A structural equation modeling approach to examine the relationship between complexity factors of a project and the merits of project manager

Abstract

A structural equation modeling approach to examine the relationship between complexity factors of a project and the merits of project manager Nowadays, projects have become so widespread in the world that individuals and organizations are always involved in a variety of them. Recent advances in technology and fundamental changes in most scientific disciplines have had an essential impact on projects, and have made the nature and environmental conditions governing them to become more complex than before. With increasing complexity, the amount of information needed for project management increases. In general, the increasing complexity of projects is a growing source of project risks. It has been recognized that complexity affects the performance of a project and will be effective in its success. In this context, the traditional principles and practices of project management are no longer able to control the emerging complexity of projects. In addition, one of the key factors for the success of the projects is the appropriateness of the project manager's assignment. Many studies have been carried out in identifying the suitability criteria of the project manager and the methods of selecting the project manager. In most of these studies, the amount and type of complexity of the project are mentioned as factors influencing the design of an appropriate project manager. However, there has not yet been a specific approach for selecting the project manager with regard to the complexity of the project. Therefore, in this research, we try to investigate the relationship between the complexity of the project and the merits of the project manager by applying a structural equation modeling approach.

Socio-Technical and Political Complexities: Findings from Two Case Studies of Large IT Project-Based Organizations

“…This is specifically important in developing leverage mechanisms and complex project management methodologies, to reduce project complexity and mitigate negative impacts on project success. For example, variety (1) manifests itself in the multiplicity of technologies driven by the number of distributed teams and resulting stakeholder conflicts requiring complex project methodologies to be applied to tackle complexity, such as, for example, Checkland or Rich Picture methodologies; specific context (2) in the observed cases suggests that there is an need to make provisions in the traditional ways of doing things to be able to cope with the fast pace changes in complex projects. The need for improving transparency (3) calls for adopting traditional process-driven or Agile Project Control Methodologies, such as Requirement Traceability Matrix, or User Stories.…”

“…Industrial revolutions, with the fourth one happening in our era, make the nature of projects and the prevailing environmental conditions more complex [1,2]. Complexity hampers timely project delivery, stakeholder satisfaction, value delivery, and the realization of benefits.…”

Complexity Factors In Mega Projects: A Literature Review

“…Many external stakeholders participate in mega projects, including but not limited to investors, contractors, governments and suppliers, which will cause social conflicts as a cause of complexity to be occurred. https://doi.org/10.15405/epms.2019.12.6 Corresponding Author: Mohammad Mohseni Selection and peer-review under & Hertogh, 2018;Callegari, Szklo, & Schaeffer, 2018;Dao et al, 2016;Eriksson et al, 2017;Forozandeh, Ebrahim, & Makui, 2018;Hartono, 2018;He, Luo, Hu, & Chan, 2015;Hu et al, 2015;Abdou et al, 2016;Kuhn, Schaefer, & Otten, 2018;Lessard, Sakhrani, & Miller, 2014;Makui, Zadeh, Bagherpour, & Jabbarzadeh, 2018;Maylor & Turner, 2017;Mikkelsen, 2018;Mirza & Ehsan, 2017;Mok, Shen, & Yang, 2015;Mozaffari, Fazli, & Sedaghat-Seresht, 2012;Nguyen et al, Ambiguity in the domain the dynamics of work activities 5 (Bakhshi et al, 2016;Bjorvatn & Wald 2018;Bosch-Rekveldt et al, 2018;Callegari et al, 2018;Dao et al 2016;Eriksson et al 2017;Forozandeh et al, 2018;Habibi, Barzinpour, & Sadjadi, 2018;Hartono 2018;He et al, 2015;Invernizzi, Locatelli, Gronqvis, & Brookes, 2019;Abdou et al, 2016;Kuhn et al, 2018;Lehtinen, Peltokorpi, & Artto, 2019;…”

“…Number of specializations involved in the project, 4 (Bjorvatn & Wald 2018;Bosch-Rekveldt et al, 2018;Callegari et al, 2018;Dao et al, 2016;Eriksson et al, 2017;Forozandeh et al, 2018;Habibi et al, 2018;Hartono, 2018;He et al, 2015;Hu et al, 2015;Abdou et al, 2016;Kuhn et al, 2018;Lessard et al, 2014;Li et al, 2018;Makui et al, 2018;Maylor & Turner, 2017;Mirza & Ehsan, 2017;Mok et al, 2015;Mozaffari et al, 2012;Nachbagauer & Schirl-Boeck, 2019;Nguyen et al, 2015;Qazi et https://doi.org/10.15405/epms.2019.12.6 Corresponding Author: Mohammad Mohseni Selection and peer-review under 14 al., 2016;Qiu et al, 2019;Rolstadås & Schiefloe 2017;Senescu et al, 2013;Shahhossein et al, 2017;Sheffield et al, 2012;Shi et al 2018;Silva, Akchurin, & Bebbington, 2018;Sridarran et al, 2017;Turner & Xue, 2018;Zhu & Mostafavi, 2017) Common vision of the project team, 3…”