Novelty and Technical Complexity: Critical Constructs in Capital Projects
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 138, Issue 5
Abstract
One of the challenges in project management research is that projects, by definition, are unique. However, the degree to which any project differs from another varies on the basis of a range of attributes. Two industrial facilities that vary by an order of magnitude in size may, in fact, be very similar and experience similar outcomes. However, two identical industrial facilities that are constructed by different contractors may experience vastly different outcomes. In the first case, the two buildings may have the same set of technical characteristics. In the second case, all else being equal, the different outcomes may be attributable to the contractors’ experience with the construction of this type of facility. This paper expands on these two cases and proposes that all projects can be partially defined in terms of two distinct attributes: technical complexity and novelty. The technical characteristics of a project define its technical complexity. The degree of the project participants’ experience with the technical characteristics defines its novelty. The literature from the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has long acknowledged the impact of complexity but has not examined the effect of novelty. This is in contrast to research in new product development (which also employs a project approach) where novelty and complexity are recognized as distinct constructs that affect project performance. This paper addresses this gap in the literature. In addressing this gap, the opportunity to expand research grounded in contingency theory is expanded. The paper contributes to the practice of construction management in that achieving superior project performance is shown to require recognition of the distinct impact of these constructs. An analysis of more than 1,300 projects demonstrates that technical complexity and novelty are important characteristics of a project that have distinct effects on project performance.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was conducted while the author was a visiting scholar at the Independent Project Analysis (IPA) Institute. The author is grateful for the Institute’s financial and intellectual support.
References
Baker, G. P. (1992). “Incentive contracts and performance measurement.” J. Polit. Econ., 100(3), 598–614.
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Casti, J. L. (n.d.). “The simply complex.” Complexica, 〈http://internet.cybermesa.com/~roger_jones/d/010203%20the%20simply%20complex.pdf〉 (Feb. 2, 2012).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ginsberg, A., and Venkatraman, N. (1985). “Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research.” Acad. Manage. Rev., 10(3), 421–434.
Glavan, J., and Tucker, R. (1991). “Forecasting design-related problems—Case study.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117(1), 47–65.JCEMD4
Griffin, A. (1997). “The effect of process characteristics on product development cycle times.” J. Market. Res., 34(1), 24–35.JMKRAE
Kim, J., and Wilemon, D. (2003). “Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects.” R&D Manage., 33(1), 15–30.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit, Hart, Schaffner and Marx, Boston.
Lager, T. (2002). “A structural analysis of process development in process industry: A new classification system for strategic project selection and portfolio balancing.” R&D Manage., 32(1), 87–95.
McQuiston, D. (1989). “Novelty, complexity, and importance as causal determinants of industrial buyer behavior.” J. Market., 53(2), 66–79.JMKTAK
Miller, D., and Freisen, P. (1982). “The longitudinal analysis of organizations: A methodological perspective.” Manage. Sci., 28(9), 1013–1034.MSCIAM
Nasser, K., and Hegab, M. (2006). “Developing a complexity measure for project schedules.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(6), 554–561.JCEMD4
National Research Council. (2009), Advancing the competitiveness and efficiency of the U.S. construction industry, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. (1990). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance and experimental designs, Irwin, Boston.
Pich, M., Loch, C., and de Meyer, A. (2002). “On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity, in project management.” Manage. Sci., 48(8), 1008–1023.MSCIAM
Puddicombe, M. (2009). “Why contracts: Evidence.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(8), 675–682.JCEMD4
Puddicombe, M. (2011). “The contingencies of project management: A factor analytic approach to complexity and novelty.” Int. J. Construct. Educ. Res., 7(4), 259–274.
Shenhar, A. (2001). “One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains.” Manage. Sci., 47(3), 394–414.MSCIAM
Stata, Version 9 [Computer software]. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX.
Tatikonda, M., and Rosenthal, S. (2000). “Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development execution success: A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 47(1), 74–86.IEEMA4
Tatum, C. (2005). “Building better: Technical support for construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(1), 23–32.JCEMD4
Tidd, J., and Bodley, K. (2002). “The influence of project novelty on the new product development process.” R&D Manage., 32(2), 127–138.
Winch, G. (1989). “The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach.” Constr. Manage. Econ.CMECF3, 7(4), 331–345.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism, The Free Press, New York.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 138 • Issue 5 • May 2012
Pages: 613 - 620
Copyright
© 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 15, 2010
Accepted: Aug 3, 2011
Published online: Aug 5, 2011
Published in print: May 1, 2012
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.