The original target of this thesis was to create an accurate matrix for every field of in- dustry in order to identify the most typical strengtheners of complexity and vulnerable processes (research field C). For an exact evaluation, the monetary values are missing. The reason for this is the different, partly unrealistic declaration of project budgets by the participants that showed budgets up to 200 bn. €.
Project management experts estimated the categorization and level of complexity of projects. On one hand, project managers have different experience; on the other hand, a strict comparison between each project and field of industry is not possible. The matri- ces show possible strengtheners of complexity and vulnerable processes, listed to cate- gory of project and level on complexity. However, the matrix does not predict them ex- actly. The listed fields of industry are named on which experience this matrix is based. The three matrix graphs (Figure 48, Figure 49 and Figure 50) defined commonly appear- ing complexity strengtheners and vulnerable processes in projects, depending on field of industry. They can provide a guide to the strengtheners of complexity that should be observed single project processes in specific fields of industry, particularly for inexperi- enced managers. This is the first time that these tables have been established.
PMI
methodology
N.a., but 91% with an experience of min 7 years N.a. N.a. N.a. Survey PMI methodology Any methodology to follow Experience
Experience & seniority
Proactive action Sufficient staffed resources Focus interview PM techniques in general Any methodology to follow Experience
Soft skills & leadership
Literature
Handling PMI methodology in projects a guarantor for success
Methodology to follow is essential
Methodology not depending on any released official accepted standard
Experience in PM supports the practice of handling complex projects
Interpersonal relations are important
No tossing & turning of tasks
Resulting in …
PMI methodology is supportive, but not a guarantor for success
Rate of unsuccessful projects: 8% Rate of unsuccessful projects: n.a. Rate of unsuccessful projects: >60%
Focus groups accepted the matrix as an indicator, but suggested that it was difficult to understand. In discussions, they pointed out and suggested that it would be good to have strengtheners and vulnerable processes listed only the first time that they were identi- fied. Otherwise, the result from the survey could not be applied in practice. These con- cerns from focus groups were respected. The matrices were transformed into a newly created clear funnel model, useable in practice.
The transition from the three matrices to the funnel model was performed in this way that doubled nominations are eliminated. Single nominations are listed in light grey to exposure their less importance, they are only valid in their stage. Normal printed data for strengtheners of complexity, vulnerable processes, and field of industry are not only valid in the first mentioned stage of complexity, but also in the following higher stages. So the funnel model is easier readable.
With the input from the FGIs, the following graph was framed (Figure 58). Such a funnel model achieves the original objective of research field C, whereas the output of the sur- vey incorporating a three-layer matrix is too complicated to apply. The funnel model is now a controllable model where project managers can easily indicate complexity in their projects.
Figure 58: Funnel model for identification of complexity (developed by author)
The funnel model was developed as follows: in the upper part, strengtheners for com- plexity are listed. In the lower part, vulnerable processes for complexity are listed. The arrow in the middle shows the field of industry relevant to the strengtheners of com- plexity and vulnerable processes. On the y-axis, the size of the project is listed, starting in the middle moving to the outside from small to major project. The x-axis demon- strates an increase of the level of complexity from low to high.
Strengtheners and processes listed under the category low complexity are additionally valid in the categories middle and high complexity. The same is relevant for the field of industry. Light grey listed processes that are vulnerable for complexity are processes that were listed only in one of the categorized fields for the size. Processes and strength- eners listed in black are intersections of all listed affected project sizes.
The adapted funnel model is a simplified illustration of the matrices and should indicate where and how complexity can affect a project. The ranking of project size and the level of complexity depends on the user’s perspective. This conforms to an earlier statement
sm a ll sm a ll C o m p le xi ty st re n g th e n e rs in p ro je ct si ze … m e d iu m m a jo r m e d iu m la rg e m a jo r Field of industry low complexity middle complexity high complexity
Inf ormation/Communication; Finance; Industry; Transportation; Energy; Public service/ def ense; Education; Welf are/ Health;
Trade; Other Scientif ic academic services; Construction building; Agriculture
low complexity
middle complexity
high complexity
Change in time schedule
Partitionment of work
Customer requirements
Communication process
Cultural diversity
Incompatible systems
No. of stake holders
Organizational changes vu ln e ra b le p ro ce sse s in p ro je ct si ze … Internal/ external interfaces Technical/ product diversity Internationality Limited actuality
Size of project organization
Law/ norms/ regulations
Define scope
Manage stakeholder
Collect requirements
Control scope
Create project charter
Verify scope Define schedule Plan communication Define activities Identify stakeholder Identify risks Create WBS Report performance
Control + monitor risks
Control scope
Control costs
Develop PM plan
Manage team
Monitor + control project work
Estimate duration
Direct + manage project execution
Perform integrated change control
Estimate costs
Plan risk management
Distribute information
la
rg
of the third focus group: the complexity of a project depends on the attitude and experi- ence of the project manager and/ or project team. When projects are done for the first time they can be complex. However, the experience gained from similar projects creates a decrease in complexity.
An agreement for a correct indication of the matrixes and also the new funnel model was the statement that low complexity does not appear in large or major rated projects and that high complexity is listed in small projects.
This newly developed funnel model is not intended to be a complete guide for handling of complexity in practice. It only indicates where and how complexity can emerge in a project. Two focus group participants suggested offering specific tools and methods for handling complexity. However, the other participants rejected this recommendation. A real handling and managing of complex situations was not expected from this thesis be- cause the process should always specific to the situation. If tools and methods are of- fered, it could be a book for methodology in the form of project management standards. The categorization of projects by a matrix is not possible. Project size and level on com- plexity are strongly based on interpretation of the user. It is dependent on the field of industry and project budget. Simplified matrices could give an indication and is illustrat- ed by a funnel model (Figure 58). This new funnel model shall focuse on vulnerable pro- cesses and strengtheners of complexity, as relevant to the field of industry, the size of project (small, middle, large, major), and the estimated level on complexity (low, middle, high).
This funnel model is based on the processes of PMI standards, but an adaptation to other similar standards is possible. A comparison of standard processes has been performed (Appendix VII – Comparison of processes from worldwide project management stand- ards) to assure validity of the standard. But the selection was performed according to criteria like the example of associated companies, international accepted certification, membership worldwide, practicing countries, availability in different languages, and compliance with official norms (Table 4). As the selected standard is used world-wide and considers already the different cultures, cross-cultural habits don’t need to be fur- ther investigated. It indicates where complexity strengtheners can appear in complex projects and affect processes in project management that are vulnerable for complexity.
A greater number of participants in the survey would have been desirable. A specified categorization of the projects could be possible. Even a survey not focused on Germany and also not focused on one specific standard could have broadened the perspective. This approach was not intentionally followed because the scope of the research was lim- ited by time and topic. This thesis places for the first time the relation of strengtheners and level of complexity and processes and sizes of projects in different fields of industry, in a clearly laid out pilot matrix.
A similar approach was not found in the literature. The literature provided only a basis for a model of handling complexity. Haas (2009) described the following aspects of han- dling complexity: selecting the right project management cycle, the right project manag- er, and the right management style. There was no mention of where possible strength- eners of complexity and vulnerable processes for complexity can appear. In “Navigating Complexity”, a book from PMI, no relation to the project management processes of the PMBoK is given. PMI provides only a basic outline relevant to reducing the complexity in projects. The mentioned assessment does not result in a categorization, it shows the us- er how to think and reflect on complexity inside the project (Project Management Insti- tute, 2014).