CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The dynamics of systems integration: Balancing stability and change on London's Crossrail project

Muruganandan, Kesavan, Davies, Andrew, Denicol, Juliano, Whyte, Jennifer·2022·International Journal of Project Management
DOI 10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.007

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Alvesson, 2011, Generating research questions through problematization, Academy of Management Review, 36, 247
  2. Aubry, 2018, Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects, International Journal of Project Management, 36, 12, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012 · DOI
  3. Baccarini, 1996, The concept of project complexity–A review, International Journal of Project Management, 14, 201, 10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3 · DOI
  4. Boss, 2018, Independent Crossrail Schedule Assurance Review
  5. Brady, 2014, Managing structural and dynamic complexity–A tale of two projects, Project Management Journal, 45, 21, 10.1002/pmj.21434 · DOI
  6. Brady, 2012, Dealing with uncertainty in complex projects–Revisiting Klein and Meckling, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5, 718, 10.1108/17538371211269022 · DOI
  7. Brusoni, 2005, The limits to specialization–Problem solving and coordination in ‘Modular Networks, Organization Studies, 26, 1885, 10.1177/0170840605059161 · DOI
  8. Brusoni, 2001, Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm–Why do firms know more than they make?, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 597, 10.2307/3094825 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Davies, 2009, Innovation in megaprojects–Systems integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5, California Management Review, 51, 101, 10.2307/41166482 · DOI
  10. Davies, 2019, Delivery model innovation–Insights from infrastructure projects, Project Management Journal, 50, 119, 10.1177/8756972819831145 · DOI
  11. Davies, 2014, Project complexity and systems integration–Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games, International Journal of Project Management, 32, 773, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.004 · DOI
  12. Denicol, 2020, What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda, Project Management Journal, 51, 328, 10.1177/8756972819896113 · DOI
  13. Denicol, 2021, The organizational architecture of megaprojects, International Journal of Project Management, 39, 339, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.02.002 · DOI
  14. Erbil, 2013, Inter-organizational context of the innovation process and the role of architectural designers as system integrators–Case evidence from Turkey, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 9, 77, 10.1080/17452007.2012.738038 · DOI
  15. Eriksson, 2019, Projects in the business ecosystem–The case of short sea shipping and logistics, Project Management Journal, 50, 1, 10.1177/8756972818820191 · DOI
  16. Flyvbjerg, 2006, Five misunderstandings of case study research, Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219, 10.1177/1077800405284363 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Geraldi, 2011, Now, let's make it really complex (complicated)–A systematic review of the complexities of projects, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 31, 966, 10.1108/01443571111165848 · DOI
  18. Gholz, 2018, The second face of systems integration–An empirical analysis of supply chains to complex product systems, Research Policy, 47, 1478, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.001 · DOI
  19. Goffin, 2019, State-of-the-Art–The quality of case study research in innovation management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36, 586, 10.1111/jpim.12492 · DOI
  20. Hobday, 1998, Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization, Research Policy, 26, 689, 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00044-9 · DOI
  21. Hobday, 2005, Systems integration–A core capability of the modern corporation, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 1109, 10.1093/icc/dth080 · DOI
  22. Jones, 2016, Crossrail Learning Legacy Vision, Mission and Values
  23. Klein, 1958, Application of operations research to development decisions, Operations Research, 6, 352, 10.1287/opre.6.3.352 · DOI
  24. Kumar, 1996, Sustainable collaboration–Managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems, MIS Quarterly, 20, 279, 10.2307/249657 · DOI
  25. Leiringer, 2021, Organizational capabilities and project organizing research, International Journal of Project Management, 39, 422, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.02.003 · DOI
  26. Morrice, 2017, Crossrail project–Commercial aspect of works contracts for London's Elizabeth Line, Civil Engineering: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 170, 42
  27. Morris, 1979, Interface management—An organization theory approach to project management, Project Management Quarterly, 10, 27
  28. 2020, Oakervee review of HS2, The Department of Transport and High Speed, 2
  29. Pettigrew, 1990, Longitudinal field research on change–Theory and practice, Organization Science, 1, 267, 10.1287/orsc.1.3.267 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Sanderson, 2012, Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects–A critical discussion of alternative explanations, International Journal Project Management, 30, 432
  31. Shenhar, 2016, The challenge of innovation in highly complex projects–What can we learn from Boeing's Dreamliner experience?, Project Management Journal, 47, 62, 10.1002/pmj.21579 · DOI
  32. Simon, 1962, The architecture of complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467
  33. Tee, 2019, Modular designs and integrating practices–Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation, Research Policy, 48, 51, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.017 · DOI
  34. Tucker, 2017, Crossrail project–The execution strategy for delivering London's Elizabeth line, Civil Engineering: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 170, 3
  35. Whyte, 2019, How digital information transforms project delivery models, Project Management Journal, 50, 177, 10.1177/8756972818823304 · DOI
  36. Whyte, 2021, Reframing systems integration–A process perspective on projects, Project Management Journal, 10.1177/8756972821992246 · DOI
  37. Whyte, 2016, Managing change in the delivery of complex projects–Configuration management, asset information and ‘big data, International Journal of Project Management, 34, 339, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006 · DOI
  38. Williams, 1999, The need for new paradigms for complex projects, International Journal of Project Management, 17, 269, 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00047-7 · DOI
  39. Winch, 1998, Zephyrs of creative destruction–Understanding the management of innovation in construction, Building Research & Information, 26, 268, 10.1080/096132198369751 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Wright, 2017, Crossrail programme organization and management for delivering London's Elizabeth line, Civil Engineering: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 170, 23
  41. Zerjav, 2018, Project capabilities for operational outcomes in inter-organizational settings–The case of London Heathrow Terminal 2, International Journal of Project Management, 36, 444, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.004 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Muruganandan, K., Davies, A., Denicol, J., & Whyte, J.
Venue
International Journal of Project Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-08
Volume
40
Issue
6
Pages
608-623
ISSN
0263-7863
DOI
10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.007
Cited by
36
References
3
Language
en
Licence

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: The dynamics of systems integration: Balancing stability and change on London's Crossrail project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.007
The paper
Muruganandan, K., Davies, A., Denicol, J., & Whyte, J. (2022). The dynamics of systems integration: Balancing stability and change on London's Crossrail project. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.007