Project Perspectives

88 Pages·2007·2.33 MB·English

Vol. XXIX
ISSN 1455-4178
€8.00
Value for Your Projects
Proha is one of the leading providers of
enterprise level project management
software and services. We support
customers executing projects and
managing project business by providing
a comprehensive set of tools and services
with the best project management
practices.
SOFTWARE FOR PROJECT AND PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT FASTFACTS
Proha has annual revenues of over USD
SAFRAN PROJECT 60 million and employs over 300 project
Safran Project is designed to meet the specific needs of complex management specialists worldwide. Our
projects and businesses relying on successful projects. Positioned largest operations are in Norway, USA,
right at the top of the power curve, Safran Project delivers unique Canada and Finland.
capabilities and unparalleled benefits to these projects and
organizations.
PROHA GROUP
SAFRAN FOR THE MICROSOFT PROJECT PLATFORM
Safran for the Microsoft Project Platform offers a scalable project
management solution for Microsoft Project users with professional DOVRE DIVISION
management graphics, portfolio reporting, exciting gantt charts, Dovre Consulting and Services division
project web reporting, progress summary and earned value reports. is an internationally recognized
project management and supply chain
SAFRAN PORTALS management consultancy and service
Safran Portal for provider for large customers globally. The
Knowledge Projects division is formed by Dovre International
is designed to and Fabcon companies.
support multi-project
management with tools SAFRAN DIVISION
for project and resource Safran Systems division develops and
management as well as sells project management software for
time reporting. All Safran management of industrial investment
Portals are built using projects, and for management of project
Safran One technology organizations.
platform and other
Portals are following.
SAFRANONE
SafranOne Technology
Platform offers
powerful tools for
rapid development
and configuring of
web portals. The
platform is built on
Microsoft SharePoint
2007 technology.
FINLAND: Proha Plc, Maapallonkuja 1 A, 02210 USA: Dovre International US INC, 1150 Lakeway CANADA: Fabcon Canada Limited, Atlantic
CONTACTS
Espoo, Finland Drive, Ste 219, Lakeway, Texas 78734, USA Place, Suite 606, 215 Water Street, St. John’s,
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] NL, Canada
Telephone: [phone]
NORWAY: Dovre International AS, Niels Juels USA: Safran North America, LLC, 2132A Central
gate 20, 4001 Stavanger, Norway Ave SE #253, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] See more at www.proha.com
NORWAY: Safran Software Solutions AS,
Drammensveien 134, 0277 Oslo, Norway
Telephone: [phone]
Editorial
Table of Contents
Level of complexity in
4 Patterns of Complexity: The Thermometer of Complexity
Joana Geraldi
projects and its impacts 10 A Contextual Assessment of Project Management Practice:
Variation by knowledge area, project type and phase
Claude Besner, Brian Hobbs
on managerial solutions
16 The Integration of Project Management and Systems
Thinking
David H. Dombkins
22 The Inherent Complexity of Large Scale Engineering
Projects
Gerhard Girmscheid, Christian Brockmann
T 27 Risk Assessment Model for 2008 Olympic Venues
he complexity in projects is the main theme of this is-
Construction
sue of Project Perspectives. The term ‘complexity’ has
Dongping Fang, Difei Zhu, Shou Qing Wang
become an increasingly important point of reference
32 Learning to manage mega projects:
when we are trying to understand managerial demands
the case of BAA and Heathrow Terminal 5
of modern projects in general and various situations we are
Tim Brady, Andrew Davies, David Gann, Howard Rush
facing in projects. Perhaps it is a too simplistic approach to
classify projects or situations as complex or non-complex 40 Operationalizing Coordination of Mega-projects -
a Workpractice Perspective
instances; rather we should portray the overall picture of
Joakim Lilliesköld, Lars Taxén
complexity that is capable for explaining the sources, actual
level and fi nally its implications to our managerial choices. 46 Studying the interplay between the roles played by
stakeholders, requirements and risks in projects
This issue of Project Perspectives shall provide views of
Steve Armstrong, Sarah Beecham
current understanding of complexity in projects. Various
papers are explaining the inherent content of complexity in 52 Managing risk in subcontractors’ business relationships
projects and presenting various case studies of most challeng- with client and competitors
ing industrial projects such as Heathrow Terminal 5 and the Kirsi Eloranta, Jaakko Kujala, Karlos Artto
construction of venues for Beijing Olympic Games. Addition- 58 Making large decisions when little information exists
ally, one should put attention on papers that are explaining Kjell Sunnevaag, Knut Samset
how complexity can appear or change in a dynamic manner in
65 Managing uncertainty in projects:
project business or during the life-cycle of a single project. Merging theory and practice
Apparently the complexity in modern projects can appear Olga Perminova, Magnus Gustafsson, Kim Wikström
in different forms and arise from various sources. At the
68 A Framework for Building Successful Project-Based
moment we are still often referring to different sources of
Organizations
complexity when trying to estimate the level of complexity Ralf Müller, Jerzy Stawicki
in certain situation. Examples of typical sources of complex-
72 Improving the reliability and validity of results from
ity in projects are commercial, technological, organizational
multi-national research projects
and human issues. These different dimensions of complexity
Stephen Fox, Lauri Koskela
need to be studied further and well-thought classifi cations of
77 An Analysis of the Emotional Intelligence and Leadership
complexity in projects needs to be established. Such solutions
Styles of Information Systems Project Managers
can provide important assistance for the selection of most
Derek C. Smith, S Bailey
suitable managerial approaches and for the choice of project
management tools. 81 Confl icts related to effectiveness and effi ciency in
Norwegian rail and hospital projects
It is considered that the term ‘complexity in projects’ can
Nils O.E. Olsson
very well encapsulate the dynamics of modern business and
provide us important guidance for the successful opera-
tions. As a whole this is a topic to be further discussed and
studied, and, later on to be included in project management
standards. Published by
The Project Management Association Finland (PMAF) in
co-operation with International Project Management
Dr. Kalle Kähkönen Association (IPMA). PMAF is:
- Forum and a meeting place for project professionals
Chief Research Scientist - Developer of project thinking and knowledge
VTT - Technical Research Centre - Active partner within the international project community
of Finland PMAF serves with
- Two project management journals (Finnish & English)
- Yearly Project Day conference and frequent theme events
- Project management certifi cation
http://www.pry.fi /index_eng.htm
Editorial Board: Kalle Kähkönen (Editor in chief), Aki Latvanne
ISSN 1455-4178
Patterns of Complexity:
The Thermometer
of Complexity
For the successful management of projects, it is pertinent to better comprehend what characterises
the complexity embraced in project oriented activities, and how this changes in the course of a
project. This study further explores the concept of Patterns of Complexity, the minimal manage-
able “space” of complexity. The paper suggests and tests a method for assessing the perception
of complexity in projects anchored with the concept of Pattern of Complexity. The empirical test
consists of the measurement of the complexity of eight projects through the lens of the project
manager. Based on these results, the set of characteristics, as well as the method used to assess
its intensity, is discussed. The results indicate that that the Patter of Complexity can indeed serve
as a thermometer of complexity. Moreover, it shows that project managers simultaneously deal
with different kinds of complexity. This challenges the set of project management tools and calls
for more integrated approaches for managing projects.
Introduction Firstly, a short literature review on the char-
“Project Management has operated in a manage- acteristics and behaviour of complex systems is
ment environment of chaos and complexity for portrayed. Secondly, the concept of Pattern of
decades” (Davidson Frame, 2002: 24) However, Complexity is briefl y described and anchored with
even though projects and project management are approaches of complexity proposed in the litera-
usually associated with the concept of complexity ture. Subsequently, the paper checks the concept
(Baccarini, 1996), both practitioners and academ- of Pattern of Complexity empirically, analysing the
ics have diffi culties accepting and treating projects complexity of eight projects through the eyes of
as complex systems (adapted from Lewin, 1999). the project manager. Based on these results, the set
Thus, mastering complexity is not a new challenge, of characteristics and the method used to assess its
Joana Geraldi but an old challenge that is being increasingly intensity are discussed. Finally, the paper concludes
International Project recognized and accepted. by briefl y elucidating the challenges posed in the
Management (MIP) For the successful management of projects, it is current set of instruments and tools proposed in
University of Siegen pertinent to better comprehend what characterises the project management literature.
57068 Germany
the complexity embraced in the project oriented
activities, and how this changes in the course of Introduction to the Concept of
a project. Complexity
This paper is a part of a larger study on com- The concept of complexity is being used as an
plexity in projects (Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2006a&b; umbrella term associated with difficulty and
Geraldi, 2006). The study proposes the concept of inter-connectedness. The term Complex stems
Pattern of Complexity: the minimum manage- from the Latin Cum (together, linked) and Plexus
able unit of complexity. The Pattern of Complex- (braided, plaited). In (Oxford English Dictionary,
ity comprehends the concentration of different 1993), the term complex is defi ned as “consisting
characteristics of complexity in a certain location of parts” and “intricate, not easily analyzed or
(i.e. activity, department, technical system, etc) disentangled”.
or in the interface between locations (Geraldi & Complexity is usually also associated with
Adlbrecht, 2006a). The paper further elaborates variety, so that complex systems consist of the
this concept by theoretically and empirically ap- interconnection and interdependence of distinct
praising the set of characteristics of the Pattern parts (i.e. Baccarini, 1996; Wildemann, 1999).
of Complexity, and the methodological strategy Such a defi nition leads to other typical charac-
to be used in order to assess the complexity of teristics of complex systems: diffi culty (Davidson
projects. Frame, 2002), uncertainty (Williams, 2002), dyna-
4 www.pry.fi
mism (Patzak, 1982; Kallinikos, 1998), uniqueness Unfolding Complexity
π
(Crawford, 2005) and lack of clarity or low degree The set of is based on a “typology” of complexity
of defi nition of goal, scope and methods (Craw- proposed by Williams (2002), defi ning two main
ford, 2005). Moreover, in human-based systems, types of complexity, termed here Complexity of
the characteristic variety is also related to the Faith and Complexity of Fact (Geraldi & Adlbrecht,
variety of goals, perspectives, cultures, etc. 2006a).
Simon (1962) argues that “in [complex] systems The Complexity of Faith refers to the com-
the whole is more than the sum of the parts, not plexity involved in creating something unique or
in an ultimate, metaphysical sense but in the solving new problems, i.e. complexity due to high
important pragmatic sense that, given the proper- uncertainty. Tasks with this kind of complexity
ties of the parts and the laws of interaction, it is are nebulous and cannot be solved by off-the-
not a trivial matter to infer the properties of the peg solutions with pre-defi ned procedures and
whole.” This leads to three main consequences: answers. Thus, different approaches, and learning
fi rstly, the perception of complexity is idiosyncratic by doing, will be tried out; consequently, fi rst at-
(Baccarini, 1996), and consequently, cannot be tempts tend to be erroneous and the scope will
objectively measured; secondly, the complexity constantly change. Hence, re-work should be not
can only be understood holistically; and thirdly, only acceptable but even expected.
complex systems are hard to predict and manage In contrast to the complexity of faith, the
(Kallinikos, 1998). Complexity of Fact refers to the complexity in
However, this does not mean that complex sys- dealing with a very large amount of interdepen-
tems function randomly or cannot be managed. dent information. Here those involved do not have
“It is by the development of various types of enough time to obtain, analyse and internalise
constraints that complex systems counteract the information, and have to make decisions and act
random combination of the elements (…) that without properly understanding every piece of
constitute them and accomplish their highly information necessary. The challenge here is to
distinctive contributions in relatively predictable keep a holistic view of the problem and not to get
and recurrent terms” (Kallinikos, 1998): 372. This lost in the immense amount of details. However, as
complexity focused on “ongoing operations, rela- these details represent work to execute and con-
tions and techniques by which a social order is straints to consider, someone has to think about
constituted and reproduced” is termed organised them. Thus, projects with such complexity demand
complexity by Kallinikos (1998): 373. Thus, even delegation and are often supported by computer
though the management of complexity can only aided instruments. In such environments, mistakes
be analysed considering the specifi c conditions are almost inevitable, but they are very expensive,
of the environment and system, it is possible to and, hence, should be avoided.
develop tools to support the management of this It is to be expected that a project tends to de-
organised complexity. velop from high concentrations of Complexity of
Faith, when the scope, goals, and means are not
Pattern of Complexity very well defi ned, the team is new, and the prob-
In an attempt to intentionally manage complex- lems are still unique. In the course of the project,
ity, this paper applies the concept of Pattern of the uncertainty tends to reduce, but therefore the
Complexity (Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2006a). The number of people and companies involved tend
Pattern of Complexity, P, is the minimum man- to grow, as well as the amount of information to
ageable context of complexities within a project, analyse and coordinate, and consequently, the
and, hence, the management actions to reduce concentrations of Complexity of Fact tends to
or deal with complexity should take into account increase.
not only singular characteristics of complexity, but When the Complexity of Fact is too high, the
rather its pattern. possibilities and interrelations become so fuzzy
P is built up of a set of interrelated units of that, if not well assisted by adequate tools and
γ
complexities, , so that competences, the system will have similar charac-
P∝ g(γ ,γ ,...,γ ) teristics as in high concentrations of the Complex-
1 2 m ity of Faith. The concentrations up to the edge of
γ γ
where m refers to the total number of . is de- tipping over into complexity of faith represent the
fi ned as γ∝(w*λ)π coexistence of both types of complexity. Thus, the
characteristics comprising the complexity of fact
π ∈ Π π
where ; refers to the characteristic of the up to a certain level induce a higher concentration
Π
complexity, to the universe of characteristics of the characteristics comprising the complexity
λ
of complexities, and w and are the respective of faith.
weight and intensity of this characteristic. If n Apart from such characteristics, that can be
is the number of characteristics of complexity, clearly classifi ed in either complexity of faith
n=m. or fact, there are other relevant characteristics
Thus, the holistic management of complexity that intensify both types of complexities and are
π π
appraises a larger set of rather than only each usually present in interfaces, such as neutrality,
π
individually. As the relevance of varies according ambiguity, multi-culturality, etc. Such character-
π
to the situation, the defi nition of the set of to con- istics are usually presented in interfaces between
sider is idiosyncratic and the success of the analysis systems or locations of complexity. This will be
and, consequently, of the management action, varies termed Complexity of Interaction.
according to the ability to identify the dynamics and
intensities of the Pattern of Complexity.
Project Perspectives 2007 5
Translating Characteristics to the Project
h Dynamics Management Environment
t
ai In order to ‘assess’ the complexity of projects, the
F
author ‘translated’ the broadly defi ned character-
Customisation
istics to terms well accepted in the environment
of project managers. This translation was intended
LevelofImmaturity Transparency to reduce misunderstandings in the assessment of
n complexity, and increase the project orientation
o
ti of the characteristics. The table below shows this
c Reference
Amplitudeof Resp. a
r ‘translation’.
e
nt As one can see in the table, some of the char-
I
NumberofSources Empathy acteristics were already very well defi ned, such as
the case of the size of the project, whereas others
were more specifi ed, such as the Dynamics into
Interdependence change orders (Dynamics during the project), and
variations and options (during the tendering and
t
c engineering phase).
a Size
F
low high low high Empirical Study
IntensityofComplexity IntensityofComplexity This set of characteristics proposed to defi ne the
complexity of projects was checked by means of a
Figure 1. Correlation between Groups and Characteristics of Complexity multiple-choice questionnaire with eight project
managers of different facilities of an international
Characteristics of Complexity Plant Engineering MNC. In the questionnaire, the
Figure 1 indicates the resulting set of character- project managers were to evaluate the complexity
istics used here to unravel complexity, and how of their current project as high (+1), medium (0),
they are correlated with the Groups of Complexity and low (-1) for three different phases: i) Engineer-
mentioned above. ing; ii) Procurement, Production and iii) Assembly;
The characteristics suggested to unravel com- and Logistics, Assembly on Site and Ramp up.
plexity do not vary much from the characteristics Thus, this study focused on the execution phase
discussed in the literature. The author decided of the project. The author is currently carrying out
to disregard ‘Diffi culty’ as a characteristic, as it further studies on complexity analysing both the
is a too broad term that is already covered by sales and execution phase.
other characteristics, such as ‘Uniqueness’ and In order to verify if this questionnaire gave
‘Dynamics’. Moreover, ‘Uncertainty’ is represented a good interpretation of the complexity of the
by ‘Dynamics’ and ‘Uniqueness/Customisation’, as projects, the author also realised semi-structured
‘Uncertainty’ is again too broad and less homog- interviews after the multiple-choice questionnaire
enously interpreted in project-driven organisations with these eight project managers.
than ‘Dynamics’ and ‘Uniqueness/Customisation’.
The characteristic ‘Variety’ is again considered Intensity of complexity
within ‘Uniqueness/Customisation’. Apart from The results regard the complexity perceived by
these characteristics, the author added the char- the project managers in their current projects.
acteristics of the Complexity of Interaction, which According to the results of the last question, the
were not mentioned in the set of papers used from projects in the sample were considered to be not
the literature. especially more or less complex than the projects
usually undertaken by the company.
Group Characteristics Translation The following Figure 2 displays the intensity of
Fact Interdependency Sizeoftheproject complexity of fact, faith and interface during the
Fact Interdependency Dependencyofotherdepartments course of the project.
The Figure 2 demonstrates that the intensities
Fact Interdependency Dependencyofothercompanies
of all three groups of complexity develop in similar
Fact NumberofSources Quantityofinformationtoanalyse
patterns, starting with higher intensities in the
Fact NumberofSources Quantityofsourcesofinformation
engineering phase; this intensity subsequently
Fact NumberofSources Quantityofpartnersandcontactpersons
drops during the production and procurement
Faith Maturity Lowmaturitylevel
phase, and increases again in the phases on Site.
Faith Uniqueness Newtechnology Even though the complexity grows in the third
Faith Uniqueness Newpartners phase of the project, the complexity during engi-
Faith Uniqueness Newprocesses neering is still perceived by project managers as
Faith Dynamics Dynamic(changinginformation, being more intensive.
specifications,changeorders,etc) Thus, in contrast to that which was forecast,
Faith Dynamics Variationsandopenoptions the intensity of Complexity of Faith does not con-
Interaction People tinually sink, while Complexity of Fact continually
Interaction Transparency Companypolitics grows in the course of a project.
This drop of complexity in the second part of the
Interaction Multi-reference Internationality
project implies that either the project managers
Interaction Multi-reference Multi-disciplinary
in the company interviewed are not very much
Interaction Client
involved in the production and procurement phase,
and, consequently, do not perceive the complex-
Table 1. Translating Characteristics to Project Management Field
6 www.pry.fi
ity of this phase, or, due to the lower uncertainty 0.6
related to the procurement and production tasks,
the overall perceived complexity is lower.
0.4
The results of the semi-structured interviews
indicate that the project manager is seen in this
company as being responsible for the interface
0.2
with the client and (engineering) consultancy. This y
t
fact elucidates the results of this study. si
n
e 0.0
t
Additional fi ndings concerning different In
project phases
-0.2
Although undesired, the client and perhaps the
engineering consultancy are actively involved
during the engineering phase. It is in this phase -0.4
that ‘open options’ are defi ned, some new fea-
tures are demanded from the machine, and some
-0.6
relevant inputs of the client are necessary, such
as the confi gurations of parts of the contract Phases
that he is responsible for, detailed documents of
the current machine (in the case of rebuilds), etc. ComplexityofFact ComplexityofFaith ComplexityofInteraction
Moreover, the fi rst documents have to be delivered
to the client in this phase, granting the right for Figure 2. Intensity of Complexities during the Course of the Project
the fi rst payments. Thus, the project manager is
responsible for the coordination of the engineer- to this phase is necessary in order to reconnoiter
ing activities, and for securing the delivery of to characteristics of complexity of this phase.
documents on time. This means that the project Figure 2 also indicates that the Complexity of
manager coordinates various departments and Interaction is perceived to have the greater inten-
companies responsible for the different parts of sity in all phases of the project, followed by the
the machinery. This leads to a high perception of Complexity of Fact and Complexity of Faith, in this
Complexity of Fact right from the beginning of order. Indeed, the four most pertinent triggers of
the project. complexity were ‘Internationality’, ‘Client’, ‘People’
The involvement of client and consultancy are and ‘Multi-Disciplinarity’ (in this order), see table
also high during the phases on Site. The client is 3. These factors characterise the Complexity of
usually present on site and usually controls the Interaction. This implies that the heart of the
work of the Plant Engineering Company more project management function lies indeed in the
carefully. interaction. However, competences in interacting
Moreover, as the company studied does not un- should be aided the ability to consider details and
dertake Turnkey Projects (according to the results constraints, necessary in complexity of fact, and
of question 2), the client and Plant Engineering to deal with uncertainty, as these complexities
Company have a higher number of physical and appear jointly.
schedule interfaces to deal with on Site. Moreover,
the results of the semi-structured interviews Our confi dence in the results
indicate that the ‘Work on Site’ is characterized Some results regarding each of the characteristics
by high time pressure and stress. This enlightens of complexity were inconsistent, i.e. the results
the higher Complexity of Interaction in this phase of the open questionnaire were not in agreement
(about 250% higher than the mean Complexity of with those of the structured multiple-choice
Fact and Faith), and, consequently, the demand for interview. In the semi-structured interview, the
soft skills. Lastly, according to the open interviews, ‘Low Maturity Level’ was considered very relevant
this phase is labeled by unique and unpredictable for the engineering phase, as low maturity usually
issues which need to be solved. This explains the implies more risks, more time and possible delays.
reason for the growth of Complexity of Faith in However, in the structured multiple choice ques-
this phase, especially the characteristics People and tionnaires, the low level of maturity was consid-
Client, where the intensity of complexity perceived ered the 5th least relevant trigger of complexity
with the client is even higher in this phase than for these projects.
in the engineering phase. The results imply that the intensity of New
This higher interaction with the client is absent Partners, New Technology, New Processes, and
during the production and procurement phases. even the low level of Maturity vary very much
Even though there are still change orders emerging from project to project, which might indicate an
during this phase, the interface is not as frequent inconsistent result. However, one can observe the
or intensive. trend of decreasing intensity of these character-
The production and procurement networks are istics as the project develops, as the uniqueness
managed by the production and procurement of processes, partners and technology diminishes
managers, who only report to the project manager as one learns and reduces uniqueness during the
in the case of delays or changes in the budget. execution of the project. This was also confi rmed
Consequently, the perception of the project man- in the interviews.
ager of the complexity inherent in the production The results do not show any relation between
and procurement phase tend to be lower. Further the type of project, the facility where the project
empirical research involving employees dedicated is being undertaken and the intensities of com-
Project Perspectives 2007 7
plexity. The author intends to further investigate Technological and Commercial should be clarifi ed,
this potential correlation in different companies as the difference between commercial and tech-
in this sector. nological complexity was evaluated as important
for managing the Pattern of Complexity in the
Rethinking the Confi gurations of the open semi-structured interviews.
Pattern of Complexity Moreover, apart from the three groups of
This section will fi rstly question the set of char- complexity, the author felt the need to address
acteristics used in the empirical research and characteristics of the project separately. The type
subsequently discuss the methods for appraisal of project triggers the groups of complexity, for
of complexity in companies. example, the larger the size of the project, the
Some of the characteristics used were not larger is the complexity of fact. However, in con-
suffi ciently defi ned. The Multi-Reference should trast to the other groups of complexities, the type
also regard the different standards as these were of project does not vary according to the location
mentioned as relevant in the non-structured and time, and, consequently, these should be ad-
interviews. The complexity regarding People and dressed separately.
Client should be subdivided into Transparency, The table 2 shows the result of this adapta-
Empathy, and Multi-Reference. The subdivision tion. As far as the methodology is concerned,
Group Characteristics Perspectives Explanation
Levelof Technological Inengineeringprojectsforthedevelopmentofnewplants,thiswouldrefertohowdefinedarethe
Immaturity technicalparameters,suchasqualityofthefinalproduct,velocity,levelofautomatisation,etc.The
moredetaileditis,thehigherthedifficultytomakechanges.
Commercial Thisreferstohowfartheconfigurationmacroorganisationisdefined.Typicalquestions:arethe
partnersandtheirresponsibilitiesalreadywelldefined?Isitclearwheretogetthefinancingand
Complexityof
exportinsurance?Did wedecidehowtoreachthenecessarylocalcontent?etc.
Faith
Dynamics Technological Thisreferstothefrequencyandimpactofchangesinthetechnologicalandtechnicalaspects,asa
resultofchangeorders,revisions,anomalies,etc.
Commercial Thisreferstothefrequencyandimpactofchangesintheprojectteamandmacroorganisation.
Typicalquestions:Doesyourteamstaythesame?Didyouhavetochangethesuppliersoramajor
partner?Didthecontractchange?Didthepriceoftherow-material,exchangerates,etcchanges
impacttheproject?
Numberof Technological Thisreferstothequantityoftechnicalinterfacesofeachsystem,i.e.howsystemsareinterrelated.
Sources/ Typicalquestions:Howmanysystemsandlevelsdoestheplantcontain?Howmanysystemsdoesone
Elements engineerneedtobearwhenmakingchanges?
Commercial Thisreferstothequantityofpeopleorcompaniesonehastodealwithduringtheproject,i.e.phase.
Typicalquestions:Howmanysuppliersdowehave?Howmanymaincontractorsareinthemacro
Complexityof organisation?HowmanydirectcontactpersonsdoIhave?HowmanypeopledoIneedtomake
Fact crucialdecisionssuchasachangeontheprojectscope?
InterdependenceTechnological Thisitemisveryrelatedtothelastone,itreferstotheinterdependenceofthetechnicalelements,
suchasphysicallocation(avoidingcollisions),velocity,waterflow,etc.
Commercial Thisitemisveryrelatedtothelastone,itreferstothecommercialinterdependence,andismainly
reflectedonthefrequencyofcommunicationor(mutual)dependencytomakedecisions.
Reference Technological Thisreferstotheuseofdifferenttechnicalreferences,suchasdifferentnormsandstandards,orthe
differencebetweenthemeaningofvariables.Thisismostfrequentinmulti-nationalor
multidisciplinarywork.
Commercial Thisreferstovariabilityofpersonalreferences,suchasdifferentculture,disciplines,languages.
Typicalquestions:howmanydifferentculturesarecomprisedintheproject?Howmanydifferent
areas(administration,electricalengineering,civilengineering,mechanicalengineering,logistics,etc)
Complexityof havetofrequentlyworktogether?
Interaction
Transparency Team Thischaracteristicindicatestheinfluenceofpoliticalissuesintheproject,suchascompany’s
Client internalpolitics,orintherelationshipwithclientsorgovernment,diversityofobjectiveswithinthe
Partners
companyordepartment.Someindicatorsoflowtransparencyaretheambiguity,hiddenknowledge
Others
orinformation,fightforcapital/profitandrecognition.
Empathy Team Thisreferstoaratherpersonalandintangiblematterthatmakesacertainsetofpeopleworkbetter
Client togetherthanothers.
Partners
Others
SizeofProject Thisreferstothesize(inbudget)oftheportionoftheprojectthecompanyanalysedisbeing
responsiblefor.
AmplitudeofResponsibility Thisreferstotheamplitudeofresponsibilityofthecompanyinacertainproject,rangingfroma
minorparticipationintheconsortium,beingresponsibleforexampleforonlyonesystemofthe
ProjectType plant,oronlyforonephase(feasibility,engineering,etc)toprojectfinance.
Customisation Technological Thisreferstothedegreeoftechnical/technologicalcustomisationoftheorder,rangingfromstandard
&Uniqueness toanewprototype.
Commercial Thisreferstothedegreeofcustomisationoftheorganisation/commercialactivities,i.e.newpartners
(typicalinhighnumberofnominatedpartners),newclient,newteam,etc.
Table 2. Further Developed Characteristics of Complexity
8 www.pry.fi
this study indicated that the ‘open questions’ are Acknowledgment
essential for appraising complexity in projects. The author thanks the company and the interview-
Thus, a combination of structured interview and ees for the opportunity to undertake the research
semi-structured interview is shown to be an ap- and for the interesting discussions.
propriate approach. The structured part should
be based on the Table 2, and will allow a better References
cross-analysis of the interview, as the data tends Baccarini, D. (1996)
to be more consistent, and facilitate a rapid iden- The concept of project complexity--a review. In
tifi cation of the characteristics of the Pattern of International Jounal of Project Management,
Complexity. The semi-structured part is based on vol. 14, issue 4, pp. 201-204.
an interview guide, consisting of general percep-
tions, and cross-analysis between projects which Crawford, L. (2005)
have already been managed. This semi-structured Senior management perceptions of project
interview allows a more holistic understanding of management competence. In International
the Pattern of Complexity, and enables interpreta- Journal of Project Management, vol. 23, issue
tions of the pathologies leading to a certain Pat- 1, pp. 7-16.
tern of Complexity, and, consequently, reinforces
arguments for the strategy to be used to manage Davidson Frame, J. (2002)
this Pattern. The New Project management. Wiley & Sons.
Conclusion Geraldi, J. and Adlbrecht, G. (2006a)
This study further explores the concept of Patterns Unravelling Complexities in Engineering Proj-
of Complexity, the minimal manageable “space” ects. To be published.
of complexity. The paper suggests and tests a
method for assessing the perception of complexity Geraldi, J and Adlbrecht, G. (2006b)
in projects anchored with the concept of Pattern Synchronizing Projects and Competences. To
of Complexity. be published
The empirical analysis shows that the Pattern
of Complexity provides information about the Geraldi, J. (2006)
characteristics and type of complexity challenging Cost Optimization though Interface Manage-
the project. Thus, the Pattern of Complexity can ment. Working paper.
indeed serve as a thermometer of complexity.
This method can aid the project manager to Kallinikos, J. (1998)
structurally make sense of the intensities of the Organized Complexity: Posthumanist Remarks
Complexity of Fact, Faith and Interaction. This is on the Technologizing of Intelligence. In Orga-
useful in order to decide upon the set of instru- nization, Aug. 1998, vol. 5, pp. 371 - 396.
ments and management concepts to use. The
method is also useful for researchers to better Lewin, R. (1999)
comprehend complexity. Complexity: life at the edge of Chaos. The
However, the assessment of the Pattern of University of Chicago Press.
Complexity should be associated with further
information gathering methods to enable a better The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
implementation of management approaches. (1993) Volume 1. First Edition: 1933. Claren-
Moreover, the empirical research showed that dorn Press, Oxford
the project manager does not manage one of these
groups of complexities separately, but rather all Patzak, G. (1982)
of them in parallel. Systemtechnik - Planung komplexer innovati-
This fact intensifi es the importance of the Pat- ver Systeme: Grundlage, Methoden, Techniken.
tern of Complexity as the minimum manageable Springer-Verlag.
complexity, and challenges the current set of tools
and instruments used to manage projects. Pich, M. T., C. H. Loch, C. H., and A. De Meyer
These tools and instruments are usually either (2002) On Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Com-
focused on managing uncertainty, i.e. Complex- plexity in Project Management, Management
ity of Faith, such as the Delphi Method, Scenario Science 48(8), 2002, 1008 - 1023.
Management, Selectionism and Learning (Pichet
al, 2002), or on managing Complexity of Fact, Simon, H. A. (1962)
such as scheduling tools, and the concepts of The Architecture of Complexity. In Proceedings
critical chain and critical path. Other tools for the of the American Philosophical Society, Vol.
development of a company’s competence, such as 106, No. 6, pp. 467-482.
the Maturity Model, are more closely allied to this
integrated approach, but fail when it comes to the Wildemann, H (1999)
suggestion of integrated solutions, based on the Komplexität: Vermeiden oder beherrschen
organizational structure, necessary competences lernen. In Harvard Business Manager, 6/1999,
and tools and instruments. pp. 30-42.
The author is currently working on a framework
proposing the synchronization of the complexity Williams, T. (2002)
of projects and this integrated design for project Modelling complex projects. Chichester.-Wiley.
driven companies.
Project Perspectives 2007 9
A Contextual Assessment of Project Management Practice:
Variation by knowledge
area, project type and
phase
The purpose of this paper is to present empirical results that show the actual state of project
management (PM) practice and the perceived impact on project success that could result from
further development of this practice. Knowledge area and context specifi c variations of practice
are examined. The paper is based on a survey of 750 project management practitioners, which
collected information on the actual use and perceived potential of PM tools and techniques. The
use of tools and techniques is seen here as an indicator of the realities of practice. Classifi cation
by knowledge area reveals patterns of practice and provides a structure to analyze and reports
on the use and value of the tools and techniques. The study found some aspects of practice to be
common across all types of projects and all contexts, but on this background of similar patterns of
practice several statistically signifi cant differences have also been identifi ed. Variations by project
types and project phases are used to illustrate these differences.
Introduction that organizations create systems for categoriz-
The fi eld of project management is based on the ing projects into different types is to adapt their
premise that managing projects is different from project management methods to the specifi c re-
managing ongoing repetitive activities and pro- quirements of each type of project. This adaptation
cesses and that there is considerable commonality is twofold, an operational aspect as organizations
across projects of different types. This commonal- seek to improve the performance on projects and a
ity is captured in project management (PM) bodies strategic aspect that allows fi rms to differentiate
of knowledge (BOK). However the different BOKs themselves in competitive markets.
of the world do not identify the importance and Following a literature review, a selection of
usefulness of each aspect of practice. Most stud- 70 well-know PM tools specifi c to the domain
Claude Besner , Ph.D.
ies of practice focus on one aspect and therefore was identifi ed. Some tools which are part of this
Master’s Program in
cannot measure the relative importance of this study are not presented as standard practices by
Project Management
aspect in relation to others. The few exceptions the PMBOK Guide; feasibility study, requirements
University of Quebec at
that contributes to drawing the global portrait analysis and kick-off meeting are among them.
Montreal, Canada
include: Milosevic and Iewwongcharoen (2004), Eight project management software functional-
White and Fortune (2002), Loo (2002). Much of ities are also among the tools examined in this
the literature on PM tools and techniques includ- study. Besner and Hobbs (2006) describe why PM
ing the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2004) covers tools software should not be considered to be only one
and techniques and general processes. This paper single tool. The web-based survey was completed
discriminates between well-known specifi c PM by 753 practitioners, mostly PMPs from North-
practices and general concepts or processes. A America, with an average of 7 to 8 years experi-
tool is considered here to be a means to execute ence as project or program managers.
a process. It requires practical know-how and is Following questions on demographics and proj-
closer to day-to-day practice. The aim of the pres- ect environments, two specifi c questions concern-
ent research is to identify the relative importance ing each tool were presented to the respondents.
of PM tools and techniques as it varies both in The fi rst measured the extent of use of the tool
Brian Hobbs, Ph.D.
general practice and in different contexts. and the second the potential improvement in
Master’s Program in
There has been an increasing interest in the project performance that would result from a
Project Management
study of variations in project practice across dif- more extensive or better use of the same tool.
University of Quebec at
ferent types of projects and different contexts. The second variable is referred to as “unrealized
Montreal, Canada
This is often seen as a way to develop the fi eld of potential” throughout. The results reported in
project management beyond generic knowledge this paper are from the fi rst phase of an ongo-
and practice. Crawford, Hobbs and Turner (2005, ing research effort. The authors wish to thank
2006) showed that one of the primary reasons the PMI Research Department, for assistance in
10 www.pry.fi