› Forums › Managing Risk in Complexity SIG
(MRC SIG) › Complexity papers and resources
-
AuthorPosts
-
Up::1
[quote quote=11790]Thanks I am still stuck This screenshot shows where the link takes me but I don’t see “Complex Project Management Tools”[/quote]
Based on your screenshot, please scroll a bit further down in the Members Area page to find the “Complex Project Management Tools” section. I have included a screenshot for reference.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::1Hi @Stephen-Grey,
Thanks for asking.
For convenience, we’ve curated some tools for our Members in the Members Area under the section “Complex Project Management Tools”: https://iccpm.com/membership/members-area/
Up::1I can’t see anything about that tool in the https://iccpm.com/resources/useful-tools/ page
Is that where it should be?
Steve Grey
Up::1We are pleased to share that the “Dimensions of Project Complexity” has been added to the list of tools in the Members Area: https://iccpm.com/membership/members-area/
Up::1I mentioned the idea of metaphorical teddy bears being used to overcome anxiety about the use of novel techniques
This is a link to the ABC broadcast that described it
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/this-working-life/harnessing-ambiguity/8010228
Up::1In the face of anxiety among clients about schedule risk modelling failing to forecast the long right hand tail they expect to see on schedule probability distributions, based on the experience of having some projects blow out by a large amount, I looked into various mechanisms that might help us understand how a project can descend into chaos. The paper linked from this page demonstrates that, while there might be several forces at work, a simple interaction between schedule slippage and the fire fighting behaviour it often stimulates can explain the phenomenon.
https://broadleaf.com.au/extreme-project-schedule-over-run/
This is not a complete encapsulation of the loss of control that projects can face. That is a multifaceted phenomenon. However, it shows how the interaction between uncertainty and human behaviour, a tendency towards fire fighting rather than pulling back to regroup and reset, can explain a high probability of schedule over run.
Up::1This is a link to a recording of a talk I gave to the Monash University Master of Project Management course
The production quality is not brilliant but I think that the content is useful despite the background noise. One of the key points is that I have found it is more straightforward to define complexity in terms of what it is not that to try to define it directly, as explained in the talk.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qr9aa9u9wwjpm60/Monash%20Uni%20Masters%20course%20lecture%202021.mp4?dl=0
The slides are in the attached file but, without the animation and narration that you can see in the video, a lot of important points are lost
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::1This INSEAD paper outlines how major infrastructure projects diverge from their initial stated targets due to the involvement of people and organisations that bring human behaviour to bear. I believe that the same forces are at work wherever the participants join in progressively, including organisational change and IT projects where stakeholder involvement grows as work progresses. Large ‘concrete’ projects are subject to the effect of interactions with complex human systems that surround them.
ABSTRACT
This study links evolution in organizational structure to ambiguity in the definition of performance in the context of organizations formed to develop long-lived infrastructure: so-called ‘mega-projects’. Based on a longitudinal, inductive analysis of three megaprojects in London, we argue that a mega-project is a meta-organization with two symbiotically-related constituent structures. The core, led by a coalition, is a mutable collective that shares control over the goal of the project and corresponding high-level design choices. The periphery is a supply chain selected to design and build the
infrastructure, but lacks the authority to change the high-level choices. As the megaproject structure evolves over time, we show that the founders and new comers renegotiate the high-level choices and slippages in performance targets ensue. The conflation of committals to different baselines, differing preferences for efficiency and effectiveness, and rivalry in high-level choices gives rise to competing performance narratives which cannot be reconciled. Thus, we argue, the disappointing and controversial (under) performance of mega-projects may be a result of how their organizational structure develops, rather than due to any agency or competence related failure per se.Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.As discussed in the meeting this morning, I am posting a few papers and other materials that might stimulate ideas for the working group
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.