A model of project complexity : distinguishing dimensions of complexity from severity

There is increasing agreement that understanding complexity is important for project management because of difficulties associated with decision-making and goal attainment which appear to stem from complexity. However the current operational definitions of complex projects, based upon size and budget, have been challenged and questions have been raised about how complexity can be measured in a robust manner that takes account of structural, dynamic and interaction elements. Thematic analysis of data from 25 in-depth interviews of project managers involved with complex projects, together with an exploration of the literature reveals a wide range of factors that may contribute to project complexity. We argue that these factors contributing to project complexity may define in terms of dimensions, or source characteristics, which are in turn subject to a range of severity factors. In addition to investigating definitions and models of complexity from the literature and in the field, this study also explores the problematic issues of ‘measuring’ or assessing complexity. A research agenda is proposed to further the investigation of phenomena reported in this initial study.

Managing Process Model Complexity - Part I: Concrete Syntax

While Business Process Management (BPM) is an established discipline, the increased adoption of BPM technology in recent years has introduced new challenges. One challenge concerns dealing with process model complexity in order to improve the understanding of a process model by stakeholders and process analysts. Features for dealing with this complexity can be classified in two categories: 1) those that are solely concerned with the appearance of the model, and 2) those that in essence change the structure of the model. In this paper we focus on the former category and present a collection of patterns that generalize and conceptualize various existing features. The paper concludes with a detailed analysis of the degree of support of a number of state-of-the-art languages and language implementations for these patterns.

The managerial benefits of tax compliance: perception by small business taxpayers

Research undertaken in 2006 – 2007 investigated the perception of managerial benefits of tax compliance by small business taxpayers. Survey data from a sample of 300 small business taxpayers and responses to semi-structured interviews of owner managers were examined. The study found that a majority of small business taxpayers recognised that tax compliance activities led to better record keeping and to an improved knowledge of their financial affairs. However, there seemed to be a general reluctance by respondents to accept the idea that benefits could be derived as a result of complying with tax. The findings of this study are important as it is the first research that systematically investigated managerial benefits and their perception by small business taxpayers in Australia.

Tax morale and direct democracy

This paper analyses the impact of direct democracy on tax morale in Switzerland, a country where participation rights strongly vary across different cantons, using survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 1998. The findings suggest that direct democratic rights have a significantly positive effect on tax morale.

Complexity and learning behaviors in product innovation

Successful product innovation and the ability of companies to continuously improve their innovation processes are rapidly becoming essential requirements for competitive advantage and long-term growth in both manufacturing and service industries. It is now recognized that companies must develop innovation capabilities across all stages of the product development, manufacture, and distribution cycle. These Continuous Product Innovation (CPI) capabilities are closely associated with a company’s knowledge management systems and processes. Companies must develop mechanisms to continuously improve these capabilities over time. Using results of an international survey on CPI practices, sets of companies are identified by similarities in specific contingencies related to their complexity of product, process, technological, and customer interface. Differences between the learning behaviors found present in the company groups and in the levers used to develop and support these behaviors are identified and discussed. This paper also discusses appropriate mechanisms for firms with similar complexities, and some approaches they can use to improve their organizational learning and product innovation.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2007-08

Each year, The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (CPNS) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) collects and analyses statistics on the amount and extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australians in their individual income tax returns to deductible gift recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian individual taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007. This information has been extracted mainly from the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) publication Taxation Statistics 2006-07. The 2006-07 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available. It represents information in tax returns for the 2006-07 year processed by the ATO as at 31 October 2008. This study uses information based on published ATO material and represents only the extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian taxpayers to DGRs at Item D9 Gifts or Donations in their individual income tax returns for the 2006-07 income year. The data does not include corporate taxpayers. Expenses such as raffles, sponsorships, fundraising purchases (e.g., sweets, tea towels, special events) or volunteering are generally not deductible as „gifts‟. The Giving Australia Report used a more liberal definition of gift to arrive at an estimated total of giving at $11 billion for 2005 (excluding Tsunami giving of $300 million). The $11 billion total comprised $5.7 billion from adult Australians, $2 billion from charity gambling or special events and $3.3 billion from business sources.