House of Project Complexity—understanding complexity in large infrastructure projects

Lessard, Donald R.; Sakhrani, Vivek; Miller, Roger

doi:10.1080/21573727.2014.907151

Cited by 47 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have been performed to identify and categorize the key factors of project complexity (Lessard et al, 2014;Liu, 2015;He et al, 2015;Kermanshachi, Dao, Shane, & Anderson, 2016b). Since Baccarini (1996), who is one of the leading researchers, categorized project complexity into organization and technology, and so most of the later studies were inspired by the outcome of his research.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A thorough understanding of project complexity is essential for effective management; therefore, many researchers have focused on this subject (Brockmann & Girmscheid, 2007;Maylor, Vidgen, & Carver, 2008;Remington, Zolin, & Turner, 2009;Vidal, Marle, & Bocquet, 2011a;Bosch-Rekveldt, 2011;Gransberg, Shane, Strong, & Puerto, 2013;He, Luo, Wang, Li, & Zhao, 2012;Dao, Kermanshachi, Shane, & Anderson, 2017;Ahn et al, 2017;Kian Manesh Rad, Sun, & Bosche, 2017). Accordingly, different studies have been conducted to identify the complexity indicators and categorized them from various aspects and views (Baccarini, 1996;Vidal et al, 2011a;Bosch-Rekveldt, 2011;Lessard, Sakhrani, & Miller, 2014;Liu, 2015;He, Luo, Hu, & Chan, 2015;Dao et al, 2017) in order to recognize project complexity early in construction projects to manage them effectively (Vidal & Marle, 2008;Kian Manesh Rad et al, 2017). Sinha, Kumar, and Thomson (2011) explained that the factors and indicators of project complexity greatly depend upon social, environment, and context of the project.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Kermanshachi

Safapour

2019

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Construction experts believe that complexity could adversely affect construction projects’ performance. Several studies have been focused on identifying leading complexity indicators; however, the complexity indicators from the perspective of primary stakeholders (owners, contractors, and consultants) have been rarely studied. Therefore, the aim of this study is to utilize the systematic Delphi method to identify, rank and weight the complexity indicators based on the primary stakeholders’ perspectives associated with US construction projects. Additionally, the shared entity-based complexity indicators (ECIs), as well as the weighting of entity-based complexity categories were determined and analyzed. Therefore, 101 potential ECIs were identified through a comprehensive literature review. Then, thirteen senior subject matter experts (SMEs), and three academic advisors were selected and invited to participate in a workshop to determine significant ECIs and then rank and weight them. The results reveal that the ECIs associated with complexity categories “scope definition” and “project resources” received the highest aggregated complexity weights in the aspect of the primary stakeholders. Although this study has been conducted based on US construction projects, the results would provide helpful guidance for international construction projects. Moreover, this study would assist the primary stakeholders in allocating resources properly in order to manage project complexity worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kermanshachi

Safapour

2019

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to biological symbiosis, creating industrial symbiosis incurs cost, mostly for the construction of the exchange infrastructure but also its operation. Contrary to biological symbiosis, the infrastructure for industrial symbiosis can be funded by sophisticated project financing methods, such as debt and equity financing or by establishing public-private partnerships [70; Chapter 8], [71], [72].…”

Section: Fig 2: Industrial Symbiosis Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, an EIP must be financed. Project financing deals with funding large engineering projects [70; Chapter 8], [71], [72]. The financial mechanisms for financing an EIP can consist of various debt and equity financing schemes [70;Chapter 8].…”

Section: Fig 2: Industrial Symbiosis Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Conceptual Framework for Eco-Industrial Parks

Hein

Janković

Farel³

et al. 2015

Volume 4: 20th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 9th International Conference on Micro- And Nanosystems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An eco-industrial park is a set of businesses that share resources in order to increase profitability and reduce environmental impact. The implementation of eco-industrial parks may significantly contribute to the creation of a sustainable economy. Despite this prospect, the actual development of eco-industrial parks is challenging, as a variety of factors must be considered. Not only technical, economic, and environmental factors are relevant but numerous stakeholder relationships as well, such as between firms, governmental bodies, and local communities. This paper presents a conceptual framework that is used to capture these diverse aspects and the relationships between them. The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is used for modeling its concepts and relationships. First, based on a literature survey, relevant concepts of eco-industrial parks are identified. One central concept is "industrial symbiosis". A novel value-based interpretation of industrial symbiosis is presented. Second, the park's economic, local and regional development context, as well as its internal technical components and their relationships are modeled. Finally, the framework is used for modeling a concrete ecoindustrial park, in this case part of the Kalundborg eco-industrial park. BACKGROUND ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARKSAn eco-industrial park (EIP) is proposed as one approach towards a sustainable economy. Contrary to product or firm-specific sustainability approaches, EIPs have a much larger scope. Their influence stretches over three different levels: the firm, across firms, and regional and global [7]. The analysis of existing parks in China, Denmark, and Finland suggest that EIPs can substantially reduce waste and resource consumption over their life cycle [8]-[13]. Despite the promises of the EIP concept, the large number of unsucessful EIP initiatives in the USA and Europe indicate that planned EIP development is challenging [14]. Some of these challenges are pertinent to large-scale infrastructural projects in general, such as geographic attractiveness and managing complex stakeholder relationships [14], [15; pp.25-28]. Some challenges are specific to EIPs such as the implementation of by-product exchange relationships between EIP participants, called industrial symbiosis. [16; pp.987-988], [14; p.1685]. Current research suggests that initiatives by governmental actors alone, without the support of firms, do not lead to successful EIP development [16]-[19]. Research on EIP development has just recently started. Romero & Ruiz [20] use adaptive complex systems theory for modeling and simulationg EIP operations, integrating economic, environmental, and social aspacts. Romero & Ruiz [21] explore how system dynamics and agent-based modeling can be used for modeling and simulating the evolution of EIPs. Rosa & Beloborodko [22] propose a qualitative decision-support tool for evaluating existing industrial symbiosis. A scoring system is used, which takes geographic proximity, economic, and ecological performance into account. Cao et al. [23] have de...

show abstract

“…Miller and Lessard similarly treated projects as holistic systems in which technology, politics, ecology, and finance are interacting. Lessard et al differentiated between three attributes of projects: inherent, architected, and emergent. Emergent attributes arise from the interaction among inherent and architectural attributes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model‐based design of project systems, modes, and states

Shafaat

Kenley

2019

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of project management has been trying to find generalizable sets of rules, and this article applies approaches and methods from systems engineering to develop such rules that support flexible project design. It presents an approach for modeling projects that divides project systems into three interacting subsystems (planned, executed, and interface systems) and proposes a framework for designing projects that integrates project implementation, verification, and validation. To build a generalizable model, this article revisits the notation of modal systems developed by Wymore and combines it with more recent developments in systems engineering, project design, and management. The temporary and changing environments of projects are addressed by adjusting the Wymorian definitions and related mathematical models to represent projects as a sequence of transient modes rather than activities. This approach enables better design and control of projects by reducing uncertainty and its consequences through a systematic framework for planning, monitoring, and controlling projects.

show abstract

House of Project Complexity—understanding complexity in large infrastructure projects

Cited by 47 publications

References 53 publications

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

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

A Conceptual Framework for Eco-Industrial Parks

Model‐based design of project systems, modes, and states

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About