15327 Managing Project Complexity
Warning: The information on this page is indicative. The subject outline for a
particular session, location and mode of offering is the authoritative source
of all information about the subject for that offering. Required texts, recommended texts and references in particular are likely to change. Students will be provided with a subject outline once they enrol in the subject.
Subject handbook information prior to 2025 is available in the Archives.
Credit points: 6 cp
Subject level:
Postgraduate
Result type: Grade and marksRequisite(s): 15315 Project Management Principles AND 144 credit points of completed study in 144.0000000000 Credit Points spk(s): C10413 Bachelor of Design Architecture Master of Architecture
These requisites may not apply to students in certain courses.
There are course requisites for this subject. See access conditions.
Description
This is a scenario and problem-based subject that is delivered through an intensive workshop. It explores sources of complexity in projects; how complexity manifests in projects; relevant theory informing management decisions; implications for managing risk, schedule, budget; procurement; governance; capabilities needed for management of complex projects; and tools and methods for managing different kinds of complexity in industry settings.
Subject learning objectives (SLOs)
On successful completion of this subject, students should be able to:
| 1. | Prepare appropriate project management plans for complex projects |
|---|---|
| 2. | Use core tools and techniques to identify and resolve complexity issues in projects |
| 3. | Link complex management concepts to the project framework |
| 4. | Demonstrate a reflective and professional approach to project management practice |
Course intended learning outcomes (CILOs)
This subject also contributes to the following Course Intended Learning Outcomes:
- Communicate effectively through oral communication in projects at a professional level (Oral Communication) (C.1)
- Communicate effectively through written communication in projects at a professional level (Written Communication) (C.2)
- Source and apply tools and techniques to meet contextual demands (Technique Application) (I.1)
- Develop and adapt project management knowledge to meet contextual demands (Knowledge Adaptation) (I.2)
- Think systemically and incorporate systems thinking approaches into project management (Systems Thinking) (I.3)
- Apply and extend advanced project management knowledge (Advanced Knowledge) (P.2)
- Actively reflect on, and improve, project practice (Practice Improvement) (P.5)
- Lead and manage project teams, and work as a project team member at a professional level (Teams and Leadership) (P.6)
- Think critically and synthesise complex data (Critical Engagement) (R.1)
Contribution to the development of graduate attributes
The term CAPRI is used for the five Design, Architecture and Building faculty graduate attribute categories where:
C = communication and groupwork
A = attitudes and values
P = practical and professional
R = research and critique
I = innovation and creativity
Course intended learning outcomes (CILOs) are linked to these categories using codes (e.g. C-1, A-3, P-4, etc.).
Teaching and learning strategies
This subject is offered face-to-face in an intensive block workshop and incorporates a range of teaching and learning strategies:
Strategy 1 - Student’s Preparation for Learning: Online references and resource materials, located on Canvas, are provided prior to the block workshop to familiarise students with the subject contents. Learning from pre-workshop readings and their applications will be assessed by a pre-workshop quiz, which is to be viewed prior to the block workshop. Students will be engaged through the use of pre-workshop readings and quiz, thereby engendering problem-based learning.
Strategy 2 - Lectures: Lecturers and guest lecturers from practice engage students in principal concepts and fundamental tools and techniques in project complexity management. Students are welcome and indeed encouraged to ask questions during lectures. Several real and hypothetical examples are used to contextualize learning and practice applications of the tools. Lectures are a key learning resource in this subject, and the presentation slides are available for student review via Canvas prior to the workshop.
Strategy 3 - Collaborative Problem Solving: During lectures, students will work together and learn collaboratively in small groups solving problems that are directly related to the subject content covered during the lectures. This approach will assist students in applying and demonstrating their learning through cases involving hypothetical and actual scenarios. Students will be requested to present their group solutions during lectures, which provides a great opportunity for learning from peers.
Strategy 4 - Online learning: Canvas is where students access material for self-directed learning and engage in student-led discussion on key topics. Presentation slides are available for review on Canvas. Students can share their questions and ideas on the open discussion forum, with prompt guidance and feedback from the subject coordinator.
Strategy 5 - Ongoing Feedback: Structured feedback is provided individually, to each tutorial and to the subject group about daily group activities, pre-workshop and final assignment. There will be opportunities to receive immediate feedback during the workshop. Detailed guidance as to the assessment criteria and the provision of timely feedback will form an important part of the learning process. It is the student's responsibility to record any feedback supplied during meetings or sessions. Summative feedback is published along with indicative grades online at Canvas. Summative feedback focuses on assessment outcomes. It is used to indicate how successfully a student has performed in terms of specific assessment criteria.
Content (topics)
- Introducing complex projects;
- Sources of complexity in projects;
- Complex adaptive systems thinking;
- Management strategies for complex projects;
- Risk management strategies for complex projects;
- Leadership strategies for complex projects.
Assessment
Assessment task 1: Individual pre-workshop assessment
| Intent: | The intent of this assignment is to familiarise students with concept of complexity and how it relates to projects. The quiz will be posted prior to the commencement of the semester. The quiz will cover the content from the pre-workshop readings. Please complete all the reading before taking the quiz. Students will only have three attempts to complete the quiz. The best attempt will be counted for the final mark. The results will be immediately returned by the system once the quiz is completed. The summary will be provided on the last day of workshops. | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective(s): | This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 2 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): I.1 | ||||||||
| Type: | Quiz/test | ||||||||
| Groupwork: | Individual | ||||||||
| Weight: | 30% | ||||||||
| Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Assessment task 2: Workshop assessment
| Intent: | Assessment 2 is designed to enable students to interact and collaboratively apply methods and tools to address complexity issues in projects. Groups will be formed at the beginning of the workshops. Groups will work together on the complexity issues in two given projects to obtain a better understanding of complexity management. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective(s): | This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 1, 2, 3 and 4 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): C.1, I.1, P.2, P.6 and R.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type: | Exercises | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Groupwork: | Group, group assessed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight: | 30% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Assessment task 3: Individual written assignment
| Intent: | This assessment provides the opportunity for students to extend their learning from the workshops and individually apply the subject material in a project environment. Select a project from the workshop, or from your work context. Assume the project is about to commence. Prepare a report to the Project Board giving advice about how to manage the complexity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective(s): | This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 1, 2, 3 and 4 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): C.2, I.2, I.3, P.5 and R.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type: | Essay | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Groupwork: | Individual | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight: | 40% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Minimum requirements
The DAB attendance policy requires students to attend no less than 80% of formal teaching sessions (lectures and tutorials) for each class they are enrolled in to remain eligible for assessment.
Project Management students are required to attend 80% of all classes for all enrolled subjects. Achievement of the subject’s aims is difficult if classes are not attended. Where assessment tasks are to be presented personally in class, attendance is mandatory. Pursuant to UTS rule 3.8.2 students who do not satisfy attendance requirements may be refused permission by the Responsible Academic Officer to be considered for assessment for this subject.
Required texts
Remington, K. and Pollack, J. (2007) Tools for Complex Projects, Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing
Remington, K. (2011) Leading Complex Projects, Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.
Some additional readings will be available on Canvas which relate to the case studies.
Recommended texts
Remington, K. (2013) Kairos: Harnessing time and emergence in complex projects, Canberra, Australia: ICCPM.
References
These are useful additional references.
Ackerman, F., Eden, C. and Williams, T. (1997), ‘Modelling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches’, Interfaces 2, 48-65.
Anderson, P. (1999), ‘Complexity Theory and Organization Science’, Organization Science, 10:3, 216-323.
Ashmos, D., Duchon, D. and McDaniel, Jr., R.R. (2000), ‘Organizational Responses to Complexity: the Effect on Organizational Performance’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13:6). 577-95.
Beinhoffer, E. (1997), ‘Strategy at the Edge of Chaos’, McKinsey Quarterly 1.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997), ‘The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:1, 1-34.
Checkland, (2002), ‘Thirty Years in the Systems Movement: Disappointments I have Known, and a Way Forward’, Systemist 24:2, 99-112.
Checkland, (1999), ‘Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-Year Retrospective” in Checkland, and Scholes, J., (eds.) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, A1 - A65 (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons).
Crutchfield, J. and Young, K. (1990), ‘Computation at the Onset of Chaos’, in Entropy, Complexity, and the Physics of Information, W. Zurek, (ed.), SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, VIII, (Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley) 223-69.
Daft, R.L. and Lewin, A.R. (1990), ‘Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straight Jacket: An Editorial Essay’, Organization, Science 1, 1-9
Dvir, D. and Lechler, T., 2004, ‘Plans are Nothing, Changing Plans is Everything: The Impact of Changes on Project Success’, Research Policy, 33:1, 1-15.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004), ‘Chapter 42. Speed and Strategic Choice: How Managers Accelerate Decision Making,’ in Katz, R. (Ed.) The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation : A Collection of Readings. (NY: Oxford University Press).
Eisner, H. (2005), Managing Complex Systems: Thinking Outside the Box, (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons).
Flood, R. and Jackson, M. (1991), Creative Problem Solving: total systems intervention. (NY: John Wiley & Sons).
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), ‘From Nobel Prize to Project Management: Getting Risks Right’, Project Management Journal, 37:3, 5-15.
Ivory, C. and Alderman, N. (2005), ‘Can Project Management Learn Anything from Studies of Failure in Complex Systems?’ Project Management Journal 36:3, 5-16.
Jackson, M. (1999) ‘Towards Coherent Pluralism in Management Science’, Journal of the Operational Research Society 50, 12-22.
Khurana, A. and Rosenthal, S.R.(1997), ‘Integrating the Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development’, Sloan Management Review 38, 103-20.
Lewin, R. (1992), Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. (NY: Macmillan Publishing).
Loch, C.H. and Terwiesch, C. (1998), ‘Communication and Uncertainty in Concurrent Engineering’, Management Science 44, 1032–48.
McKelvey, B. (1999), ‘Complexity Theory in Organization Science: Seizing the Promise or Becoming a Fad?’ Emergence 1:1, 5-32.
Maytorena, E., Winch, G., Freeman, J. and Kiely, T. (2007) ‘The Influence of Experience and Information Search Styles on Project Risk Identification Performance, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1(2), pp. 315-25.
Midgley, G. (1996), ‘What Is This Thing Called CST?’ In Flood, R. and Romm, N. (eds.), Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, (NY: Plenum Publishers) 11-24.
Midgley, G. (2003), Systems Thinking, (London, UK: Sage).
Miller, R. and Hobbs, B. (2005), ‘Governance Regimes for Large Complex Projects’, Project Management Journal 36:3, 42-50.
NASA, ‘Flight Systems and Ground Support Projects, 6.1.1’, Procedural Requirements (undated, accessed 20-12-06), http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005C_&page_name=Chapter6..
Payne, J.H. and Turner, J.R. (1999), ‘Company-wide Project Management: The Planning and Control of Programmes of Projects of Different Type’, International Journal of Project Management, 17:1, 55-9.
Neal, R. A. (1995) ‘Project definition: the soft-systems approach’, International Journal of Project Management 13, 5-9.
Maguire, S. and McKelvey, B. (1999), ‘Complexity and Management: Moving From Fad to Firm Foundations’, Emergence 1:2.
Pollack, J.B.F. (2005), Project pluralism: Combining the hard and soft paradigms in IS/IT strategy development in the NSW public sector, PhD. Thesis, (Australia: University of Technology Sydney).
Richardson, K. A. and Lissack, M. (2001), ‘On the Status of Boundaries, both Natural and Organizational: A Complex Systems Perspective’, Emergence, 3:4, 32-49.
Rose, J. and Haynes, M. (1999), ‘A soft systems approach to the evaluation of complex interventions in the public sector’, Journal of Applied Management Studies 8, 199-216.
Saynisch, M. (2005) “Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management”: The Concept of “Project Management Second Order (PM-2)”as an approach to Evolutionary Management. World Futures, 61: pp. 555-590.
Scudder, G.D., Schroeder, R.G., Van de Ven, A.H., Seiler, G.R., Wiseman, R.M. (1989), ‘Managing Complex Innovations: The Case of Defense Contracting’, in Van de Ven, A.H., Angle, H.L., Poole, M.S. (Eds.), Research on the Management of Innovation. (NY: Harper & Row), 401–38.
Shenhar, A.J. (2001), ‘One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring Classical Contingency Domains’, Management Studies 47:3, 394–414.
Söderlund, J. (2002), ‘Managing Complex Development Projects: Arenas, Knowledge Processes and Time’, R&D Management, 32:5, 419-30.
Stacey, R. (1996), Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, (San Francisco, Ca: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.).
Tatikonda, M.V. and Rosenthal, S.R. (2000), ‘Technology Novelty, Project Complexity, and Product Development Project Execution Success: A Deeper Look at Task Uncertainty in Product Innovation,’ Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, 47:1, 74-87.
Turner, J.R. and Cochrane, R.A. (1993), 'Goals-and-Methods Matrix: Coping with Projects with Ill Defined Goals and/or Methods of Achieving Them.' International Journal of Project Management 11, 93.
Warfield, J.N. (1999), ‘Twenty Laws of Complexity: Science Applicable in Organizations’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science 16, 3-40.
Weick, Karl E (1998), ‘Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis’, Organization Science 9:5, 543-55.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. (NY: The Free Press).
White, L. (2001), 'Effective Governance through Complexity Thinking and Management Science’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18, 241-57.
Williams, T. (2002) Modelling Complex Projects, Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons
Williams, T. (2004), ‘Why Monte Carlo Simulations of Project Networks can Mislead’, Project Management Journal, 25:3, 53-61.