Towards a complexity framework for managing projects (2007)

Several studies have suggested that it is difficult manage using the traditional model of project management. Researchers have proposed multiple perspectives and manage such This paper provides a perspective based on a complexity framework. Since a project exhibits the characteristics of a complex system, we postulate that the method manage such a project is embedded in its contextual history. Such a method cannot be predicted a priori but will rather emerge from the interactions between the project elements and the environment. Introduction Projects often face inexplicable time and cost overruns. Studies of the causes suggest weaknesses in the basic tenets of the traditional view of Research efforts aimed at providing a theoretical basis an alternative conceptualization of based on complexity indicate that is no consensus so far. Issues such as the nature of as well as a formal characterisation of complexity in the project context are still open further research. For instance, Soderlund (2004) argues that a project is a phenomenon (rather than a perspective) and this allows researchers to build strong and interesting theories that increase our knowledge of certain parts of social life. An understanding of such multiplicity of views needs further reflection, an epistemological analysis (with philosophical underpinnings) of the nature of a project and blending ideas from fields as diverse as teleology and cognitive psychology. While one may debate on the relevance of a meta-theoretical approach such a practical corporate activity as managing a project, this allows one start afresh, keeping aside the views from the mainstream ontology. One may need address both theoretical issues like making sense, rethinking, defining meanings and setting research directions and practical issues like taxonomy of projects, typology of project management styles and the appropriateness of a style the specific context of a project and its environment. Thus a study of complexity in managing is of both theoretical and practical importance. Multiple perspectives Recognizing the complexity of projects, Cicmil (2000) makes a case for a framework based on multiple perspectives incorporating conceptual aspects like project context, content and organizational behavior. Williams (2005) points out a need for developing a of project behavior as there have been few empirical positivist studies of projects. Such a can possibly be used identify with a propensity for failure. Williams concludes his paper stating that the practical question of how such can be managed differently needs further research. These developments have rekindled a debate on the very existence of a of projects with researchers assuming dichotomous postures (Winter, et al., 2006; Turner, 2006). It is seen that such a theory is still evolving at least in the sense that researchers are continually revisiting and questioning the underlying assumptions and framework in the light of practical experience. We briefly explore some of these views. Traditional view In this view, a project consists of a clear goal, a temporary organization achieve this goal and performance criteria such as scope, time and cost. This view is well established and constitutes the dominant ontology of (as seen in bodies of knowledge and handbooks). The three characteristics of the traditional model are (Williams, 2005): 1. Project management is rational (Lundin, 1995) and normative (Packendorff, 1995). 2. The ontological stance is effectively positivist (as in Johnson &. Duberley, 2000). 3. Scope can be managed by decomposing the project using work breakdown structures (Turner, 2006; Koskela & Howell, 2002). Linehan and Kavanagh (2006) find that the dominant ontology in project management is one of being rather than becoming. …