Monitoring the Performance of Complex Projects from Multiple Perspectives over Multiple Time Frames

When complex projects go wrong they can go horribly wrong with severe financial consequences. We are undertaking research to develop leading performance indicators for complex projects, metrics to provide early warning of potential difficulties. The assessment of success of complex projects can be made by a range of stakeholders over different time scales, against different levels of project results: the project’s outputs at the end of the project; the project’s outcomes in the months following project completion; and the project’s impact in the years following completion. We aim to identify leading performance indicators, which may include both success criteria and success factors, and which can be measured by the project team during project delivery to forecast success as assessed by key stakeholders in the days, months and years following the project. The hope is the leading performance indicators will act as alarm bells to show if a project is diverting from plan so early corrective action can be taken. It may be that different combinations of the leading performance indicators will be appropriate depending on the nature of project complexity. In this paper we develop a new model of project success, whereby success is assessed by different stakeholders over different time frames against different levels of project results. We then relate this to measurements that can be taken during project delivery. A methodology is described to evaluate the early parts of this model. Its implications and limitations are described. This paper describes work in progress.

Charting the system : the integrated master schedule as a multi-level and poly-temporal boundary object in complex projects

This paper investigates the use of visual artifacts to represent a complex adaptive system (CAS). The integrated master schedule (IMS) is one of those visuals widely used in complex projects for scheduling, budgeting, and project management. In this paper, we discuss how the IMS outperforms the traditional timelines and acts as a ‘multi-level and poly-temporal boundary object’ that visually represents the CAS. We report the findings of a case study project on the way the IMS mapped interactions, interdependencies, constraints and fractal patterns in a complex project. Finally, we discuss how the IMS was utilised as a complex boundary object by eliciting commitment and development of shared mental models, and facilitating negotiation through the layers of multiple interpretations from stakeholders.

Managing change in complex projects: configuration management, asset information and big data

As we enter an era of ‘big data’, asset information is becoming a deliverable of complex projects. Prior research suggests digital technologies enable rapid, flexible forms of project organizing. This research analyses practices of managing change in Airbus, CERN and Crossrail, through desk-based review, interviews, visits and a cross-case workshop. These organizations deliver complex projects, rely on digital technologies to manage large data-sets; and use configuration management, a systems engineering approach with mid-20th century origins, to establish and maintain integrity. In them, configuration management has become more, rather than less, important. Asset information is structured, with change managed through digital systems, using relatively hierarchical, asynchronous and sequential processes. The paper contributes by uncovering limits to flexibility in complex projects where integrity is important. Challenges of managing change are discussed, considering the evolving nature of configuration management; potential use of analytics on complex projects; and implications for research and practice.

PROJAM : the management of complex projects and programs

Challenges the existing normal science in project management with its limitations of high certainty in scope definition and develops a contingency based model for project / program management (PROJAM). The PROJAM concept is theoretically supported through the identification of eight inter related aspects - uncertainty, maturity, stakeholders, pareto, reward, transparency, partnering, and program management. The ideas presented represent a radical change to the eisting project management body of knowledge and expand the scope of project management to deal with complex projects / programs including organisational change, core function outsourcing (asset management) and IT hardware and software outsourcing.

Managing uncertainty to improve the cost performance of complex infrastructure projects

There has been a recent spate of high profile infrastructure cost overruns in Australia and internationally. This is just the tip of a longer-term and more deeply-seated problem with initial budget estimating practice, well recognised in both academic research and industry reviews: the problem of uncertainty. A case study of the Sydney Opera House is used to identify and illustrate the key causal factors and system dynamics of cost overruns. It is conventionally the role of risk management to deal with such uncertainty, but the type and extent of the uncertainty involved in complex projects is shown to render established risk management techniques ineffective. This paper considers a radical advance on current budget estimating practice which involves a particular approach to statistical modelling complemented by explicit training in estimating practice. The statistical modelling approach combines the probability management techniques of Savage, which operate on actual distributions of values rather than flawed representations of distributions, and the data pooling technique of Skitmore, where the size of the reference set is optimised. Estimating training employs particular calibration development methods pioneered by Hubbard, which reduce the bias of experts caused by over-confidence and improve the consistency of subjective decision-making. A new framework for initial budget estimating practice is developed based on the combined statistical and training methods, with each technique being explained and discussed.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition in development projects

New product development projects are experiencing increasing internal and external project complexity. Complexity leadership theory proposes that external complexity requires adaptive and enabling leadership, which facilitates opportunity recognition (OR). We ask whether internal complexity also requires OR for increased adaptability. We extend a model of EO and OR to conclude that internal complexity may require more careful OR. This means that leaders of technically or structurally complex projects need to evaluate opportunities more carefully than those in projects with external or technological complexity.

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.

The contribution of leadership attributes to large scale, complex project success

Mismanagement of large-scale, complex projects has resulted in spectacular failures, cost overruns, time blowouts, and stakeholder dissatisfaction. We focus discussion on the interaction of key management and leadership attributes which facilitate leaders’ adaptive behaviors. These behaviors should in turn influence adaptive team member behavior, stakeholder engagement and successful project outcomes, outputs and impacts. An understanding of this type of management will benefit from a perspective based in managerial and organizational cognition. The research question we explore is whether successful leaders of large-scale complex projects have an internal process leading to a display of administrative, adaptive, and enabling behaviors that foster adaptive processes and enabling behaviors within their teams and with external stakeholders. At the core of the model we propose interactions of key attributes, namely cognitive flexibility, affect, and emotional intelligence. The result of these cognitive-affective attribute interactions is leadership leading to enhanced likelihood of complex project success.

A multi-level model of leadership in complex project management

Management (or perceived mismanagement) of large-scale, complex projects poses special problems and often results in spectacular failures, cost overruns, time blowouts and stakeholder dissatisfaction. While traditional project management responds with increasingly administrative constraints, we argue that leaders of such projects also need to display adaptive and enabling behaviours to foster adaptive processes, such as opportunity recognition, which requires an interaction of cognitive and affective processes of individual, project, and team leader attributes and behaviours. At the core of this model we propose is an interaction of cognitive flexibility, affect and emotional intelligence. The result of this interaction is enhanced leader opportunity recognition that, in turn, facilitates multilevel outcomes.

Shifting meanings : The role of metaphors in collective meaning–making in complex project leadership

This paper examines the use of metaphors in collective meaning-making in the work of managers and leaders of megaprojects, drawing on interviews with thirty-three leaders of complex projects in a case study organisation responsible for the delivery of major acquisitions. Recognising the notion of both contextualised and decontextualised approaches to either seeking to elicit or project metaphors, the paper describes the various ways in practising project leaders describe their work and the synergies these metaphors have with the broader social discourse and theorisation around complexity and the language of complex adaptive systems. The paper presents our case study findings where we outline our typology of meta-metaphors describing project leaders’ multiple roles and our interpretation of the significance of these choices.

The challenges of managing complexity in projects : an Australian perspective

Project Management (PM) as an academic field is relatively new in Australian universities. Moreover, the field is distributed across four main areas: business (management), built environment and construction, engineering and more recently ICT (information systems). At an institutional level, with notable exceptions, there is little engagement between researchers working in those individual areas. Consequently, an initiative was launched in 2009 to create a network of PM researchers to build a disciplinary base for PM in Australia. The initiative took the form of a bi-annual forum. The first forum established the constituency and spread of PM research in Australia (Sense et al., 2011). This special issue of IJPM arose out of the second forum, held in 2012, that explored the notion of an Australian perspective on PM. At the forum, researchers were invited to collaborate to explore issues, methodological approaches, and theoretical positions underpinning their research and to answer the question: is there a distinctly Australian research agenda which responds to the current challenges of large and complex projects in our region? From a research point of view, it was abundantly clear at the forum that many of the issues facing Australian researchers are shared around the world. However, what emerged from the forum as the Australian perspective was a set of themes and research issues that dominate the Australia research agenda.

How does complex adaptive system theory inform innovation in complex project based organisations?

Innovation enables organisations to endure by responding to emergence and to improve efficiency. Innovation in a complex organisation can be difficult due to complexities contributing to slow decision-making. Complex projects fail due to an inability to respond to emergence which consumes finances and impacts on resources and organisational success. Therefore, for complex organisations to improve on performance and resilience, it would be advantageous to understand how to improve the management of innovation and thus, the ability to respond to emergence. The benefits to managers are an increase in the number of successful projects and improved productivity. This study will explore innovation management in a complex project based organisation. The contribution to the academic literature will be an in-depth, qualitative exploration of innovation in a complex project based organisation using a comparative case study approach.

Technical features of BIM servers for collaboration on building and construction projects

This paper reviews the technical features and requirements of Building Information Modelling (BIM)-servers as collaboration platforms for multi-disciplinary building and construction projects. Multi-disciplinary collaboration is the norm in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industries, especially in complex projects. The widespread adoption of object-oriented Computer-aided Design (CAD) tools that support BIM capabilities has generated greater interest in model based exchange of information across disciplines and consultants who have traditionally collaborated through the frequent exchange of 2D drawings and documents. BIM-servers are collaboration platforms that are expected to provide the technical capability to support this inter-disciplinary exchange of 3D models in addition to intelligent management of the related drawings, documents and other forms of data. Since BIM-servers are a recent technical development a review of their technical features can help further development. This paper serves this objective by providing a review of the technical features and requirements for using BIM-servers as multi-disciplinary collaboration platforms on building and construction projects. The methodologies include focus group interviews (FIGs) with representatives from the diverse AEC disciplines, a case study on a state-of-the-art BIM-server, and a critical review and analysis of current collaboration platforms that are available to the AEC industries. This paper concludes that greater emphasis should be placed on supporting technical requirements to facilitate technology management and implementation across disciplines. Their implications for user-centric technology development in design and construction industry are also discussed.