Both practitioners and researchers in the field of project management have referred to problems caused by complexity or problems of particular significance to complex projects. In different scientific disciplines investigations into the behavior of complex dynamical systems are revealing insights that, taken together, amount to a challenge to the prevalent Cartesian/Newtonian/Enlightenment paradigm from which the practice of project management has emerged.
Concepts such as nonlinearity, emergence, self-organization, and radical unpredictability have major implications for the uncodified paradigm that underpins project management practice and research. Taken together, they amount to a complementary way of thinking and talking about projects and their management that might shed new light on intractable problems that appear to plague certain areas of project management practice.
One strand within complexity studies that holds particular promise is complex responsive processes of relating, a means of talking about how human beings interact and learn and how their interactions evolve over time and across space. A new program of research, of which this paper forms part, will apply this conceptual framework to the lived experience of project teams, including executive sponsors, project managers and project team members.
AuyangS. Y. (1999). Foundations of Complex-System Theories: In Economics, Evolutionary Biology and Statistical Physics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AxelrodR., & CohenM. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity. Organizational implications of a scientific frontier.Basic Books Edition. New York: Simon & Schuster.
3.
BaetsW. (2006). Complexity, learning and organizations: A quantum interpretation of business.Routledge: London.
4.
BaccariniD. (1996). The concept of project complexity—A review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 201–204.
5.
CicmilS. (2003a). Knowledge, interaction and project work: The perspective of complex responsive processes of relating. Presented at the 19th EGOS Colloquium, “Project Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge.” Copenhagen, Denmark, 3–5 July 2003.
6.
CicmilS. (2003b). Some implications of the “complex responsive processes” concept for studying IT-projects. Presented at NFF (Scandinavian Academy of Business and Management) biannual conference, Track: IT Projects – managing chaos and complexity? Reykjavik, Iceland, August 2003.
7.
CicmilS. (2005). Participation, reflection, and learning in project environments—A multiple perspective agenda. In LoveP., IraniZ., & FongS. W. (Eds.), Managing knowledge in project environments (pp. 155–180). MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
8.
CicmilS. (2006). Understanding project management practice through interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Management Journal, 37(2), 27–37.
9.
CicmilS., & HodgsonD. E. (2004). Knowledge, action, and reflection in management education – The case of project management. Presented at the 20th EGOS Colloquium, Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 2004.
10.
CicmilS., & MarshallD. (2005). Insights into collaboration at project level: complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research and Information, 33(6), 523–535.
11.
CicmilS., Cooke-DaviesT., CrawfordL., & RichardsonK. (2006). Impact of complexity theory on project management: Mapping the field of complexity theory, and using one concept of complexity as an interpretive framework in studying projects and project management practice.First interim report on the progress of the PMI funded project, The research team's database.
12.
CicmilS., WilliamsT., ThomasJ., & HodgsonD. (2006, November). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management: Special Issue on Rethinking Project Management, 24, 675–686.
13.
Cooke-DaviesT. J. (2002). Learning from experience. Project Manager Today.
14.
Cooke-DaviesT. J. (2004a). Project management maturity models. The Handbook of Managing Projects.New York: Wiley.
15.
Cooke-DaviesT. J. (2004b). Project success. The Handbook of Managing Projects.New York: Wiley.
16.
Cooke-DaviesT. J. (2004c). De-engineering project management. Presented at IRNOP VI, Turku, Finland.
Cooke-DaviesT. J., & WolstenholmeE. F. (1998). Reshaping project management education and training. Project Manager Today, X, 10–12.
19.
EliasN. ([1939] 2000). The Civilizing Process, Oxford: Blackwell
20.
FeigenbaumM. J. (1979). The Universal Metric Properties of Nonlinear Transformations. J. Stat. Phys.21, 669–706.
21.
FonsecaJ. (2002). Complexity and innovation in organizations.London and New York: Routledge.
22.
GriffinD. (2002). The emergence of leadership. Linking self-organization and ethics.London and New York: Routledge.
23.
HackingI. (2000). The social construction of what?Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press.
24.
HodgsonD. E., & CicmilS. (2003). “Setting the standards”: The construction of “the project” as an organizational object. Presented to the 3rd Critical Management Studies Conference at Lancaster University, July 2003.
25.
HodgsonD., & CicmilS. (2007). The politics of standards in modern management: Making “the project' a reality.”Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 431–450.
26.
KauffmanS. A. (1993). The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution.New York: Oxford University press.
27.
KauffmanS. A. (2000). Investigations.New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
KoskelaL., & HowellG. (2002). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete, Proceedings of the 2002 PMI Conference, Seattle: PMI.
29.
KuhnT. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions, third ed.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
30.
LewinR. (1993). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos.Phoenix, London
31.
LorenzEdward N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J. Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 130–141.
32.
LorenzE. (1993). The essence of chaos.Seattle: University of Washington Press
33.
LundinR. A., & SoderholmA. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.
34.
McMillanE. (2004). Complexity, organizations and change.London and New York: Routledge.
35.
MandelbrotB. (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature.2nd Edition.San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
36.
MeadG. H. (1934). Mind, self and society.Chicago: Chicago University Press.
37.
MelgratiA., & DamianiM. (2002). Rethinking the project management framework: New epistemology, new insights. Proceedings of PMI Research Conference.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
38.
PackendorffJ. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 319–333.
39.
PolanyiM. (1958). Personal knowledge. Towards a post-critical philosophy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
PrigogineI. (1980). From Being to Becoming.New York: Freeman
41.
PrigogineI. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos and the new laws of nature.New York: The Free Press.
42.
Project Management Institute. (2000). A guide to the project management body of knowledge.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
43.
ReynoldsC. W. (1987). Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behaviour model.Proceedings of SIG-GRAPH “87”. Computer Graphics.
44.
RichardsonK. A., TaitA., RoosJ., & LissackM. R. (2005). The coherent management of complex projects and the potential role of group decision support systems. Managing organizational complexity: Philosophy, theory, and application. In Managing the Complex, pp. 433–458. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
45.
RuelleD., & TakensF. (1971). On the nature of turbulence. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 20, 167–192.
46.
ShawP. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations. A complexity approach to change.London and New York: Routledge.
47.
SmythH. J., MorrisP. W. G., & Cooke-DaviesT. (2006) Understanding Project Management: philosophical and methodological issues, Paper presented at Euram 2006, May 17–20, BI Management School, Oslo.
48.
SommerC. S., & LochC. H. (2004). Selectionism and learning in projects with complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty. Management Science, 50, 1334–1348.
49.
StaceyR. D. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations. Learning and knowledge creation.London and New York: Routledge.
50.
StaceyR. D. (2003). Complexity and group processes. A radically social understanding of individuals.Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
51.
StaceyR. D., GriffinD., & ShawP. (2000). Complexity and management. Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking?London and New York: Routledge.
52.
StewartI. (1996). Nature's numbers. Discovering order and pattern in the Universe.Phoenix, London
53.
StewartI. (1997). Does God Play Dice?2nd Edn.London: Penguin
54.
StreatfieldP. J. (2001). The paradox of control in organizationsLondon, U.K.: Routledge.
55.
ThomasJ. (2000). Making sense of project management. Projects As Business Constituents and Guiding Motives (collection of best papers from peer reviewed IRNOP conference), Lundin, R., Hartman, F., & Navarre, C. (Eds.).
56.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
57.
WilliamsT. M. (1999). The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International Journal of Project Management, 17(5).
58.
WilliamsT. M. (2000). Safety regulation changes during projects: The use of system dynamics to quantify the effects of change. International Journal of Project Management, 18(1).
59.
WilliamsT. M. (2004). Assessing and building on the underlying theory of project management in the light of badly over-run projects. Project Management Institute Research Conference, London.
60.
WilsonE.O. (1971). The insect societies.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
61.
WittgensteinL. ([1953] 1973). Philosophical investigations, 3rd ed. Trans G. E.M. Anscome. New York: Prentice Hall.
62.
WittgensteinL. ([1921] 1974). Tractatus Logico-Philosophus. 1st paperback ed. Trans Pears, D. F., & McGuinness, B. F. London and New York: Routledge.
