Mo DEST
Mo DEST
Mo DEST
ABSTRACT ■ INTRODUCTION ■
P
This article reports an investigation into project rojects are key processes in modern operations. Although project
managers’ perceptions of managerial complexity. management is often relegated to a single discreet chapter in opera-
Based on a multistage empirical study, tions management textbooks (e.g., Slack, Chambers, Johnston, &
elements of “what makes a project complex to Betts, 2005), the implications of the performance of an organiza-
manage” were identified and classified under tion’s projects stretch way beyond such limited consideration. Much
the dimensions of mission, organization, deliv- operational work is carried out as projects (e.g., client projects, new product
ery, stakeholder, or team—the MODeST model. development) and organizational change initiatives. As more work is carried
Further, the data showed that these elements out through projects, it becomes increasingly necessary that the basis of the
had both structural and dynamic qualities and practices being employed is subject to critique. One criticism of currently
that the elements are interdependent. Project accepted practices is the lack of contingency (Hayes, 2002; Maylor, 2001) and
managers are shown to be embedded in this an almost Tayloristic “one-size-fits-all” approach to management. Our
complexity. The practical implications of the research problem begins with a major input to this contingency: obtaining
research include the ability to describe mana- an understanding of what makes projects complex or difficult to manage.
gerial complexity in a manner consistent with Several attempts to define project complexity have appeared in the literature
the actuality of the lived project environment. (e.g., Shenhar, 2001; Xia & Lee, 2004), but we believe these to be inconsistent
This provides a framework for the description of with the diversity of usage of the term in organizations today and only partially
the level of managerial challenge or difficulty, helpful in understanding the associated task of managing these activities.
which will allow the assessment of individual The aim of this article, therefore, is to develop a grounded model of man-
and organizational responses to it in the future. agerial complexity. Our empirical findings suggest that in contrast to the
Further, the opportunity exists for active man- literature, which largely defines complexity in structural terms, it has a
agement of complexity. bipartite nature, having both structural (that is, relatively stable qualities)
and also important dynamic qualities.
This development has implications for examining contingency, manage-
KEYWORDS: projects; managerial
ment response, and effectiveness, and thereby the opportunity to contribute
complexity; structural; dynamic; MODeST;
to theory and practice. Practice in this instance refers not only to the work of
contextualization
practitioners but also to the contents of the bodies of knowledge.1
Background
An increasing proportion of work is being undertaken as projects (Midler,
1995; Turner & Muller, 2003). Siemens recently estimated that over 50% of all
their value-adding activity is carried out in projects (The Economist Group,
2005). This fact has been coupled with a burgeoning in the membership and
influence of professional institutes; the Project Management Institute (PMI)
Project Management Journal, Vol. 39, is now the world’s largest professional association. As Grabher (2004, p. 1491)
Supplement, S15–S26 notes, “Projects are cool, it seems.” However, managing projects is
© 2008 by the Project Management Institute problematic. Projects regularly fail to meet their objectives (expressed in
Published online in Wiley InterScience
1 Descriptors of accepted practice used as certification baselines by the major project management professional
(www.interscience.wiley.com) associations, including the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the Association of Project Management
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20057 (APM) in the United Kingdom.
their simplest terms)—time, cost, and For management research, a num- inconsistent with the contextual diver-
quality/scope (e.g., Holmes, 2001; ber of features of this process are of sity that managers face. Indeed, there
KPMG, 2002; Standish Group, 2001)— interest. The current levels of failure appears to be much greater value in
and such failure has a significant occur despite having numerous project considering projects as complex adap-
impact for practitioners and their management methodologies and “bod- tive systems (e.g., Harkema, 2003).
employers. The practice of managing ies of knowledge” (e.g., Association for
projects is, therefore, of significant Project Management [APM], 2005; Complexity in Projects
interest to organizations. Office of Government Commerce The Random House Webster’s College
Projects are nominally finite activi- [OGC], 2005; PMI, 2004). These contain Dictionary says that complex means
ties, with low levels of repetition, carried what is deemed to be accepted practice “composed of many interconnecting
out by temporary organizations (Lundin and represent a strong dominant para- parts” and complicated means “com-
& Soderholm, 1995). The scope of digm. Bodies of knowledge are not posed of many elaborate interconnect-
such work is extensive. Moreover, present in many other areas of organi- ing parts.” The subtle distinction
the term “project” has broadened zational activity, and so their role and between complex and complicated
through projectification (Midler, 1995; contribution to practice are phenome- is the nature of the relationships
Whittington, Pettigrew, Peck, Fenton, & na worth investigating. between the parts. A wristwatch has
Conyon, 1999; Winch, 1994); emergence Another feature is the lack of many interconnected parts and is
of service delivery projects (Levene contingency that exists within this indeed a complicated artifact but it
et al., 2002); organizational change dominant paradigm. In particular, little is not complex. Luoma (2006) notes
(Pettigrew, 1998); and the phenomenon consideration is given to the manage- that complex is derived from the Latin
of programification (Maylor, Brady, ment context and, in particular, to the plexus, meaning braided together. In a
Cooke-Davies, & Hodgson, 2006). complexity of the management task. It complex system, the different elements
Project-based organizations (for is clear that there is a need to better interact and produce outcomes that are
instance, prevalent in consulting, IT, and understand this context (Grabher, nonlinear and unpredictable. It may be
construction) deliver much of their rev- 2004; Shenhar, 2001). The opportunity possible to recognize qualitative pat-
enue earning through nonrepetitive exists to examine the nature of the terns of behavior, but complex systems
operations. Even where the prevalent knowledge provided to practitioners are not amenable to treatment by tradi-
activity in an organization is high- (e.g., the content of the bodies of tional systems analysis where regularity,
volume, low-variety work (manufacturing knowledge) and to understand what we separability of elements, and clear
or service), lower-volume, higher- will argue is a key driver for contin- cause-and-effect relationships are
variety activities will be evident in new gency: the complexity of the task of assumed. Further, a complex system
product development, process improve- managing the project. has path dependence and is highly sen-
ment, organizational change, and other Project management is an emerg- sitive to initial conditions. Thus, any
vital processes. In some sources, proj- ing discipline in business and manage- project takes place in an historical con-
ects are defined in terms of their ment (by the criteria of Fabian, 2000). text and its starting conditions (e.g., the
uniqueness (e.g., Project Management However, as a subject, it is problematic: state of existing relationships between
Institute [PMI], 2004). While the activity as described previously, much of the lit- stakeholders, the trust between project
may be unique, the process that is fol- erature would best be defined as team members) cannot be calibrated
lowed will often have a higher degree of accepted practice rather than best precisely to be able to make reliable
commonality with what has been done practice; it is highly prescriptive and predictions.
before (Davies & Brady, 2000). frequently ignores context (Maylor, In Table 1, definitions of project com-
The management of such processes 2001); there is a lack of theory building plexity adopted in the project manage-
is characterized by managers having to research (Turner, 1993); it is inconsis- ment literature are presented. Maylor
cope with a potentially complex array tent methodologically with recognized (2003), in an attempt to produce a work-
of tasks and uncertainty as to their per- business and management disciplines ing model, synthesized complexity as
formance (e.g., duration). There are (Meredith, 2002); and what theory is comprising three factors: organizational
technical or content aspects of this claimed to exist is obsolete (Koskela & complexity (the number of people,
activity (e.g., managing the technology Howell, 2002). Further, the project departments, organizations, locations,
in new product development) along- management literature is highly nor- nationalities, languages, and time zones
side the business process. It is gaining a mative (e.g., Sydow, Lindkvist, & involved, level of organizational buy-in,
better understanding of the task of the DeFillippi, 2004). Indeed, there is a authority structure), resource complexi-
project manager that is of interest to prevalence of a highly Tayloristic one- ty (the scale of the project, often indicated
this article. best-way approach. This approach is by the size of the budget), and technical
complexity (the level of novelty of any Projects are socially constructed (Lundin of knowledge identified. However, in
technology, system, or interface, and & Soderholm, 1995) and definitions of order to determine or assess the
uncertainty about the process or the complexity should reflect this, by includ- response to a level of complexity, a good
requirements). Although this model has ing social and technical dynamics. understanding of what is being treated
proved useful in establishing the concept A consistent theme from the project as the independent variable is required
in practice, in use it was evident that management complexity literature is before the implications for the depend-
organizations were finding other factors that the various definitions lack ent variable can be established.
that increased the complexity of the grounding; indeed, Xia and Lee (2004)
projects they carried out. Typical among state that “there are no well-defined Methodology
these other factors (albeit observed frameworks in the literature that can be The objective of this study was to
anecdotally) was the effect of uncertain- used to systematically describe the key answer the research question: What
ty (known unknowns and unknown dimensions and characteristics of makes a project complex to manage?
unknowns). This is consistent with the [project] complexity” (p. 71). We further The research methodology seeks to sur-
findings of Turner and Cochrane (1993) argue that this is only one element of face the subjective views of project
and Williams (1999). Specifically, uncer- managerial complexity—hence our managers, to explore how they perceive
tainty may be in the form of ill-defined research question: What makes proj- and construct their notions of com-
goals or methods or emergent uncer- ects complex to manage? plexity around their tasks of “manag-
tainty in the project, for instance due to This lack of conceptualization pro- ing.” The research design involved two
changes in customer requirements or vides an opportunity for theory build- stages: (1) exploratory workshops were
changes in personnel. This is similarly ing, with a view to understanding what held with in-company small groups to
reflected in the information systems (IS) might constitute an appropriate orga- establish project complexity themes
literature (e.g., Schmidt, Lyytinen, Keil, & nizational response to managerial and to test the data collection method,
Cule, 2001). Complexity, it seems, is not a complexity. With this understanding and (2) a large-scale workshop was
static entity. comes the possibility of influencing conducted at a regional meeting
Cicmil and Marshall (2005) further practice. For instance, for a given proj- attended by more than 100 project
describe this evolutionary nature of ect, could the complexity be addressed managers. There was no overlap in the
complexity in a construction process, in an effort to manage business risk, or membership of these groups.
with the processes of social interaction be used to determine the level of sys- The first-stage workshops were car-
interfacing with the persisting ambiguity tematization that is required? These are ried out with small groups of project
in the context of flux and change. not currently subjects within the bodies managers (four to seven at a time in
single organizations). The objectives At this stage, it appeared that there making here is consistent with Strauss
were threefold: (1) to develop and test a was more to uncover. Recordings of and Corbin (1999), the process stop-
data collection method that would gen- the workshops (audio and/or extensive ping after open coding and classifica-
erate a comprehensive set of concepts notations taken during the workshops) tion had taken place.
of complexity, (2) to provide a process were used to check the meaning during The results generated 160 concepts.
of sensitization to managers’ percep- the process of transferring the workshop These confirmed and elaborated
tions of the effects of such complexity, data into research notes. It was desired the original concepts identified in stage
and (3) to determine if this was indeed to maintain an open theoretical per- one and provided 89 new ones. A total
an investigation that was likely to spective on the main issue, and of 128 responses were incorporated
yield any useful theoretical insight. anything that was heard or seen that into the analysis, and while not pre-
Exploratory workshops were carried might be even remotely relevant was cluding the discovery of further ele-
out at three different organizations. captured. At this stage, the argument for ments (e.g., generated by the specific
This was a purposive sample, consis- retaining any concept did not have to be conditions found in one industry or
tent with an exploratory phase of made; it simply had to be recorded (con- sector), an initial model of managerial
research, and providing a sample that sistent with Huxham & Vangen, 2000). complexity for projects, which will be
offered diversity on the projects With 71 concepts at this stage, the carried forward for further testing and
undertaken (Dobbert, 1982). The organ- method for running the workshops was refinement, was yielded.
izations were drawn from the telecom- now sufficiently robust, and the
munications sector (major global research moved to stage two to allow a Results
corporation), the defense sector (major greater number of responses to be The first finding emerging from the
provider of scientific services), and included. A group of 107 project man- data is that basic or structural complex-
a regional transport infrastructure agers at a regional meeting of a profes- ity is multifaceted and comprises con-
provider. For each organization, a short sional project management association cepts as shown in Figure 1. These have
written brief of the purpose of the provided the responses. The results been represented as a tree structure.
workshop was provided, and personal were gathered in the same way, but Structural complexity gives a static, or
contacts of the authors were used to with groups of eight to ten preparing snapshot, view of the project and its
secure participation and involvement of their concepts and classifications. Each environment, comprising five dimen-
individuals. Individual attendees were group presented their findings in ple- sions: mission, organization, delivery,
selected on the basis that they were or nary, thus allowing the researchers to stakeholders, and team. In Figures 2–6,
had been in the role of project manager. carry out a plausibility check (Whyte, these categories are expanded and
Within the workshop, the process 1978) of any terms that had not been show the detailed concepts that
began with an introduction. Partici- included previously. emerged from the study. To avoid mak-
pants were then provided with pens The result of the stage 2 workshop ing a judgment about the project com-
and Post-it® Notes and asked to write confirmed the 71 initial concepts and, plexity factors (e.g., this factor is good,
down what made managing a project when analyzed, provided further con- this one is bad), and to provide consis-
complex in their experience. No further cepts and clarification of the multiple tent presentation of the data, the
grounding in the terminology was pro- dimensions of those concepts. The factors are phrased as questions.
vided. The participants initially worked process of capturing these concepts In coding the concepts, it was noted
in silence, then once the personal lists ensured that the voice of the respon- that a concept often has a profile of its
were exhausted, they worked in groups, dents was not obscured, and where impact on the complexity and out-
initially describing and then grouping alternative meanings were possible, comes of the project. Many of the
concepts with common themes, organ- these were explored. Following the responses contained expressions of
ized hierarchically (this is consistent recording of the raw concepts, the clas- extremes of what can be regarded as a
with other workshop methodologies, sifications provided in the workshops continuum for each variable—for
such as Bossert [1991]). The concepts were examined to determine their abil- instance, “lack of senior management
and the categories provided were both ity to reduce the data effectively. The support” was considered to be a prob-
recorded. classifications presented here provided lem factor for projects, as was “interfer-
In the first workshop, 39 concepts a best fit with the overall data set (con- ence by senior management.” Thus, as
were generated, which were classified sistent with Kolb, Rubin, & MacIntyre, a first approximation, this profile can
into 8 categories. In the second 1984) and were generated by active be stated as “the right amount of a fac-
workshop, a further 19 concepts were experimentation as part of the research tor is beneficial but too much or too
identified, and in the last of these initial process, involving both researchers in little increases the level of complexity
explorations, a further 13 were generated. much iteration. The process of sense that project managers experience.”
Constraints
Mission
Objectives Uncertainty
• Is there a clear vision for the • Is the timescale realistic? *
project? *** • Are the implications and side effects
• Are the business case, goals, success understood?
criteria clear? *** • Is there a large number of
• Are project goals aligned with the unknowns? *
organization’s strategy? • Have the assumptions been tested?
• Are there measures for the success • Is there a large solution space? *
criteria? • Are there many ways of achieving the
• Are the requirements clear? solution?
• Is the scope of the project clearly • Is there a high degree of urgency?
defined? • Is the budget defined?
• Are there significant intangible
Scale benefits?
• Large no. of deliverables? • Are there interdependencies between
• Long timescale? ** projects? ***
• Large no. of resources? ** • Are there competing priorities
• High value (budget)? * between projects? ***
• High profile (e.g., strategic, • Are there many interdependencies
controversial)? within project?
• Broad scope (e.g., product for a • Are there multiple technology
global marketplace)? interfaces (hardware, software)?
• Is the product aimed at a new market?
Constraints • Is product highly customized? *
• Confidentiality (e.g., IP)? • Does the project involve new
• Security? * technology? ***
• Health and Safety? * • Has the project been done before
• Legislative, compliance? * (degree of novelty)? ***
Note. *Concept appears three to four times in the data. **Concept appears five to eight times in the data.
***Concept appears more than nine times in the data.
Organization
Note. *Concept appears three to four times in the data. **Concept appears five to eight times in
the data. ***Concept appears more than nine times in the data.
This is represented by a U curve, as management methodology (PMM) A further aspect of complexity was
shown in Figure 7. used. Even within dimensions, there is seen to arise from the dynamics of indi-
MODeST provides a grounded interaction complexity—for instance, vidual structural elements being com-
structural model of managerial com- in interdependencies and relationships pounded by interactions with other
plexity. However, a consistent and between suppliers and other external structural and dynamic elements. For
repeated theme from practitioners was stakeholders in a project. instance, changes in the organization
the interaction between the concepts The language used by the respon- in which a project was being conducted
that make up this model. It was dents indicated that the elements of through restructuring provided a com-
described as “a multiplicative effect” of structural complexity are either an ini- plexity in itself but had a dynamic
many concepts on the overall picture tial condition or an element with, at interaction with external stakeholders,
for practitioners. Thus, the structural best, some temporary stability. Many resources, and decision making/gover-
elements of the project complexity respondents described a further set of nance.
model should be thought of as interde- elements that were identical in nature to Lastly, there was a category of data
pendent, and it is the interconnections the structural set but that involved that has not been covered so far. In
that give rise to complexity beyond the change. For instance “organizational answer to the question “What makes a
individual structural dimensions. A structure” was a clear influence on com- project complex to manage?” a number
second part of complexity revealed by plexity; however, many respondents of workshop participants recognized
the data, therefore, is the interaction noted that “organizational changes dur- their own roles in this process—for
effects between the elements of struc- ing project” also provided another ele- instance, stating “not breaking down
tural complexity. For instance, it was ment. Further analysis showed that for a project sufficiently” or “failure to
clear from the data that external stake- every structural element there is a corre- recognize activity interdependencies.”
holders had an impact on the way that sponding dynamic element. Indeed, regarding the individual con-
a project was managed, expressed in Table 2 shows the MODeST model cepts shown in Figures 2–6, the project
terms used here as interaction effects including examples of both structural manager has an impact on many of
between elements of the level of stake- and dynamic elements of managerial these by their considerations and
holder involvement and the project complexity. actions—for instance, with the issue of
Process Resources
Note. *Concept appears three to four times in the data. ***Concept appears more than nine times in the data.
Stakeholders
Key stakeholders
Relationship basis • Are unions involved? Interdependencies
• Is the relationship basis of • Is there senior • Are there interdependencies
project with stakeholders management support? ** between stakeholders (e.g.,
contractual? • Is there a clear sponsor? between suppliers) **
Note. *Concept appears three to four times in the data. **Concept appears five to eight times in the data. ***Concept appears more than nine times
in the data.
stakeholder analysis shown in Figure 5, enue-generating activities and orga- extensive construct than previously
the question is raised: “Are there any nizational change. There are many described. As a result, it does question
unidentified stakeholders?” Given that well-established methodologies for how appropriate the bodies of knowl-
project management has some (if not managing projects (bodies of knowl- edge and accepted practice are to deal
the main) responsibility for stakeholder edge, PRINCE2). These are poor at deal- with this extended model of complexi-
management, the project manager is a ing with variations in the context in ty, in particular the dynamic aspects.
key actor and is embedded within the which they are applied. Complexity was In structural complexity terms, the
conceptualization of the complexity of identified as a key contextual element data identified stakeholders as a major
their projects rather than an external where the definitions used in its discus- dimension contributing to project
observer of the project. This finding sion appeared inconsistent with the complexity. Adapting Freeman (1984,
is not surprising and indeed suggests actuality described by practitioners. p. 46) and Mitroff and Linstone (1993,
that many of the elements of While some organizations do have their p. 141), we have used the term stake-
managerial complexity can themselves own methods for assessing project holder to cover “any individual, group,
be managed. complexity (along the lines of Maylor, organization, or institution that can
2003), these were noted to be deficient affect or is affected by the achievement
Implications by not having considered the extent of of the project’s process or objectives.”
The point of departure for this article the nature of complexity, and its Indeed, from an organizational theory
was the identification of the ubiquity of dynamic elements in particular. perspective, a project can be seen as
the project as an organizational form. Specifically, the data have shown that being constituted from the entire set of
Projects are important both for rev- managerial complexity is a far more relationships it has with itself and with
challenges presented by all the relevant but of no more than 30 days. This adap- rial task can be more precisely
dimensions of managerial complexity tive process allows the project team to defined. The potential exists for the
for that project. explore alternative paths and for the frameworks to be developed to allow
Finally, a recurring theme in the requirements to emerge from a collabo- this to happen.
data is the dynamics of complexity. ration of developer and user. Particularly Areas for further research include:
Although change is an inevitable part in turbulent business environments, the • refining the concepts in Figures 2–6
of project work, the data show that scale adaptive approach to software project and highlighting which are the key
of change and frequency of change are management is gaining in popularity drivers in complexity as perceived by
important factors in what makes a proj- and has been applied more generally to project managers;
ect complex to manage. Traditionally, project management (Highsmith, 2004). • determining whether a quantification
the dynamic elements of projects are This implicit acceptance of the dynamic of complexity is feasible;
managed through processes such as and interdependent character of ele- • exploring the nature of the key con-
ongoing risk management, configura- ments of complexity is consistent with cepts further to determine the range
tion management, and change control the expanded model of managerial of influences on overall complexity
(e.g., OGC, 2005; PMI, 2004). However, complexity proposed here. and whether the U curve of Figure 7 is
our data show that the nature of change generalizable;
considered by the existing approaches Summary and Conclusions • exploring the dynamic relationships
is limited and that such programmatic The data presented in this article have between the three dimensions of
responses may be inappropriate. The challenged the current limitations of complexity (project, organization,
data suggest that this consideration is one key aspect of project processes, stakeholders), possibly using coevolu-
limited and that the interactions of such what makes projects complex or diffi- tionary theory (Kauffman, 1993);
change with other changes and other cult to manage. Managerial complexity • exploring the possibility of managing
structural elements cause further com- is seen to have a wide and diverse set of complexity;
plexity. Such a challenge to existing meanings. This has demonstrated that • reframing the role of the project man-
practice is also demonstrated by Eden the existing interpretations of complex- ager as embedded participant and
et al. (2000). They showed that changes ity in the project environment have considering management strategies
may elicit managerial responses that, been partial at best. in a complex environment;
although consistent with accepted prac- The MODeST model shows what • defining project success and failure in
tice, exacerbated issues in the form of a makes a project complex to manage, and a complex environment (going beyond
“positive feedback” loop. both dynamic and interactive elements time, cost, and functionality to a
Such dissatisfaction with traditional of complexity have been identified. broader notion of project as interven-
requirements engineering and com- From a practical perspective, tion in a complex environment); and
mand-and-control project management the findings provide a framework to • investigating how the bodies of
strategies has led to an interest in agile challenge the existing dominant knowledge are made intelligently con-
project management approaches. paradigms—accepted practices and tingent using complexity as a key vari-
Agility has been defined as “the ability the bodies of knowledge. They are able for determining the nature of
to create and respond to change” shown to be partial in their ability to that contingency. ■
(Highsmith & Cockburn, 2001), a defini- deal with complexity, focusing on one
tion that reflects the idea of a project as element only of this construct. In par- References
agent for change rather than passive ser- ticular, the conceptualization of stake- Association for Project Management.
vant of the organization (and supports holder management, manager and (2005). Project management body of
the idea of embedded action). Software team selection, and dynamism are inad- knowledge. High Wycombe, UK:
development projects have been at the equate. Agile and related approaches to Association for Project Management.
forefront of the agile movement managing projects appear to be consis-
Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of
and reflected in methods such as tent with the expanded model of com-
project complexity: A review.
extreme programming (XP) and Scrum plexity proposed here.
International Journal of Project
(Highsmith, 2002). In agile projects, the There are considerable implica-
Management, 14(4), 201–204.
focus is on delivering working function- tions for teaching here. The notion of
ality rather than delivering against proj- one-size-fits-all has been rejected in Bossert, J. L. (1991). Quality function
ect plan tasks. Rather than plan the various competency models, and we deployment: A practitioner’s approach.
entire project, a vision is set and plan- see that there is considerable poten- Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
ning is conducted in intense microcy- tial for more targeted educational Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005).
cles, often as short as a week in duration efforts if the difficulty of the manage- Insights into collaboration at the
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R., International Journal of Project University of Bath. He worked in information sys-
& Betts, D. (2005). Operations manage- Management, 11, 269–273. tems development in industry for 15 years, dur-
ment. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall. Winch, G. (1994). Managing produc- ing which time he was employed by a
The Standish Group. (2001). The tion: Engineering change and stability. large US software firm and as a consultant. In
chaos report. Boston: The Standish Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1992, he left industry to join the University of
Group Inc. Salford, where he completed a PhD in systems
Xia, W., & Lee, G. (2004). Grasping the
thinking and information system quality.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1999). Basics complexity of IS development projects.
His current research interests include
of qualitative research: Grounded theory Communications of the ACM, 47(5),
complex systems theory and social networks,
procedures & techniques (2nd ed.). 69–74.
information system development, and
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. e-commerce quality. He has published the
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., & DeFillippi, R. Harvey Maylor is center director of the books Data Modelling for Information Systems
(2004). Project-based organisations, International Center for Program Management at (1996) and Developing Web Information
embeddedness and repositories of Cranfield School of Management in the United Systems (2002).
knowledge. Organization Studies, 24, Kingdom and lately program director for
1475–1489. Cranfield’s MSc program in program and project
Turner, J. R. (1993). The handbook management. He is the author of a best-selling
Stephen Carver,BSc, MSc, Ceng, EurIng, AMBA,
of project-based management– management book and is actively engaged in a
MAPM, is a lecturer in project management at
Improving the processes for achieving number of funded research projects and net-
Cranfield School of Management, UK. He has
strategic objectives. London: works. He has developed courses and taught
lectured and consulted worldwide, including
McGraw-Hill. program and project management, operations
Europe, the Middle East, the Americas, and
Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, R. (1993). management, and research methods at the
Far East, and appears regularly in the media
Goals and methods matrix: Coping University of Bath, United Kingdom; Cardiff
and on TV. After graduating, he worked for 7
with projects with ill-defined goals Business School, Wales, United Kingdom; NIM-
years in the oil business, when it was at its
and/or methods of achieving them. BAS, Holland and Germany; Copenhagen
height. During this time, he learned how to
International Journal of Project Business School, Denmark; Warwick Business
lead and motivate teams. At 29, he was spon-
Management, 11(2), 93–102. School, United Kingdom; and Kasetsart
sored by his US company to undertake an
University, Bangkok, Thailand. He has published
Turner, J. R., & Muller, R. (2003). many books and journal articles on project
MBA. While there, he was persuaded to nego-
On the nature of the project as a tiate a year away from the oil business, in
management. In addition, he was an investiga-
temporary organisation. International order to be project manager for Virgin. The idea
tor on the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Journal of Project Management, was to build “a floating Harrods” in the world’s
Research Council–funded network Rethinking
21(1), 1–8. biggest four-masted clipper ship and then
Project Management and Understanding Project
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., send the whole thing over to the US. There fol-
Complexity with colleagues from Bath. He has
Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. (1999). lowed several years working directly for the
worked with organizations from both public and
Change and complementarities in the CEO of a US multinational as head of strategic
private sectors as a trainer and consultant
new competitive landscape: A program management where he was initiated
(including McKinseys, Transport for London,
European panel study, 1992–1996. into the world of mega projects, program man-
Babcock Marine, QinetiQ, Network Rail, U.K.
Organization Science, 5, 583–600. agement, strategy, mergers, acquisitions,
research councils, and numerous SMEs) and
takeovers, and handling the media. He then
Whyte, W. F. (1978). Interviewing in has received funding for his work in project
set up his own project management consul-
field research. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), management and new product development
tancy and training company and was quickly
Field research: A sourcebook & field from industry, the U.K. government, and the
hired by some of the top international compa-
manual (pp. 300–318). London: George European Commission.
nies. His client list now reads like the
Allen & Unwin. FTSE/Dow top 100. He was asked by his old
Williams, T. (1999). The need for new Richard Vidgen is professor of information sys- MBA school to teach project management and
paradigms for complex projects. tems in the School of Management at the corporate communications.