Deeper look at the physics of projects

PM World Journal (ISSN: 2330-4480) A Deeper Look at the Physics
Vol. IX, Issue VIII – August 2020 of Large Complex Projects
www.pmworldjournal.com Commentary by Bob Prieto
© 2020 Robert Prieto www.pmworldlibrary.net Page 1 of 7
A Deeper Look at the Physics of Large Complex Projects
A Neo-classical Project Management Theory is Required1
By Bob Prieto
Chairman & CEO
Strategic Program Management LLC
I have previously written about the transition that I believe is necessary in project
management thinking related to large complex projects2. In those writing I describe the
shift as analogous to the shift from Newtonian to relativistic physics3. Subsequently, I
have compared the nature of large complex programs to open systems4. Reflecting back,
classical project management theory was very much based on closed systems thinking
and early applications of systems thinking to projects and engineering was also very much
based on closed systems thinking.
This is analogous to the closed systems of Newton and Einstein’s correction of his original
General Theory of Relativity through the introduction of the cosmological constant to close
a system which he believed behaved mechanistically and not expanding. In hindsight the
cosmological constant was not necessary but does suggest some properties of the
universe and became relevant in explaining an accelerating expansion of the universe.
Subsequently, there was at least one special case where the deterministic nature of a
closed system broke down when considering General Relativity suggesting at least some
open nature to this system.
As I reflect on an open system analog for the universe a large complex project exists in,
I will begin by attempting to create some thought equivalence between aspect of
Einstein’s work and subsequent physical theorems and large complex projects. It has
been many years since I’ve used any of my nuclear engineering training so what follows
may be overly simplistic for any one with serious training in physics.
1
How to cite this paper: Prieto, R. (2020). A Deeper Look at the Physics of Large Complex Projects: A Neo-
classical Project Management Theory is Required; PM World Journal, Vol. IX, Issue VIII, August.
2
Prieto, R. (2015). Theory of Management of Large Complex Projects; Construction Management Association of
America; ISBN: ISBN 580-0-111776-07-9; October;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299980338_Theory_of_Management_of_Large_Complex_Projects
3
Prieto, R. (2015). Physics of Projects; PM World Journal Vol. IV, Issue V – May;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275888028_Physics_of_Projects
4
Large Complex Programs as Open Systems; National Academy of Construction Executive Insight;
https://www.naocon.org/insights/

Relativistic Energy and Mass
At the most fundamental level for Einstein, relativistic energy (kinetic and potential
energy) was associated with the photon. Mass represented the conversion of relativistic
energy such that energy (E) times a conversion factor (1/c2 in the case of special relativity)
was equal to the mass resulting from the conversion of energy to a more tangible form. I
have always thought of mass as “frozen” energy but more relevant here is the nature of
mass created by the conversion of energy times a conversion factor. In the universe of
large complex projects I think of energy as related to the work done by one person unit of
work. The resultant output is the frozen energy of people if you will. Mass represents the
tangible form of some units of work times a conversion factor. The conversion factor will
more likely be analogous to Einstein’s more general form found in General Relativity but
we will return to that later.
So at the most fundamental level in a large complex project we have a source of energy
(human work) that can through a defined process be translated into a tangible object or
outcome (a mass equivalent).
Some Points to Consider
Before we move further into the use of the relativistic analogy a few points are worth
highlighting. First, Einstein’s inclusion of a cosmological constant derived from his view
at the time that the universe was a closed system and not expanding. After the universe
was found to indeed be expanding the cosmological constant was not required to close
the system described by general relativity. Space time was unstable without the
cosmological constant. Take it out and you have an expanding dynamic system that is
changing overall but can have local regions of stability
Second, despite his Nobel Prize of 1921 related to light quanta, Einstein had trouble
accepting the quantum nature since the quantum nature has fundamental indeterminism.
Quantum mechanics is uncertain and creates a disorderly universe, not unlike the
situation we often encounter with large complex projects.
Third, open systems show relatively fixed structures or reality and relatively open scopes
for possibility. Open systems tend toward differentiation, growth in complexity and
integration or networking with other systems. Open systems are also open to leaps in
combinations resulting in new wholes. Think emergence. Catastrophic behaviors are part
of their history.
Each of these three points will become important as we continue with this relativistic
analogy.

Space-time
Let’s return now to one of Einstein’s central concepts, namely space-time. For Einstein
the two parameters were linked and inseparable. Importantly, they are shaped by the
presence of mass (m) but also the passing of energy through it. The later is most notable
in the form of gravitational waves that transmit gravitational radiation, distorting local
space-time as they transit it.
In large complex projects we progressively change the local nature of a project’s “space-
time” in several ways. Initially, we impact the project setting through the introduction of a
significant amount of “potential energy” defining the proposed project and its implications
and ramifications. This “potential energy” (one component of relativistic energy) has not
yet been made tangible by transformation into kinetic energy and ultimately the mass of
the project itself. But the concentrated presence of this relativistic energy component if
you will has the effect of beginning to shape space-time. We see this in the induced
responses in space-time by the introduction of this local distortion. Stakeholder concerns
emerge as the space-time they have previously experienced is gradually distorted by the
introduction of this significant potential. In a sense space-time is the ecosystem of
stakeholders and importantly their relationships, ideas and priorities5.
Second, as we undertake the execution of the project, converting “potential energy” into
“kinetic energy” and ultimately into the resultant project “mass” we draw into the local
project setting mass from outside of the local region. Remember, in the large complex
project setting mass represents the tangible form of some work (kinetic energy) times a
conversion factor. Think of the formation of the planets as they progressively drew other
nearby masses together in their formation. As this transformation process is happening
these logistical flows are themselves distorting local regions of space-time, sometimes at
great distance. This transformational period for the project creates a growing and
unpredictable distortion in space time as more and more flows enter the project,
sometimes interfering with each other or even transforming one another6. The interaction
between the project and its local space-time is not deterministic but rather emergent as
are the distortions in space-time that the project creates.
Finally, the project is complete or perhaps said another way it is now stable with a well-
defined and steady (distortional) relationship with its local space-time. It may be perturbed
at a later time but that is not of interest here. While the project has now reached a stable
phase the transformation phase has had far reaching effects. Relationships with nearby
5
I have referred to this as the project’s ecosystem and also as the stakeholder ecosystem in other contexts. My
current thinking suggests that this broader space-time concept are these and more.
6
Flows in Large Complex Projects; National Academy of Construction Executive Insight;
https://www.naocon.org/insights/

stakeholders have been reframed (space-time has been distorted), with the potential of
longer lasting perturbations in this project-stakeholder system. Logistical chains have
been significantly modified often with very different pre and post-project trajectories. This
may impact subsequent project transformations even at a distance.
Our large project is transformed in an expanding dynamic system that is changing overall
even as we seek to create a local region of stability.
Let’s look at our project’s space-time setting a little closer. It is not just distorted by the
introduction of the relativistic energy of the project but it is itself turbulent, akin to what
quantum mechanics might suggest. New issues pop in and out of existence and the extent
to which they define or modify the local setting, local region of space-time, is uncertain.
Space-time is endowed with properties. It is defined by its relationship to different objects.
Space-time itself is emergent.
The project setting and its interaction with space-time both locally and at a distance
behaves very much as an open system. As a result our project has a relatively open scope
for possibilities, certainly not what classical project management theory with its closed
systems view would suggest. Our large complex project, like all open systems, tends
toward differentiation, growth in complexity and networking with other systems, such as
the supply chains which feed it but also many more.
Black Holes
Let’s turn now to a characteristic predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, black
holes. In physics these represent regions in space-time where extreme densities so
distort space-time that no energy or information can escape. Their gravity is so strong
that they effectively create a hole in normal space-time. In large projects we experience
two different types of black holes. The first is at the foundational center of our project and
the second is at a distance, containing a great potential for catastrophic action that while
remote should not be ignored.
Let’s look at the first type, those present in the foundational cores of our project universe.
In physics, a black hole is a region of space-time where gravity prevents anything
including light from escaping. In the universe of projects the analogous region is one
which prevents a strongly founded project from being initiated. These black holes may
manifest themselves as weak or absent project definition processes, with well-defined
stage gates that ensure a well-founded project. Alternately, they may be masked by the
perception of a well-founded project only to discover later on that the fundamental
assumptions underpinning the project suffer from optimism bias or underestimating the
true nature of risk7.
7
Foundations for Success; National Academy of Construction Executive Insight; https://www.naocon.org/insights/

The second type of black holes becomes important when we consider the project universe
equivalent of gravitational waves.
Before moving onto gravitational waves a final thought on black holes is in order.
Quantum field theory in the curved space-time which is characteristic of black holes says
that the horizon of the black hole has entropy8. In our project universe this may represent
a possible means to detect and assess these black holes remembering that the entropy
is related to its area so the smaller black holes at the center of our project foundations
may be harder to detect.
Gravitational Waves of Large Complex Projects
In relativistic physics, gravitational waves are ripples in space-time, events that literally
cause the displacement of space-time itself. In the simplest terms they result from
asymmetrical energetic events. The amplitude of the resultant waves is inversely
proportional to their distance from our system (as opposed to energy dissipation which is
inversely proportional to the square of distance). Amplitude is also proportional to the
energy of the initiating event. One source of these gravitational waves are black holes
that interact with or combine with other black holes in some energetic way.
In our project system, large, proximate black holes, regions of potentially catastrophic
risk, are capable of suddenly changing the space-time of our project system. The nature
of the sudden realization of this potential disruptive event and what causes its sudden
emergence remain a subject for further consideration. But what is known is that the
emergence of these events and the resultant amplitude they create in space-time can
have catastrophic effects on our project. In our project system we refer to these sudden
unexpected events with catastrophic consequences as Black Swans. There may be more
to discover about the impacts of the project equivalent of gravitational waves by
recognizing that they originate from four different types of originating events. Perhaps
Black Swans have some relatives not yet recognized.
Time Dilation
One of the predictions of General Relativity relates to the passage of time as experienced
by two observers. In physics, if one observer is moving very fast, time takes longer to
pass as compared to what the other outside observer sees. This is called time dilation.
This same time dilation occurs in the presence of strong gravitational fields such as those
caused by large masses in space-time.
8
Hawkings radiation

Analogously, in large complex projects, project time passes more slowly than it would for
an outside observer (real world time). Now, this is not as if all project clocks run slow but
rather the larger and more complex a project the harder and slower it is to make progress.
The mass of the project and the strength of its distortion on local space-time create a
degree of difficulty not experienced with smaller projects.
Conversion of Energy to Mass
Mass represented the conversion of relativistic energy such that energy (E) times a
conversion factor (1/c2 in the case of special relativity) was equal to the mass resulting
from the conversion of energy to a more tangible form.
In General Relativity the more familiar form of E=mc2 is replaced with E=λmc2, where λ=
1/ (√(1-v2/c2) 9. At rest, the rest energy for a given mass is mc2. As we accelerate this
mass the kinetic energy of an object moving at relativistic speeds is equal to (λ- 1) mc2.
As we accelerate a given mass to higher energy levels significantly more and more energy
is required and no mass can ever be accelerated to the speed of light.
In the universe of projects as we seek to increase the resultant outputs (mass) the
increase in human activity (energy) is non-linear, growing either with total project size or
accelerated mass deployment (shorter schedule). Assuming a relationship similar to what
we see in relativistic physics, increasing the “velocity” of the project from 89 to 90% of a
theoretical maximum would require 4.6% more energy while increasing it from 93 to 94%
would require 7.7% more energy. Project acceleration faces the same energy challenges
as mass acceleration.
So What Does This Mean for Large Projects?
Large complex projects are not well served by classical project management theory.
Classical theory fails at scale much in the way Newtonian physics was replaced by
relativistic physics at scale. This paper examines several components of relativistic
physics as an analogy for what we observe in the universe of large complex projects.
There is much we can learn and the General Theory of Relativity provides a framework
for rethinking our assumptions and approach to large complex projects.
9
√square root

About the Author
Bob Prieto
Chairman & CEO
Strategic Program Management LLC
Jupiter, Florida, USA
Bob Prieto is a senior executive effective in shaping and executing business strategy and a
recognized leader within the infrastructure, engineering and construction industries.
Currently Bob heads his own management consulting practice, Strategic Program
Management LLC. He previously served as a senior vice president of Fluor, one of the
largest engineering and construction companies in the world. He focuses on the
development and delivery of large, complex projects worldwide and consults with owners
across all market sectors in the development of programmatic delivery strategies. He is
author of nine books including “Strategic Program Management”, “The Giga Factor:
Program Management in the Engineering and Construction Industry”, “Application of Life
Cycle Analysis in the Capital Assets Industry”, “Capital Efficiency: Pull All the Levers” and,
most recently, “Theory of Management of Large Complex Projects” published by the
Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) as well as over 700 other
papers and presentations.
Bob is an Independent Member of the Shareholder Committee of Mott MacDonald. He is a
member of the ASCE Industry Leaders Council, National Academy of Construction, a
Fellow of the Construction Management Association of America and member of several
university departmental and campus advisory boards. Bob served until 2006 as a U.S.
presidential appointee to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Advisory
Council (ABAC), working with U.S. and Asia-Pacific business leaders to shape the
framework for trade and economic growth. He had previously served as both as Chairman
of the Engineering and Construction Governors of the World Economic Forum and co-chair
of the infrastructure task force formed after September 11th by the New York City Chamber
of Commerce. Previously, he served as Chairman at Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) and a non-
executive director of Cardno (ASX)
Bob can be contacted at rpstrategic@comcast.net..

Deeper look at the physics of projects

More Related Content

Similar to Deeper look at the physics of projects (20)

More from Bob Prieto (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Deeper look at the physics of projects