House of Project Complexity—understanding complexity in large infrastructure projects

References

• Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. (1978) Patterns of innovation in technology. Technology Review, 80(7), 40–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackermann, F., Eden, C. and Williams, T. (1997) A persuasive approach to delay and disruption using mixed methods. Interfaces, 27(2), 48–65. doi: 10.1287/inte.27.2.48
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, C. (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, P. (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Special issue: application of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–32. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.3.216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baccarini, D. (1996) The concept of project complexity—a review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 201–4. doi: 10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3
   Google Scholar
• Bart, C.K. (1988) Organizing for new product development. Journal of Business Strategy, 9(4), 34–8. doi: 10.1108/eb039240
   Google Scholar
• Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H. and Verbraeck, A. (2011) Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: the TOE (technical, organizational and environmental) framework. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 728–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulding, K.E. (1956) General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34. doi: 10.2307/2393807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browning, T.R. (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(3), 292–306. doi: 10.1109/17.946528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, R.M. and Obel, B. (2004) Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: The Dynamics of Fit, Kluwer, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Chinyio, E.A. and Akintoye, A. (2008) Practical approaches for engaging stakeholders: findings from the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 591–9. doi: 10.1080/01446190802078310
   Google Scholar
• Cicmil, S. and Marshall, D. (2005) Insights into collaboration at the project level: complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research and Information, 33(6), 523–35. doi: 10.1080/09613210500288886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. and Hodgson, D. (2006) Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 675–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.006
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, K.G., Lyneis, J.M. and Bryant, B.J. (2002) Learning to learn, from past to future. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 213–19. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00071-0
   Google Scholar
• Crawley, E., de Weck, O., Eppinger, S., Magee, C., Moses, J., Seering, W., Schindall, J., Wallace, D. and Whitney, D. (2004) The Influence of Architecture in Engineering Systems, Engineering Systems Monograph, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Dewar, R. and Hage, J. (1978) Size, technology, complexity, and structural differentiation: toward a theoretical synthesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 111–36. doi: 10.2307/2392436
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1994) Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R. (2012) Design Structure Matrix: Methods and Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Esty, B.C. (2004a) Modern Project Finance: A Casebook, Wiley, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Esty, B.C. (2004b) Why study large projects? An introduction to research on project finance. European Financial Management, 10(2), 213–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1354-7798.2004.00247.x
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management : A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, C. and Soete, L. (1997) The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Routledge, Milton Park.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S. and Wicks, A. C. (2007) Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M. K. (2007) Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R.H. (1987) Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 4th edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, T.P. (2000) Rescuing Prometheus, Vintage Books, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. (2005) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Jawahar, I. M. and McLaughlin, G. L. (2001) Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joskow, P. L. (1988) Asset specificity and the structure of vertical relationships: empirical evidence. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 4(1), 95–117.
   Google Scholar
• Klir, G.J. (1985) Complexity: some general observations. Systems Research, 2(2), 131–40. doi: 10.1002/sres.3850020205
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47. doi: 10.2307/2391211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, M. and Karandikar, H.M. (1994) A survey of concurrent engineering. Concurrent Engineering, 2(1), 1–6. doi: 10.1177/1063293X9400200101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lessard, D. (2007) Project Complexity and Performance, Academy of Management Professional Development Workshop (PDW) on Projects, Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Lessard, D. and Miller, R. (2013) The shaping of large engineering projects, in Priemus, H. and van Wee, B. (eds) International Handbook on Mega Projects, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 34–56.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt, R.E. (2011) Towards project management 2.0. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(3), 197–210. doi: 10.1080/21573727.2011.609558
   Google Scholar
• Lyneis, J.M., Cooper, K.G. and Els, S.A. (2001) Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17(3), 237–60. doi: 10.1002/sdr.213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyneis, J.M. and Ford, D.N. (2007) System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research. System Dynamics Review, 23(2), 157–89. doi: 10.1002/sdr.377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, M. and Rechtin, E. (2009) The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Marples, D.L. (1961) The decisions of engineering design. IRE Transactions on Engineering Management, 8(2), 55–71. doi: 10.1109/IRET-EM.1961.5007593
   Google Scholar
• Merrow, E.W. (2011) Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, E.J. (1959) Technology, territory, and time: the internal differentiation of complex production systems. Human Relations, 12(3), 243–72. doi: 10.1177/001872675901200304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, R. and Lessard, D. (2000) The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects: Shaping Institutions, Risks, and Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, R. and Lessard, D. (2001) Understanding and managing risks in large engineering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 19(8), 437–43. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00045-X
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Orr, R.J. and Scott, W.R. (2008) Institutional exceptions on global projects: a process model. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 562–88. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrow, C. (1986) Normal Accidents, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, B. (1996) Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals: Integrated Product and Process Organization, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Priemus, H., Flyvbjerg, B. and van Wee, B. (eds) (2008) Decision-Making on Mega-Projects: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Project Management Institute (2004) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Newtown Square, PA, Project Management Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Rechtin, E. (1992) The art of systems architecting. IEEE Spectrum, 29(10), 66–9. doi: 10.1109/6.158642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rechtin, E. (1999) Systems Architecting of Organizations: Why Eagles Can't Swim, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C.C. (eds) (2009) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Savage, G.T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J. and Blair, J. D. (1991) Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. The Executive, 5(2), 61–75. doi: 10.5465/AME.1991.4274682
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W.R. (2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W.R. (2012) The institutional environment of global project organizations. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(1–2), 27–35. doi: 10.1080/21573727.2011.634546
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W.R., Levitt, R.E. and Orr, R.J. (eds) (2011) Global Projects: Institutional and Political Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Shenhar, A.J. (2001) One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–414. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.47.3.394.9772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (1996) Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy, 25(4), 607–32. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(95)00877-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2004) How projects differ and what to do about it, in Morris, P. W. G. and Pinto, J. K. (eds) The Wiley Guide to Project, Program and Portfolio Management, Wiley, Hoboken, pp. 1265–86.
   Google Scholar
• Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2007) Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H.A. (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd edn, MIT Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2003) Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 125(2), 240–52. doi: 10.1115/1.1564074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, L., Johnson, R., Mercado, C. and Terry, K. (2009) The SAGE Glossary of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, J.D. (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J.R. and Cochrane, R.A. (1993) Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. International Journal of Project Management, 11(2), 93–102. doi: 10.1016/0263-7863(93)90017-H
   Google Scholar
• Van Gigch, J.P. (1978) Applied General Systems Theory, 2nd edn, Harper & Row, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, D. (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• de Weck, O. L., Roos, D. and Magee, C. L. (2011) Engineering Systems: Meeting Human Needs in a Complex Technological World, MIT Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, T.M. (1999) The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 269–73. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00047-7
   Google Scholar
• Williams, T.M. (2002) Modelling Complex Projects, Wiley, Chichester.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, T.M. (2005) Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(4), 497–508. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2005.856572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, T.M., Eden, C., Ackermann, F. and Tait, A. (1995) The effects of design changes and delays on project costs. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(7), 809–18. doi: 10.1057/jors.1995.114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, T.M., Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2003) Structuring a delay and disruption claim: an application of cause-mapping and system dynamics. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(1), 192–204. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00372-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar