Comparing Project Complexity across Different Industry Sectors

Abstract

Increasing complexity of projects is mentioned as one of the reasons for project failure—still. This paper presents a comparative research to investigate how project complexity was perceived by project practitioners in different industry sectors. Five sectors were included: process industry, construction industry, ICT, high-tech product development, and food processing industry. In total, more than 140 projects were included in the research, hence providing a broad view on Dutch project practice. From the complexity assessments, it is concluded that only one complexity element was present in the top complexity elements of projects across the five sectors: the high project schedule drive. The variety of external stakeholders’ perspectives, a lack of resources and skills availability, and interference with existing site were found in the top lists of three sectors. It was concluded that a framework to grasp project complexity could support the management of complex projects by creating awareness for the (expected) complexities. Further research could be focused on the subjective character of complexity as well as on the application of cross-sector learning, since this research does show similarities between large technical projects in different sectors.

Measuring Information Systems Project Complexity: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach

“…Despite this growth, Bakhshi et al [29] showed that IS project complexity only represents 8% of project complexity research dated to 2015. Furthermore, Bosch-Rekveldt et al [4] was arguably not able to fully articulate IS project complexity as these projects only represented 5.5% (8/144 projects) of their research sample.…”

“…Projects however continue to perform poorly and fail to meet their goals and realise organisational benefits [1,21]. e extant literature contends that a key reason for projects failing is complexity [2][3][4][5].…”

“…e Standish Group [1] showed that between 2013 and 2017, information systems (IS) projects fluctuated between a 17% and 14% success rate in terms of high customer satisfaction and high return on value to organisations. e extant literature contends that as a key reason for this is complexity [2][3][4][5]. However, the perennial argument of poor project performance and success rates is not the only manifestation of complexity.…”

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…”