More than two-thirdsof the participants (69.8%) estimated their projects as small/ me- dium size. 72% of the participants named the overall success of projects (incl. large and major) as “good” and “very good”. An assumption that all small and medium sized pro- jects are always in “good”/ “very good” standing is not supported by a statistical analysis (see Figure 38).
50% or more in the detailed process areas that are directly controlled by the project manager stand in a “good” or “very good” success. Only the knowledge area of procure- ment is less successful. Procurement is often outsourced to a separate department and not directly influenced by project managers. Generally the success of the other detailed knowledge areas and the overall knowledge area is conforming (see Figure 36 and Fig- ure 37).
This result raises questions. The chaos report stated that most projects fail or are not successful (The Standish Group, 2010). Did participants of the research have a specific way to manage complex projects? Is this success based on the structured approach in projects by the PMI standard? Or can a project be declared as successful if it met cus- tomer requirements and quality demands, even if it was not completed on time or with- in budget?
Management of complex projects
The management of the complexity differs slightly. All (survey, focus interview and liter- ature) suggested not eliminating or ignoring the complexity of a project. An elimination of complexity might not be the best solution as it could afford too many disadvantages for the project. In the survey, 85.9% of participants stated that immediate actions must be undertaken when complexity is recognized. This could be a controlling or reduction of complexity. This conforms to scientific method. Scientists recommend that the only way to meet market demands and protect their goods against plagiarism is to manage or control complexity and reduce the “over-complexity” (Maurer, 2007; Schuh, 2005a).
For controlling complexity participants mostly choose a rational (constructivistic) and reality (cognitive) referring method. Project manager base their decisions for controlling complexity on the actual situation. These approaches are suitable because complexity is characterized by many different interrelations, a spontaneously changing status, and are difficult to control. Depending on the situation and the problem, most participants try to define the target and describe the solution process with possible alternatives – rational, constructivistic approach. The cognitive approach for controlling complexity consists of reality consideration with a subsequent simplification, abstraction and implication. The method of reducing complexity is a planned method, not a fast reaction in sponta- neous situation. The latter could cause mistakes like reducing a product by eliminating significant features, which could decrease market viability or inferior products. It is a long lasting learning process, what can be reduced for simplifying the complexity. Man- agers try to structure the complex situation: by learning from others, structuring with labels, or standardizing existing complexity. For example, the “model kit” technology is introduced was recently introduced in the automobile industry. OEMs (original equip- ment manufacturer) develop “model kits” that can be used in more than one type of car. The range can start with simple parts like steering wheels or entertainment systems up to complex “model kits” such as complete platforms that can be used for different brands. In other industries project managers also rely on existing “model kits” to simpli- fy management.
Feedback from the focus groups on managing complexity was similar. All focus groups agreed that the handling of complex projects should first be performed on the particular situation of the project. They just suggested handling them by a situative approach – analyzing the situation before focusing and taking actions. Because an overall manage- ment method does not exist, handling of the vulnerable process is always depending on the topic itself and all approaches should be considered (rational/ situative/ summa- rized/ standardized). A main proposition for the FGIs was to stay flexible, the expression of any concerns, and a continuous observation of the vulnerable process and strength- eners that cause the complex situation.
As opposed to the literature and survey, the focus groups did not prefer a reduction for handling complexity, different to the survey and literature. Fixed and contractual signed scope by the sponsor is difficult to be reduced. Focus groups propose no general formu- la for handling complexity. It can appear in too many different ways and result in too
many different impacts. Rather, it should be controlled by creating manageable sub packages and informing sponsors in time where potential risks can appear. The focus interview participants also mentioned that the attitude of the project manager is rele- vant in handling problems. Methodology, experience, and proactive action are essential for performing a project successfully and predictably. Hass (2009) suggested the “eX- treme model”, which is described as the approach of situational flexibility and the expe- rience of the project managers.
In ambiguous situations, the managers should consult their team and sponsors, so they could base a decision on a common agreement while maintaining the support of the team/ management.
In summary, the approach of controlling and reducing of complexity seems logical, but this was confirmed by all participants of the research. An adaption to the specific situa- tion of the project and the conservation of flexibility is necessary. Otherwise the benefit of the project might not be given and the basement for the project might be detracted. This is shown in Table 13.
Table 13: Analysis on management of complex projects by survey/ interview/ literature (devel- oped by author)
Handling of complex projects
Where should project managers expect complexity in their projects? The participants of the survey and interview named top vulnerable processes (define scope, manage stake-
Ignore
Eliminate
Reduce
Control
Rational (define target & describe process/ alternatives) Reality (consider
reality & perform subsequent simplification Survey Ignore Eliminate Reduce Control Depending on situation Focus interview Ignore Eliminate Reduce Control Literature Management of complex projects
Unsuccessful project with no manageable complexity Disadvantages for project
Meet market demands Protection against plagiarism Meet market demands Protection against plagiarism Sub packages identify potential
risks Resulting in …
rejected
agreed
holder, collect requirements, identify risks and control scope). They appear mainly in the planning and execution phase of a project. These processes correlate with the previ- ously defined top 5 strengtheners for complexity (customer requirements, stakeholder, communication process, division of work, and organisational changes). Rarely vulnera- ble processes appear in the projects initiation and closing phase. In the initiation phase, the project has not started yet. In the closing phase, the product/ project is so far devel- oped that it can be accepted and inspected by the stakeholders. There is a clear connec- tion between strengtheners and affected processes.
Strengtheners of complexity have a larger effect on projects farther along in the devel- opment process. The later those strengtheners are recognized, the greater their impact. Therefore, strengtheners of complexity must be immediately identified and managed from the beginning. 66.7% of participants in this survey think that their project is more or less complex, if even not highly complex. Participants in the survey estimated their projects as 8% as unsuccessful; however, the literature stated that more than 60% of today’s projects are unsuccessful (Amberg et al., 2009; M. Frank et al., 2011; The Standish Group, 2010). Focus interview participants did not mention any unsuccessful projects.
How can such a difference in the success of projects appear?
An explanation for this phenomenon could be that over 90% of the participants are PMP credential holders and better know how to structure and manage a complex project. They have proven experience. A direct relation between the certification of project man- agers and success of the project is not confirmed by the focus groups nor by the survey. So the PMI standard was not confirmed as a method to solve complexity. But successful- ly certified project managers positively influence projects results. Literature (chaos re- port) has a broadened view on all projects that are not explicitly executed by certified project managers.
The literature and the focus interviews demonstrated that the success of a project relies on methodology, experience, and the mind-set of the project manager. The success re- lays more on the methodology and can be expressed in standards. Big companies have established methodologies and their own standards for performing large projects suc- cessfully. The methodology is also taught when gaining the PMP. Furthermore, the expe- rience of project managers is relevant. Haas’ (2009) approach confirmed the findings of the focus groups. They require for complex projects the experience of project managers,
equipped knowledge/ skills and exceptional level of leadership. The quality of leader- ship is grounded on soft skills (Hass, 2009). FGI participants named this experience and seniority of project managers. PMI’s “Navigating Complexity” does not list experience, but it does list leadership, project management techniques, and strategic business man- agement (Project Management Institute, 2014). Skills for leadership and project man- agement techniques are gained through experience. This was expressed by the partici- pants of the FGIs. The strategic business management is not part of this research.
With their experience, project managers learn to apply and methodology in real projects. A project management standard can assist with creating standards for customer service and with outlining advantages, as long as those are applied and accepted by the team. However, it is not a guarantor for success. Also, proactive action in complex situation fosters success. Experience alone will not bring the project to a successful end if there is no defined methodology that people can follow. Furthermore, both methodology and experience cannot support the project if it is insufficiently staffed. So, the success of pro- jects in survey was explained by the focus interview.
In summary, the successful handling of complex projects is influenced by the manager and the applied methodology. The success does not depend on any specific project man- agement standard like PMI, but the implied methodology. The greater the skill set of manger, the greater his or her ability will be to handle a complex project. That skill set includes; experience in practical implementation of a project, the abilities in soft skills, leadership, strengthening interpersonal relations, and proactive action. This is shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Analysis on handling complex projects by survey/ interview/ literature (developed by author)