Demeulemeester, E., De Reyck,
B., Foubert, B., Herroelen, W.,
& Vanhoucke, M. (1998). New
computational results on the discrete
time/cost trade-off problem in project
networks. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 49( 11), 1153–1163.
Demeulemeester, E., Elmaghraby,
S., & Herroelen, W. (1996). Optimal
procedures for the discrete time/cost
trade-off problem in project networks.
European Journal of Operational
Research, 88( 1), 50–68.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A.
(2006). Projects and project managers:
The relationship between project
manager’s personality, project, project
types, and project success. Project
Management Journal, 37( 5), 36–48.
Elmaghraby, S. (1977). Activity networks:
Project planning and control by network
models. New York, NY: John Wiley and
Engwall, M., & Westling, G. (2004).
Peripety in an R&D drama: Capturing
a turnaround in project dynamics.
Organization Studies, 25( 9), 1557–1578.
Fang, C., & Marle, F. (2012). A simulation-based risk network model for decision
support in project risk management.
Decision Support Systems, 52( 3), 635–644.
Faria, A. (2001). The changing nature of
business simulation/gaming research:
A brief history. Simulation & Gaming,
32( 1), 97–110.
Geraldi, J., & Adlbrecht, G. (2007). On
faith, fact and interaction in projects.
Project Management Journal, 38( 1), 32–43.
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams,
T. (2011). Now, let’s make it really
complex (complicated). International
Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 31( 9), 966–990.
Ghoddousi, P., Eshtehardian, E.,
Jooybanpour, S., & Javanmardi,
A. (2013). Multi-mode resource-constrained discrete time-cost-resource
optimization in project scheduling
using non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm. Automation in Construction,
“Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onder-zoek (FWO)” under contract number
Azaron, A., Perkgoz, C., & Sakawa, M.
(2005). A genetic algorithm approach for
the time-cost trade-off in PERT networks.
Applied Mathematics and Computation,
168( 2), 1317–1339.
Azaron, A., & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.
(2007). Multi-objective time-cost trade-off in dynamic PERT networks using an
interactive approach. European Journal of
Operational Research, 180( 3), 1186–1200.
Bein, W., Kamburowski, J., & Stallmann,
M. (1992). Optimal reduction of two-terminal directed acyclic graphs. Siam
Journal on Computing, 21( 6), 1112–1129.
Bourgeois, L. (1985). Strategic goals,
perceived uncertainty, and economic
performance in volatile environments.
Academy of Management Journal, 28( 3),
Chang, A. Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003).
Punctuated equilibrium and linear
progression: Toward a new understanding
of group development. Academy of
Management Journal, 46( 1), 106–117.
Cohen, I., Golany, B., & Shtub, A.
(2007). The stochastic time-cost
tradeoff problem: A robust optimization
approach. Networks, 49( 2), 175–188.
Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D.
(2006). Uncovering the trends in project
management: Journal emphases over
the last 10 years. International Journal of
Project Management, 24( 2), 175–184.
De, P., Dunne, E., Ghosh, J., & Wells, C.
(1995). The discrete time-cost tradeoff
problem revisited. European Journal of
Operational Research, 81( 2), 225–238.
De, P., Dunne, E., Ghosh, J., & Wells, C.
(1997). Complexity of the discrete time/
cost trade-off problem for project networks.
Operations Research, 45( 2), 302–306.
De Reyck, B., & Herroelen, W.
(1996). On the use of the complexity
index as a measure of complexity in
activity networks. European Journal of
Operational Research, 91( 2), 347–366.
overruns are heavily penalized and in
highly uncertain environments. The
cost-based solution strategy yields
better results in low penalty and
highly complex environments.
5. Increasing the level of effort exhibits a
positive effect on the capability of the
In this article, we focused on quantifying the effects of complexity and
uncertainty on cost outcomes. The limitation of this article, therefore, is that little
attention was paid to the behavioral and
psychological aspects of complexity and
uncertainty. For example, one can wonder what the effect of tight deadlines on
team motivation is and how this relates
to previous research on this topic (Chang,
Bordia, & Duck, 2003; Engwall & Westling,
2004). Additionally, demographic variables such as age, background, and project role (cf. Ojiako et al., 2014) could be
included, especially when dealing with
complexity and uncertainty judgments.
From a data analysis and model perspective, two future research avenues
can be identified. First of all, although
we provided an initial analysis to discern
between two major solution strategies, it
would be interesting to find out if participants of the PSG switch between strategies throughout the game and by which
circumstances this switch is prompted.
A similar question arises for niche strategies. Second, additional mechanisms
can be put into place, which further
complicate the decision-making process. For example, increasing or decreasing the time participants have to make
decisions throughout the PSG, as well as
the presence of a contingency budget,
may well lead to different choices. A new
round of data collection and modeling
should be undertaken to bring this meritorious extension to fruition.
We are grateful for the comments made
by the editor and referees throughout
the review process. Furthermore, we
acknowledge the support given by the