Project Complexity – A Personal Journey

- January 2025

Parbery in conjunction with Flinders University sponsored and hosted an International Roundtable event run by the International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) in September 24. This roundtable event sought to bring together Project Management professionals to discuss the need to rethink boundaries in complex projects.  Trev Woolley was fortunate to be able to provide the Keynote Address for the event.

I was excited but viewed with some trepidation the delivery of the Keynote Address for the ICCPM roundtable event, as I felt that my experiences with project complexity were too few and probably not complex enough.  However, upon looking back on my career I recognised that this was not the case – I have had to deal with ever increasing layers of complexity in the roles that I have been working in.

As I thought about the varied roles, locations, teams and organisations that I had worked in, with and for over the past 35 years, I was able to identify different facets of complexity that were involved in my past.  Facets of complexity that resonated with me were: task complexity, client-based complexity, company-induced complexity, environmental complexity, expectation complexity, geo-political complexity, and Governmental Policy complexity.

I certainly didn’t start off my working life as a newly graduated engineer needing to deal with geo-political or environmental complexity, but did manage to find myself needing to deal with these elements in more recent times!

Reflections on the types and levels of complexity that I have been exposed to were useful in positioning the discussions that were had during the roundtable plenary sessions, where groups looked at questions relating to project boundaries within complex projects.

My observations about complexity, which were explored during the day’s discussions were that:

  1. Technology has allowed us to do more in almost every domain and consideration for projects. There is greater interconnectivity of capabilities and people. New technologies have brought new opportunities for product and service offerings that were either not possible or not required earlier. With greater interconnectivity of project personnel, we no longer need to have a single location or organisation delivering a project.
  2. There are now expectations that delivery can be achieved immediately (or very soon thereafter!). Customers want outcomes, products, or services with very little delay. This means that traditionally long lead times for development are no longer acceptable. This has led to the need to find alternate delivery strategies and the evolution of different project methodologies to keep pace with these delivery expectations.
  3. Globalisation has increased in scope and reach. There is no economy, enterprise or individual that is an island and can operate in isolation. The global economy is highly interlinked and dependent upon all elements of this ecosystem. We have seen downside impacts to disruptions caused by localised events in places such as Ukraine and far-reaching impacts on a plethora of commodities and services.
  4. Along with globalisation, global instability has increased due to geo-political upheavals. This impacts upon many relationships and negatively impacts project costs and delivery timeframes.

The nature of our current environment and its inherent complexity means that we need to reconsider how we delivery projects and project boundaries.  Traditional approaches to delivering project outcomes fail in highly complex projects for a multitude of reasons, including but not limited to:

  1. Linear structures and sequencing of activity reduce adaptability. Complex project environments don’t always operate in a deterministic manner or respond the way we expect them to.
  2. Inflexibility can be a constraint for traditional methodologies due to the need to adhere to plans and timelines. Along similar lines are the old project tropes of “Schedule is King!”
  3. Limited stakeholder involvement can lead to unintended consequences when unexpected changes or events occur in complex projects.
  4. Complex projects have complex interdependencies. Not all of these can be easily or intuitively understood without due consideration.
  5. Risk management methods might not consider unknown unknowns. “Where did all the black swans come from?”
  6. Following a traditional project playbook can result in delayed feedback to project leaders and stakeholders on what is really happening with project outcomes.
  7. Traditional methodologies can focus on documentation and process, which either doesn’t deal with the realities of the project ecosystem or cannot deal with events that occur.
  8. Traditional methodologies assume that a one-size-fits-all approach is acceptable. For complex projects this will not be the case.  Each set of requirements, stakeholders and risks will be unique to that project.
  9. For complex projects, a traditional approach will have difficulty in estimating the scope and cost of all requirements, interdependencies and the overall schedule.
  10. Cultural Resistance
  11. Traditional project methodologies can stifle innovation in either the delivered solution or in the path taken to achieve delivery. Innovation can lead to disruption of project scope or schedule, both of which need to be very closely controlled using a traditional project approach.
  12. Longer completion timelines will be expected in complex projects where we seek to react to and deal with each discovered complexity in a linear manner. Unless ambiguity and complexity are embraced and understood, timelines will invariably extend.

The discussions during the roundtable event were very interesting to be a part of. For me the key was the harnessing of different experiences and knowledge of each of the participants. This created a rich source of input and insight that the ICCPM were able to take into their research and consideration of the question around reconsideration of boundaries in complex projects.

Parbery was pleased to be involved in this roundtable and the discussions during the day resonate with our Project Management personnel.