Project Complexity

Vidal el al. (2011) define project complexity as,

“the property of a project which makes it difficult to understand, foresee and keep under control its overall behaviour, even when given reasonably complete information about the project system. Its drivers are factors related to project size, project variety, project

interdependence and project context.”

In another definition Remington et al. (2009) define project complexity as,

“a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of characteristics to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control

Project complexity makes a crucial difference to how a project is managed (Baccarini, 1996). Baccarini (1996) further adds that the complexity of a project can effect planning, coordination, control, identification of the goals, selection of organisational form,

selection of project inputs, selection of procurement management, and management of time, cost, and quality. Wozinack (1993) operationalizes project complexity in terms of variables such as: criticality of project, project visibility and accountability; and clarity of scope definition. Gidado (1996) says ,

“Scientists and mathematicians consider a system `complex’ only when it consists of a multitude of interacting elements. The construction process is always made up of a

multitude of interacting parts.”

It can be argued that now days not only in construction, but any project with a big remit will consist of interacting parts, and therefore, some level of complexity will exist in every project. Gidado (1996) concludes his paper by defining project complexity as

“the measure of the difficulty of implementing a planned production workflow in relation to any one or a number of quantifiable managerial objectives.”

Rosen (1987) has defined a generic measure for complexity which consists of two elements: 1) complexity could be quantitatively measured, like any other observable system, if it were to be related to such things as the dimension of a state space, the length of a programme or the magnitude of a `cost’ in money or time and in order to define multiple levels of complexity; (2) there is a threshold of complexity, below in which systems behave in some simple sense.

There has been quite a bit of work done in the area of project complexity for construction.Gidado (1996) identified six variables that have an impact on project complexity. They are: 1) the employed resources; 2) the environment; 3) the level of scientific and technological knowledge required; 4) the number of different parts in the work flow; and 5) the interaction of different parts in the work flow. Wood and Ashton (2009) have taken the work of Gidado forward and have defined project complexity in terms of six elements which are: 1) Inherent complexity; 2) Uncertainty; 3) Number of technologies; 4) Rigidity of sequence; 5) Overlap of phases or concurrency; and 6) Organisational inherent complexity. This definition clearly takes us out of the domain of construction and helps us define it in more generic terms. However, most of the elements defined can be classified as project structural complexity related variables. In another researchCicmil and Marshall (2005) suggest three aspects of complexity in construction projects, which are: 1) complex processes of communicative and power relating among project actors; 2) ambiguity and equivocality related to project performance criteria (success/failure) over time; and 3) the consequence of time flux (change, unpredictability and the paradox of control). These factors are generic enough to be applied to non-

construction projects as well. Leung (2007) has devised a way to measure complexity in construction projects. He has developed a Construction Complexity Index (CCI). There are ten variables defined by him that define project complexity. These variables are: 1) project duration; 2) working spaces; 3) contract sum; 4) site area; 5) type of structure; 6) height of building; 7) site location; 8) client; 9) usage of building; and 10) total floor area. Some of these variables can be generalised for non-construction projects as well.

Crawford et al. (2008) have provided seven reasons for increased project complexity. The first reason is the delivery of complicated artefacts, such as physical infrastructure which adds complexity by design. The second is complexity added due to organisational

change, which is often a part of project management. Projects intending to deliver

organisational change bring about an added level of uncertainty among their stakeholders, and hence, the added complexity. The increase of project lifecycle to include elements of the operational phase and the endeavour to provide long term sustainability to the outputs will result in added complexity as well. New delivery mechanisms of projects such as public-private partnerships add to a new level of complexity in the project. The recent increase in the need for accountability and transparency in corporate governance has added more pressure on project managers and has increased the overall complexity in project management. Advances in communication technologies have benefited project managers, but it has also led to more demands by clients to monitor the project and follow the progress more closely, which in turn has resulted in higher levels of complexity in a project. Changes in societal values with all the different generations, ranging from Baby Boomers to generations X and Y, have further resulted in stakeholder management due to there being increased demands for and expectations of involvement and participation. At the same time, communication and other technologies have made faster response possible and raised expectations, putting practitioners under accelerated time pressures to deliver. All these factors have led to severe increase in complexity of projects and have put additional pressure on the project manager. It is important that we contextualise these additional issues for Abu Dhabi and propose a modified competency based framework for developing the programme and project managers of the future.

Vidal et al. (2011) conclude that in order to measure project complexity, we need to familiarize ourselves with four factors. The first one is project size. This is defined as the sum of sizes of the elementary objects that exist within the project. The second factor is project variety. Project variety is the diversity of the elementary objects that define the project. The third factor is project interdependence. This factor includes the relationships between elementary objects within a project. The last factor is the project context. This refers to the environment or the context in which the project is undertaken. Vidal and Marle (2008) state that as the complexity of the project increases, so does the risk and uncertainty associated with it. Geraldi et al. (2011) have reviewed the evolution of project complexity and have noted that we have evolved from earlier definitions of project

complexity that talked about structural complexity of the project to a point where we talk about issues such as socio-economic impact of the project, pace of the project, dynamics of the project, uncertainty in a project, and structural complexity of the project. This evolution in the definition clearly indicates that there is an acknowledgement that the complexity of a project is dependent not only on the internal elements but external micro and macro factors as well. Thomas and Mengal (2008) contend that given the rise in complexity of the projects,

“project managers must be both technically and socially competent to develop teams that can work dynamically and creatively toward objectives in changing environments across

Figure 2.6 below indicates that for complex projects, it is important for the project manager to develop emotional competence in project management along with the intellectual competence.

Fig 2.6: Three-dimensional model of project management knowledge (Thomas and Mengal, 2008)

The literature review presented in this chapter has covered a range of issues starting from career path, project and programme manager competency, project and programme

competency, and project and programme complexity. This wide range of literature review has provided some key insights into a range of issues that has helped in establishing the current state of the art knowledge and will be used to develop data collection instruments and strategies.