The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Now, let's make it really complex (complicated): A systematic review of the complexities of projects
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to operations management (OM) practice contingency research by describing the complexity of projects. Complexity is recognised as a key independent (contingent) variable that impacts on many subsequent decisions in the practice of managing projects. Design/methodology/approach: This paper presents a systematic review of relevant literature and synthesises an integrated framework for assessing the complexities of managing projects. Findings: This framework comprises five dimensions of complexity – structural, uncertainty, dynamics, pace and socio‐political complexity. These five dimensions present individuals and organisations with choices about how they respond to each type of complexity, in terms of business case, strategic choice, process choice, managerial capacity and competencies. Originality/value: The contribution of this paper is to provide a clarification to the epistemology of complexity, to demonstrate complexity as a lived experience for project managers, and offer a common language for both practitioners and future empirical studies considering the individual or organisational response to project complexities. The work also demonstrates an application of systematic review in OM research.
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
SERVQUAL: A multiple-Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14579729 · Cited by 21,118
Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x · Cited by 1,747
Cited by
Greenhalgh, T., Maylor, H., Shaw, S., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Betton, V., Nelissen, N., Gremyr, A., Rushforth, A., Koshkouei, M., et al. (2020) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/16861 · Cited by 152
Self-citationThe front-end of projects: a systematic literature review and structuring
Williams, T., Vo, H., Samset, K., & Edkins, A. (2019) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1594429 · Cited by 145
Self-citationMcTigue, E. M., Solheim, O. J., Zimmer, W. K., & Uppstad, P. H. (2020) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.256 · Cited by 113
How Hard Can It Be?: Actively Managing Complexity in Technology Projects
Maylor, H. R., Turner, N. W., & Murray-Webster, R. (2013) · Research-Technology Management · doi:10.5437/08956308x5602125 · Cited by 83
Self-citationThe dynamics of systems integration: Balancing stability and change on London's Crossrail project
Muruganandan, K., Davies, A., Denicol, J., & Whyte, J. (2022) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.007 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T.
- Venue
- International Journal of Operations & Production Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2011-08-23
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 966-990
- ISSN
- 0144-3577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1582210170
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.64
- 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: Now, let's make it really complex (complicated): A systematic review of the complexities of projects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/01443571111165848
- The paper
- Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let's make it really complex (complicated): A systematic review of the complexities of projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111165848
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.
