Project Complexity Mapping in Five Dimensions

for Complex Transportation Projects

Douglas D. Gransberg, P.E., M.ASCE 1; Jennifer S. Shane, M.ASCE 2;
Kelly Strong, P.E., M.ASCE 3; and Carla Lopez del Puerto 4

Abstract: Traditional three-dimensional project management theory is based on optimizing the cost-schedule-technical dimensions. Recent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

studies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have shown that the current project management body of knowledge may not be
adequate to address interrelated and dependent variables encountered on complex projects. This paper reports the findings of an international
research team’s detailed study of 18 complex projects, which confirms the findings of the previous research and proposes a framework upon
which a complex transportation project’s scope of work can be better conceptualized and a methodology to graphically display a project’s
complexity in order to better understand and prioritize the available resources. The result is a “complexity footprint” that helps the complex
transportation project manager identify the sources of complexity so that appropriate resources can be allocated to address those factors before
they create a crisis. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000163. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Project management; Transportation management; Optimization; Canada; Australia; United Kingdom.
Author keywords: Project management; Conceptualization; Complexity; Framework.

Introduction This evolution in PM theory is being termed “complex project

management” (Whitty and Maylor 2009), “an emerging natural
The past two decades have fundamentally changed transportation extension of traditional PM to create a specialist profession : : : ”
project management (PM). Project scope has increased; the project (CCPM 2008). Thus, the objective of this study is to extend the
delivery period has shrunk; and the impact of external factors such CCPM’s “continuum” theory to a framework that permits the
as environmental policy and the source of construction financing project manager to employ a holistic approach using proactive tools
drive the design solutions to most transportation projects [Federal to deliver complex transportation projects.
Highway Administration (FHWA) 2006]. Understanding the fac-
tors that lead to the successful delivery of transportation projects
is evolving from a purely technical, short-term focus based on Defining Complex Project Management
design loads/requirements, to a broad, holistic, longer-term focus
that includes both subjective (e.g., public acceptance and political The CCPM differentiates between routine projects and complex
support) and objective (e.g., capacity, budget, schedule) measures projects by “the degree of disorder, instability, emergence, nonli-
of project performance (Jugdev and Muller 2005). The College of nearity, recursiveness, uncertainty, irregularity and randomness,
Complex Project Management (CCPM) maintains that managing including a high uncertainty about objectives” (CCPM 2008).
the project delivery process is a “continuum: at one node is tradi- Williams (1999) argues that uncertainty must also be considered
tional PM, with its philosophy, organizational [sic] architecture, when defining a complex project. The U.S. FHWA uses a more
methodology, tool set and contracts all firmly based upon certainty; specific definition, which keys on a monetary value and projects
at the other node is complex PM, with its philosophy, organiza- that “have a high-level of public or congressional interest; are
tional [sic] architecture, methodology, tool set and contracts all unusually complex; have extraordinary implications for the na-
firmly based upon uncertainty and complexity” (CCPM 2008). tional transportation system; or are likely to exceed $500 million
1
in total cost.” (FHWA 2010). The two definitions of a complex
Donald and Sharon Greenwood Chair of Construction Engineering, project are very similar. The CCPM speaks in theoretical terms that
Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State
essentially describe the ability of the complex PM to control the
Univ., 494 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50011-3232 (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: [email protected] various factors that impact project delivery (e.g., disorder, instabil-
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental ity, emergence, nonlinearity, recursiveness, uncertainty, irregular-
Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 498 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA ity, and randomness), whereas the FHWA’s stated concerns are
50011-3232. E-mail: [email protected] monetary value, social/political impacts, and national-level trans-
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Colorado portation goals. Similarly, both definitions recognize that these
State Univ., 224A Guggenheim Hall, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1584. projects have factors whose control lie outside the ability of the
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Colorado PM and as such must be identified, evaluated, and recognized in
State Univ., 224A Guggenheim Hall, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1584. the PM plan.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 9, 2011; approved on
It is worth noting that neither the CCPM nor the FHWA ap-
October 23, 2012; published online on October 25, 2012. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for proach mentions technical factors such as the actual engineering
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in design of the complex project. Therefore, a project can have a
Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 4, October 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 0742- complicated technical design without becoming complex. Routine
597X/2013/4-316-326/$25.00. PM is fundamentally based on the technical design. In essence, the

316 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 dimensions of the scope, schedule, and cost are predicated on the behavior [due to] the number of different elements in the project
assumption that the technical design requirements will subse- and their interconnectedness.” In a nutshell, the PM’s ability to
quently define both the project’s cost and the time required to control all aspects of the project decreases as complexity increases
deliver it. Marshall and Rousey (2009) define successful PM as to a point where the PM can no longer control the impact of
“the scope, schedule and budget are in balance.” As such, routine external factors.
PM can be defined as a three-dimensional system. Once the fun- The point where the transition takes place is termed the “edge
damental relationship is optimized, a PM plan can be developed to of chaos” (Thomas and Mengel 2008). This is the “point between
successfully execute the project. order and chaos where the system gets the benefit of some level
However, complex transportation projects often have their tech- of chaos and the resulting creativity whilst the system still has
nical design driven not by traditional design loads and capacities, enough order to survive, maintain coherence, and specialization in
but by external factors such as changing environmental legislation, some functions” (Remington and Pollack 2007). Thus, it becomes
unfavorable public opinion, political influence, and the need to important to
attract private financing over a multiyear period (Jugdev and Muller • Identify all the subsets of internal and external factors and their
2005; Little 2006; FHWA 2006; Whitty and Maylor 2009). As a potential interactions at an early stage in the project so that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

result, it becomes important to identify a transportation project as manager of a complex project can clarify ambiguities before
complex at its conception and provide the PM the maximum they impact the project, and
amount of time to develop project control plans that recognize the • Make plans to deal with external factors that introduce chaos
uncertainties, ambiguities and interrelationships and keep project and assign resources to influence the interrelationships to at very
execution from slipping over the edge of chaos (Williams 1999). least mitigate the impact of those external influences.
Therefore, the paper will propose a framework from which the In other words, the objective is to manage the project at the edge
sources of transportation project complexity can be conceptualized of chaos and to achieve the benefit of the creativity that comes from
and a tool for measuring and visualizing the various dimensions of chaos. This leads to the conclusion that part of the definition of
project complexity. complex project success is the PM’s ability to anticipate uncertainty
in a manner that keeps the project under control.
Defining Complex Project Management for
Transportation Projects Complexity Theory Applied to Transportation

Simon (1962) proposed an “architecture of complexity” that was As part of the redefinition of transportation project success, the
based on the concept that “complexity frequently takes the form roles and responsibilities of PMs are expanding beyond the tradi-
of hierarchy and that hierarchic systems have some common prop- tional cost—schedule—technical triangle (Atkinson 1999) to in-
erties that are independent of their specific content.” Simon went on clude management of relational, cultural, and stakeholder issues
to define a complex system as one “in which each of the subsystems (Clelland and Ireland 2002). The weight of evidence suggests a
is subordinated by an authority relation to the system” and opines broad recognition that the nature of PM is changing. The U.K.
that “all complex systems [are] analyzable into successive sets of developed a conceptual framework in 2003 called “Rethinking
subsystems.” He also concluded that complex systems are dynamic Project Management” (Winter and Smith 2006) and applied a
and that the interrelations between subsystems are subject to con- rigorous approach to the problem of complex PM. The result was
stant change as time elapses. Simon’s paper serves as the founda- a framework called “Five New Directions of Thought” to define the
tion for defining complexity in the context of transportation PM. difference between routine PM and the management of complex
A typical highway project (analogous to Simon’s system) is com- projects in the 21st century.
posed of a set of severable features of work (analogous to Simon’s With the five directions framework, the study sought to move
subsystems) that are often constructed by different trade subcon- PM theory from a linear process where all the variables are con-
tractors, such drainage, paving, bridges, etc., which are interrelated trolled, termed by the authors as “life cycle theory,” to a nonlinear
through technical relationships and the sequence in which they process where some or all of the variables are not controllable,
must be constructed. A cost overrun in one early feature of work “complexity theory.” The study concluded that the challenge to
can impact the ability to afford the construction of a later feature complex PM is “poor understanding and handling of uncertainties,
and generate unplanned changes to its design to accommodate the handling chaos and complexity” that is derived from the “future
project’s authorized budget. Additionally, a transportation project is tense trap”—fixing requirements before sorting out what the proj-
typically a public work, constrained by the regulations applied to ect team is trying to accomplish (Winter and Smith 2006). The
public funding and as a result, susceptible to influence by public so-called trap is the conceptualizing of a project as a purely tech-
opinion, political motivations, and a variety of other external factors nical solution to a given requirement without regard to the poten-
that are outside the direct control of the PM. There are significant, tial impact of external factors. In essence, the Rethinking Project
dynamic interrelations between hierarchical subsystems. Thus, Management study sought to change the very definition of a project
Simon’s complexity model is satisfied for this industry sector. from a collection of constructed products designed and built to
perform a given function (the “future tense trap”) to a vital element
of societal progress that adds value not only to the specific location
Complexity Theory in which it is built but also creates value for a broader set of
In a book entitled Tools for Complex Projects, Remington and interrelated functions that exist within and without the constructed
Pollack (2007) extend Simon’s complexity theory to the manage- project’s boundaries.
ment of complex infrastructure projects. These authors attribute To accomplish the transformation of the PM body of knowledge
project complexity to the “interrelationships and feedback between requires a fundamental change in the way complex PMs are pre-
increasing numbers of areas of uncertainty and ambiguity.” A proj- pared. A complex project requires more than the ability to complete
ect’s level of complexity reaches a point where it “exhibits emer- engineering design, estimate cost, and develop schedules (i.e., a
gent properties which could not be predicted from looking at trained technician). Complex PMs must be “reflective practitioners
the individual parts [i.e., subprojects]” and will “show nonlinear who can operate effectively in complex project environments

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 317

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 through experience, intuition and the pragmatic application of external factors, using the chaos to create innovative PM plans that
theory” (Winter and Smith 2006). The CCPM standard for complex addresses them (Clelland and Ireland 2002; Winter and Smith
PMs outlines the body of knowledge necessary for competency in 2006; Remington and Pollack 2007; Thomas and Mengel 2008).
this new specialization. Table 1 shows the relationship between the In summary, a complex transportation PM must conceptualize
literature on complexity and the Rethinking Project Management the project in a different light than the routine project. This issue
study. One can see that all three documents intersect when organ- was recognized in a recent study and articulated as follows:
ized by Winter and Smith’s five new directions of thought. This
permits the researchers to use these works as the foundation for An important and difficult part of project management is the
conceptualization stage. How well a project is conceptualized
defining and measuring complexity for transportation projects as
affects how well the project is defined and appropriately
discussed in subsequent sections of this paper.
scoped. As the project scope is acknowledged as the basis
Whitty and Maylor (2009) frame the definition of complex PM
upon which subsequent project management processes and
in the form of two questions that synthesize the issue of transition
activities are planned and delivered, the conceptualization
from routine PM theory to complex PM theory:
stage can be seen as central to project management proc-
• “Under what conditions of complexity are the current toolsets
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

esses : : : particularly when dealing with multiple powerful

and approaches to managing projects effective?
stakeholders and “messy” situations (Joham et al. 2009).
• How should the approach to a high complexity project differ
from that of a noncomplex project?” These authors use the term “project scope” to cover the totality
The answers to these questions describe the transition from rou- of project requirements and specifically recognizes complexity in
tine PM to complex PM. The upshot is that complex PM includes a the PM process brought by factors that are outside Marshall and
skill set that goes beyond mere technical competence and requires Rousey’s (2009) traditional three dimensions of transportation
skills that permit the complex PM to work successfully in condi- PM (cost, schedule, and technical) when they cite multiple power-
tions of uncertainty to deliver projects with significant factors be- ful stakeholders and ‘messy’ situations. Furnishing a framework
yond the PM’s control (CCPM 2008). Some of those skills involve from which to conceptualize a complex transportation project
teambuilding; the capacity to creatively develop solutions that tran- and possibly furnish one answer to Whitty and Maylor’s (2009)
scend traditional engineering and routine PM approaches; and the questions is the objective of this paper. To do so require an in-depth
ability to tolerate a much higher level of risk because the complex exploration of complex projects and since most complex trans-
PM can comprehend the ramifications inherent to uncontrollable portation projects tend to be very large in cost, delivery period,

Table 1. Intersection of Complexity Literature with “Rethinking Project Management” Directions

“Rethinking Project Management” Competency Standard for Complex Tools for Complex Projects
(Winter and Smith 2006) Project Managers (CCPM 2008) (Remington and Pollack 2007)
“Direction 1: from the Life Cycle Theory of “Complex projects are characterised [sic] by “Analyzing and anticipating the types and levels
Project Management towards Complexity a degree of disorder, instability, emergence, of complexity which are likely to be encountered
Theory of Project Management.” nonlinearity, recursiveness, uncertainty, in the life cycle of the project/programme [sic]”
irregularity and randomness”
“Direction 2: from Projects as Instrumental “There is dynamic complexity where the parts “Analyzing complex relationships between
Processes towards Projects as Social in a system can react/interact with each other in subprojects; managing inter-dependencies
Processes” different ways” between sub-projects”
“Direction 3: from Product Creation towards “This standard lays the foundation for project “ : : : utilizing Earned Value Management
Value Creation.” management to effectively deal with complex Performance Measurement. : : : integrates a
projects, and in doing so, to add real value to partnering approach to the management of
our world.” large : : : projects : : : ”
“Direction 4: from Narrow Conceptualization “ : : : high uncertainty about the objectives, and/or “Meaning-making activities, including those who
towards Broad Conceptualization.” high uncertainty in how to implement the have set goal to clarify goals as much as possible.”
objectives.”
“Direction 5: from Trained Technicians
towards Reflective Practitioners.”
Characteristics of a reflective practitioner Characteristics of a complex project manager Characteristics of a complex project manager
Can learn, operate, and adapt effectively in “Makes own behavioural [sic] choices with “Ability to develop creative ways forward
complex project environments knowledge of a range of alternatives and their
situational consequences
Through experience, intuition, and the Puts in the effort necessary for thinking High-level communication abilities.
pragmatic application of theory in practice
Budgets their time with the focus on strategy Comfortable with ambiguity and ability to
communicate ambiguity to other levels [by]
simplifying the issues
Does not fill their calendar, allows Ability to take multiperspective viewpoints
contemplation time
Is inquisitive and investigative Opportunistic to take advantage of
[unexpected] ideas
Has a dialectic within themselves of confidence Treating the project as many interrelated
and doubt” projects : : : ”

318 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 and scale, a case study research methodology was deemed appro-
priate (Yin 2002).

Case Studies of Complex Transportation Projects

Since the recognition that complex PM is a field that requires its

own body of knowledge is recent, there has been little formal
research on the topic directly related to transportation projects.
The material in this paper comes from a study funded by the
U.S. National Academies of Science’s Strategic Highway Research
Program-2 (SHRP2) entitled: “Project Management Strategies for
Complex Projects.” Because differentiating between routine and
complex project characteristics requires in-depth examination, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

study’s methodology was based on case studies of 18 complex proj-

ects in Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and the U.K. Case
studies can be utilized to look in-depth at a case to focus on atti-
tudes, behaviors, meanings, and experiences by obtaining informa-
tion from a number of different sources related to a project (Yin
2002). The sources include archival project documents, public
records, news and trade publication, journal articles, and personal
interviews with project participants. The research aimed to identify
the critical dimensions of complex PM in transportation and to sup-
plement the existing body of knowledge with tools used success-
fully in managing complex projects.

Research Methodology
The U.S. case study projects were selected from the major projects
list maintained by the FHWA (2010). The primary selection cri-
terion was the availability of the major PM for interview. Second-
arily, the FHWA Innovative Program Delivery Office maintains
a set of case study synopses for major projects which furnished
the researchers a means of identifying those major projects that
would fit the definitions for complexity found in the literature.
The international projects were selected using the same prime cri-
terion with the researchers needing to make contact with the PM to
ensure that the project was also complex. The principal research
tool was the structured interview of the primary agency participants
in each case study project using the U.S. Government Accounting
Office’s protocol (1991) for case study methodology. The inter-
views were conducted and answers were recorded to a standard
interview questionnaire developed using the principles for ques-
tionnaire design by Oppenheim (1992). Information was recorded,
collected, and coded following standard research methods and
ultimately merged with similar information derived from the liter-
ature review. The methodology is provided in Fig. 1.
Once the interviews were complete and recorded, the output was
examined and analyzed for its meaning as well as its relationship to Fig. 1. Research methodology
the issues of interest in the research. A set of standard data coding
categories was developed into which words or phrases that appear
in the text of an interview form, a case study project solicitation
document, or a document from the literature on complex projects a specific tool was mentioned as a means of managing one of the
were placed. The frequency of specific category appearance was five-dimensional sources of complexity is listed in the respective
used as proposed by Weber (1985) to infer the content of a given column of Table 2 below.
document and to identify intersections of independent converging The concept of the “dimensions of complexity” was defined
lines of information between case study projects. The result was an by Remington et al. (2009) as the “source characteristics of com-
inference regarding the given agency’s approach to complex PM plexity.” Therefore the content analysis was organized to identify
and trends across the population that can be identified and reported. appropriate complexity dimensions for transportation projects by
Finally, each interview concluded with the interviewees rating the building on the three dimensions cited by Marshall and Rousey
relative complexity of cost, financing, schedule, technical design (2009) for transportation. One of the major topics sought in the
and external factors that materially impacted the final project interviews were project development methods and project execu-
delivery plan. The case study interviews were structured to allow tion tools used to surmount issues found on complex transportation
the researchers to assign a specific complex management tool to projects; and the content analysis revealed that the methods and
at least one of the sources of complexity. The number of times tools (see Table 2) used to deliver the 18 complex projects could

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 319

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 Table 2. Complex Project Development Methods and Case Study Project Execution Tools
Number of projects Dimension
Project development method (executive level)a
Define project success factors by each dimension as required 15 All
Select contracting and delivery methods based on outcomes 13 Technical, financing, schedule
Assemble owner-driven project team 15 Context, technical
Prepare early cost model and finance plan 11 Financing, cost
Define political action plan 12 Context
Project execution tool (project team)a
Incentivize critical project outcomes 12 All
Develop dispute resolution plan 10 All
Perform comprehensive risk analysis 17 All
Identify critical permit issues 15 All
Evaluate applications of off-site fabrication 5 Technical, schedule, cost
Determine required level of involvement in row/utilities 15 Technical, context, cost
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Determine work package/sequence 10 Technical, schedule

Design to budget 3 Technical, cost
Co-locate project team 6 Technical
Establish flexible design criteria 13 Technical
Evaluate flexible financing 11 Financing
Develop finance expenditure model 8 Financing
Establish public involvement plan 16 Context
a
See the appendix for a brief description of each. Refer to Shane et al. (2011) for a detailed explanation of each.

be categorized at the highest level into the five dimensions shown developing a political action plan at the early project concept stage.
in Table 3: The observations of the other three dimensions were roughly equal.
1. Technical: all the typical engineering requirements includ- However, the fact that financing was found to equate to cost vali-
ing scope of design and construction, quality, and need for dated the creation of that as a separate category from cost. A similar
integrated delivery; observation can be made for context and technical. In routine proj-
2. Schedule: the calendar-driven aspects of the project; ects, the contextual issues are usually addressed during planning
3. Cost: quantifying the scope of work in monetary terms; and design as an integral part to the design developmental process.
4. Context: external influences impacting project development The fact that complex PMs needed to specifically address contex-
and progress; and tual influences and the fact that often those influences were ulti-
5. Financing: not cost but the sources of the project’s funding. mately reflected in the final project also validated the creation of
Table 3 shows that Table 2 methods and tools were most fre- context as a separate dimension of complexity.
quently needed to deal with complexity in the technical and con- The final content analysis revealed that PMs of both large and
text dimensions. Examples are setting flexible design criteria and small complex projects must ultimately optimize the available

Table 3. Complex Project Case Study Summary and Transportation Project Dimensional Complexity
Number of observations of methods and tools
applied to complex project management issues
by dimension
Project delivery
Case study project Location method Budget Technical Schedule Cost Context Financing
Doyle drive California DBB& PPP $1.05 B 9 7 7 9 8
T-REXSE I-25/I-225 Colorado DB $1.67 B 12 8 9 9 8
I-95 New Haven harbor crossing Connecticut DBB $416 M 6 3 4 5 3
I-595 corridor Florida PPP $1.8 B 11 7 7 9 8
New Mississippi river bridges Illinois/Missouri DBB-BV $667 M 11 6 7 8 7
Louisville Southern Indiana Ohio river bridges Indiana/Kentucky DBB $4.1 B 4 3 3 5 2
Intercounty connector Maryland DB $2.7 B 10 6 7 8 7
Hudson-Bergen light rail New Jersey DBOM $1.2 B 1 1 1 1 2
Detroit River international Michigan/Ontario, PPP $2.2 B 7 4 4 7 5
crossing Canada
Northern Gateway toll road New Zealand Alliance $275 M 12 7 8 9 8
North Carolina tollway North Carolina DB $583 M 10 6 6 8 7
I-40 crosstown Oklahoma DBB $600 M 7 5 6 7 4
Lewis and Clark bridge Oregon/Washington DBB-BV $29.8 M 9 7 6 6 5
Green street Canada DSB $10 M 8 6 5 4 5
Texas SH161 Texas DBB&DB $1.0 B 8 5 5 8 6
Heathrow T5 UK DB $5.8 B 7 5 4 6 5
Capital beltway Virginia PPP $2.2 B 9 6 7 9 8
James river bridge Virginia DBB-BV $49 M 11 8 7 9 6
Total $27.2B 152 100 103 127 104
Note: BV = best value; DB = design-build; DBB = design-bid-build; PPP = public-private partnership; PDM = project delivery method.

320 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 Fig. 2. Conceptual dimensional difference between routine and complex project management (reprinted from Marshall and Rousey 2009, with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

permission of the Transportation Research Board)

resources (time and money) with the technical performance needs reasoning was that the complexity came from using mechanistic
of the project (design) while operating under both known and pavement design for the first time and an untried project delivery
unknown constraints (context), all the while accommodating the method. Thus, the technical dimension was rated highly complex
requirements of new financing partners and funding models and the uncertainty about the costs associated with the new project
(financing). Generally speaking, this requires the owner to think delivery method drove that dimension’s rating. Therefore, the com-
continuously about budgeting, scheduling, designing, allocating, plexity in the Green Streets project is transient and will decrease
and pricing the inherent risk of a given project (Touran 2006). as the agency gains experience with the two newly adopted proce-
The external factors identified in the interviews that signifi- dures. Table 4 also shows that in the remaining seventeen case
cantly impact complex projects can be grouped in two major studies at least one of the new dimensions was rated as more com-
categories: project context and project financing. Thus, complex plex than the three traditional ones. This leads to a conclusion that
PM involves an increase in the PM’s skill set from the traditional given the five-dimensional model, a complex project can be defined
three dimensions to encompass five dimensions. Fig. 2 shows the as one where the PM must manage at least four of the five possible
five-dimensional model that is proposed for a complex transporta- dimensions.
tion PM framework. The notion portrayed in Fig. 2 is that by elevating the impact of
Table 3 shows the relative complexity on a dimension by dimen- context and financing on the transportation project delivery plan,
sion comparison. The first conclusion that can be derived from the the complex PM will then have a framework within which to con-
analysis of the dimensional comparison in Table 3 is that in spite of ceptualize the complex scope of work and develop proactive rem-
the agency’s contrary view, the Green Street project was not a com- edies for factors that are not controllable, such as possible political
plex project since its PM rated the three traditional dimensions as interference during project execution (context) or the need to de-
more complex than either context or financial. The agency PM’s velop the construction schedule around the availability of private

Table 4. Comparison of Case Study Project Complexity by Dimension

Technical Schedule Cost Technical Schedule Cost Context
versus versus versus versus versus versus versus
Project context context context financing financing financing financing
Doyle Drive Technical Context Cost Financing Financing Financing Financing
T-REX Context Context Cost Financing Financing Cost Context
I-95 New Haven Context Schedule Context Financing Schedule Financing Context
I-595 corridor Technical Schedule Context Financing Financing Financing Financing
New Mississippi Bridge Context Context Context Technical Schedule Cost Context
Ohio River Bridge Context Context Cost Financing Financing Cost Financing
Intercounty connect Context Context Context Financing Financing Financing Financing
Detroit River Context Context Context Financing Financing Financing Financing
International
Hudson-Bergen rail Technical Schedule Cost Technical Financing Financing Financing
Northern gateway Context Context Context Financing Financing Financing Financing
North Carolina toll Technical Schedule Cost Financing Financing Financing Financing
I-40 crosstown Context Context Context Financing Schedule Financing Context
Lewis-Clark Bridge Context Context Context Technical Schedule Cost Context
Green Street Technical Schedule Cost Technical Schedule Cost Context
Texas SH161 Context Context Context Financing Financing Financing Financing
Heathrow T5 Context Context Context Financing Financing Financing Context
Capital beltway Technical Context Context Financing Financing Financing Financing
James River Bridge Context Context Context Technical Schedule Cost Context
Note: Bold font indicates the context and financing dimensions to communicate the overall impact that the newly proposed dimensions were found to have
with respect to the three current dimensions.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 321

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 and/or public funding (financing). In the routine project, the context Results of the Analysis
factor is addressed as a part of project planning and design (termed
“context sensitive design”) and the project financial plan is a uni- A detailed discussion of all the results obtained from the research
directional process flowing from the cost estimate. In both cases, project described above is not possible within the constraints of this
the technical requirements of the project are preeminent over the paper and thus, the reader is referred to the original research report
constraints imposed by context and financing, making the result for those details (Shane et al. 2011). Remington et al. (2009) differ-
of the entire process a “go-no go” decision; i.e., the final design entiated between complexity dimension and severity. That work
either results in an environmental permit or not and the construction was based on “qualitative thematic factors.” This project sought to
funding is either available as required or the project is delayed until measure the relative impact of each dimension on the given project,
it does become available. In both examples, the PM reacts to the which may in fact be quite similar to Remington’s definition that
external influences over which there is no control. In the five- complex projects “demonstrate a number of characteristics to a de-
dimensional PM model shown in Fig. 2, the complex PM considers gree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict
context and financing as equal to the traditional three dimensions of project outcomes, to control or manage the project.”
The ranking system utilized a two-step forced choice procedure.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cost, schedule, and technical. Thus, a complex PM must balance

the interrelationships between the cost, schedule, and technical di- The first step was for the project team leaders to rank each of the
mensions with those of the context and financing dimensions rather five dimensions on a one to five scale from least complex (1) to
than merely considering context and/or financing as a constraint most complex (5), with no two dimensions carrying the same rank-
that may become a roadblock to project delivery. ing. The team members had to discuss the nature of project com-
The external validity of the five-dimensional framework was plexity until agreement was reached on the rankings. After the team
substantiated through subsequent application on two holdout reached agreement on rankings, the team then had to assign a di-
cases from the original sample. After development of the five- mensional impact ratings indexed on a scale of 10 to 100 against a
dimensional framework from the original 18 cases, the framework baseline standard of 55 for an agency’s typical routine project.
was tested on the I-74 corridor project in the Quad Cities of Iowa/ Thus, index numbers greater than 55 indicate that the rated factor
Illinois (a design-bid-build project) and on the I-15 South project in was more complex than a typical project. The results were then
Las Vegas, Nevada (a design-build project). In both of the valida- graphed in the form of a radar diagram that displays the “complex-
tion cases, the case study questionnaire, glossary, and assessment ity footprint” for each project. Fig. 3 illustrates the radar diagrams
tool was sent to the project team leaders along with a short back- for four case study projects’ rated complexity. By visual inspection,
ground narrative on how to use the framework. In both cases the one can see that the Doyle Drive project was rated as having
five-dimensional framework was validated, as financing (I-74) and an above average complexity in all five dimensions; whereas the
context (I-15) were rated highly compared to the traditional three Hudson-Bergen Light Rail project only exceeded average complex-
dimensions. ity in the technical dimensions.

Fig. 3. Complexity footprints of the Doyle Drive, Green Street, Heathrow T5 Expansion, and Hudson-Bergen light rail projects

322 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 Table 5. Rated Case Study Project Complexity by Dimension and Complexity Footprint Area
Complexity rating by dimension
Footprint
Case study project Technical Schedule Cost Context Financing area (units)
Doyle Drive 80 75 80 78 95 15,811
T-REXSE I-25/I-225 90 85 100 98 98 21,101
I-95 New Haven Harbor crossing 20 85 30 75 72 6,344
I-595 corridor 85 70 5 60 100 10,034
New Mississippi River Bridge 85 90 75 60 95 15,538
Louisville Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges 85 55 100 95 90 17,060
Intercounty connector 55 80 72 85 90 13,733
Hudson-Bergen light rail 85 55 45 35 55 7,287
Detroit River international crossing 55 85 75 98 100 16,025
Northern gateway toll road 55 60 55 75 90 10,664
North Carolina tollway 85 90 75 70 95 16,346
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I-40 crosstown 15 70 55 100 60 8,227

Lewis and Clark Bridge 85 55 30 100 5 4,874
Green Street 100 55 82 20 10 6,111
Texas SH161 40 75 70 90 95 12,792
Heathrow T5 80 55 50 95 85 12,732
Capital beltway 95 15 10 20 98 6,203
James River Bridge 90 95 60 55 90 14,551

Table 5 contains the complete ratings for all 18 projects. any project’s pool of resources is finite. Pragmatism suggests that
It shows that in 17 of 18 cases at least one of the two new dimen- conceptualizing some event (activity) involves being clear about
sions was rated as having significant impact as opposed to the given what ‘concept’ is being used to think about that event. The frame-
agency’s typical routine project. The area of the resulting footprint work presented in this paper provides a means to increase the
furnishes a method to compare the relative complexity between clarity of concept by recognizing that project context and project
projects. The footprint is the sum of the areas of five scalene financing can become the factors that literally drive the final proj-
triangles. It is computed by knowing that the interior angle of a ect’s technical solution as well as its ultimate cost and the actual
regular pentagon is 72° and using Eqs. (1) and (2): period to deliver it. The five-dimensional model’s concept as shown
in Fig. 3 strives to add structure to the process of conceptualizing
Ax ¼ 1=2abðsin 72°Þ ¼ 0.127ab ð1Þ the complex project’s scope of work. Additionally, the footprint
area shown in Fig. 3 furnishes a quantitative method for compar-
X
5 ing complex projects that are competing for resources as shown
F¼ Ax ð2Þ in Table 5.
x¼1
The model is validated by the fact that all 18 complex project
where Ax = area of triangle x; a = complexity rating to the left of managers in four different nations were able to quickly grasp the
the interior angle; b = complexity rating to the right of the interior concept, relate it to their specific project, and draw the complexity
angle; and F = area of the resultant complexity footprint. maps whose values are contained in Table 3. It can be further
The maximum area (all five rated at 100) = 23,776 units; and the validated by comparing it to previous research on complex PM.
average area (all five rated at 55) = 7,192 units. While no conclu- It embodies the “Rethinking Project Management” initiative by
sions are drawn with the relative measurements, it is interesting to furnishing a methodology to facilitate the intellectual movement
note that a project such as the I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing from “Life Cycle Theory of Project Management towards Com-
could have a footprint that is less than average, but still have three plexity Theory of Project Management” (Winter and Smith 2006).
of five complexity dimensions rated above average. This illustrates It answers the question posed by Whitty and Maylor (2009) of how
the dynamic characteristic of complex PM. the approach to a complex project would differ from a routine
One can also track the impact of context on the technical and project by furnishing a methodology to prioritize project resources
schedule dimensions. It is important to note that in the case study based on the complexity of project needs. Table 4 shows that the
projects where the financing dimension was rated high, it was also five-dimensional frameworks provides the definition to identify a
considered a potential barrier to project execution. In other words, complex project as one where more than the traditional three
if the other four dimensions could not be optimized within the dimensions of cost, schedule and technical need to be managed.
constraints of the financial plan, the project was dead. In fact, the The five-dimensional models also act as a framework to provide
Louisville-Southern Indiana Bridge project was stalled at the time “pragmatic approaches [that are] feasible, democratic, creative as
of the interview for that very reason. well as useful, once the need for a multiperspective and inter-
connected view of project conceptualization has been accepted as
inevitable : : : ” (Joham et al. 2009).
Conclusions In summary, the five-dimensional models for complex transpor-
tation PM and the radar complexity diagram can be viewed as tools
“Project management is about resolving a problem need” (Joham for complex PMs to develop a proactive PM plan that conceives
et al. 2009) and the resolution typically require the PM to allocate and addresses issues inherently outside their direct control. Thomas
resources. To resolve a complex project’s “problem need,” the PM and Mengel (2008) call this PM “being conducted on the edge of
must be able to effectively prioritize the given problem’s resource chaos.” Being able to deliver the complex transportation project
needs within the population of other project resource needs because without it slipping across that line into uncontrollable disorder

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 323

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 is a critical skill required by a complex PM. This paper has shown success. Inputs to be considered come from the complexity analy-
that by viewing a complex project in five rather than three dimen- sis, complexity flowchart, the complexity map, and the critical suc-
sions the PM can elevate the visibility of complex project context cess factors identified in Method 1. The inputs are used to identify
and financing using complexity mapping and thereby pragmatically all current available sources of funding with have a high degree of
conceptualize a scope of work that embodies both the controllable certainty. The next step is to compare the available funding to the
and uncontrollable factors that will be faced during the delivery expected cost and scope of the project. If the available resources
of complex projects. The reader is referred to A Guidebook for are sufficient, the project team can incorporate the funding flows
Managing Complex Projects (Shane et al. 2011) for a more detailed into the procurement plan and develop a relatively straight for-
explanation of the procedures used to implement the framework ward cost model using standard project management tools such
described in the paper. as resource loaded CPM schedules, earned-value analysis, or cash-
balance linked project draw schedules. However, if available proj-
ect funding is insufficient, the project team must look for additional
Appendix. Complex Project Management external funding sources or adjust the project scope or develop a
Development Methods and Tools phased approach to fit available funds.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The case study analysis of complex transportation projects yielded

five complex project development methods and thirteen complex Method 5: Define Political Action Plan
project management tools (Shane et al. 2011). Table 2 lists these Legislators, community stakeholders, utilities, railroads, and many
findings. Below is a brief description of each. other individuals and groups may play a very important and influ-
ential role in a complex project, more so than in normal projects.
Method 1: Define Critical Project Success Factors Understanding the influence and how to positively direct this
influence is important.
The critical project success factors are typically comprised of both Political action plans can be targeted toward a specific stake-
subjective and objective inputs. On complex projects, the team holder (such as attempts to change restrictive legislation to allow
needs a simplifying heuristic to guide decisions and analyses. innovation on a specific project) or can be general in nature, such as
The critical project success factors provide just such a simplifying a public information and communication plan aimed at improving
heuristic. The point of Method 1 is to identify the legislative and project support across a wide range of stakeholders. The inputs
political directives, gather input from agency and project leaders, are used to identify any “showstoppers” that will inhibit project
estimate project resource requirements and determine if they are success if they cannot be eliminated. This might include restrictive
currently available, assess community needs and influence over legislation, cooperation of utilities, acquisition of Rights of Way,
project feasibility, and ascertain project characteristics. These in- expedited NEPA reviews, support of local community groups, etc.
puts are then used to define critical success factors in each of the The most critical dimension should be analyzed first to determine
five dimensions of the 5DPM model. the need for targeted political action plans, with subsequent dimen-
sions analyzed in decreasing order of criticality.
Method 2: Select Contract Based on Project Outcomes
Method 2 is one of three resource allocation methods in the com- Tool 1: Incentivize Critical Project Outcomes
plex management plan. Method 2 is intended to help the project Based on the previously identified outcomes there is a need to in-
team identify administrative resources (primarily procurement centivize the designers and contractors on the project to meet these
methods and contracts) that are best suited to the project and are project goals. The incentives range from traditional schedule, cost,
most likely to facilitate project success. The most likely starting and safety incentives to the performance areas from various exter-
place for this is Method 2, Selection of Contracts, which should be nal factors such as social, environmental, public involvement, and
part of a deliberate project management plan based on critical proj- traffic mobility.
ect outcomes and integrated with other resource allocation methods
(Method 3 = Project Team and Method 4 = Cost Model).
Tool 2: Develop Dispute Resolution Plan
Realizing that complex projects offer greater numbers of dispute
Method 3: Assemble Owner-Driven Project Team
points a thoughtful dispute plan is helpful. The dispute resolution
The owner’s team is the driver of the project, selection of the ap- plans should be negotiated for neighborhood groups, USDOT 4(f)
propriate people at the appropriate time is important in success- signatories, and other indirect stakeholders, integrated into Political
fully delivering a complex project. Not only is having the right Action Plan, and contractually stipulated between designer and
people important but so is giving them the authority needed to owner if scope agreement issues arise. The goal of the dispute res-
effectively execute their responsibilities. The inputs are used to olution plan should be to proactively identify and manage conflicts
identify the critical skill sets required for project success. The before they have a negative impact on cost, schedule, or risk.
project team can then assess internal capabilities and determine
any gaps in required and existing skills. This gap analysis will
Tool 3: Perform Comprehensive Risk Analysis
inform the procurement plan described in Method 2, as any gaps
in required skill or knowledge will need to be added to the team The risk analysis must include some clear and concise assignment
through contracts of responsibilities and assignment of designated resources. The risk
analysis must include not only traditional cost and schedule issues,
but also context and financing issues, such as railroad, utilities, 4(f)
Method 4: Prepare Finance Plan and Early Cost Model
issues, NEPA, appropriations/capital bill allocation (use it or lose it
Understanding the financial model, where the funding is coming funding), effect of delays on private equity viability. The risk analy-
from, where costs are being expended, and the limitations on design sis outcomes can be used to develop aggressive mitigation plans,
and context flexibility imposed by funding is important to project including possibility of re-allocating contingency within project

324 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 segments or phases to prevent delays or cost increases. Early Tool 9: Co-Locate Team
involvement from contractor group or construction specialty review
Prior to the start of the project, it is very important to discuss the
board is effective to retrieve input on means, methods, and material
advantages and disadvantages concerning project team co-location.
supply issues.
Some compromise may be necessary, but having the whole team
together most of the time may increase the odds of achieving
Tool 4: Identify Critical Permit Issues critical project success factors. Especially, on multijurisdictional
(e.g., bi-state) projects, placing a dedicated, empowered, represen-
Development of timelines for environmental, USDOT 4(f), and tative project team in a common location is important. Depending
other critical regulatory reviews is critical for successful projects,
on project delivery system utilized, the co-location strategy can
especially very early in the project life cycle. Flexible response
be incorporated for design-build partners or contracting team in
mechanisms for permit issues as well as flexible planning and de-
later stages.
sign for minimal impact from the permit issues must be developed
for the success of the projects especially where uncertainty is high
(e.g., geotechnical and subsurface conditions, SHPO sites, etc.). Tool 10: Establish Flexible Design Criteria
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Establishment of flexible design criteria is closely related to proj-

Tool 5: Evaluate Applications of Off-Site Fabrication ect cost, schedule, and quality performance (e.g., designing to a
budget) as well as critical permit issues as mentioned earlier.
Off-site fabrication must be considered for not only schedule con-
Flexible design criteria can minimize potential ROW, utility, and
trol purposes, but also quality control, minimal public disruption
4(f) conflicts. Flexible designs can be achieved through use of de-
such as noise and loss of access, and environmental impact control.
sign exceptions, need-based review and approval processes, perfor-
Considering that complexity on projects may come from context
issues, off-site fabrication can be a good solution for external issues mance specifications, and mechanistic designs. Whenever possible,
that minimize road closures, disruption to local business, traffic implementation of procurement protocols should be considered be-
delays, detour lengths and public inconvenience. cause they allow designers to work with major material suppliers/
vendors early in the project life cycle.

Tool 6: Determine Required Level of Involvement in

ROW/Utilities Tool 11: Evaluate Flexible Financing

Determination of the required level of involvement in ROW/utilities Alternative funding sources should not be overlooked to furnish
should be based on the critical project success factors. Even when the needed funds for a project. Several alternative funding sources
contractual responsibilities for coordinating ROW/utilities are as- are available, including GARVEE bonds, implementing hybrid
signed to the contractor or design-builder, it is the owner agency forms of contracting such as public-private-partnerships project
and general public, which will ultimately suffer if, ROW and utility phasing to leverage different sources of financing, tolling and
(including railroads) issues are not integrated into the overall other revenue-generation approaches (congestion pricing, hot-
project. Paying for additional design staff to assist railroads and lanes, etc), and monetization of assets and service options, such
utilities with design reviews or planning can be an option for proj- as franchising.
ect’s success. To the extent possible, it is important to incorporate
ROW, railroads and utilities as project partners (rather than project
Tool 12: Develop Finance Expenditure Model
adversaries) and to develop win-win solutions to issues involving
potential delay of cost increase. Project cash flows must be obtained and integrated into project
phasing plans to balance anticipated inflows and outflows of
funds. Utilization of resource-loaded project plans and network
Tool 7: Determine Work Package/Sequence schedules is recommended to track expenditures and project
Carefully designed work package/sequence can increase project cash needs.
success possibilities. Projects will suffer if the work packages are
determined without consideration of available funding sources,
Tool 13: Establish Public Involvement Plan
available contractors’ capabilities, and stakeholder’s concern for
the project’s impact. The work package/sequence must be prepared Stakeholder’s needs and concerns are frequently the driver in
based on high-certainty funding sources, local contracting capabil- developing design options and project delivery methods for some
ities, available work force, bonding issues, procurement planning complex projects. Extensive public outreach is required for
(division of internal and external work), road closure and detour project success, especially for complex renewal projects. Public
options, Road User Costs, and local access issues. involvement early in the planning phase can be important in mit-
igating public disruption (such as with self-detour planning) and
dissatisfaction.
Tool 8: Design to Budget
Often, complex projects have complicated funding systems with
fixed, expiring appropriations that cannot be exceeded and must Acknowledgments
be disbursed within a specified time frame, In other cases, portions
of the project are underwritten by debt instruments and in some The authors would like to acknowledge the National Academies
cases, entire project funding may not even be identified or secured. Strategic Highway Research Program 2 for its support on this pro-
In these cases, designing within the budget is the only way to ject, with special thanks to the project managers of the 18 complex
execute the project. However, design to budget should be admin- case study projects for permitting us insight to their projects and
istered strategically. contributing their time and knowledge.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 325

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326

 References Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude
measurement, Continuum, London.
Atkinson, R. (1999). “Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best Remington, K., and Pollack, J. (2007). “Tools for complex projects.”
guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria.” Gower Publishing Company, Aldershott, UK.
Int. J. Proj. Manage., 17(6), 337–342. Remington, K., Zolin, R., and Turner, R. (2009). “A model of project
Clelland, D. I., and Ireland, L. R. (2002). Project management: Strategic complexity: Distinguishing dimensions of complexity from severity.”
design and implementation, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, East Windsor, NJ. Proc., 9th Int. Research Network of Project Management Conf.,
College of Complex Project Managers, and Defence Materiel Organisation International Research Network on Projects, Berlin.
(CCPM). (2008). Competency standard for complex project managers, Shane, J., Strong, K., and Gransberg, D. (2011). Guidebook for managing
Version 3.3, Commonwealth of Australia, Dept. of Defence, Canberra, complex projects; Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Project
Australia. R-10, Transportation Research Board, National Academies of Science,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2006). Design-build effective- Washington, DC.
ness study, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC. Simon, H. A. (1962). “The architecture of complexity.” Proc. American
Philosophical Soc., 106(6), 467–482.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2010). “Project delivery de-
Thomas, J., and Mengel, T. (2008). “Preparing project managers to deal
fined: Major project.” 〈http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_delivery/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Zhejiang University on 08/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with complexity—Advanced project management education.” Int. J.

defined/major_project.htm〉 (Dec. 4, 2010).
Proj. Manage., 26(3), 304–315.
Government Accounting Office (GAO). (1991). Using structured inter-
Touran, A. (2006). “Owners risk reduction techniques using a CM.” Report
viewing techniques, GAO/PEMD-10.1.5, Washington, DC. submitted to Construction Management Association of America,
Joham, C., Metcalfe, M., and Sastrowardoyo, S. (2009). “Project concep- Washington, DC.
tualization using pragmatic methods.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27(8), Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills,
787–794. CA.
Jugdev, K., and Muller, R. A. (2005). “Retrospective look at our evolving Whitty, S. J., and Maylor, H. (2009). “And then came complex project
understanding of project success.” Proj. Manage. J., 36(4), 19–31. management.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27(3), 304–310.
Little, R. (2006). “Expanding the infrastructure tent: Crafting an inclusive Williams, T. M. (1999). “The need for new paradigms for complex
strategy for infrastructure funding.” Public Works Manage. Policy, projects.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 17(5), 269–273.
11(2), 84–91. Winter, M., and Smith, C. (2006). “Rethinking project management.” Final
Marshall, K. R., and Rousey, S. (2009). Guidance for transportation Rep., EPSRC, Manchester, UK.
project management, NCHRP Web-Only Document 139, Transporta- Yin, R. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods, Sage, Beverly
tion Research Board, National Academies, Washington, DC. Hills, CA.

326 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Manage. Eng., 2013, 29(4): 316-326