Profiling Project Complexity
PAPE
RS
as socio-technical systems (Appelbaum,
1997; Taylor & Felton, 1993; Trist, 1981).
Referring to the key attributes of a system drawn from systems theory, Vidal
and Marle (2008, p. 1095) asserted that
“projects can be considered as systems.” Depending on the way the system
boundaries are drawn and the level of
abstraction concerned (Simon, 1962),
the components of a project system may
be identified as resources, deliverables,
the team, subcontractors, sponsors, or
clients. The inputs to the project system
can take the form of material, an entity,
or information, whereas the outputs
can be an artefact, a transformed entity,
or completion of an event. The project
system may interact with other systems
in its environment, such as suppliers,
service providers, regulators, and other
institutions. It may also interact with
the other elements of the natural/built
environment and influence/be influenced by certain phenomena.
The term “complexity” is increas-
ingly cited in project management
literature and often referred to by prac-
titioners, with connotations to the chal-
lenges related to managing projects in
general, and the difficulties associated
with delivering desired project outcomes
in particular. These challenges, in turn,
have been linked to: the increasing scale
and diversity of projects; greater expec-
tations of stakeholders; and the difficul-
ties in effectively managing a multitude
of interfaces and interdependencies
between different parties and/or across
different facets of projects, programs,
and portfolios. It is further claimed that
the unpredictability induced by the
combined effects of scale, variety, nov-
elty, interdependencies, and interac-
tions renders the traditional planning
and controlling approaches inadequate
or ineffective for successfully manag-
ing present-day projects (Kapsali, 2013;
Puddicombe, 2012; Saynisch, 2010; Vidal
& Marle, 2008; Cicmil et al., 2009; Winter
& Smith, 2006; Jaafari, 2003). Some
authors have even highlighted the need
for a whole new paradigm to deal with
the challenges brought about by the
increasing complexity in projects (Joslin
& Müller, 2015; Saynisch, 2010; Allen,
2008; Pollack, 2007; Cicmil, Williams,
Thomas, & Hodgson, 2006; Whitty, 2005;
Jaafari, 2003).
The literature suggests that a deeper
understanding of project complexity can
help project managers navigate through
the challenges brought about by such
complexity. For instance, a number
of authors have asserted that under-
standing the sources and effects of proj-
ect complexity can help practitioners
design efficient project delivery systems,
select appropriate project management
processes and tools, and develop capa-
bilities and leadership skills required to
deal with the complexity-induced chal-
lenges in managing projects (Gransberg
et al., 2013; Antoniadis, Edum-Fotwe,
& Thorpe, 2011; Geraldi et al., 2011;
Geraldi, 2009; Vidal & Marle, 2008;
Remington & Pollack, 2007). However,
the current understanding of project
complexity and how it impacts on proj-
ect performance is limited in that there
is no widely agreed upon framework
of project complexity or a convergent
view on how to deal with the effects of
project complexity. First, in articulat-
ing the concept of project complexity,
authors have used a multitude of terms
in a rather arbitrary manner with mini-
mal qualification or cross-referencing
(Chapman, 2016; Padalkar & Gopinath,
2016). The array of terms used include:
dimensions of complexity; key dimen-
sions and characteristics of complexity;
elements of complexity; key aspects of
complexity; types of complexity; com-
plexity in terms of characteristics and
factors; key factors and drivers of com-
plexity; and conditions that give rise to
complexity. The range of attributes cap-
tured by these terms include: the size
or scale of the project; variety of and
interdependencies between tasks; lack
of clarity of project goals and methods;
novelty of technologies used; chang-
ing stakeholder expectations; changing
composition of the project team (e.g.,
personnel, expertise, and experience);
differences in geographical location,
market conditions and legal, political,
and macro-economic landscapes; and
diversity in cultural and national back-
grounds. Numerous attempts have also
been made to group these attributes
into categories representing the aspects
of the project system, its environment,
or the interfaces between various ele-
ments or phenomena within, as well as
outside, the project system. The mish-
mash of groupings widely cited in the
literature includes: technological–orga-
nizational; structural–uncertainty; tech-
nical–organizational–environmental;
socio–organizational; socio–political;
structural–dynamic–technological–orga-
nizational; and structural–dynamic–
interaction. Some authors, such as
Cicmil and colleagues (2009), have also
attempted to distinguish the above attri-
butes in terms of complexity in projects
(i.e., how complexity manifests in proj-
ects) versus complexity of projects (i.e.,
what aspects of a project make it com-
plex or difficult to manage) at a more
abstract level. While most of these cat-
egorizations appear to have been devel-
oped based on intuition and the insights
drawn from experience (as there are no
reported explicit mechanisms through
which they have been derived), some
have also been validated or supported
with empirical evidence.
A summary of the categories of project complexity and the attributes in each
category that induce managerial complexity (as they were cited in 42 of the
74 items of the project management literature reviewed) are provided in Table 1.
Additionally, under the attributes in each
category (in italics), a descriptor of how
each attribute impacts on project management practice is provided (these are
also derived from the project management literature reviewed). This format
of the table has been chosen to help the
reader easily identify and appreciate the
diversity of terminology used in project
management literature to describe the
various aspects of project complexity,
and to illustrate the overlaps that exist
between the reported categories of project complexity.
