Methods and limits
Useful comparison requires clearly defined projects, traceable sources and explicit limits.
What the report studies
The dashboards let visitors inspect the same comparison groups and their limits, rather than combine measures with different boundaries. Explore the interactive findings.
The report examines delivery problems in 30 Canadian projects: 26 within 1996 to 2026 and 4 historical comparators. Among the reviewed projects, 22 have been delivered or are operating. The other projects remain relevant to documentary analysis of decisions, rights, contracts and delivery.
Two groups of delivered projects support outcome comparisons: 10 projects with comparable cost records and 12 projects with a documented target date. These groups overlap, but are not identical.
For the centre’s broader project selection criteria, see the SPICE centre research page.
How the records are examined
Define the projects
A project located wholly or substantially in Canada counts as a megaproject if it had a reported cost of at least CAD 1 billion at its decision to build or, for a project never built, at its formal proposal. A project below that threshold, or without a reported cost, also qualifies if it had documented national or regional consequence together with high technical, stakeholder or jurisdictional complexity. The report reviews 30 projects, selected in two groups of 15: one through official and owner sources, the other through scholarship. This group is not a representative sample of all Canadian projects.
Examine the sources
Each project’s record is assembled from sources ranked in this order of priority: commissions of inquiry, auditors general, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, regulators and courts first; owner and government reports next; then peer-reviewed studies; and news reporting only to fill gaps, with the source named. Claims are linked to the supporting sources.
Document the problems
Each project-and-issue combination is checked against the same rule. A governance weakness alone does not establish an effect on delivery.
Compare the outcomes
Cost and schedule comparisons cover delivered projects whose records allow the same scope or milestone to be compared.
Interpret with care
Recurring problems are considered alongside possible responses. Associations do not prove cause, and unresolved records remain separate from documented findings.
What the findings support
The 30 projects and 14 issue types form 420 combinations to examine. The report distinguishes documented problems, constructive partnerships, combinations without qualifying evidence, cases outside the boundary and the 30 unresolved combinations. An undocumented problem is not necessarily absent.
The findings describe this group of projects. Problem frequency also depends on the available records. It cannot establish a national rate or attribute all budget growth to one cause.
Limits of the evidence
The report names several limits, including these three.
- The authors coded the problems themselves, from the public record and after the outcomes were known. The report proposes that a second reviewer, who does not know the outcomes, repeat the coding.
- Documentation is richest where projects went wrong, so the record of the 30 projects leans toward difficulty. A low count can mean less documentation as well as less occurrence.
- The association between the number of documented issue types and cost growth rests on 10 delivered projects with comparable cost records. A set of 10 projects cannot establish cause.
Next steps
Chapter 9 of the report sets out four next steps.
- Complete the evidence for the 30 projects as far as the public record allows, including a second, independent coding of each project’s problems by a reviewer who has not seen the cost and schedule outcomes.
- Study Edmonton’s Valley Line West in depth, through documents and interviews with the owner, builders and other parties.
- Develop a public register of Canadian megaprojects that records baselines, outcomes and lessons as projects progress.
- Work with owners and governments to test the report’s roadmap on projects now being planned.