![]()
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
In this monograph we outline and discuss the process and findings of the inquiry into the implications of complexity theory for project management theory and practice, which was generously supported by the Project Management Institute (PMI). We wish to thank PMI for giving us this opportunity to engage in, and contribute to, the pertinent and lively discussion about complexity in and of projects, which seems to have emerged in response to the growing concern about the dominance of various versions of control theory, operations research, systems theory, and instrumentalism in the studies of projects, project management, and project settings in general. A growing body of extant critique, emerging propositions, and research trajectories has exposed deficiencies and controversies associated with the relevance of the traditional project management research to the challenges experienced in contemporary project environments and with its practical application at three levels: (1) discrepancy between âproject management best practiceâ recommendations and what is really being enacted in practice; (2) observations of paradoxical, unintended consequences in practice that emerge from following the project management prescriptions in âthe bookâ; and (3) the need for alternative theoretical conceptualizations and thinking about projects and project complexity in practice. During the past decade, there has been an increasing tendency to draw attention to the particular challenges posed by complex projects (Williams, 1999; Richardson, Tait, Roos, & Lissack, 2005) or by complexity in projects (Baccarini, 1996; Cicmil, 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Cicmil & Marshall 2005; Sommer & Loch, 2004). The discussion, however, has been somewhat hindered because the issue of theoretical foundations in project management research has been a central point of debate among both practitioner and scholarly communities for quite some time.
A common observation by both practitioners and academics is that the body of knowledge related to project management heavily and almost religiously relies on the traditional concept of the project life cycle (PLC) and is driven by the pursuit of universal best practice prescriptions which could be easily commodified, packaged, and efficiently disseminated by means of training courses, handbooks, goodpractice standards, or online-based tutorials. Consequently, mainstream project management textbooks, manuals, and in-house project management procedures are increasingly seen by both researchers and organizational members enacting âproject managementâ in their daily practice, as inadequately addressing the complexity of projects in a theoretically sound and practically relevant way. The examples of work that has illuminated and criticized the prevailing normative and prescriptive character of the project management knowledge system and suggested alternative (e.g., critical, relational, post-modern, constructivist, innovation) perspectives for studying and understanding projects, are numerous and growing. These works include Smith (2007), Cooke-Davies and Wolstenholme (1998), Melgrati and Damiani (2002), Cooke-Davies (2004), Cicmil (2006); Hodgson and Cicmil (2006, 2008), Thomas (2000), Gann and Salter, (2000), Williams (1999, 2004), Sydow and Staber (2002), Whitty and Schulz (2006), Drummond and Hodgson (2003), Pryke and Smyth (2006), among others. The reader is also advised to refer to the International Journal of Project Management special issue on âRethinking Project Managementâ (Vol 24, November 2006) including the editorial (Maylor, 2006) and the positioning article by (Winter, Smith, Morris, & Cicmil, 2006). Attention should also be drawn to a growing body of literature linking innovation and technological advancements across industrial sectors with challenging project environments in which the resulting complex products and systems are being designed, developed, and produced (Gann & Salter, 2000; Sydow & Staber, 2002; Davies & Brady, 2000; Brady, Davies & Gann, 2005) The observations generated by researching the management processes and capabilities in innovation-charged project settings add a valuable dimension to our understanding of challenges in contemporary project management practice and encourage further study of complexity in projects and how to cope with it.
We also note that the labels âcomplexityâ and âcomplexâ have become an almost unavoidable part of the contemporary project management jargon and inevitable in expressing and explaining the nature of problems and challenges people experience in project environments. We have almost reached the point where we rarely question what exactly we mean by these words or by the notion of âproject complexity,â and the more these phrases become part of the everyday project management language, the less attention is paid to what they stand for both theoretically and pragmatically. We are witnessing a spread of standards regulating the definition of, approach to, and evaluation and skills development of âcomplex project managersâ (see College of Complex Project Managers and Defence Materiel Organisation, 2007), again raising the concern about a theoretical commodification of social practice (that is, project practice) into a set of universal definitions and procedures.
The Aim of the Study
This study takes the previously mentioned observations as its point of departure. It is not surprising, therefore, that the aim behind this study is twofold: it has a theoretical and a practical component. From a theoretical view, the research proposes a useful description of the landscape of âcomplexity theoryâ and illuminates those developments within it that have high relevance to project management. The concept of âcomplex responsive processes of relating in organizationsâ (CRPR) is one of them. Furthermore, the study explores in depth the potential of the CRPR concept for enhancing the understanding of the complexity of project settings and uncovering issues that cannot be captured by other theoretical frameworks. In this manner, the study fulfills its ambition to contribute to enriching the theoretical basis of the field of project management, otherwise criticized as âimpoverished.â In practical terms, this research aims to propose and encourage a critical but constructive way of explaining, debating, and deliberating project management and project performance issues that can lead to a wider awareness, knowledge, and development of skills and competencies that match the complexity of projects as experienced by practitioners in contemporary organizations.
Debates and Concerns of Interest in this Inquiry: âTriple Constraint,â Project Control, and Project Performance Criteria
Our initial definition and conceptualization of project complexity draws upon the extant literature and research on problems associated with, for example, critical success factors, project risk assessment and management, individual and group relationships and cohesion, definition of key performance indicators, sources of project failure, as examples of issues that are currently being debated in various forums, by both practitioner and academic communities, and considered by the research team as building blocks of project complexity which need to be further and better understood, theorized, and their interconnectedness illuminated. In the next section, we discuss and further elaborate this proposition.
Conventional Project Management MethodologiesâContradictions and Problems
The conventional and widely adopted project life cycle (PLC) model represents the progress of project (work) and project management process as unfolding over time, in a sequence of distinct âphasesâ or âstagesâ of the project life cycle (Figure 1-1). The actual labels for stages may vary in different contexts, but typically, these are: (1) project concept and initiation, (2) detailed planning, (3) execution of planned work, and (4) closure or handover. Each stage is assumed to start upon a successful completion of the preceding one. The input-output rationale behind the conventional PLC model implies a possibility of directing the flow of the project, in a logical manner, from the need recognition and requirement specification stage (i.e., the setting of objectives) up to the handover of the completed product to the client or user. Corresponding techniques and tools of project planning and control have been developed for each stage to facilitate its successful completion.
Consequently, traditional conceptual frameworks of project management place a strong emphasis on explicit technical knowledge such as plans, reports and documentation in codifying project management practices. These frameworks are simultaneously taken (or assumed) as representative of the actual movements of events, actions, decisions, and interactions in space and time, occasionally with the disclaimer (by Project Management Institute [PMI], 2000, 2004, for instance) that these are only the core principles universally applicable to all projects in all contexts, while a project manager should have an ability to judge how these should be implemented in a specific context. The resulting approach to project management good practice assumes that the agreed project performance criteria, that is, project deadline, budget, and output specification (so-called triple-constraint or golden triangle), need always be negotiated and committed to at the time of drawing the contract or procurement agreement at the project approval stage, while any deviation from those during the project implementation, although possibly justifiable, is undesirable and reflects poor performance. For example, any request for change in the project specification once the project work commences will have to be compensated by time or cost compromises. Similarly, any slippage in the planned schedule of work often results, in practice, in one or more of the partiesâ deciding to reduce the scope/specification of the project work or outcome or, alternatively, in increased spending to make up for the delay and vice versa; but all with the aim to stay within the initial triple constraints.
The situation gets extremely complicated and paradoxical if other, equally justifiable and important key performance indicators (KPIs) such as environment, community, health and safety, future/longer-term opportunities for learning, and collaboration, are at play. These are often experienced in practice as being in direct conflict with the three objectives of successful project management (triple constraint of time, cost and quality, or specification). Perhaps ironically, this kind of thinking about successful achievement of project objectives is known in project management practice as the iron triangle, which not only encourages a very narrow approach to stringent project control, but also paradoxically and simultaneously exposes project control activities as inadequate. However, it is exactly this approach that underpins the majority of project management methodologies in combination with a widely accepted PLC model, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. The notion of triple constraint has become an iconic reminder of the roles and responsibilities of project managers corresponding to the implied deterministic, linear nature of the project. Throughout this report, the key postulates behind the PLC model will be revisited, compared, and contrasted with the proposition that will be emerging from our study.
Despite the efforts already invested in improving practitioners, knowledge of project management methodologies, processes, and procedures and in developing new ones, the performance of contemporary projects does not seem to have substantially improved (against the adopted criteria of efficiency), and the problems in project management practice persist. Controlling projects towards a successful outcome has been extremely difficult to achieve (Clegg, Pitsis, Rura-Polley & Marosszeky, 2002; Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2005) despite continuous innovation in contractual arrangements, the availability of ever more sophisticated project planning tools and techniques, and stringent IT/IS supported reporting systems and project monitoring methodologies.
The paradox of project management explained in the previous section, must not, in our view, be overlooked. It deserves further theoretical attention, including the possibilities offered by complexity thinking that go beyond the theoretical assumptions pervading the conventional project management knowledge base. These new possibilities may creatively challenge the prevailing (instrumental-systemic) views that an organization is a system that is designed to accomplish rational goals and, as such, it can exercise a form of control over its individual components in order to accomplish these goals, or that the âorganizationâ is an entity that exists over and against the individuals that comprise it (Stacey, 2001). This is also the dominant but unspoken basis to the overwhelming majority of management practice in commercial and public organizations, whether derived from scientific management or from the human relations perspective (Stacey, Griffin, & Shaw, 2000; Hodgson, 2002).
We now turn to the debate on project performance evaluation to illustrate these points further as well as their role in our study.
Project Evaluation Criteria: The Ongoing SuccessâFailure Debate
A widely accepted convention in the practice of organizations and, for that matter, of project networks, is founded in the assumption that a successfully managed project should deliver the specified outcome to the client, within agreed time and budget. In turn, projects are ultimately defined as undertakings which are initiated to achieve the stated objective (encompassing time, cost, and specification constraints), through an effective use of human and material resources. This assumption does not always stand up to the scrutiny of project reality and experiences in practice. The issues of ambiguity (and, frequently, of paradox) associated with qualifying a project as success or failure have attracted scholarly attention during the past decade (e.g., Atkinson, 1999; Clarke, 1999; Buchanan & Badham, 1999; Boddy & Paton, 2004) in addition to an ongoing debate exposed in the public domain, including the media. This concern is inseparable from the problems with defining and agreeing on key performance indicators among project parties, and from an ongoing wrestling with equivocality of project goals and difficulties with aligning project objectives and outcomes with organizational strategy (see Melgrati & Damiani 2002; Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Frame, 1994; Turner, 2008; Kharbanda & Pinto, 1996; De Wit, 1988).
A body of academic literature and growing evidence from practice evolve around the problem of how projects should be managed for their strategic and operational success, and what criteria should be used for evaluating and measuring project performance. A number of authors have been intrigued by the phenomenon of project failures (e.g., Belassi & Turkel 1996; Kharbanda & Pinto 1996; Kharbanda & Stallworthy 1983; Pinto & Slevin 1988), the ambiguity of criteria for measuring project success (Thomsett, 1980; Frame, 1994; Atkinson, 1999; Fincham, 2002; Boddy & Patton, 2004; Lim & Mohammed 1999, among others) and the interplay of human psychology, competence, and knowledge within project teams (Drummond, 1999; Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, & Rothengatter, 2003; Flyvbjerg et al., 2005; Boddy & Paton, 2004). As early as the 1980s, Thomsett (1980) insisted on the need for project management researchers to examine and understand the dynamics and diversity at t...
