scope, yet manageable for practical application.

The first level of analysis is the project owner level, representing the topics deemed relevant to the parent organization. The project owner is accountable for the alignment between the outcomes of the project and the strategic goals of the organization (Zwikael et al., 2019; Zwikael and Smyrk, 2015), supporting the project manager and making critical decisions (Olsson, 2018). Indeed, projects are temporary endeavors, and the project owner is responsible for the relationship between the permanent entity (i.e. the parent organization) and the temporary project itself (Andersen, 2012). Populating this row of the matrix, therefore, means identifying the topics related to sustainable value which are pursued by the parent organization as part of its overarching strategy, which is then carried on and developed through varying processes and projects. Considering the overarching strategy means referring to a longer-term perspective, which may clash with the day-to-day needs of project management.

The second level of analysis is the project team, intended as the set of individuals who support the project manager in performing the work of the project to achieve its objectives (Project Management Institute, 2021). It is thus representative of the project manager, and the cross-competences consortium formed to manage the project tasks, mainly involving a short- and medium-term perspective. Populating this row of the matrix in the design phase implies including the outcome of internal discussions and analyses, identifying which topics are deemed relevant to the project itself. While many topics directly stem from higher-level ones identified by the parent organization, the temporary nature of projects and the specific context require a deeper assessment of the relevant topics. Furthermore, the same general topics can be translated into different measurable indicators for the parent organization and the project team because of their different perspectives. In referring to the same sustainability topic, the project owner’s perspective will address it from the point of view of the organization’s operations and development, while the project team will adapt it to the specific and unique context of the project. For instance, the topic of job creation could be addressed from both the perspectives of the organization and the project team. The first could refer to job creation for society at large, including back-office roles and other workplaces that are not related to specific and temporary projects. Organizations have different structures and different time frames compared to their project teams, as they are permanent organizations that perform temporary projects. The latter could be more focused on creating job places in the territory impacted by the project, or employing a local workforce. As a consequence, some trade-offs could be evaluated not in terms of diverging perceptions, but also in terms of discussions about convergent general topics.

Once populated, the first two rows of the matrix contain the topics related to sustainable value design from the perspective of the project owner and the project team; in other words, between the entities responsible for project benefit realization and project delivery (Sun et al., 2024). The tensions between these two entities represent a crucial aspect of the value creation process, a consideration of which has gained momentum in the literature (Krane et al., 2012; Musawir, 2024; Sun et al., 2024; Zwikael and Meredith, 2018). In the design phase, the project manager adopts an advisory role with regard to achieving a feasible project, while the owner derives strategic benefits from the organizational needs that have to be satisfied (Williams et al., 2019). The matrix supports this process by creating a common ground for discussion, where both perspectives are mutually assessed against each other.

The third level of analysis relates to the public (Turner and Zolin, 2012; Williams et al., 2019), which comprises users and non-users of the public infrastructure. Because of the impact that public infrastructure projects have on territories, both during the construction and the operating phases, the opinions of non-users cannot be neglected or underestimated. Including a level of analysis that considers the public perspective ensures that the point of view of all the stakeholders who have to bear some of the impact of the project is addressed. Public is a broad term which encompasses both individuals and collective entities that are recognized in the literature as relevant actors who are described through different definitions referring to some of its subsets. In the context of public infrastructure, the most common and suitable terms that have emerged to describe large subsets of the public are secondary stakeholders (Caron et al., 2024; Di Maddaloni and Davis, 2018; Ma et al., 2021), external stakeholders (Derakhshan et al., 2019; Lehtinen and Aaltonen, 2020; Ninan et al., 2019) and local community (Babaei et al., 2023; Di Maddaloni and Davis, 2017; Di Maddaloni and Derakhshan, 2024; Di Maddaloni and Sabini, 2022). The three terms presented here were all assessed as the potential third level of analysis of the proposed framework, as they are all relevant for such projects. The local community was soon considered to be too narrow for public infrastructure projects. This was because while it would fit well with regard to projects characterized by a smaller spatial extent, it would be confusing for larger projects, such as the one examined in this work, in order to demonstrate the application of the framework. Secondary and external stakeholders are often used as synonyms, as they refer to subsets of the public that share many common characteristics. The choice to refer to a broader and multifaceted term like public is determined by the willingness to represent the unique context of each public infrastructure project. Since the number of topics identified from the public point of view is potentially unlimited, a proper engagement process needs to be designed. The engagement process needs to ensure a proper breadth in order to reduce the risk of under-reporting, that is, the risk of gathering data only from some sections of the population. The specific topics that emerged from the engagement with the public have to be clustered according to their similarities, recognizing to which broader topic they refer in order to facilitate addressing them.

As already mentioned, the matrix is populated in parallel, updating it according to the progress of the internal and external engagement activities identified in the design phase. Once populated, it provides the project owner and the project team with a comprehensive overview of the economic, social and environmental topics of interest for the abovementioned two entities and the public. This tool enables more informed decision-making, as it highlights the convergent and divergent elements on the different levels of analysis. Specifically, it streamlines the discussion between the project owner and the project team, enabling a prompt identification of synergies, challenges and trade-offs.

The three levels of analysis proposed above emerged from the analysis of literature, but their combination lacked the validation of practitioners. While sustainable development and the TBL are established concepts among researchers and practitioners, the other three dimensions of the proposed framework need further assessment. To pursue this objective, a sample of experts, details of whom are presented in Table 1, were interviewed to validate the relevance of the three levels of analysis, based on their experience. Purposive sampling was used to select the most suitable informants (Yin, 2015) as a crucial requirement was the experience of the potential participants in managing the public and engaging with it. The main focus for selecting the interviewees was experience with regard to public infrastructure projects, large construction projects, urban development interventions or renovations and consultancy on social and environmental sustainability. To ensure the highest possible level of feedback reliability, only professionals with at least 10 years’ experience were considered because of the need for an in-depth understanding of leadership and experience of interactions between the individuals and the context in which they operate (Marrewijk et al., 2023; Merrow and Nandurdikar, 2018; Sankaran, 2018).

Furthermore, to appreciate the influence of cultural differences on engagement processes, practitioners from both the USA and Italy were contacted. The data were collected by conducting 10 semi-structured interviews, which lasted between 45 and 80 min. The selected interviewees are characterized by diverse backgrounds and have taken part in a variety of renowned projects. Some examples of projects involving the interviewees are the construction of motorways; the development of urban interventions such as the newest districts of Milan and the Lombardy Regional Palace or skyscrapers located in the USA and in Asia; the construction of hydrogen extraction plants; the reconstruction of the Ponte Morandi in Genova; and the construction of airports and stadiums. These endeavors were characterized by different levels of stakeholder interaction, but all of them had a relevant impact on the public. The interviewees were encouraged to describe their past experience and personalize the discussion in order to offer more diverse insights. During interviews, lively discussions arose with the participants, and the scope was to double-check and confirm that the given answers were aligned with the proposed levels of analysis.

The interviews were thus structured on three levels, following a top-down approach, as presented in  Appendix. The first level revolved around generalities and personal experience. The second was an assessment of the importance of addressing each of the three levels of analysis for the identification of relevant sustainable value topics. Moreover, the lively discussion allowed the interviewees to share details of cases which they had experienced firsthand, raising awareness on the influence of cultural differences on the behavior of the stakeholders. The third level concerned the suitability, in their opinion, of the parallel appraisal of the three levels of analysis proposed for reaching a comprehensive understanding of the project context. The proposed framework was presented to the interviewees, who commented on the relevance of the interrelations of the stances of project owners, project teams and the public in order to identify the sustainable value topics that should be addressed by a project. Furthermore, the interviewees were encouraged to share real-life examples from their careers, to include the voice of the public in the discussion.

All the interviewees agreed upon the importance of the overall framework objective and on the three main levels of analysis identified to be crossed with the dimensions of sustainable development. They all recognized the impact of public infrastructure projects on the public, and consequently on the importance of including a row in the matrix related to the public. One participant commented: “Projects, especially when they have huge dimensions, have impact on a network of economic and social realities and on people’s lives. […] Secondary stakeholders, that are not so secondary since projects are usually financed by taxes that we, as citizens, pay, have the right to be recognized as subjects that will incur inconveniencies and that need to have some value delivered to them, not only as obstacles to the project’s realization” (interviewee N.1). Including the public level of analysis was not only positively accepted because of its relevance but also because it introduces a more multifaceted analysis of the project, as highlighted by one of the participants: “if you’re just going to look through one type of lens, then for sure your research is going to be very biased. If you’re trying to look through multiple lenses, you might have something that is closer to the truth” (N.10).

Moreover, they also agreed on the need for generating value beyond the economic, including the social and environmental dimensions of value in the discussion of project design. In their answers, the interviewees often recalled the importance of considering all the sustainable value dimensions described by the TBL together. Of course, the economic dimension was deemed paramount, as in the private sector “projects are not done for charity. They are done for profit” (N.4). The other two dimensions though were not relegated to a marginal role, as further impacts were discussed: “the evaluation of many aspects is not only economic. The impact on the quality of life provided by the offered service is a parameter that can be measured and can be tangible. Service quality has a huge impact on communities and on the quality of life” (N.5). Companies are starting to adopt a sustainable development perspective, as explained by one of the managers interviewed: “we are trying more and more to transform infrastructure projects also into social infrastructure projects. […] not only thinking about social impact in terms of jobs created, economic projections, etc. but also about how the places affected can be physically lived in by people in a different way. For a competition for the fourth bridge of Panama, we realized a concept whereby the part under the bridge, which is usually a forgotten corner of cities, was upgraded to being an active part of the city, useful to society” (N.7). As discussed above, one of the main implications of adopting the sustainable development perspective is the shift in focus toward the longer-term impact of projects induced by the element of sustainability. This enhances the research for project alternatives that can increase the long-term benefits for society at large, as highlighted by the case from Panama.

Some concerns were also raised, mainly related to the cost of the analyses and to the weight granted to each level of analysis. Indeed, some of the interviewees argued that while it is important to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders, the topics introduced by the project owner and the project team should have a higher priority compared with topics identified by the public. The promoters of this point of view stressed the fact that sometimes the public is not properly informed or rational in their thinking and can be overly emotional about infrastructure, lacking a broader view in terms of the big picture with regard to sustainable development for the whole region. With respect to this, the role of the media and social media emerged in most of the interviews as crucial elements that can shape or modify the perception of the public, because they “can always affect the success of the project one way or the other” (N.10). The interviewees also underlined that the difference between media and social media is relevant, since social media gives an idea of the real sentiments of the population, while “traditional media can be deceiving and try to shape people’s perception for other interests or can be honest and present the truth about the project.” (N.2). One participant described social media as: “the real thermometer of reality. They have an enormous and immediate aggregation capacity, and it is crucial to work by anticipating them because, if the back-wave arrives, and it has been underestimated, it becomes a tsunami, and you get run over” (N.6). Not all of the interviewees agreed with this, as others claimed that granting the same priority to the different levels of analysis would instead reduce the risk of introducing biases and unfairness. In terms of cost, they mainly argued that public engagement activities could turn out to be expensive for private companies if not properly supported. One of the interviewees even pointed out that if excessive resources were allocated to these activities, there could be the risk of falling into over-management.

Nonetheless, as mentioned above, all the interviewees agreed on the importance of including different levels of analysis in order to obtain a thorough overview of the potential of a project in terms of sustainable value generation. They recognized the importance of critically addressing the outcome of the engagement activities in the discussion between the project owner and the project team, to assess the feasibility of the alternatives or the needs that emerge. One participant shared the following view on the awareness of the public: “Usually people that are interviewed are unaware of the impact of a project, nor have the sensibility of the promoter or the State. […] So, it is important to ask the opinion of people with the use of precise questions about rational and objective elements” (N.8). The influence of biases was identified as one of the most impactful variables throughout the whole lifecycle of a project. Building on that, one of the executives commented: “I think it is important to include as many players as possible as part of the situation. For me, the only problem is to see how unbiased those players would be.” (N.1).

The discussion with the interviewees thus confirmed the need for a shift in focus to include also the social and environmental dimensions of value and to broaden the variety of stakeholders engaged. They endorsed the combination of the three levels of analysis proposed in the framework to support the discussion between the project owner and the project team, paving the way for the validation of the framework against a real case from the public infrastructure realm.

The matrix was populated through the analysis of public documents relating to an Italian transport infrastructure project, ESA4. The purpose of the project is to widen the section between Brescia and Padova of the A4, a motorway that is often congested due to the heavy traffic between Eastern and Western Europe, the connection with the Brenner Pass, and its importance for famous tourist destinations such as Lake Garda and the Dolomites. Its route is shown in Figure 2.

The project is still in the design phase, and the engagement with stakeholders has been conducted between 2022 and 2024 to guide the refinement of the project plans. The design phase is estimated to last 3 years, while the construction phase is expected to last around 10 years. The intervention will affect 136 km of motorway, approximately one-quarter of the overall length of the infrastructure.

To populate the matrix, data were collected from two main sources. The first was the website of A4 Holding, the joint-stock company responsible for operating the A4 motorway in Italy, involving analyzing the company’s annual sustainability reports (A4 Holding, 2023a). The second was a virtual engagement platform launched for the ESA4 project in June 2023 (A4 Holding, 2023b), with the purpose of providing information to the public in a visual and immediate way (ESA4, 2024). The platform has been structured as a virtual exhibition, in which different public documents from the project can be consulted. Because of the nature of the documents available, this source provides the input for both the project team and public levels of analysis. The data related to the project team level pertains to the documents that state and explain the 13 main objectives of the project, and to the reports about its expected impact (“Investimento, tempi di realizzazione e impatti socioeconomici” – “Investment, project timeline, and socio-economic impacts”; “ESA4 caratteristiche ed innovazione” – “ESA4 characteristics and innovation”). The public row of the matrix, however, is populated as a result of the analysis of the material reporting the outcomes of the stakeholder engagement activities performed in different Italian provinces connected by the A4 motorway (“Tavolo provinciale per Padova e Venezia – seconda fase di ascolto” – “Provincial Working Group for Padua and Venice – Second Phase of Stakeholder Consultation”). They report the themes that have emerged as a result of these consultations, and which appear in the matrix presented in Table 2.

Because of the nature of the public infrastructure investigated, the themes that emerged mainly revolve around connectivity, air and noise pollution, job creation, land use, safety and other implications of a transport public infrastructure project.

In this work, we explore how addressing different stakeholders’ perceptions in the design phase of public infrastructure projects can enhance the planning of value sustainability on the long term. In this section, we deepen our empirical findings, relate them to those of previous research and answer the research question which guided our study: How can stakeholders' differing perceptions be integrated to support the planning of sustainable value during the design phase of public infrastructure projects?

To connect the elements mentioned in the research question, the framework presented in Figure 1 was developed. Indeed, the willingness to provide both an academic contribution and relevance for managers called for a design-oriented approach (Gregor and Zwikael, 2024; Hevner et al., 2004; Peffers et al., 2007), which proposes the development of an artifact, which in this work is represented by a 3 × 3 matrix. The matrix developed crosses three dimensions of sustainable value (Cerne and Jansson, 2019; Hart and Milstein, 2003; Ma et al., 2017; Sachs, 2015), that is value sustainable on the long term, and three levels of analysis, i.e. project owner, project team and public. The matrix is populated in parallel during the design phase, and each of its cells contains the topics related to the corresponding value dimension (column) from the perspective of the corresponding level of analysis (row). The information stored in this tool originates from different sets of activities, both internal and external, that characterize the interactions among stakeholders. Three main sets of activities are presented in this work, connected to the three levels of analysis. Specifically, these are (1) the analysis of the organization’s overall strategy, (2) the analyses performed within the project team under the supervision of the project manager and (3) public engagement. The framework is designed to support strategic decision-making by the project owner and project team by synthesizing visually the key sustainable value topics identified through the different sets of engagement activities. Table 2 presents the outcome of the practical application of such a matrix to an illustrative case, demonstrating its applicability and highlighting the emergence of synergies, trade-offs and contrasts among the different stakeholders.

This study contributes to research on project value creation in the context of public infrastructure projects by analyzing, on different levels, the propositions of sustainable development (Cerne and Jansson, 2019; Sachs, 2015; WCED, 1987), in order to enhance value creation beyond the economic dimension. As pointed out by Porter and Kramer (2011), when discussing the importance of generating shared value, it is not only about redistributing value, but more “about expanding the total pool of economic and social value”. Organizations need to “identify all the societal needs, benefits, and harms” through an “ongoing exploration” of the context in which they operate (Porter and Kramer, 2011), creating value from the sustainability needs of all the stakeholders (Kurucz et al., 2017; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). This paper proposes a framework that articulates the three dimensions of sustainable development presented by Sachs (2015), that are economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability and highlights how they are perceived by internal and external stakeholders. A critical challenge for sustainable development is the risk of overlooking the interrelations between economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability, focusing only on a single dimension (Silvius, 2017). This study also recognizes the crucial role of the design phase of public infrastructure projects for the design of project value (Zerjav et al., 2021). Thus, it builds on the literature related to the design phase of such projects (Edkins et al., 2013; Matinheikki et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2019; Zerjav et al., 2021) to provide a theoretical connection between value dimensions and stakeholder perception. Indeed, the three levels of analysis bond together the aforementioned value dimensions, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of the potential of the project in terms of value generation and preventing a separate consideration of the value dimensions.

Furthermore, the analysis conducted from the perspectives of the project owner, the project team and the public provides a deeper understanding of the various value topics, highlighting the impact of differing perceptions of value on the part of both internal and external stakeholders (Freudenreich et al., 2020). The same value topics can be translated into different expectations or objectives by each stakeholder, and failing to understand these nuances would lead to suboptimal value generation (Di Maddaloni and Derakhshan, 2024; Martinsuo, 2020).

The practical contribution of this study begins with the recognition of the potentially detrimental impact that the tensions between project owner and project team can have on value generation (Krane et al., 2012; Musawir, 2024; Sun et al., 2024; Zwikael and Meredith, 2018) of public infrastructure projects, and it proposes a framework to mitigate it in the design phase. The matrix presented is meant to act as a practical supporting tool to guide the discussion between the project owner and the project team, providing them also with the analysis of the point of view of the public in such a way as to allow them to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the project’s context. Once populated, the matrix enables a prompt identification of synergies, contrasts and trade-offs among the different value topics, supporting the planning in the design phase in terms of the economic, social and environmental value resulting from the project. The cross-analysis of the rows of the populated matrix enables a multi-level understanding of the context of the project, and of the different levels of detail which characterizes the perspective of the different stakeholders. Indeed, different breadth in perspective can be appreciated on different dimensions, as demonstrated in Table 2. This applies to temporal and spatial dimensions, the different technical levels of detail (specificity), the analysis of the potential design alternatives, and the interpretation of the same value topic.

Temporally, each actor is involved in the project with a different focus. The project owner is responsible for ensuring that the outcome of the project is synergic for the long-term strategy of the parent organization, even years after completion of the project. The project team needs to translate the long-term objectives and requirements presented by the project owner into short and medium-term objectives for the project, focusing on day-to-day management. The public will be impacted by the public infrastructure both during the construction and operating phases, over a longer time horizon.

Spatially, the level of detail increases in a linear way down the rows of the matrix. Referring to the sustainable value topics that emerged in a public infrastructure project such as the one presented above, the different focus of the different stakeholders clearly emerges. The topics of interest to the project owner concern the entire East-West route of the motorway, and the connection with European traffic routes. The project team’s focus is on the section between Brescia and Padova, and on the adjacent towns and protected areas. The public has the narrowest geographical focus, in terms of specific locations and areas of interest, which are different for every province.

The specificity, unlike the geographical focus, does not increase in a linear way moving down the rows. Indeed, even if the public is characterized by site-specific knowledge, the competences possessed by the members of the project team allow the identification of more specific value topics. The project owner instead refers to the long-term strategy of the organization, whose value topics of interest must be broad enough to ensure their applicability to different contexts, while being able to guide the identification of the specific objectives for each project.

With respect to the dimension of design alternatives, it is important to recognize the complexity arising from the fact that different actors operate within distinct sets of viable options. The project owner and the project team are responsible for the project itself and can only act on the infrastructure to meet their objectives, generating design alternatives in the context of the same public infrastructure project. The public instead potentially has access to a wider set of alternatives. For instance, in the case of the ESA4 project, the public could select other means of transportation, such as high-speed trains, that are not operated by the project organization.

Finally, the same broad value topic identified as relevant by different actors may be interpreted differently by each of them. Referring to Table 2, some recurring topics arise, such as the minimization of land use or air quality. Though their interpretation varies, as it emerges from the analysis of project documentation. For what concerns the minimization of land use, the project team aims to minimize it by designing an intervention which only requires the minimum amount of land to widen the motorway. Instead, on the public side, a portion of the criticism can be associated with the not in my back yard stance. While agreeing on the inadequacy of the infrastructure in its current state, some stakeholders would not want to see an increase in land use in their area. Failing to identify the trade-offs introduced by this different interpretation of the same broad topics would thus reduce the understanding of the project’s context and hinder the generation of sustainable value. While it is easier at first glance to identify clear synergies or contrasting perceptions among the different levels of analysis, increased attention should be devoted to the potentially grey area of trade-offs. If not properly addressed, they can indeed generate future tensions and hinder the generation of sustainable value.

The proposed framework also stresses the relevance of public engagement for shaping the values pursued by the project, calling for a broader range of engagement activities. Including the public level of analysis increases the complexity of the discourse on value creation, reflecting the actual complexity of the topic. Complexifying a phenomenon means elucidating, instead of offering decontextualized generalization that are not useful for practitioners (Tsoukas, 2017). Therefore, we claim that the proposed combination of the three levels of analysis, and the sustainable development dimensions provides a level of complexity that reflects the complexity faced by the project owner and the project team, supporting them by providing a practical tool rooted in theory.

The purpose of this work is to explore how the design of project sustainable value can be enhanced in the design phase of public infrastructure projects. This objective is pursued through a design-oriented approach rooted in pragmatism, in which managerial relevance is sought together with academic rigor, and the role of action and change beyond observation is crucial (Goldkuhl, 2012; Gregor and Zwikael, 2024; Hevner et al., 2004). In this study, we propose a framework that aims at connecting different literature strands, while also acting as a practical tool for managers. The framework proposed intersects three levels of analysis, namely project owner, project team and public, with the three dimensions of sustainable development in the form of economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability (Cerne and Jansson, 2019; Sachs, 2015). It is shaped as a 3 × 3 matrix, that is populated in parallel throughout the development of different sets of engagement activities, internal and external. Once populated, the cells contain the sustainable value topics of interest for the different stakeholders, providing a more comprehensive overview of the project context. Indeed, the project owner level of analysis considers the long-term strategy of the project organization, the project team level involves the translation of such long-term objectives from the organization into short and medium-term objectives, together with the day-to-day operations, while the public level considers the impact on the users and non-users across the whole lifecycle of the infrastructure. Their combination enables the identification of synergies, contrasts and trade-offs with regard to value design, supporting discussions between the project owner and the project team and the definition of the value proposition for the project. The framework's applicability is validated in two steps. First, a round of interviews with experienced practitioners coming from diverse countries and characterized by participation in public infrastructure projects focuses on the validation of the three levels of analysis proposed. Second, the practical application of the framework is demonstrated through the analysis of public project documents related to a public infrastructure project located in Italy (the ESA4 project).

As discussed above, this study contributes to research on project value creation by bonding together the three dimensions of economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability, whose interrelations are often overlooked (Silvius, 2017). While doing so, it enables a more comprehensive understanding of the project context, and of its potential for value creation, by including in the analysis the differing perspectives of different stakeholders as levels of analysis. On the managerial side, this work provides a tool which combines comprehensiveness and usability, whose aim is to support the discussion between the project owner and the project team in the design phase. Indeed, it supports a prompter identification of synergies, trade-offs and contrasts among the views of the different stakeholders, crucial to maximize the value generation of the public infrastructure project. Moreover, it encourages the project leaders to engage with the public, reflecting the complexity of value creation in such a context.

This work presents two key limitations. First, while the proposed framework was applied to public documents from a real case, it has yet to undergo more extensive validation through internal use within a project. Such validation would provide deeper insights into its practical applicability and expand the discussion on the impact of different perspectives on value creation. Second, this study recognizes the relevance of the challenge represented by translating high-level sustainability objectives into practical indicators (Sabini and Alderman, 2021). The articulation of the value dimensions and the identification of relevant topics pave the way for the identification of indicators that can be associated with more specific topics. Though this approach has not yet been tested in practice.

Applying the framework to additional public infrastructure projects would not only enhance its usability but also strengthen its validity. Furthermore, broader application could help organizations better understand the value-generation potential of their projects, offering a more comprehensive perspective with regard to the sustainable development dimensions. Future research should focus on addressing these limitations by testing the framework in diverse settings and analyzing its performance in terms of real-world applications. This would refine its effectiveness and provide organizations with more actionable insights when it comes to aligning their strategies to sustainable development goals.

The authors are grateful to Axel Gadda and Matteo Lucertoni for their contribution to the data collection process; and to Professor Marco Macchi for the methodological support provided. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments.

The quotes and the information provided by the interviewees are extracted from a round of interviews that had a broader scope than the portion reported in this work. Specifically, the interview included one additional level to the ones presented here.

The three levels addressed in the interviews that are taken into account in this work are:

1. Generalities and personal experience: the interviewees are invited to elaborate on their background in terms of experience and role. The interviewees are encouraged to share more information about the contexts experienced throughout their careers.

2. Relevance of the model objective: this is the first level of the validation of the three levels of analysis. In this section, interviewees are asked about the importance of addressing the expectations of different stakeholders in the design phase of public infrastructure project management and if, in their experience, they ever encountered and considered this aspect.

3. Suitability of the three levels of analysis: interviewees are asked to provide their opinion on the suitability of the three levels of analysis identified for reaching a comprehensive understanding of the project context. The interviewer provided a deeper explanation of the three levels proposed, namely project owner, project team and public, to enable a better discussion. Moreover, the interviewees are encouraged to share real-life examples encountered in their experience, to include the voice of the public in the discussion.

A fourth level is instead out of scope for this work:

1. Correctness of the identified KPIs and evaluation methods: interviewees are asked to provide their opinion on the completeness of a set of KPIs identified for a specific category of projects.