The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management
Abstract
This article develops a model of a project as a payoff function that depends on the state of the world and the choice of a sequence of actions. A causal mapping, which may be incompletely known by the project team, represents the impact of possible actions on the states of the world. An underlying probability space represents available information about the state of the world. Interactions among actions and states of the world determine the complexity of the payoff function. Activities are endogenous, in that they are the result of a policy that maximizes the expected project payoff. A key concept is the adequacy of the available information about states of the world and action effects. We express uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in terms of information adequacy. We identify three fundamental project management strategies: instructionism, learning, and selectionism. We show that classic project management methods emphasize adequate information and instructionism, and demonstrate how modern methods fit into the three fundamental strategies. The appropriate strategy is contingent on the type of uncertainty present and the complexity of the project payoff function. Our model establishes a rigorous language that allows the project manager to judge the adequacy of the available project information at the outset, choose an appropriate combination of strategies, and set a supporting project infrastructure—that is, systems for planning, coordination and incentives, and monitoring.
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
Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393701 · Cited by 2,426
Cited by
Sankaran, S., Müller, R., & Drouin, N. (2020) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.2744 · Cited by 35
Lehtimäki, H., Jokinen, A., & Pitkänen, J. (2023) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102516 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & Meyer, A. D.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1008-1023
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2064671882
- Cited by
- 942
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163
- The paper
- Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & Meyer, A. D. (2002). On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163
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.