Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook on Project Management and Scheduling Vol. 2 pp 1079–1101Cite as

Drivers of Complexity in Engineering Projects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: International Handbooks on Information Systems ((INFOSYS))

Abstract

This chapter investigates drivers of complexity in engineering projects. Based upon literature and empirical data, the TOE (technical, organizational, external) framework is developed, which captures the drivers of complexity in engineering projects. The empirical data was gathered by means of case studies in which interviews were held with three persons of six different projects. The resulting TOE framework consists of elements related to technical aspects, organizational aspects and external aspects of the project, all potentially contributing to project complexity. This chapter shows that organizational aspects can be considered as the particular drivers of project complexity. The interviewees seem to be well educated to deal with technical aspects; external aspects seem harder to recognise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter is largely based on the partial content of a dissertation and a preceding conference paper (Bosch-Rekveldt 2011; Bosch-Rekveldt et al. 2009).

  2. 2.

    The NAP network is a competence network of the Dutch process industry, see http://www.napnetwork.nl/.

References

  • Antoniadis DN, Edum-Fotwe FT, Thorpe A (2011) Socio-organo complexity and project performance. Int J Proj Manag 29 (7):808–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baccarini D (1996) The concept of project complexity—a review. Int J Proj Manag 14(4):201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Rekveldt MGC (2011) Managing project complexity. A study into adapting early project phases to improve project performance in large engineering projects. Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Rekveldt MGC, Mooi HG (2008) Research into project complexity classification methods. Paper presented at the IPMA 22nd World Congress 2008, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Rekveldt MGC, Mooi HG, Verbraeck A, Bakker HLM (2009) Perspectives of project professionals on project complexity in the process and energy industry. Paper presented at the IRNOP IX, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Rekveldt MGC, Jongkind Y, Bakker HLM, Mooi HG, Verbraeck A (2011) Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects. Int J Proj Manag 29 (6):728–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicmil S, Williams TM, Thomas J, Hodgson D (2006) Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects. Int J Proj Manag 24(8):675–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruijn JA, De Jong P, Korsten A, van Zanten W (1996) Grote projecten: besluitvorming & management. Samson HD Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan de Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • DMO (2006) Acquisition categorisation framework - policy for the categorisation of projects (Defence Materiel Organisation). Australia Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dombkins D, Dombkins P (2008) Contracts for complex programs: a renaissance of process. Booksurge Publishing, Charleston

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL (1990) Liberating systems theory. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstanding about case-study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraldi JG (2008) Reconciling order and chaos in multi-project firms: empirical studies on CoPS producers, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Geraldi JG (2009) What complexity assessments can tell us about projects: dialogue between conception and perception. Technol Anal Strateg 21(5):665–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraldi JG, Adlbrecht G (2007) On faith, fact, and interaction in projects. Proj Manag J 38(1):32–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Hass K (2007) Introducing the project complexity model—a new approach to diagnosing and managing projects (part 1 of 2). PM World Today IX(VII):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertogh M, Westerveld E (2010) Playing with complexity. Ph.D. dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertogh MJCM, Baker SK, Staal-Ong PL, Westerveld E (2008) Managing large infrastructure projects. Netlipse, Baarn

    Google Scholar 

  • IPA (2009) Independent project analysis - value improving practices workshop. http://www.ipainstitute.com/home/programs/description.aspx?id=15. Cited 10 Oct 2011

  • Jaafari A (2003) Project management in the age of complexity and change. Proj Manag J 34(4):47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason RB (2007) The external environment’s effect on management and strategy—a complexity theory approach. Manag Decis 45(1):10–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maylor H, Vidgen R, Carver S (2008) Managerial complexity in project based operations: a grounded model and its implications for practice. Proj Manag J 39(suppl.):S15–S26

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Neleman J (2006) Shell gaat diep. FEM Bus 9(4):30–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauser BJ, Reilly RR, Shenhar AJ (2009) Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights—a comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars climate orbiter loss. Int J Proj Manag 27(7):665–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner JR, Cochrane RA (1993) Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. Int J Proj Manag 11(2):93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Lei TE, Kolfschoten GL, Beers PJ (2010) Complexity in multi-actor system research: towards a meta-analysis of recent studies. J Des Res 8(4):317–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal L-A, Marle F (2008) Understanding project complexity: implications on project management. Kybernetes 37(8):1094–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop MM (1992) Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitty SJ, Maylor H (2009) And then came complex project management (revised). Int J Proj Manag 27(3):304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams TM (1999) The need for new paradigms for complex projects. Int J Proj Manag 17(5):269–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams TM (2002) Modelling complex projects. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams TM (2005) Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(4):497–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter M, Smith CD, Morris PWG, Cicmil S (2006) Directions for future research in project management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network. Int J Proj Manag 24(8):638–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia W, Lee G (2004) Grasping the complexity of IS development projects. Commun ACM 47(5):69–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia W, Lee G (2005) Complexity of information systems development projects: conceptualization and measurement development. J Manag Inform Syst 22(1):45–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2002) Case study research: design and methods, vol 5. Applied social research methods series. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CITG, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Marian Bosch-Rekveldt & Marcel Hertogh

  2. 3ME, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Hans Bakker & Herman Mooi

Authors
  1. Marian Bosch-Rekveldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans Bakker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcel Hertogh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Herman Mooi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marian Bosch-Rekveldt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Management and Economics, Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany

    Christoph Schwindt

  2. Institute of Management and Economics, Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany

    Jürgen Zimmermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Bakker, H., Hertogh, M., Mooi, H. (2015). Drivers of Complexity in Engineering Projects. In: Schwindt, C., Zimmermann, J. (eds) Handbook on Project Management and Scheduling Vol. 2. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05915-0_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation