Defining Complex Project Management of Large U.S. Transportation Projects

Abstract

The management of complex transportation projects requires a fundamental change in how they are approached. The traditional methodology for managing cost, schedule, and design, on transportation projects is not adequate for complex projects. A five-dimensional model has been developed adding context and finance, which have previously been regarded merely as external risks. The five-dimensional model has been developed from an extensive literature search pertaining to the management of complex transportation projects and provides a framework for mapping the complexity of projects. The main purpose of this research is to present results found on complex transportation projects that illustrate a new type of management approach for project managers. The information gathered from these case studies can be used to examine similarities to infer common sources of complexity, and mapping of each project facilitates resource allocation decisions based on these commonalities. scope of work (Marshall & Rousey, 2009). The need to address current project management practices has evolved from traditional methods that were developed during the expansion of the U.S. transportation infrastructure. However, transportation projects now involve replacing, instead of creating, the existing transportation infrastructure. The 1990s brought the demand from public owners to deliver public infrastructure projects faster and with more control over cost (Gransberg, Koch, & Molenaar, 2006;Lopez del Puerto, Gransberg, & Shane, 2008;Sillars, 2009), further directing the need for the new thoughts on project management. The problem with traditional project management in complex projects is summarized in the final report of NCHRP Project 20-69: Guidance for Transportation Project Management (2009). The study found that projects above US$5 million in construction costs were under budget only 20% of the time and delivered on time only 35% of the time. The study also found that the majority of the issues relating to cost and schedule issues can be solved using effective management protocols and procedures. The intent of the study was to demonstrate that project managers need to be trained to think of projects as integrated systems (Marshall & Rousey, 2009).The Channel Tunnel (Chunnel) project is a good example showing that project management based on just the three traditional areas (cost, schedule, and design) are not enough for complex project management. The Chunnel project, an underground tunnel connecting France and England, required many other aspects of project management than the three traditional areas, such as the cooperation of two national governments, permission from bankers for the funding of the project, private financing, and partnering with numerous stakeholders. Though the project was completed, it was over budget and late with more than twice the average cost escalation of tunnels and bridges (Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2004). In fact, the engineering was less complex than the context in which the construction took place. Highly soph...

Identification and Quantification of Project Complexity From Perspective of Primary Stakeholders in Us Construction Projects

“…Many researchers have described complexity as a critical topic in the area of project management research (Gidado, 1996;Hass, 2008;Owens, Ahn, Shane, Strong, & Gransburg, 2011;Bosch-Rekveldt, 2011;Lehtiranta, 2011;Puddicombe, 2012;Ahern, Leavy, & Byrne, 2013;Lu et al, 2015;Abdou et al, 2016;Kiridena & Sense, 2016;Ji, AbouRizk, Zaiane, & Li, 2018). The meaning of the word "complexity" was ambiguous and lacked a standard definition for many years.…”

Bayesian Belief Network-Based Project Complexity Measurement Considering Causal Relationships

“…As the project complexity is difficult to be quantified precisely, many researchers identified complexity factors to build a framework describing the project complexity qualitatively. For instance, Sinha et al (2006, Xia and Chan (2012), Lessard et al (2014), Maylor et al (2008), Gransberg et al (2012), Vidal and Marle (2008), Owens et al (2012), Jarkas (2017), and Luo et al (2016) mainly focus on the framework of project complexity from different views. In addition, several attempts have been made to propose methods to measure the project complexity quantitatively such as Vidal et al (2011b), Nguyen et al (2015), He et al (2015), Shafiei-Monfared and Jenab (2012), Lu et al (2015), Qureshi and Kang (2015), and Ellinas et al (2018).…”

Implementing Public–Private Partnerships

“…The time pressure explanation can also be found in the literature. Owens, Ahn, Shane, Strong, and Gransberg (2012) found that tight timelines for project delivery add to the complexity of the project. When managers experience time pressure, they draw boundaries in attempts to reduce the complexity of implementation.…”