Harvey Maylor

Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated):A systematic review of the complexities of projects

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 pro...

Beyond the Gantt chart:: Project management moving on

Large-scale engineering projects have traditionally dominated the subject of project management. Today, however, project management has become a core business process for most organisations. This paper argues that the academic subject and many of the practices have lagged this change. Particular problems are identified with the role of strategy and planning, the units of assessment, the planning process itself and the body of knowledge of the subject. An alternative view of project management is proposed based on an integrative model and areas for further development are identified.

Managerial complexity in project‐based operations: A grounded model and its implications for practice

This article reports an investigation into project managers’ perceptions of managerial complexity. Based on a multistage empirical study, elements of “what makes a project complex to manage” were identified and classified under the dimensions of mission, organization, delivery, stakeholder, or team—the MODeST model. Further, the data showed that these elements had both structural and dynamic qualities and that the elements are interdependent. Project managers are shown to be embedded in this complexity. The practical implications of the research include the ability to describe managerial complexity in a manner consistent with the actuality of the lived project environment. This provides a framework for the description of the level of managerial challenge or difficulty, which will allow the assessment of individual and organizational responses to it in the future. Further, the opportunity exists for active management of complexity.

Concurrent new product development: an empirical assessment

Presents an analysis of the operationalization of concurrent new product development in a sample of UK manufacturing firms. Highlights the background to the change, the main organizational drivers for change and the associated tools and techniques, along with the benefits and adverse effects. Closer meeting customer needs and reduced time to market are key benefits, but the requirements for organizational change are causing significant adverse effects. Explores those factors associated with the achievement of benefits. Shows that the intensity of use of tools and techniques (though crucially not CAD/CAM) is the group of factors most closely associated with success.

The reality of concurrent new product development

Many organisations have undergone change to make processes run concurrently in the design and redesign of new products, seeking improvement of their competitive position. Though there are many prescriptions available to the practitioner, few have been grounded in “what has worked best” across a range of industries. There has also been relatively little discussion of the downside to concurrency. This paper reports a study which shows that success is most closely associated with the level of usage of certain tools and techniques, all of which are within the power of the new product development manager to use. In doing so, it is shown that this gives far better chances of success than high levels of usage of technology. This has significant implications for firms’ investment policies for the future. The downside element also needs managing and is discussed, along with the highlighted importance of both project management and training.

Ambidexterity and Knowledge Strategy in Major Projects: A Framework and Illustrative Case Study

We develop a framework to analyze the multilevel knowledge requirements of complex, major projects in terms of ambidexterity–-the ability to exploit (refine existing knowledge) and explore (develop new knowledge). This is an important theme within the wider literature, yet practical operationalization methods for managers and researchers are not evident. We demonstrate the ambidexterity view through an illustrative case study of telecommunications delivery for the London 2012 Olympic Games and show how these concepts can be used to create an effective knowledge strategy. We offer a structure for the analysis of knowledge utilization in projects.

Strategic resonant firms, mass producers, big fish & flat liners: a study of policies, practices & performance in innovation

Managing innovation is one of the key strategic challenges facing firms in many industries. The nature of competitive capabilities has resulted in conditions of hyper-competition within many industries and both new entrants and existing players have little choice but to innovate speedily and with success in new product introductions. However, this is only part of the ‘world of innovation’. Products and processes in other sectors also need to be innovated, and this often proceeds in a no less appropriate manner for the environment in which those firms operate. This paper presents a typology of innovation firms. It does not pretend to be exhaustive but aids our understanding by drawing upon a range of empirical studies of innovation practices. A classification of firms is proposed, which assists in understanding the different policies, practices and levels of performance in each category. In addition, it differentiates the rates of improvement, and shows some of the latest thinking and practices from the highest performing firms and the nature of the challenge for the rest.

How can it be? Actively managing complexity in technology projects

This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.

Understand, reduce, respond: Project complexity management theory and practice

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of complexity and its management from an OM perspective, building on and extending the systematic literature review published in this journal in 2011, and provide a foundation for exploring the interactions between complexities and responses. Design/methodology/approach The paper takes a subjective view of complexity, focusing on the “lived experience” of managers. It takes an updated systematic literature review, and demonstrates the comprehensiveness of a framework to classify complexities of projects. It reports the findings from 43 workshops with over 1,100 managers. Findings First, the complexity framework is effective in aiding understanding. Second, and somewhat unexpectedly, managers were able to identify strategies to reduce the majority of complexities that they faced. Third, the workshops identified a typology of responses to residual complexities. Research limitations/implications The framework has demonstrated its utility, and a gap in understanding emergent complexities is identified. The framework further presents the opportunity to explore the recursive nature of complexity and response. Practical implications This paper provides a framework that is both comprehensive and comprehensible. The authors demonstrate that complexities can be reduced and provide a means to assess responses to residual complexities, including potentially matching managers to projects. Originality/value This work extends the previous systematic review combined with extensive empirical data to generate findings that are having impact in practice, and have the potential to strengthen a relatively neglected area within OM. A research agenda is suggested to support this.

Making it happen: How managerial actions enable project-based ambidexterity

The literature on ambidexterity is dominated by theoretical development and does not fully explain how ambidexterity is enacted. There is limited focus on the managerial actions in day-to-day operations that enable this important phenomenon. We posit that projects offer an ideal context to investigate the actions that enable ambidexterity since they necessarily combine planning and control (exploitation) with some degree of novelty (exploration). Using extensive data from eight project-based case studies in the Information Technology services sector, we ask the research question, How is project-based ambidexterity enabled? Within this context, we identify two different types of project-based ambidexterity (distributed and point ambidexterity) and five managerial actions (buffering, gap-filling, integration, role-expansion and tone-setting) that enable ambidexterity. We investigate the underlying resource utilisation in terms of intellectual capital (namely, human, social and project capital) and show the complexity of their interplay in achieving ambidexterity. Finally, we develop a model that brings these concepts together and identify how the ‘integration’ function is central to, and interwoven with, the other actions.