Complex Project Management (CPM) is the “next new thing” in our quest to achieve stronger project performance. Successful projects not only deliver on time, on budget, and with the full scope of features and functions. In addition, they deliver the expected benefits in terms of contributions to the bottom line of businesses. And projects today are complex, very complex. Our conventional project management tools and techniques alone are not adequate to successfully manage highly complex projects.
CPM is such a hot topic that the book published by this author, Complex Project Management, A New Model, was selected the receive the 2009 PMI David I. Cleland Project Management Literature Award to honor the best project management literature published in the last calendar year. The book presented a new project complexity model, developed as an outgrowth of significant research on topics such as complexity science, project risk management, project sizing and estimating, and project outcomes. The purpose of the model is to diagnose the complexity profile of projects, determine the complexity dimensions that are present on projects, and then examine management approaches to manage the complexities.
Initial Project Complexity Model
Version 1 of the model presented in the text looked like this: Exhibit 1 – Project Complexity Model, version 1.
|
Complexity Dimensions
|
Project Profile
|
|
|
Independent
|
Moderately Complex
|
Highly Complex
|
|
Time/Cost
|
< 3 months
< $250K
|
3–6 months
$250–750K
|
> 6 months
> $750K
|
|
Team Size
|
3–4 team members
|
5–10 team members
|
> 10 team members
|
|
Team Composition and Performance
|
-
Strong project leadership
-
Team staffed internally, has worked together in the past, and has a track record of reliable estimates
-
Formal, proven PM, BA, and SE methodology with QA and QC processes defined and operational
|
-
Competent project leadership
-
Team staffed with internal and external resources; internal staff has worked together in past, has track record of reliable estimates
-
Contract for external resources is straightforward; contractor performance known
-
Semi-formal methodology with QA/QC processes defined
|
-
Project manager inexperienced in leading complex projects
-
Complex team structure of varying competencies (e.g., contractor, virtual, culturally diverse, outsourced teams)
-
Complex contracts; contractor performance unknown
-
Diverse methodologies
|
|
Urgency and Flexibility of Cost, Time, and Scope
|
|
-
Schedule, budget, and scope can undergo minor variations, but deadlines are firm
-
Achievable scope and milestones
|
-
Over-ambitious schedule and scope
-
Deadline is aggressive, fixed, and cannot be changed)
-
Budget, scope, and quality have no room for flexibility
|
|
Clarity of Problem, Opportunity, and Solution
|
-
Clear business objectives
-
Easily understood problem, opportunity, or solution
|
-
Defined business objectives
-
Problem or opportunity is partially defined
-
Solution is partially defined
|
-
Unclear business objectives
-
Problem or opportunity is ambiguous and undefined
-
Solution is difficult to define
|
|
Requirements Volatility and Risk
|
-
Strong customer/user support
-
Basic requirements are understood, straightforward, and stable
|
-
Adequate customer/user support
-
Basic requirements are understood, but are expected to change
-
Moderately complex functionalitye
|
-
Inadequate customer/user support
-
Requirements are poorly understood, volatile, and largely undefined
-
Highly complex functionality
|
|
Strategic Importance, Political Implications, Multiple Stakeholders
|
|
-
Adequate executive support
-
Some direct impact on mission
-
Minor political implications
-
2–3 stakeholder groups
-
Challenging communication and coordination effort
|
-
Mixed/inadequate executive support
-
Impact on core mission
-
Major political implications
-
Visible at highest levels of the organization
-
Multiple stakeholder groups with conflicting expectations
|
|
Level of Organizational Change;
|
|
|
-
Large-scale organizational change that impacts the enterprise
-
Spans functional groups or agencies
-
Shifts or transforms the organization
-
Impacts many business processes and IT systems
|
|
|
Level of Commercial Change
|
|
|
|
|
Risks, Dependencies, and External Constraints
|
|
-
Considered moderate risk
-
Some project objectives are dependent on external factors
-
Challenging integration effort
-
Some new regulatory requirements
-
Acceptable exposure
|
-
Considered high risk
-
Overall project success depends largely on external factors
-
Significant integration required
-
Highly regulated or novel sector
-
Significant exposure
|
|
Level of IT Complexity
|
|
|
-
Solution is difficult to achieve or the technology is proven but new to the organization
-
Solution is likely to use immature, unproven, or complex technologies provided by outside vendors
-
IT complexity and legacy integration are moderate
|
Exhibit 1 – Project Complexity Model, version 1.
Validation of the Project Complexity Model
After an effort to validate the model with about forty (40) IT project managers, it was clear that the model was not yet comprehensive or complete. In addition, it did not appear to have effective discriminating criteria to correctly determine the project profile, resulting in almost every project being diagnosed as “highly complex” when clearly many were only moderately complex.
As a result, a new version of the model is emerging. At this point in the evolution of the model, it looks something like Exhibit 2 – Project Complexity Model, version 2. The key differences between the two versions of the model include:
-
The addition of a fourth project profile, Highly Complex Program or “Megaproject”
-
Rewording and tightening the verbiage that describes the criteria used to diagnose a project’s complexity for each complexity dimension.
|
Complexity Dimensions
|
Project Profile
|
|
|
Independent Project
|
Moderately Complex Project
|
Highly Complex Project
|
Highly Complex Program "Megaproject"
|
|
1. Size/Time/Cost
|
Size: 3–4 team members
Time: < 3 months
Cost: < $250K
|
Size: 5–10 team members
Time: 3–6 months
Cost: $250–$1M
|
Size: > 10 team members
Time: 6 – 12 months
Cost: > $1M
|
Size: Multiple diverse teams
Time: Multi-year
Cost: Multiple Millions
|
|
2. Team Composition and Past Performance
|
-
PM: competent, experienced
-
Team: internal; worked together in past
-
Methodology: defined, proven
|
-
PM: competent, inexperienced
-
Team: internal and external, worked together in past
-
Methodology: defined, unproven
-
Contracts: straightforward
-
Contractor Past Performance: good
|
-
PM: competent; poor/no experience with complex projects
-
Team: internal and external, have not worked together in past
-
Methodology: somewhat defined, diverse
-
Contracts: complex
-
Contractor Past Performance: unknown
|
-
PM: competent, poor/no experience with megaprojects
-
Team: complex structure of varying competencies and performance records (e.g., contractor, virtual, culturally diverse, outsourced teams)
-
Methodology: undefined, diverse Contracts: highly complex
-
Contractor Past Performance: poor
|
|
3. Urgency and Flexibility of Cost, Time, and Scope
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Clarity of Problem, Opportunity, Solution
|
|
|
|
-
Objectives: undefined, uncertain
-
Opportunity/Solution: undefined, groundbreaking, unprecedented
|
|
5. Requirements Volatility and Risk
|
-
Customer Support: strong
-
Requirements: understood, straightforward, stable
-
Functionality: straightforward
|
-
Customer Support: adequate
-
Requirements: understood, unstable
-
Functionality: moderately complex
|
-
Customer Support: unknown
-
Requirements: poorly understood, volatile
-
Functionality: highly complex
|
-
Customer Support: inadequate
-
Requirements: uncertain, evolving
-
Functionality: many complex “functions of functions”
|
|
6. Strategic Importance, Political Implications, Stakeholders
|
-
Executive Support: strong
-
Political Implications: none
-
Communications: straightforward
-
Stakeholder Management: straightforward
|
-
Executive Support: adequate
-
Political Implications: minor
-
Communications: challenging
-
Stakeholder Management: 2–3 stakeholder groups
|
-
Executive Support: inadequate
-
Political Implications: major, impacts core mission
-
Communications: complex
-
Stakeholder Management: multiple stakeholder groups with conflicting expectations; visible at high levels of the organization
|
-
Executive Support: unknown
-
Political Implications: impacts core mission of multiple programs, organizations, states, countries; success critical for competitive or physical survival
-
Communications: arduous
-
Stakeholder Management: multiple organizations, states, countries, regulatory groups; visible at high internal and external levels
|
|
7. Level of Change
|
-
Risk Level: low
-
External Constraints: no external influences
-
Integration: no integration issues
-
Potential Damages: no punitive exposure
|
-
Risk Level: moderate
-
External Constraints: some external factors
-
Integration: challenging integration effort
-
Potential Damages: acceptable exposure
|
-
Risk Level: high
-
External Constraints: key objectives depend on external factors
-
Integration: significant integration required
-
Potential Damages: significant exposure
|
-
Risk Level: very high
-
External Constraints: project success depends largely on multiple external organizations, states, countries, regulators
-
Integration: unprecedented integration effort
-
Potential Damages: unacceptable exposure
|
|
8. Risks, Dependencies, and External Constraints
|
-
Risk Level: low
-
External Constraints: no external influences
-
Integration: no integration issues
-
Potential Damages: no punitive exposure
|
|
-
Risk Level: high
-
External Constraints: key objectives depend on external factors
-
Integration: significant integration required
-
Potential Damages: significant exposure
|
-
Risk Level: very high
-
External Constraints: project success depends largely on multiple external organizations, states, countries, regulators
-
Integration: unprecedented integration effort
-
Potential Damages: unacceptable exposure
|
|
9. Level of IT Complexity
|
|
|
-
Technology: technology is likely to be immature, unproven, complex, and provided by outside vendors
-
IT Complexity: application development and legacy integration poorly understood
|
|
Exhibit 2 – Project Complexity Model, version 2.
The Significance of Version 2 of the Project Complexity Model
To use the model, members of the core leadership team of projects (the project manager, business analyst, business visionary, solution architect, lead developer, change management expert) collaborate to select the appropriate cell that most accurately describes most accurately describes the project for each complexity dimension. Then, the following formula is applied.
|
Highly Complex Program "Megaproject"
|
Highly Complex Project
|
Moderately Complex
|
Independent
|
|
Size: Multiple diverse teams
Time: Multi-year
Cost: Multiple Millions
Or
2 or more in the Highly Complex Program/Megaproject column
|
Organizational Change: impacts the enterprise, spans functional groups or agencies, shifts or transforms many business processes and IT systems
Or
3 or more categories in the Highly Complex Project column
And
o more than 1 category in the Highly Complex Program/Megaproject column
|
3 or more categories in the Moderately Complex Project column
Or
No more than 2 categories in the Highly Complex Project column and
|
No more than 2 categories in the Moderately Complex Project column
And
No categories in the Highly Complex Project or the Highly Complex Program/Megaproject columns
|
Try using the model to diagnose the complexity of your current project. In future articles, we will present strategies to manage the complexity dimensions that are often present on highly complex projects or programs.
Author: Kathleen B. (Kitty) Hass is the president of KHass and Associates, Inc., a consulting practice specializing in the business analysis, project management, and strategy execution. Ms. Hass is a prominent presenter at industry conferences, author and lecturer. Her expertise includes IT strategic planning, implementing and managing PMOs and BACOEs, facilitating portfolio management, leading technology and software-intensive projects, executive coaching, building and leading strategic project teams, and managing large complex programs.
Ms. Hass has over 25 years experience providing professional services to Federal agencies, the intelligence community, and various Fortune 500 companies. Certification include: SEI CMMI appraiser, Baldrige National Quality Program examiner, Zenger-Miller facilitator, and Project Management Institute Project Management Professional. Ms. Hass serves as Director at Large International Institute of Business Analysis.
Kitty has authored numerous white papers and articles on leading edge PM/BA practices, the renowned series entitled, Business Analysis Essential Library, a compilation of six titles on critical BA practices, the PMI 2009 Book of the Year, Managing Project Complexity - A New Model.
You can reach Ms. Hass by e-mail at [email protected] or by visiting here website:www.kathleenhass.com.