Search results

Managing complex construction projects is a challenging task because it involves multiple factors and decision-making processes. A systematic evaluation of these complex factors is imperative for achieving project success. As most of these factors are qualitative or intangible in nature, decision makers often rely on subjective judgements when comparing and evaluating them. The hybrid techniques that integrate fuzzy set theory and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) are able to deal with such problems. This chapter discusses various hybrid techniques of the fuzzy AHP and presents an application of these techniques to the evaluation of transportation project complexity, which is essential for prioritising resource allocation and assessing project performance. Project complexity can be quantified and visualised effectively with the application of the fuzzy AHP. This chapter enhances the understanding of construction project complexity and fuzzy hybrid computing in construction engineering and management. Future research should address the calibration of fuzzy membership functions in pairwise comparisons for each individual decision maker and develop computational tools for solving optimisation problems in the constrained fuzzy AHP. In the area of construction project complexity, future research should investigate how scarce resources are allocated to better manage complex projects and how appropriate resource allocation improves their performance.

Construction projects operate within a risky environment. It materialises as delays, which must be prevented or mitigated to avoid becoming amplified into late completion. But previous research has largely ignored how structural complexity of the underlying network schedules shapes their resilience.

This research hypothesizes that schedule structure plays a vital role in its ability to absorb or propagate delays. The impact of activity-level local risk factors is represented via activity duration distributions, i.e. probability density functions. The impact of project-level global risk factors is more challenging because they arise via interactions between multiple activities.

Modelling resilience to local and global risk factors can employ a matrix approach. Simulation shows that delay amplification depends on local structure, not global complexity.

Criticality had merely relied upon a single deterministic analysis of a network schedule to categorize activities as having zero or nonzero float from fixed relative duration a dependency structure. Repeated probabilistic analysis with sampled durations gives criticality indices of activities. This research limits itself to network schedules with point-wise relations between activities.

Managers can use this knowledge to develop schedules that protect their expected project duration with a suitable structural complexity.

Contributions to the body of knowledge are as follows: It converts the dependency structure into a reachability matrix and adds a correlation matrix to capture how the predecessor performance may impact its successors. It correlates criticality of activities with structural complexity indices. And it ranks activities objectively by their cruciality, i.e. potential delay propagation.

A reason why industry incumbents seldom survive technology transitions is their strong reliance on an efficient, but inflexible organizational system. We studied three digital transformation initiatives that created fast progress in a struggling newspaper group by working against the industry logic and established thinking in the area. This chapter argues that management succeeded in introducing a new strategic practice through these transformation initiatives. We focus on three factors contributing to the success: complexity management, short time development of a long-term vision, and the introduction of impossible goals.

In this research we explore the issue of “competence management,” as usually defined in the corporate vocabulary, mostly in the human resource (HR) function, and more particularly of “strategic competence management” (long-run management of competences which are critical to achieve strategic goals). We try to show that competence management is a dynamic organizational competence. We analyze it in the case of a large European telecommunications company, France Télécom, in the years 2001–2003. The telecommunications sector is characterized by quick changes in technology, markets, and industrial structures, and therefore a high level of uncertainty. It is also a high-tech activity, based upon continuously evolving personal skills which require long education and training times. There is an apparent contradiction between uncertainty, which makes planning difficult, and the necessity to plan new competence development with long response times. This contradiction cannot be solved if competences are defined in a static way, as structural attributes of actual or potential employees or groups of employees. The strategic competence management issue must be considered rather in the frame of a dynamic, process-based view, which involves an on-going collective and reflexive activity of actors themselves to define and manage their competences. We tested process-based competence management in the case of two telecommunication domains: high bit-rate ADSL telecommunications and Internet services to small and medium businesses. The reflexive and collective competence management process had to be instrumented with instruments which did not aim at an accurate representation of competences as objects, but rather tried to offer a meaningful support for actors’ continuous (re)interpretation of present and future work situations in terms of critical competences. As a conclusion we extend the example of competence management instruments to the general issue of management instruments, in the context of uncertain and dynamic environments. Information-based theories of instruments view instruments as specular representations of situations, which allow optimal or satisficing problem-solving procedures. But when business environments continuously evolve and resist prediction, we must move toward an interpretive view of management instruments as meaningful signs, which help actors to make sense of the situations in which they are involved. Their relevance is not an absolute ontological truth but the practical effectiveness of their context-situated utilization and interpretation. A semiotic and pragmatist theory of activity and instruments can then be proposed.

This chapter concludes the entire value management (VM) practice in the selected countries. Also, it gives additional perspective about the application and functionality of VM practice in other aspects that are different from the ones identified in various sections of this book. It combines both VM and value engineering (VE) practices and highlights their importance by comparing similarities and relevant ways in which their implementation could help getting the desired project (of an identified sort). Furthermore, it researches the difficulties in engaging both VM and VE practices by explaining in detail some of these challenges and possible ways by which solutions could be coined from addressing them. Resources needed to carry out both studies are represented in subsections of the chapter to balance practice in the past and the one to be implemented now.

This chapter addresses issues of what should be done and when. Structuring of the project task into a number of activities is key to planning a course of action for a project. It involves combining two dimensions: when (the time) and what (relevant subject areas or work paths). Several examples will illustrate the issue.

The five-by-five model will be used to identify five parallel processes of a project: (1) task-oriented processes concerned with development of a solution, (2) organisational change processes focusing on understanding and accepting the change, (3) application and operational processes concerned with application and use of the project’s results, (4) environmental processes focusing on the interplay between the project and its environment including stakeholders, and (5) management processes dealing with activities in the middle box of the five-by-five model.

A number of models of the project’s course of action will be presented and discussed, e.g., a waterfall model, a parallel stream model based on the four perspectives introduced in Chapter 1, the course of actions as decisions and as a change process. Finally, we shall discuss Agile and Lean project management.