Purpose -This paper seeks to address complexity in project management via an innovative course that focuses on systems thinking.Design/methodology/approach -Intuitions about systems thinking evident in everyday language are developed and applied to phases of the system development life cycle.Findings -Complexity in project management may be tamed by systems thinking. Surprisingly, project managers do not seem to use simple systems thinking tools even though these provide unique benefits in framing and solving problems that arise from multiple perspectives and relationships.Research limitations/implications -The findings are broadly conceptual. They introduce only some elements of a tertiary curriculum developed by the authors and certified by a major project management practitioner group.Practical implications -The findings are of value to educators, practitioners and researchers who seek a practical approach to integrating complexity theory into modern project management practices.Social implications -An individual's educational choices -and institutional policies -are now caught up in a complex dance of cause and effect that is difficult to understand. This research article investigates one educational response, which is to provide practical guidance for coordinated goal-directed activities (including policies, procedures and projects) in an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world.Originality/value -The approach of addressing complexity via a project management course certified by the Project Management Institute (PMI) is innovative, perhaps unique.

This paper considers those interpretations of action research that can be traced to Kurt Lewin at the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan, and the work in social ecology by Emery and Trist at the Tavistock Institute. It locates the logical basis of these interpretations in the philosophy of pragmatism, particularly as it relates to Peirce's inferential logic and inquiry system. Drawing on this argument, and on the significant developments in approaches to systemic thinking over the past 40-50 years, a normative set of criteria is established for action research. The paper concludes that both positivist science (which relates to closed systems thinking) and action research (which relates to open systems thinking) are essential to any complete scientific approach.

Scientific Methodology (SM) has long suited those who favour analytical and quantitative research in management. Thus the dilemma between the rigour and relevance of contemporary management research methods is fuelled by action researchers who keep wanting to contrast Action Research (AR) with SM. This paper presents a Western philosophical view on the development of belief systems and theory-based methods over time. It thus links the progressive and cumulative development of SM with the contemporary AR methodology. In doing this it presents a different point of view-that the traditions of SM and AR have much closer relationships than people often give them credit for.

Soft Systems Methodology is especially useful in diagnosing and addressing organizational problems and designing new systems in cultures that are characterised by pluralistic views and values. This paper demonstrates how SSM workshops in a large government agency resulted in a high level of creativity. SSM is then proposed as a methodology that could enhance group creativity in organizational design contexts.

No abstract