You are on page 1of 13

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688 700
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Are complexity and uncertainty distinct concepts in project


management? A taxonomical examination from literature
Milind Padalkar, Saji Gopinath
Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, Kerala 673570, India
Received 30 June 2015; received in revised form 4 February 2016; accepted 10 February 2016
Available online 8 March 2016

Abstract
Project management research is characterized by dominance of determinism, decision-theoretic approaches, and weak theories. The growth of
research interest in non-deterministic paradigms through the lenses of complexity and uncertainty is recent, and could provide stronger theoretic
explanations. However, analysis of select project management literature reveals that the constructs of complexity and uncertainty are yet to be
grounded in terms of denitions and constituent variables. We argue that denitional clarity is necessary for the non-deterministic research to move
forward. In this paper, we propose taxonomy of constituent terms of complexity and uncertainty based on semantic analysis of select literature and
show that the two constructs are broadly confounded in their constituent terms. While our nding may appear to align with complexity theoretic
concept of strong interrelationship between complexity and uncertainty, we argue that such confounding represents intermingling of varying
ontological and epistemological preferences within the community of project management scholars rather than a broad adherence to the complexity
theory. The paper contributes to project management literature by facilitating further research toward stronger construct denitions and theorybuilding efforts. The paper also contributes to research methods by offering a novel methodology to elicit taxonomy of terms and to illuminate
the confounding and separating terms across multiple constructs.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project management; Uncertainty; Complexity; Taxonomy; Research methods

1. Introduction
The field of project management research is characterized by
the dominance of deterministic paradigm and decision-theoretic
approaches. A review of literature reveals two themes anchored in
determinism. Much of the early project management research
lasting until late 1980s employs conceptual or analytical methods,
and focuses on scheduling optimization, resting on the premise that
project activities and their interrelationships are fixed and measurable (Kolisch, 1996; Herroelen et al., 1998; Kolisch and
Padman, 2001; Herroelen and Leus, 2004, 2005; Hartmann and
Briskorn, 2010). Subsequently, empirical studies seeking success
or failure factors have gained prominence in 1990s (Kloppenborg
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 91 495 2809421, + 91 9400050850, + 91
9971494440.
E-mail addresses: milinp07fpm@iimk.ac.in (M. Padalkar), saji@iimk.ac.in
(S. Gopinath).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.009
0263-7863/00/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

and Opfer, 2002; Tesch et al., 2003; Turner and Mller, 2005;
Jugdev and Mller, 2005; Rozenes et al., 2006; Huemann et al.,
2007; Ika, 2009; Mller and Jugdev, 2012). The search for success
or failure factors has also led to expansion of the research domain
to broader organizational contexts, behavioral and interdisciplinary
themes, organizational and external actors, strategic benefits, risk,
etc. (Belout and Gauvreau, 2004; Turner and Mller, 2005;
Huemann et al., 2007; Aloini et al., 2007; Littau et al., 2010;
Padalkar and Gopinath, 2015). On the backdrop of determinism, a
small non-deterministic stream is evident from 1960s. This
includes critique of PERT and of beta distribution (Grubbs, 1962;
MacCrimmon and Ryavec, 1964; Schonberger, 1981); modeling
of uncertainty in project phenomena by relaxing the assumptions
about fixed attributes (Martin, 1965; Burt, 1977; Cook and
Jennings, 1979; Williams, 1992; Bowman, 1995; Cho and Yum,
1997; Elmaghraby et al., 1999; Chapman and Ward, 2000); use of
system dynamics to model the nonlinear effects of feedback loops

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

in projects (Williams et al., 1995; Rodrigues and Williams, 1998;


Williams, 1999; Eden et al., 2000); and modeling the project
phenomena under fuzzy or probabilistic assumptions (Chanas and
Zieliski, 2001; Browning and Eppinger, 2002; Van de Vonder et
al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2006; Chen, 2007). The dominant research
orientation has continued to be instrumentalist, while seeking
decision-theoretic models/methods, or success/failure factors as
prescriptions for project performance.
The non-deterministic stream holds significance in view of the
weak theoretic nature of project management (Shenhar and Dvir,
1996; Shenhar, 2001; Sderlund, 2004; Cicmil et al., 2006; Smyth
and Morris, 2007; Whitty and Maylor, 2009; Morris, 2010;
Jacobsson and Sderholm, 2011). It represents a paradigmatic
change and has the potential to supply alternate narratives and
explanations through different methodological approaches. The
widening of research agenda and contexts in late 1990s appears to
have aided the growth of non-deterministic research in the post2000 period. From a brief scan of literature, we observe attempts to
model project phenomena under complexity-related assumptions
(Austin et al., 2002; Howick and Eden, 2001; Xia and Lee, 2004,
2005; Cho and Eppinger, 2005; Danilovic and Browning, 2007)
and theoretic discussions, definitions, or constituent terms of
complexity (Baccarini, 1996; Williams, 1999; Shenhar, 2001; Pich
et al., 2002; Sommer and Loch, 2004; Benbya and McKelvey,
2006; Cooke-Davies et al., 2007; Geraldi and Adlbrecht, 2007;
Maylor et al., 2008; Vidal and Marle, 2008; Brady and Davies,
2010; Lenfle, 2011; Geraldi et al., 2011; Ramasesh and Browning,
2014), or of uncertainty (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000; Turner
and Mller, 2003; Ward and Chapman, 2003; Cho and Eppinger,
2005; Atkinson et al., 2006; Perminova et al., 2008). Thus, it
appears that researchers employ complexity and uncertainty as the
principal lenses for non-deterministic enquiry. The importance of
non-deterministic stream calls for a deeper study of how project
management literature treats the two lenses of complexity and
uncertainty.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews
relevant project management literature dealing with complexity
and uncertainty. Section 3 presents the research methodology
and data selection for building taxonomy for the two constructs
from project management literature. Section 4 discusses the
results of the taxonomical analysis.
2. Complexity and uncertainty in project management
literature
A research lens is a theoretic orientation or a schema that allows
the researcher to focus on certain variables and relationships while
ignoring others (Ancona et al., 2001). The lens provides the
context for choosing the research methodologies that are consistent
within the schema. These choices require that the lenses and the
constructs associated with them are unambiguously defined. A
review of project management literature reveals a couple of key
insights about the state of definitions. First, there is sufficient
evidence about lack of consensus on the definition of complexity in
project context (Sommer and Loch, 2004, p. 1335; Maylor et al.,
2008, p. S17; Cooke-Davies et al., 2007, p. 51; McLain, 2009,
p. 61; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011, p. 730; Geraldi et al., 2011,

689

p. 968; Vidal et al., 2011, p. 718; Brady and Davies, 2014, p. 22);
or uncertainty (Williams, 1999, p. 271; Perminova et al., 2008, p.
74; McLain, 2009, p. 61). A review of recent papers confirms that
definitions of complexity continue to be ambiguous (Ramasesh
and Browning, 2014, p. 193; Browning, 2014, p. 232; Qureshi and
Kang, 2015, p. 166; Saunders et al., 2015, p. 468).
Second, the two constructs appear to be associated with a large
number of terms and may be terminologically confounded with
some of these terms. For instance, Baccarini (1996) views
complexity as consisting of many varied interrelated parts (p.
202), while Williams (1999, p. 271) treats number of elements
and interdependence of elements as constituents of structural
uncertainty which is proposed as an element of complexity. Ward
& Chapman (2003, p. 99) regard number of influencing factors
and their interdependencies as constituents of complexity, which
in turn contribute to project uncertainty. Shenhar (2001, p. 397
399) regards the two constructs as orthogonal to each other, while
Tatikonda & Rosenthal (2000, p. 7879) view complexity as
consisting of interdependence among the product and process
technologies, novelty of goals, and difficulty of goals and thus
contributing to project uncertainty. Sommer & Loch (2004,
p. 13351336) treat complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty
as separate constructs, while noting that the use of the term complexity is not consistent in the PM literature. Complexity as an
element of uncertainty is reiterated by Atkinson et al. (2006,
p. 688689), while Geraldi & Adlbrecht (2007, p. 33) and Geraldi
et al. (2011, p. 976) support uncertainty as an element of complexity. Vidal et al. (2011) claim that complexity can be viewed as
a property of the system that makes it difficult to understand
(p. 719). Pich et al. (2002) define complexity as information inadequacy when too many variables interact (p. 1009). Perminova
et al. (2008, p. 76) equate complexity to systematic uncertainty.
Brady et al. (2012) argue that the two constructs are distinct. De
Meyer et al. (2002, p. 6163) regard uncertainty as a continuum
from simple variations (foreseeable uncertainty) to chaos (unforeseeable or epistemic uncertainty). However, other authors associate epistemic uncertainty with unknown variables or unknown
relationships, as part of complexity. For example, Brady & Davies
(2010, p. 155) refer to unexpected interactions semantically
adjacent to unknown interrelationships as part of complexity.
Thus, three broad strands of argument are visible from literature:
(i) uncertainty as a component of complexity, (ii) complexity as a
component of uncertainty, and (iii) independence of the two
constructs.
It is clear that there is an absence of inter-subjective agreement
among project management researchers on the constructs constituent terms and also about how the constructs relate to each
other. The question of such absence of agreement motivates this
paper. Grounding of construct definitions is critical for theorybuilding effort, as definitional weaknesses could lead to divergence
in research without obtaining strong theories. While clear construct
definitions by themselves may not be sufficient for theorybuilding, they are necessary to obtain a robust ontological and
epistemological frame to aid further research progress. Noting that
project management research offers a rich set of terms, words, or
phrases to describe the two constructs, building taxonomies
would be a pre-requisite to proposing strong definitions.

690

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

2.1. Considerations for taxonomical analysis


Taxonomy is a formal system of classification according to a
set of common conceptual domains and dimensions (Bradley
et al., 2007, p. 1760). Development of taxonomy falls in the
domain of qualitative research methods which seek to extract
categorical and thematic information from raw data by performing
an inductive analysis of data. Such a process involves summarizing
the data by associating codes and categories to elicit a structure
of semantic meanings (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 5588).
Since taxonomies are containers of meanings distilled from
raw data, validity considerations necessitate acquisition of
sufficient amount of raw data to ensure conceptual saturation
or comprehensiveness.
Based on a review of taxonomy literature, we observe that
methods to extract taxonomies include primary surveys or case
studies (Miller and Roth, 1994; Christopher et al., 2006),
interpretive reviews of literature (Gunasekaran and Yusuf, 2002;
Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Ramnath et al., 2008; Sun and Meng,
2009), literature reviews followed by primary surveys for
validation (Harland et al., 2001; Yukl et al., 2002), and semantic
analysis and disambiguation of text by using computer software
(Meijer et al., 2014). Our study is methodologically similar to
Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002) with the exception that their study
is based on an interpretative review of literature, whereas ours is a
systematic quantitative approach involving semantic analysis of
disambiguated terms, and the use of citation data (scientometry)
to obtain importance ordering of the terms. Scientometry as a
confirmatory technique for importance ordering is relatively
recent in project management (Pollack and Adler, 2015).
Systematic development of taxonomy from texts requires a
corpus of documents from which the terms are extracted
(Meijer et al., 2014). The corpus of documents acts as the seed
for the semantic and the citation analysis. The extracted terms
are disambiguated through semantic analysis, and clustered to
form categories. A category can be viewed as a construct, and
the associated cluster of terms as its taxonomy. Within the
taxonomical cluster, all terms are considered to associate
equally with the construct. However, the terms differ in their
meanings; therefore they can be expected to differ in their
proximity to the meaning of the construct. An understanding of
relative proximity would inform on the importance ordering of
the terms associated with the construct and would facilitate
stronger construct definitions. We observe that each article in
the corpus would have been cited by subsequent articles. Each
citation can be viewed as an affirmative vote for the seed
articles claims, unless the citing article represents a rebuttal or
a dissenting opinion. Thus, the corpus articles and their claims
could be ranked by their citation counts, and such a ranking
order could inform on the relative importance of their claims
about the constructs, i.e., the terms associated with the
constructs.
2.2. Considerations for building the corpus
Many fields of study such as decision sciences, social sciences,
physical sciences, and industry domains address the topic of

project management. Therefore the corpus must necessarily


represent the views of project management scholars dealing with
complexity or uncertainty across multiple peer-reviewed research
outlets. The primary focus on project management implies that
fields such as climate studies or evolutionary biology which also
study complexity must be excluded from the corpus. Also, we
expect the articles discussing construct definitions should have the
words complexity or uncertainty in their titles. Even if these
words are absent from an eligible corpus article, we expect to find
them in the articles abstracts and/or keyword lists.
3. Research methodology, data selection, and analysis
We followed a 5-stage process for developing the taxonomies
from literature: (1) forming the corpus, (2) semantic analysis and
extraction of codified terms from corpus articles, (3) development
of a framework to categorize and situate the codified terms,
(4) extraction of articles citing the corpus, and (5) mapping the
extracted terms to two constructs, and deriving their importance
ordering.
In stage 1, we performed a keyword search on a selection of 29
peer-reviewed journals (Appendix 1) on Scopus database for
articles having the keywords [(complexity OR uncertainty)
AND project] anywhere in the article titles, abstracts, or keyword
lists. The search yielded 1164 articles. Next, we searched the titles
for the keywords complexity or uncertainty to obtain 189
articles. After browsing these articles, we selected 36 articles for
the corpus. For selecting the corpus, we excluded confirmatory
research and prescriptive articles that implicitly assumed the
construct meanings. Separately, the remaining 975 articles were
progressively searched for qualifying articles based on their
citation counts and period of publication. This yielded 13 articles
for the corpus. After reading the 49 articles, an additional 9 articles
were added to make a corpus of 58 articles over 19962015
(Appendix 2). Fig. 1 describes the process for corpus formation.
In stage 2, each of the 58 papers was intensively reviewed to
extract the semantic clusters associated with the constructs. A total
of 191 semantic clusters were extracted. Each cluster was assigned
to complexity or uncertainty depending on the authors intent.
For associating keywords, the meanings intended by the authors
were preserved through a careful examination of the papers. For
instance, hierarchical framework of systems and subsystems
(Shenhar, 2001), operational interdependencies and interaction
between organizational units (Baccarini, 1996), complex information interdependencies among activities (McLain, 2009),
technology interdependence between product and process
(Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000) were associated with the keyword
Interdependence of elements, while too many variables
interacting (Pich et al., 2002), interfaces between locations/
humans (Geraldi, 2008), parts interacting in non-simple ways
(Sommer and Loch, 2004), were associated with the keyword
Interacting elements. This step reduced the semantic clusters to
74 unique keywords (Appendix 3). Next, the keywords were
mapped to codes so chosen as to capture the meaning of the
keywords and also to act as containers for adjacent terms. For
instance, number of separate actions (Baccarini, 1996), large
number of parts (Sommer and Loch, 2004), multiplicity of

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700


Search Scopus fields Titles, abstracts,
Keywords
for complexity OR
1164 articles
uncertainty AND
29 journals
project *

975 articles

complexity OR
uncertainty
in titles
> 200 citations

691

Corpus articles
189 articles **

36

15 articles **

27 articles @

65 articles @

111 articles @

78 articles @

[2006, 2015]
547 articles

51-200 citations

* October 2015
** Browse articles
@ Browse abstracts

520 articles

455 articles

26-50 citations

11-25 citations

[2013, 2015]
194 articles

58 corpus
articles

> 1 citation

9 additional
corpus articles

Separate snowball

search from corpus

49 corpus
articles

Fig. 1. Corpus selection process (single image).

organizational elements (Xia and Lee, 2005), or number of


tasks, locations (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011) were coded as
size, while newness of objectives (Tatikonda and Rosenthal,
2000), newness of technology (Shenhar, 2001), technology or
process novelty (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011), and uniqueness
(Geraldi and Adlbrecht, 2007) were coded as Novelty. The
choice of the code was generally based on our judgment and/or
the descriptions provided by the authors. The coding process was
iterative, requiring revisiting and revising previously coded data,
as newer meanings were encountered. After 4 passes over the
keyword set, the process mapped the 74 keywords to 13 codes.
For definitions of the codes, see Appendix 4.
For validity, we employed the procedure of peer debrief
(Creswell and Miller, 2000), wherein the procedure was
reviewed by an independent peer researcher familiar with
the coding process. Reliability was checked via inter-rater
agreement tests. Three independent samples of 24 keywords
from the set of 74 unique keywords were picked using Monte
Carlo methods. These were assigned to three independent
research associates who were at advanced stages of their doctoral
programs, and had familiarity with the subject matter. The
associates were asked to map the sample keywords to one of the
13 codes. The coded samples showed mean inter-rater agreement
of 72.2%. The level of agreement is acceptable, given that
the codes are yet to be grounded (Lombard et al., 2002;
pp: 593).
In stage 3, research contributions from several authors
(Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Williams, 1999; Shenhar, 2001; Ward
and Chapman, 2003) were synthesized into a 2-dimensional
framework consisting of a StructuralDynamic continuum on
the X axis, and three levels of knowledge about the construct
properties on the Y axis. Attempts to synthesize frameworks are
fairly well accepted in project management literature as several
similar frameworks are available (Williams, 1999; Shenhar, 2001;
Xia & Lee, 2004). The first dimension (StructuralDynamic
continuum) measures the extent of dynamism, i.e., change

over time in the phenomena, and has been referred in several


papers (Xia and Lee, 2004, 2005; Benbya and McKelvey,
2006; Whitty and Maylor, 2009; Geraldi et al., 2011). Y axis
consists of three hierarchical levels corresponding to the extent of
knowledge about explanatory variables, and their tractability:
At the lowest level (Level 1), we include elements that are
known and embedded in the scope and structure of the
phenomena (known-knowns). We call this level deterministic, as the variables and how they interact among themselves is
completely known. However, their multiplicity and nature of
interrelationships imparts a degree of intractability to the
phenomena. Examples of elements are number of variables,
number or levels of interrelationships, number of alternatives,
multiplicity of goals, information loads, interdependencies,
rules of nonlinear dynamics, etc.
Level 2 (Stochastic) refers to uncertainty (Williams, 1999;
Shenhar, 2001) and includes known-unknowns, i.e., the
participating variables and their interrelationships are
known, but their specific states, locations or measures are
uncertain and cannot be precisely determined. Thus,
statistical or other relevant techniques must be employed to
treat the variability.
Level 3 (Epistemic) refers to uncertainty resulting from lack of
knowledge and has been noted by several authors (Williams,
1999; Shenhar, 2001; Pich et al., 2002; Geraldi et al., 2011).
Epistemic uncertainty involves unknown-unknowns (unk-unk),
i.e., the participating variables and/or their interrelationships are
not known. Such unk-unks are discovered after their occurrence, and their effect on the phenomena is measurable post
facto.
Toward taxonomical separation of complexity and uncertainty,
we needed to map the codes to the framework. Each code was
plotted onto the framework based on its meaning. Thus, diversity,
interdependence, organizational resources, and size were assigned

692

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

to the (Structural, Deterministic) quadrant; structural uncertainty


and information availability to the (Structural, Stochastic)
quadrant; and missing information and novelty to the (Structural,
Epistemic) quadrant. Complexity theoretic processes, nonlinear
dynamics, and pace were assigned to the (Dynamic, Deterministic)
quadrant, and dynamic uncertainty to the (Dynamic, Stochastic)
quadrant. As external uncertainty was associated with exogenous
factors, it was seen to have a time dimension. Accordingly, external
uncertainty was mapped to the (Dynamic, Epistemic) quadrant on
the framework.
In stage 4, we performed analysis of forward citations for the
corpus articles. Forward citations measure the responses of
subsequent authors to the research claims of an article. A brief
scan of the citing papers did not reveal any significant objections,
counterclaims, or refutations for any of the papers in our sample.
Hence, we assumed that the counts of forward citations indicate
the degree of inter-subjective agreement among the citing scholars
and treated forward citations as positive votes for all research
claims of a paper. For each article, all its citing articles from
peer-reviewed journals were accessed from SCOPUS database.
The 58 articles totaled 3709 citations.1 To correct for the age bias
(older articles having more citations); we normalized the citation
counts using effective annualized citation rate (EACR), which acts
as a proxy measure for the influence of the article, i.e., the
relative strength of its claims within the community for future
research directions. After calculating the EACRs for all 58 articles,
the relative importance of each article was calculated as a
proportion of the aggregate EACR for the corpus.
In stage 5, titles, abstracts, and keywords of the 3709 citing
articles were extracted. These fields were searched for terms
complexity and uncertainty. Each citing article received
two 0/1 tags: 1 if the titles, abstracts, or keywords of the
article contained the term complexity and 1 if these fields
contained the term uncertainty.'2 The sums of each tag for an
article represented the positive votes for its claims toward each
construct and were used to calculate its weight, i.e., the
importance ordering of its claims for the constructs. Thus, our
process redistributed the claims of each corpus article (i.e., the
semantic clusters) into the constructs of complexity and
uncertainty based on the strength of collective agreement
among the citing authors. Fig. 2 illustrates stages 24 of the
analysis process.
4. Analysis of results and discussion
The authors of the corpus articles propose various conceptualizations and terms for complexity and uncertainty, while
acknowledging lack of consensus about their definitions.
Recalling that the weights assigned to each code represent the
votes of the citing authors, we characterize a constructcode association based on the summated code weight obtained
from the citation analysis. The summated weight informs on
their importance ordering of codes for each construct. Based on
1

Assessed on 29-October-2015
We allowed double-tagging, .e. if a paper mentioned both the terms, both
corresponding tags were set to 1.
2

the clustering pattern of weights, we treat a construct-code


association as strong if the summated code weight exceeds 15%
of the aggregate construct weight, moderate if it falls within 5%
and 15%, and low if it is between 2% and 5%. Table 1 shows the
overall summated weights for complexity and uncertainty.
The importance ordering of the codes shows that complexity
is strongly associated with interdependence and size, while
uncertainty is strongly associated with interdependence and
Missing information. Complexity is moderately associated with
organizational resources, diversity, nonlinear dynamics, complexity theoretic processes, information availability, missing
information, and external uncertainty. Uncertainty is moderately associated with size, information availability, and external
uncertainty. Confounding is evident in several codes for
instance, interdependence, size, information availability, missing
information, and external uncertainty show moderate or high
association with both constructs. A construct map based on the
importance ordering of the codes reveals the nature of
confounding of the codes (Fig. 3).
To examine the trends in conceptualizations of complexity
and uncertainty over time, we observe that the corpus articles are
drawn over 19962015. We take 2006 as a decadal mid-point,
and contrast the importance ordering of codes over the two
periods 19962005 and 20062015. Table 2 reveals additional
insights into evolution of the authors conceptualizations over the
two decadal periods.
Interdependence, size, information availability, and missing
information continue to show moderate or high association with
both constructs, while Pace shows negligible association over the
two periods. External uncertainty and organizational resources
show increasing trend and nonlinear dynamics shows a steady
decline for both constructs. Novelty is increasingly viewed as an
element of complexity rather than uncertainty. Complexity
theoretic processes and Dynamic uncertainty emerge as new
conceptualizations during 20062015, with the former showing
moderate association with both constructs.
4.1. Discussion of results
Interdependence and size both have a strong confounding
effect on complexity and uncertainty. While most complexity
papers assert the strong role of Interdependence as an element
of complexity, a number of authors (Tatikonda and Rosenthal,
2000; Ward and Chapman, 2003; Atkinson et al., 2006; Jensen
et al., 2006; Perminova et al., 2008) regard it as a structural
element of uncertainty. In the latter view, interdependence is
viewed as making the phenomena unpredictable in some future
sense. We argue that when the concept of interdependence is not
fully understood, the workings of the phenomena do not remain
tractable. Further examination of the concept of interdependence
is necessary since it appears in a large number of articles using
non-deterministic lenses.
In our framework, information has two parts: information
availability and missing information. When taken together,
information accounts for 19% of complexity weight and 36% of
uncertainty weight. Information maps to the two constructs at
stochastic and epistemic levels; thus, it has material effect only

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

Corpus
(58 articles)

Read &
extract

191 semantic
clusters

Semantic
reduction

74
keywords

Sample 1

Re-coded by
Researcher 1

Sample 2

Re-coded by
Researcher 2

Sample 3

Re-coded by
Researcher 3

693

Scopus
Coding

3709 citing
Papers*

Synthesis from
literature

13 unique
codes

Semantic analysis of
abstracts to obtain
construct weights
2-dimensional
framework

Plotting

Samples picked by Monte Carlo


method (N = 24)
Mean inter-coder agreement 72.2%
* October 2015

Fig. 2. Analysis process stages 24 (single image).

when it is uncertain or when it escapes cognition and tractability.


Information also has a close correspondence with novelty, which is
considered to arise from the cognitive limitations or inexperience
of the human element and thus could be seen as a form of
information deficiency. However, almost all authors treat novelty
as separate from accessibility or non-availability of information.
Thus, the Information construct can be viewed as having the
greatest confounding effect on complexity and uncertainty, and
rigorous analysis of its role and how it links to the constructs is
necessary.
At the dynamic end of the structuraldynamic continuum,
external uncertainty shows moderate linkage to both complexity
and uncertainty, while nonlinear dynamics and complexity
theoretic processes are moderately linked only to complexity
(Table 1). The decadal analysis in Table 2 however shows that
nonlinear dynamics is on the decline and the complexity theoretic

Table 1
Distribution of code weights from citation analysis.
Codes

Complexity
weight

Uncertainty
weight

Total
weight

Level 1: Deterministic
Interdependence (L1S)
Size (L1S)
Organizational resources (L1S)
Diversity (L1S)
Nonlinear dynamics (L1D)
Complexity theoretic processes (L1D)
Pace (L1D)

0.2569 (H)
0.2148 (H)
0.0687 (M)
0.0615 (M)
0.0690 (M)
0.0587 (M)
0.0164

0.1031 (H)
0.0735 (M)
0.0210 (L)
0.0133 (L)
0.0193 (L)
0.0192 (L)
0.0076

0.3600
0.2883
0.0897
0.0748
0.0883
0.0779
0.0240

Level 2: Stochastic
Information availability (L2S)
Structural uncertainty (L2S)
Dynamic uncertainty (L2D)

0.0648 (M)
0.0067
0.0014

0.0622 (M)
0.0172 (L)
0.0061

0.1270
0.0239
0.0075

Level 3: Epistemic
Missing information (L3S)
Novelty (L3S)
External uncertainty (L3D)
Total

0.1677 (M)
0.0523 (L)
0.0823 (M)
1.1212

0.1448 (H)
0.0276 (L)
0.0542 (M)
0.5691

0.3125
0.0799
0.1365
1.6903

L1S: deterministic, structural; L1D: deterministic, dynamic.


L2S: stochastic, structural; L2D: stochastic, dynamic.
L3S: epistemic, structural; L3D: epistemic, dynamic.

processes as well as external uncertainty have gained in


importance. We regard nonlinear dynamics as consisting of
deterministic feedback loops that cause nonlinear system
behaviors. Its decline and the rise of complexity theoretic
processes suggests distinct shifts in project management research:
from deterministic system dynamics paradigms to complexity
theoretic paradigm, and from methodological prescriptions to
examining complex social processes, or the actuality of
projects as argued by Cicmil et al. (2006). We also note from
the importance ordering for complexity that the weight shares of
organizational resources and novelty have grown in the 2006
2015 period. On the other hand, the importance of novelty as a
constituent of uncertainty has declined over the same period. This
is consistent with the expansion of research interest into
organizational and interdisciplinary contexts and increased
focus on human cognitive limitations and social interactional
processes as constituents of complexity.
Dynamic uncertainty shows negligible linkage with either of
the constructs. Several scholars regard it as an element of
uncertainty resulting from changes in the project environments
(Mulholland and Christian, 1999; Ford et al., 2002; Geraldi and
Adlbrecht, 2007, p. 36; Collyer and Warren, 2009, p. 355356;
Petit and Hobbs, 2010, p. 4748; Petit, 2012, p. 541). Given the
sparse writings on this concept, further research for explicating
the meaning of Dynamic uncertainty would be needed. Similarly,
we would have expected to find stronger association of Pace with
complexity since it is a key dimension of the NTCP diamond
framework (Shenhar and Dvir, 1996) and has received attention
in the project management literature and textbooks (Shenhar,
2001; Geraldi et al., 2011; Gray et al., 2010).
4.2. Complexity and uncertainty in project management
We return to the question posed in the title of this paper: Are
complexity and uncertainty distinct in project management
literature? The constituent terms from the taxonomies developed in this paper show substantial overlap (Fig. 3). Even if we
grant that some of these terms might suffer from a degree of
inexactness and may require more rigorous grounding, the
extent of overlap suggests that the answer is negative. We
observe however that our analysis is grounded in literature;

694

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

Complexity

Uncertainty

Novelty

Level 3 (Epistemic)

Missing information

Information availability
Structural uncertainty
Interdependence
Organizational resources
Diversity
Size

Level 2 (Stochastic)

Level 1 (Deterministic)

Dynamic uncertainty

Non-linear dynamics

Pace

Complexity theoretic processes

Structural

External uncertainty

Dynamic

Strong
Medium
Weak

Framework synthesized from Williams (1999); Shenhar(2001); Xia & Lee (2005); Geraldi et al. (2011)

Fig. 3. Construct map (1.5 column image).

therefore it reflects the ontological and epistemological


preferences of the community of researchers. Within the
positivistic paradigm, uncertainty is viewed as variability
induced by the state of nature, and complexity as a system
characterized by interdependent elements leading to a large
number of possible states, which makes its behavior difficult to
predict. In the interpretive paradigm, the phenomena are
principally informed by the internal state of knowledge
or understanding (Saunders et al., 2015), i.e., the state of
mind and the cognitive limitations of the human observer.
These paradigms represent opposite ends of the positivisticinterpretive continuum (Morgan, 1980); hence, the

terminological overlap in Fig. 3 may be explained by


differing ontological positions within the research community.
The paradigmatic irreconcilability is obvious if we view
projects as goal seeking rational endeavors necessarily
involving interplay of the human element (Pollack, 2007).
The rational goal seeking aspect in project imparts
an instrumental orientation to its practice and therefore a
natural alignment to the positivistic paradigm. However,
positivism cannot easily accommodate the inescapable
non-rationality of the human element, while interpretivist
approaches do not adequately support instrumentalism or
rationality.

Table 2
Decadal trends in conceptualizations of complexity and uncertainty.
Complexity

Uncertainty

Codes

19962005

20062015

19962005

20062015

Level 1: Deterministic
Interdependence (L1S)
Size (L1S)
Organizational resources (L1S)
Diversity (L1S)
Nonlinear dynamics (L1D)
Complexity theoretic processes (L1D)
Pace (L1D)

0.1383 (H)
0.1644 (H)
0.0236 (L)
0.0294 (M)
0.0413 (M)

0.0037

0.1186 (H)
0.0504 (M)
0.0451 (M)
0.0320 (M)
0.0277 (L)
0.0587 (M)
0.0127 (L)

0.0690 (H)
0.0599 (H)
0.0052
0.0076 (L)
0.0135 (L)

0.0039

0.0342 (M)
0.0136 (M)
0.0158 (M)
0.0057 (L)
0.0058 (L)
0.0192 (M)
0.0037

Level 2: Stochastic
Information availability (L2S)
Structural uncertainty (L2S)
Dynamic uncertainty (L2D)

0.0286 (M)
0.0002

0.0362 (M)
0.0065
0.0014

0.0356 (M)
0.0018

0.0265 (M)
0.0154 (M)
0.0061 (L)

Level 3: Epistemic
Missing information (L3S)
Novelty (L3S)
External uncertainty (L3D)
Total

0.0759 (M)
0.0205 (L)
0.0103
0.5362

0.0917 (H)
0.0318 (M)
0.0720 (M)
0.5849

0.0769 (H)
0.0173 (M)
0.0187 (M)
0.3095

0.0679 (H)
0.0104 (L)
0.0355 (M)
0.2600

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

By treating human behavior and social interactions as


endogenous and interrelated elements of the dynamical
systems, complexity theory possibly offers an alternate
perspective to the fundamentally irreconcilable positivism
versus interpretive paradigmatic debate noted above. Complexity theory has gained importance over the past two decades and
offers a different ontological perspective. It concerns emergence of order in nonlinear dynamic systems (Burnes, 2004)
and can be viewed as an extension of general systems theory
(Manson, 2001). Its central argument revolves around a few
principles (Cilliers, 2000): (i) large number of simple parts; (ii)
interconnected and with dynamic interactions; (iii) open
systems, with a large number of system states; and (iv)
importance of history. The interconnectedness and dynamic
feedback loops imply that the system behavior cannot be
inferred from the behavior of its parts. The importance of
history suggests that the system behavior cannot be predicted
from its rule structures. Within the complexity theoretic paradigm,
uncertainty is strongly related to complexity (Martinsuo et al.,
2014; Ramasesh and Browning, 2014; Saunders et al., 2015;
Svejvig and Andersen, 2015). Thus, the findings of our paper
would be unsurprising, if viewed through the perspective of
complexity theory.
However, we find it difficult to accept the complexity
theoretic origins for the confounding of complexity and
uncertainty. Given the dominance of the deterministic lenses
in project management research, and the relative sparseness as
well as the recency of the non-deterministic research, it is
unlikely for the research community to show broad adherence
to the complexity theory, or congruence in its perspectives.
Thus, the findings of this paper are better explained by the
intermingling of the differing ontological preferences of the
researchers. Such intermingling is indeed desirable as it informs
on the richness of the research enquiry within the field.
However, it also suggests a state of entrenched equilibrium
leading to lack of consensus on construct definitions and argues
for a well-engaged debate to reconcile the rival preferences
toward more productive enquiry. We note several calls for such
debates within the literature (Williams, 1999; Cooke-Davies
et al., 2007; Pollack, 2007; Biedenbach and Mller, 2011;
Svejvig and Andersen, 2015).
An even more pertinent question might be, Are complexity
and uncertainty distinct concepts in projects? The answer to
this question is far more difficult, and must inevitably appeal to
empiricism and to the ontological and epistemological preferences. Noting that there are several calls for adopting complex
theoretic lenses for studying project phenomena (Cooke-Davies
et al., 2007; Vidal and Marle, 2008; Saynisch, 2010a, 2010b),
we believe it could offer a couple of useful perspectives. First,
projects function within a complex organizational environment
of interdependent units, processes and actors. Thus, complexity
theory could inform on how they would evolve within specific
organizational settings. Second, projects are agencies of
change, i.e., organizational entities invested with specific
goals and performance criteria (Turner and Mller, 2003), and
function as directed endeavors within the organizational
environment. If we view projects as point events on a larger

695

time span, the interplay between projects and the organizations


within which they occur could be quite amenable to complexity
theoretic concepts such as (i) sensitivity to initial conditions
and bifurcation; (ii) direct and indirect feedback loops;
(iii) learning and memory, i.e., tendency to return to past states;
and (iv) emergence, i.e., intractability of its properties from the
attributes of its parts (Levy, 2000; Manson, 2001; Benbya and
McKelvey, 2006).
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we examine the state of project management
research concerned with the lenses of complexity and
uncertainty. Based on a semantic analysis of project management literature, we offer taxonomy of terms for the two
constructs from the literature and show that they are
terminologically confounded. Interdependence and size have a
strong confounding effect. When Information takes the form of
epistemic uncertainty (unknown unknown), it has a strong
confounding effect; whereas Stochastic uncertainty (known
unknown), and external uncertainty are moderately confounded. Novelty shows low levels of association with both
constructs. Organizational resources, diversity, nonlinear
dynamics, and complexity theoretic processes show moderate
and low linkage to complexity and uncertainty, respectively,
and can be viewed as separating terms. Comparing the two
decades 19962005 and 20062015, we find a declining
association of nonlinear dynamics with complexity, and a
growing importance of Organizational resources, external
uncertainty, and complex theoretic processes with complexity.
Across the two periods, novelty is increasingly associated with
complexity rather than uncertainty. Surprisingly, we find
negligible linkage of Dynamic uncertainty, Pace and Structural
uncertainty with either of the constructs. We discuss the
implications of our findings against complexity theoretic
principles, and argue that they represent a divergence in the
researchers ontological preferences rather than empirical
alignment with complexity theory.
We acknowledge several limitations of our study. First, it is
based on a purposive sample of 58 corpus articles. Therefore,
despite our diligence in ensuring comprehensiveness, normal
limitations of sampling apply to our study. We observe that
taxonomical studies using small purposive samples are not
uncommon. For instance Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002) refer
to 15 papers to propose the taxonomy of agile manufacturing.
Al-Mashari et al. (2003) review a small set of papers to propose
taxonomy of critical factors for ERP. Second, we use
qualitative research methods of inductive analysis based on
semantics of terms and codes. While appropriate reliability
checks have been conducted, the generalizability of our results
is subject to natural methodological limitations. Third, the
codes proposed by us are convenient containers to capture the
meaning of the associated keywords and terms. We do not
claim that they are rigorously grounded in literature, or are free
of multi-collinearity. Further research will be necessary to
obtain precise grounding of several codes such as dynamic
uncertainty. Fourth, we treat a citation as a positive vote for all

24
Research Policy (1)
Research Technology Management (1)
Total

Cooke-Davies et al. (2007); Geraldi and Adlbrecht (2007); Maylor et al. (2008);
Williams and Samset (2010); Saynisch (2010a, 2010b); Brady and Davies (2014);
Thamhain (2013);
Hobday (1998)
Maylor et al. (2013)
34

Ramasesh and Browning (2014)


Pich et al. (2002)
Gutierrez and Paul (2000)
Sommer and Loch (2009)
McLain (2009); Petit and Hobbs (2010)
Shenhar (2001); Sommer and Loch (2004)

Xia and Lee (2005)


Senescu et al. (2012)
Vidal and Marle (2008)

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (1)


Journal of Management Information Systems (1)
Journal of Management in Engineering (1)
Kybernetes (1)
Journal of Operations Management (1)
Management Science (3)
Operations Research (1)
Production and Operations Management (1)
Project Management Journal (10)

Appendix 2. List of Corpus articles (N = 58)

Journal source*

*From snowball search, one article was taken from Kybernetes published by
Emerald).

Mummolo (1997); Jaafari (2001); Ward and Chapman (2003); Atkinson et al. (2006);
Jensen et al. (2006); Perminova et al. (2008); Howell et al. (2010); Petit (2012); Acebes et
al. (2014); Chapman (2006); Lenfle (2011); Martinsuo et al. (2014); Sanderson (2012);
Saunders et al. (2015); Turner and Mller (2003)
Gosling et al. (2012)

Gidado (1996)
De Reyck and Herroelen (1996)
Williams (2005)
Cho and Yum (1997)
Geraldi et al. (2011)
Baccarini (1996); Williams (1999); Austin et al. (2002); Bosch-Rekveldt et al. (2011);
Danilovic and Browning (2007); Giezen (2012); Browning (2014); Geraldi (2008);
Vidal et al. (2011); Ahern et al. (2014); Lu et al. (2015); Qureshi and Kang (2015);
Thomas and Mengel (2008); Winter et al. (2006)
Construction Management and Economics (2)
European Journal of Operational Research (1)
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (2)
International Journal of Production Research (1)
International Journal of Operations and Production Management (1)
International Journal of Project Management (31)

Appendix 1. List of journals for Scopus search

Annals of Operations Research


Computers and Operations Research
Construction Management and Economics
Decision Support Systems
European Journal of Operational Research
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Interfaces
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
International Journal of Production Economics
International Journal of Production Research
International Journal of Project Management
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Journal of Management in Engineering
Journal of Management Information Systems
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of the Operational Research Society
Long Range Planning
Management Science
MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems
Omega
Operations Research
Production and Operations Management
Project Management Journal
Research Policy
Research Technology Management
Technovation
The Journal of Product Innovation Management

Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000)

Complexity

Uncertainty

research claims from a paper. We acknowledge that a given


paper may make numerous research claims, only some of
which may be supported by a citing paper. It is also possible
that some of the citing papers contest the claims of a paper, or
offer counterclaims. Thus, our method would lead to a
weight-bias by assigning higher weights to a paper in two
ways: (i) when a paper generates debates involving arguments
and counterarguments and (ii) when only some of the claims of
a paper receive a burst of attention. In defense, we contend that
(i) a brief scan of abstracts of highly cited papers does not
reveal any notable pattern of refutations; (ii) even if the citing
papers pick only a small subset of a papers claims, treating
citation as votes for all claims would only reduce the
proportionate semantic distance between the codes, but not
alter their ordinal relationships; and (iii) it is methodologically
complex to accurately enumerate all supports from the
large volume of citing papers. Given that the number of
citing papers for our sample is sufficiently large, we believe
that our findings are reasonably robust. Despite these
limitations, we believe our findings and study methodology
will offer reasonable utility for future project management
researchers.

Ward and Chapman (2008)

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

Journal outlet

696

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

Appendix 3. Keywords and codes

Complexity theoretic processes


Unexpected outcomes
Complex adaptive system
Complex responsive processes of relating
Evolutionary process
Bifurcation
Diversity
Variety
Pattern of change
Diversity
Dynamic uncertainty
Change in scope
changes, deviations
External uncertainty
External uncertainty
External contexts
Unclear organizational context
External elements
External political influence
Information availability
Estimation uncertainty
Information gap
Availability of information
Estimation bias
Interdependence
Fit and convergence
Interdependence of elements
Hierarchical interconnections
Interacting elements
Interdisciplinary
Interrelated elements
Impact of risks
Interdependence of modules
Network connectedness
Missing information
Ambiguity
Difficulty of prediction
Goal uncertainty
Information gap
Uncertain paths
Unknown variables and interactions
Unknown-unknowns
Unpredictable human action
Difficulty of project objectives
Transparency
Uncertain methods
Cognitive barriers
Uncertain outcomes
Unforeseeable uncertainty
Customer needs
Nonlinear dynamics
Feedback loops
Nonlinearity
Rate of change
Dynamic
Dynamic instability
Novelty
Novelty
Uniqueness
Newness of technology
Newness of objectives
Technology and process novelty

697

Organizational resources
Experience
Resources
Personal specialization
Capability
Roles, prototypes
Skills, competencies
Pace
Pace
Pace of work
Project timescale
Size
Number of elements
Number of specialties
Number of units
Number of variables
Scale
Size
Number of hierarchy levels
Number of distinct actions
Distinct elements
Number of inputs and outputs
Structural uncertainty
Known-unknown
Stochastic network
Path criticality
Structural uncertainty
Uncertain control and communication
Uncertain motivation & alignment
Uncertain quality and reliability
Uncertain resource availability
Unclear design

Appendix 4. Code definitions


Complex theoretic processes (COMP) are characterized by
(i) emergence (small causes developing into major effects),
(ii) coupling between elements leading to intractable system
behaviors, (iii) self-organizing behaviors, i.e., the system does not
run-away but exhibits organized chaos. While the system
behavior is not predictable, the system is deterministic (Anderson,
1999, p. 219).
Diversity (DIV) refers to the property of being diverse, set
of many related or unrelated things, choice making from many
options etc.
Dynamic uncertainty (DYNU) refers to unpredictability of
changes in project environments over time (Geraldi and Adlbrecht,
2007; Collyer and Warren, 2009; Petit, 2012).
External uncertainty (EXTU) relates to uncertainty in
elements which are external or exogenous to projects, but with
an implied time dimension. External uncertainty is semantically
adjacent to dynamic uncertainty. We interpret the distinction
between external and dynamic uncertainty based on their
underlying sources. External uncertainty is generally attributed
to actions of human actors external to project (Ward and
Chapman, 2003; Atkinson et al., 2006; Bosch-Rekveldt et al.,
2011; Maylor et al., 2013; Saunders et al., 2015), whereas
dynamic uncertainty is attributed to changes in structures,
processes or resources from the project environments.
Information availability (INFA) refers to partial availability
of information, where totality of information requirement is

698

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

identified. It is distinct from missing information, whose need


is not known beforehand, and hence is unobtainable.
Interdependence (INDP) relates to the property of interdependence, interaction, or interrelationships among elements.
Missing information (MSIN) relates to lack of information
which is unknown and therefore unobtainable.
Nonlinear dynamics (NLD) involves feedback loops which
induce nonlinear behavior over time. Unlike dynamic uncertainty,
nonlinear dynamics features known feedback loops between
known variables, and therefore is considered deterministic.
Novelty (NVLT) relates to newness or uniqueness of the
phenomenon from the perspective of the actor/human factor,
i.e., it goes beyond the prior knowledge and experience of the
person. If it is unrelated to human knowledge or experience,
then it is treated as Missing information.
Organizational resources (ORG) include process capability,
knowledge, skills, experience, and structures etc, i.e., elements
that are commonly seen as organizational attributes or assets.
Pace (PACE) is a property involving rates of change over
time.
Size (SIZE) indicates the size of the problem. It is measured
by the number of elements related to the structure of the
problem. Size is seen as a countable or measurable concept.
Structural uncertainty (STRU) is the uncertainty related to
elements or variables embedded in the structure of the project
phenomena. The elements are known, but their values are not
known.
References
Acebes, F., Pajares, J., Galn, J.M., Lpez-Paredes, A., 2014. A new approach
for project control under uncertainty. Going back to the basics. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 32 (3), 423434.
Ahern, T., Leavy, B., Byrne, P.J., 2014. Complex project management as
complex problem solving: a distributed knowledge management perspective.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (8), 13711381.
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M., 2003. Enterprise resource planning:
a taxonomy of critical factors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146 (2), 352364.
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., Mininno, V., 2007. Risk management in ERP project
introduction: review of the literature. Inf. Manag. 44 (6), 547567.
Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., Tushman, M.L., 2001. Time: a
new research lens. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (4), 645663.
Anderson, P., 1999. Perspective: complexity theory and organization science.
Organ. Sci. 10 (3), 216232.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., Ward, S., 2006. Fundamental uncertainties in
projects and the scope of project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (8),
687698.
Austin, S., Newton, A., Steele, J., Waskett, P., 2002. Modelling and managing
project complexity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20 (3), 191198.
Baccarini, D., 1996. The concept of project complexitya review. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 14 (4), 201204.
Belout, A., Gauvreau, C., 2004. Factors influencing project success: the impact
of human resource management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (1), 111.
Benbya, H., McKelvey, B., 2006. Toward a complexity theory of information
systems development. Inf. Technol. People 19 (1), 1234.
Biedenbach, T., Mller, R., 2011. Paradigms in project management research:
examples from 15 years of IRNOP conferences. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4
(1), 82104.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., Verbraeck, A., 2011.
Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: the TOE
(Technical, Organizational and Environmental) framework. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (6), 728739.

Bowman, R.A., 1995. Efficient estimation of arc criticalities in stochastic


activity networks. Manag. Sci. 41 (1), 5867.
Bradley, E.H., Curry, L.A., Devers, K.J., 2007. Qualitative data analysis for
health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health
Serv. Res. 42 (4), 17581772.
Brady, T., Davies, A., 2010. From hero to hubrisreconsidering the project
management of Heathrows Terminal 5. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (2),
151157.
Brady, T., Davies, A., 2014. Managing structural and dynamic complexity: a
tale of two projects. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (4), 2138.
Brady, T., Davies, A., Nightingale, P., 2012. Dealing with uncertainty in
complex projects: revisiting Klein and Meckling. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5
(4), 718736.
Browning, T.R., 2014. Managing complex project process models with a
process architecture framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (2), 229241.
Browning, T.R., Eppinger, S.D., 2002. Modeling impacts of process
architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag. 49 (4), 428442.
Burnes, B., 2004. Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future?
J. Chang. Manag. 4 (4), 309325.
Burt, J.M., 1977. Planning and dynamic control of projects under uncertainty.
Manag. Sci. 24 (3), 249258.
Chanas, S., Zieliski, P., 2001. Critical path analysis in the network with fuzzy
activity times. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 122 (2), 195204.
Chapman, C., 2006. Key points of contention in framing assumptions for risk
and uncertainty management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (4), 303313.
Chapman, C., Ward, S., 2000. Estimation and evaluation of uncertainty: a
minimalist first pass approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18 (6), 369383.
Chen, S.P., 2007. Analysis of critical paths in a project network with fuzzy
activity times. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 183 (1), 442459.
Cho, J.G., Yum, B.J., 1997. An uncertainty importance measure of activities in
PERT networks. Int. J. Prod. Res. 35 (10), 27372758.
Cho, S.H., Eppinger, S.D., 2005. A simulation-based process model for
managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 52 (3),
316328.
Christopher, M., Peck, H., Towill, D., 2006. A taxonomy for selecting global
supply chain strategies. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 17 (2), 277287.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., Hodgson, D., 2006. Rethinking project
management: researching the actuality of projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24
(8), 675686.
Cilliers, P., 2000. What can we learn from a theory of complexity? Emergence 2
(1), 2333.
Collyer, S., Warren, C.M., 2009. Project management approaches for dynamic
environments. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (4), 355364.
Cook, T.M., Jennings, R.H., 1979. Estimating a project's completion time
distribution using intelligent simulation methods. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 30 (12),
11031108.
Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L., Richardson, K., 2007. Mapping the
strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project
management. Proj. Manag. J. 38 (2), 5061.
Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L., 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.
Theory Pract. 39 (3), 124130.
Danilovic, M., Browning, T.R., 2007. Managing complex product development
projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 25 (3), 300314.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C.H., Pich, M.T., 2002. From variation to chaos. MIT
Sloan Manag. Rev. 43 (2), 6067.
De Reyck, B., Herroelen, W., 1996. On the use of the complexity index as a
measure of complexity in activity networks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 91 (2),
347366.
Eden, C., Williams, T., Ackermann, F., Howick, S., 2000. The role of feedback
dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay
(D&D) in major projects. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 51 (3), 291300.
Elmaghraby, S.E., Fathi, Y., Taner, M.R., 1999. On the sensitivity of project
variability to activity mean duration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 62 (3), 219232.
Ford, D.N., Lander, D.M., Voyer, J.J., 2002. A real options approach to valuing
strategic flexibility in uncertain construction projects. Constr. Manag. Econ.
20 (4), 343351.

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700


Geraldi, J., Adlbrecht, G., 2007. On faith, fact, and interaction in projects. Proj.
Manag. J. 38 (1), 3243.
Geraldi, J.G., 2008. The balance between order and chaos in multi-project
firms: a conceptual model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (4), 348356.
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., Williams, T., 2011. Now, let's make it really complex
(complicated): a systematic review of the complexities of projects. Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31 (9), 966990.
Gidado, K.I., 1996. Project complexity: the focal point of construction
production planning. Constr. Manag. Econ. 14 (3), 213225.
Giezen, M., 2012. Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and
disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 30 (7), 781790.
Gosling, J., Naim, M., Towill, D., 2012. Identifying and categorizing the
sources of uncertainty in construction supply chains. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
139 (1), 102110.
Gray, C.F., Larson, E.W., Desai, G.V., 2010. Project Management: The
Managerial Process, 4/e. New Delhi, Tata McGraw-Hill.
Grubbs, F.E., 1962. Letter to the Editor-Attempts to Validate Certain PERT
Statistics or Picking on PERT. Oper. Res. 10 (6), 912915.
Gunasekaran, A., Yusuf, Y.Y., 2002. Agile manufacturing: a taxonomy of
strategic and technological imperatives. Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (6),
13571385.
Gutierrez, G., Paul, A., 2000. Analysis of the effects of uncertainty, riskpooling, and subcontracting mechanisms on project performance. Oper.
Res. 48 (6), 927938.
Harland, C.M., Lamming, R.C., Zheng, J., Johnsen, T.E., 2001. A taxonomy of
supply networks. J. Supply Chain Manag. 37 (3), 2127.
Hartmann, S., Briskorn, D., 2010. A survey of variants and extensions of the
resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207 (1),
114.
Herroelen, W., Leus, R., 2004. Robust and reactive project scheduling: a review
and classification of procedures. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42 (8), 15991620.
Herroelen, W., Leus, R., 2005. Project scheduling under uncertainty: survey
and research potentials. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 165 (2), 289306.
Herroelen, W., De Reyck, B., Demeulemeester, E., 1998. Resource-constrained
project scheduling: a survey of recent developments. Comput. Oper. Res. 25
(4), 279302.
Hobday, M., 1998. Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation.
Res. Policy 26 (6), 689710.
Howell, D., Windahl, C., Seidel, R., 2010. A project contingency framework
based on uncertainty and its consequences. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (3),
256264.
Howick, S., Eden, C., 2001. The impact of disruption and delay when
compressing large projects: going for incentives? J. Oper. Res. Soc. 26-34.
Huemann, M., Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2007. Human resource management in
the project-oriented company: a review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (3),
315323.
Ika, L.A., 2009. Project success as a topic in project management journals. Proj.
Manag. J. 40 (4), 619.
Jaafari, A., 2001. Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on
projects: time for a fundamental shift. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19 (2), 89101.
Jacobsson, M., Sderholm, A., 2011. Breaking out of the straitjacket of project
research: in search of contribution. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4 (3), 378388.
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., Lfstrm, M., 2006. Project relationshipsa model
for analyzing interactional uncertainty. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (1), 412.
Jugdev, K., Mller, R., 2005. A retrospective look at our evolving
understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (4), 1931.
Kloppenborg, T.J., Opfer, W.A., 2002. The current state of project management
research: trends, interpretations, and predictions. Proj. Manag. J. 33 (2),
518.
Kolisch, R., 1996. Serial and parallel resource-constrained project scheduling
methods revisited: theory and computation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 90 (2),
320333.
Kolisch, R., Padman, R., 2001. An integrated survey of deterministic project
scheduling. Omega 29 (3), 249272.
Lenfle, S., 2011. The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with
unforeseeable uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (4), 359373.

699

Levy, D.L., 2000. Applications and limitations of complexity theory in


organization theory and strategy. Public Adm. Public Policy 79, 6788.
Littau, P., Jujagiri, N.J., Adlbrecht, G., 2010. 25 years of stakeholder theory in
project management literature (19842009). Proj. Manag. J. 41 (4), 1729.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C., 2002. Content analysis in mass
communication. Hum. Commun. Res. 28 (4), 587604.
Lu, Y., Luo, L., Wang, H., Le, Y., Shi, Q., 2015. Measurement model of project
complexity for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (3), 610622.
MacCrimmon, K.R., Ryavec, C.A., 1964. An analytical study of the PERT
assumptions. Oper. Res. 12 (1), 1637.
Manson, S.M., 2001. Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory.
Geoforum 32 (3), 405414.
Martinsuo, M., Korhonen, T., Laine, T., 2014. Identifying, framing and managing
uncertainties in project portfolios. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5), 732746.
Maylor, H.R., Turner, N.W., Murray-Webster, R., 2013. How hard can it be?
Actively managing complexity in technology projects. Res. Technol.
Manag. 56 (4), 4551.
Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., Carver, S., 2008. Managerial complexity in projectbased operations: a grounded model and its implications for practice. Proj.
Manag. J. 39 (S1), S15S26.
McLain, D., 2009. Quantifying project characteristics related to uncertainty.
Proj. Manag. J. 40 (4), 6073.
Meijer, K., Frasincar, F., Hogenboom, F., 2014. A semantic approach for
extracting domain taxonomies from text. Decis. Support. Syst. 62, 7893.
Miles, M., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Sage.
Miller, J.G., Roth, A.V., 1994. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies.
Manag. Sci. 40 (3), 285304.
Morgan, G., 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization
theory. Adm. Sci. Q. 25 (4), 605622.
Morris, P.W., 2010. Research and the future of project management. Int.
J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 3 (1), 139146.
Mulholland, B., Christian, J., 1999. Risk assessment in construction schedules.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 125 (1), 815.
Mller, R., Jugdev, K., 2012. Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin,
and Prescottthe elucidation of project success. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5
(4), 757775.
Mummolo, G., 1997. Measuring uncertainty and criticality in network planning
by PERT-path technique. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 (6), 377387.
Padalkar, M., Gopinath, S., 2015. Delays in projects: a game-theoretic study. In:
Warkentin, M. (Ed.), Trends and Research in the Decision Sciences: Best
Papers from the 2014 Annual Conference. Pearson Education, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, pp. 191212.
Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M., Wikstrm, K., 2008. Defining uncertainty in
projectsa new perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (1), 7379.
Petit, Y., 2012. Project portfolios in dynamic environments: organizing for
uncertainty. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (5), 539553.
Petit, Y., Hobbs, B., 2010. Project portfolios in dynamic environments: sources
of uncertainty and sensing mechanisms. Proj. Manag. J. 41 (4), 4658.
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H., Meyer, A.D., 2002. On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management. Manag. Sci. 48 (8), 10081023.
Pollack, J., 2007. The changing paradigms of project management. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 25 (3), 266274.
Pollack, J., Adler, D., 2015. Emergent trends and passing fads in project
management research: a scientometric analysis of changes in the field. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 33 (1), 236248.
Qureshi, S.M., Kang, C., 2015. Analysing the organizational factors of project
complexity using structural equation modelling. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (1),
165176.
Ramasesh, R.V., Browning, T.R., 2014. A conceptual framework for tackling
knowable unknown unknowns in project management. J. Oper. Manag. 32
(4), 190204.
Ramnath, S., Rock, S., Shane, P., 2008. The financial analyst forecasting literature:
a taxonomy with suggestions for further research. Int. J. Forecast. 24 (1), 3475.
Rodrigues, A.G., Williams, T.M., 1998. System dynamics in project management:
assessing the impacts of client behaviour on project performance. J. Oper. Res.
Soc. 2-15.

700

M. Padalkar, S. Gopinath / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 688700

Rozenes, S., Vitner, G., Spraggett, S., 2006. Project control: literature review.
Project Management Institute.
Sanderson, J., 2012. Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: a critical
discussion of alternative explanations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (4), 432443.
Saunders, F.C., Gale, A.W., Sherry, A.H., 2015. Conceptualising uncertainty in
safety-critical projects: a practitioner perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (2),
467478.
Saynisch, M., 2010a. Beyond frontiers of traditional project management: an
approach to evolutionary, self-organizational principles and the complexity
theoryresults of the research program. Proj. Manag. J. 41 (2), 2137.
Saynisch, M., 2010b. Mastering complexity and changes in projects, economy,
and society via Project Management Second Order (PM-2). Proj. Manag. J.
41 (5), 420.
Schonberger, R.J., 1981. Why projects are always late: a rationale based on
manual simulation of a PERT/CPM network. Interfaces 11 (5), 6670.
Senescu, R.R., Aranda-Mena, G., Haymaker, J.R., 2012. Relationships between
project complexity and communication. J. Manag. Eng. 29 (2), 183197.
Shenhar, A.J., 2001. One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical
contingency domains. Manag. Sci. 47 (3), 394414.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a typological theory of project
management. Res. Policy 25 (4), 607632.
Smyth, H.J., Morris, P.W., 2007. An epistemological evaluation of research into
projects and their management: methodological issues. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
25 (4), 423436.
Sderlund, J., 2004. Building theories of project management: past research,
questions for the future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (3), 183191.
Sommer, S.C., Loch, C.H., 2004. Selectionism and learning in projects with
complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty. Manag. Sci. 50 (10), 13341347.
Sommer, S.C., Loch, C.H., 2009. Incentive contracts in projects with
unforeseeable uncertainty. Prod. Oper. Manag. 18 (2), 185196.
Sun, M., Meng, X., 2009. Taxonomy for change causes and effects in
construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (6), 560572.
Svejvig, P., Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: a structured
literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (2), 278290.
Tatikonda, M.V., Rosenthal, S.R., 2000. Technology novelty, project complexity,
and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task
uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 47 (1), 7487.
Tesch, D., Kloppenborg, T.J., Stemmer, J.K., 2003. Project management
learning: what the literature has to say. Proj. Manag. J. 34 (4), 3339.
Thamhain, H., 2013. Managing risks in complex projects. Proj. Manag. J. 44
(2), 2035.

Thomas, J., Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing project managers to deal with
complexityAdvanced project management education. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
26 (3), 304315.
Turner, J.R., Mller, R., 2003. On the nature of the project as a temporary
organization. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (1), 18.
Turner, J.R., Mller, R., 2005. The project manager's leadership style as a
success factor on projects: a literature review. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (1), 4961.
Van de Vonder, S., Demeulemeester, E., Herroelen, W., Leus, R., 2005. The
use of buffers in project management: the trade-off between stability and
makespan. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 97 (2), 227240.
Vidal, L.A., Marle, F., 2008. Understanding project complexity: implications
on project management. Kybernetes 37 (8), 10941110.
Vidal, L.A., Marle, F., Bocquet, J.C., 2011. Measuring project complexity
using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (6), 718727.
Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2003. Transforming project risk management into
project uncertainty management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (2), 97105.
Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2008. Stakeholders and uncertainty management in
projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6), 563577.
Whitty, S.J., Maylor, H., 2009. And then came complex project management
(revised). Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (3), 304310.
Williams, T., Eden, C., Ackerman, F., Tait, A., 1995. Vicious circles of
parallelism. Int. J. of Proj. Manag. 13 (3), 151155.
Williams, T., 2005. Assessing and moving on from the dominant project
management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag. 52 (4), 497508.
Williams, T., Samset, K., 2010. Issues in front-end decision making on projects.
Proj. Manag. J. 41 (2), 3849.
Williams, T.M., 1992. Criticality in stochastic networks. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 353357.
Williams, T.M., 1999. The need for new paradigms for complex projects. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 17 (5), 269273.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., Cicmil, S., 2006. Directions for future
research in project management: the main findings of a UK governmentfunded research network. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (8), 638649.
Xia, W., Lee, G., 2004. Grasping the complexity of IS development projects.
Commun. ACM 47 (5), 6874.
Xia, W., Lee, G., 2005. Complexity of information systems development
projects: conceptualization and measurement development. J. Manag. Inf.
Syst. 22 (1), 4583.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., Taber, T., 2002. A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
behavior: integrating a half century of behavior research. J. Leadersh. Org.
Stud. 9 (1), 1532.

You might also like