The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clarifying the project complexity construct: Past, present and future
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The research explores the historical development of project complexity. Projects are becoming more complex due to unexpected emergent behaviour and characteristics. Complexity has become an inseparable aspect of systems and also one of the important factors in the failure of projects. While much has been written about project complexity, there is still a lack of understanding of what constitutes project complexity. This research includes a systematic literature review to demonstrate the current understanding of commonalities and differences in the existing research. This was achieved by examining more than 420 published research papers, drawn from an original group of approximately 10,000, based on citations during the period of 1990–2015. As a result of this exploration, an integrative systemic framework is presented to demonstrate understanding of project complexity. It was found that there are three primary and distinctive models of project complexity, the Project Management Institute view, the System of Systems view and the view developed from the analysis of citations of research papers, which is called the Complexity Theories view. Further testing is required on a range of complex projects in order to attempt to reconcile these views.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · Cited by 15,386
Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences
Rowley, T. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9711022107 · Cited by 2,522
Architecting principles for systems-of-systems
Maier, M. W. (1998) · Systems Engineering · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6858(1998)1:4<267::aid-sys3>3.0.co;2-d · Cited by 2,258
Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-3404 · Cited by 2,156
Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science
Anderson, P. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.3.216 · Cited by 2,118
A leader's framework for decision making
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007) · Harvard business review · Cited by 1,643
Globally networked risks and how to respond
Helbing, D. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12047 · Cited by 1,281
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study
Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Pearl Brereton, O., Turner, M., Niazi, M., & Linkman, S. (2010) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006 · Cited by 1,230
The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world
Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003) · IBM Systems Journal · doi:10.1147/sj.423.0462 · Cited by 1,211
Metadata
- Authors
- Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V., & Gorod, A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Project Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1199-1213
- ISSN
- 0263-7863 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2460661780
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 92
- FWCI
- 24.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clarifying the project complexity construct: Past, present and future. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002
- The paper
- Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V., & Gorod, A. (2016). Clarifying the project complexity construct: Past, present and future. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
