Project management theory and management of large complex projects final

PM World Journal Project Management Theory and the
Vol. IV, Issue VI – June 2015 Management of Large Complex Projects
www.pmworldjournal.net Featured Paper by Bob Prieto
© 2015 Bob Prieto www.pmworldlibrary.net Page 1 of 85
Project Management Theory and the Management of Large
Complex Projects
Bob Prieto
Abstract
The normal condition of a project is “failure” and this is no more true than in the world of
large complex projects where two out of three projects “fail”. Current project
management theory does not provide a framework for success. In this article, the
current theoretical framework for management of large complex projects is considered
in light of the continuing evolution of general management theory and the theories of
management and projects explored. Characteristics of large complex projects are
reviewed and changed management perspectives suggested.
The purpose of this article is to move beyond the author’s previous question of “Is it time
to rethink project management theory” to suggesting some of the essential perspective
and focal changes that such a rethink will likely include. Just as theory in physics moved
from a purely classical view to a classical and relativistic (or neo-classical view) view,
each with their own scalar domains, so too must the universe of large complex projects
be better underpinned.
The large complex projects contemplated in this article are large, complex engineering
and construction projects but others may judge its conclusions to apply equally in other
domains.
Extensive footnoting is intended to both support the author’s views as well as provide
readers with avenues for additional reading and insight.

1. Introduction
Those of you that have discussed with me my various writings over the years have
heard me describe these writings as how I think. Writing drives a discipline of organizing
thoughts and concepts and as a minimum positing premises that become refined as the
result of comments, debate and even refutal. This paper has been a long time in the
making, reflecting my continuing work on and thinking about large complex projects.
In this paper I continue to build on my questioning of the adequacy of current project
management theory to serve the needs of large complex projects. This questioning is
driven by a simple reality - large projects fail two thirds of the time1 2
This fundamentally must be the result of:
 Poor conceptualization of what the project really was
 Inherent weaknesses in the plan or planning process
 Weak or inadequate execution – processes, people, technology
 Inadequate control recognizing the changing internal capabilities and constraints
and ever evolving externalities.
Underpinning our approach to the management of large projects are two central
theoretical constructs3
:
 Theory of Management
 Theory of Projects
Results suggest that both may warrant examination and likely modification of their
respective frameworks. As we examine each, we must remain cognizant of broader
management thinking and the evolution of new theories of management.
2. Where the Theory of Management Stands Today
In order to assess the current state and adequacy of project management theory,
especially as it relates to the universe of large engineering and construction projects, it
is helpful to first review the evolution of broader management theory. The objective of
such a review is to test whether current project management theory has evolved along
1
As large projects are increasingly a fundamental management technique in the management of large
organizations, getting failure rates down to acceptable levels is essential for good organizational governance
2
Is it Time to Rethink Project Management Theory?; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2015 provides a summary of
project failure rates reported by others.
3
The Theory of Project management: Explanation to Novel Methods; Lauri Koskela, Greg Howell

similar lines or whether there are insights that may yet be gleamed from the broader
field of management.
In many instances large, semi-permanent project organizations have lifetimes longer
than the organizations served by general management theory.
3. A Short History of Management Theory
The management of various endeavors ranging from the creation of ancient works to
warfare has existed for thousands of years but it was only on the heels of Adam
Smith’s4
magnus opus, The Wealth of Nations5
, that attention shifted to how to best
organize tasks and labor. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith highlights the importance of
division of labor, breaking down of large jobs into many tiny components, a concept
which has pervaded management theory since. In many ways this was the first
identifiable management theory and one which was focused on the approach to
execution of work.
The concept that the organization and coordination of labor of labor could be taught
emerged with the transition from entrepreneurial capitalism of the 19th
century, where
owners used their own money and were daily engaged in the business, to managerial
capitalism in the 20th
century, with larger organizations with capital provided by others
not directly engaged in the day to day business. This led to an explosion in
management thought that continues to today.
Management theory at this stage can be described as classical theory comprising at
least two major schools of thought:
 Scientific management
 Administrative theories
Scientific management theory is underpinned by the work of Taylor6
, an American
engineer, focused on improving the efficiency of growing industrial production.
Administrative theories can be segregated for this discussion into two subsets:
4
Adam Smith was a Scottish moral philosopher, pioneer of political economy, and key Scottish Enlightenment
figure. Smith is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is
considered his the first modern work of economics. Smith is cited as the "father of modern economics" and is still
among the most influential thinkers in the field of economics today.
5
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, generally referred to as The Wealth of Nations,
published in 1776 is a fundamental work in classical economics. The book touches upon such broad topics as the
division of labor, productivity, and free markets.
6
Frederick Winslow Taylor was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. He
was one of the first management consultants. Taylor is regarded as the father of scientific management.

 Bureaucracy
 Administration and management
Bureaucracy was based on a set of principles developed by Weber7
, a founding father
of modern social sciences, while administration and management theory was developed
by Fayol8
, a mining engineer.
Each of these theories focused on the approach to management of execution of
work. The following table (Table 1) compares some of the key ideas of each of these
classical management theories.
Table 1
Classical Management Theories
School Scientific
Management
Administrative Theories
Theory Scientific
Management
Bureaucracy Administration
Thought Leaders Frederick Winslow
Taylor
Max Weber Henri Fayol
Defining Work The Principles of
Scientific
Management9
Die Protestantische
Ethik und der Geist
des Kapitalismus10
(The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism)
"Administration
industrielle et
générale"11
(General and
industrial
administration)
7
Karl Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber was a German sociologist, philosopher, and political economist who has
influenced social theory and research. Weber is often cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as among the
three founders of sociology. Max Weber's Bureaucratic theory or model is sometimes also known as the "Legal-
Rational" model. The model tries to explain bureaucracy from a rational point of view via nine principles.
8
Henri Fayol was a French mining engineer and director of mines who developed a general theory of business
administration that is often called Fayolism. His theory was developed independently of scientific management but
contemporaneously. He is acknowledged as a founder of modern management methods.
9
The Principles of Scientific Management; Frederick Winslow Taylor; Monograph; Harper & Brothers; 1911
10
Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism); Karl
Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber; 1905 (German); 1930 (English)
11
"Administration Industrielle et Générale" (General and industrial administration); Henri Fayol; 1916 (French);
1930 (English)

Key Principles Science for each
element work,
replaces rule-of-
thumb method
Distinct/separate
areas of
competence, set out
in law/regulation
Forecast and plan
Scientifically select,
train, teach, and
develop workers
Hierarchy of office Organize
Cooperation to
ensure work done in
accordance with the
science
Decisions based on
written documents
and written rules
Command/direct
Division of the
work/responsibility
between
management and
workers.
Management
undertakes work for
which they are
better trained than
the workers
Relationships and
decisions are
impersonal
Coordinate
Officials have
extensive education
in area of
competence
Control
Employment based
on expertise and is
full time
Fixed salaries

Classical theories of management were soon complemented by theories with basis in
the human relations movement. Behavioral Theory focused on the people aspects of
organizations and management, recognizing that management is an ongoing, dynamic
process and that employees must be active participants, with “buy-in” of decisions.
Early work by Follet12
and Barnard13
, who she greatly influenced, was reinforced by
Mayo’s14
Hawthorne15
studies. Follet might be regarded as the mother of modern
management with her consideration of human aspects.
Their work was later extended by Maslow16
with his Theory of Motivation and
McGregor17
with his perspectives on so-called Theory X and Theory Y managers. The
manager’s toolbox was bigger but so was his job. The following table (Table 2)
summarizes some of the elements of Behavioral Theory.
Table 2
Behavioral Theory
Theory Behavioral Theory Theory of Motivation Theory X/Theory Y
Thought Leaders Follet; Barnard Maslow McGregor
12
Mary Parker Follett was an American social worker, management consultant and pioneer in the fields of
organizational theory and organizational behavior. Mary Parker Follett was one of the great women management
gurus in the early days of classical management theory
13
Chester Irving Barnard was an American business executive, public administrator, and the author of pioneering
work in management theory and organizational studies. His work sets out a theory of organization and of the
functions of executives in organizations.
14
George Elton Mayo (1880–1949) was an Australian born psychologist, industrial researcher, and organizational
theorist. Mayo made significant contributions to business management, industrial sociology, philosophy, and social
psychology. His field research in industry had a significant impact on industrial and organizational psychology and
is known for scientific study of organizational behavior. His work helped to lay the foundation for the human
relations movement which emphasized that along with the formal organization there exists an informal
organizational structure as well.
15
Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). The Hawthorne Works commissioned a study to
see if workers became more productive in higher or lower levels of light. Productivity improved when changes
were made, and slumped when the study ended. It was suggested that the productivity gain occurred as a result of
the motivational effect on the workers of the interest being shown in them.
16
Abraham Harold Maslow was an American psychologist known for creating Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a
theory predicated on fulfilling innate human needs in priority, culminating in self-actualization
17
Douglas Murray McGregor was a management professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and president
of Antioch College. He was a contemporary of Abraham Maslow and contributed to the development of the
management and motivational theory. He is best known for his Theory X and Theory Y which proposed that
manager’s individual assumptions about human nature and behavior determined how individual manages their
employees.

Defining Work The New State18
(Follett); The
Functions of the
Executive19
(Barnard)
A Theory of Human
Motivation20
The Human Side of
Enterprise21
Key Principles Management is a
dynamic process
Hierarchy of needs Managers create
situations where
employees confirm
manager’s
expectations (self-
fulfilling prophecy)
Workers should be
involved in
decisions
Needs never
completely satisfied
People work for
inner satisfaction
not materialistic
rewards (drives
performance)
Noncoercive power
sharing (managers
need buy-in of
employees; “power
with” vs. “power
over”)
Behavior motivated
by need for
satisfaction
Employees
motivated by social
needs
Needs encompass
physiological;
safety; belonging;
esteem; and self-
actualization.
Reciprocal
relationships (peer
forces are strong)
18
The new state : group organization the solution of popular government; Mary Parker Follett ; Longmans; 1918
19
The Functions of the Executive; Chester I. Barnard; Harvard University Press; 1938
20
A Theory of Human Motivation; Abraham H. Maslow; Psychological Review, 50, 370-396; 1943
21
The Human Side of Enterprise; Douglas Murray McGregor; 1960

Win-win philosophy
(employees respond
to managers who
help them satisfy
needs)
Managers
coordinate work
fairly to improve
efficiency
Authority of
expertise (leads to
matrix organization)
Conflict as
opportunity to
develop integrated
solutions vs.
compromising
Critical role of soft
factors and informal
processes
Relevance of theory
is underpinned by
the “scientific”
Hawthorne studies
Post World War II we saw development of a concerted study of systems theory as it
might be applied to each area of scientific endeavor. This surge in systems interests
was driven by the recognition that recent advances in science called us to question all
classical assumptions. Management theory was not spared this reexamination. The

early work of Bertalanffy22
was foundational and an agreed to ontology for systems
theory is lacking but could be thought to be more biological. The suggested systems
ontology in this paper is for convenience and may be described as follows:
 Static – highly encapsulated with limited or no exchange with its environment
(more akin to what Taylor envisioned)
 Dynamic – exchange of information with environment can be reasonably well
characterized with behaviors that may be either:
o Deterministic – exchanges with environment can be modeled (system is
more closed in nature) and sensitivity to initial conditions will support
either:
 Stable systems – inputs well known or limited sensitivity (This is
the realm of Systems Theory in management)
 Chaotic systems – high sensitivity to initial conditions (This special
case of systems theory is often characterized as Chaos Theory)
o Non-deterministic – exchanges with environment cannot be reasonably
modeled and the potential for “global cascade”23
exists as various agents
in the system interact with and adapt to each other over time24
. This more
evolutionary description is best associated with:
 Complex systems – that can be further characterized by their
resilience25
or sensitivity of complex systems to catastrophic failure
from a minor change in input (fragile or resilient); or their anti-
fragility or ability to grow stronger with disorder26
. We will
characterize this as Complexity Theory.
Attributes of these various systems theories are described in the following table (Table
3).
22
Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy was an Austrian-born biologist known as one of the founders of general systems
theory. General systems theory describes systems with interacting components, applicable to biology, cybernetics,
and other fields. Bertalanffy proposed that the classical laws of thermodynamics applied to closed systems, but not
necessarily to "open systems," such as living things.
23
Network wide domino effect in a dynamic network
24
Social systems are acted upon and influenced by interventions by various agents whose behavior is not readily
predictable at the individual level. Human agents alter the very structures and associated parameters of social
systems present both within organizations and in interactions and interface with external stakeholders.
25
Characterized by their flexibility, adaptability and responsiveness. Strong self-organization (delegation of
relevant decision-making to lower organizational levels closer to the workface) is a feature of resilient systems.
26
Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder; Nassim Taleb

Table 3
System Theory
Static Dynamic
Deterministic Non-deterministic
Theory Systems Theory
(special case more
similar to industrial
setting envisioned
by Taylor)
Systems Theory Chaos Theory Complexity Theory
Thought
Leaders
Bertalanffy Bertalanffy Wheatley27
Kauffman28
;
Morin29
; Cilliers30
(others)
Defining
Work
General System
Theory:
Foundations,
Development,
Applications31
General System
Theory:
Foundations,
Development,
Applications
Leadership and the
New Science32
‘The Origins of
Order: Self-
organization and
Selection in
Evolution
(Kauffman)33
; From
the concept of
system to the
27
Margaret J. Wheatley (Meg Wheatley) is an American management consultant who studies organizational
behavior. Her approach includes systems thinking, theories of change, chaos theory, leadership and the learning
organization: particularly its capacity to self-organize. She describes her work as opposing "highly controlled
mechanistic systems that only create robotic behaviors."
28
Stuart Alan Kauffman (born September 28, 1939) is an American medical doctor, theoretical biologist, and
complex systems researcher who studies the origin of life on Earth. Kauffman rose to prominence through his
association with the Santa Fe Institute (a non-profit research institute dedicated to the study of complex systems).
Kauffman is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result from self-
organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics
29
Edgar Morin is a French philosopher and sociologist known for the transdisciplinarity of his works. Edgar Morin
has concentrated on developing a method that can meet the challenge of the complexity.
30
Friedrich Paul Cilliers was a South-African philosopher, complexity researcher, and Professor in Complexity and
Philosophy at the Stellenbosch University known for his contributions in the field of complex systems
31
General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications; Ludwig Von Bertalanffy; George Braziller; 1968
32
Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World; Margaret J. Wheatley; Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.; 1996
33
Kauffman, S (1993), ‘The Origins of Order: Self-organisation and Selection in Evolution’, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

paradigm
of complexity
(Morin)34
;
Complexity and
postmodernism.
Understanding
complex systems
(Cilliers)35
Key
Principles
Encapsulated Encapsulated Encapsulated More permeable
boundary
Bounded in time
and space
Bounded in time
and space
Bounded in time
and space
Bounded in time
and space
Exchanges
information/material
with environment –
limited and
controlled
Exchanges
limited and less
controlled
Exchanges
measurable and
least controlled
Exchanges
unknown and
uncontrolled
Processes that
transform inputs to
outputs
Processes that
transform inputs to
outputs
Processes that
transform inputs to
outputs
Emergent
outcomes
Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic
Self-correcting
through feedback
Self-correcting
through feedback
Self-correcting
through feedback
Self-creating
through feedback
and interaction
Seeks equilibrium
but can oscillate
Seeks equilibrium
but can oscillate
Seeks equilibrium
but can oscillate
Adaptive
Exhibit multifinality
and equifinality
and equifinality
and equifinality
and equifinality
34
Morin, E. 1992. From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. Journal of Social and Evolutionary
Systems 15 (4):371–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1061-7361(92)90024-8
35
Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism. Understanding complex systems. Routledge, London, UK.

View as industrial
machine (Taylor)
View as biological
system
View as living
organism
View as evolving
organism
Well defined
processes
Well defined
processes with
focus on controlling
and managing
change
Self-organizing
(role of managers
changes)
Self-adapting
Division of labor
limits required
knowledge
Communities of
practice share
“relevant”
information
Everyone has
access to all
information needed
to do their job
(Knowledge
Management;
continuously
educated
workforce)
New information is
continuously
created and
shared.
(Knowledge
Management
challenges
increase;
knowledge is
increasingly
contextual and
temporal)
Everyone has
access to anyone
they need to do
their job
Discovery of newly
emergent actors
impacting delivery
of outcomes
Strong organization
or purpose linkage
(requires employee
involvement)
Strong outcome
centric focus and
multi-stakeholder
commitment to
outcomes
Top down
information flows
Matrix information
flows (hierarchical
and authority of
expertise)
Open information
flows (changed
communication
methods)
Strong information
flows across all
boundaries

Predictable
(statistical
variance)
Predictable;
Statistical variance
or Patterned
Unpredictable;
Patterned
Unpredictable;
Random
We may view the evolution of management theory to have moved through four broad
schools of thought:
 Industrial – encompassing Smith’s division of labor as an approach to execution
of work and scientific and administrative approaches to the management of
execution
 Human – encompassing consideration of human aspects as part of
organizational behavior
 Biological – representing much of systems theory and encompassing static and
dynamic systems which exhibit more deterministic characteristics including
chaotic systems
 Evolutionary – representing non-deterministic complex systems
4. A (Very) Short History of Project Management Theory
The roots of project management theory go very much back to the work of Taylor on
scientific method and explicitly to two of his “students”, Henry Gantt36
(who worked with
Taylor) and Henry Fayol. Gantt is readily recognized for his so-called Gantt charts, a
modernized version of which we find in the 1950’s conceived PERT37
with its stochastic
36
Henry Laurence Gantt was an American mechanical engineer and management consultant who is best known for
developing the Gantt chart in the 1910s. Gantt charts were employed on major infrastructure projects including
the Hoover Dam and Interstate highway system and continue to be an important tool in project management and
program management. In 1887 he joined Frederick W. Taylor in applying scientific management principles to the
work at Midvale Steel and Bethlehem Steel, working there with Taylor until 1893.
37
The program (or project) evaluation and review technique, commonly abbreviated PERT, is a statistical tool, used
in project management. Commonly used in conjunction with the critical path method (CPM). It was able to
EvolutionaryBiologicalHumanIndustrial
Approach to
Execution of Work
Approach to
Management of
Execution
Consideration of
Human Aspects
Complexity
Theory
Systems Theory

(uncertain) activity times. Fayol’s administrative theories with his defined five
management functions represent the core of the project management body of
knowledge.
So at its roots, project management has an
industrial focus similar to the beginnings of
modern management theory. Work breakdown
structures (divisions of work) and resource
allocation approaches flow directly from the work
of Taylor, Gantt and Fayol.
In the post war period we see project management
make further advances through the introduction of
CPM38
, with its deterministic activity periods and
PERT, a modernization of Gantt’s work, with the
previously mentioned stochastic activity times.
This traditional project management approach is codified with the 1969 issuance of
PMBOK, the Project Management Body of Knowledge, which was intended to provide a
management framework for most projects, most of the time39
. We may have lost
some visibility of this important qualification, especially as projects have grown in scale,
duration and complexity.
incorporate uncertainty by making it possible to schedule a project while not knowing precisely the details and
durations of all the activities. It is more of an event-oriented technique rather than start- and completion-oriented.
This project model was the first of its kind, a revival for scientific management, founded by Frederick Taylor.
38
The critical path method (CPM) is a project modeling technique developed by Morgan R. Walker of DuPont and
James E. Kelley, Jr. of Remington Rand. Kelley attributed the term "critical path" to the developers of the Program
Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) which was developed at about the same time by Booz Allen Hamilton and
the U.S. Navy. The precursors of CPM contributed to the success of the Manhattan Project
39
Hatfield in The Coming Sea-Change in Project Management Science: Advances in Project Management; PM
World Journal; 2013 notes that “Organizations embracing the whole of the project management body of
knowledge, as documented by the Project Management Institute, could not demonstrate a consistent competitive
advantage over those organizations that choose to only implement certain aspects of PM, or even none at all.”
Fayol’s Functions of
Management
 To forecast and plan
 To organize
 To command or direct
 To coordinate
 To control

Further refinement of traditional PM theory comes with the introduction of Prince2 and
CCPM. Prince240
is a generic process driven PM methodology with an output
orientation and a strong quality focus. PRINCE2 is based on seven principles
(continued business justification, learn from experience, defined roles and
responsibilities, manage by stages, manage by exception, focus on products and
tailored to suit the project environment), seven themes (business case, organization,
quality, plans, risk, change and progress) and seven processes (starting up a project,
initiating a project, directing a project, controlling a stage, managing stage boundaries,
managing product delivery, and closing a project) .
40
PRojects IN Controlled Environments, version 2.

Process Based Management41
, another amplification of the traditional model, is driven
by the use of maturity models such as CCMI42
(Capability Maturity Model Integration)
and its sixteen core process.
Agile43
moves us beyond traditional PM theory with considerations of iterative human
interactions. Agile relies on a series of small, discrete tasks conceived and executed to
conclusion as required. Task execution is contingent, executed as required and in an
adaptive manner rather than executing a pre-planned process. Key to successful use is
active client involvement and real-time decision making.
Lean44
begins the integration of traditional methods and human characteristics, focusing
on individual and team performance in addition to the more traditional task elements
and processes. The human dimension and commitment to mission, vision and
objectives is now a core management feature and a key system’s element. System
“flows” replace pure input/output measures in more traditional project management.
Lean project management provides flexibility in responding to dynamic systems, moving
beyond the more static constructs of traditional PM theory but potentially introducing
risks as capabilities and capacities are narrowed to reduce waste and internal
variability.
Critical Chain Project Management 45
(CCPM) addresses uncertainty and resource
constraints. Critical chain project management is based on methods and algorithms
derived from Theory of Constraints and include resource leveling and use of buffers. All
activities converge to a final deliverable. As such, to protect the project, there must be
internal buffers to protect synchronization points and a final project buffer to protect the
overall project. CCPM builds on PERT and CPM as well as system dynamics thinking.
CCPM moves into the world of dynamic systems.
41
Process-based management is a management approach that views a business as a collection of processes.
Vision, mission and core value are three crucial factors to manage an organization from a process perspective.
42
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a process improvement training and appraisal program. CMMI
models provide guidance for developing or improving processes that meet the business goals of an organization.
43
Agile project management is an iterative and incremental method of managing the design and build activities
projects in a highly flexible and interactive manner. It relies on capable individuals from the relevant business, with
supplier and customer input.
44
The main principle of lean project management is delivering more value with less waste. Lean project
management has many techniques including standardization, blame-free employee involvement and the need for
a strong facilitator.
45
Critical chain project management (CCPM) is a method of planning and managing projects that emphasizes the
resources required; strives to keep resources levelly loaded, but requires that start times be flexible; and quickly
switches between tasks.

The emergence of extreme project management46
moves project management theory
into the world of dynamic, non-deterministic systems. The control point is focused on
how you respond to the reality that you have no (or at least limited) control. The
theoretical constructs of extreme project management are as different from traditional
PM theories as Newtonian physics is from Einstein’s theory of relativity. Each is
reasonable within their respective scales. This is a key point; extreme project
management has applicability only in the world of dynamic, non-deterministic projects
with the properties of scale, uncertainty and emergence47
.
The following table (Table 4) provides a brief comparison of the major classes of PM
theory48
.
Table 4
Comparison of Classes of PM Theories
Class Industrial Human Biological Evolutionary
Theories  Traditional
Approach
 Prince2
 Process
Agile  Lean
 CCPM
Extreme
Project
Management
46
Extreme project management (XPM) refers to a method of managing very complex and very uncertain projects.
It utilizes an open, elastic and non-deterministic approach. The focus is on the human side of project management
(managing stakeholders), rather than on intricate scheduling and formal processes and methods.
47
Emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among
smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties. Emergence is a central element in
complexity theories. Emergence is described by economist Jeffrey Goldstein as “the arising of novel and coherent
structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems".
48
In general, the various project management theories are not seen as management of projects, including all the
strategic contextual factors that this would entail, but rather as the delivery of a project on time, in budget and to
scope.
EvolutionaryBiologicalHumanIndustrial
Approach to
Execution of Work
Approach to
Management of
Execution
Consideration of
Human Aspects
Complexity
Theory
Systems Theory
Traditional
Prince2
Process Based
Management
Agile
Lean
CCPM
Extreme

Based
Manageme
nt

Thought
Leaders
Taylor; Gantt;
Fayol
Goldratt49
Focus Input/Process Process/Adaptive
Human
Inputs (waste) Stakeholders
Control Point Output Output Deterministic
output/outcome
Emergent
outcomes
Key Principles Work
Breakdown
Structure
Interactive
human
interaction
Traditional
methods
Open approach
Resource
allocation
Contingent task
execution
Individual
performance
Focus on
response not
control
Quality focus Adaptive
execution
Team
performance
Stakeholder
management
Output
orientation
Active client
involvement
Dynamic
system
Dynamic non-
deterministic
systems
Maturity
models
Real time
decision making
System flows Large scale
Flexibility in
response
High
uncertainty
Uncertainty Emergence
49
Eliyahu Moshe Goldratt was an Israeli physicist who became a business management guru. He was the originator
of the Optimized Production Technique, the Theory of Constraints (TOC), the Thinking Processes, Drum-Buffer-
Rope, Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) and other TOC derived tools. Processes are typically modeled as
resource flows. The constraints typically represent limits on flows.

Resource
constraints
Waste
minimization
5. Extension of Management Theory to the Theory of Project Management
Each of the prior sections attempts to lay out the evolution of respective theories of
management in both a general context as well as one more specific to the world of
projects. The absence of broad acceptance in either theory set of one theory of
management suggests that each theory may have limited utility, not being universally
applicable across all management settings.
These limitations in and of themselves are not troubling as long as we clearly
understand the likely boundary conditions with respect to relevance and applicability.
This is a particular weakness in the world of project management.
Having established the principle that one size does not fit all, it is useful to identify
theoretical constructs from general management theories that have not received
broader awareness or acceptance in the world of project management. These under
recognized elements may be found in particular in two distinct general management
systems theories related to chaos and complexity. Specifically elements related to
special cases of dynamic systems theory, one deterministic (Chaos Theory) and the
other non-deterministic (Complexity Theory) in nature. Both of these special cases have
been contemplated in the context of Project Management Theory but elements of each
have been under recognized in my view, at least as they may apply to the special case
of large complicated projects.
These differentiating (and under recognized) elements (shown in bold) are summarized
in the following table(Table 5) retaining the chaos and complexity construct, but in the
world of large complex projects the non-deterministic attributes are of particular interest.

Table 5
Key Principles from General Management Theory not Comprehensively
Addressed in Project Management Theory
(Shown in Bold)
System Type Deterministic Non-deterministic
Theory Chaos Theory Complexity Theory
Key Principles Encapsulated More permeable
boundary
Bounded in time and space Bounded in time and space
Exchanges
information/material with
environment – measurable
and least controlled
Exchanges
environment – unknown
and uncontrolled
Processes that transform
inputs to outputs
Emergent outcomes
Dynamic Dynamic
Self-correcting through
feedback
Self-creating through
feedback and interaction
Seeks equilibrium but can
oscillate
Adaptive
Exhibit multifinality and
equifinality
equifinality
View as living organism View as evolving organism
Self-organizing (role of
managers changes)
Self-adapting

Everyone has access to
all information needed to
do their job (Knowledge
Management;
continuously educated
workforce)
New information is
continuously created and
shared. (Knowledge
Management challenges
increase; knowledge is
increasingly contextual
and temporal)
Everyone has access to
anyone they need to do
their job
Discovery of newly
emergent actors
impacting delivery of
outcomes
Strong organization or
purpose linkage (requires
employee involvement)
Strong outcome centric
focus and multi-
stakeholder commitment
to outcomes
Open information flows
(changed communication
methods)
Strong information flows
across all boundaries
Unpredictable; Patterned Unpredictable; Random
Subsequent sections will discuss the ramifications of deeper consideration of these
highlighted features in the management of large projects but for now let’s look a bit
more closely at the Theory of Projects and how this theory may be modified in the world
of large complex projects.
6. Theory of Projects
The Project Management Institute defines a project as a temporary endeavor
undertaken to create a unique product or service.50
Howell51
describes the prevailing
view of a project as the transformation of inputs to outputs and captures the key
50
Project management Institute; 2000
51
New Theory of Project Management; Howell

assumptions associated with that view. We will look at how these and other
assumptions related to the Theory of Projects break down in the world of large projects.
Table 6
Assumptions Related to the Current Transformative View of
Projects52
Tasks are independent, except sequential relationships
Tasks are discrete and bounded
Uncertainty as to requirements and tasks is low
All work is captured by top-down decomposition of the total transformation
Requirements exist at the outset and they can be decomposed along with
work
Other definitions of a project exist. A project is a collaborative enterprise that is carefully
planned to achieve a particular aim.53
Projects are temporary rather than permanent
systems constituted by teams within or across organizations to accomplish particular
tasks under time constraints.54
The classical theories of projects have a set of precepts, assumptions and even some
implied principles that breakdown or inadequately serve the world of large complex
projects. These attributes are summarized in the following table and alternative
attributes associated with a so-called neo-classical perspective outlined.
Let’s look first at the precepts that underpin the current theory of projects.
First, and foremost, projects are viewed as temporary endeavors. This precept extends
across the prevailing theory of projects as dealing with transformation of inputs into
outputs as well as extensions of this theory that view operations as focused on flow or
52
53
Adapted from Oxford English dictionary
54
Embedding projects in multiple contexts – a structuration perspective; Stephan Manning; International Journal
of Project Management 26 (2008) 30–37

value generation. Later we will see that in neo-classical theory as suggested in this
paper, the perspective of time horizon is altered.
In the prevailing theory of projects, total transformation can be decomposed into
manageable tasks, while extensions for operations as flow would refine this notion to
say that transformation flows are distinct from task operations. Executing each task in
an optimal manner and in an optimal sequence optimizes overall project execution
according to prevailing theory while flow theory would somewhat modify this to say
optimal task execution must include optimal process flows in order to optimize overall
project execution. In this important extension to the prevailing theory of projects, lining
up a series of tasks is not enough. The “influencing vectors” are now separate, distinct
and equally important. We will return to this concept of “influencing vectors” in our
discussion of neo-classical theory.
The prevailing theory of projects rests on a bedrock of key assumptions that include
independence of discrete and bounded tasks (except for sequential relationships), with
high certainty of the requirements to be met and how the task is to be performed. The
totality of work to be performed can be described by top down decomposition of the total
transformation effort. Comprehensive sets of requirements are assumed to exist at the
outset of project and can be decomposed together with the work to be executed.
Flow and value creation extensions to the classical theory of projects add additional
framework elements such as a focus on reducing lead times and process and flow time
variability and the notion of the customer as a singular reference point for value
determination.
We will see that this foundational set of assumptions are not adequate in the world of
large complex projects and that some of the implied principles55
from flow and value
creation take on greater importance in the world of large projects.
7. Attributes of Large Complex Projects
Large projects fail two thirds of the time. In essence failure is the expected condition of
large projects when we apply current project management theory to the conception,
initiation and execution of these projects. Either the execution of these projects, founded
on the Theory of Management, or the foundational concept of a project, especially a
large project, founded on the classical Theory of Project is flawed. In an earlier section
of this paper we looked at weaknesses in current project management thinking. In the
prior section we looked at project attributes from a classical Theory of Projects.
55
Implied principles include minimization of steps, parts and linkages; increased flexibility; increased transparency

In this section we will look at a few of the project attributes that we observe in large
complex projects and suggest they may serve as a basis for a neo-classical Theory of
Large Complex Projects.
Large complex projects differ from those that comprise the traditional domain of projects
as defined and served by the Project Management Institute and its Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Remember its admonishment that PMBOK provides a
management framework for most projects, most of the time. Large complex projects
appear to live outside these boundary conditions.
So what are some of the precepts and attributes of large complex projects and how do
they differ from projects better served by the classical theory of Projects?
Large complex projects, unlike their more normative cousins, range from semi-
permanent endeavors to life cycle provision of services. The absolute durations often
encountered in initial delivery and growing use of increasingly life cycle relationships
drives these project organizations to have life spans often longer than most
corporations. The growing use of joint ventures both on the client side as well as for the
principle service provider often results in new organizations with cultural and operating
regimes very different than either of the respective parents. The readiness of both the
owner’s56
organization and respective joint ventures57
warrants particular attention58
.
Influencing flows shape the transformative flows we have come to know in classical PM
Theory and may arise from flows crossing semi-permeable project boundaries as well
as the interaction between two or more transformative flows present within the project
context. This is a key point, large projects are not easily isolated and just as they are
susceptible to changing externalities, they too act to change the external environment
that they affect. I have wrestled with whether to describe these boundaries as fully
permeable or semi-permeable and have opted for the later since certain governance
regimes will likely limit full permeability as it relates to these externalities.
56
Owner’s Readiness Index; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal Vol. III, Issue 1 – January 2014
57
A Look at Joint Ventures; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; Vol. II, Issue III – March 2013
58
Chaotic and complex systems are sensitive to initial conditions. Even if readiness of a particular project is close to
an ideal condition it will none-the-less take a different trajectory. Investment and diligence on achieving a high
level of Owner and JV readiness is essential to good project outcomes.

These so called influencing flows may change the nature of tasks to be undertaken as
well as how the various process flows define, interact with and drive forward the
transformation process. This is significantly different than classical theory’s execution of
each task in an optimal manner with optimal process flows.
Tasks are no longer independent but rather are increasingly interdependent, coupled by
constraints and “white space” risks. “Influencing vectors” arise from process flows,
influencing flows, and new flows created from the interaction of two or more of these
“influencing vectors”. Tasks may become coupled and entangled and task limits may
change and at times become open ended. They are no longer discrete and bounded.
Requirements may emerge in the course of project execution and susceptibility to the
“planning fallacy” grows in large complex projects. Tasks may arise as a result of these
emergent requirements, “influencing vectors” and flow-to-flow59
interactions.
59
Otherwise independent transformative flows in a large project may find themselves indirectly coupled through
hidden constraints or common susceptibility to risks that lie between major project elements or flows that have
been referred to as “white space” risks

Totality of work is influenced by semi-permeable project boundaries, emergent
requirements, and “influencing vectors”. Initial decomposition of the initial transformation
effort may not define the ultimate totality of transformation.
Strategic Business Objectives (SBO) become more important than requirements and in
some instances projects may be faced with emergent SBOs especially when
“influencing vectors” cross the semi-permeable project boundary over an extended
timeframe
Requirements must not only address emergent factors but also uncertainty over time as
large complex projects often have extended project delivery times and significant
considerations of life cycle factors and needs. Assumptions that might otherwise be
considered fixed in a more normative project may now migrate in these longer durations
often associated with large complex projects.
The objective of reduced lead times and process and flow variability is carried further
through an expanded basis of design together with tight supply chain linkages that place
a strong emphasis on the value of time. Increased emphasis on standardization,
fabrication and modularization is the new norm as large projects seek to accrue
productivity advantages more typically associated with manufacturing opportunities.
Strengthened work face planning and greater knowledge enablement represent the new
norms that large complex projects must strive for.
A key difference that large complex projects face is that an exclusive focus on satisfying
the client may not result in project success. Value is now determined through a multi-
stakeholder lenses that strives to provide increased benefits for a broad set of
stakeholders.
The implied principles in flow and value creation extensions to classical PM Theory
become essential in the world of large complex projects. Standardization of systems,
structures, components and work processes and de-coupling of activities that can be
undertaken independently is essential. Precedence’s must be reduced and work plans
must facilitate contingent execution.
Stakeholder engagement, not just management, is a core activity and knowledge
sharing is a core execution principle.
The following table (Table 7) provides a comparison of the attributes of these respective
theories of project’s attributes.

Table 7
Theory of Project Attributes
Classical Theory of Projects Neo-classical
Theory
Prevailing Theory of
Project
(Transformation)
Extension of
Prevailing Theory
for Operations as
Flow60
and Value
Generation61
Theory of Large
Complex
Projects62
Precepts Project is a temporary
endeavor
Project is a
temporary endeavor
Large complex
projects range
from semi-
permanent
endeavors63
to life
cycle provision of
services
Total transformation
can be decomposed
into manageable tasks
Transformation flows
are distinct from task
operations
Influencing flows
shape
transformative
flows and may
arise from flows
crossing semi-
permeable project
boundaries as
well as the
interaction
60
Shingo (1988)
61
Levitt (1960) and Drucker (1989)
62
Large projects have many of the same characteristics of large programs and no distinguishment is made here.
See Strategic Program Management, Prieto for a discuss of management challenges associated with large
programs.
63
Many large projects have delivery lifetimes that exceed average lifetimes of corporations. Increasingly projects
may be procured on a DBOM (design, build, operate, maintain) basis or a DBOMF or PPP basis, where finance is an
added service component

between two or
more
transformative
flows present
within the project
context.
Executing each task in
an optimal manner and
in an optimal sequence
optimizes overall
project execution
Executing each task
in an optimal manner
and with optimal
process flows
optimizes overall
project execution
Influencing flows
may change the
nature of tasks to
be undertaken as
well as how the
various process
flows define,
interact with and
drive forward the
transformation
process.
Assumptions Tasks are
independent, except
for sequential
relationships
Tasks are
independent but
connected by
“influencing vectors”
Tasks are
increasingly
interdependent,
coupled by
constraints and
“white space”
risks64
.
“Influencing
vectors” arise
from process
flows, influencing
flows, and new
flows created
from the
64
These are risks that lie in the white space between the various projects that comprise a program or the various
tasks that comprise a large complex project and which are not readily identified through the first order interfaces
which are typically identified and tracked as part of the overall project management effort. White space risks are
not obvious from the risk methodologies routinely employed because they either address unobvious constraint
coupling, of both the first and second order, or are related to contextual risks such as stakeholder trust. White
space risks are systemic in nature and are potentially present within both the internal as well as the external
context in which the project operates.

interaction of two
or more of these
“influencing
vectors”
Tasks are discrete and
bounded
Tasks are discrete
and bounded
Tasks may
become coupled
and entangled
and task limits
may change and
at times become
open ended
Uncertainty of
requirement is low
Uncertainty of
requirement is low
Requirements
may emerge in
the course of
project execution;
susceptibility to
the “planning
fallacy”65
Uncertainty of tasks to
be performed is low
Uncertainty of tasks
to be performed is
low
Tasks may arise
as the result of
emergent
requirements,
“influencing
vectors” and
flow-to-flow
interactions
The totality of work to
be performed can be
described by top down
decomposition of the
total transformation
effort
The totality of work to
be performed can be
described by top
down decomposition
of the total
transformation effort
Totality of work is
influenced by
semi-permeable
project
boundaries,
emergent
requirements, and
“influencing
65
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1979)

vectors”. Initial
decomposition of
the initial
transformation
effort may not
define the
ultimate totality of
transformation.
Requirements exist at
outset of project
Requirements exist
at outset of project
Strategic
Business
Objectives
(SBO)66
become
more important
than requirements
and in some
instances projects
may be faced with
emergent SBOs
especially when
“influencing
vectors” cross the
semi-permeable
project boundary
over an extended
timeframe
Requirements can be
decomposed together
with the work to be
executed
Requirements can be
decomposed
together with the
work to be executed
Requirements
must not only
address emergent
factors but also
uncertainty over
time as large
complex projects
often have
extended project
delivery times and
significant
66
Strategic Program Management; Bob Prieto; Construction Management Association of America (CMAA); 2008

considerations of
life cycle factors
and needs.
Extensions Reduce lead time
(flow concept of
production)
An expanded
basis of design
together with tight
supply chain
linkages and a
strong emphasis
on the value of
time67
is essential
Reduce process time
variability (flow
concept of
production)
Increased
emphasis on
standardization,
fabrication,
modularization
Reduce flow time
variability (flow
concept of
production)
Strengthen work
face planning;
enable with
knowledge
assemblies; RFI
reduction through
an expanded
basis of
design68,69
Value determined
only in reference to
Value determined
through multi-
67
Perspective on the Cost of Delayed Decision Making in Large Project Execution; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal
Vol. III, Issue II – February 2014
68
BOD
X
– Expanded basis of design, collectively incorporating the traditional engineering basis of design (BOD),
new construction basis of design (CBOD) and a new operating and maintenance basis of design (O&MBOD). BOD
X
is driven by construction and O&M considerations while meeting the performance and functional requirements
typically detailed in the owner’s project requirements (OPR).
69
Addressing Project Capital Efficiency through a Business Basis of Design; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; Vol. III,
Issue IV – April 2014

customer (value
generation concept of
production)
stakeholder
lenses; increased
benefits focus
Implied Principles Minimize steps,
parts, linkages
Standardization of
systems,
structures,
components and
work processes;
de-coupling of
activities that can
be undertaken
independently
Increase flexibility Precedence’s
reduced and work
plan allows for
contingent
execution
Increase
transparency
Stakeholder
engagement as
core activity;
knowledge
sharing as
execution
principle
8. It’s Complicated!
We have looked at the evolution of general management theory as well as project
management theory as part of our examination of the Theory of Management. We have
identified some elements of general management theory not yet fully incorporated into
project management theory that may be useful in dealing with the world of large
complex projects. Subsequently we have considered the Theory of Projects, looking at
classical project theory and some of the recent extensions to it. We have identified
attributes of large complex projects that we do not find in the classical theory of projects

but which are core to describing the various aspects we encounter on these projects.
The following figure summarizes these various aspects of large projects and provides a
foundation to consider what a new Theory of Project Management for large complex
projects may look like.
Table 8
Aspects of Large Complex Projects
Aspect Management Project
Project Time Scale Large complex projects
range from semi-
permanent endeavors to
life cycle provision of
services
Outcomes Self-creating through
feedback and interaction
Strategic Business
Objectives (SBO),
perhaps better termed
“Strategic Business
Outcomes”, become
more important than
requirements and in
some instances projects
may be faced with
emergent SBOs
especially when
cross the semi-
permeable project
boundary over an
extended timeframe
Strong outcome centric
focus and multi-
stakeholder commitment
to outcomes
Value determined
through multi-
stakeholder lenses;
increased benefits focus

equifinality
Multifinality influenced
by stakeholder interests
Stakeholder Role Discovery of newly
emergent actors impacting
delivery of outcomes
Stakeholder
engagement as core
activity
Boundary More permeable boundary Semi-permeable
Flows Across Boundary Exchanges
environment – unknown
and uncontrolled
Influencing flows shape
transformative flows and
may arise from flows
crossing semi-
permeable project
boundaries as well as
the interaction between
two or more
transformative flows
present within the
project context.
Flows Influencing flows may
change the nature of
tasks to be undertaken
as well as how the
various process flows
define, interact with and
drive forward the
transformation process.
New “induced” flows
created
De-coupling of activities
that can be undertaken
independently
Precedence’s reduced

and work plan allows for
contingent execution
Requirements Requirements may
emerge in the course of
project execution;
susceptibility to the
“planning fallacy”
Requirements must not
only address emergent
factors but also
uncertainty over time as
large complex projects
often have extended
project delivery times
and significant
considerations of life
cycle factors and needs.
Scope Totality of work is
influenced by semi-
permeable project
boundaries, emergent
requirements, and
“influencing vectors”.
Initial decomposition of
the initial transformation
effort may not define the
ultimate totality of
transformation.
Tasks Tasks are increasingly
interdependent, coupled
by constraints and
“white space” risks.
“Influencing vectors”
arise from process
flows, influencing flows,

and new flows created
from the interaction of
two or more of these
Tasks may become
coupled and entangled
and task limits may
change and at times
become open ended
Tasks may arise as the
result of emergent
requirements,
and flow-to-flow
interactions
Project Organization Adaptive Flexible, adaptive,
responsive (Concept of
F-A-R ness may
represent a measure or
organizational
capabilities and
capacities)
Self-organizing (role of
managers changes) and
adapting
Greater emphasis on
“workface” planning and
execution
Knowledge Management Everyone has access to all
information needed to do
their job (Knowledge
Management; continuously
educated workforce)
Knowledge sharing as
central execution
principle
New information is
continuously created and
shared. (Knowledge

Management challenges
increase; knowledge is
increasingly contextual
and temporal)
Execution Focus Standardization of
systems, structures,
components and work
processes; de-coupling
of activities that can be
undertaken
independently
Expanded basis of
design together with
tight supply chain
linkages and a strong
emphasis on the value
of time
Increased emphasis on
standardization,
fabrication,
modularization
Strong work face
planning enabled with
knowledge assemblies;
RFI reduction through
an expanded basis of
design
The various aspects detailed are intended to be illustrative of key attributes of a Theory
of Large Complex Project Management. They focus on some key differentiators and are
incomplete without select elements associated with both chaotic and complex projects,
especially those that focus on the non-deterministic nature of complex projects.

Let’s explore the highlighted differences further to lay the theoretical foundations for
large complex projects, covering each aspect in turn:
 Project time scale
 Outcomes
 Stakeholder role
 Boundary
 Flow across boundary
 Flows
 Requirements
 Scope
 Tasks
 Project organization
 Knowledge management
 Execution focus
8.1 Project Time Scale
Large complex projects are often characterized by significantly longer gestation and
approval times than more traditional projects. These longer gestation and approval
times are driven not only by the projects complexity but a myriad of other factors
including increased environmental scans; expanded internal and often external
stakeholders that must be consulted with even before more rigorous stakeholder
engagement efforts are initiated; increased use of more rigorous stagegate processes
prior to full sanctioning of the project; and often a discrete project financing period.
These projects often have longer engineering and construction durations driven by their
scale; expanded permitting and approval processes; extended stakeholder engagement
periods; greater inherent schedule risks and increased exposure to the effects of
disruption; increased risks associated with greater risk exposure times; and the nature
of many such projects that transitions them to a multi-phase program. In addition many
of these projects may incorporate a period of maintenance by the original contractors,
effectively extending the warranty period. Some of these extended periods may
represent significant fractions of overall facility lifetimes.
These extended gestation, initiation, execution and effective contract timeframes often
result in project organizations for large complex projects that range from semi-
permanent endeavors to life cycle provision of services. This changed management
context is suggestive of the need to adopt general management practices that are
associated with complex endeavors. These practices differ from more traditional project

management practices but become critical as we move into the world of large complex
projects.
8.2 Outcomes
Large complex projects require a strong outcomes focus not just an outputs focus as
suggested by more traditional management practice. This outcomes focus is critical
since large complex projects often are associated with ultimate project outputs which
are to some extent self-defining and self-creating through extensive feedback
mechanisms which are driven by a multiplicity of actors over relatively longer
timeframes.
A characteristic of underperforming large projects is often a failure by the owner’s senior
most management to articulate these strategic business outcomes that they are seeking
to achieve. Even in those instances where they have been articulated two other factors
are equally important and often not fully addressed. SBOs must be agreed to and
continuously communicated. As a minimum this must encompass the entirety of the
owner’s ecosphere which includes not only responsible line and project execution
organizations but also supporting staff elements such as treasury, contracts and
accounts payable; owner’s board and involved investors and financing organizations;
and as we shall soon discuss, other significant external stakeholders. This internal
institutional alignment is a key aspect of owner readiness, a critical requirement when
undertaking large complex projects.

A strong outcomes centric focus and multi-stakeholder commitment to these outcomes
is essential in large complex projects. Satisfying these outcomes sets may be achieved
through a range of possible outputs (multifinality) which are influenced through
stakeholder interactions over time as well as evolution and changes within the project
organization and more importantly, externally.
Strategic Business Outcomes (SBO) become more important than requirements in
achieving ultimate success. In some instances projects may be faced with emergent
SBOs especially when “influencing flows” cross what is in reality a semi-permeable
project boundary over an extended project timeframe. These influencing flows are
discussed later but are an important characteristic when we consider large complex
projects and their management.
Value in large complex projects is determined through multi-stakeholder lenses and an
increased benefits focus.
8.3 Stakeholder Role
Large complex projects by their very nature require the project design and outcomes to
satisfy not just the outcomes desired by the owner (a key and driving stakeholder but
not the exclusive stakeholder required for project success) but also many of the
Survey of 17 Large Complex Project Managers on Owner Readiness. Initial
scores were assigned on a 100% basis prior to a review of the necessary ingredients
of owner readiness and are shown distributed over the 100% range. Following a
review they reassessed the same project’s readiness. Average scores dropped from
62.8 to 51.9.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Ranges
Initial Score Frequency
Final Score Frequency

outcomes desired by a network of enabling and blocking stakeholders70
. This multi-
stakeholder context is a simple reality of large complex project delivery. Stakeholders in
many instances have an ability to determine the success or failure of a project and in
many extractive industries a social license to operate may carry more value than many
other project strategies and optimizations71
. Stakeholder engagement is a core activity
and can serve to reduce opportunistic delays from emergent actors. It is important that
we have identified and characterized potential stakeholders at an early stage, always
cognizant of possible new actors. The following table (Table 9) provides a construct for
stakeholder identification and strategy alignment must consider the stakeholder type in
addition to the specific issues and concerns raised.
Table 9
ESPRIT Framework of Stakeholder Types
Stakeholder Type Examples
Economic Owner; investors; directly affected
economic interests
Social Local populations; various “bound and
aligned” subgroups
Political Partisan interests; local, national, global
interests seeking to leverage project
circumstances for otherwise independent
agenda
Religious/Cultural Gender; community; denominational
interests
Ideas Driven Ideas driven organizations ranging from
NIMBY to global agenda such as “Save
the Planet”
70
Stakeholder Management in Large Engineering & Construction Programs; Bob Prieto; PM World Today; 2011
71
Spinning Gold: The Financial returns to Stakeholder Engagement; Witold Henisz; Sinziana Dorobantu; Lite
Nartey; Strategic Management Journal; 2014

Technical Technical preferences or technology
denial (anti-fracking)
Stakeholder’s desires and context in turn are influenced by the project itself, which acts
to shape and deform the context in which it is set. In addition, stakeholder-stakeholder
interactions become important and it is not unusual to find competing or even
diametrically opposed stakeholder interests among the web of stakeholders that may
influence the project.
As the project proceeds and new issues arise or as context becomes fixed through
engagement and agreement with one or more influencing stakeholders, we may see
new actors emerge, further impacting delivery of outcomes. This concept of emergence
is commonplace on large complex projects and may be regarded as both a core
characteristic as well as a central management challenge.
The following figure illustrates the multi-stakeholder context; associated influencing
flows; and stakeholder-stakeholder interaction.
8.4 Boundary
Large complex projects are not well bounded. Large stakeholder influences; emergence
of new outcomes and stakeholders over extended delivery timeframes and lifetimes;
and the sheer number of ex-project inputs and assumption drivers, all act to create a
semi-permeable boundary across which there are many informational and influencing
flows. This porous project limit combined with the self-defining and emergent nature of
the project characterizes the non-deterministic system which best describes large
complex projects.
This emerging or evolving project is depicted in the following figure.

8.5 Flow Across Boundary
The semi-permeable boundaries of large complex projects represent an important
management frontier to be posted with sentries on the lookout, giving visibility to flows
across this boundary and identifying emergent outcomes.72
Many good things happen at
this frontier including exchange of information and knowledge as we engage
stakeholders and valuable insights on outcome affecting factors. But not all things
crossing this frontier are necessarily reinforcing of the desired project outcomes or the
efficiency and effectiveness of the various sets of ongoing transformational flows
ongoing in the project.
Flows crossing this frontier may influence, sometimes significantly, the project’s well
planned transformation processes. These flows and the other exchanges across the
project frontier may be unknown and uncontrolled.
72
See A complex systems theory perspective on lean production; Saurin, Rooke, Koskela; International Journal of
Production Research; 2013 for a good description of complex systems.
Client
Multiple
Stakeholders
Multiple
Stakeholders
Multiple
Stakeholders
Multiple
Stakeholders
Stakeholder – Stakeholder
Interactioon
Influencing Flows
Project Space Semi-Permeable Boundary
Project Influences its
Environmental Context
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task Task
Task
Transformative Flows
May Interact to Create
New Flows
Large Complex Projects Don’t Follow
Classical Transformation Models
Emergent
Actor
Feedback
Loop

Influencing flows, such as those described, act to shape transformative flows and may
arise not only from flows crossing this semi-permeable project boundary but also as a
result of the interaction between two or more transformative flows present within the
project context.
8.6 Flows
The influencing flows arising from a multiplicity of stakeholders was shown in the
preceding figure and the eddies they create in the planned transformative flows are also
shown together with a new flow which arises from this interaction between flows.
Influencing flows may change the nature of tasks to be undertaken as well as how the
various process flows define, interact with and drive forward the transformation process.
This leads to an important recognition that planning activities must address two key
elements:
 Tasks, including the work flows within those tasks
 Flows, including transformative (or systems) flows between tasks as well as new
flows induced by these influencing flows
Table 10
Flows Acting on Large Complex Projects
Transformative Flows inside a Task Influenced by systems level
Transformative flows from task to task
which may act to change task timing and
sequencing as well as modify system flow
outputs required from the task operation
Transformative Flows between Tasks System level Transformative flows
influenced by the overall system state.
Transformative flows between tasks may
be modified by Task level performance;
impacts of Influencing flows directly on the
planned Transformative flow; impacts of
Influencing flows on other Transformative
flows which are directly or indirectly
coupled (through constraints); impacts
from Induced flows

Induced Flows Created by the interaction of one or more
Influencing flows on various system
elements (Task; Transformative Flows) or
the interaction of Transformative flows with
each other as a result of the effects of
Influencing flows.
Influencing Flows Flows across semi-permeable project
boundaries that arise from external
stakeholders or changed project
environment.
Task level planning will involve a more classical approach focused on transforming
inputs to outputs. Management information however must now include information on
how the output of a preceding task will flow to the subsequent task and how outputs will
flow onwards. These flows have characteristics with respect whether they are planned
or contingent; when they will actually occur and whether there are any buffering
mechanisms to optimize overall project flows. The nature and timing of these flows will
be shaped increasingly on a dynamic basis and as such project execution must include
a contingent capability to redirect and retime various flows or act to restore already
influenced flows to an optimal state, recognizing this may be significantly different than
the original transformative plan.
This contingent execution requires increased awareness of actual or potential direct or
indirect coupling such as what can happen when flows are coupled by second or third
order constraints.
A key strategy to manage this inherent complexity is through a systematic de-coupling
of activities that can be undertaken independently. On one large complex project,
overall schedule was improved by 20% through a conscious decoupling of major
elements of work that had previously been bundled to “simplify” project execution. The
law of unintended consequences was clearly evident.
This decoupling of major elements should also consider careful elimination of
precedence’s to increase the opportunity for contingent execution which is a reality of
large project execution.

8.7 Requirements
An owner’s project requirements (OPR) are often memorialized directly in contract
documents or scopes of work shaped by earlier conducted planning studies. In large
complex projects these requirements documents subsequently prove to be optimistic or
incomplete. There are three principal causes each of which requires special attention in
the world of large projects:
 Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) are too narrowly defined and often drive
optimization around the wrong criteria
 Planning fallacy leads to an optimistic view of an uncertain future
 Emergence of new requirements during project execution, which is a
characteristic of long duration complex systems
Let’s look at each of these in turn.
Owner’s project requirements, OPR, are often developed by engineering organizations
to define the technical characteristics of the final desired facility. These are
subsequently converted into a basis of design by engineering elements of the
implementing contractor resulting in what in reality is simply an engineering basis of
design. Described differently, it is the output of the last task of the CAPEX phase of a
project. But as we have seen earlier, large complex projects require us to focus not only
on task inputs and outputs, but importantly, on the transformative flows between tasks.
During the CAPEX phase of a project these flows are representative of the construction
process itself and selected means and methods. To improve overall execution in the
CAPEX phase, therefore, it is necessary to expand our basis of design (BOD) to include
not only the traditional engineering basis of design but also what we may call a
construction basis of design (CBOD).
But in the world of large complex projects, traditional time boundaries associated with
initial delivery, may be extended to include initial or even life cycle operation and
maintenance. In these instances we must extend our basis of design even further,
incorporating an O&M basis of design (O&MBOD) element. Taken together we have
now created an expanded basis of design73
or BODX
.
It is important to highlight that incorporation of CBOD and O&MBOD at the outset is
fundamentally different than conducting constructability or maintainability reviews at a
later design stage. The former shapes what is to be designed and acts to expand the
requirements as defined in the OPR, while the later merely confirms or improves at the
margin what has already been designed to some level.
73
Addressing Project Capital Efficiency through a Business Basis of Design; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2014

Generalizing, in large complex projects, project requirements must reflect not just final
“task” states but also the coupling transformative flows. Additionally, the more
unbounded timeframes of large complex projects, requires a more life cycle
consciousness than we often experience in more traditional projects.
Turning now to the planning fallacy which large complex projects appear to be
particularly susceptible to74
, we are drawn to the work of Kahnemann and Tversky75
which defined the planning fallacy as the tendency of people and organizations to
underestimate how long a task will take even when they have experience of similar
tasks overrunning.
Perhaps the poster children for the planning fallacy are large scale public works
projects. In a 2006 paper in the Project Management Journal76
, Bent Flyvbjerg
describes transportation projects “inaccuracy in cost forecasts in constant prices is on
average 44.7% for rail, 33.8% for bridges and tunnels, and 20.4% for roads.”
Work by Kahneman, Tversky, Flyvbjerg and others shows that errors of judgment are:
 systematic and predictable
 reflect bias
 persist even when we are aware of, and
 require corrective measures that reflect recognition of this bias
These natural tendencies are further exacerbated when “motivated” individuals, which
may include both internal and external stakeholders, frame questions in such a way as
to constrain the range of possible answers.
Large complex projects demand extra care in dealing with the planning fallacy. First is
to test initial assumption reasonableness employing techniques such as reference class
forecasting and conducting a thorough review of modeled confidence levels (P50 vs
P80) and of the distributions employed in the models themselves77
. A diversity of
perspectives further aids this step. Second, given the long term nature of many of these
projects, periodically reconfirm the assumptions used in the planning basis. Assumption
migration78
is a key challenge in the world of large complex projects.
74
Managing the Planning Fallacy in Large, Complex Infrastructure Programs; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2013
75
"Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk". Econometrica; Kahneman and Tversky; 1979
76
From Nobel Prize To Project Management: Getting Risks Right; Bent Flyvbjerg; Aalborg University, Denmark;
Project Management Journal; August, 2006.
77
Improbability of Large Project Success; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2015
78
Is it Time to Rethink Project Management Theory?; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2015

Large complex projects move into the ranges of non-linear behavior and traditional
project estimation may not adequately account for this factor.79
Traditional project
management theory falls short and perhaps our high project “failure” rates are more
reflective of fundamental planning and estimation shortfalls and not merely execution
difficulties80
.
Finally, requirements must not only address emergent factors but also uncertainty over
time as large complex projects often have extended project delivery times and
significant considerations of life cycle factors and needs.
79
Reflections on the functional relationship between project efforts and its complexity; Pavel Barseghyan
80
The figure compares normal and a Cauchy fat tailed distribution. Other distributions may be more appropriate
and the intermediate distribution in Liu et. al.(2012) warrants consideration.

8.8 Scope
The scope of a large complex project defines the nature of the facility asset, its intended
purpose and use, and the business context within which it is intended to operate. In
large complex projects scope must go beyond just the project’s technical requirements
and explicitly include a:
 broader set of owner’s requirements, including the strategic business outcomes
the owner is trying to achieve
 mandatory and quasi-mandatory requirements from external stakeholders
The totality of work is influenced by the interplay with cost and time dimensions and the
traditional project triangle becomes much more of a project tetrahedron81 82
when
looking at large complex projects.
81
The “Program Tetrahedron”: A Changed Baseline Control Basis under Strategic Program Management; Bob
Prieto; PM World Journal; 2012
82
Program Tetrahedron – Further Developing the Concept; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2013

Other factors influencing project scope and contributing to the non-deterministic nature
of many large projects include the semi-permeable project boundaries inherent in large
complex projects; emergent requirements; and “influencing vectors”.
Initial decomposition of the initial transformation effort may not define the ultimate
totality of transformation.
8.9 Tasks
Tasks are increasingly interdependent, coupled by constraints83
and “white space” risks.
“Influencing vectors” arise from process flows, influencing flows, and new flows created
from the interaction of two or more of these “influencing vectors”
Tasks may become coupled and entangled and task limits may change and at times
become open ended
Tasks may arise as the result of emergent requirements, “influencing vectors” and flow-
to-flow interactions as previously discussed. As a result task inputs and outputs must
consider and pass along information related to transformational flows from one task to
the other.
83

8.10 Project Organization
Large complex projects require an organizational design that reflects the complexity of
the tasks at hand; the dynamic environment in which the project is set84
, subject to both
a multiplicity of influencing flows and extended project timeframes; and the emergent
nature of project outcomes in such project types. These organizations must be adaptive,
flexible, self-renewing, resilient and learning. They must be capable of responding
intelligently to change, recognizing that change is the only project constant.
These adaptive project organizations must see change as an organizing force not a
disruptive one. Experimentation and progressive innovation must be core
characteristics. The rules of connection within the project organization must be simple in
order to have the flexibility to respond to complexity. Organizational behavior and
response is determined not so much by the tasks to be undertaken as they are by
information on current flows acting on and within the project.
Project organizations in the world of large complex projects rely on a strong sense of
identity built upon the common understanding of the owner’s strategic business
outcomes that serve as the initial rational for the project. Information flows reflecting
process and influencing flows is essential for strong organizational performance. Finally,
relationships based on process not task alignment becomes key and add to
organizational intelligence. Identity, information and relationships85
trump processes and
structures and awareness of the overall state of the “system” becomes even more
important than task status.
84
This dynamic environment introduces variability
85
The Irresistible Future of Organizing; Margaret Wheatley, Myron Rogers; 1996
Coupled Constraints
Consider the situation where an activity not on the critical path begins late but near
enough to the original plan to stay off the critical path.
No problem?
It will be, if that key resource it uses doesn’t arrive on time for a critical path activity.
The complexity of large projects masks a raft of hidden, coupled constraints that can
then cascade throughout the project. Near enough is not good enough and the
complexity of large projects needs to consider the probability of disruption where
previously the Law of Near Enough (The Improbability Principle; David J. Hand)
seemed to govern project risk assessments.

While large complex project organizations require many of the attributes of self-
organization we see in agile project management, more is required because of the
emergence these projects experience.
Table 11
Adaptive Project Organization Framework86
Organizational Capacity Practices Requisite Skills
Identity Strategic Business
Outcomes; Vision &
Mission
Strategic thinking; Visioning
Goals; Scope;
Requirements
Mobilization of resources
(people; systems;
processes)
Planning Scenario based evaluation;
Risk identification and
modeling; Contingency
planning and strategy
Evaluation (Management &
Control)
Big analytics; Pattern
recognition; Root cause
analysis
Change Management Organizational change
management; Dealing with
disruption
Information Flow monitoring and
assessment; Assumption
tracking; Coupling and
interfaces
Data analytics; technology
Decision making Communication
86
Adapted from “Generating Self-Organizing Capacity: Leadership Practices and Training Needs in Non-Profits;
Allen and Morton; Journal of Extension; 2006

(Management)
Relationships Trust; Connectedness Team building
Communities of Practice Partnering; Collaboration
Stakeholder networks Partnering; Collaboration;
Conflict management
Disputes & distrust Conflict management and
resolution
8.11 Knowledge Management
The importance of information flows has been previously discussed. Throughout the
project information is transformed into actionable knowledge which provides a bedrock
for adaptation by the project team to the emergent natures of the project. But this
knowledge bedrock and organizational adaptability requires that everyone has access
to all information needed to do their job. Filters that may have served well in smaller,
less complex projects in static contexts have no place in the world of large complex
projects. Knowledge management supports a continuously educated and adaptive
workforce. Knowledge sharing is a central execution principle
Influencing flows and continuous improvement create new information to be shared. In
turn, the knowledge management challenges increase and knowledge is increasingly
contextual and temporal. Similarly, the extent of available knowledge demands the use
of self-assembling knowledge assemblies87
focused on the various tasks and flows of
the project.
8.12 Execution Focus
Execution challenges grow in large complex projects and simplification and flexibility
become core features of efficient and effective execution. Many execution aspects have
been touched upon earlier in this section but to these we can add:
 Standardization of systems, structures, components and task level work
processes
87
Knowledge assets are combined based on the user and what they are working on into Knowledge Assemblies

 De-coupling of activities that can be undertaken independently
 Expanded basis of design
 Tight supply chain linkages
 Strong emphasis on the value of time
 Increased emphasis on standardization, fabrication, modularization
 Strong work face planning enabled with knowledge assemblies
 RFI reduction through an expanded basis of design
9. Theory of Large Complex Project Management
Dalcher asks “Is there a universal theory of project management?”88
To this I would
respond that while a grand unifying theory of project management may exist, it is not the
subject of this paper. Rather as I have highlighted in the “Physics of Projects”89
classical
and neo-classical theories of physics were both focused on the same problem. If the
state of a dynamic system is known initially and something is done to it, how will the
state of the system change with time in response?
This is analogous to what we are trying to determine in project management.
In the world of physics, classical theory breaks down at scale90
. Conventional project
management theory similarly seems to break down at scale. The theoretical construct I
have been building to in this paper and summarize in the following table is very much
focused on this project realm where scale and complexity rule.
In developing this theoretical construct I have essentially considered three simple
hypotheses, the first of which is:
 Large complex projects are not well served by conventional project
management theory and practice.
This hypothesis was demonstrated at the outset of this paper and the differential
behavior between large and traditionally scaled projects has been previously noted.91
88
Advances in Project management Series; Is there a universal theory of project management?; Darren Dalcher;
PM World journal; 2013
89
Physics of Projects; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2015
90
Although not explored in this paper, classical physics also breaks down at extremely small scales and it may be
worthwhile exploring how classical PM Theory behaves on a similarly small scale. The fundamental forces at play
here may be those of human interactions.
91
Large projects “fail” 2 out of 3 times while more traditional projects fail 1 out of 3 times. This later fact would
suggest that further refinement of traditional theory, perhaps drawing from the observations and lessons which
underpin the theory suggested in this paper for large complex projects is warranted.

The second hypothesis considered relates to the Theory of Management as applied to
the management of projects. In simplest terms this hypothesis says:
 The Theory of Project Management does not draw fully on the richness of
the Theory of Management
This hypothesis is demonstrated as we explored the extensions of the Theory of
Management to address chaos and complexity and the more limited extensions of
project management theory.
The third and final hypothesis we considered focused on the Theory of Projects,
positing:
 Large complex projects have significantly different attributes than the more
traditional projects which comprise the basis for classical project
management theory
These attributes and their differences from classical projects have been previously laid
out in a comparative table.
In constructing a Theory of Large Complex Project Management we build on the
premise that these three hypotheses have been adequately demonstrated. We must
now define the nature of the theory92
proposed. Here we may consider theory from two
perspectives:
 Scientific theory – supported by a well-substantiated explanation tested and
confirmed through observation; describes the causal elements responsible for
observations and useful to explain and predict aspects of the area of inquiry
(large complex projects)
 Management theory - collection of ideas which set forth general rules on how to
manage an endeavor
The following table (Table 12) outlines a possible construct for a Theory of Large
Complex Projects considering each of these perspectives and further disaggregating
this overall theory into three principle theories that comprise it:
 Organizational
 Cultural
 Professional Identity
92
See Project Management Philosophy: Incremental improvement of project management through the use of
research; Van der Merwe; PM World Journal; 2012 for a discussion of the concept of “theory”

Table 12
Possible Construct for Theory of Large Complex Projects
Principle
Theories
Comprising
Overall
Theory of
Large
Complex
Projects
Theoretical
Element
Core
Attributes
Defining
Characteristi
cs
Actions and
Effects
Theoretical
Perspective93
Organizatio
nal
Identity Core
organizational
behavior
(internal)
Competency
and capability
Ability to
respond and
adapt
emphasized
over fixed
plans
M94
Systems
focus
Monitor system
properties
(patterns) to
assure
outcomes
achievement
S95
Dynamic
management
Flow driven
responsivenes
S, M96
93
S = Scientific Theory perspective; M = Management Theory perspective
94
Presently this responsive approach is found more in large contingent operations such as those found post-
disaster or in support of ongoing military operations. The emergent nature of each situation benefits from inherent
capabilities and capacities as formal plans often don’t survive their drafting.
95
Various approaches to pattern recognition have been tested and deployed to gain earlier assessment of project
trajectories
96
We see attributes of this in Agile project management but what is suggested here includes assessment of higher
order derivates of these flows as well as insights into the driving functions and chages in boundaries and boundary
conditions.

s
Contingent
management
Timely
application of
competencies
and capabilities
in response to
influencing
flows and
emergent
behaviors and
requirements
M
Expected
lifetime
Semi-
permanent to
lifecycle
S97
Core
organizational
behavior
(external)
Confirming Assessing
continued
validity of
assumptions98
M
Monitoring Environmental
scan for
emergence or
change in
systemic forces
and flows
acting on
project
(influencing
flows)
M99
97
Durations of large complex projects are often characterized by longer project durations, in part due to longer
project initiation phase activities; in part due to longer engineering, procurement and construction durations; and
in part due to inclusion of more life cycle elements (up to full life cycle) in project definitions
98
Assumption migration is primarily a function of longer project durations but can also arise from inherent
complexity and interaction of two or more of the various flows a project experiences
99
Presently, environmental scans such as contemplated here are done on an irregular basis at best, often triggered
by the occurrence of an impacting changed condition.

Identification of
potential
emergent
actors
M
Engaging Stakeholder
engagement
vs.
management
S
Multi-party
engagement
and solutions
set
S
Influencing Shaping the
project
environment
through project
flows across a
semi-
permeable
boundary
S100
Evolving Modifying
project in all
dimensions to
anticipate and
respond to
emerging
externalities
M
Core
organizational
structures
Management
focus
Response to
change vs.
control
M101
100
Economic, social and environmental impacts of large complex projects are both anticipated and assessed on a
continuing basis. Examples include labor and logistical impacts and pricing on locally and regionally sourced
materials of construction.
101
This represents a core change associated with the suggested theory

(internal)
Governance
102
Enabling and
direction and
objective
communicating
vs. directing
and controlling
M
Core
organizational
structures
(external)
Frontier Continuous
monitoring of
project frontier
(boundary
changes over
time; flows
across the
boundary (two
way flows);
reconfirmation
of
assumptions;
monitoring of
existing and
emerging
influencing
flows)
M
Scouting Identification of
changed and
changing
externalities;
identification of
changes in
stakeholder
map;
identification of
emergent
S
102
Organizational enablers for project governance and governmentality in project-based organizations; Muller,
Pemsel, Shao; International Journal of Project Management; 2014

actors
Ambassadors Engagement
with
stakeholders
S
Institutions Formation
and institution
of discourses
(internal)
Conception
and initiation
Strategic
business
outcomes
articulation
S
Owner
readiness
S
Strategic
business
outcomes
agreement
(internal)
S103
Continuous
communication
of SBOs
S
Emergent
SBOs
M104
Project
readiness
S105
Internal team
alignment
S106
Formation External Outcomes M
103
The author has identified the absence of articulation, agreement to, and continuous communication of SBOs as
a principle cause in the underperformance of large complex projects and has observed the project improvement
possible when this factor has been thoroughly addressed
104
This is new, significant concept and presents special challenges for large complex projects
105
This practice is well documented by the Construction Industry Institute (CII)
106
This practice is well documented by the Construction Industry Institute (CII)

and institution
of discourses
(external)
stakeholder
engagement
(more than
management)
must satisfy
owner and key
stakeholders
(multifinality);
Owner not
single
reference point
Awareness of
stakeholder –
stakeholder
interactions
S
Emergent
Actors
M107
Cultural Culture Dimensions Time Strong
valuation of
time
S
Semi-
permanent to
lifecycle
S
Importance of
timing (flows
focus)
S108
Temporal
decoupling
S109
107
Early identification through continuous environmental scans is especially important in large complex projects
108
This is particularly evident in logistical and manufacturing flows
109
In recent large project examples, attempts to “simplify” management of the project resulted in the coupling of
major activities that benefited from being kept separate. Consider one infrastructure example where civils,
systems and architectural elements were combined into a single procurement. Architectural approvals were
extended, complicated and the pacing element for construction work to begin. Separating out architectural work
allowed civil’s work to proceed while architectural approvals continued in parallel. Subsequent segregation of the
systems work was in recognition of the lag time between start of civil work and start of systems work. By
separating and delaying the systems piece one generation later technology could be obtained for the project. In
this particular example a two year schedule reduction with later technology was possible without shortening and
of the task durations.

Action
orientation
Flexible M
Practices Social
structures
Trust Transparency S
Communicati
on
Continuous;
two-way; flat
S
Knowledge Valued S
Emergent M110
Contextual M
Temporal M
Shared –
available to all
S, M111
Identity
formation
Outcomes
alignment
SBOs clearly
articulated,
agreed to,
continuously
communicated
S
Boundary
conditions
Semi-
permeable
boundary
M
Cultural
resources
Outcomes
alignment
and
commitment
S
110
While the emergent, contextual and temporal nature of knowledge is recognized, it is not presently an explicit
management basis
111
Knowledge as power still limits full project wide sharing. In addition sharing between organizations is not
typically well addressed in contracts and when addressed is usually mono-directional in nature

Trust S
Teamwork S
Knowledge S
Communicati
on
S
Professiona
l Identity
Self-
definition
Role definition Team based Self-organizing
(workface
planning)
S, M112
Work
practices
Organization Tasks Minimize
precedences
(supply chain
design)
S, M
De-coupling of
tasks -
standardization
; fabrication
S
Risks in “white
space”
between tasks
(expanded
basis of design
reduces white
space)
S113
Constraint
coupling of
S, M
112
Self organization is often witnessed at lowest task levels such as discrete construction activities at the workface.
Enablement of self organization is essential for flexibility and responsiveness to emergent factors of all types.
Traditional barriers to efficient workface activities include waiting for information (knowledge); direction/decisions
(importance of the value of time not clearly established; and materials and other resources including completion of
couples tasks (highlights importance of de-coupling)
113
Addressing Project Capital Efficiency through a Business Basis of Design; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2014

tasks
Knowledge
enabled
(knowledge
assemblies)
S, M
Flows Principle
management
focus
S, M
Focus on flow
perturbations
M114
Transformation
al flows (within
tasks)
S
Transformation
al flows (task to
task)
S
Influencing
flows (including
induced
constraints)
M115
Induced flows
(emergent
flows)
M116
114
Generalized Analysis of Value Behavior over Time as a Project Performance Predictor; Bob Prieto; PM World
Journal; 2012
115
Influencing flows are envisioned to have crossed the project’s semi-permeable boundary and arise from outside
the project’s direct context. Influencing flows may act to block (slow down), reinforce (speed up) or modify
(change trajectories or otherwise “entangle”) transformational flows within the project. Influencing flows may act
differently at different times on different transformational flows.
116
Induced or emergent flows are not traces directly back across the project’s semi-permeable boundary but
rather arise as a result of the interaction of one or more flows within the project (transformational, influencing, or
other induced flows). Induced flows are often temporary in nature, analogous to eddies that may form when two
streams interact. Induced flows may also be thought of being chaotic in nature, unpredictable but ultimately
exhibiting convergence around a recognizable pattern.

Contingency Impact on
Environment
Modifies
environmental
setting and
context (two
way flows
across semi-
permeable
boundary)
S, M
Environments
Impact on
Project
Modifies
project and
context (two
way flows
across semi-
permeable
boundary)
S, M
Boundary
conditions
Outcomes Emergent M117
Tasks Unbounded Emergent
tasks (project
not necessarily
decomposable
in its entirety
as originally
conceived)
M
Changed
sequencing
S, M
Flows Not discrete Entangled and
induced flows
M
Timeframe Non
deterministic
Not well
bounded
M
117
The potential for new outcomes to emerge reflects the state altering nature of large projects and is associated
with the non-deterministic nature of these systems.

The management theory aspects highlighted in the above table are still to be tested and
confirmed but observationally seem suggestive. Those delimited as being the result of a
scientific method are based on author’s experience and various data reviews over his
career but would benefit from further testing and confirmation.
The decomposition of an overall theory of management of large complex projects into
three separate but complementary and reinforcing theories related to organizational,
cultural and professional identity leaves the door open for a broader consideration
beyond the author’s work on projects in the engineering and construction sector.
The organizational theory laid out
addresses both identity and
institutions. Core organizational
behaviors and structures are
considered both internal to the project
and how it relates to its external, ever
changing environment.118
Key
characteristics that are addressed by
this organizational theory include the
competencies and capabilities that the
project team requires. These include
but go well beyond the traditional skill
sets called for by traditional PM
theories. Unlike the implementation of decomposed plans called for by PMBOK and
others, the emphasis in large complex projects is on adaptability and an ability to
respond. These competencies and capabilities are more akin to what we find in
contingent organizations such as those associated with disaster response and war
fighting.
The organizational theory laid out in the preceding table very much has a systems focus
but as we might expect to see it manifested in non-deterministic system behavior over
an extended timeframe.
Fayol’s plan, organize, direct, coordinate and control are now expanded to include
confirming, monitoring, engaging, influencing and evolving.
118
Environment as used throughout this paper describes the broader contextual ecosystem in which the project is
set and is not limited to the physical environment which would represent only a partial description of this broader
ecosystem.
Core Organizational Behaviors with
Respect to the External Environment
 Confirming
 Monitoring
 Engaging
 Influencing
 Evolving

Large complex project’s are not easily bounded, rather their boundaries, such as they
are semi-permeable in nature, limited by law, regulation and dominant social constructs.
Project boundaries now become frontiers to be monitored
and awareness requires continued probing such as we
may find in the various scouting and intelligence
operations of a well organized military operation. Other
interests lie across these ill defined boundaries and large
complex project require the services of ambassadors to
the external stakeholders to assess and influence
intentions and actions. These external stakeholders must
also be satisfied at some level for us to be successful.
Institutional constructs now place a heavy burden on all of
the strategic thinking, alignment and preparations that
precede the more tradition project activities encompassed
by FEL – 1, 2 and 3. These might conveniently be referred
to as FEL – 0, but I have avoided this terminology to
underscore the differences from traditional project
management approaches. I have written extensively on
SBOs in the past but as used in this paper they should be
viewed as Strategic
Business Outcomes
and not Strategic
Business Objectives
as I have previously
used the term. This
difference is not
insignificant as it
underscores the non-
deterministic and
multi-finality aspects of
large complex
projects. The potential
for emergence of new
SBOs over the
project’s lifetime
reflects the realities of
time and changing circumstances which large
complex projects are prone to. This potential for
These might
conveniently be
referred to as FEL–
0, but I have
avoided this
terminology to
underscore the
differences from
traditional project
management
approaches.
Project
boundaries
become
frontiers to be
monitored and
awareness
requires
continued
scouting.
Large complex
projects require
the services of
ambassadors
to the external
stakeholders to
assess and
influence
intentions and
actions.

emergent SBOs is not to suggest that any such change should be easily adopted. The
converse is true, SBOs must be clearly articulated, including their strategic rationale;
agreed to by the relevant internal and external stakeholders; and clearly and
continuously communicated.
The cultural theory summarized in the preceding table addresses both culture and the
defining and reinforcing practices associated with it. Differentiating cultural dimensions
that we experience in the world of large complex projects encompass strong emphasis
on time and action. Time is no longer just a pacing and synchronization point. It is now
something that is increasingly valued; extended beyond what we may encounter in
more traditional projects; and a tool to gauge and control the various flows the project
experiences. Temporal coupling now represents a new risk point given the various
influencing flows that a large complex project faces.
Cultural practices encompass important social structures; identity formation in the
broader organization (supports team alignment and personal commitment); and the
cultural resources available to the project organization. Trust (driven by transparency);
communication, knowledge and teamwork are defining characteristics of large complex
projects.
Professional identity theory as used herein, speaks more directly to many of the
execution approaches that we would expect from classical project management theories
but as modified to address large complex projects. Role definition, work practices and
boundary conditions must all be addressed. Increased emphasis on self-organizing119
120
and cross functional teams places an increased focus on work face planning and
execution. Embedment in a multi-stakeholder context further influences team
composition and focus in non-deterministic ways. 121
Tasks, the heart and soul of work
breakdown structures, must change in numerous ways. Precedences must be
minimized, or at the very least limited and clearly understood. Tasks must be
increasingly decoupled122
to support contingent execution driven by influencing flows,
utilizing techniques such as increased standardization (at the component and work
process level) and more extensive and comprehensive fabrication.
119
“…managerial diseconomies or scale, which arise when contractors integrate more activities…”; The impact of
complexity and managerial diseconomies on hierarchical governance; Brahm, Tarzijan; Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization; 2012
120
See Wheatley’s work of self-organizing systems such as The Unplanned Organization: Learning From Nature's
Emergent Creativity; Margaret Wheatley; Noetic Sciences Review #37; 1996
121
Manning (2008) identifies that a great number of multi-stakeholder projects cannot easily be ‘embedded’ in any
given context nor can project participants always refer to past experiences when assigning tasks, structuring times
and assembling teams
122
In tightly coupled systems slack must be designed in while it is intrinsic in loosely coupled systems (Orton,
Weick (1990); Perrow (1984)

Risks which previously fell in the “white space” between tasks now offer greater
opportunities of appearing as task flows are stretched, compressed, twisted and
reconfigured. Hidden constraints now offer greater opportunities for “spooky action” at
distance as work execution patterns change in initially unplanned ways.
Task execution now needs to be performed when and where appropriate, based on the
latest available knowledge, carrying requisite contextual and temporal significance. This
leads to a conception of knowledge assemblies similar in some constructs to the
assemblies one would expect from fabrication activities but much more self-assembling
in nature.
Flows now become essential focal points in large complex projects with increased
emphasis on perturbations (and potential points of perturbation). Flows are no longer
limited to the transformational flows within and between tasks. Influencing flows, across
the project’s semi-permeable boundary, and the induced flows123
they may create take
on significant importance.
The project acts equally on its environment as the environment acts on the project. We
must be cognizant of feedback loops that translate an internal project action to a new or
modified induced flow. Labor represents one such feedback loop we must be sensitive
to.
Finally, as described throughout this paper, boundary conditions are non-deterministic.
10.Core Concepts
We have seen a construct for the management of large complex projects laid out in the
previous section. In this section we will simply lay out some of the main concepts and
considerations for a practitioner. Each of these can be more extensively developed but
for purposes of this paper we will limit additional discussion to the focus on managing
emergent patterns which is covered in the next section.
Table 13
Core Concepts
Provide clarity and rationale for desired
outcomes
Supports emotional and transcending
engagement and a shared frame of
reference. Ensure owner readiness.
123
One manifestation of induced flows may be the emergence of informal work practices

Engage the environment Stakeholders have a real seat at the
table
Shine a bright light on planning bias Bias limits the environmental scans we
will undertake and the contingencies we
plan for
Know your assumptions and their current
condition
Monitor, test, confirm, repeat
Be transparent Builds trust; promotes two-way
communication; enables knowledge
sharing; communication is essential to
managing complex systems and
projects; reinforces strong values
system
Manage flows Anticipate, respond, assess, correct;
dynamic environment drives flows
Manage risk Not just (inadequately) provide for it
Value time Flow management demands it
Simplify Tasks and coupling between tasks124
Focus on emergent patterns Project is adapting to its immediate
environment which in turn is itself
adapting to broader forces; evolving
rules; emerging and interacting agents
124
Added compliance requirements often associated with large complex projects may provide an unintended
coupling of various management and other tasks with the unintended consequence of adding to project
complexity.

11.Principles of an Evolving Project
The theoretical construct laid
out for the management of
large complex projects has as
a central tenet the notion of
emergence or more
specifically an evolving
project. This evolution is
driven by various flows across
the semi-permeable boundary
of the project and the effect of
those flows on outcomes
definition; task sequencing
and timing; execution
strategies; required
competencies and
capabilities; risk exposures
and management strategies.
Evolving systems can be viewed from the perspectives of interdependence, diversity
drawn from different contexts, modes of interaction, and self-organization125
. “Decision
or action by any agent (individual, group, institution etc.) may affect related individuals
and systems126
.”127
In classical PM theory we had always recognized this human
relations dimension within the context of the bounded project but tended to deal with
external stakeholders as transactions to be managed. In the context suggested here for
large complex projects, the multiplicity of stakeholders now have a seat at the table128
and project optimization and execution occurs within an expanded outcomes set.
Solution sets are no longer singularly solved but now have a multifinality as previously
described. The non-linear dynamics of the complex processes and relationships which
define this class of projects means that the links between cause and effect may be
almost impossible to detect.
125
“Management commits to guiding the evolution of behaviors that emerge from the interaction of
independent agents instead of specifying in advance what effective behavior is.” The Biology of Business; Philip
Anderson
126
Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organizations: the application of complexity theory to
organizations; Mitleton-Kelly; 2003
127
Social Complex Evolving Systems: Implications For Organizational Learning; Elena Antonacopoulou and Ricardo
Chiva; OKLC 2005 Conference
128
In some instances other stakeholders may bear the same degree of responsibility in advancing the project as
the project’s owner. We see this in particular in major economic development projects.

Interrelationships between stakeholders and
project actors provide coupling and reinforcing
mechanism that warrant increased attention and
monitoring. These interrelationships influence the
existence and strength of interdependences but
can also be exploited for the resolution of coupling
constraints.
Importantly, context matters. Project actors
(multiple project team elements; stakeholders;
regulators and others who limit permeability of the
project boundary; emergent actors) each view the
project from different contexts and each acts from
the basis of different contextual perceptions.
Project management on large complex projects
requires not just awareness but a deep
understanding of each of these contexts, seeking
to reflect their perspectives in project strategies
and actions and importantly seeking to bring what
would otherwise be a fairly chaotic state into some
semblance of alignment and order. As these
different contexts are considered it is essential that
recognition be maintained on their very nature
which itself is temporal, being influenced by this
multiplicity of actors and others in the world
beyond the immediate project environment.
A key attribute of an evolving system is that the way in which it interacts with and
responds to its environment changes over time. Said another way, large complex
projects learn and adapt to the realities that they encounter. Efficient learning and
adaptation are characteristics of successful projects while underperforming projects
have neither learned nor adapted as efficiently. This underscores the importance of
knowledge as a currency for project success. Knowledge must be continuously
gathered, contextually and temporally; shared broadly; and then readily deployed to
drive project adaptation. “Hierarchical structures do not facilitate the knowledge
specialization and development needed to execute complex activities”129
129
The impact of complexity and managerial diseconomies on hierarchical governance; Brahm, Tarzijan; Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization; 2012
Fayol’s plan,
organize, direct,
coordinate and
control are now
expanded to
include
confirming,
monitoring,
engaging,
influencing and
evolving.

In a broader sense, the world of large complex projects benefits when this knowledge is
shared beyond the project’s boundaries, establishing better planning bases,
competencies and capabilities for subsequent projects130
. Previously we have talked
about decoupling in a different context but in the context of learning, project teams and
the broader organizations require an ability to decouple current practices from their
historical context in the face of new learnings. The phrase, “we have always done it this
way” has somewhat limited value in many large complex projects.
The concept of self-organization reflects a simple reality of large complex projects –
central direction by a management team is no longer practical. Rather project
management must create context, capacities and capabilities recognizing the delicate
balance between formal and informal systems that are essential to avoid chaos on large
complex projects. The project co-evolves with its environment131
and the tools of the
project manager include a combination of positive and negative feedback loops to guide
the project to its final state. Proper application of these loops rely not just on traditional
command and control strategies and metrics but also knowledge gained from a learning
organization and the careful monitoring of project frontiers (flows; assumption
migration), environmental scouting (new flow drivers; emerging flows; emerging actors)
and engagement of stakeholders through almost ambassadorial activities. There is a
need “to look for patterns and for points of change which can trigger off new
patterns.”132
The concept of a project as an unbounded, open system challenges the project
manager and the project management team. They “must deal with uncertainties and
ambiguities and must be concerned with adapting the organization to new and changing
requirements”133
. Initial conditions matter and the projects temporal beginnings must
extend all the way back to identification of organizational outcomes to be satisfied by
implementation of the project. Not only must projects and project teams be ready and
aligned but so to must the owner’s organization. The importance of these strong owner
foundations in achieving project success have been well documented.
130
Research has emphasized the difficulties project-based organizations face when attempting to capture the
learning built during project execution and when disseminating this knowledge to the overall organization. See
“The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?”; Hobday; Research
Policy ; 2000 and “The management of operations in the project-based organization”; Turner & Keegan; Journal of
Change Management; 2000
131
Evolutionary systems seek to align with the deeper meta-patterns which exist in the environment within which
the project is set but also in the much broader environment. These meta-patterns may be more discernible in the
broadest context, at least suggesting directionality of those more immediately experienced by the project.
132
A lateral view of organizational complexity; Part 2: Non-linear dynamics – informal coalitions; Chris Rodgers;
2008
133
The Contributions of Management Theory and Practice to Emergency Management; John C. Pine

Management processes span the multitude of flows – transformational, influencing and
induced. Management seeks to align people, processes and systems for efficient
execution while reducing uncertainty and increasing flexibility. It seeks to do this within a
context that is “dynamic, inherently uncertain, and frequently ambiguous. Management
is placed in a network of mutually dependent relationships. Management endeavors to
introduce regularity in a world that will never allow that to happen.”134
Large complex projects require different leadership constructs and behaviors. Training
must go well beyond traditional skills training and include simulations and consistent
use of cross functional teams and developed “challenge” approaches135
to open up
team based communication. The following table (Table 14) highlights some of the
leadership changes that must occur.
134
ibid
135
A variety of approaches exist including random or rotating selection of individuals to continuously challenge
assumptions and proposals to ensure group think or deferral to the strongest or most senior personality doesn’t
drive decision making.

Table 14
Management of Large Complex Projects
Require Changed Leadership Behaviors
New Leadership Behaviors Traditional Leadership Behaviors
Group leadership vs. Individual leadership
Motivation and movement vs. Control and order
Transformative leadership vs. Scientific management
Shared outcomes focus vs. Outputs focus
Agreement and acceptance of goals vs. Assignment and directive
Flat communication and information
structures
vs. Hierarchial and siloed
Questioning (assumption, process,
outputs)
vs. Acceptance of normative
Collaboration and information sharing
with stakeholders
vs. Adversarial or transactional approach
Management of flows vs. Management of tasks136
Engaged and decentralized decision
making
vs. Centralized decision making
136136
As indicated in Saurin et. al. (2013)”prescriptive procedures on how to do a task are insufficient in a complex
system”

12.Beyond Complexity
Complexity Theory provides a good starting construct for many of the aspects of what I
have described as a Theory of Large Complex Projects but I can’t help but feel that
large complex projects force us to go even further. Unlike complexity theory, this class
of projects may be effectively unbounded in both time and space. Project readiness
must be underpinned by owner readiness and clear outcomes to be achieved,
recognizing that even these are subject to emergence. Flows that we define in
complexity theory are complemented by stronger stakeholder derived influencing flows
and importantly a new construct of induced flows. Stakeholder influences137
now define
a surrounding and interacting ecosystem that includes stakeholder-stakeholder
interactions138
but also one which the project acts on and can influence through so-
called “ambassadors”. While not predictable, perturbations in flows become signatures
of the direction of likely system emergence. Our predictive project efforts employing big
analytics may be better aimed at flow patterns, especially those crossing the semi-
permeable project boundary, and the broader externalities driving and shaping them.
Strong and often unseen coupling within the project system offers us a chance to
understand where indirect coupling should be made direct (because we can witness
improvements in outcomes as we strengthen select links; an example might be tighter
integration of supply chains) and importantly where we should seek to decouple
transformative activities which do not require to be linked.
Emergence is not limited to outcomes as complexity theory would suggest but also
includes emergent actors, flows and tasks, the former being a notable addition.
Management is not only self-organizing (out of necessity, recognizing the limits of
centralized control) but heavily driven by the creation and refinement of capacities,
capabilities and knowledge flows throughout the project’s lifetime. In some ways these
may represent some of the most predictive project metrics.
137
According to Lesard, Sakhrani, Miller (2014) “new literature argues that the institutions within which a project is
embedded and interacts also should be taken into account, thereby refining or extending traditional contingency
models” (Scott, 2012). What is proposed here is even more definitive but also considers stakeholder – stakeholder
interactions in order to understand the complexity of the surrounding ecosystem.
138
Lessard et al (2014) notes the dominant importance of what is referred to as “institutional complexity”. In the
outlined construct in this paper, institutional complexity includes stakeholder – stakeholder relationships but also
the owner’s own institutional complexity and readiness.

Table 15
Extended Focus of the Theory of Large Complex Projects
Extended Focus Classical Focus
Owner readiness Project Readiness
Emergent outcomes (Multifinality) Output Focus
Flows including emergent influencing and
induced flows
Tasks and transformative flows
Stakeholder engagement (partners in
success)
Stakeholder Management
Confirm, monitor, engage, influence,
evolve
Organize, direct, coordinate and control
13.Conclusion
In this paper I have tried to address the realities of project management performance as
it relates to large complex projects. The normal condition that current theory supports is
one of failure. A new theoretical construct is required and directs us to revisit the
theories of management and projects at least as they apply to large complex projects.
This paper begins by looking at the evolution of general management theory and later
suggests that project management theory would benefit by strongly drawing on its
evolutionary progress. Project theory is considered largely from the aspect of various
systems theories and elements of both Chaos Theory and Complexity Theory are seen

to provide valuable insights. But a bit more seems to be required and these elements
are laid out near the end of the paper.
The importance of getting the core of the project well prepared is highlighted (strategic
business outcomes; owner readiness; stress testing baselines to avoid planning
fallacies; and modeling for non-normal behavior). Flows rise in importance as
contrasted with tasks and new flows (beyond transformational flows) are introduced
(influencing and induced). Finally, the rise of stakeholders as flow drivers (influencing
flows) and determinants of final outcomes (multifinality) is stressed.
Each of these changes where our efforts should be directed on large complex projects
and the boundaries of the project itself is redefined both in its extent and temporal
nature.
The author does not view this paper as either fully definitive or complete but rather as a
continuation of thinking focused on addressing the question previously raised of “Is It
Time to Rethink Project Management Theory?”139
Many of the concepts are supported
by scientific theory while other elements merely represent management theory. The
views represent the author’s own evolving perspectives on what it will take to improve
execution and delivery of large complex projects.
139

Bibliography
A complex systems theory perspective on lean production; Saurin, Rooke, Koskela;
International Journal of Production Research; 2013
Addressing Project Capital Efficiency through a Business Basis of Design; Bob Prieto;
PM World Journal; 2014
"Administration Industrielle et Générale" (General and industrial administration); Henri
Fayol; 1916 (French); 1930 (English)
Advances in Project management Series; Is there a universal theory of project
management?; Darren Dalcher; PM World journal; 2013
A lateral view of organizational complexity; Part 2: Non-linear dynamics – informal
coalitions; Chris Rodgers; 2008
A Look at Joint Ventures; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2013
Alternative scenarios for the future of the project management industry; Stretton,
Blythman; PM World Journal; 2012
An Exploration towards a Production Theory and its Application to Construction; Lauri
Koskela; 2000; VTT Technical Research Center
An intermediate distribution between Gaussian and Cauchy Distributions; Tong Liu,
Ping Zhang, Wu-Sheng Dai and Mi Xie; 2012
Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder; Nassim Taleb
Applications and Limitations of Complexity Theory in Organization Theory and Strategy;
David Levy
A Simple View of Complexity in Project Management; Weaver; WPM Week Singapore;
2007
A Theory of Human Motivation; Abraham H. Maslow; Psychological Review, 50, 370-
396; 1943
Benefits Realisation Management and its influence on project success and on the
execution of business strategies; Carlos Eduardo Martins Serra, Martin Kunc;
International Journal of Project Management; 2015

Complexity and postmodernism. Understanding complex systems; Cilliers, P. 1998;
Routledge, London, UK.
Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the
knowledge era; Uhl-Bien, Marion, McKelvey; The Leadership Quarterly; 2007
Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organizations: the application of
complexity theory to organizations; Mitleton-Kelly; 2003
Complexity Theory and Knowledge Management Application; Zoë Dann, Ian Barclay;
The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management; 2006
Construction Physics; Sven Bertelsen, Guilherme Henrich, Lauri Koskela and John
Rooke; Proceedings IGLC-15, July 2007, Michigan, USA
Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism); Karl Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber; 1905 (German); 1930 (English)
Embedding projects in multiple contexts – a structuration perspective; Stephan
Manning; International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 30–37
Framework for the role of self-organisation in the handling of adaptive challenges;
Mahmud, Saadia; Emergence: Complexity & Organization; 2009
Foundations, Frameworks & Lessons Learned in Program Management; Bob Prieto;
PM World Today; 2008
From Nobel Prize To Project Management: Getting Risks Right; Bent Flyvbjerg; Aalborg
University, Denmark; Project Management Journal; August, 2006.
From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity; Morin, E. 1992; Journal of
Social and Evolutionary Systems 15 (4):371–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1061-
7361(92)90024-8
Generalized Analysis of Value Behavior over Time as a Project Performance Predictor;
Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2012
General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications; Ludwig Von
Bertalanffy; George Braziller; 1968
Generating Self-Organizing Capacity: Leadership Practices and Training Needs in Non-
Profits; Allen and Morton; Journal of Extension; 2006

Governance: Key to Successful Program Management Delivery; Bob Prieto; PM World
Today; 2008
House of Project Complexity – understanding complexity in large infrastructure projects;
Lessard, Sakhrani, Miller; The Engineering Project Organization Journal; 2014
Industrial Megaprojects Concepts, Strategies and Practices for Success; ECI’s 23rd
Annual Conference 2012; “The European Construction Industry Facing the Global
Challenges”; Ed Merrow; 2012
Knowledge in organizations; Prusak; Routledge; 1997
Leadership and Project Management: time for a Shift from Fayol to Flores; Howell,
Macomber, Koskela, Draper
Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World; Margaret J.
Wheatley; Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.; 1996
Loosely-coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization; Orton, Weick; Academy of
Management Review; 1990
Management and Communication in the Office of the Future; Flores; PhD Dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley; 1982
Managing the Planning Fallacy in Large, Complex Infrastructure Programs; Bob Prieto;
PM World Journal Vol. II, Issue VIII – August 2013
Navigating Complexity; PMI’s Pulse of the Profession; 2013
Normal Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies; Perrow; 1984
Organizational enablers for project governance and governmentality in project-based
organizations; Muller, Pemsel, Shao; International Journal of Project Management;
2014
Owner’s Readiness Index; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2014

Perspective on the Cost of Delayed Decision Making in Large Project Execution; Bob
Prieto; PM World Journal Vol. III, Issue II – February 2014
Physics of Projects; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; May 2015
"Principles of the self organizing dynamic system"; Ashby; Journal of General
Psychology; 1947
Principles of the self-organizing system; Ashby; 1962
Program Tetrahedron – Further Developing the Concept; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal;
2013
Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries; Scarbrough et. Al.;
Organization Studies; 2004
Project Management Philosophy: Incremental improvement of project management
through the use of research; Van der Merwe; PM World Journal; 2012
Project Management Systems Theory Taught Through Games; James Holt;
Washington State University
PRojects IN Controlled Environments, version 2
Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica; Kahneman and
Tversky; 1979
Quality Control and Due Diligence in Project Management: Getting Decisions Right by
Taking the Outside View; Bent Flyvbjerg; International Journal of Project Management;
2012
Reflections on the functional relationship between project efforts and its complexity;
Pavel Barseghyan
Restricted Complexity, General Complexity; Edgar Morin; Colloquium “Intelligence de la
complexite: epistemologie et pragmatique”; 2005
Self-Organizing Systems, Rules, Characteristics and Effecting Change; Universe Spirit;
Sustainability.net

Social Complex Evolving Systems: Implications For Organizational Learning; Elena
Antonacopoulou and Ricardo Chiva; OKLC 2005 Conference
The Biology of Business: Decoding the Natural Laws of Enterprise; John Henry
Clippinger III; 1999
The Choice; Eliyhau Goldratt; North River Press; 2009
The Coming Sea-Change in Project Management Science: Advances in Project
Management; Hatfield; PM World Journal; 2013
The Contributions of Management Theory and Practice to Emergency Management;
John C. Pine
The Functions of the Executive; Chester I. Barnard; Harvard University Press; 1938
The GIGA Factor; Program Management in the Engineering & Construction Industry;
CMAA
The Human Side of Enterprise; Douglas Murray McGregor; 1960
The impact of complexity and managerial diseconomies on hierarchical governance;
Brahm, Tarzijan; Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization; 2012
The Improbability Principle; David J. Hand
The institutional environment of global project organizations; Scott; Engineering Project
Organizations Journal
The Irresistible Future of Organizing; Margaret Wheatley, Myron Rogers; 1996
The Last Planner System of Production Control; Herman Glenn Ballard; Thesis - The
University of Birmingham; 2000
“The management of operations in the project-based organization”; Turner & Keegan;
Journal of Change Management; 2000
The Origins of Modern Project Management; Weaver; Fourth Annual PMI College of
Scheduling Conference; 2007
‘The Origins of Order: Self-organisation and Selection in Evolution’, Kauffman, S
(1993), Oxford University Press, Oxford The Principles of Scientific Management;
Frederick Winslow Taylor; Monograph; Harper & Brothers; 1911

The “Program Tetrahedron”: A Changed Baseline Control Basis under Strategic
Program Management; Bob Prieto; PM World Journal; 2012
The Project-Based Firm: A Dynamic Capabilities Model; Hermano, Cruz; European
Academy of Management; 2014
The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and
systems?; Hobday; Research Policy ; 2000
The Role of Project Management Training in Determining Project Success; Muriuki; PM
World Journal; 2013
The Theory of Project Management: Explanation to Novel Methods; Lauri Koskela and
Greg Howell
The underlying theory of project management is obsolete; Koskela, Howell; Project
Management Institute; 2002
The Unplanned Organization: Learning From Nature's Emergent Creativity; Margaret
Wheatley; Noetic Sciences Review #37; 1996
Thinking, Fast and Slow; Daniel Kahneman; 2011
Toward a unified theory of project governance: Economic, sociological and
psychological supports for relational contracting; Henisz, Levitt & Scott; Engineering
Project Organization Journal; 2012
Trends In Modern Project Management, Past, Present & Future; Weaver; PM Oz; 2007
Spinning Gold: The Financial returns to Stakeholder Engagement; Witold Henisz;
Sinziana Dorobantu; Lite Nartey; Strategic Management Journal; 2014
Stakeholder Management in Large Engineering & Construction Programs; Bob Prieto;
PM World Today; 2011
Strategic Program Management; Bob Prieto; Construction Management Association of
America (CMAA); ISBN 978-0-9815612-1-9; July 24, 2008

About the Author
Bob Prieto
Senior Vice President
Fluor
Princeton, NJ, USA
Bob Prieto is a senior vice president of Fluor, one of the
largest, publicly traded engineering and construction companies in the world. He
focuses on the development and delivery of large, complex projects worldwide. Bob
consults with owners of large capital construction programs across all market sectors in
the development of programmatic delivery strategies encompassing planning,
engineering, procurement, construction and financing. He is author of “Strategic
Program Management”, “The Giga Factor: Program Management in the Engineering
and Construction Industry” , “Application of Life Cycle Analysis in the Capital Assets
Industry” and “Capital Efficiency: Pull All the Levers” published by the Construction
Management Association of America (CMAA) and “Topics in Strategic Program
Management” as well as over 500 other papers and presentations.
Bob is a member of the ASCE Industry Leaders Council, National Academy of
Construction, a Fellow of the Construction Management Association of America, a
member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council and several university
departmental and campus advisory boards. Bob served until 2006 as a U.S. presidential
appointees 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 and 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). Bob can be contacted at Bob.Prieto@fluor.com.
To view other works by Bob Prieto, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at
http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/bob-prieto/

Project management theory and management of large complex projects final

More Related Content

Similar to Project management theory and management of large complex projects final (20)

More from Bob Prieto (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Project management theory and management of large complex projects final