Project Management Complexity: Exploring Key Concepts and Frameworks

This report examines the multifaceted nature of project management complexity, drawing upon the work of Carver and Maylor, as well as other authors. It explores the concepts of structural and dynamic complexity, illustrating how project managers can adapt their approaches based on project characteristics and organizational frameworks. The report analyzes the flying analogy to explain different levels of complexity and identifies key categories of complexity, including scale, uncertainty, pace, and socio-political factors. It further delves into the relationship between dimensions of complexity and high-level categorizations, comparing and contrasting the perspectives of various authors. The report concludes with a reflection on how understanding these complexities can influence managerial approaches and improve project outcomes, emphasizing the significance of structural and dynamic complexities in project management.

Running head: PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY 1
Project Management Complexity
Student name
Institution
Date

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY 2
Project Management Complexity
The Flying Analogy
The analogy by Carver and Maylor substantially addresses the different levels of
complexity a project manager can face depending on their style of management control. From
the analogy, it is clear that both structural and dynamic complexities of projects can increase
depending on the approach taken (Cooke-Davies, 2011). For instance, a project manager whose
control on projects is analogous to a civil pilot has fewer complexities in managing the structure
and dynamics of the project. Relating this to project manage, the analogy is an efficient tool that
can be used by managers to gauge themselves on what approach is the best to use while
undertaking projects. Generally, Carver and Maylor uncover a great insight on how organizations
can adjust their project management approaches depending on their systems, procedures and risk
measures.
Judging from the two Carver and Maylor, structural and dynamic complexities have
completely different meanings due to the dimensions they take. Structural complexity is
described as how easy or difficult the mission, organization, schedule, stakeholders, and teams
are to manage during a project undertaking. Depending on the nature of the project and the
organizational framework of the department dealing with the project, there can be hitches that
may make the whole process more complex (Vidal, Marle, and Bocquet, 2011). Furthermore,
understanding of the project management methodology to be used and the timeframe
requirement are always part of the structural complexity of a project (Cooke-Davies, 2011).
Carver and Maylor also describe dynamic complexities as the extent of changes that
occurs mainly on the structural framework of a project. For instance, the frequency of

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY 3
requirements changes, organizational restructuring and the introduction of a new methodology in
project management are some of the complex dynamics that are present in any project (Cooke-
Davies, 2011). Furthermore, the changes in levels of motivation of the team members as well as
changes in stakeholder composition can greatly affect a project. For this reasons, the authors
associate complex dynamics with those experienced by fighter pilots and war room operators in
their flying analogy.
Categories of Complexity
Carver and Maylor describe the high-levels of complexities as scale, uncertainty, pace
and socio-political. Remington and Pollack also identify four dimensions, structural, technical,
directional and temporal as categories of complexities. The context of the categories is the same
despite it being from different authors and having different terms.
Scale and structural complexity have merely the same context according to what the two
groups of authors discuss. While structural complexity talks of how interrelated and
interdependence activities can be a basis for complex nature of projects, scale category
complexity also touches on the range of tasks that need to be undertaken in a project (Cooke-
Davies, 2011). Presumably, the scale of a project measures its magnitude and the structure as
well covers all the aspects of the project in terms of size, budget, organisation, and tasks (Aarseth
et al., 2017). Essentially, the two terms can be interchangeably used to refer to the same level of
complexity of a project. Therefore, it can be argued that there is a close relationship between the
dimension of complexity developed by Remington and Pollack and the high-level
categorizations described by Carver and Maylor.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY 4
Uncertainty as a category of complexity is concerned with the unanticipated issues that
are related to the tasks to be carried out. In the same context, the technical complexity of a
project involves challenges that may be severe and unanticipated (Cooke-Davies, 2011). Judging
from the descriptions from the two groups of authors, they seem to describe the same context of
uncertainty in a project but with a different perspective. From the two terms, the primary item
being discussed is how unanticipated challenges either due to unknown information about the
task involved or issues emanating design of the project may cause complexations to the entire
process. Therefore, depending on the context of what is being talked about, either uncertainty or
technical complexity can be used to describe the incertitude involved.
For pace and directional complexity, the authors discuss entirely different items. While
Remington and Pollack describe directional complexity in terms of goals for the project, Carver
and Maylor describe pace in terms of time required to complete a project against the natural time
it could take to do the same tasks. In this regard, the two terms cannot be synonymously the same
in context. Furthermore, the pace of a project is primarily described in terms of the time it takes
to complete one task and the overall timeframe for the entire project (Klein, 2016). Therefore,
there is no relationship between the two terms as described by the respective authors in relation
to complexity categories/dimensions of projects.
Socio-political and temporal complexity have been discussed as entirely different things
by the two set of authors. Although they may some context relate, the approach taken to describe
them paints a completely different picture. While Carver and Maylor talk of socio-political
complexity as the interactions that exist between the stakeholders involved in the project,
Remington and Pollack describe temporal complexity as being the changes associated internal
and external environments of the project (Cooke-Davies, 2011),. In this context, there seem to be

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY 5
no relationship between the two terms and thus may not be used synonymously to mean the same
thing in regards to project management complexity.
Based on the descriptions of the respective authors on project complexity, they discuss
almost the same aspects with minor deviations. However, discerning from their descriptions of
the categories of complexity, it becomes subtle. Nonetheless, there are great insights on project
management ideas that are consistent with their discussions making the whole thing more
interesting and enriching to any upcoming project managers.
However, as discussed by Carver and Maylor, the concepts of structural and dynamic
complexity has changed my opinion on the dimensions of the various complexities of a project.
Their description is summative of the four categories discussed as they accommodate all the
concerns of a project structure as well as unanticipated changes in structure, environment or even
methodology of the project. As discussed, the two types of complexities are the primary ones
that every project manager needs to understand and be prepared to face. It also changed my
perception on the degree of complexity that can be involved depending on the managerial
approach. This is after studying the flying analogy they have described.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY 6
References
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., and Andersen, B. (2017). Project sustainability
strategies: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Project Management,
35(6), pp.1071-1083.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2011). Aspects of complexity: Managing projects in a complex world.
Newtown Square, Pa.: Project Management Institute.
Klein, L. (2016). Towards a Practice of Systemic Change - Acknowledging Social Complexity in
Project Management. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(5), pp.651-661.
Vidal, L., Marle, F. and Bocquet, J. (2011). Measuring project complexity using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), pp.718-727.