The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

Identifying the definition, Identifying

project
measurement, research focuses, complexity

and prospects of project

complexity: a systematic 3043
literature review Received 18 May 2021
Revised 6 December 2021
Accepted 28 March 2022
Junwei Zheng and Yu Gu
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Mechanics,
Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China
Lan Luo
School of Infrastructure Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China
Yunhua Zhang
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Mechanics,
Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China
Hongtao Xie
Faculty of Management and Economics,
Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China, and
Kai Chang
Railway Engineering Research Institute,
China Academy of Railway Sciences Corporation Limited, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – Project complexity is a critical issue that has increasingly attracted attention in both academic and
practical circles. However, there are still many gaps in the research on project complexity, such as the
differentiated conceptualization of complexity and disjointed operationalization in the measurements.
Therefore, this paper aims to conduct a systematic and detailed literature review on the concept, dimensions,
assessment, and underlying mechanisms of project complexity.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review methodology was applied to search and
synthesize the research on project complexity, and a final sample of 74 journal articles was identified.
Findings – This study first summarizes the concepts of project complexity from three different theoretical
perspectives, and then identifies different approaches of measurement, evaluation, or simulation to assess
project complexity. This paper finally establishes an integrative framework to synthesize the antecedents,
mediators and moderators, and outcomes of project complexity, generating four suggestions for future
research.
Originality/value – This study summarizes the definition and operationalization of project complexity to
reduce the discrepancies in the existing research and offers an integrative framework to offer a broad overview
of the current understanding of project complexity, providing a potential way forward for addressing project
complexity.
Keywords Project complexity, Uncertainty, Construction projects, Literature review
Paper type Research paper

Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management
Vol. 30 No. 7, 2023
This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71942006, 72161021, pp. 3043-3072
72162026, 72061025). © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-05-2021-0425
ECAM Introduction
30,7 With the increasing number and scale of large-scale projects, the problems of project complexity
and uncertainty have become increasingly prominent (Chan et al., 2004). Complexity has been a
typical attribute in the dynamic and changing project environment, and complexity
management has become an important factor for project management (He et al., 2013a, b).
However, the increasing problems related to project complexity and its underestimation have
been regarded as key reasons for the failure in mega construction projects, such as running over
3044 budget or delays (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011). At the same time, the traditional methods of
project management cannot effectively respond to project complexity in a failed megaproject
(Flyvbjerg, 2017). Therefore, how to effectively deal with the problems of project complexity in a
highly uncertain environment is crucial for project decision-making and execution, and has
become a key problem that must be resolved for researchers and practitioners.
Possible solutions addressing the reality of project complexity have been actively explored
from both practical and theoretical perspectives. For example, the megaproject of the Hong Kong-
Zhuhai-Macao Bridge was classified into an organizational model to reduce the complexities of
different sub-projects such as the island and tunnel project, the steel structure project, and the
maritime project (Mai et al., 2018). For the Beidou satellite project, the complexity at the micro-
level is characterized by elements and the connections of these elements, and the complexity of
the total project system at the macro level can be integrated and reduced from the effective
interactions among different elements. Then the system integration process can be carried out
from the perspective of complexity (Mai et al., 2019). Additionally, in theoretical research
concerning project complexity, Zhang and Yang (2013), He et al. (2013a), Bakhshi et al. (2016),
Kiridena and Sense (2016), and de Rezende et al. (2018) have previously summarized and reviewed
the influencing factors of project complexity. The impacts of project complexity on project
performance (Moore et al., 2018), project success (Luo et al., 2017a, b), and interface management
(Ahn et al., 2017) have also been explored. However, the extant literature has not been
systematically reviewed to summarize the dimensions, measures, assessment methods, and
underlying mechanisms of project complexity.
To be comprehensive, a final count of 74 journal articles related to project complexity were
collected and selected from both English and Chinese databases (see Supplemental
Materials). Our review suggests the classification of the definition, measurements, and
assessment patterns of project complexity (see Tables 1–3), and an integrative framework
(see Figure 2) in which a detailed review can be undertaken. This paper makes two key
contributions to the project complexity field. First, we provide the ideas and thoughts for
clearly understanding the definition of project complexity and comparing that construct to
other related concepts, which can decrease the discrepancies in the future research on project
complexity. Second, we also bring to light some of the major issues of the operationalization of
project complexity. Moreover, an organizing framework of project complexity is established
to provide an integrative and rich overview of current understanding that is beneficial for the
presentation and improvement of management strategies for addressing project complexity.
Finally, we propose four prospects for future directions of research.

Literature search and overview

Literature search and inclusion criteria
Project complexity is inconsistently defined in previous studies. To address this, we followed
a similar method as Oliveira and Lumineau (2019) and Marescaux et al. (2021). First, in the
English databases of Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, and the Chinese
database of the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), we searched for articles
that explicitly mention “project complexity”, “engineering complexity”, “complex project”,
“complexity of projects”, and “complexity in projects”—terms that have been applied in the
 Specific project
Identifying
Perspective Concept Type/attribute type Source project
Project Consisting of many varied (1) Organizational General Project Baccarini (1996)
complexity
management interrelated parts and can be complexity
operationalized in terms of (2) Technological
differentiation and complexity
connectivity
Project complexity refers to a (1) Organizational Construction Jarkas (2017) 3045
high interdependence among complexity Project
the parts in the project (2) Uncertainty
(3) Inherent Complexity
(4) Overlapping of
activities
(5) Number of trades
(6) Rigidity of sequence
Project complexity is (1) Organizational Large-scale Ahn et al. (2017)
inherent and related to the complexity engineering
multiplicity of the (2) Technical complexity general contract
interrelated parts, processes, (3) Complexity project
parties, systems, and exacerbator
technologies, and is closely
correlated with the difficulty
of managing a project and of
predicting project outcomes
Complex Project complexity is the (1) The size of the project Project system Vidal and Marle
system property of a project that system (2008), Vidal et al.
makes it difficult to (2) The variety of the (2011a, b)
understand, foresee, and project system
keep under control the (3) Interdependencies
overall behavior, even when within the project
given reasonably complete system
information about the project (4) Context-dependence
system
The emergent behavior and (1) Structural complexity General Project Geraldi et al. (2011)
the production of non- (2) Uncertainty
linearity and dynamics (3) Dynamic
among the associated (4) Pace
elements within the complex
(5) Socio-political
system of the project
complexity
Project complexity is the (1) Stakeholder Construction Dao et al. (2017);
degree of differentiation of Management Project Kermanshachi
project elements, (2) Governance et al. (2020a, b)
interrelatedness between (3) Legal
project elements, and (4) Fiscal planning
consequential impact on
(5) Interfaces
project decisions
(6) Scope definition
(7) Location
(8) Design and
technology
(9) Project resources
(10) Quality
management Table 1.
(11) Execution targets The concepts and
characteristics of
(continued ) project complexity
ECAM Specific project
30,7 Perspective Concept Type/attribute type Source

Complex Projects can be considered as (1) Technical Construction Bosch-Rekveldt

adaptive complex adaptive systems or Complexity Project et al. (2011)
system socially constructed entities, (2) Organizational
where project complexity Complexity
refers to structural elements, (3)
3046 dynamic elements, and
Environmental
Complexity
interactions of these
elements
Project complexity is (1) Task Complexity Large-scale Lu et al. (2015)
composed of many varied, (2) Organization engineering
interrelated parts, and has complexity project
dynamic and emerging
characteristics
Project complexity can be (1) Context Engineering Bakhshi et al.
considered as an intricate (2) Belonging projects, IT, (2016)
arrangement of the varied (3) Autonomy industrial
interrelated parts in which (4) Connectivity projects, etc.
the elements can change and
(5) Emergence
evolve constantly with an
effect on the project (6) Diversity
objectives (7) Size
Project complexity is defined (1) Diversity Cruise ships De Toni and
as an inherent characteristic (2) Interdependence projects Pessot (2021)
of a project that owing to the (3) Dynamicity
interrelations among many (4) Uncertainty
parts, and the dynamic
changes in factors like
environmental issues, and
the availability and
ambiguity of information
perceived by the overall
Table 1. organization

literature. We mainly focused on the important journals related to the categories of project
management (PM, e.g. International Journal of Project Management), construction and
engineering management (CEM, e.g. Journal of Management in Engineering) in line with the
recommendations of Bakhshi et al. (2016) and Luo et al. (2017a). In addition, we added and
searched articles related to project practices in journals focusing on the categories of
“business management” and “operation management”. Specifically, we started the search
from 1996, because at that time Baccarini (1996) conducted seminal research on the concept of
project complexity and Gidado (1996) published the groundwork focusing on the
measurement of project complexity. This term search resulted in 88 articles.
To ensure quality, accuracy, and relevancy, we first excluded articles that did not focus on
construction project practices. For example, articles that address the role of complexity in product
development or project innovation were excluded as they focus on the company’s knowledge
management processes and learning practices. Second, we excluded articles without a clear
connection to project complexity, such as those focused on general project management practices
for understanding complexity, or managing complex projects. According to these criteria, all
articles were reviewed and checked by at least two of the authors and coded as “correlated”,
“uncorrelated”, and “unclear”. The articles with inconsistent code rated as “unclear” by one of the
authors were read in-depth to make a final decision. After searching and checking, this procedure
finally resulted in 74 retained journal articles, and 15 articles were removed. Table A1 in the
Supplemental Material summarizes the 74 sampled journal articles.
Factor Dimensions Representative
Identifying
structure (items) Sample Source papers project
complexity
Single Project complexity Professionals worked in Vidal and Marle Qureshi and
Factor (2) projects from different (2008) Kang (2015)
industries including
construction, textile, IT,
automobile, and R&D from 3047
South Korea, Pakistan, UAE,
and Saudi Arabia
Project complexity 285 project teams from the Tyssen et al. (2014), Bjorvatn and
(3) non-government sector, Geraldi et al. (2011) Wald (2018)
public sector, and private
sector from Norway and
Sweden
Project complexity The major construction Baccarini (1996) Moore et al.
(3) projects occurring in the (2018)
State of Texas from 1995 to
2000
Project complexity Experts including owners, Combined with prior Kim and Nguyen
(12) contractors, and consultants studies (e.g. Bosch- (2021)
worked in infrastructure Rekveldt et al. (2011),
international development Vidal et al. (2011a,
projects b)), and the Delphi
method
Three- Technology 120 projects from 57 firms in Self-developed Tatikonda and
factors interdependence the medical/scientific Rosenthal (2000)
structure (3) instruments and imaging
Objective novelty products categories from the
(3) Product Development
Project difficulty Management Association
(4) (PDMA) and the Center for
Enterprise Leadership (CEL)
Technical 45 projects included oil or Willimas (1999), Ahn et al. (2017)
complexity (4) gas exploration/production Geraldi and
Organizational facility, oil refinery, power Adlbrecht (2007),
complexity (11) plant, and natural gas Bosch-Rekveldt et al.
Complexity processing facility in North (2011)
exacerbator (2) America, South America,
Europe, South Africa, Middle
East, and South Asia
Four- Technical 81 projects including energy, Based on the Floricel et al.
factors complexity (3) transportation interview and semi- (2016)
structure Organizational infrastructure, water grounded approach
complexity (4) infrastructure, information
Market systems, and
complexity (2) telecommunication
Institutional infrastructure, mining and
complexity (2) manufacturing facilities,
sports, cultural, urban, and
tourism facilities from North
America, Europe, Latin
America, Africa, and Table 2.
Australia Dimensions and
measurement of project
(continued ) complexity
ECAM Factor Dimensions Representative
30,7 structure (items) Sample Source papers

Six- Information 256 valid questionnaires of Combined with the Luo et al. (2017b)
factors complexity (9) project manager, department interview, the Delphi
structure Task complexity manager, professional method, the
(4) manager, project engineer, reliability, and
3048 Technological and others from residential, validity analysis
complexity (4) public, and industrial with He et al. (2015)
Organizational projects in China to develop the scale
complexity (2)
Environmental
complexity (4)
Goal complexity
(4)
Organizational The officials comprising Gidado (1996), Wood Jakas (2017)
complexity (2) project directors, contract and Ashton (2009),
Uncertainty (10) managers, and construction and interview and
Inherent managers from civil group discussion
complexity (7) engineering and building
Overlapping of contractors by the Central
activities (3) Tenders Committee (CTC) of
Number of trades the State
(1)
The rigidity of
sequence (3)
Sociopolitical A sample of 79 project Nguyen et al. (2015) Nguyen et al.
complexity (4) managers in transportation (2019)
Environmental projects issued periodically
complexity (3) by the Ministry of Transport
Organizational or Project management in
complexity (4) Units in Vietnam
Infrastructural
complexity (3)
Technological
complexity (2)
Scope complexity
Table 2. (2)

As for the sampled literature, we first focused on the definition of project complexity and
distinguished the related concepts of complexity and uncertainty. Then we paid attention to
the measurement and assessment of project complexity. As the work progressed, an
integrative framework mapping the mechanism of project complexity and summarizing the
relationships between project complexity and other variables was developed to identify the
gaps and discuss the prospects for future research.

Literature analysis
As the first step, the publication time and journal distribution of the selected articles were
plotted as shown in Figure 1. As for the publication time (1996–2010), there were few studies
focusing on project complexity, and the articles related to project complexity increased
predominantly after 2010. As for the journal distribution, the PM journals (e.g. IJPM, PMJ,
and IJMPB) and CEM-related journals (e.g. JME, ECAM, EMJ) provide a fertile basis for
project complexity research.
Moreover, in terms of research methods (see Figure 2), most of the studies focusing on
project complexity have applied empirical research methods such as questionnaire surveys
Perspectives/
Thinking Source Projects Evaluation methods/tools Cases Evaluation contents/dimensions (factors)

Quantitative Vidal et al. Project system • Questionnaire 7 musical project portfolios Scale (1)
and qualitative (2011a, b) • Delphi method Diversity (3)
combination • Analytic Hierarchy Process Interdependence (10)
situational dependence (3)
Xia and Chan Building projects • Questionnaire 17 experts including engineers, Building structure and function
(2012) • Delphi method project managers, and others Construction technology
• Complexity index Urgency of schedule
Project scale
Geological condition
Surroundings
He et al. (2015) Megaprojects • Questionnaire 2010 Shanghai World Expo Technical complexity (4)
• Delphi method project Organizational complexity (4)
• Fuzzy network hierarchy analysis Target complexity (7) Environmental complexity (5)
Cultural complexity (3)
Information complexity (5)
Nguyen et al. Construction projects • Semi-structured interview Traffic Engineering Project Socio-political, environmental, organizational, fundamental,
(2015) • Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process technical, and range complexity
Dao et al. (2017), Construction projects • Questionnaire Corporate Member of Stakeholder Management (3)
Kermanshachi • Statistical analysis (including T- Construction Industry Project Governance (3)
et al. (2020a) test þ χ 2test) Association Financial Planning (2)
• Weight analysis Quality (1)
• PCAM tool Legal permission (4)
Interface (2)
Implementation goals (2)
Design and Technology (4) location/position (3)
Scope definition (5)
Project Resources (5)
Maylor et al. Project complexity • Focus group Project managers Task, organization, delivery, stakeholders, team
(2008) management • Grounded theory
• MODeST model
Senescu et al. Product-organization-process • Case study Case studies and expert Multidisciplinary, causal connection, dependence, openness to
(2013) complexity • Expert interview interviews on residential projects, environment, synergy, non-linearity
• Interview sentence coding and commercial projects,
complexity evaluation gymnasiums, etc.
Gransberg et al. Transportation projects • Case study 18 transportation projects Technology, schedule, cost, expense, context
(2013) • Expert interview
Brady and Davies Megaprojects • Multi-cases studies Heathrow Airport Terminal 5, Structural complexity
(2014) • Expert interview 2012 London Olympic Park Dynamic complexity
Ma and Fu (2020) Mega construction project • Qualitative comparative analysis Railway, highway, bridge, Technological, organizational, goal, environmental and
• Expert interview airport, power plant projects cultural complexity
• Multi-cases studies
(continued )
complexity
Identifying

3049
project

Evaluation content and

Table 3.

complexity
tools of project
 30,7

3050

Table 3.
ECAM
Perspectives/
Thinking Source Projects Evaluation methods/tools Cases Evaluation contents/dimensions (factors)

Mathematic Austin et al. (2002) The optimization and • Analysis, Design and Planning — Project complexity
modeling and/ integration of the processes of Technology (ADePT)
or simulation design and construction
He et al. (2013), Lu Megaprojects • Case study World Expo A and B area project Task complexity
et al. (2015) • Simulation platform (ProjectSim) Organizational complexity
Lu et al. (2015) Large-scale engineering • Case study 2010 Shanghai World Expo Task complexity
projects • Simulation platform (CPOP model) Project, China Organizational complexity
Qazi et al. (2016) Construction projects • Project complexity and risk Semi-structured interviews Technical complexity
management tools (ProCRiM) Organizational complexity
• Bayesian network Environmental complexity
Project risks
Ellinas et al. (2018) Construction projects • Social network analysis The schedules of 5 projects Structural complexity
• Algorithm simulation
Luo et al. (2020b, Mega construction projects • Project complexity measurement model 2010 Shanghai World Expo Technological, organizational, environmental, information,
2022) (PCMM) Project, China task, and goal complexity
• Bayesian network
 Identifying
project
complexity

3051

Note(s): IJPM = International Journal of Project Management, PMJ = Project

Management Journal, IJMPB = International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, JME = Journal of Management in Engineering, JCEM = Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ECAM = Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, EMJ = Engineering Management Journal. Other Figure 1.
The distribution of the
CEM Journals include IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal selected articles related
of Civil Engineering and Management, Construction Management and Economics, to project complexity
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice

Figure 2.
The research methods
applied in the selected
articles related to
project complexity

(22, 30%), the case study approach (16, 21%), or the modeling or simulation method (12, 16%).
Several articles combined at least two methods to explore project complexity, such as
empirical research and modeling (Nguyen et al., 2015), or case study and modeling (Vidal et al.,
2011a). Few studies have applied different approaches to explore the mechanisms of project
complexity, including configuration analysis (Ma and Fu, 2020) and action design research
(Mikkelsen et al., 2021).

Understanding the definitions of project complexity

Conceptualizing project complexity
Although there has been no commonly accepted definition of project complexity (Ahn et al.,
2017; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011), project complexity has been defined from three
ECAM perspectives in the existing literature (Bakhshi et al., 2016; Kiridena and Sense, 2016),
30,7 including project management, complex systems, and complex adaptive systems, as
indicated in Table 1.
First, from the project management perspective, a project is characterized by distinctive
and temporary features, consisting of many different but interdependent activities, aimed at
achieving the expected outcomes and goals (PMI, 2013). Thus, project complexity lies in the
varied and interrelated parts of a project, with an emphasis on the variety of elements and
3052 their interdependencies (Ahn et al., 2017; Baccarini, 1996; Jarkas, 2017). The definition of
project complexity from the perspective of project management mainly focuses on static
structural complexity, highlighting the complex problems arising from the variety and inter-
dependencies of different elements, and these problems can be solved through existing
project management knowledge.
Second, from the complex systems perspective, a project contains stakeholders (e.g.
owners, designers, and contractors), resources, and deliveries (Kiridena and Sense, 2016).
Project complexity stems from the multiple interfaces and the correlations among these
interfaces in the project system, as well as the unpredictability caused by the interactions
among the diverse elements of the project system (Vidal and Marle, 2008). It is the interrelated
interactions among the elements of the system that emerge as nonlinear and complex (Geraldi
et al., 2011). The complex systems perspective emphasizes the complexity that emerges from
the nonlinear interactions among internal and external elements of the project system, such
as the interaction between technology and organization (e.g. the lack of approaches for coping
with new technologies), and the interaction between technology and environment (e.g. the
uncertainty induced by the natural environment) (Dao et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2015).
Third, the complex adaptive systems perspective highlights the dynamic and emergent
features of project complexity (Cooke-Davies et al., 2007). In other words, the interaction
among project system elements may change with the progress of the project. Bosch-Rekveldt
et al. (2011) stated that a project could be viewed as a complex adaptive system, and the
dynamic elements and their interactions contribute to the project complexity. Lu et al. (2015)
and Bakhshi et al. (2016) also focused on dynamic complexity in projects. Specifically, the
dynamic implementation processes of the project will affect task complexity because the
dynamic task activities (Lu et al., 2015) and the dynamic organizational structures also
influence project complexity (Bakhshi et al., 2016).

Project complexity’s relationship with the other constructs

Project complexity is sometimes interchanged with other constructs, such as uncertainty and
risk, with which project complexity is highly associated (Dikmen et al., 2021; Thom
e et al.,
2016). Next, we briefly compare project complexity to the related concepts.
Uncertainty. Uncertainty refers to future conditions or events that cannot be predicted
based on the available information and may have negative or positive impacts on the project
(Qazi et al., 2020). According to decision theory, uncertainty can be defined as “unknown
unknowns”, which are not only difficult to quantify objectively but also difficult to predict
and control because of the lack of valid and available information to address them (Daniel and
Daniel, 2018).
Risk. Risk refers to the probability of future events and the harm or gains of the expected
events, reflecting, from the perspective of decision theory, the product of the likelihood and
the outcome of the events (Giezen, 2012; Thom
e et al., 2016). Furthermore, uncertainty and
risk are different with regard to whether the information about the events is available or not,
and whether the probability can be predicted or not (Giezen, 2012). In this view, uncertainty
mainly includes situations in which future conditions are unknown and undetermined. Risk
can be thus be calculated, quantified, and predicted.
 However, project complexity emphasizes the interdependency and variability among Identifying
many elements, which may increase the uncertainty and risk in a project, in turn affecting the project
achievement of project goals (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000). There are two schools of
thought regarding whether uncertainty and risk are elements of complexity or whether the
complexity
three concepts are distinct. Specifically, prior studies have stated that uncertainty is one of the
elements or representations of complexity (Geraldi et al., 2011; Williams, 1999), and risk is also
an element of complexity (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011). Nonetheless, many studies have also
isolated risk and uncertainty from complexity. For example, Qazi et al. (2016) argued that 3053
project complexity can induce risks and influence project goal achievement, and also simulate
the effects of uncertainties through risks and opportunities (Qazi et al., 2020). Dikmen et al.
(2021) considered the effects of complexity, uncertainty, and risk together, and conducted
modeling of their effects on project performance.

The measurement and assessment of project complexity

The importance of project complexity has been recognized in the prior literature, and the
measurement and evaluation for project complexity have become hot topics. However, there
are many difficulties in measuring project complexity due to the number and associations of
different elements. There are three approaches to measuring project complexity in the extant
literature: one-dimensional or multi-dimensional scales, assessing methods, and
mathematical simulation. Specifically, the questionnaire has been developed to measure
project complexity through empirical research. Or, typical cases can be analyzed and studied
to evaluate the project complexity level. Finally, the methods of mathematical modeling and
simulation can be applied to measure project complexity.

The dimensions and measurement of project complexity

Researchers are still exploring whether project complexity can be measured using one
dimension or multiple dimensions. In particular, a single dimension with multiple questions
or multiple dimensions with different factors can be applied to measure project complexity.
The detailed measurements are shown in Table 2.
Measuring project complexity using a one-dimensional scale. Qureshi and Kang (2015)
measured project complexity using items characterizing context-dependence and
uncertainty. Bjorvatn and Wald (2018) measured complexity in projects using three
questions related to task, structure, and uncertainty. Moore et al. (2018) also adopted three
questions to measure project complexity across three aspects, i.e. organization complexity
(e.g. the size of the project bid by the winning contractor), resource complexity (e.g. the
number of days allotted by the state to complete the project), and task complexity (e.g. the
number of outsourced activities on the project).
The measurement of project complexity using multidimensional scales. Given the complex
features of projects, it is difficult to accurately measure project complexity using a scale with a
single dimension or single item. It is necessary to explore and evaluate project complexity
through a multiple-factor structure. Specifically, Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000) mainly
focused on product development and innovation, measuring project complexity through a 7-
point Likert scale using 10 items based on technological interdependence, objective novelty,
and project difficulty. Ahn et al. (2017) proposed three project complexity factors including 17
attribute questions on a 10-point scale to measure technical complexity (4 items), organizational
complexity (11 items), and exacerbators of complexity (2 items). Floricel et al. (2016) explored a
four-factor structure of technical complexity, organizational complexity, market complexity,
and institutional complexity from the four perspectives of structural, dynamic, inherent, and
representational complexity using a semi-grounded approach to develop a scale with 11 items.
ECAM Luo et al. (2017b) combined the interview and questionnaire survey to improve on the
30,7 measurement developed by He et al. (2015), developing a six-factor structure in which
organizational complexity was combined with cultural, task, information, technological,
environmental, and goal complexity. Thus, various measurements have been applied to
measure and capture project complexity. Thus, various measurements or scales have been
applied to measure or capture project complexity, meaning that there is no standalone,
unifying, and convergent project complexity operationalization. Furthermore, multiple project
3054 complexity scales should be validated across different samples or project characteristics to
enhance their replicability and external validity.

The assessment and simulation of project complexity

As scales with too few or too many items may inaccurately describe and capture project
complexity, other evaluation methods have been applied to assess project complexity from
two perspectives, as shown in Table 3. The first is the combination of quantitative and
qualitative approaches. Specifically, appropriate cases are selected such as multiple musical
project portfolios (Vidal et al., 2011a, b) or the 2010 Shanghai World Expo megaproject (He
et al., 2015). Different evaluation tools have been developed to build the hierarchical structure
of project complexity (Nguyen et al., 2015) and assess the project complexity level or index
using the Delphi method (He et al., 2015; Kermanshachi et al., 2020b; Xia and Chan, 2012) and/
or the weight calculation tool (Dao et al., 2017; Kermanshachi et al., 2020a).
Moreover, for the most part, multiple case studies combined with expert interviews have
been used to assess project complexity. For example, the grounded theory and codding
technique were applied to interview content to construct and evaluate a project complexity
assessment model (Maylor et al., 2008; Senescu et al., 2013). Multiple construction project
cases, such as the megaprojects of Terminal 5 of London Heathrow Airport and Olympic Park
(Brady and Davies, 2014) and complex transportation projects (Gransberg et al., 2013) were
also adopted in combination with expert interviews to capture project complexity and
propose measures to address project complexity. Furthermore, configuration analysis (i.e.
qualitative comparative analysis) has been applied to explore the configurational effect of
distinct project complexities on project success (Ma and Fu, 2020).
A second approach for assessing project complexity is the application of mathematical
modeling or simulation. An example of this approach is the employment of a Bayesian
simulation model or Bayesian network. This probabilistic method is conducted with
conditional probability, which can be provided using an interview or questionnaire survey, to
dynamically simulate and evaluate the formation of project complexity (Luo et al., 2022) or the
effects of project complexity (Qazi et al., 2016). Other examples have focused on
the optimization and simulation of the elements related to project complexity. For
example, the dependency structure matrix was established to assess the association
between complexity and other elements (Austin et al., 2002). An activities or tasks network
was constructed using social network analysis (Ellinas et al., 2018) or a simulation platform
(e.g. ProjectSim, Lu et al., 2015) to explore the nonlinear impact of project complexity.

An integrative framework of project complexity

A critical outcome of this review is to establish an integrative framework of project
complexity (see Figure 3) and introduce a detailed elaboration and extension of the organizing
framework. This extended framework answers the calls from project complexity scholars for
a more systematic and organized view of project complexity (Bakhshi et al., 2016; Luo et al.,
2017a; de Rezende et al., 2018). Such a framework categorizes constructs significantly related
to project complexity into four areas: antecedents or influencing factors, mediators
 Project characteristics Process-based outcomes
Addressing strategies Moderators
• Project scope (Bosch-Rekveldt h., • Interface management (Ahn et al., 2016)
2011) • Organizational learning • Individual skills (Zaman et al., 2019)
• Work contents (Sing et al., 2021) (Toni & Pessot, 2021) • Social capital (Moore et al., 2018) • Stakeholder relationship (Odusanya et al., 2021)
• Project requirements (Bakhshi et al., • Management/governance • Resource allocation (Nguyen et al., 2019) • Communication (Senescu et al ., 2013)
2016) strategies (Elia et al ., 2020; • Resilient safety culture (Trinh et al ., 2020)
• Ego depletion (Fang & Zhang, 2021)
• Correlations, diversity and Mamédio & Meyer, 2020)
interdependence among different factors
(Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2007; Qureshi & Performance-based outcomes
Kang, 2015; )
Project complexity
• Technological complexity • Project performance (Moore et al., 2018;
• ···
• Organizational complexity Nguyen et al., 2019; Zaman et al., 2019)
• Environmental complexity • Project management performance (Bjorvatn &
Project environment • ··· Wald, 2018)
• Project success (Luo et al, 2017; Luo et al., 2020;
• Internal environment (Vidal & Marle,
Ma & Fu, 2020; Tatikonda & Rosenthal, 2000)
2008; Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2007)
• External environment (Geraldi & • Safety performance (Peñaloza et al., 2020; Trinh
Mediators
Adlbrecht, 2007; Bosch-Rekveldt et al., et al ., 2020)
2011; Sing et al., 2021) • Absorptive capacity (Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018) • Technological innovation performance (Xie,
• ··· 2013)
complexity
Identifying

3055
project

complexity in the
Figure 3.

current research
framework of project
An integrated
ECAM (underlying mechanisms), moderators (boundaries), and outcomes. The value of this
30,7 framework includes two aspects, such that integrating and better understanding the extant
literature on project complexity and identifying directions and providing guidance for future
research.

Antecedents or influencing factors

3056 Prior studies have focused on the exploration of the driving factors or antecedents of project
complexity. The extended framework organizes the antecedents and influencing factors of
project complexity into two categories: project characteristics and project environment.
Examples of project characteristics include Bosch-Rekveldt et al. (2011) establishing the TOE
framework of project complexity. Finding project characteristics in this framework involves the
clarity and consistency of the project objectives, the definition of project scope, uncertainty, the
experience of existing technologies and the novelty of new technologies, the project duration, and
the project team size. Other studies demonstrated project attributes by focusing on quality
requirements, cost constraints, technical requirements, undefined unknown requirements,
requirements from specifications/standards, and project duration (Bakhshi et al., 2016). Moreover,
the correlations among these factors such as the diversity of project resources, tasks, and
stakeholder preferences (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011; Qureshi and Kang, 2015), interdependence
between tasks and stakeholders (Geraldi and Adlbrecht, 2007; Qureshi and Kang, 2015), and
overlaps among different stages of the project (Jarkas, 2017) have also been highlighted.
In the project environment category, the factors can be divided into two classifications, the
internal and external organizational contexts. The internal environment consists of
the project organization team formed by various stakeholders (Vidal and Marle, 2008), the
relationship and trust within the project team (Geraldi and Adlbrecht, 2007), and the project
resources (e.g. management approaches, economic resources, contract types, and interfaces)
(Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011). Regarding the external environment of the project organization,
Geraldi and Adlbrecht (2007), and Bosch-Rekveldt et al. (2011) emphasized the local political
environment impact, while the impacts of the natural environment (e.g. geological conditions)
(Bakhshi et al., 2016) and site conditions (Sing et al., 2021) on project complexity were
highlighted. Additionally, the uncertainty and competitive level of the market environment
and the induced risks are also likely to increase the possibility of project complexity (Bosch-
Rekveldt et al., 2011; Gidado, 1996).

Mediators and moderators

Scholars have explored few mediating mechanisms. Research indicates that absorptive
capacity, including the capacities of knowledge acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and
exploitation, partially mediates the relationship between project complexity and project
management performance (Bjorvatn and Wald, 2018). The extended framework also specifies
the impacts of moderating variables. The moderators include the alleviating moderation effect
of social and political skills on the relationship between project complexity and project
performance from the perspective of social exchange theory (Zaman et al., 2019). The offsetting
moderation role of resilient safety culture has also been found in the relationship between
project complexity and safety performance (Trinh and Feng, 2020). Other moderators include
social capital (Moore et al., 2018) and resource allocation (Nguyen et al., 2019), which have a
significant interactive effect with project complexity on project performance.

Outcomes
Two categories of the consequences of project complexity include process-based and
performance-based outcomes. The process-based outcomes involve interface management
(Ahn et al., 2017), stakeholder relationships (Odusanya et al., 2021), and communication Identifying
(Senescu et al., 2013). In addition, project managers’ ego depletion, as an individual-level project
outcome, might be increased under a high level of project complexity (Fang and Zhang, 2021).
Performance-based outcomes are typically project performance, such as financial and
complexity
operational performance (Moore et al., 2018), traditional “iron-triangle” criteria (Bjorvatn and
Wald, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2019), or involve components like users’ satisfaction and goal
achievement beyond schedule, quality, and budget (Zaman et al., 2019). Additionally, specific
forms of performance such as safety performance (Pe~ naloza et al., 2020; Trinh and Feng, 2020) 3057
and technological innovation performance (Xie, 2013) are also highlighted in the extant
literature on project complexity. Another performance-based outcome is project success. This
is a similar but different concept from project performance, and it covers the success of the
entire project, including occupational health, safety, environment, the satisfaction of
stakeholders, and business value (Luo et al., 2017b). A meaningful point to be drawn here is
the exploration of the differential effects of project complexity on project success. Information
complexity, environmental complexity, and goal complexity were found to have negative
impacts on project success, while task complexity, organizational complexity, and goal
complexity were found to have positive impacts on project success (Luo et al., 2020a).

Addressing project complexity

In addition to the antecedents and underlying mechanisms of project complexity, several
studies have focused on the strategies for managing or addressing project complexity. For
example, Ellia et al. (2020) proposed the establishment of system dynamics tools and the
application of a systems thinking framework from the perspective of components and flows
to address project complexity. Besides the project management practices, dealing with
project complexity poses a challenge for project managers, and skills like adaptation and
flexibility, cooperation and integration, and negotiation are required to meet the challenges
(Mam
edio and Meyer, 2020). Moreover, the roles of organizational learning approaches are
also found to address different dimensions of project complexity (e.g. interdependence,
dynamicity), including experience-based knowledge acquisition, knowledge creation, and
knowledge capture and codification (De Toni and Pessot, 2021).

Findings and future research prospects

Implications for the project complexity literature and project practices
Reviewing different studies from the project complexity literature allowed us to better
understand and operationalize project complexity, and to develop an integrative model that
points to directions for future research. In doing so, we attempt to point out and address the
gaps in the current literature.
First, there is as yet no unified definition, dimension, or measurement of project
complexity in the existing studies. Specifically, in terms of the conceptual definition, some
scholars emphasize that project complexity can be understood through the correlation among
elements based on the project management perspective, while other scholars consider project
complexity to be the interaction and emergent nonlinearity among elements from the complex
systems perspective, while still others focus on dynamic complexity from the complex
adaptive systems perspective. These definitions of project complexity from three different
theoretical perspectives indicate the development of the view of project complexity from
association, to nonlinearity, to dynamics. The present research can help scholars better
understand the myriad ways in which complexity is represented in the project context. Based
on the literature review and complexity theory, we suggest the revision and extension of the
definition of project complexity according to the source and specific scenario. Specifically,
ECAM project complexity represents the distinctive characteristics of the project and stems from its
30,7 various elements, as well as their interdependence and interaction. The structural dimension
of project complexity focuses on the size, variety, and associations among different elements
(Geraldi et al., 2011). Uncertainty represents the unknown state of elements, dynamic
complexity involves the variability and emergence of these elements, and their interactions
change with time (Maylor et al., 2008).
Second, as for the dimension, most scholars take project complexity to be a multi-
3058 dimensional construct using scales with three-factor, four-factor, or six-factor measurements,
with the measurement mainly developed based on the improvement of existing scales
through expert interviews or case studies. Further, although scholars have mainly explored
the direct impacts and boundaries of project complexity on project-related outcome variables,
the influencing mechanisms of project complexity can be explored as well. The measurement
of project complexity can be further examined in combination with its attributes and
response strategies. Specifically, for static complexity, whether in simple or complicated
projects, the dimensions and linear impacts of project complexity can be described through a
classification approach such as the clustering technique (Sing et al., 2021). With regard to
dynamic complexity in complex or chaotic projects, mathematical modeling and simulation
approaches can be applied to explore the nonlinearity of project complexity (Luo et al., 2022).
Moreover, adaptation and flexibility strategies should be proposed to understand and
address dynamic nonlinear complexity (Mam
edio and Meyer, 2020).
Additionally, this review of project complexity also provides implications for the managerial
practices of large-scale projects. First, our findings suggest that project complexity can be either
an inhibitor or a booster of project performance. Different dimensions of project complexity
coexist in the design and construction process of projects, and discriminately affect project
outcomes. Thus, project managers and professionals should scientifically and rationally
understand and recognize the potential upside and downside effects of project complexity
(Dikmen et al., 2021). A multi-dimensional and integrative framework representing learning
modules on project complexity further supports the development and training of awareness
and competence for project management professionals (Elia et al., 2020). Second, our review
findings also suggest that the empirical and modeling results can assist project managers in
identifying different categories of project complexity and that measures to address complexity
should be linked to the specific scenario. For example, addressing measures for project
complexity is always associated with risk management (Dikmen et al., 2021). Specifically, risk
checklists and matrices should include project complexity and uncertainty. For static structural
complexity, the linear risk chain and impacts can be identified using quantitative methods,
while adaptive and flexible management strategies and qualitative and modeling methods
might be more appropriate for the non-linear changes in risk evolution due to dynamic
complexity (Luo et al., 2017a; Odusanya et al., 2021).

Future directions in project complexity research

Taken together, although scholars have striven to capture the inherent characteristics and
dimensions of project complexity and depict the relationships between project complexity
and project consequences, considerable important questions remain. Recognizing what has
been accomplished in our organizing review, four avenues for future research are identified
and synthesized, including the questions of how can we improve the definition, dimension,
and measurements of project complexity, what are the potential mechanisms of project
complexity related to project outcomes, how to address and manage project complexity, and
what are the optimal research methods for future exploration.
Improving the concept, dimensions, and measurements for project complexity. Although
scholars have defined the concept of project complexity from the perspectives of project
management, complex systems, and complex adaptive systems, and project complexity has Identifying
mainly been divided into technical complexity and organizational complexity, there is still project
room for further improvement of the definition and categories. Project complexity not only
includes many elements that can characterize diversity or difference of elements but also
complexity
represents the interdependencies and interactions among elements. Moreover, uncertainty
and dynamism are also important characteristics of complexity in megaprojects. Therefore,
the essence of project complexity can be considered to encompass these attributes as well as
to be comprehensively combined with the dimensions of complexity (He et al., 2013a, b). 3059
Additionally, because the specific dimensions of project complexity are not unified but are
diverse in the current literature, there is a need to further explore and integrate the
measurement tools to better characterize project complexity. As for the operationalization of
project complexity, a majority of studies have asked stakeholders to rate the complexity level
using Likert-like scales developed on the basis of a combination of literature review, expert
interviews, and case studies (e.g. a three-item scale used by Moore et al., 2018). However, what
one participant might perceive as project complexity could be quite different from others’
perceptions. Moreover, the method of systematic simulation has been applied to assess the
dynamics of project complexity, such as the establishment of a simulation platform modeling
the dynamics of project complexity (Lu et al., 2015). Shenhar et al. (2002) suggested that the
development of a multi-dimensional measurement could apply effective classification
methods and matched diverse measures. Thus, one remedy could be to include specific
measures related to the relevant project complexity categories and research questions rather
than develop a single overall measurement of project complexity. For example, if researchers
want to explore the structural-related or dynamic-related aspects of complexity, different
matched measurements and tools could be identified and combined to improve the
assessment precision for specific types or combinations of project complexity.
Expanding our understanding of the mechanisms of project complexity. The integrative
framework indicates the understudied areas of project complexity, including antecedents,
mediators, moderators, and outcomes. Comparatively few studies have focused on the causes or
driving factors of project complexity. Although project characteristics (e.g. size, scope) and project
environment have been considered as contributors to project complexity, the influencing factors
of project complexity and the measurement of project complexity are matters of some confusion.
Furthermore, less research has paid attention to how the driving factors interact to affect
complexity (Zhang and Yang, 2013). Thus, there is a “black box” of the emergence mechanism of
project complexity that deserves further exploration. In the future, it will be necessary to clarify
which factors influence or drive project complexity, and how and when these factors interact to
create complexity in projects. The exploration of the antecedents and emergence mechanisms of
project complexity can help us to further address and reduce project complexity.
A few studies have focused on the mechanisms of project complexity, while most studies
have concentrated on exploring the boundary conditions of the impacts of project complexity
(Nguyen et al., 2019; Trinh and Feng, 2020). In large-scale projects, the association and
interaction of project elements are also critical components of project complexity (Vidal and
Marle, 2008), and the project context is also one of the significant drivers of project complexity
(Bakhshi et al., 2016). However, there are different types of projects, such as construction
projects, IT projects, and aerospace projects. There are differences between these different
types of project contexts, and the performance of distinct projects needs to fit the different
measures of project complexity. Therefore, there may be cross-project differences in the
impacts of project complexity across different project contexts. Further examination of the
impacts of project complexity should consider different types of project contexts.
Future research should also explore the mediators that transmit the effects of project
complexity. Limited attention has been paid to the underlying mechanism by which project
complexity affects project outcomes. Bjorvatn and Wald (2018) have also urged scholars to
ECAM identify different complementary mediation as a way to explain the effects of project
30,7 complexity on project performance. Moreover, although studies have demonstrated the
negative effects of project complexity (Moore et al., 2018), project complexity may play the
role of a “double-edged sword”. Specifically, project complexity may facilitate the operation
and advancement of the project, and exert different roles in different contexts (Floricel et al.,
2016). Thus, the boundary conditions, the explanatory mediators, and the “double-edged
sword” effects of project complexity need further attention to enhance our in-depth
3060 understanding of the impacts of project complexity.
Adaptive measures and management strategies needed. Understanding the definition,
assessment, and mechanisms of project complexity is beneficial for helping project
stakeholders and managers better scrutinize projects in terms of complexity and develop
solutions and strategies to enhance project performance. Prior research has proposed several
governance approaches, including information sharing strategies (Bjorvatn and Wald, 2018),
efficient inter-organizational collaboration mechanisms (Fang and Zhang, 2021), and the
application of system thinking (Elia et al., 2020). However, the extant studies mainly focus on
specific management strategies. We recommend further consideration of measures to
address complexity from both the classified and dynamic perspectives.
Specifically, some scholars have proposed measures related to risk management (Dikmen
et al., 2021; Ellinas et al., 2018). Segmentation and differentiation of the dimensions and
impacts of project complexity are of first and foremost concern. Research in this area can also
help develop a broader understanding of what types of project complexity may evolve
throughout the project cycle. Regarding the various elements and interdependencies that
may create risks, the question of how to establish and adapt the system framework or develop
the standard strategies of activity and resource allocation based on the identification of
elements’ attributes and risk paths (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011; Qazi et al., 2016), may be
considered a productive and concrete avenue of investigation. Additionally, as for
uncertainty and risk creep throughout the project cycle, future research may benefit from
studying adaptive and flexible strategies to address dynamic complexity, such as developing
and strengthening resilience capacity (Thom
e et al., 2016), activating learning behaviors (De
Toni and Pessot, 2021), and mapping the scenarios involving complexity, uncertainty, and
risk factors (Dikmen et al., 2021).
Methodological considerations for future project complexity research. As noted, project
complexity involves the dynamicity of complexity in the implementation of projects. Baccarini
(1996), Geraldi and Adlbrecht (2007), and Lu et al. (2015) have suggested that project complexity
has dynamic characteristics and that the dynamic elements in the implementation process
contribute to project complexity. Despite this characteristic, most empirical studies of project
complexity we reviewed were conducted using cross-sectional surveys, which may not capture
the unfolding of project complexity. Thus, different research approaches should be considered
according to the different dimensions of project complexity. Specifically, when focusing on the
various elements and the linear links among them from the static perspective, the cross-
sectional design and statistical approaches (e.g. regression analysis, structural equation
modeling) could be used to collect data and uncover relationships.
By contrast, dynamic complexity requires a focus on the interaction of elements and their
nonlinear changes over time, and thus the mixed research approach is recommended in which
qualitative methods (e.g. expert interviews, case studies) are combined with quantitative
methods or modeling and simulation approaches (e.g. Bayesian networks, system dynamics) to
consider the variation and nonlinear effects. Specifically, prior research has applied structural
equation modeling and fuzzy cognitive mapping to investigate the variation in project
complexity and its impacts (Luo et al., 2020a). The probabilistic approaches (e.g. Bayesian
networks) and cross-sectional questionnaire surveys were applied to map the interactions
among different project complexities and model the relationship between project complexity
and project outcomes (Luo et al., 2020b; Qazi et al., 2016). The qualitative comparative analysis Identifying
(QCA) method and expert interview have been combined to study the configuration effect of project
project complexity on project success (Ma and Fu, 2020). Additionally, we also encourage future
research to consider and combine several new methods beyond linear approaches. For example,
complexity
scholars could use action design research to investigate and assess project complexity in real-
time, then revise and adapt the response strategy in a timely fashion (Mikkelsen et al., 2021).
Taken together, none of the methods we reviewed here are flawless. However, future research
on the variation and impacts of project complexity can consider a more accurate and 3061
appropriate research design to avoid investigating “apples” while assessing “oranges”.

Conclusion
The increasing complexity in projects has attracted attention in research and practice, resulting
in the emergence of a body of work focusing on how to accurately define and measure and
effectively manage project complexity. 74 published journal articles associated with project
complexity were collected and reviewed. This project complexity review provides both a
valuable synthesis and insights into this critical issue. We added conceptual clarity by defining
project complexity from the perspectives of project management, complex systems, and complex
adaptive systems. We also compared project complexity with related constructs including
uncertainty and risk. The operationalization patterns of project complexity were offered from
different dimension measurements and evaluation approaches. An integrative framework of
project complexity research was established and presented to offer a collective overview of its
relationships with several relevant constructs in the project context. Collectively, this detailed
review highlights avenues for future research on project complexity, potentially providing
insight into the topics to spark continuing interest, including the definition of project complexity
from the static and dynamic perspectives, expanding our understanding of its mechanism,
adaptively addressing project complexity, and fostering methodological improvement.

References
Ahn, S., Shokri, S., Lee, S., Haas, C.T. and Haas, R.C.G. (2017), “Exploratory study on the effectiveness
of interface-management practices in dealing with project complexity in large-scale engineering
and construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 2, p. 04016039.
Albrecht, J.C. and Spang, K. (2014), “Linking the benefits of project management maturity to project
complexity: insights from a multiple case study”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 285-301.
Austin, S., Newton, A., Steele, J. and Waskett, P. (2002), “Modelling and managing project complexity”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 191-198.
Baccarini, D. (1996), “The concept of project complexity——a review”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 201-204.
Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V. and Gorod, A. (2016), “Clarifying the project complexity construct: past, present
and future”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1199-1213.
Bjorvatn, T. and Wald, A. (2018), “Project complexity and team-level absorptive capacity as drivers of project
management performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 876-888.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H. and Verbraeck, A. (2011), “Grasping project
complexity in large engineering projects: the TOE (Technical, Organizational and Environmental)
framework”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 728-739.
Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2014), “Measuring structural and dynamic complexity: a tale of two
projects”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 21-38.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004), “Factors affecting the success of a construction
project”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 153-155.
ECAM Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L. and Richardson, K. (2007), “We’re not in Kansas anymore,
toto: mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project
30,7 management”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 50-61.
Damayanti, R.W., Hartono, B. and Wijaya, A.R. (2021a), “Project managers’ perspectives on the
complexity of construction megaproject in Indonesia: a multicase study”, IEEE Engineering
Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 153-171.
Damayanti, R.W., Hartono, B. and Wijaya, A.R. (2021b), “Complexity, leadership, and megaproject
3062 performance: a configuration analysis”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 570-603.
Damayanti, R.W., Hartono, B. and Wijaya, A.R. (2021c), “Clarifying megaproject complexity in
developing countries: a literature review and conceptual study”, International Journal of
Engineering Business Management, Vol. 13, doi: 10.1177/18479790211027414.
Daniel, P.A. and Daniel, C. (2018), “Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: from a paradigm of
regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management”, International Journal of Project
Management, Elsevier and Association for Project Management and the International Project
Management Association, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 184-197.
Dao, B., Kermanshachi, S., Shane, J., Anderson, S. and Damnjanovic, I. (2020), “Developing a logistic
regression model to measure project complexity”, Architectural Engineering and Design
Management. doi: 10.1080/17452007.2020.1851166.
Dao, B., Kermanshachi, S., Shane, J., Anderson, S. and Hare, E. (2017), “Exploring and assessing project
complexity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 5, p. 04016126.
de Rezende, L.B., Blackwell, P. and Gonçalves, M.D.P. (2018), “Research focuses, trends, and major
findings on project complexity: a bibliometric network analysis of 50 years of project
complexity research”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 42-56.
De Toni, A.F. and Pessot, E. (2021), “Investigating organisational learning to master project
complexity: an embedded case study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 129, pp. 541-554.
Dikmen, I., Qazi, A., Erol, H. and Birgonul, M.T. (2021), “Meta-modeling of complexity-uncertainty-
performance triad in construction projects”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Elia, G., Margherita, A. and Secundo, G. (2020), “Project management canvas: a systems thinking
framework to address project complexity”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 809-835.
Ellinas, C., Allan, N. and Johansson, A. (2018), “Toward project complexity evaluation: a structural
perspective”, IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 228-239.
Fang, S. and Zhang, L. (2021), “Effect of social identification on ego depletion of project managers: the
role of project tasks and project complexity”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 915-927.
Floricel, S., Michela, J.L. and Piperca, S. (2016), “Complexity, uncertainty-reduction strategies, and
project performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1360-1383.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2017), The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Geraldi, J.G. and Adlbrecht, G. (2007), “On faith, fact, and interaction in projects”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H. and Williams, T. (2011), “Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated): a
systematic review of the complexities of projects”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 966-990.
Gidado, K.I. (1996), “Project complexity: the focal point of construction production planning”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 213-225.
Giezen, M. (2012), “Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages of
reducing complexity in mega project planning”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 781-790.
Gransberg, D.D., Shane, J.S., Strong, K. and del Puerto, C.L. (2013), “Project complexity mapping in five Identifying
dimensions for complex transportation projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 316-326. project
He, Q., Luo, L., Lu, Y. and Li, Y. (2013a), “Literature review on the connotation and framework of project
complexity
complexity”, Science and Technology Progress and Policy, Vol. 30 No. 23, pp. 156-160 (in Chinese).
He, Q., Luo, L., Lu, Y. and Ren, J. (2013b), “Investigating project measurement complexity from TO
perspectives”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 127-134 (in Chinese). 3063
Hansen, Z.N.L., Haug, A., Afandi, S. and Hvam, L. (2021), “Complexity management in project
organisations”, Production Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 361-370.
He, Q., Luo, L., Hu, Y. and Chan, A.P.C. (2015), “Measuring the complexity of mega construction
projects in China-A fuzzy analytic network process analysis”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 549-563.
Hsu, S.C., Weng, K.W., Cui, Q. and Rand, W. (2016), “Understanding the complexity of project team
member selection through agent-based modeling”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 82-93.
Jarkas, A.M. (2017), “Contractors’ perspective of construction project complexity: definitions,
principles, and relevant contributors”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
and Practice, Vol. 143 No. 4, p. 04017007.
Kermanshachi, S., Dao, B., Rouhanizadeh, B., Shane, J. and Anderson, S. (2020a), “Development of the
project complexity assessment and management framework for heavy industrial projects”,
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 24-42.
Kermanshachi, S., Rouhanizadeh, B. and Dao, B. (2020b), “Application of delphi method in identifying,
ranking, and weighting project complexity indicators for construction projects”, Journal of Legal
Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 04519033.
Kim, S.Y. and Nguyen, M.V. (2021), “Mapping the complexity of international development
projects using DEMATEL technique”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 37 No. 2,
05020016.
Kiridena, S. and Sense, A. (2016), “Profiling project complexity: insights from complexity science and
project management literature”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 56-74.
Lebcir, R.M. and Choudrie, J. (2011), “A dynamic model of the effects of project complexity on time to
complete construction projects”, International Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 477-483.
Lu, Y., Luo, L., Wang, H., Le, Y. and Shi, Q. (2015), “Measurement model of project complexity for
large-scale projects from task and organization perspective”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 610-622.
Luo, L., He, Q., Jaselskis, E.J. and Xie, J. (2017a), “Construction project complexity: research trends and
implications”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 7, p. 04017019.
Luo, L., He, Q., Xie, J., Yang, D. and Wu, G. (2017b), “Investigating the relationship between project
complexity and success in complex construction projects”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 2, p. 04016036.
Luo, L., Zhang, L. and He, Q. (2020a), “Linking project complexity to project success: a hybrid SEM–FCM
method”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 2591-2614.
Luo, L., Zhang, L. and Wu, G. (2020b), “Bayesian belief network-based project complexity
measurement considering causal relationships”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 200-215.
Luo, L., Zhang, L., Yang, D. and He, Q. (2022), “A probabilistic approach to assessing project
complexity dynamics under uncertainty”, Soft Computing, Vol. 26, pp. 3969-3985.
ECAM Ma, L. and Fu, H. (2020), “Exploring the influence of project complexity on the mega construction
project success: a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method”, Engineering, Construction
30,7 and Architectural Management, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 2429-2449.
Mai, Q., An, S., Lin, H. and Gao, X. (2018), “Complexity and adaptive organization of mega project: the
case of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge”, Journal of Management Science, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 86-99 (in Chinese).
Mai, Q., Chen, X. and An, S. (2019), “The integrity, complexity and system integration of major
3064 aerospace projects: the practice of Beidou satellite project”, Management World, Vol. 35 No. 12,
pp. 190-198 (in Chinese).
Mam
edio, D.F. and Meyer, V.J. (2020), “Managing project complexity: how to cope with multiple
dimensions of complex systems”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 727-744.
Marescaux, E., De Winne, S. and Brebels, L. (2021), “Putting the pieces together: a review of HR differentiation
literature and a multilevel model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1564-1595.
Maylor, H., Vidgen, R. and Carver, S. (2008), “Managerial complexity in project-based operations: a
grounded model and its implications for practice”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 1_suppl, pp. S15-S26.
Mikkelsen, M.F., Venable, J. and Aaltonen, K. (2021), “Researching navigation of project complexity
using action design research”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 108-130.
Mirza, E. and Ehsan, N. (2017), “Quantification of project execution complexity and its effect on
performance of infrastructure development projects”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 108-123.
Moore, C.B., Payne, T., Autry, C.W. and Griffis, S.E. (2018), “Project complexity and bonding social capital
in network organizations”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 936-970.
Nguyen, A.T., Nguyen, L.D., Le-Hoai, L. and Dang, C.N. (2015), “Quantifying the complexity of
transportation projects using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1364-1376.
Nguyen, L.D., Le-Hoai, L., Tran, D.Q., Dang, C.N. and Nguyen, C.V. (2019), “Effect of project
complexity on cost and schedule performance in transportation projects”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 384-399.
Odusanya, S., Ochoa, J.J., Chileshe, N. and Ahn, S. (2021), “Linking complexity factors and project
management approaches to performance: an embedded single case study of IT-enabled change
projects in Australia”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 14 No. 7,
pp. 1504-1528.
Oliveira, N. and Lumineau, F. (2019), “The dark side of interorganizational relationships: an
integrative review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 231-261.
Padalkar, M. and Gopinath, S. (2016), “Are complexity and uncertainty distinct concepts in project
management? A taxonomical examination from literature”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 688-700.
naloza, G.A., Saurin, T.A. and Formoso, C.T. (2020), “Monitoring complexity and resilience in
Pe~
construction projects: the contribution of safety performance measurement systems”, Applied
Ergonomics, Vol. 82, p. 102978.
Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK® Guide), 5th ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A. and Kirytopoulos, K. (2016), “Project Complexity and Risk Management
(ProCRiM): towards modelling project complexity driven risk paths in construction projects”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1183-1198.
Qazi, A., Dikmen, I. and Birgonul, M.T. (2020), “Mapping uncertainty for risk and opportunity
assessment in projects”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 86-97.
Qureshi, S.M. and Kang, C.W. (2015), “Analysing the organizational factors of project complexity Identifying
using structural equation modelling”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 165-176. project
Salet, W., Bertolini, L. and Giezen, M. (2013), “Complexity and uncertainty: problem or asset in
complexity
decision making of mega infrastructure projects?”, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1984-2000.
Senescu, R.R., Aranda-Mena, G. and Haymaker, J.R. (2013), “Relationships between project complexity
and communication”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 183-197. 3065
Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S. and Lechler, T. (2002), “Refining the search for project
success factors: a multivariate, typological approach”, R&D Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 111-126.
Sing, M.C.P., Edwards, D.J., Leung, A.W.T., Liu, H. and Roberts, C.J. (2021), “A theoretical framework for
classifying project complexity at the preconstruction stage using cluster analysis techniques”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-09-2020-0726.
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”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 74-87.
Thom
e, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Scavarda, A. and Thom
e, F.E.S.D.S. (2016), “Similarities and contrasts of
complexity, uncertainty, risks, and resilience in supply chains and temporary multi-organization
projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1328-1346.
Trinh, M.T. and Feng, Y. (2020), “Impact of project complexity on construction safety performance:
moderating role of resilient safety culture”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 146 No. 2, p. 04019103.
Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A. and Heidenreich, S. (2014), “Leadership in the context of temporary organizations:
a study on the effects of transactional and Transformational leadership on followers’ commitment
in projects”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 376-393.
Vidal, L.-A. and Marle, F. (2008), “Understanding project complexity: implications on project
management”, Kybernetes, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1094-1110.
Vidal, L.-A., Marle, F. and Bocquet, J.-C. (2011a), “Measuring project complexity using the analytic
hierarchy process”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp. 718-727.
Vidal, L.A., Marle, F. and Bocquet, J.C. (2011b), “Using a Delphi process and the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Elsevier, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 5388-5405.
Williams, T.M. (1999), “The need for new paradigms for complex projects”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 269-273.
Wood, H. and Ashton, P. (2009), “Factors of complexity in construction projects”, Proceedings of 25th
Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management,
Nottingham, UK, pp. 857–866.
Xia, B. and Chan, A.P.C. (2012), “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-24.
Xie, H. (2013), “Effect of project governance on technological innovation performance of major
construction project: considering moderation of project’s inventiveness and complexity”,
Technology Economics, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 29-33 (in Chinese).
Zaman, U., Jabbar, Z., Nawaz, S. and Abbas, M. (2019), “Understanding the soft side of software
projects: an empirical study on the interactive effects of social skills and political skills on
complexity-performance relationship”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37
No. 3, pp. 444-460.
Zhang, Y. and Yang, N. (2013), “Literature review on definition of concept, analysis of characteristics,
identification of types and measure methods of project complexity”, Management Review,
Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 131-139 (in Chinese).
ECAM Supplement Material
30,7

Numbers Article Academic field Key concepts addressed Methods

1 Ahn et al. (2017) Construction and Project complexity, Empirical

3066 Journal of Engineering interface management research
Management in Management
Engineering
2 Austin et al. (2002) Project Project complexity, Modeling and/or
International Journal management Analytical Design Planning simulation
of Project Technique (ADePT),
Management Dependency structure
matrix (DSM)
3 Baccarini (1996) Project Project complexity, Theoretical
International Journal management technological complexity, interpretation
of Project differentiation,
Management interdependency
4 Bakhshi et al. (2016) Project Project complexity, context, Review
International Journal management autonomy, connectivity,
of Project emergence, diversity, size
Management
5 Bjorvatn and Wald Project Project complexity, Empirical
(2018) management absorptive capacity, project research
International Journal management performance
of Project
Management
6 Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Project Project complexity; Case study
(2011) management Technical, organization,
International Journal and environmental (TOE)
of Project framework; structural
Management complexity
7 Brady and Davies Project Project complexity, Case study
(2014) management structural complexity,
Project Management dynamic complexity
Journal
8 Albrecht and Spang Project Project complexity, project Case study
(2014) management management maturity,
International Journal organizational complexity,
of Managing Projects technological complexity
in Business
9 Cooke-Davies et al. Project Complex projects, Theoretical
(2007) management complexity theory, project interpretation
Project Management management, nonlinearity,
Journal emergence, self-
organization
10 Damayanti et al. Engineering, Project complexity, Case study
(2021a) technology construction megaprojects,
IEEE Engineering management project manager
Management Review
11 Damayanti et al. Industrial Project complexity, Configuration
(2021b) engineering and leadership, megaproject, analysis
Journal of Industrial management performance
Engineering and
Table A1. Management
List of articles included
in review (continued )
Numbers Article Academic field Key concepts addressed Methods
Identifying
project
12 Damayanti et al. Engineering, Project complexity, Review complexity
(2021c) business and megaproject, developing
International Journal management countries
of Engineering
Business Management
13 Daniel and Daniel Project Project complexity, Theoretical 3067
(2018) management uncertainty, project interpretation
International Journal performance, project
of Project success
Management
14 Dao et al. (2017) Construction and Project complexity, Empirical
Journal of Engineering complexity attributes, research
Management in Management complexity indicators
Engineering
15 Dao et al. (2020) Design, Project complexity, Empirical
Architectural construction and complexity attributes, research
Engineering and management complexity indicators
Design Management
16 de Rezende et al. (2018) Project Project complexity, research Review
Project Management management trends, research focuses
Journal
17 Dikmen et al. (2021) Construction and Project complexity, Modeling and/or
Engineering Engineering uncertainty, risk, project simulation
Management Journal Management management
18 Elia et al. (2020) Project Project complexity, project Review and
International Journal management management, governance theoretical
of Managing Projects interpretation
in Business
19 Ellinas et al. (2018) Complex systems Project complexity, complex Modeling and/or
IEEE Systems Journal and system-of- systems engineering, simulation
systems project management, risk
analysis
20 Fang and Zhang Project Project complexity, project Empirical
(2021) management manager, ego depletion, research
International Journal social identity
of Project
Management
21 Floricel et al. (2016) Project Project complexity, Empirical
International Journal management uncertainty, project research
of Project performance, structural
Management complexity, dynamic
complexity
22 Geraldi and Adlbrecht Project Project complexity, Empirical
(2007) management uncertainty, project research
Project Management management, complexity
Journal characteristics
23 Geraldi et al. (2011) Operations and Project complexity, Review
International Journal supply chain uncertainty, structural
of Operations and management complexity, project
Production management
Management

(continued ) Table A1.

ECAM Numbers Article Academic field Key concepts addressed Methods
30,7
24 Gidado (1996) Construction and Project complexity, work Modeling and/or
Construction Engineering flow, time, cost simulation
Management and Management
Economics
25 Giezen (2012) Project Project complexity, Case study
3068 International Journal management megaproject, project
of Project success, uncertainty, risk
Management
26 Gransberg et al. (2013) Construction and Complex projects, project Case study
Journal of Engineering management,
Management in Management transportation projects
Engineering
27 Hansen et al. (2021) Industrial, Complexity management, Case study
Production production operational performance,
Engineering engineering and project organization
organization
28 He et al. (2015) Project Project complexity, Modeling and/or
International Journal management megaproject, complexity simulation
of Project measurement, technological
Management complexity, organizational
complexity, environmental
complexity
29 Hsu et al. (2016) Project Project complexity, Modeling and/or
International Journal management interdependence, diversity, simulation
of Project team member selection
Management
30 Jarkas (2017) Construction and Project complexity, complex Empirical
Journal of Professional Engineering systems, contractors, research
Issues in Engineering Management uncertainty, organizational
Education and complexity
Practice
31 Kermanshachi et al. Legal and Project complexity, Empirical
(2020b) contractual issues complexity indicators, research
Journal of Legal in AEC industry project management team
Affairs and Dispute
Resolution in
Engineering and
Construction
32 Kermanshachi et al. Construction Project complexity, Empirical
(2020a) education and complexity assessment, research, and
International Journal project complexity management case study
of Construction management
Education and
Research
33 Kim and Nguyen Construction and Project complexity, Empirical
(2021) Engineering international development research
Journal of Management projects, complexity
Management in measurement
Engineering

Table A1. (continued )

Numbers Article Academic field Key concepts addressed Methods
Identifying
project
34 Kiridena and Sense Project Project complexity, project Review complexity
(2016) Management management, complexity
Project Management profile
Journal
35 Lebcir and Choudrie Innovation Project complexity, project Modeling and/or
(2011) management and management, project cycle, simulation 3069
International Journal technology system dynamics
of Innovation,
Management and
Technology
36 Lu et al. (2015) Project Project complexity, large- Empirical
International Journal management scale project, complexity research
of Project measurement, task
Management complexity, organization
complexity
37 Luo et al. (2017b) Construction and Project complexity, project Empirical
Journal of Engineering success, complex projects, research
Management in Management Goal complexity, task
Engineering complexity, information
complexity
38 Luo et al. (2017a) Construction and Project complexity, Review
Journal of Engineering construction projects,
Construction Management project management
Engineering and
Management
39 Luo et al. (2020a) Construction and Project complexity, Empirical
Engineering, Engineering construction projects, research
Construction and Management project success, information
Architectural complexity, goal
Management complexity, environment
complexity
40 Luo et al. (2020b) Construction and Project complexity, Modeling and/or
Journal of Civil Engineering complexity measurement, simulation
Engineering and Management technological complexity,
Management information complexity,
task complexity
41 Luo et al. (2022) Soft computing Project complexity, goal Modeling and/or
Soft Computing techniques complexity, environmental simulation
complexity, information
complexity, technological
complexity, task
complexity, organizational
complexity
42 Ma and Fu (2020) Construction and Project complexity, project Configuration
Engineering, Engineering success, megaproject, analysis
Construction and Management technological complexity,
Architectural organizational complexity,
Management environmental complexity
43 Mam
edio and Meyer Construction and Project complexity, complex Case study
(2020) Engineering systems, organizational
Engineering, Management complexity, uncertainty
Construction and
Architectural
Management

(continued ) Table A1.

ECAM Numbers Article Academic field Key concepts addressed Methods
30,7
44 Maylor et al. (2008) Project Project complexity, Empirical
Project Management management managerial complexity, research
Journal structural complexity,
dynamic complexity
45 Mikkelsen et al. (2021) Project Project complexity, Action design
3070 International Journal Management complexity navigation research
of Managing Projects window, project stakeholder
in Business complexity
46 Mirza and Ehsan Construction and Project complexity, scope Empirical
(2017) Engineering complexity, schedule research
Engineering Management complexity, cost/resource
Management Journal complexity, project
performance
47 Moore et al. (2018) Business Project complexity, social Empirical
Group and Management capital, network, research
Organization organizational complexity,
Management resource complexity, task
complexity
48 Nguyen et al. (2015) Project Project complexity; Empirical
International Journal Management socipolitical, environmental, research, and
of Project organizational, Modeling
Management infrastructural,
technological, and scope
complexity
49 Nguyen et al. (2019) Construction and Project complexity, Empirical
Construction Engineering schedule performance, cost research
Management and Management performance,
Economics transportation projects
50 Odusanya et al. (2021) Project Project complexity, Case study
International Journal Management uncertainty, technical
of Managing Projects uncertainty, organizational
in Business and environmental aspects
51 Padalkar and Project Project complexity, Theoretical
Gopinath (2016) Management uncertainty interpretation
International Journal
of Project
Management
52 Pe~naloza, Saurin and Design, planning Project complexity, safety Case study
Formoso (2020) and management of performance, resilience
Applied Ergonomics technical and social
systems
53 Qazi et al. (2016) Project Project complexity, risk, Empirical
International Journal Management project objectives, technical, research, and
of Project organizational, and Modeling
Management environmental complexity
54 Qazi et al. (2020) Construction and Uncertainty, risk, project Modeling and/or
Engineering Engineering complexity, opportunities simulation
Management Journal Management
55 Qureshi and Kang Project Project complexity, Empirical
(2015) Management organizational complexity, research
International Journal interdependency, project
of Project variety, project size
Management

Table A1. (continued )

Numbers Article Academic field Key concepts addressed Methods
Identifying
project
56 Salet et al. (2013) Urban and regional Project complexity, Case study complexity
International Journal research uncertainty, megaproject,
of Urban and Regional complex projects, decision
Research making
57 Senescu et al. (2013) Construction and Project complexity; Case study
Journal of Engineering produce, organization, and 3071
Management in Management process complexity;
Engineering Communication;
Information management;
Innovation management
58 Sing et al. (2021) Construction and Project complexity, work Empirical
Engineering, Engineering content, scope, building research
Construction and Management structure, site condition
Architectural
Management
59 Tatikonda and Construction and Project complexity, Empirical
Rosenthal (2000) Engineering technology novelty, project research
IEEE Transactions on Management execution success, task
Engineering uncertainty, project
Management difficulty, objectives
novelty, technology
interdependence
60 Thom
e et al. (2016) Project Project complexity, Review
International Journal management uncertainty, risk, resilience
of Project
Management
61 De Toni and Pessot Business Project complexity, Case study
(2021) management knowledge management,
Journal of Business uncertainty, organizational
Research learning
62 Trinh and Feng (2020) Construction and Project complexity, Empirical
Journal of Engineering resilience, safety culture, research
Construction Management safety performance
Engineering and
Management
63 Vidal and Marle (2008) Cybernetics and Project complexity, Theoretical
Kybernetes systems thinking uncertainty, risk interpretation
management, size,
interdependence, variety,
organizational complexity,
technological complexity
64 Vidal et al. (2011a) Project Project complexity, Modeling and
International Journal management organizational complexity, case study
of Project technological complexity,
Management size, variety,
interdependence
65 Vidal et al. (2011b) Expert and Project complexity, size, Modeling and
Expert Systems with intelligent systems variety, interdependence case study
Applications
66 Xia and Chan (2012) Construction and Project complexity, Modeling and/or
Engineering, Engineering complexity index, simulation
Construction and Management complexity measurement,
Architectural size, construction method,
Management neighboring environment

(continued ) Table A1.

ECAM Numbers Article Academic field Key concepts addressed Methods
30,7
67 Zaman et al. (2019) Project Project complexity, project Empirical
International Journal management performance, social skills, research
of Project political skills, technical
Management complexity
68 He et al. (2013a, b) Management Project complexity, task, Case study
3072 Journal of Industrial science organization, complexity
Engineering/ measurement
Engineering
Management (in
Chinese)
69 Zhang and Yang Management Project complexity, Review
(2013) science organizational complexity,
Management review technological complexity
(in Chinese)
70 He et al. (2013a, b) Technology Project complexity, Review
Science and management interdependence,
Technology Progress uncertainty, dynamic, goal
and Policy (in Chinese) complexity, environmental
complexity, information
complexity, technological
complexity, cultural
complexity, organizational
complexity
71 Xie (2013) Technology and Project complexity, Modeling and/or
Technology Economics innovation megaproject, contract simulation
(in Chinese) management governance, relationship
governance
72 Mai et al. (2018) Management Project complexity, Case study
Journal of science megaproject, adaptive
Management Science organization,
(in Chinese) interdependency
73 Mai et al. (2019) Management Project complexity, Theoretical
Journal of science megaproject, self- interpretation
Management Science organization, dynamic
in China (in Chinese)
74 Mai et al. (2019) Management Project complexity, Case study
Management World science megaproject, system
Table A1. (in Chinese) integration, integrity

Corresponding author
Hongtao Xie can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]