JohnClark DoctoralDissertation
JohnClark DoctoralDissertation
JohnClark DoctoralDissertation
net/publication/351331954
CITATIONS READS
0 202
1 author:
John Clark
Harrisburg University of Science and Technology
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Extent Project Management Competencies and Project Complexity Predict Project Success: A Correlational Study View project
All content following this page was uploaded by John Clark on 04 May 2021.
by
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
April 2021
© John Matthew Clark, 2021
Abstract
The purpose of this research sought to investigate the relationship between project management
competencies and project complexity upon project success. A literature review indicates that
project complexity is a primary source of project failure. A gap exists concerning how project
management competencies and project complexity predict project success. The first research
question was, “To what extent do project management competencies predict project success?”
The second research question was, “To what extent does project complexity predict project
approach, was deployed. The theory of complexity explains that the relationship between project
management competencies and project success is influenced by project complexity. The standard
project management model and the expanded standard project management model were used to
relate the three variables. The study population was project management professional certified
project managers, who operated in the United States of America, and who completed a project
within the last six months from the time of this research. Research results showed that project
concerning whether project complexity predicts project success. The predictive model involving
project management competencies and project complexity upon project success is a good model.
The predictive model offers insight into managing project complexity. Using project
and knowledge sharing. Using collaboration and knowledge sharing, project managers can seize
project success.
Dedication
I sincerely dedicate this dissertation to my parents. To my father, John Clark, who passed
away too early and instilled in me, by his example, the pursuit of academic excellence, an
appreciation for quantitative research, and the continuous desire to seek new knowledge, I
dedicate this work. To my mother, Marilyn Clark, who motivated and encouraged me to pursue a
doctoral degree, and who provided me support and direction throughout this doctoral journey, I
fully dedicate this dissertation. Both my parents, who were teachers themselves, exhibited the
fundamental need to share the knowledge and abilities that God has bestowed on me. To both of
I also dedicate this work to my Lord Jesus Christ. To God, who loves me so much, He
knew that I needed to take this doctoral journey. I know, with certainty, that I am a better person
now than when I began this journey. I am grateful to God for providing me this unique and
enlightening experience.
iii
Acknowledgments
I humbly acknowledge the support, both financially and spiritually, which multiple
individuals, too many to acknowledge here, provided to me in attaining this Ph.D. To my dear
wife, Megan Clark, who gave me her patience and insight throughout this doctoral journey, I
sincerely recognize and acknowledge that attaining this doctoral degree was only possible
through her assistance. To our wonderful son, Jacob Clark, I remember the motivation and
University, particularly Dr. Joseph Zagerman (soon to be Dr.) Ella Ponsford-Galluci, and Dr.
Sarah Dyson providing me a listening board to share my progress and questions. To Dr. Shieves,
who passed away last year, but who planted the seeds in me that eventually blossomed into this
marvelous journey, I am grateful for being provided the opportunity to teach thesis research and
writing. A special thank you to Dr. Cíntia Cristina Silva de Araújo for permitting to use the
project management competencies questionnaire, to Dr. Deribe Assefa Aga for providing
permission to use the project success questionnaire, and to Dr. Neil Turner for permitting to use
the complexity assessment tool. Dr. Werner Gottwald, I acknowledge my mentor's keen insight
and direction. From instilling in me to “get er done” and remember the KISS principle, I
recognize that the doctoral journey was efficient and smooth thanks to him.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................. iv
Definition of Terms................................................................................................18
Research Design.....................................................................................................21
Assumptions...........................................................................................................22
Limitations .............................................................................................................25
Summary ................................................................................................................57
v
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................59
Research Design.....................................................................................................60
Population .......................................................................................................61
Sample ............................................................................................................62
Procedures ..............................................................................................................63
Instruments .............................................................................................................67
Summary ................................................................................................................71
Hypothesis Testing.................................................................................................77
Summary ................................................................................................................83
vi
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ....................84
Limitations .............................................................................................................92
Conclusion .............................................................................................................96
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................98
vii
List of Tables
Table 10. Excluded Variable: Project Complexity and Project Success Model ...............83
Table 11. G*Power Input Parameters for A Priori Power Analysis Using Seven
Predictors ...........................................................................................................93
viii
List of Figures
ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The field of project management serves as the topical area of study. The field of project
management has its origins in management science and organization science arenas (Davis,
2018). Traditionally, project management is the integrated application of knowledge and best
practices centered on coordinating the levels of resources, time, scope, quality, costs, and risks.
The project management field continues to mature both in understanding and importance (Pinto
& Winch, 2016). Despite advancements in project management, projects continue to fail
(Hughes, Rana, & Simintiras, 2017). A chief cause for continued project failures is possibly
project complexity (Bosch-Rekveldt, Bakker, & Hertogh, 2018) which disrupts project stability
(Bakhshi, Ireland, & Gorod, 2016). The impacts and the definition of project complexity remain
debated within the project management community (Teece, 2018). These debates raise several
concerns. The project management community investigates how to cope with project complexity
(Khan et al., 2018; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017). Research continues into what knowledge and skills
can help project managers face project complexity (Maylor & Turner, 2017). These concerns
form the building blocks for this study. The remainder of Chapter 1 describes the background of
the problem and its statement. Chapter 1 continues with the purpose and significance of the
study, the research questions, the definition of terms, the research design, and the assumptions
competencies, project complexity, and project success. The theory of complexity served as the
theoretical foundation to investigate the research problem. The theory of complexity is a suitable
theoretical framework to study the project (Daniel & Daniel, 2018; San Cristóbal et al., 2018).
1
Using von Bertalanffy’s (1950; 1969) theory of general system dynamics, the project comprises
interrelated components that interact internally and externally relative to the project. The project
system corresponds to other internal and external systems. Complexity theory explains that
interdependencies form between project components internally and externally (Burström &
Wilson, 2018). Tensions between project components, both visible and invisible, emerge as
The relational model for this research involved a study of project management
competencies, project complexity, and project success. A generally accepted theory of project
management does not exist (Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018; Pretorius et al., 2018). This research used
Geraldi, Maylor, & Williams’ (2011) standard and expanded project management models. The
standard model of project management explains that project managers acquire knowledge and
skills, such as project management competencies, to improve project performance. The expanded
project management model introduces project complexity and explains that project complexity
disrupts the fundamental relationship between project management competencies and project
performance.
This research studied the association of the project management standard model and the
expanded standard project management model (Garel, 2013; Geraldi et al., 2011). While
empirical research into project management is replete (Garel, 2013), a similar investigation into
project complexity is limited (Rzevski, 2015). The literature showed that projects continued to
grow in significance and relevance (Bosch-Rekveldt, Bakker, & Hertogh, 2018). Organizations
initiatives. The academic research and business communities agreed that project management
2
postings to project management competencies, heightened through scholarly research, do Vale,
Nunes, and de Carvalho (2018) determined that both spheres of research concurred that
complexity within the project management community. The literature explains why complexity
negatively influences project performance (Chapman, 2016). Efforts centered on the study of
project complexity science had started to emerge. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Research Board and the International Center for Complex Project Management Task Force are
Debates continued concerning the influence and the definition of project complexity.
Botchkarev and Finnigan (2015) argued that the lack of a generally accepted understanding of
project complexity hampered the ability of project managers to work effectively and efficiently
(p. 19). Aaltonen and Kujala (2016) offered that the variety of internal and external stakeholder
relationships in the current project serve as key contributors to project complexity. Managing
diverse stakeholders’ interests and possible conflicts is instrumental in coping with project
complexity. Niazi et al. (2016), investigating global software development projects, suggested
that complexity arises from the inability to transfer knowledge. Leadership and communication
can address mistrust. De Carvalho, Patah, and de Souza Bido (2015) proposed that using
The awareness and significance of project complexity have elevated in recent years
within the project management community (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2018; Daniel & Daniel, 2018;
Poveda-Bautista, Diego-Mas, & Leon-Medina, 2018). Lippe and vom Brocke (2016) stated that
project complexity is a primary cause for project failures since unrealistic and disparate
3
requirements have become the norm. Khattak and Mustafa (2019) argued that despite the
project success (Açikgöz, Günsel, Kuzey, & Seçgin, 2016; Butler, Vijayasarathy, & Roberts,
2019; Montequín, Balsera, Fernández, & Fernández, 2018; Müller et al., 2018). Conversely,
management competencies positively influence project success. The project manager, proficient
in sharing and distributing knowledge, coalesces the project team facing project complexity
(Açikgöz et al., 2016; Crans & Hartwell, 2018). Butler et al. (2019) confirmed that project
managers who could motivate teams to adapt dynamically could manage project complexity.
Montequín et al. (2018), examining the failures caused by project complexity, proved those
project managers who clearly define stakeholders’ requirements and articulate project constraints
enhance the likelihood of realizing project success. Evidence supports that project managers who
can build fellowship and camaraderie in team members can counter project complexity's adverse
effects (Cunningham, Salmone, & Wielgus, 2015; Moore, Payne, Autry, & Griffis, 2018).
Though evidence exists, which demonstrates that project complexity deteriorates project success
and that project management competencies improve project success, there is a gap in the existing
literature concerning the effect project complexity and project management competencies have
the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the International Project Management Association
4
(IPMA), have codified project management competencies (do Vale et al., 2018; Marzagáo &
Carvalho, 2016). The literature shows that there are multiple definitions of project management
knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and abilities leading to superior project performance (Alvarenga
et al., 2020). González-Marcos et al. (2016) defined project management competencies as “well-
accepted standards” codified to affect project success (p. 1324). Since competencies are
perceived subjectively, Hanna et al. (2018) examined project manager competencies through the
lens of the project manager. They offered that project management competencies serve as
Research into project management competencies has centered on the alignment of skills
relative to project context (Alvarenga et al., 2020). Most research was qualitative and designed to
determine relevant project management categories (Alvarenga et al., 2020). Debates concerning
the appropriate mix of project management techniques and leadership competencies continue
(Marzagáo & Carvalho, 2016). Kwofie, Botchway, and Amos-Abanyie (2018) critiqued the
project management competencies literature stating that the heavy focus on defining
Several studies investigated project manager competencies on project success (do Vale et
al., 2018). Alvarenga et al. (2020) indicated that project managers must possess a set of
competencies that are applied contingent to the project circumstances. Alvarenga et al. (2020)
argued that the effectiveness of project manager competencies depends on the relationship
between the project manager and the project team encouraged to experiment and learn. The use
of project management competencies positively influences project performance when the project
5
Project complexity is “increasingly becoming common” (Eriksson, Larsson, & Pesämaa,
2017, p. 1513). Project complexity is currently a relevant field of research within the project
ultimately performance (San Cristóbal et al., 2018). There remains no unified definition of
project complexity nor agreement concerning the influence complexity has on projects (Gazvini,
Ghezavati, Raissi, & Makui, 2017; Geraldi et al., 2011; San Cristóbal et al., 2018). Previous
studies into project complexity investigated the causes (Eriksson et al., 2017) or the factors (San
construction fields required superior management abilities. Using general system theory,
Baccarini (1996) posited that complex projects possessed attributes formed through
interdependencies that countered traditional project management approaches. Vidal and Marle
(2008) stated that a project is complex when it becomes impossible to fully and completely
understand the project's spirit (p. 1102). Girmscheid and Brockmann (2008) offered that project
complexity is the presence of ambiguity that manifests through interdependence. Shenhar &
Hotzmann (2017) considered projects where a solution is not apparent or readily available as
complex.
Maylor and Turner (2017), using the expanded standard model of project management,
defined project complexity originating from structural, sociopolitical, and emergent forces.
Starting with Baccarini (1996), structural complexity, which describes the tangible and concrete
elements of complexity such as project size and the number of stakeholders, has consistently
remained a complexity dimension (Geraldi et al., 2011; Eriksson et al., 2017). Sociopolitical
complexity describes ambiguity arising through internal and external project relationships.
6
Emergent complexity is fluid and caused by uncertainties manifesting in the project. Interactions
between open systems cause uncertainties and ambiguities to emerge in the project (Zhu &
Mostafavi, 2017).
Starting in the 1960s and resulting from the space race's success, efforts started to
identify and standardize best practices and approaches in the project management field.
Institutions such as the PMI were formed in the late 1960s and ushered in the modernization of
project management. The maturation and codification of project best practices evolved into the
standard project management model, explaining that standardized project management processes
and abilities derive project success (Garel, 2013). The standard model of project management
associates with all project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) areas since, through the
performance (Conforto et al., 2016). Approaches, tools, and skills are adjusted contingent to the
project context.
Hanna et al. (2018) offered that project management competencies affect project success
Traditional project management competencies, surrounding the triple constraints, are enhanced
through capabilities that mature through an incident, such as motivation, encouragement, and
conflict resolution (Marzagáo & Carvalho, 2016). Applying competencies, the project manager
can tap maximum potential from the project team members, ultimately resulting in project
success.
Based on the standard model of project management, Geraldi et al. (2011) offered that
complexity interferes with the relationship between project management competencies and
project success. Additionally, complexity identifies as a predictor variable since it interacts with
7
the project (Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor & Turner, 2017). Liu et al. (2018) offered that risk and
uncertainty originate from internal and external project stakeholders associate project complexity
ambiguity and complexity increase since these approaches center on monitoring and controlling
(Eriksson et al., 2017; San Cristóbal et al., 2018). Attempts to control complexity become
detrimental to project performance (Burström & Wilson, 2018). Instead, the ability to adjust and
collaborate becomes increasingly essential as complexity rises (Eriksson et al., 2017). San
Cristóbal et al. (2018) argued that project management competencies are in themselves a source
of project complexity since project manager skills and experiences may misalign with the
project. The expanded standard model serves as the theoretical foundation for this study since
project management competencies, project complexity, and project success are associated.
objectives. Midler (1995) coined the term “projectification,” which indicates that organizations
increasingly leverage the project structure to meet performance objectives (p. 2). Globalization
and outsourcing continue to place performance expectations on projects and project managers.
De Araújo, Pedron, and de Oliveira e Silva (2018a) observed that projects fail when project
managers lack interpersonal competencies. Shaikh, Bisschoff, and Botha (2018) indicated that
the advanced emphasis on the project structure has effectively made the importance of project
technical skills and applying process tools such as the stakeholder matrix or the risk management
plan. Most previous research into project management competencies was qualitative (Silva et al.,
8
2019). Gruden and Stare (2018) indicated that most research into project management
competencies was qualitative and rarely investigated the “human-side” of project management
(p. 98). Maqbool et al. (2017) stated the need for research into the “human-side” of project
Debates continue concerning the influence and context for project management
competencies (de Araújo et al., 2018a). Researchers disagree on the effect of interpersonal
project management competencies. Alavosius et al. (2017) argued that soft-skills competencies
cause complexity to emerge since misinterpretation of interpersonal behavior is possible (p. 50).
Previous research indicates that project management competencies positively influence project
success. Clarke (2010) studied the relationship between emotional intelligence, project
management competencies, and transformational leadership. Results showed that building teams
competencies. Zhang et al. (2013) focused on project management emotional competencies and
provided evidence that project management competencies beyond technical project management
capabilities positively influence project performance. Using exploratory factor analysis, Shaikh
et al. (2018) showed that the alignment of project management and leadership competencies
improved project performance. De Araújo et al. (2018b) determined that project management
competencies centered on team development and leadership improved project success. Gruden
and Stare’s (2018) correlation study showed that human-centric project management
that a system could be either open or closed. Additionally, an open system’s components interact
9
both inwardly and outwardly, leading to interlinkages between various systems. Expanding on
von Bertalanffy’s (1950; 1969) theory of general system dynamics, Zhu and Mostafavi (2017)
offered that examining the project as an open system must be investigated as an integrated
whole.
Baccarini (1996), the father of project complexity, indicated that superior management
was necessary to complete challenging construction projects. Using von Bertalanffy’s (1950;
1969) theory of general system dynamics, Baccarini (1996) posited that interrelatedness between
Gerschberger et al. (2017) offered that interdependencies found in the project system emerge as
A literature review shows that most project complexity research was qualitative since a
generally accepted theoretical foundation does not exist (Gerschberger et al., 2017). Lu et al.
(2015) made similar observations indicating that project complexity research was qualitative and
involved case studies. Researchers have applied various frameworks to investigate complexity.
Since the project produces usable and sustainable deliverables, Yuan (2017) examined project
stakeholder positions functioning as a catalyst for project complexity. Gerschberger et al. (2017)
showed that as stakeholder objectives increase, project performance deteriorates. Using a scale of
task complexity and organization complexity factors, Lu et al. (2015) found a correlation
between stakeholder satisfaction and project complexity (p. 704). McEvoy, Brady, and Munck
(2016) contended that the project management community agrees that traditional and
10
deterministic project management approaches are not effective in managing project complexity.
Instead, project complexity can offer benefits if managed to seize opportunities. Adaptability,
creativity, and improved customer satisfaction emerge as benefits stemming from project
Debates in the project community continued regarding the essence and causes of project
complexity. Maylor and Turner (2017) suggested that since the interpretation of project
elusive. The lack of general acceptance interfered with arriving at both standardized and
contingently based approaches to cope with project complexity. Most research into project
complexity investigated the project at a specific moment in time. Instead, project complexity
emerges throughout the project lifecycle (Maylor & Turner, 2017). Gerschberger et al. (2017)
noted that most project complexity research is limited and that research into project complexity
Project success remains defined by the triple constraints of schedule, budget, and scope
(Gazvini, Ghezavati, Raissi, & Makui, 2017). Yet, there is evidence that project success includes
Bond-Barnard, Fletcher, & Steyn, 2018; Irfan, Hassan, & Hassan, 2019; McLeod, Doolin, &
MacDonell, 2017). Though project success is an abstract and subjective concept, it still serves as
a central mechanism in making project decisions and evaluating project performance (Silva,
Warnakulasuriya, & Arachchige, 2019). As projects continue to become more complex, project
success approaches have become disparate. Xue, Liu, and Sun (2018) contended that
11
The project management community’s conceptualization of project success is maturing.
Xue et al. (2018) indicated that most project success literature focused on implementation
techniques and tools rather than the process used to realize superior performance (p. 3).
execution efficiency with the usability and demand for the final project deliverables.
project success remains unknown. Using the expanded standard model of project management,
Maylor and Turner (2017) offered that project complexity originates through the structural,
sociopolitical, and emergent dimensions. The literature shows the positive influence of project
management competencies on project success (Alvarenga et al., 2020; Mahmood et al., 2019;
Mendes et al., 2016). Conversely, there is evidence of the negative influence project complexity
has on project success (Açikgöz et al., 2016; Butler et al., 2019; San Cristóbal et al., 2018).
complexity a relevant field for research. Specifically, Eriksson et al. (2017) stated that coping
with project complexity remains relevant. Lippe and vom Brocke (2016) indicated that project
complexity is the primary reason for project failures. Khattak and Mustafa (2019) noted that
despite continued efforts to standardize project management practices and processes, projects
still fail due to complexity. Study into what knowledge and skills can aid project managers faced
with complexity is sought (Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor et al., 2013; Maylor & Turner, 2017).
Observance of current events such as the coronavirus pandemic reaffirms that complexity
is prevalent globally. Complexity was undoubtedly a relevant area of research found in the
project management community. Additionally, there is ample evidence showing that traditional
and deterministic project management approaches are ineffective (Rzevski, 2015). The pursuit of
12
a doctoral degree was purposed to seek the knowledge needed to aid project managers,
the project management field continued to confirm that project complexity had entered all forms
of projects. Project managers sought insight into how to cope with project complexity. The
standard project management model and the expanded standard project management model
related to project management competencies, project complexity, and project success is the basis
of this research. Associating project management competencies added intrigue to the study since
The research problem was a lack of information about project management competencies
and project success for complex projects. The extant literature provided limited insight into how
project management competencies and project complexity predict project success (Maylor &
Turner, 2017). Both Daniel and Daniel (2018) and Poveda-Bautista, Diego-Mas, and Leon-
Medina (2018) indicated that project complexity is one of the most critical areas for research in
the project management community. A repeated pattern of stability to disruption to new stability
separates complexity from chaos (Bakhshi, Ireland, & Gorod, 2016; Khan et al., 2018; Kiridena
& Sense, 2017). Rapid changes, coupled with unrealistic expectations and fluid demands, project
complexity drivers (Poveda-Bautista et al., 2018). Klein (2016) indicated that complexity causes
possibly upwards of 70% of projects to fail (p. 652). The literature suggests that project
managers consider complexity as the leading factor of project failures (Floricel, Piperca, & Tee,
2018; Hughes et al., 2017; Poveda-Bautista et al., 2018). The project management community
13
al., 2018; Montequín et al., 2018; Teece, 2018; Zaman, Jabbar, Nawaz, & Abbas, 2019).
Equating interdependence between project agents with complexity, de Sousa Pinto et al. (2014)
defined project complexity as considering concrete factors, such as project size and the number
of stakeholders, and fluid factors including stakeholder involvement and deadline pressure.
Using the described construct, Ordoñez et al. (2019) showed that project managers skilled in
Turner (2017) elegantly described project complexity through the dimensions of structural,
The definition of project success remains centered on the triple constraints of cost,
schedule, and scope (Saed, Yong, & Othman, 2016; Project Management Institute, 2017a).
project success. The consideration of project success started to include sustainability, resource
efficiencies (Taylor & Taylor, 2014), end-user satisfaction (Aga, 2016), team collaboration
(Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013), impact on society (Shenhar & Holzman, 2017), and project
contingencies (Besteiro, de Souza Pinto, & Novaski, 2015). Aga et al. (2016) developed a 14-
factor project success relational construct involving project completion, cost, outcomes,
stakeholders’ satisfaction. Raziq et al. (2018) applied the project success relational construct to
examine interdependence and project success. The literature provided evidence that complexity
adversely influences project success since interdependencies lead to instability and the
emergence of disruptions found in the project (Bakhshi, Ireland, & Gorod, 2016; Fisher,
Pillemer, & Amabile, 2018; Khan et al., 2018; Vidal & Marle, 2008). Butler et al. (2019)
14
empirically showed, through a correlational study, that project complexity negatively influences
project success. Bjorvatn and Wald (2018) determined that complexity deteriorates project
implementation.
which influence project performance (Chen et al., 2019; Mughal, Bahaudin, & Salleh, 2019;
Project Management Institute, 2017b). Mainga (2017) determined that project managers can
teach others to realize project success. Kang et al. (2017) determined that both task-oriented and
(Oyama, Learmonth, & Chao, 2015), formed environments described as open and creative
(Binci, Cerruti, & Braganza, 2016; Müller et al., 2018; Novo, Landis, & Haley, 2017; Tyssen,
Wald, & Heidenreich, 2014). De Araújo et al. (2018) demonstrated that project managers, who
possessed procedural and personal competencies, were able to drive commitment in team
members during periods of project crisis. De Araújo et al.’s (2018) project management
Ballesterors-Sánchez et al. (2019) concluded that coached project managers strengthened team
building. There was a need to pursue empirical research which integrated the three constructs
(Maylor et al., 2013). The literature provided evidence of the positive influence project
management competencies have on project success (Boies, Fiset, & Gill, 2015; Bredillet,
Tywoniak, & Dwivedula, 2015; Iqbal, Zaman, Siddiqui, & Imran, 2019). The literature also
showed the negative effect project complexity has on project success. There is a gap in the
literature concerning an investigation into the influence project management competencies, and
15
project complexity has on project success (Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018; Floricel et al., 2016; Maylor
This research aimed to gather empirical knowledge to address the gap concerning project
management competencies and project complexity predict project success. Previous research had
centered on the causes and drivers of project complexity (Gerschberger et al., 2017; Lu et al.,
2015). There was a limited investigation which integrated project management competencies,
project complexity, and project success using the theory of complexity as the theoretical lens.
complexity, which explains that interdependencies manifest as randomness and uncertainties that
disrupt stability but also emerge into new and stable patterns (Baccarini, 1996; Khan et al., 2018)
and relates the project management competencies variable as measured by the Project
Management Competencies Questionnaire (PMCQ; de Araújo et al., 2018) and the project
complexity variable as measured by the Complexity Assessment Tool (CAT; Maylor & Turner,
2017) to the project success variable as measured by the Project Success Questionnaire (PSQ;
Aga, 2016; Aga et al., 2016; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) for certified project management
professionals (PMP) who managed projects based in the United States of America (USA) and
completed within the past six months from the deployment of the study. The first predictor
variable, project management competencies, was defined as groupings of related knowledge and
behaviors which influence project performance (Chen et al., 2019; Project Management Institute,
2017b). The second predictor variable, project complexity, was defined as disruptive waves
originating from structural, sociopolitical, and emergent sources that manifest into new and
stable patterns (von Bertalanffy, 1950; von Bertalanffy, 1969; Maylor et al., 2013; Maylor &
16
Turner, 2017). The criterion variable, project success, was defined as a project completed within
the triple constraints of schedule, cost, and scope and conducted relative to stakeholders’
perceptions of exhibited communication, engagement, and sustainability (Aga, 2016; Aga et al.,
2016).
which project management competencies and project complexity predict project success. A
unified theory of project management does not exist (Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018; Geraldi et al.,
2011; Maylor & Turner, 2017; Pretorius et al., 2018). As a result, this research uses the theory of
complexity. The complexity theory explains that uncertainties and ambiguities manifest through
internal and external project relationships (Rolstadås & Schiefloe, 2017). Complexity causes the
state of the project to be disrupted and transcend into a new and stable pattern.
This study applied the standard model of project management and the extended standard
model of project management as the relational construct to examine the relationships between
project management competencies, project complexity, and project success. The standard model
of project management offers that project management competencies improve project success
since they are an aggregation of best practices (de Araújo et al., 2018; Ballesteros-Sanchez et al.,
2019). The extended standard project management model offers that project complexity weakens
project success since complexity disrupts the project and leads to deteriorated project success
(Açikgöz et al., 2016; Butler et al., 2019; Montequín et al., 2018). The study offered insight that
The research contributed to the project management community. Khattak and Mustafa
(2019) argued that despite the culmination of project management best practices and
17
advancements in project management tools, projects continued to fail due to project complexity.
Project managers continued to indicate that project complexity remained among the most
significant and challenging factors interfering with project success (Poveda-Bautista et al., 2018;
Floricel et al., 2018). Project managers indicated that the sociopolitical complexity dimension
was the most difficult to manage. Since project management competencies influence project
success, Maylor and Turner (2017) noted the need to examine the relevance of project manager
competencies relative to the project complexity dimensions. Research provided insight into the
skill sets that mediate project complexity. Maylor and Turner (2017) also suggested that findings
stemming from the study could have pedagogical implications for the project management
profession.
Research Questions
Using complexity theory, which explains that complexity arises through tensions in the
project system that disrupt the relationship between project management competencies and
project success (Li et al., 2018b), the research questions for this study are listed as follows.
Definition of Terms
Chaos Theory. Explains that slight disturbances eventually lead to unpredictable and
uncertainties that disrupt stability and emerge into new and stable patterns (Baccarini, 1996;
18
Contingency Theory. Explains that contextual circumstances dictate approaches and
originating from the structural, sociopolitical, and emergent dimension, disrupt the relationship
between project management practices and project performance established in the standard
General Systems Theory. Explains that the universe comprises interrelated systems that
Population Definition. United States project managers are certified project management
professionals in the United States considered the total population size (Project Management
Institute, 2019).
the project system result in unpredictable disruptions followed by new and stable patterns
(Cooke-Davies, Cicmil, Crawford, & Richardson, 2007; Floricel et al., 2018; Qureshi & Kang,
2015.
authority, and politics internal and external to the project team. It is measured by summing the
complexity assessment tool (CAT; Maylor & Turner, 2017). The instrument contains 31-
questions that ask the participant to evaluate sociopolitical complexity using a Likert scale from
1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The maximum possible score is 155; the lowest
possible score is 31. A higher score on the CAT would indicate a higher complexity level
19
Project Management Competencies Construct. The clusters of related knowledge and
management competencies are groupings of skill sets and behaviors which function as the
“building blocks” for project performance (Mainga, 2017, p. 467), involve team building (Hazy
& Prottas, 2018), technical (Hensel & Visser, 2018), and communication (Browne et al., 2016)
abilities.
skillsets centered on team building, collaborating, and communicating (Zhang, Cao, & Wang,
2018). The project management competencies construct was measured by summing the project
contains 33-questions that ask the participant to evaluate personal project management
competencies using a Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The
maximum possible score is 165; the lowest possible score is 33. A higher score on the PMCQ
Hotzmann, 2017). It is the perceived level of cost performance, schedule performance, alignment
to predetermined benefits, and effect on the community (Shenhar & Hotzmann, 2017). Project
success level will be measured using the Project Success Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ; Aga
collaboratively, efficiently, and sustainably. It was measured by summing the Project Success
Questionnaire (PSQ; Aga, 2016; Aga et al., 2016; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). The instrument
20
contains 14-questions that ask the participant to evaluate project success level using a Likert
scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The maximum possible score is 70; the
lowest possible score is 14. A higher score on the PSQ would indicate a higher project success
level.
Sample Frame Definition. Two sources supplied the sample frame. The first source was
the PMI Leadership Institute Master Class (LIMC) alumni Facebook page with 282 members
(LIMC, 2020). The LIMC alumni are current leaders of PMI chapters. The second source was
the Harrisburg University (HU) School of Business and Technology Master of Science Program
for Project Management LinkedIn page, with 207 participants (HU, 2020). The HU Project
Management program teaches courses in the project management discipline with a concentration
Standard Project Management Model. The model explains that project management
practices and approaches related to the triple constraints affect project performance (Geraldi et
al., 2011).
Research Design
This study used a nonexperimental research design to examine the relationship between
three variables (Hayes, 2018, p. 47). The research design is similar to other studies investigating
project management competencies, project complexity, and project success (Aga, 2016; de
The research aimed to study the extent project management competencies and project
complexity predict project success. For data collection, de Ararújo et al.’s (2018) Project
competencies, Maylor and Turner’s (2017) Complexity Assessment Tool (CAT) to measure the
21
level of complexity on a project completed with the last six-months, and Aga’s (2016) Project
Success Questionnaire (PSQ) to measure the project success level on the same recently
completed project.
A quantitative research approach was applied since theory and measurement of variables
related to theory existed (Goduka, 2012; Scharff, 2013). Additionally, a quantitative approach
was used since insight into the relationship between the three variables was attainable through
measurement, science, and examination. The research purpose was to examine the extent project
management competencies and project complexity predict project success. Simple randomization
was used to eliminate bias (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012; Serrador & Pinto, 2015). Additionally, a
multiple linear regression was applied since the statistical technique was used to gain insight into
the extent predictor interval variables relate to a criterion interval variable (Hayes, 2018; Martin
Assumptions
2010). For this study, the general methodological, theoretical, and measurement assumptions
were considered.
the research design. From an ontological perspective, knowledge was gathered through scientific
and statistical techniques since measurement and examination of the three involved variables
were available (Mingers, 2004; Rechberg, 2018). Epistemologically, knowledge was attained
through valid and reliable instruments (Goduka, 2012; Rechberg, 2018). Axiologically, the
research purpose aligned with the value of expertise acquired since the research addressed a gap
22
in the extant literature (Rechberg, 2018). From an axiological perspective, the study was
designed to examine the extent project management competencies and project complexity predict
project success so that knowledge of the standard project management model and the extended
standard project management model was attained and relevant to the project management
community.
investigate the extent project management competencies and project complexity predict project
success. A multiple linear regression statistical technique was used to gain insight into predictor
interval variables and a criterion interval variable (Hayes, 2018; Martin & Bridgmon, 2012).
Theoretical Assumptions
The standard project management model served as the theoretical foundation for the
study. The standard project management model explains that the standardization and use of best
practices related to managing budget, scope, and schedule constraints are designed to realize
complexity. Geraldi et al. (2011) synthesized complex adaptive systems theory, which explains
that a project comprises system agents that interact internally and externally, leading to changing
and fluid behavior, with the standard project management model. The standard project
variable in future empirical research. The five dimensions were: structural, uncertainty,
dynamics, pace, and sociopolitical. Geraldi et al. (2011) proposed that project management
23
competencies influence the five complexity dimensions. Future research should investigate the
effect of project management competencies upon the complexity dimensions (p. 984).
Using Geraldi et al.’s (2011) five dimensions of complexity, Maylor et al. (2013)
emergence. Structural and sociopolitical resembled Geraldi et al.’s (2011) original operational
definitions. Emergence, the third dimension, synthesized the ambiguity and uncertainty found in
the remaining three dimensions of the five dimensions model. Maylor and Turner (2017)
indicated the need to examine the relevance of project manager competencies relative to the
Generally accepted definitions of the three constructs do not presently exist. A standard
definition for project management competencies (Vukomanović et al., 2016), project complexity
(Botchkarev & Finnigan, 2015; Gazini et al., 2017; Teece, 2018), and project success (Xue et al.,
2018) are unavailable in the project management community. The definitions applied in the
research stemmed from a review of the literature. The Project Management Institute (2017b)
defined project management competencies as clusters of related knowledge and behaviors which
influence project performance. Maylor and Turner (2017) offered that project complexity
originates through the structural, sociopolitical, and emergent dimensions which disrupt project
constancy and manifest as new forms of stability. Aga (2016) defined project success as the
perceived level of project completion, sustainability, stakeholder satisfaction, and project value.
Topic-Specific Assumptions
Complexity is multidimensional (Maylor & Turner, 2017). The literature provides several
2014; Qazi et al., 2016). This research assumes that Maylor and Turner’s (2017) three-
24
dimensional model involving structural, sociopolitical, and emergent complexities represents
complexity and guides investigation. Ambiguity, fluid demands, and virtualization caused the
emergence of complexity and will continue escalating for the foreseeable future (Project
The relationships between the three constructs were assumed linear. Most evidence
showed that project management competencies positively influenced project success, and project
complexity negatively affected project success (Açikgöz et al., 2016; Boies et al., 2015; Butler et
al., 2019; Iqbal et al., 2019). The three constructs are latent because they are not directly
observed (Byrne, 2005). Validated and reliable instruments which captured indicators of the
three constructs were available (Aga, 2016; de Araújo et al., 2018a; Maylor & Turner, 2017).
Limitations
A limitation in the research design is the presence of a systematic bias that is neither
controlled nor eliminated. Limitations possibly deteriorate the associated research results'
credibility (Persaud, Devonish, & Persaud, 2019). As such, limitations which surfaced through
Design Limitations
project complexity, and project success on a recently completed project by the project manager.
Self-reporting surveys are typically used in correlational studies (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012).
competencies, the level of project complexity, and the level of project success.
25
Delimitations
success continue to mature. The descriptions used in the research did not necessarily describe
insight gained through research into the three constructs. The study used the best available
definitions of the three constructs from the literature. The research design was nonexperimental.
Evidence which deduced causality was not possible. The empirical evidence only suggested
Chapter 1 covered the background, overview of the research problem, the research
questions, the research design, and definitions of terms. Chapter 2 synthesizes the relevant
literature. Chapter 3 details the research methodology used in this study. Chapter 4 covers the
analysis of the collected data and addressed the research questions and related hypotheses.
Chapter 5 concludes this study and provides a discussion of the results, implications of the
26
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
complexity, and project success follows. The methods employed in searching the extant literature
begin the literature review. In the absence of a unified project management theory, the research
was built on the tangential theory of complexity. Using complexity as the theoretical foundation,
the expanded standard model of project management is explored as the relational construct that
integrates the variables of project management competencies, project complexity, and project
success. The literature is described regarding previous research of the three variables serving as
the focus of this study. Empirical evidence is indicated showing positive relationships between
project management competencies and project success and conversely negative relationships
between project complexity and project success. The limitations of the reviewed literature are
described. The literature review completes the research problem and research question,
Methods of Searching
This study's primary databases and journals included EBSCOhost, ProQuest Central,
SAGE Journals Online, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Psychology Database, Project
methods included daily search strings using the primary databases for scholarly literature with a
date range of no more than five years and consisting of keywords with and without project
management. Those keywords included project management theory, general system theory,
contingency theory, chaos theory, complexity theory, standard project management model,
27
complexity, and project success. This study's primary peer-reviewed journals included the
This study is built on the theory of complexity, which explains that ambiguity and
randomness emerge through internal and external project relationships and cause the project to
behave unpredictably (Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016; Svejvig & Andersen, 2015). Due to random
behavior found in projects, Daniel and Daniel (2018) recommended that complexity theory is a
suitable lens to investigate the project. Guided by complexity theory, this study investigates the
project through the standard model of project management, which offers that project
(Badewi & Shehab, 2016), and the extended standard model of project management, which
describes that complexity disrupts the relationship between project management competencies
The project management literature still lacks a unified project management theory
(Niederman, Müller & March, 2018; Tereso et al., 2019). Of the 250 scholarly articles reviewed
as part of this research, only 17 items referred to project management theory. Niknazar and
Bourgault (2017) noted that the lack of a unified project management theory is problematic. In
the absence of a unified theory, Garel (2013) recommended considering alternative views
applicable in divergent areas such as leadership and management. Kiridena and Sense (2017)
observed that projects are increasingly behaving unpredictably. This study was built on
complexity theory and guided through the standard and extended standard project management
models.
28
It is first necessary to describe theoretical foundations beginning with general system
theory. The project is the interaction of people, inputs, and outputs (de Blois, Lizarralde, & de
Coninck, 2016; Kiridena & Sense, 2017; Teo & Loosemore, 2017). The project behaves akin to
an open system indicating that the elements of the system interact holistically. Additionally, the
project, being an open system, interacts with other systems both internally and externally.
Through examining biological lifeforms, von Bertalanffy (1950, 1969) posited the theory
of general systems in which systems are either open or closed. Traditionally, systems were
considered only closed since the properties and attributes that defined the system was self-
contained. Instead, von Bertalanffy (1950, 1969) theorized that systems are also open and
Through a general systems lens, the project integrates interdependent components that
interact internally and externally. Zhu and Mostafavi (2017) offered that the project is a holistic
entity. Additionally, the project's elements adapt autopoietically through other neighboring
internal and external open systems related to the project (Teece, 2018).
Baccarini (1996), using the precepts of general system theory, posited that the
ambiguity to emerge. Daniel and Daniel (2018) suggested that current projects behave
the project, which eventually disrupts stability. However, complexity theory explains that the
project system's instability emerges into new and stable patterns (de Blois et al., 2016; Khan et
al., 2018).
29
The project is a complex system since the project components involving team members,
Complexity arises through tensions in the project system involving system agents (Li et al.,
2018b; Maylor & Turner, 2017). The project integrates processes and best practices. Complexity
theory explains that the project behaves both contingently and chaotically. Complexity theory
explains that the project system behaves unpredictably, leading to chaotic behavior, which
eventually emerges into new states and patterns of stability (Maldonado, 2017).
outcomes, which eventually reorganize into new and stable patterns. Through a complexity lens,
projects are undertaken by using contingent approaches coupled with the flexibility to adapt and
adjust to uncertainty and variability (Gransberg, Shane, Strong, del Puerto, 2013; Lippe & vom
Brocke, 2016). Complexity theory integrates the consistency found in contingency theory with
Maylor, Turner, and Murray-Webster (2013) offered that complexity is described through
the structural, sociopolitical, and emergent dimensions. Structural complexity describes the
tangible elements of the project, such as project size, number of team members, and the number
Sociopolitical complexity involves the relationships and motives of the project agents, both
explicit and implicit. Similarly, Bakhshi et al. (2016) noted that complexity arises from
misinterpretations and ulterior reasons originating from the project agents. Emergent complexity,
the third dimension, describes the unpredictability and ambiguity which arises dynamically
30
Complexity theory explains that ingenuity and creativity are available through the
interconnected knowledge and experiences of the project agents. Complexity scientists describe
the moments prior to a complex system enters a new pattern of stability as the “edge of chaos”
(Geraldi, 2008, p. 349; Gransberg et al., 2013, p. 317). Management guides the project agents
through the “edge of chaos” by embracing and leveraging both internal and external
interdependencies available in the project. Managing the “edge of chaos” offers stability using
proven best practices selected contingently by the project manager while harnessing the
creativity available to the project afforded through connectivity and adaptability (Uhl-Bien &
Arena, 2017),
The standard model explains that applied project management methodologies, acquired
through experience, standardize best practices into structured processes (Cicmil & Gaggiotti,
2018). Project managers develop competencies through education and experience, guiding
project execution designed for project success (Badewi & Shehab, 2016; Bjorvatn & Wald,
2018; Conforto et al., 2016). Using the standard model, the project manager leverages
competencies to integrate tools, processes, and experiences in project execution. Rolstadås and
Johansen (2020) noted that project management is grounded on a body of knowledge designed to
improve project success. Bosch-Rekveldt et al. (2018) stated that project management involves
facilitating hard project management competencies, such as applying earned value management
and soft project management competencies, such as communication and affect project success.
2018). Khan et al. (2018) indicated that the project is reduced to understand best practices and
31
standards. Using the standard model, competencies are selected using facts and history (Johnson-
Laird, 1999).
Investigating project processes, Tereso et al. (2019) suggested that project management
competencies serve as the path to project success since they embody best practices and
tools, and techniques that have proven effective from past experiences are codified in the various
selected relative to “patterns” identified through project management experience (Tereso et al.,
2019, p. 7). Project management is the artful execution of project management practices oriented
to improve performance. Stemming from vast experiences, coupled with the codification of best
practices, the project management discipline is described as the accumulation of approaches and
techniques which potentially result in positive consequences. Niederman et al. (2018) described
project management competencies as the assemblage of skills and processes selected contingent
Miterev, Engwall, and Jerbrant (2017) stated that projects are temporary organizations
that behave rationally relative to the approaches and best practices available to the project
manager. Organizations, which use projects to accomplish strategic goals and objectives
and Sankaran (2019) offered similar observations by asserting that projects represent merging
Geraldi et al. (2011) proposed that the standard project management model, involving the
32
introduces nonlinear behavior, making traditional approaches ineffective (Midler, 2019).
Complexity interferes with the relationship between project system inputs and outputs, leading to
nonlinear behavior (Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018; Kiridena & Sense, 2017). Complexity cannot be
controlled (Carvalho & Rabechini, 2017; Sergi, Crevani, & Aubry, 2020).
Padalkar and Gopinath (2016) offered that traditional project management is premised on
linear approaches coupled with analytical tools and measures. The traditional project
management perspective assumes that the future will resemble the past such that best practices
interferes with measuring and controlling, which compels project managers to avoid ambiguity
(Carvalho & Junior, 2015; Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016). Uncertainty and ambiguity interfere
with the ability of the project manager to apply traditional yet proven tools and processes.
Instead, the project manager is called to consider the project holistically, which encourages
change and adaptation (Cicmil & Gaggiotti, 2018; Svejvig & Andersen, 2015).
Tensions surface in the project as the project manager is pulled between adherence to
traditional best practices and the necessity to adapt and innovate as uncertainties escalate
(Miterev et al., 2017). Kaulio (2018) termed the pulling between traditional and adaptive project
management perspectives as “the temporal paradox” (p. 81). Advances in technology, the project
environment, and the surrounding project culture led to misinterpretations and distorted
perceptions of reality which cause complexity to emerge (Li, Lu, Taylor, & Han, 2018b). Lunkka
et al. (2019) suggested that the traditional way of considering projects has become methodical
and boring and ill-prepared for changing fluid demands found in the project environment.
The expanded standard model explains that linear processes intended to address the
anticipated, and adaptive approaches to address the unanticipated, are integrated into the project
33
system (de Blois et al., 2016). The expanded standard model of project management suggests
that as the level of project complexity increases, project success declines since the project
manager and project team lack the necessary abilities to cope with ambiguity (Bjorvatn & Wald,
2018). The expanded standard project management model explains that the project manager must
integrate the capabilities and experiences of project stakeholders to challenge the deteriorative
Complexity integrates contingency and chaos theories. Von Bertalanffy (1969) offered
that since the open system interacts both internally and externally, it possesses the potential for
“equifinality” (p. 115). Multiple approaches and strategies are potentially available to manage
the complex project. The project maintains the potential to encourage creativity and ingenuity in
the project agents since uncertainty and ambiguity lead to unforeseen possibilities residing on the
Flexibility and innovation are encouraged. Shenhar and Holzmann (2017) defined project
complexity as the absence of available solutions based on best practices and standards. Being on
the edge of chaos, the project integrates deterministic order with nonlinear randomness. Unlike
chaotic systems that perpetuate infinite causal linearity, the interrelatedness between project
agents, interpreted through a complexity lens, manifests as self-organization leading to new and
stable patterns (Sweetman & Conboy, 2018). The project is simultaneously efficient contingently
Through the lens of the expanded standard model of project management, commitment
and team collaboration enable project management tools and processes to cope with complexity.
Since the project is a social entity, Amoako-Gyampah, Meredith, and Loyd (2018) and others
(Clegg, 2019; Lunkka, Pietiläinen, & Suhonen, 2019; Thompson & Cox, 2017) suggested that
34
collective commitment between the project manager and the project team members facilitates
project execution. The project is more than a system of project management practices and tools.
Projects are constructed using proven techniques yet are ineffective without participation,
competencies, project complexity, and project success. A review of the extant literature shows
that globalization and technological advances have profoundly affected viewing these research
threads. There is evidence that traditional views on project management competencies (Nijhuis,
Vrijhoef, & Kessels, 2018), project complexity (Teece, 2018), and project success (Xue et al.,
related tools (Müller et al., 2019). Technology advances precisely have placed an increased
demand for project managers who possess superior interpersonal skills in leadership and
communication (Nijhuis et al., 2018). The PMI’s project management development framework
separates project management competencies into the process and unique groupings (Ballesteros-
Personal competencies include interpersonal skills that are centered on the behavior and
emotions of the individual as a person. Though projects involve human beings, Maqbool et al.
(2017) observed that research into the “human side” of project management competencies
remains limited (p. 59). A skilled project manager is aware of the emotional state of the self, yet
35
also senses the attitudes and motivations of the project members (Li, Lu, Ma, & Kwak, 2018a).
Maqbool et al. (2017) presented findings demonstrating that project management competencies,
leading, forming teams, cooperating, problem solves, and managing stakeholders. Moradi,
Kähkönen, and Aaltonen (2020a) stated that project management competencies are the chief
approach project managers can use to attain project goals. Possessing the requisite skill sets to
competencies must also include the “capability” of the project manager to leverage competencies
relative to project conditions (p. 544). Moradi et al. (2020a) suggested that the general attitude
Consideration of project management competencies involves both the knowledge and ability to
use skills in the project environment. Oh and Choi’s (2020) research centered on emotional
competencies related to awareness and control of one’s feelings and intellectual competencies
involving analysis and decision-making. Evidence supported that emotional and intellectual
The literature shows that prior research into project management competencies focused
on the early stages of the project life cycle. Cha and Maytorena-Sanchez (2019) defined project
management competencies as knowledge and abilities used across all project life cycle stages.
Their qualitative research revealed that project managers shift competency usage relative to the
36
project life cycle stage. Logically, socially oriented project management competencies, such as
managing stakeholders, communication, and knowledge sharing, are relevant in the early project
life cycle stages. At the early stages of the project, the project manager is an enabler and
facilitator of information and collaboration. As the project progresses through the life cycle,
Since work mobility increasingly demands agility and flexibility for project managers, de
investigate how to work mobility affects the project management discipline. Mobile work is
becoming the typical mode for executing project activities and is considered any job that
involves exchanging information through a mobile device. Since the project affects people
internally and externally, importance is placed on social project management competencies. Due
to its temporary nature, the project environment inhibits stability and sustainability in project
agents and leads to narrowed problem solving and creativity. The research indicated that mobile
work interferes with forming interrelationships among stakeholders. The mobile work
competencies. Since projects are becoming increasingly uncertain and ambiguous, Magano et al.
(2020) offer that traditional technical project management competencies are insufficient. The
emphasis is now on developing transferrable skills that are human-centered and include
leadership, strategic planning, problem-solving, communication, and teamwork (p. 2). Magano et
al.’s (2020) research revealed that members of Generation Z, born between the mid-1990s and
37
the early 2010s, represent a challenge to human-centered project management competencies that
are considered necessary in managing current projects. Magano et al.’s (2020) research results
supported that Generation Z members are open to innovation and creativity but lack leadership,
ambiguous projects.
The literature supports that the project management discipline is the future profession and
Sagan, and Jarosz (2020) offered that the positive association between project management
competencies and project performance has placed increasing pressure on the project management
community to identify and enhance project management competencies needed to improve project
personal credibility and dependability, are essential. Irfan et al.’s (2021) quantitative research
involving project engineers based in Pakistan also supported that human-centered project
management competencies are critical in driving project success since stakeholder involvement
is improved.
multicultural settings. A competent project manager possesses the ability to drive performance.
Li, Sun, Shou, and Sun (2020) noted that the literature offers multiple project management
effectiveness is relative to the industry and geographical proximity. Li et al. (2020) examined
secondary data of project management experiences in China. Results revealed that maintaining
the triple constraints is still the top priority for project managers. Other preferences are beginning
38
to emerge, which can be enhanced using project management competencies. Specifically,
resource management and communication project management competencies can improve goal
attainment. Social and communication project management competencies affect risk and
uncertainty management.
The project is a social entity. However, research into the relationship between the
psychological dimension and project success is limited (Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2019). The
involving communication, delegation, and empathy influences the performance of project team
members. Members treated fairly by the project manager are more likely to remain interested and
continually creative. Innovation is the ability to create newness. Lavalle and Casale (2020)
argued that since projects are the primary mechanism to implement organizational goals, project
managers are perfectly positioned to institute corporate innovation. Their research supported
those project managers adept in flexibility and adaptability institute a culture of innovation and
creativity.
The literature provides evidence that interest in project management competencies at the
general level and the project type level has increased recently. Moradi, Kähkönen, and Aaltonen
(2020b) noted that changing consumer requirements and advanced technologies call for project
supported that project managers are naturally conducive to learning collaborative skills. The
39
results also aligned with the literature noting that trust, relationship building, and leadership
Xue, Rasool, Gillani, and Khan (2020) examined project manager competencies
presuming that the project manager's chief responsibility is to encourage innovation. Project
management competencies are skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary to achieve project
correlational study offered supportive evidence that project management competencies improve
al., 2020). However, rather than centering on specific project management competencies related
showed that project-based learning (PBL) strengthens the awareness of interdependence in the
team and, coupled with knowledge transfer competencies, improves driving creativity.
side of the discipline. Inexperienced project managers, in general, focus on technical project
Measuring project success in terms of efficiencies, Badewi (2016) demonstrated evidence that
Whitty and Maylor (2009) proposed that the application of interpersonal skills and
project management competencies may assist project managers in navigating complex projects.
Irfan et al. (2021) noted that project complexity creates difficulties in attaining project success
(p. 2). Conflicts are inevitable in projects since the project entity is dependent on the
40
relationships and sharing of knowledge among project stakeholders. Tabassi, Abdullah, and
Bryde (2019) offered that project managers, who can relieve conflict and encourage
collaboration, can cope with the tensions surfacing through project complexity. Müller et al.
(2016) arrived at similar findings. In a worldwide study, project managers who could apply
conflict management, fortified by trust and ethical behavior, experienced project success.
Li et al. (2018a) observed those project managers who possessed the ability to sense the
project environment and adapt could have projects perform commensurate to project constraints.
Rather than conceptualizing the project as a static entity, the project is a “social system” that
necessitates the project manager and project team's ability to partner and share (p. 60). Dingsøyr,
Moe, and Seim (2018) determined that project managers encourage knowledge sharing and
partnering between and with project team members for project success (p. 69).
Bredillet et al. (2015) suggested that a good project manager motivates and encourages
team members. Westgate and Wilson (2018) showed that boredom manifests during periods of
members to reorient and reengage. Complexity possibly overwhelms members into a sense of
“overstimulation” that leads to withdrawal (p. 694). The human brain will protect itself from the
increased cognitive load through withdrawal and behaviors akin to boredom. Chaudhry and
Loewenstein (2019) indicated that communication, which involves humility and human dignity,
provides information to influence behavior. The skilled project manager can engage team
Globalization, coupled with unrealistic and fluid customer demands, has centered on
project complexity. De Rezende, Blackwell, and Gonçalves (2018) offered that every project
contains some extent of complexity. The literature shows that project complexity is a relevant
41
thread of research. In recent years, research focus has evolved from defining and classifying
The seminal works of Baccarini (1996), formed using von Bertalanffy’s (1950; 1969)
general system dynamics theory, offered a conceptualization of the project that is influenced by
structural and technological factors (de Rezende et al., 2018). An examination of project
Michela, & Piperca, 2016). Bakhshi et al. (2016) noted that the interrelatedness of agents
internally and externally relative to the project system is a root cause of project complexity.
Maylor and Turner (2017) observed that perception of project complexity is relative to
the individual. Despite the entanglement of feelings and emotions, human beings are inherently
rational. Using cybernetic reason as the lens for investigation, Dubey and Griffiths (2020)
presented evidence that people are naturally curious. The human brain interprets complexity as
areas of missing information and ambiguity. The individual becomes curious to seek information
that will address the information gap. However, the human brain is also motivated to seek
individual will become disinterested if initial attempts to clarify and address the information gap,
Sweetman and Conboy (2018) discussed why agile projects are susceptible to the project
complexity factors. The accented emphasis on the customer's needs leads to tensions between
meeting the project requirements and the prescribed organizational project management
methodologies. The pull between flexibility and application of prescriptive tools aggravates
tensions leading to the worsening of project success. Using an interpretative qualitative research
approach, Damoah, Akwei, Amoako, and Botchie (2018) offered that similar tensions leading to
42
complexity arise through the pull between organizational codes of conduct and unethical
interfere with maintaining the triple constraints (Project Management Institute, 2017a). Instead,
Williams (2017) argued that uncertainty and risk are causal factors of project complexity. Project
managers capable of transforming tensions into opportunities can make complex projects
presented evidence that project complexity deteriorates project success since ambiguity and
Shi et al. (2020) argued that complex projects' hidden interdependencies influence
technical, and organizational forces. Varying interests, emerging from technical and corporate
framework. Results validated that disagreements and unbalanced information sharing contribute
The literature supports that complexity is a source of project failure. Stakeholders define
project success. Though stakeholders provide guidance and feedback necessary for achieving
success, they also are a primary source of project complexity. Disagreements and ulterior
motives stemming from project stakeholders emerge into complexity (Luo, Zhang, & He, 2020).
The research investigated the correlation between project complexity and project success. Luo et
al. (2020) measured project complexity using a multidimensional scale involving information,
task, technological, organizational, environmental, and goal influences. Results showed that
43
complexity originates from information and the environment negatively correlated to project
success.
The project naturally involves human beings. It is a social system. The literature shows
that the study of project management involves humanistic thinking. Yang and Cheng (2021)
offered that the project is a complex social construct and that traditional project management
techniques are ineffective (p. 1). Their research showed that project complexity disturbs the
relationship between the project manager and the project team. Specifically, the element of trust
is compromised as project complexity rises. To counter the effects of project complexity, Yang
and Cheng (2021) recommended encouraging collaboration among team members and selecting
and contracts with subsidiaries. Gurca, Bagherzadeh, Markovic, and Koporcic (2020) argued that
the increase in partnerships is a direct cause of project complexity. Knowledge sharing, the
ability to exchange and share tacit information, enables organizations to facilitate complexity.
The project is complex since highly interdependent components define it. Additionally, the
greater the interdependence, the stronger the project complexity evident. Using a case study
research approach, Gurca et al. (2020) determined that socialization among project components
complexity.
Traditional project management techniques guide project managers to control threats and
result, trust replaces traditional project management control tactics. Shin, Yoo, and Kwon (2020)
44
offered that the cultivation of trust, fostered through “information sharing,” strengthens the
project team informing solutions to complex problems (p. 5). Their case study research
supported establishing a project environment that shares information builds trust among project
Similarly, Islam, Gyoshev, and Amona (2020) found similar results stemming from their
are complex. Islam et al.’s (2020) study supported that collaboration consistently resulted in
navigate tensions. The general understanding of project complexity remains based on the
knowledge that the project is a system. Instead, Maqsoom et al. (2020) suggested that complexity
arises in the absence of solutions or information. Maqsoom et al.’s (2020) research investigated
collaborative behavior. Project managers can facilitate information to cope with complexity.
Results supported that organizational behavior involving corporate culture and values moderate
project complexity.
Sohi, Bosch-Rekveldt, and Hertogh (2020) suggested that the project is “organic” since behavior
is complex and adaptive (p. 666). Since the project is continually changing, the project manager
must encourage team members to behave flexibly and adaptively. A generally accepted
definition of project complexity does not exist. However, Sohi et al. (2020) contended that the
complex nature of the project is majorly sociopolitically driven and aligns with Maylor and
Turner’s (2018) three-dimensional definition of project complexity. Sohi et al.’s (2020) research
provided evidence that encouraging flexibility in project team members facilitates navigating
45
project complexity. Trust and communication make a project manager and the project team
adaptive.
The literature provides evidence that collaboration and trust are effective mechanisms to
manage project complexity. Organizations are increasingly entering into contracts to meet
escalating consumer demands. Klakegg, Pollack, and Crawford (2021) suggested that the
increase in contracting is a primary source for project complexity. Their research involved
specifically investigating collaborative contracts, in which the contract agents agree expressly to
share risks and benefits, in public and private organizations based in Australia. Project
project attributes, such as the number of stakeholders and project team members. Results
revealed that in low complexity conditions, the emphasis is typically on rules and procedures
Uncertainty and ambiguity are causes of both risk and complexity. Rahman and Adnan
(2020) argued that risks associated with supply and demand and finances also make projects
complex. Through a case study research design and based on the assumption that sources of risk
are also sources of project complexity, risk management activities, including identification,
analysis, and monitoring and controlling, are also suitable for managing project complexity.
noted that complexity remains a primary source of project failure since project managers do not
possess the ability to understand the “essence” of project complexity (p. 40) sufficiently. Project
complexity is not defined simply by considering easily identified tangible attributes such as
46
project size and the number of departments involved. Instead, project complexity arises through
the sociopolitical dimension (Geraldi et al., 2011; Shenhar & Holzmann, 2017).
Rahimi, Kenworthy, and Balakrishnan (2018) argued that structural factors are relevant
in complexity science research since a direct relationship between structural and sociopolitical
factors is present. For example, as the project size increases, the ability to communicate and
share knowledge deteriorates, leading to misinterpretation and confusion among project team
members. Each project must be considered relative to surrounding contextual circumstances and
hidden interrelatedness. Williams (2017) noted that personal agendas cause project complexity.
Ninan, Mahalingam, and Clegg (2019) made similar observations. Their examination of metro
rail megaprojects based in South India supported that both political and relationship power leads
to complexity.
Traditionally, success is the achievement of the triple constraints. The human side is
secondary (Davis, 2018). Consideration and engagement of project stakeholders are now
relevant. The definition of project success has broadened (Davis, 2018). Attainment of the triple
Evaluating project success through the lens of the triple constraints remains highly
influential in assessing the technical and task-oriented aspects of the project. However, the
literature provides evidence that task accomplishment is dependent on the social and
psychological factors of the project (Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2019). Serrador and Pinto
(2015) offered that success transcends the triple constraints. Consideration of project success has
broadened to include customer service, stakeholder engagement, and the attitudes and behaviors
47
Project circumstances and the stakeholders’ needs rarely influence defining project
success. Davis (2018) provided evidence that stakeholders’ impressions are integral in evaluating
project success. Davis (2018) showed that all stakeholders define project success. Through
stakeholder involvement, the organization seriously considers all customer needs and naturally
Bowers (2016) indicated that advances in neuroscience provide insights into the
impressionableness of the brain. Ashby and Rosedahl (2017) presented results showing that the
individual’s perception of success is unique. Performance and success are flexible and relative to
effectively. Rationally, the project manager selects approaches and techniques contingent on the
project circumstances. Project success was measured relative to efficiencies and deliverables
achievement. Serrador and Pinto (2015) provided evidence that project efficiency correlates with
project success. Instead, Miterev et al. (2017) found evidence that project managers likely imitate
the techniques and processes observed in fellow projects to gain a sense of legitimacy.
Locatelli et al. (2017) agreed that the traditional view of project success centers on
realizing remaining with the triple constraints. However, the project management community has
a growing consensus that considering project success is multifaceted, and criteria are relative to
the project. The traditional view of project success fails to consider the project manager’s
abilities and interrelationships between team members. The outcomes are typically paramount in
evaluating project success. Investigating research into construction project success, Gunathilaka,
48
Tuuli, and Dainty (2013) offered evidence that there is rarely a correlation between project
project success has broadened to include consideration of project relationships, customer service,
and ongoing sustainability. Serrador and Pinto (2015) noted that though the project manager's
work ends at project closure, evaluating the project's success continues well past the project end.
It is logical since the project is defined as temporary and finite (Project Management Institute,
Using a quantitative survey instrument sent to project managers globally, Serrador and
Turner (2015) confirmed that the modern interpretation of project success extends beyond the
triple constraints. Ultimately, the end customer determines the success of a project. For example,
production for the movie Titanic was well over budget yet was considered a significant success
being the first movie to earn over $1 billion. Serrador and Turner (2015) presented results that
showed that project efficiency, defined as the use of resources available through the triple
constraints, remains relevant in determining project success. Other elements, such as customer
Irfan et al. (2021) noted that project managers generally still define project success to
maintain the triple constraints. Instead, project management scholars argue that stakeholder
involvement ultimately determines project success. Since projects are the primary mechanism to
implement strategic initiatives, the participation of key stakeholders at all stages of the project
The success rate of projects remains low despite efforts to improve project management
methods. The literature provides evidence that the use of project governance predicts project
49
success. Project governance can be either control-based or trust-based. Both internal and external
stakeholders are considered essential in guiding the project. The realization of stakeholders’
goals defines project success. Surveying PMI members based in the Asian Pacific region, Young
et al. (2020) investigated the correlation between governance type and project success. Results
customized. Joslin and Müller (2015) defined project success as considering efficiency, benefits,
managers located in the United States, Europe, and Australia revealed that project management
among team members. Knowledge sharing is either centered on the distribution of information or
the facilitation of the team members. Lattrich and Büttgen (2020) investigated the effect
information control and team control techniques have on project success. Attaining cost,
schedule, and quality criteria define project success. Results supported that the project manager’s
ability to resolve conflicts and facilitate the exchange of information predicts project success.
informed risk-taking and creativity. The literature supports that a creative corporate temperature
increases the likelihood of realizing project success. Using a correlational study involving project
leaders and project managers based in Pakistan, Sarwar, Imran, Anjum, and Zahid (2020)
50
investigated how innovation predicts project success. The study design involved considering
project success to measure objectives attainment, budget, scope, quality, client satisfaction,
outcome usefulness, and future potential. The research provided evidence that developing an
Measuring project success has advanced as globalization and rapid changes in customer
needs continue to influence the management of the project. New success measurement
frameworks have emerged, which extends understanding of project success beyond the
traditional triple constraints. Khoza and Marnewick (2020) observed that recent research which
compared project success between agile and traditional waterfall projects used the triple
constraints as the basis for project success. The literature shows agreement that project success is
framework involving five levels. Process level success describes performance relative to the
management decisions necessary to align triple constraints. Project level success is the
attainment of specifications and requirements produced through project execution. Business level
success is relative to meeting business objectives. Strategic level success describes the
realization of strategic goals. Agile managed projects had an 88.2% success rate, while waterfall
managed projects had a 41.25% success rate. However, results also indicated that waterfall-
managed projects came under budget while agile-managed projects exceeded estimated reserves.
51
comprised of project efficiency, customer satisfaction, project team satisfaction, business
objectives attainment, and future potential. Results showed a positive relationship between
business strategy, the competitive position of the organization, and project strategy, the project
Pakistan, Sajid et al. (2021) investigated the relationship between an innovative project
environment and project success. Project success involved project efficiency, customer impact,
and future potency. The results supported that forming an environment that encourages risk-
Durmic (2020) undertook a broad view of project success which integrated internal and
external factors relevant to the project. Research on information professionals validated using the
integrated project success framework. Durmic (2020) noted that typically consider the project
team and the customer. However, project success frameworks generally do not include decision-
making, project planning, or project execution. Results revealed that the project team and project
control factors influence project success. Customer and project execution factors had little
Jiao, Saeed, Fu, and Wang (2020) offered that complex projects demand knowledge-
intensive work. The literature supports that knowledge sharing guides both social interaction and
ingenuity. Jiao et al. (2020) indicated that measuring project success on a financial or triple
project's synergies and the value the project outcomes provide to the organization and the
community. The study results provided evidence that knowledge sharing positively influences
project success.
52
Rehman (2020) conducted nonexperimental research on the effects of inclusive
leadership on project success in Pakistan. Project success involved project efficiency, customer
satisfaction, project team impact, business objectives, and future potential. Inclusive leadership
emphasizes availability, openness, and willingness to allow others to try new ideas. Research
results showed a positive correlation between inclusive leadership and project success.
Project success involves considering implementing the project and regarding the
outcomes the project provides. Traditionally, projects are evaluated based on the triple
Ballesteros-Sánchez (2020) indicated that it is vital to consider the value and benefits in a global
economy the project offers to the community. A mixed methods research design investigated the
influence of culture on project success in Colombia. Results supported that evaluation of project
success now includes the impact the project has on the community.
Evidence showed that project management competencies positively affect project success
and that project complexity negatively affect project success. Findings from the literature
continue.
Using a qualitative case study design, Ordoñez et al. (2019) determined those project managers
who can modify behavior to be facilitative while still holding to expectations can cope with
project complexity. Project complexity involved de Souza Pinto et al.’s (2014) complexity and
53
management behavior facilitated project complexity. Recalling that the research approach was
project-based firms based in the United Arab Emirates. The study offered evidence that project
management competencies positively affect project efficiency. The project team members are
encouraged to seek improvement and think creatively through the project manager continuously.
Mainga (2017) offered that project management competencies are specifically essential to cope
Management Institute, 2017b). Raziq et al. (2018) investigated project managers in Pakistan.
Results supported presented that the ability to motivate and inspire project team members,
project success. Similarly, the ability to keep team members on track by using procedural-based
competencies such as risk registers, roles matrices, and requirements traceability matrices also
showed that applying human-centered project management competencies strengthened the team
management competencies used in project planning and monitoring did not influence project
success.
54
Project Complexity and Project Success
A literature review reveals that research into the effect of project complexity upon project
success remains limited. Ma and Fu (2020) conducted a mixed methods investigation into mega
construction projects in China to understand the relationship between project complexity and
project success. Project complexity is the variation caused by the project system's interaction
with internal and external subsystems (p. 2431). Both project complexity and project success
information. Results supported that all dimensions of project complexity negatively predicted
project success.
Rumeser and Emsley (2019) suggested that poor decision-making is a direct culprit of
management, and team motivation were likely to succeed in complex projects since project
noncomplex projects.
Butler et al. (2019) approached project complexity by evaluating project success. in the
software development industry. The high majority (87%) of the respondents came from the
United States. The correlation between project management methodology, being traditional or
agile, was also investigated relative to the perceived presence of project complexity and project
success. Results showed that project complexity interferes with project success in agile projects.
project complexity positively influences project success. High levels of project complexity
55
encourage project team members to share knowledge and think creatively. Project complexity
involved two questions that equated project complexity with perceived project newness. Serrador
and Pinto (2015) found no evidence that project complexity influenced project success using
agile project management methods. Although, project complexity involved one question
coaching and project management personal competencies, showed that competencies are
enhanced through executive training and improved the possibility of project success. The PMI’s
New mechanisms available to measure personal project management competencies are flawed
competencies relate to the individual (p. 309). Due to resource availability and budgetary
constraints, some project management competencies research centered on one country (Maqbool
et al., 2017). However, several single nation studies (Mainga, 2017; Ordoñez et al., 2019; Raziq
for project complexity (de Rezende et al., 2018). Some complexity measurement frameworks are
beginning to surface (de Souza Pinto et al., 2014; Maylor et al., 2013; Maylor & Turner, 2017).
However, the instruments continue to perpetuate the philosophical debates inherent in the project
management community. For example, de Souza Pinto et al.’s (2014) mechanism centers on
56
tangible and structural sources of project complexity. Shenhar and Hotzmann (2017) indicated
that project complexity is more than merely counting the number of real attributes of the project.
Available instruments serve as a topic for debate. Members of the project management
community dispute their value. Perception and requisite approaches to cope with project
complexity are relative (de Rezende et al., 2018). Interpretation of complexity is close to the
project manager (Maylor & Turner, 2017). Williams (2017) argued that any instruments
The literature indicates that project success has broadened stakeholder engagement, team
development, and sustainability (Aga, 2016). Mainga (2017) used a traditional consideration of
project success defined through remaining within cost, schedule, and scope tolerance levels.
of project complexity.
Cook and Cook (2008) indicated that data collected through participant self-reporting
introduces a threat to the validity of the research. Eden (1985) described the threat as a standard
method variance since individuals inherently embellish perception of the self. Multiple works of
the literature indicated limitations concerning standard method variance (Bjorvatn & Wald,
Summary
The literature supported the relational model between project management competencies,
project complexity, and project success. Project management competencies are related to project
success since accumulated project management best practices and skillsets affect project
performance (Ballesteros-Sánchez et al., 2019; Hanna et al., 2018). The relationship between
project complexity and project success is introduced through the expanded standard model of
57
project management since project complexity disrupts the relationships established in the
remained defined as clusters of best practices that affect project success (Müller et al., 2019;
Nijhuis et al., 2018). However, the literature showed that human-centered project management
competencies positively influenced project success (Mainga, 2017; Raziq et al., 2018).
Oppositely, the literature offered mixed evidence that project complexity negatively affected
project success (Bredillet et al., 2015; Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2019). Ambiguity and
misinterpretation invited complexity (Butler et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018). The concept of project
success expanded to involve consideration of the relationships between the project manager and
stakeholders and the ongoing usefulness of the final project outcomes in forming a holistic
assessment of performance.
Recalling that the research problem was a lack of information about project management
competencies and project success for complex projects and that the research question was to
what extent do project management competencies and project complexity predict project success,
the literature offered evidence showing relationships between project management competencies
and project success, and project complexity and project success. The reviewed literature
provided no evidence that provided insight between project management competencies and
project complexity on project success (Maylor & Turner, 2017). The literature review validated
the research purpose since the gap in the extant literature continued.
58
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology applied in the study. The chapter begins with
reiterating the purpose of this study and identifies the research question and related hypotheses.
The chapter explains the research design, the study population and sample, the research
procedures for data collection and data analysis, and the selected instruments. The chapter
concludes with an explanation of the methods used to conduct ethically centered research and a
The theory of complexity served as the theoretical foundation for this study. The theory
competencies and project success through hidden and random influences which emerge in the
project through interdependencies (Baccarini, 1996; Khan et al., 2018; Rolstadås & Schiefloe,
2017). Research shows that project complexity negatively affects project success (Açikgöz et al.,
2016; Butler et al., 2019; Müller et al., 2018). A review of the extant literature indicates limited
complexity, and project success (Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018; Floricel et al., 2016; Maylor & Turner,
2017).
The literature offers evidence that project complexity is a primary factor in project
failures (Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018; Montequín et al., 2018; Poveda-Bautista et al., 2018; Zhu &
address the research problem concerning the lack of information available on the extent that
project management competencies and project complexity predict project success. This study is
built using the extended standard model of project management as the relational construct and
59
investigates the extent that project management competencies and project complexity predict
project success (Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor et al., 2013; Maylor & Turner, 2017). Multiple
linear regression was the statistical technique applied since the study involved two continuous
predictor variables and a single continuous criterion variable (Shieh & Kung, 2007).
The research questions and adjoining hypotheses used for this study are listed as follows:
project success.
project success.
Research Design
investigate the extent project management competencies and project complexity predict project
success. The study was a quantitative research design since theory and measurement of the
involved variables were available (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012; Scharff, 2013). This research
design was built on the theory of complexity and used the expanded standard model of project
management as the relational construct (Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor et al., 2013; Maylor &
60
Turner, 2017). Validated and reliable instruments were available to measure the variables project
management competencies, project complexity, and project success (Aga, 2016; Aga et al., 2016;
The research was nonexperimental to investigate the correlation between variables rather
than investigate a causal relationship (Cook & Cook, 2008; Johnson, 2001; Stolt et al., 2015).
The relationships between a single continuous criterion variable and two continuous predictor
variables were investigated using the multiple linear regression statistical technique and counter
the potential influence of confounding variables (Hayes, 2018; Nathans, Oswald, & Nimon,
The research applied a survey format to collect the data in two phases. The first phase
involved SurveyMonkey. The survey instrument was open for 90 days. The second phase
involved Qualtrics Panel Services (Bramley, Goode, Anderson, & Mary, 2018). Initial
recruitment involved the PMI Leadership Institute Master Class (LIMC) alumni Facebook page
(LIMC, 2020) and the Harrisburg University (HU) School of Business and Technology Master of
Science Program for Project Management LinkedIn page (HU, 2020). Qualtrics randomly
This section describes the target population and the sample used to conduct this research
inquiry. This section also justifies power analysis and sample size.
Population
This study's population was project managers who held the project management
professional (PMP) certification and operated in the USA. Serrador and Pinto (2015),
researching project complexity, indicated that project managers offer the best perspective on
61
project complexity. The Project Management Institute (2017a) defines the project manager as the
individual assigned to lead a team responsible for achieving project objectives (p. 716). A project
manager is responsible for leading a temporary initiative to create a unique product, service, or
result (Project Management Institute, 2017a, p. 715). The Project Management Institute (2018)
estimated 16 million project managers globally. Approximately 33% of all project managers
worked in the USA (Project Management Institute, 2018). For this study, an estimated 5.3
mastery of the PMI’s required level of knowledge in the project management field. To sit for the
PMP examination, a project manager must have earned a four-year degree, managed projects for
Management Institute, 2020). Project managers possessing PMP certification have demonstrated
proficiency in the PMI’s performance competencies involving the ten project management
knowledge areas (Project Management Institute, 2017b). As of August 2019, there were 960,000
certified PMPs globally (Project Management Institute, 2020). An estimated 50% of all PMPs
were in the USA (360PMO, 2019). For this research, the study population was an estimated
Sample
The sample frame for this study was project managers, who were PMP certified, and
based in the USA. Each participant had to meet the conditions of being a certified PMP based in
the USA and completed a project within the last six months. SurveyMonkey granted access to
the survey only to participants who met all the inclusion criteria. Interested participants who
worked in an organization not based in the USA, or were not a certified PMP, or did not
62
complete a project within the last six months were excluded from the research and not granted
Power Analysis
G*Power version 3.1.9.4 with an F test was applied to generate statistical reliability for a
multiple linear regression statistical technique. For business research, Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, and
Mena (2012) recommended a .95 statistical power and a medium effect size of .15. The G*Power
Procedures
The first phase involved collecting data from members of the LIMC Facebook page and
the HU Project Management Program LinkedIn page. The second phase involved gathering data
through Qualtrics Panel services. This section describes the specific procedural steps undertaken.
Methods used for sampling and ensuring the protection of participants are described. This section
concludes with method details regarding data collection and data analysis.
Participant Selection
The study population was PMP certified project managers, who operated in the USA, and
who completed a project within the last six months from this research. Potential participants in
the first phase came from membership in the LIMC Facebook page or the HU Project
Management LinkedIn page. Most of the two sites were also members of the study population
(HU, 2020; LIMC, 2020). The sites were selected based on association with the two institutions.
The sampling method was self-selection sampling (Paas & Morren, 2018). Potential participants
The two social media sites to invite potential participants had brief messages and the link
to the survey instrument. Interested participants selected the link which directed them to the
63
survey instrument. Inclusion questioning began data collection. A “no” response to any of the
screening questions directed the potential participant to a final page that expressed appreciation
for consideration. Responding with a “yes” to all four screening questions directed the
Protection of Participants
Interested participants were provided the informed consent language and offered the choice
to ‘agree’ or ‘not agree.’ The SurveyMonkey web-based platform in the first and Qualtrics Panel
services in the second phase granted access to the survey instrument only to individuals who agreed
to informed consent. Responding with a “no” to any of the screening questions directed the
participant to the final page and thanked them for their consideration. The results are documented
in this dissertation, published, and accessible by anyone who desires to review the study. The use
of SurveyMonkey, Qualtrics, and the questions contained in the survey instrument complied with
the guiding principles of The Belmont Report (National Commission, 1979) involving respect for
Data Collection
Participants started with 33 project management competencies questions and continued with 31
complexity assessment tool questions and 14 project success questions. Participants completed
the full survey in 20 minutes. SurveyMonkey required an answer for each question. Participants
After 90 days, the survey on the SurveyMonkey platform was closed. Data collection
through Qualtrics Panel Services lasted five days. Both platforms were downloaded to a
password-protected external hard drive for analysis purposes. Only the researcher knew the
64
password and location of the external drive. Data will be stored on the external drive for seven
years. At the end of the seven years, the external drive will be first demagnetized then physically
Data Analysis
The study design was quantitative nonexperimental correlational research. The collected
survey data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Version 25.0 (Adams, Infeld, & Wulff, 2013; Hair
et al., 2011). A multiple linear regression approach was applied to predict project success based
on the project management competencies and project complexity (Field, 2018; Hayes, 2018;
Martin & Bridgmon, 2018). The survey instrument collected continuous interval scale data for
collected data. Using SPSS, frequency distributions were developed to examine the range of
values for each variable. Histograms of frequency distributions were formed to understand the
shape of the data and identify outliers. The mean, median, and mode for each variable were
determined to measure central tendency. Values range, variance, and standard deviation of
Using SPSS, the casewise diagnostics report was generated to identify outlier data
(Martin & Bridgmon, 2012). Outlier influence was examined using Cook’s distance (Cook’s D)
which measured the overall effect of a data point on the dataset (Hair et al., 2011). Outlier
influence was investigated by calculating average leverage to determine the impact of the
dependent variable's observed values over the independent variables (Hair et al., 2011). The
Mahalanobis distance was calculated to measure the spread of the mean of the independent
variables to detect multivariate outliers (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012). Lastly, using SPSS, b-
65
values were examined using DFBeta to measure the outlier influence change in b-values (Field,
2018).
homoscedasticity, linearity, multicollinearity, and normality (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2011;
Martin & Bridgmon, 2012). A scatterplot of ZRESID to ZPRED was applied to identify whether
heteroscedasticity and nonlinearity were present in the data (Hair et al., 2011). The variance
inflation factor (VIF) was used to measure the strength of the independent variables (Field, 2018;
Hair et al., 2011). A histogram of the residuals regressed and compared to a normal distribution
Hypothesis testing. To use the multiple linear regression statistical technique, the
regression coefficient, R2, was determined for each relationship between the predictor and
criterion variables to measure the influence of the independent variable on the dependent
variable (Hair et al., 2011; Martin & Bridgmon, 2012). The standard alpha level.05 (α = .05) was
applied to determine the significance of the relationships in hypothesis testing (Field, 2018).
Three multiple regression models were examined using stepwise multiple regression analysis.
Martin and Bridgmon (2012) recommended using stepwise analysis when empirical evidence
exists that supports relationships between the predictor and criterion variables. Model one
contained only project management competencies and project success. Model two contained only
project complexity and project success. Model three contained project management
Using SPSS, the R-value was applied to measure the correlation between the predictor
and criterion variables (Hair et al., 2011). The adjusted R2 was applied to examine how the
model generalizes to the population. The F-statistic was used to measure the prediction
66
improvement in the model compared to the level of inaccuracies found in the model (Field,
2018). Using the t-statistic, the hypothesis was tested such that if b-value = 0, then the alternate
hypothesis was rejected. Evaluation of the significance levels of the computed probability values
(p-values) indicated the best model fitting a straight line to the collected data. If p ≤ .05, then b
was significantly different from 0 and suggested that the independent variable was a significant
contributor to predicting the dependent variable (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2011). The β-values
ascertained the strength and direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent
variables for the three models. Table 1 describes the data analysis summary.
Table 1
Data Analysis Summary
Instruments
This study used three instruments to measure the variables under investigation.
Specifically, the project management competencies questionnaire (PMCQ) was used to measure
project management competencies. The complexity assessment tool (CAT) was applied to
measure project complexity. Lastly, the project success questionnaire (PSQ) was used to measure
project success. A description of the types of questions, scales, the reasoning for selection,
67
Project Management Competencies Questionnaire (PMCQ)
project management competencies (de Araújo et al., 2018b). The instrument was selected since it
aligned with the Project Management Institute’s framework, emphasizing the importance of
developing both technical and personal project management competencies (Project Management
Institute, 2017b). The instrument was initially designed for assessing project management
competencies for IT project managers but was transferable to other project manager types (de
Araújo et al., 2018b). The instrument consisted of 33-questions which were answered using a
five-point Likert-scale that ranged from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). Though a
Likert-scale represents an ordinal response, the values can be applied in parametric tests since
values are considered approximately continuous if the scale contains five or more values
(Sullivan & Artino, 2013). The variable data was collected through an instrument that was an
interval scale using the sum of ordinal values. The maximum possible score was 165, and the
lowest possible score was 33. A higher score on the PMCQ indicated a higher project
management competencies level. All questions contained in the PMCQ were asked.
extracted (AVE). AVE values above .500 indicate support for discriminate validity (Hair et al.,
2011). The instrument had an AVE value of .632, indicating discriminate validity (de Araújo et
al., 2018b).
Reliability. The instrument was tested using Cronbach’s alpha and demonstrated internal
consistency at .90 (de Araújo et al., 2018b). The instrument was stratified into four categories
with acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficients with results of team commitment at .90, project
management at .90, personal characteristics at .93, and team management at .86. Hair et al.
68
(2011) indicated that an instrument demonstrating at least an internal consistency level of .70 is
The complexity assessment tool (CAT) was used (Maylor & Turner, 2017). The
instrument was selected since it integrated previous complexity research into structural,
sociopolitical, and emergent (Maylor & Turner, 2017). The instrument was constructed using the
theory of complexity (Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor et al., 2013; Maylor & Turner, 2017). The
instrument was initially designed to serve as a focal point for discussions with project managers
coping with project complexity. The variable data was collected through an instrument that was
interval scale using the sum of ordinal values. The instrument consisted of 31-questions
answered using a five-point Likert-scale that ranged from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly
disagree). The maximum possible score was 155, and the lowest possible score was 31. A lower
score on the CAT indicated a higher complexity level perceived by the project manager's project
Validity. Published validity data for the CAT instrument was not available. The CAT
demonstrated face validity since it was designed by Dr. Maylor and Dr. Turner, who are
considered experts in project complexity. The instrument was based on the MoDEST framework
Reliability. The instrument was tested using Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated internal
The project success questionnaire (PSQ) was applied (Aga, 2016). The instrument was
69
and customer service (Aga et al., 2016). The variable data was collected through an instrument
that was an interval scale using the sum of ordinal values. The instrument consisted of 14-
questions answered using a five-point Likert-scale that ranged from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1
(Strongly disagree). The maximum possible score was 70, and the lowest possible score was 14.
A higher score on the PSQ indicated a higher level of project success. All questions contained in
extracted (AVE). AVE values above .500 indicate support for discriminate validity (Hair et al.,
2011). The instrument had an AVE value of .642, indicating discriminate validity (Aga, 2016).
Reliability. The instrument was tested using Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated internal
Table 2
Variables Summary
Ethical Considerations
This study complied with the guiding principles of The Belmont Report (National
Commission, 1979), which involve respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The use of the
SurveyMonkey and Qualtrics platforms as the data collectors helped address respect for persons.
70
Consideration of respect for persons was strengthened by removing all collected data from the
external drive. The use of informed consent addressed issues related to beneficence. This study
participants in this research were no more significant than risks experienced on a typical day of
activity. This study received to review and approval from the Capella University IRB and the
Summary
This research was predicated on a rigorous methodology design. The population for this
study was project managers who held the project management professional certification and were
based in the USA. The sample was drawn from the LIMC Facebook page or the HU Project
Management LinkedIn page. Data was collected using the SurveyMonkey web-based platform.
Multiple linear regression was applied to investigate the extent project management
competencies and project complexity predict project success. The project management
competencies questionnaire, the complexity assessment tool, and the project success
questionnaire were validated and reliable instruments to measure the study variables. The
research design complied with principles of The Belmont Report (National Commission, 1979)
involving respect of persons, benefice, and justice. Chapter 4 continues with the results from the
implemented methodology.
71
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
complexity predict project success. There is limited research into the relationship between
project management competencies, project complexity, and project success (Maylor & Turner,
2017). Since a project management theory does not currently exist, the expanded standard
project management model, which integrates the three investigated variables, was used (Geraldi,
Maylor, & Williams, 2011). Multiple linear regression was the statistical technique since the
study involved two continuous independent variables and a single continuous dependent variable
(Martin & Bridgmon, 2012). The remainder of this chapter continues with a background of the
study, description of the sample, examination of the outliers, assumptions testing for the
In the previous chapters, evidence supporting the research problem was provided. Maylor
and Turner (2017) indicated that investigation into the relationship of project management
competencies, project complexity, and project success is limited and relevant to the project
management community. The literature review offered evidence that the influence of project
management competencies on project success is positive and that the effect of project complexity
on project success is mixed (Mainga, 2017; Raziq et al., 2018; Serrador & Pinto, 2015). The
Research questions and associated hypotheses are indicated in Table 3. Data collection
was conducted through SurveyMonkey, Qualtrics, and LinkedIn. Chapter 4 continues the
72
investigation by describing the data collected and showing the results stemming from the
Table 3
Description of Models, Research Questions, and Hypotheses
The study population was project managers operating in the USA and possessing a
current project management professional (PMP) certification. The sample frame was derived
from the PMI Leadership Institute Master Class (LIMC) alumni Facebook page, the Harrisburg
University (HU) School of Business and Technology Master of Science Program from Project
Management LinkedIn page, the SurveyMonkey platform, and the Qualtrics Panel services. Data
was collected through the project management competencies questionnaire with a Cronbach
alpha value of .90, the complexity assessment tool with a Cronbach alpha value of .90, and the
project success questionnaire with a Cronbach alpha value of .93 (Aga, 2016; de Araújo, Pedron,
Russo, & Quevedo, 2018b; Maylor & Turner, 2017; Williams, 2018). The unit of analysis was a
project since research participants were asked to consider project management competencies
73
applied and project complexity and project success perceived in a project completed within the
last six months. A total of 166 individuals accessed the survey instrument, and a total of 115
completed the survey instrument resulting in a 69% response rate. Using G*Power 3.1.9.4, the
statistical power of 96% was determined relative to the sample size and statistical technique
applied.
Descriptive statistics were run on the independent and dependent variables. Results are
indicated in Table 4. It was observed for project management competencies, µ = 142.77, CI [93,
165], S = -.824, K = 1.057; for project complexity, µ = 124.95, CI [57, 155], S = -1.324, K =
1.951; and for project success, µ = 57.48, CI [18, 70], S = -1.486, K = 3.489.
Table 4
Frequency Distributions
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show that project management competencies and project complexity
exhibit a slight buildup of data points to the mean with light-tailed distributions. Project success
exhibits a small buildup of data points to the right of the mean with the heavy-tailed diffusion.
74
Figure 1. Histogram of project management competencies
75
Figure 3. Histogram of project success
Using SPSS, casewise diagnostics were run to identify possible outliers (Martin &
Bridgmon, 2012). Cook’s distance (Cook’s D) was calculated to measure the overall influence of
a data point on the dataset. Cook’s D values greater than one are possible outliers (Hair et al.,
2011). None of the data points had Cook’s D values more significant than one. Leverage was
computed for each record to measure the outlier influence of the dependent variable's observed
values on the independent variable. Datapoints with leverage more significant than three times
the average leverage indicate possible outlier influence (Hair et al., 2011). Cases 36, 45, 101,
110, 112, 114, and 115 had leverage values greater than three times the average leverage.
Mahalanobis distance was determined to measure the mean of the independent variables' distance
to detect multivariate outliers. Values greater than 15 are potential outliers (Field, 2018). Case 45
had a Mahalanobis distance value greater than 15. DFBeta values were calculated to examine
outlier influence change in b-values. DFBeta values with absolute values greater than one are
possible outliers. Cases 101, 110, and 114 had DFBeta absolute values more significant than one.
Cases 36, 45, 101, 107, 110, 112, 114, and 115 were removed because they were outliers and are
76
listed in Table 5. Field (2018) indicated that removing outliers is an acceptable technique in
Table 5
Casewise Diagnostics
Hypothesis Testing
In this research, multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the strength and direction
of two models involving the variables project management competencies, project complexity,
and project success. The R-value regression coefficient was calculated to measure the correlation
between the predictor and criterion variables. The t-statistic was used to test the hypotheses such
Before conducting hypothesis testing, the assumptions of multiple linear regression were
multiple linear regression and indicate that the relationship between the independent and the
dependent variable to each of the independent variables regressed were examined for the
presence of homoscedasticity and linearity (Field, 2018). Datapoints in all three graphs, shown in
Figures 4, 5, and 6, show a random and even dispersion of data which indicates that
77
Figure 4. Examination of assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity – project success
78
Figure 6. Examination of assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity – project complexity
independent variables, which causes the standard error for the b-values to increase and lead to
unstable predictors (Field, 2018). The variance inflation factor (VIF) is used to test the
assumption of multicollinearity. VIF values greater than one potentially indicate a violation of
the multicollinearity assumption (Field, 2018). Table 6 shows that VIF values equal one and that
Table 6
Variance Inflation Factor
The assumption of normality of residuals must be retained for multiple linear regression
analysis. The differences between what the model predicts and the observed datapoint must be
approximately normally distributed (Field, 2018). A histogram of the residuals regressed and
compared to a normal distribution plot is used to test the assumption of normality of residuals.
Figure 7 shows that residuals are normally distributed, indicating that the assumption is retained.
79
Figure 7. Histogram of residuals
Two multiple linear regression models were examined. Model one contained project
management competencies as the predictor variable. The second model contained project
management competencies and project complexity. Linear regression was used to compare
variances of mean values between multiple groups. These computations are encapsulated in the
analysis of variance (ANOVA). Since ANOVA involves a linear regression, the F-statistic can
measure the significance of mean values between groups and within groups (Field, 2018). The F-
statistic was used to interpret the model fit by measuring the amount of systematic variance
divided by the amount of unsystematic variance in the model. The value indicates the amount of
prediction improvement in the model compared to inaccuracies in the model (Field, 2018). An F-
80
Additionally, the F-statistic has an associated probability distribution such that p < .05 is
significant and that the null hypothesis is rejected. The regression model summary values show
that the second model is a good model since F (2,104) = 71.238, p < .001. ANOVA results are
indicated in Table 7.
Table 7
Analysis of Variance Results
Using the equation for a line, b0 and b1 are the regression coefficients indicating the
intercept and slope of the relationship. A regression coefficient equaling zero indicates no
relationship between the outcome and predictor variables. For a variable to significantly predict
an outcome, the b-value does not equal zero (Field, 2018). Using the t-statistic, the hypothesis is
tested such that if b-value equals zero, then the hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, if p < .05, then
b is significantly different from zero and indicates that the predictor is a significant contributor to
predicting the outcome (Field, 2018). The β-value suggests the strength and direction of the
Recall that H01 was, there is no statistically significant correlation between project
management competencies and project success. The first null hypothesis is rejected since F (1,
105) = 17.628, p < .001. The first alternative hypothesis is accepted. Recall that H02 was, there is
Evaluation of the second null hypothesis was inconclusive since an F-statistic was not generated
81
through the SPSS software. Additionally, the second model indicates that project management
competencies (b = .083, β = .143, t = 2.111, p < .05); and project complexity (b = .295, β = .700,
t = 10.346, p < .001) is a good model such that as project management competencies increases
and project complexity increases, project success increases. Regression coefficient results are
indicated in Table 8.
Table 8
Results of Regression Coefficients
The R-value is a measure of the correlation between the predictor variables and the
outcome variable (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2011). The adjusted R2 is used to gauge how well the
model generalizes to the population. The results indicated that project management competencies
contributed 13.6% of the variance in the first model. The second model added project complexity
which explained 57.0% of the variance. Results of the linear regression models are shown in
Table 9.
Table 9
Regression Model Summary
Model R R Square Adj R Square Std. Error R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .379 .144 .136 6.372 .144 17.628 1 105 .000
2 .760 .578 .570 4.495 .434 107.044 1 104 .000
Results for the model involving project complexity and project success were
inconclusive. The SPSS software generated an excluded variable report indicated in Table 10.
82
Table 10
Excluded Variable: Project Complexity and Project Success Model
Summary
This chapter provided the results of the research data collected. Specifically, the data
collected contained eight outliers which were subsequently removed. With the eight outliers
removed, the sample size still retained adequate statistical power at 95%. The four linear
regression assumptions were examined, and results indicated that all four assumptions were
retained. The first alternate hypothesis is that a statistically significant correlation between
project management competencies and project success was accepted since F (1, 105) = 17.628, p
< .001. The second alternate hypothesis that a statistically significant correlation between project
complexity and project success was inconclusive since an F-statistic was not generated. The
complexity, and the dependent variable project success, was a good model since F (2, 104) =
71.238, p < .001. In chapter 5, the results are discussed and considered reflective of the research
questions and associated literature review. Limitations and opportunities for future research are
83
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
The study results were provided in Chapter 4 and showed that the predictive model was a
good model. The first research question results investigated the extent to which project
management competencies predict project success, supported by rejecting the null hypothesis.
The second research question investigated the extent to which project complexity predicted
project success and was answered inconclusively. Interpretation of the results presented in the
previous chapter and consideration of the results relative to the extant literature are discussed in
Chapter 5. This chapter begins with a summary of the results. The results are evaluated
concerning the available literature. Results are considered from the inward perspective of the
project manager and outwardly from the perspective of the project environment. This chapter
The general problem of research for this study concerned the association of the project
management competencies and project success, and the expanded standard model of project
management in which project complexity disturbs the relationship between project management
competencies and project success. As a result, the first research question of this study
investigated to what extent project management competencies predict project success. The
second research question of this study investigated to what extent does project complexity
This study provides evidence that project management competencies improve project
success. Viewing the project through the standard model of project management explains that
84
project management competencies positively influence project success. The expanded standard
project management model explains that project complexity disrupts the relationship between
project management competencies and project success. Examining the project through the
expanded standard model of project management relates the three variables used in this study.
The research design for this study was a quantitative nonexperimental correlational
approach. This study’s results support that project management competencies predict project
success and agree with the literature. Human-centered project management competencies,
competencies and project complexity predict project success. Results support that the predictive
model involving project management competencies, project complexity, and project success is a
good model since project management competencies (b = .083, β = .143, t = 2.111, p < .05); and
project complexity (b = .295, β = .700, t = 10.346, p < .001) such that as project management
competencies increases and project complexity increases, project success also increases. The
second model, involving project management competencies and project complexity, explained a
significant portion of the variance in project success since R2 = .570, F (2, 104) = 71.238, p <
.001.
The remainder of this chapter explains the relevance of this research and is organized as
follows. The results are examined relative to the research questions. An inward focus on the
project manager is heightened in discussing the results. Next, the results are considered
outwardly relative to the wider audience involving the project team and the project environment.
85
Stemming from examining the results, limitations, practical implications, and recommendations
The results of this research provide evidence which answers the first research question.
The second research question is inconclusively answered. The prediction model involving
project management competencies, project complexity, and project success is a good model.
Interpretation of the results relative to the project manager is described in this section.
Discussion of the two research questions and the predictive model continues.
The first research question, to what extent do project management competencies predict
project success, was answered. As expected, the research results provide evidence that the
integration of project management competencies and project complexity predict project success.
The null hypothesis, there is no statistically significant correlation between project management
competencies and project success, was rejected since F (1, 105) = 17.628, p < .001.
Project managers who can encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing guide project
stakeholders to transform ambiguity into creativity. New solutions and approaches become
possible. Project management competencies enable project managers to relieve conflicts and
encourage collaboration. This research offers evidence that by applying project management
competencies, the project manager can tap the hidden creativity and knowledge available in the
The second research question, to what extent does project complexity predict project
success, was inconclusively answered. Project complexity emerges through ambiguity and
influences the relationship between project management competencies and project complexity.
This study supports those project managers who embrace the complexity and encourage the
86
project stakeholders to partner and adapt to project success. Though results were inconclusive
concerning the second research question, the perspective regarding harnessing the opportunities
available in complex projects is essential. It serves as the focal point in explaining this study’s
complexity, and project success is a good model since F (2, 104) = 71.238, p < .001. Both
chaotic and complex systems are defined through interconnectivity between system agents. The
presence of equifinality separates complexity from chaos. Tensions disrupt both chaotic and
complex systems. Complex systems eventually emerge into a new and stable pattern. Complexity
scientists call the moments preceding a new pattern in a complex system the edge of chaos.
This study’s evidence supports managing the edge of chaos. Using project management
knowledge sharing. Project managers possessing strong project management competencies can
embrace project complexity. Applying project management competencies, the project manager
can leverage the interconnected experiences and knowledge available in the project team, leading
The use of project management competencies enables the project manager to build trust
with the project stakeholders. Complex projects, which do not involve project management
competencies, lack the element of trust. Instead, collaboration, fortified by trust, is necessary for
encourage building a trusting environment in the project team, leading to innovativeness and
ingenuity.
87
Conclusions Based on the Results
This study’s results and relevance to both the project manager and the project
environment are discussed in this section. For purposes of this section, the project environment
involves the project stakeholders who are interlinked through the lens of project complexity. This
section evaluates the study results outwardly towards the project stakeholders.
Comparison of the Findings with the Theoretical Framework and Previous Literature
The first research question, to what extent do project management competencies predict
project success, was answered. Project management competencies positively influence project
success. This research provides evidence that project managers skilled in project management
competencies, including people skills and team management, likely experience improved project
performance. The literature is replete with evidence that supports that the use of project
management competencies improves project success (Mainga, 2017; Ordoñez et al., 2019; Raziq
et al., 2018). Consequently, the first research question results agree with the extant literature.
The research supports that project management competencies improve the prediction of
project success. Collaborative commitment between the project manager and the project
stakeholders facilitates project execution. The project manager must integrate the knowledge and
encourages partnership and knowledge sharing among the project stakeholders resulting in
project success.
The second research question, to what extent does project complexity predict project
success, was not answered since the results were inconclusive. However, the inconclusive results
also agree with the extant literature. Debates continue in the project management community
concerning the effects project complexity has on project performance (Teece, 2018). A literature
88
review concerning the influence project complexity has on project success is mixed. Serrador
and Pinto (2018) found no evidence that project complexity influences project success. Other
literature offered relatedly opposite assessments of project complexity. Rumeser and Emsley
(2019) offered that decision-making improves complex projects, ultimately improving project
performance.
Complexity theory served as the theoretical foundation for this study. The theory of
complexity explains that internal and external dependencies in the project lead to randomness
and uncertainties, which cause the project to behave unpredictably. This study investigated the
project through the standard model of project management, which states that project managers
acquire skills and best practices to improve project performance, and the expanded standard
model of project management, which explains that complexity influences the relationship
between project management competencies and project performance (Geraldi et al., 2011).
The expanded standard project management model indicates that project complexity
influences the relationship between project management competencies and project success
(Bjorvatn & Wald, 2018; Geraldi et al., 2011). This study’s predictive model provides insight
into the expanded standard project management model. This research evidence supports that
management competencies are used in complex projects, project success potential is higher than
transform the project team into behaving like a complex adaptive system. Project managers who
89
can transform uncertainties into opportunities can make complex projects successful. Ambiguity
and uncertainty, associated with project complexity, are converted into clarity and creativity.
This study’s predictive model provides insight into managing project complexity. The
predictive model provides evidence that project stakeholders' interrelatedness is leveraged using
sharing, encouraged with project management competencies, catalyze novel and adaptive
The human brain interprets the presence of complexity as missing information and
ambiguity. The predictive model shows that project management competencies involving
knowledge sharing and collaboration address the ambiguity that emerges through complexity.
Project management competencies are ineffective without stakeholder participation. The results
support using project management competencies. The project manager can leverage knowledge
and abilities available in the project stakeholders and transform threats and weaknesses into
project members ultimately lead to tensions in the project system. The research results do not
necessarily refute the position concerning sources of project complexity. Instead, through
consideration of the predictive model, the evidence supports that sources of project complexity
are also a part of the solution to manage project complexity. Connectivity, available in the
project system, can be harnessed, leading to project success. Using project management
competencies, the project manager leverages the connectivity functionality in the project team,
90
which interlinks experiences and knowledge and transforms threats and uncertainties caused by
The model involving project management competencies, project complexity, and project
The use of project management competencies facilitates the project manager to identify,
navigate, and connect sources of knowledge shared throughout the project environment.
The project is a holistic entity. The project manager, who interprets the project as a
complex adaptive system, can encourage team members to behave flexibly. Treating projects
holistically encourages adaptive behavior. The evidence stemming from the predictive model
supports that using project management competencies enables the project manager to integrate
the project team members into a holistic entity since knowledge sharing and communication are
who balance project constraints with project expectations can manage project complexity.
Project managers who encourage team members to seek opportunities to partner continuously
can realize successful complex projects. The evidence supports that applying project
management competencies that promote partnership and collaboration enable the project
stakeholders to transform ambiguity into clarity since knowledge and resources are shared,
91
Limitations
This study investigated the predictive effect project management competencies and
project complexity have upon project success. The statistical technique used was multiple linear
regression. The study involved two continuous independent variables, project management
competencies and project complexity, and a single continuous dependent variable, project
success. Though the study conformed to the research design, limitations did exist. Specifically,
limitations were identified concerning the statistical technique used and the predictor variables
This research involved two independent variables and a single dependent variable using
multiple linear regression as the statistical technique. The decision to examine two independent
variables was based on resource availability and funding considerations. As previously indicated,
a minimum sample size of 107 is necessary to attain 95% statistical power involving research
with two independent variables and multiple linear regression as the statistical technique.
complexity predict project success. Both project management competencies and project
complexity were treated aggregately. Project management competencies were measured using
competency types (de Araújo et al., 2018b). The instrument affords for investigation of analysis
at the project management competencies level. Similarly, project complexity was measured
using the complexity assessment tool, which involves structural complexity and sociopolitical
complexity types (Maylor et al., 2017). To attain 95% statistical power using seven predictor
variables, and using multiple linear regression as the statistical technique, requires a minimum
92
sample size of 153 participants. Results are indicated in Table 11. Investigation at the project
management competency type and project complexity type levels was limited since additional
Table 11
G*Power Input Parameters for A Priori Power Analysis Using Seven Predictors
The research design was nonexperimental. The scope of this study was limited to
correlational examination. This study treated the project complexity variable as a mediator
variable. Baron and Kenny (1986) defined a mediator variable as a third variable, continuous in
type, which influences the relationship between two other variables (p. 1173). A mediator
variable is investigated to provide insight into the third variable's predictive effect upon the
relationship of the other two variables established through previous research (Hall & Sammons,
2013).
Baron and Kenny (1986) indicated that a variable is considered a mediator variable, in
general, since the variable is investigated to examine a correlational relationship. Based on the
literature, treating the project complexity variable as a mediator variable was valid and suitable
(Hall & Sammons, 2013). However, when considering treating project complexity as a
Rather than gaining insight into the correlation examined through a mediator variable,
research into a moderator variable offers insight into a causal relationship (Baron & Kenny,
93
1986). The moderator variable is measured to examine the differential effect of the presence or
the absence of the moderator variable upon the other two variables. As a result, a moderator
variable is treated as a categorical variable rather than a continuous variable. Since project
complexity was treated as a mediator variable, this research was limited in gaining insight into
the interactive effect of project complexity upon project management competencies and project
success.
Since a project management theory remains elusive, this study was built on complexity,
which explains that randomness and uncertainty emerge from project interdependencies
(Maldonado, 2017). The relational construct was based on the standard model of project
competencies through experience and instruction, intended to improve project success, and the
expanded standard model of project management, which indicates that project complexity
influences the relationship between project management competencies and project success
This study’s results support that project management competencies improve project
success. The literature offers ample evidence which supports the positive relationship between
project management competencies and project success (Mainga, 2017; Raziq et al., 2018). The
study results did not conclusively answer whether project complexity influences project success.
The literature provides mixed evidence concerning the relationship between project complexity
and project success (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). This study’s predictive model involving project
management competencies, project complexity, and project success provides evidence that this is
a good model.
94
The predictive model supports that project management competencies and project
complexity predict project success. What is interesting for the project management practitioner is
the insight that the predictive model offers. Specifically, the interrelatedness available in
knowledge and experiences available in the project environment, encouraging ingenuity and
creativity. The finding is an opportunity for project managers to realize success in complex
projects.
competencies, project complexity, and project success. The use of a moderator variable, treated
as a categorical variable, provides insight into the interactive effect between two other variables
(Hall & Sammons, 2013). Treatment of project complexity as a moderator variable is supported
in the literature (Geraldi et al., 2011). It would be interesting to treat project complexity as a
moderating variable since it would examine the causal effect of project complexity on project
The evidence from this study shows that as project management competencies are used
relative to project complexity, increased levels of project success are predicted. This research
relationship would provide additional knowledge of the differential effect of the presence or
absence of project complexity. To treat project complexity as a moderator variable would require
categorical scale involving minimal, moderate, or high project complexity. Rather than using
95
multiple linear regression, the statistical technique would be an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
since the research would investigate the differential between project complexity categories
(Baron & Kenny, 1986; Hair et al., 2011; Hall & Sammons, 2013).
In the spirit of parsimony, this study limited the number of predictor variables to two,
though the data collection instruments stratified project management competencies and project
complexity levels. The data collection instruments and multiple linear regression as the statistical
technique would remain unchanged. As indicated in Table 12, the number of participants would
need to be raised to at least 153 individuals. Insight into the predictive effect of project
management competency types and project complexity types upon project success would be
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to address the gap in the extant literature regarding project
management competencies, project complexity, and project success, as identified by Maylor and
Turner (2017). The first research question was, to what extent do project management
competencies predict project success. The second research question was, to what extent does
project complexity predict project success. Results supported that project management
competencies predict project success. Results were inconclusive regarding whether project
complexity predicts project success. The model involving project management competencies,
project complexity, and project success is a good model. This study’s predictive model is
project managers to harness the creativity and ingenuity available in complex projects leading to
project success.
96
The dissertation is concluded. Undoubtedly, tremendous growth in both appreciation and
application as a scholar-practitioner has been gained. With focused spirit and determination, the
knowledge and experience accumulated will contribute to the project management community
97
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2016). Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder
landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 1537-1552.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.009
Açikgöz, A., Günsel, A., Kuzey, C., & Seçgin, G. (2016). Functional diversity, absorptive
capability and product success: The moderating role of project complexity in new product
development teams. Creativity and innovation management, 25(1), 90-109.
http://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12156
Adams, W. C., Infeld, D. L., & Wulff, C. M. (2013). Statistical software for curriculum and
careers. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(1), 173-188.
http://doi.org/10.1080/125236803.2013.12001725
Aga, D. A. (2016). Transactional leadership and project success: The moderating role of goal
clarity. Procedia Computer Science, 100, 517-525.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.190
Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project
success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project
Management, 34, 806-818. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.0121
Alavosius, M. P., Houmanfar, R. A., Anbro, S. J., Burleigh, K., & Hebein, C. (2017). Leadership
and crew resource management in high-reliability organizations: A competency
framework for measuring behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
37(2), 142-170. http://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1325825
Alipour, K. K., Mohammed, S., & Martinez, P. N. (2017). Incorporating temporality into implicit
leadership and followership theories: Exploring inconsistencies between time-based
expectations and actual behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 300-316.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.006
Alvarenga, J. C., Branco, R. R., Guedes, A. L. A., Soares, A. P., & da Silveira e Silva, W.
(2020). The project manager core competencies to project success. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, 13(2), 277-292. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-12-2018-
0274
Amoako-Gyampah, K., Meredith, J., & Loyd, K. W. (2018). Using a social capital lens to
identify the mechanisms of top management commitment: A case study of a technology
project. Project Management Journal, 49(1), 79-95.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281804900106
98
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., García-Melón, M., & Montesinos-Valera, J. (2017). How to assess
stakeholders’ influence in project management? A proposal based on the analytic
network process. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 451-462.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.001
Ashby, F. G., & Rosedahl, L. (2017). A neural interpretation of exemplar theory. Psychological
Review, 124(4), 472-482. http://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000064
Aube, C., Rousseau, V., & Bunelle, E. (2017). Flow experience in teams: The role of shared
leadership. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2017, 1-10.
http://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000071
Aubry, M., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2018). Rethinking organizational design for managing
multiple projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(2018), 12-26.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012
Aubry, M., & Lenfle, S. (2012). Projectification: Midler’s footprint in the project management
field. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 680-694.
http://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211268997
Badewi, A. (2016). The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM)
practices on project success: Towards developing a project benefits governance
framework. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 761-778.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005
Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V., & Gorod, A. (2016). Clarifying the project complexity construct: Past,
present and future. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 1199-1213.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002
Barnett, R.C., & Weidenfeller, N. K. (2016). Shared leadership and team performance. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 334-351.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645885
99
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1.1.917.2326
Barrane, F. Z., Ndubisi, N. O., Kamble, S., Karuranga, G. E., & Poulin, D. (2021). Building trust
in multi-stakeholder collaborations for new product development in the digital
transformation era. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(1), 205-228.
http://doi.org/10.1108/bij-04-2020-0164
Bayaga, A., Flowerday, S., & Cilliers, L. (2017). IT risk and chaos theory: Effect on the
performance of South African SMEs. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 15(5), 48-
53. Retrieved from http://www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/home.asp
Besteiro, É. N. C., de Souza Pinto, J., & Novaski, O. (2015). Success factors in project
management. Business Management Dynamics, 4(9), 19-34. Retrieved from
http://www.bmdynamics.com
Binci, D., Cerruti, C., & Braganza, A. (2016). Do vertical and shared leadership need each other
in change management? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(5), 558-
578. http://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-08-2014-0166
Bjorvatn, T., & Wald, A. (2018). Project complexity and team-level absorptive capacity as
drivers of project management performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 36, 876-888. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.05.003
Blixt, C., & Kirytopoulos, K. (2017). Challenges and competencies for project management in
the Australian public service. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(3),
286-300. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-08-2016-0132
Boas, T. C., Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2018). Recruiting large online samples in the
United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics. Political Science
Research and Methods, 2018, 1-19. http://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.28
Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the
relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership
Quarterly, 26, 1080-1094. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.007
Bond-Barnard, T., Fletcher, L., & Steyn, H. (2018). Linking trust and collaboration in project
teams to project management success. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 11(2), 432-457. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-06-2017-0068
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Bakker, H., & Hertogh, M. (2018). Comparing project complexity across
different industry sectors. Complexity, 2018(3246508), 1-12.
http://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3246508
100
Botchkarev, A., & Finnigan, P. (2015). Complexity in the context of information systems project
management. Organisational Project Management, 2(1), 15-34.
http://doi.org/10.5130/opm.v2i1.4272
Bowers, J. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with education neuroscience.
Psychological Review, 123(5), 600-612. http://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000025
Bramley, I., Goode, A., Anderson, L., & Mary, E. (2018). Researching in-store, at home: Using
virtual reality within quantitative surveys. International Journal of Market Research,
60(4), 344-351. http://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318767287
Bredillet, C., Tywoniak, S., & Dwivedula, R. (2015). What is a good project manager? An
Aristotelian perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 254-266.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.001
Browne, W., Dreitlein, S., Ha, M., Manzoni, J., & Mere, A. (2016). Two key success factors for
global project team leadership: Communications and human resource management.
Journal of IT and Economic Development, 7(2), 40-48. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/index?journalid=297
Brucceoleri, M., Riccobono, F., & Gröβler, A. (2019). Shared leadership regulates operational
team performance in the presence of extreme decisional consensus/conflict: Evidence
from business process reengineering. Decision Sciences, 50(1), 46-83.
http://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12325
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspective on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
Burström, T., & Wilson, T. L. (2018). The texture of tension: Complexity, uncertainty and
equivocality. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), 458-485.
http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-01-2017-0005
Butler, C. W., Vijayasarathy, L. R., & Roberts, N. (2019). Managing software development
projects for success: Aligning plan- and agility-based approaches to project complexity
and project dynamism. Project Management Journal, 1-16.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819848251
Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure of an assessment instrument
from three perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17-32.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8501.02
101
Cardona-Meza, L. S., & Olivar-Tost, G. (2017). Modeling and simulation of project management
through the PMBOK standard using complex networks. Complexity, 2017(4791635), 1-
12. http://doi.org/10.10/j.ijproman.2017.07.004
Carvalho, M. M., & Junior, R. R. (2015). Impact of risk management on project performance:
The importance of soft skills. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 321-
340. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.919423
Carvalho, M. M., & Rabechini, R. (2017). Can project sustainability management impact project
success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. International Journal of
Project Management, 35, 1120-1132. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.018
Cerezo-Narváez, A., de los Ríos Carmendado, I., Pastor-Fernández, A., Blanco, J. L. Y., &
Otero-Mateo, M. (2019). Project management competences by teaching and research
staff for the sustained success of engineering education. Education Science, 9(44), 1-30.
http://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010044
Cha, J., & Maytorena-Sanchez, E. (2019). Prioritising project management competences across
the software project life cycle. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
12(4), 961-978. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-11-2017-0145
Chaudhry, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. (2019). Thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming:
Responsibility exchange theory and the currency of communication. Psychological
Review, 126(3), 313-344. http://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000139
Chen, T., Fu, M., Liu, R., Xu, Xl, Zhou, S., & Liu, B. (2019). How do project management
competencies change within the project management career model in large Chinese
construction companies? International Journal of Project Management, 37, 485-500.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.12.002
Cicmil, S., & Gaggiotti, H. (2018). Responsible forms of project management education:
Theoretical plurality and reflective pedagogies. International Journal of Project
Management, 36, 208-218. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.005
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with transformational leadership
and key project manager competences. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 5-20.
http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20162
102
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Conforto, E. C., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., Di Felippo, A., & Kamikawachi, D. S. L. (2016).
The agility construct on project management theory. International Journal of Project
Management, 34, 660-674. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.007
Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2008). Nonexperimental quantitative research and its role in guiding
instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 98-104.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208321565
Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L, & Richardson, K. (2007). We’re not in Kansas
anymore, Toto: Mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship
to project management. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 50-61.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800206
Cottam, R., Ranson, W., & Vounckx, R. (2015). Chaos and chaos; Complexity and hierarchy.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science Systems Research, 32, 579-592.
http://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2288
Creasy, T., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2013). From every direction – How personality traits and
dimensions of project managers can conceptually affect project success. Project
Management Journal, 44(6), 36-51. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21372
Cunningham, J., Salomone, J., & Wielgus, N. (2015). Project management leadership style: A
team member perspective. International Journal of Global Business, 8(2), 27-54.
Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/globe/
Damoah, I. S., Akwei, C. A., Amoako, I. O., & Botchie, D. (2018). Corruption as a source of
government project failure in developing countries: Evidence from Ghana. Project
Management Journal, 49(3), 17-33. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818770587
103
Daniel, P. A., & Daniel, C. (2018). Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: From a
paradigm of regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 36, 184-197.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.004
Dao, B., Kermanshachi, S., Shane, J., & Anderson, S. (2016). Project complexity assessment and
management tool. Procedia Engineering, 145, 491-496.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.026
Davis, K. (2018). Reconciling the views of project success: A multiple stakeholder model.
Project Management Journal, 49(5), 38-47. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818786663
da Silva, F. P., Jerónimo, H. M., & Vieira, P. R. (2019). Leadership competencies revisited: A
causal configuration analysis of success in the requirements phase of information systems
projects. Journal of Business Research, 101, 688-696.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.025
de Almeida Pereira, S., & de Freitas, H. M. R. (2019). The project manager’s competencies at
the mobile context of project management. Revista de Gestão e Projetos, 10(3), 1-12.
http://doi.org/10.5585/gep.v10i3.13604
de Araújo, C. C. S., Pedron, C. D., & de Oliveira e Silva, F. Q. P. (2018a). IT project manager
competencies and team commitment: A new scale proposal. Revista de Gestão e
Projetos, 9(1), 39-55. http://doi.org/10.5585/gep.v9i1.679
de Araújo, C. C. S., Pedron, C. D., Russo, R. F. S. M., & Quevedo, F. (2018b). Measuring the
impact of IT project manager’s competencies on team commitment. Iberoamerican
Journal of Project Management, 9(1), 48-68. Retrieved from http://www.ijopm.org
de Blois, M., Lizarralde, G., & de Coninck, P. (2016). Iterative project processes within
temporary multi-organizations in construction: The self-, eco-, re-organizing projects.
Project Management Journal, 47(1), 27-44. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21560
de Carvalho, M. M., Patah, L. A., & de Souza Bido, D. (2015). Project management and its
effect on project success: Cross-country and cross-industry comparisons. International
Journal of Project Management, 33, 1509-1522.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.004
104
de Rezende, L. B., Blackwell, P., Gonçalves, M. D. P. (2018). Research focuses, trends, and
major findings on project complexity: A bibliometric network analysis of 50 years of
project complexity. Project Management Journal, 49(1), 42-56.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281804900104
de Souza Pinto, J., Novaski, O., Anholon, R., & Besteiro, É. N. C. (2014). Measuring project
complexity and uncertainty: Scale proposal. Business Management Dynamics, 4(1), 29-
51. Retrieved from http://www.bmdynamics.com
de Waard, I., Abajian, S., Gallagher, M. S., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Koutropoulos, A., &
Rodriguez, O. C. (2011). Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence,
and complexity in education. The International Review of Research in Open Distributed
Learning, 12(7), 94-115. http://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1046
Ding, X., Li, Q., Zhang, H., Sheng, Z., & Wang, Z. (2017). Linking transformational leadership
and work outcomes in temporary organization: A social identity approach. International
Journal of Project Management, 35, 543-556.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.005
Ding, G., Liu, H, Huang, Q., & Gu, J. (2019). Enterprise social networking usage as a moderator
of the relationship between work stressors and employee creativity: A multilevel study.
Information & Management, 56(103165), 1-12. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.04.008
Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N. B., & Seim, E. A. (2018). Coordinating knowledge work in multiteam
programs: Findings from a large-scale agile development program. Project Management
Journal, 49(6), 64-77. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818798980
Dönmez, D., & Grote, G. (2018). Two sides of the same coin – How agile software development
teams approach uncertainty as threats and opportunities. Information and Software
Technology, 93, 94-111. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.08.015
do Vale, J. W. S. P., Nunes, B., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Project managers’ competencies:
What do job advertisements and the academic literature say? Project Management
Journal, 49(3), 82-97. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818770884
Dubey, R., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020). Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational
analysis of curiosity. Psychological Review, 127(3), 455-476.
http://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000175
105
Dupont, W. D., & Plummer, W. D. (1998). Power and sample size calculations for studies
involving linear regression. Controlled Clinical Trials, 19, 589-601.
http://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-2456(98)00037-3
Durmic, N. (2020). Factors influencing project success: A qualitative research. TEM Journal,
9(3), 1011-1020. http://doi.org/10.18421/tem93-94
Eden, D. (1985). Team development: A true field experiment at three levels of rigor. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70(1), 94-100. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.94
Ekrot, B., Kock, A., & Gemüden, H. G. (2016). Retaining project management competence –
Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 145-
157. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.10.010
Eriksson, P. E., Larsson, J., & Pesämaa, O. (2017). Managing complex projects in the
infrastructure sector – A structural equation model for flexibility-focused project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 35, 1512-1523.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.015
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Ringhofer, C. (2016). Stakeholder inclusiveness: Enriching project
management with general stakeholder theory. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 42-
53. http://doi.org/10.002/pmj.21546
Eskerod, P., & Larsen, T. (2018). Advancing project stakeholder analysis by the concept
‘shadows of the context’. International Journal of Project Management, 36, 161-169.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.003
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2018). The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead.
Internet Research, 28(4), 854-887. http://doi.org/10.1108/inr-03-2018-0089
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. http://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analysis. Behavior Research Methods,
41(4), 1149-1160. http://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
106
Fisher, C. M., Pillemer, J., & Amabile, T. M. (2018). Deep help in complex project work:
Guiding and path-clearing across difficult terrain. Academy of Management Journal,
61(4), 1524-1553. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016/0207
Florentine, S. (2016, May 16). More than half of IT projects still failing. CIO Magazine.
Retrieved from https://www.cio.com/article/3068502/project-management/more-than-
half-of-it-projects-still-failing.html
Floricel, S., Michela, J. L., & Piperca, S. (2016). Complexity, uncertainty-reduction strategies,
and project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 1360-1383.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.007
Floricel, S., Piperca, S., & Tee, R. (2018). Strategies for managing the structural and dynamic
consequences of project complexity. Complexity, 2018(3190251), 1-17.
http://doi.org/1155/2018/3190251
Garel, G. (2013). A history of project management models: From pre-models to the standard
models. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 663-669.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.011
Gauthler, Y. (2009). The construction of chaos theory. Foundational Science, 14, 153-165.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-008-9129-8
Gazvini, M.S, Ghezavati, V., Raissi, S, Makui, A. (2017). An integrated efficiency-risk approach
in sustainable project control. Sustainability 9(1575), 1-20.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su9091575
Geraldi, J. G. (2008). The balance between order and chaos in multi-project firms: A conceptual
model. International Journal of Project Management, 26(2008), 348-356.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.013
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated).
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31, 966-990.
http://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111165848
Gemüden, H. G., & Aubry, M. (2017). A challenge for the project based organization. Project
Management Journal, 48(5), 3-8. Retrieved from https://www.pmi.org/pmj
107
Girmscheid, G. & Brockmann, C. (2008). The inherent complexity of large scale engineering
projects. Project Perspectives, 29, 22-26. http://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-005994701
González-Marcos, A., Alba-Elías, F., & Ordieres-Meré, J. (2016). An analytical method for
measuring competence in project management. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 47(6), 1324-1339. http://doi.org/10.111/bjet.12364
Gordon, A., & Pollack, J. (2018). Managing healthcare integration: Adapting project
management to the needs of organizational change. Project Management Journal, 48(5),
5-21. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818785321
Gorod, A., Hallo, L., & Nguyen, T. (2018). A systematic approach to complex project
management: Integration of command-and-control and network governance. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science Systems Research, 35, 811-837.
http://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2520
Gransberg, D. D., Shane, J. S., Strong, K., & del Puerto, C. L. (2013). Project complexity
mapping in five dimensions for complex transportation projects. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 29(4), 316-326. http://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000163
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499-510. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7
Gruden, N., & Stare, A. (2018). The influence of behavioral competencies on project
performance. Project Management Journal, 49(3), 98-109.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818770841
Gunathilaka, S., Tuuli, M. M., & Dainty, A. R. J. (2013). Critical analysis of research on project
success in construction management journals. Proceedings 29th Annual ARCOM
Conference (204), 979-988. Retrieved from http://www.arcom.ac.uk
Gurca, A., Bagherzadeh, M., Markovic, S., & Koporcic, N. (2020). Meeting the challenges of
business-to-business open innovation in complex projects: A multi-stage process model.
Industrial Marketing Management, 1-14.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.035
108
Hagen, M., & Park, S. (2013). Ambiguity acceptance as a function of project management: A
new critical success factor. Project Management Journal, 44(2), 52-66.
http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21329
Hair, J. F., Celsi, M. W., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. J. (2011). Essentials of
business research methods (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial
least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 40, 414-433. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
Halim, M. A., Foozy, C. F. M., Rahmi, I., & Mustapha, A. (2018). A review of live survey
application: SurveyMonkey and SurveyGizmo. International Journal of Informatics
Visualization, 2(4-2), 309-312. http://doi.org/10.30630/joiv.2.4-2.170
Hall, J., & Sammons, P. (2013). Mediation, moderation & interaction: Definitions,
discriminations & (some) means of testing. Boston, MA: Brill.
Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2012). A bibliometric view on the use of contingency theory in project
management research. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 4-23.
http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21267
Hanna, A. S., Iskandar, K. A., Lotfallah, W., Ibrahim, M. W., & Russell, J. S. (2018). A data-
driven approach for identifying project manager competency weights. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, 45, 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2017-0237
He, W., Hao, P., Huang, X., Long, L., Hiller, N. J., & Li, S. (2020). Different roles of shared and
vertical leadership in promoting team creativity: Cultivating and synthesizing team
members’ individual creativity. Personnel Psychology, 73, 199-225.
http://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12321
Henderson, J. P. (2000). Content validation for the project management professional (PMP)
certification examination. PM Network, 14(6), 46-53. Retrieved from
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/content-validation-pmp-certification-examination-
4633
109
Hensel, R., & Visser, R. (2018). Shared leadership in entrepreneurial teams: The impact of
personality. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(6), 1104-
1119. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-03-2018-0133
Hughes, D. L., Rana, N. P., & Simintiras, A. C. (2017). The changing landscape of IS project
failure: An examination of the key factors. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 30(1), 142-166. http://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-01-2016-0029
Iden, J., & Bygstad, B. (2018). The social interaction of developers and IT operations staff in
software development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36, 485-
497. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.12.001
Iqbal, S. M. J., Zaman, U., Siddiqui, S. H., & Imran, M. K. (2019). Influence of transformational
leadership factors on project success. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social
Sciences, 13(1), 231-256. Retrieved from http://jespk.net/
Irfan, M., Hassan, M., & Hassan, N. (2019). The effect of project management capabilities on
project success in Pakistan: An empirical investigation. IEEE Access, 7, 39417-39431.
http://doi.org/10.1109/access.20192906851
Irfan, M., Khan, S. Z., Hassan, N., Hassan, M., Habib, M., Khan, S., & Khan, H. H. (2021). Role
of project planning and project manager competencies on public sector project success.
Sustainability, 13(1421), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.3390/su13031421
Islam, N., Gyoshev, S., & Amona, D. (2020). External complexities in discontinuous innovation-
based R&D projects: Analysis of inter-firm collaborative partnerships that lead to
abundance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 155, 1-12.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.014
Jiao, Y., Saeed, M. A., Fu, S., & Wang, X. (2020). How knowledge sharing contributes to
project portfolio success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(7),
1600-1616. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-10-2018-0221
Jonas, D., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2013). Predicting project portfolio success by
measuring management quality – A longitudinal study. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 60(2), 215-226. http://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2012.2200041
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and
project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project
Management, 33, 1377-1392. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005
110
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The impact of project methodologies on project success in
different project environments. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
9(2), 364-388. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijpb-03-2015-0025
Kang, I., Han, S., & Lee, J. (2017). Task-oriented and relationship-building communications
between air traffic controllers and pilots. Sustainability, 9(1770), 1-16.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su9101770
Khan, S., Vandermorris, A., Shepherd, J., Begun, J. W., Lanham, H. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Berta,
W. (2018). Embracing uncertainty, managing complexity: Applying complexity thinking
principles to transformation efforts in healthcare systems. BMC Health Services
Research, 18(192), 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2994-0
Khattak, M., & Mustafa, U. (2019). Management competencies complexities and performance in
engineering infrastructure projects of Pakistan. Engineering, Construction, and
Architectural Management, 26(7), 1321-1347. http://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2017-0079
Khedhaouria, A., & Jamal, A. (2015). Sourcing knowledge for innovation: Knowledge reuse and
creation in project teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(5), 932-948.
http://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-01-2015-0039
Khoza, L., & Marnewick, C. (2020). Waterfall and agile information system project success rates
– A South African perspective. South African Computer Journal, 32(1), 43-73.
http://doi.org/10.18489/sacj.v32i1.683
Kiridena, S., & Sense, A. (2017). Profiling project complexity: Insights from complexity science
and project management literature. Project Management Journal, 47(6), 56-74.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700605
Klakegg, O. J., Pollack, J., & Crawford, L. (2021). Preparing for successful collaborative
contracts. Sustainability, 13(289), 1-18. http://doi.org/10.3390/su13010289
Klein, L., Biesenthal, C., & Dehlin, E. (2015). Improvisation in project management: A
praxeology. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2015), 267-277.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.011
Kock, A., Heising, W., & Germünden, H. G. (2016). A contingency approach on the impact of
front-end success on project portfolio success. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 115-
129. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21575
111
Kopmann, J., Kock, A., Killen, C. P., Germünden, H. G. (2017). The role of project portfolio
management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy. International Journal of
Project Management, 35, 557-570. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.011
Krell, K., Matook, S., & Rohde, F. (2016). The impact of legitimacy-based motives on IS
adoption success: An institutional theory perspective. Information & Management, 53,
683-697. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.02.006
Kristiansen, J. N., & Ritala, P. (2018). Measuring radical innovation project success: Typical
metrics don’t work. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(4), 34-41.
http://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-09-2017-0137
Kudyba, S., Fjermestad, J., & Davenport, T. (2020). A research model for identifying factors that
drive effective decision-making and the future of work. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
21(6), 835-851. http://doi.org/10.1108/jic-05-2019-0130
Kuklicke, C., & Demeritt, D. (2016). Adaptive and risk-based approaches to climate change and
the management of uncertainty and institutional risk: The case of future flooding in
England. Global Environmental Change, 37, 56-68.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.007
Kwofie, T. E., Botchway, E. A., & Amos-Abanyie, S. (2018). Examining the performance level
of project management competencies of architects in Ghana using gap analysis approach.
Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 23(1), 125-147.
http://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2018.23.1.8
Lalonde, P. L., Bourgault, M., & Findeli, A. (2010). Building pragmatist theories of PM practice:
Theorizing the act of project management. Project Management Journal, 41(5), 21-36.
http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20163
Lattrich, K. K., & Büttgen, M. (2020). Project leaders’ control resources and role overload as
predictors of project success: Developing the job demands – resources model. Business
Research, 13, 767-788. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00115-z
Laufer, A., Hoffman, E. J., Russell, J. S., & Cameron, W. S. (2015). What successful project
managers do. MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring(2015), 43-51.
http://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2015.7123232
Lavalle, A., & Casale, O. (2020). Project managers are the best candidates to manage innovation.
International Journal: Advanced Corporate Learning, 13(1), 48-61.
http://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v13i1.12357
Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition
of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1-17.
http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
112
Li, Y., Lu, Y., Ma, L., & Kwak, Y. H. (2018a). Evolutionary governance for mega-event projects
(MEPs): A case study of the World Expo 2010 in China. Project Management Journal,
49(1), 57-78. http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281804900105
Li. Y., Lu, Y., Taylor, J. E., & Han, Y. (2018b). Bibliographic and comparative analyses to
explore emerging classic texts in megaproject management. International Journal of
Project Management, 36, 342-361. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.008
Li, Y., Sun, T., Shou, Y., & Sun, H. (2020). What makes a competent international project
manager in emerging and developing countries? Project Management Journal, 51(2),
1818-198. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820901387
Lippe, S., & vom Brocke, J. (2016). Situational project management for collaborative research
projects. Project Management Journal, 47(1), 79-96. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21561
Liu, D., Zhang, X., Gao, C., Yang, M., Li, Q., & Li, M. (2018). Cost management system of
electric power engineering project based on project management theory. Journal of
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 34, 975-984. http://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-169391
Locatelli, G., Mikic, M., Kovacevic, M., Brookes, N., & Ivanisevic, N. (2017). The successful
delivery of megaprojects: A novel research method. Project Management Journal, 48(5),
78-94. http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800506
Lorenz, E. (1972). Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado
in Texas? Paper presented at the 13th meeting of the American Association for the
advancement of Science, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Butterfly_1972.pdf
Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E. D., Gibson, L. W., Loveland, J. M., & Drost, A. M. (2016).
Core personality traits of managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 434-450.
http://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-03-2014-0092
Lowry, P. B., D’Arcy, J., Hammer, B., & Moody, G. D. (2016). “Cargo cult” science in
traditional organization and information systems survey research: A case for using
nontraditional methods of data collection, including Mechanical Turk and online panels.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25, 232-240.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.06.002
Lu, Y., Luo, L., Wang, H., Le, Y., & Shi, Q. (2015). Measurement model of project complexity
for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective. International Journal of
Project Management, 33, 610-622. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.005
Lukianov, D., Kolesnikov, O., Dmitrenko, K., & Gogunskii, V. (2017). Analysis of the structural
models of competencies in project management. Information Technologies, 2/2(34), 4-11.
http://doi.org/10.15587/2312-83722017.100393
113
Lunkka, N., Pietiläinen, V., & Suhonen, M. (2019). A discursive sensemaking perspective on
project-based work in public healthcare. Project Management Journal, 50(6), 657-672.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819847062
Luo, L., Zhang, L., & He, Q. (2020). Linking project complexity to project success: A hybrid
SEM-FCM method. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9),
2591-2614. http://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2019-0241
Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A general contingency theory of management. Academy of
Management Review, 2(2), 181-195. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409038
Ma, L., & Fu, H. (2020). Exploring the influence of project complexity on the mega construction
project success: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) method. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9), 2429-2449.
http://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-12-2019-0679
Magano, J., Silva, C., Figueiredo, C., Vitória, A., Nogueira, T., & Dinis, M. A. P. (2020).
Generation Z: Fitting project management soft skills competencies – A mixed method
approach. Education Sciences, 10(187), 1-24. http://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10070187
Mahmood, M., Uddin, M. A., & Fan, L. (2019). The influence of transformational leadership on
employees’ creative process engagement. Management Decision, 57(3), 741-764.
http://doi.org/10.1108/md-07-2017-0707
Mainga, W. (2017). Examining project learning, project management competencies, and project
efficiency in project-based firms (PBFs). International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 10(3), 454-504. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-04-2016-0035
Mäkinen, E. I. (2018). Complexity leadership theory and the leaders of transdisciplinary science.
Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 21, 133-
155. http://doi.org/10.28945/4009
Maldonado, C. E. (2017). Matching the unmatchable. Complexity theory and quantum theory.
NeuroQuantology, 15(3), 125-129. http://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2017.15.3.1046
Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N., & Rashid, Y. (2017). The impact of emotional
intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and transformational leadership on project
success: An empirical perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58-75.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800304
Maqsoom, A., Hamad, M., Ashraf, H., Thaheem, M. J., & Umer, M. (2020). Managerial control
mechanisms and their influence on project performance: An investigation of the
moderating role of complexity risk. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 27(9), 2451-2475. http://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2019-0244
114
Martin, W. E., & Bridgmon, K. D. (2012). Quantitative and statistical research methods: From
hypothesis to results. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Marzagáo, D. S. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2016). The influence of project leaders’ behavioral
competencies on the performance of Six Sigma projects. Review of Business
Management, 18(62), 609-632. http://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v18i62.2242
Maylor, H., & Turner, N. (2017). Understand, reduce, responds: Project complexity management
theory and practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
37(8), 1076-1093. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-05-2016-0263
Maylor, H. R., Turner, N. W., & Murray-Webster, R. (2013). How hard can it be? Actively
managing complexity in technology projects. Research-Technology Management, 56(4),
45-51. http://doi.org/10.5437/08956308x5602125
Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., & Carver, S. (2008). Managerial complexity in project-based operations:
A grounded model and its implications for practice. Project Management Journal, 39,
S15-S26. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20057
McEvoy, P., Brady, M., & Munck, R. (2016). Capacity development through international
projects: A complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 9(3), 528-545. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-08-2015-0072
McHugh, K. A., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Serban, A., Sayama, H., & Chatterjee, S.
(2016). Collective decision making, leadership, and collective intelligence: Tests with
agent-based simulations and a field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 218-241.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.001
Medina, R., & Medina, A. (2015). The competence loop: Competence management in
knowledge-intensive, project-intensive organizations. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 8(2), 279-299. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-09-2014-0061
Mendes, M., Gomes, C., Marques-Quinteiro, P., Lind, P., & Curral, L. (2016). Promoting
learning and innovation in organizations through complexity leadership theory. Team
Performance Management, 22(5/6), 301-309. http://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-02-2016-0004
Michael, J., & Christensen, W. (2015). Flexible goal attribution in early mindreading.
Psychological Review, 123(2), 219-227. http://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000016
Midler, C. (2019). Crossing the valley of death: Managing the when, what, and how of
innovative development projects. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 447-459.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819857881
115
Midler, C. (1995). “Projectification” of the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 11(4), 363-375. http://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(95)00035-t
Miterev, M., Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2017). Mechanisms of isomorphism in project-based
organizations. Project Management Journal, 48(5), 9-24.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800502
Montequín, V. R., Balsera, J. V., Fernández, S. M. C., & Fernández, F. O. (2018). Exploring
project complexity through project failure factors: Analysis of cluster patterns using self-
organizing maps. Complexity, 2018, 1-17. http://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9496731
Moore, C. B., Payne, G., T., Autry, C. W., & Griffis, S. E. (2018). Project complexity and
bonding social capital in network organizations. Group & Organization Management,
43(6), 936-970. http://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116650556
Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K., & Aaltonen, K. (2020a). Comparison of research and industry views
on project managers’ competencies. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 13(3), 543-572. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-04-2019-0085
Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K., & Aaltonen, K. (2020b). Project managers’ competencies in
collaborative construction projects. Buildings, 10(50), 1-17.
http://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10030050
Mughal, M. A., Bahaudin, A. Y., & Salleh, N. A. (2019). Behavioral factors for IT project
success in Pakistan: Moderating effect of leadership styles. Management Science Letters,
9, 987-996. http://doi.org/10.5267/i.msl.2019.4.006
Müller, R., Drouin, N., & Sankaran, S. (2019). Modeling organizational project management.
Project Management Journal, 50(4), 499-513. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819847876
Müller, R., & Klein, G. (2018). What constitutes a contemporary contribution to Project
Management Journal? Project Management Journal, 49(5), 1-2.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818791650
Müller, R., Sankaran, S., Drouin, N., Vaagaasar, A. L., Bekker, M. C., & Jain, K. (2018). A
theory framework for balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 36, 83-94.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.003
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2010). Attitudes and leadership competences for project success.
Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3), 307-329.
http://doi.org/10.1108/17465261011079730
116
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R., Andersen, E. S., Shao, J., & Kvalnes, Ø. (2016). Governance and
ethics in temporary organizations: The mediating role of corporate governance. Project
Management Journal, 47(6), 7-23. http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700602
Nathans, L. L., Oswald, F. L., & Nimon, K. (2012). Interpreting multiple linear regression: A
guidebook of variable importance. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(9),
1-19. Retrieved from https://www.pareonline.net/
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research, United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont
Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of
research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Niazi, M., Mahmood, S., Alshayeb, M., Qureshi, A. M., Faisal, K., & Cerpa, N. (2016). Toward
successful project management in global software development. International Journal of
Project Management, 34, 1553-1567. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.008
Niederman, F., Müller, B., & March, S. T. (2018). Using process theory for accumulating project
management knowledge: A seven-category model. Project Management Journal, 49(1),
6-24. http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281804900102
Niknazar, P., & Bourgault, M. (2017). Theories for classification vs. classification as theory:
Implication of classification and typology for the development of project management
theories. International Journal of Project Management, 35, 191-203.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.002
Nijhuis, S., Vrijhoef, R., & Kessels, J. (2018). Tackling project management competence
research. Project Management Journal, 49(3), 62-81.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818770591
Ninan, J., Mahalingam, A., & Clegg, S. (2019). External stakeholder management strategies and
resources in megaprojects: An organizational power perspective. Project Management
Journal, 50(6), 625-640. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819847045
Nixon, P., Harrington, M., & Parker, D. (2012). Leadership performance is significant to project
success or failure: A critical analysis. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 61(2), 204-216. http://doi.org/10.1108/17410401211194699
Novo, B., Landis, E., & Haley, M. L. (2017). Leadership and its role in the success of project
management. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 14(1), 73-78.
http://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v1fi1.1615
117
Ordoñez, R. E. C., Vanhoucke, M., Coelho, J., Anholon, R., & Novaski, O. (2019). A study of
the critical chain project management method applied to a multiproject system. Project
Management Journal, 50(3), 322-234. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819832203
Oyama, K., Learmonth, G., & Chao, R. (2015). Applying complexity science to new product
development: Modeling considerations, extensions, and implications. Journal of
Engineering Technology Management, 35, 1-24.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2014.07.003
Padalkar, M., & Gopinath, S. (2016). Are complexity and uncertainty distinct concepts in project
management? A taxonomical examination from literature. International Journal of
Project Management, 34, 688-700. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.009
Pascal, C. B. (2006). Managing data for integrity: Policies and procedures for ensuring the
accuracy and quality of the data in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12,
23-39. http://doi.org/10.1007/
Paas, L. J., & Morren, M. (2018). Please do not answer if you are reading this: Respondent
attention in online panels. Marketing Letters, 29, 13-21. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-
018-9448-7
Persaud, N., Devonish, D., & Persaud, I. (2019). Nuts & bolts of research methodology: From
conceptualization to write-up. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers.
Pinto, J.K., Winch, G. (2016). The unsettling of “settled science:” The past and future of the
management of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 237-245.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.011
Pretorius, S., Steyn, H., & Bond-Barnard, T. J. (2018). Leadership styles in projects: Current
trends and future opportunities. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 29(3),
161-172. http://doi.org/10.7166/29-3-2057
Project Management Institute. (2017a). A guide to the project management body of knowledge
PMBOK guide (6th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2018). Pulse of the profession in-depth report. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
118
Project Management Institute. (2020). Earning power: Project management salary survey (11th
ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A., & Kirytopoulos, K. (2016). Project complexity and risk
management (ProCRIM): Towards modelling project complexity driven risk paths in
construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 1183-1198.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.008
Qureshi, S. M., & Kang, C. W. (2015). Analysing the organizational factors of project
complexity using structural equation modeling. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(2015), 165-176. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iproman.2014.04.006
Rahimi, M., Kenworthy, T. P., & Balakrishnan, J. (2018). An analysis of innovation in oil and
gas projects. Project Management Journal, 49(5), 64-84.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818788773
Rahman, M. S., & Adnan, T. M. (2020). Risk management and risk management performance
measurement in the construction projects of Finland. Journal of Project Management, 5,
167-178. http://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2020.5.001
Raziq, M. M., Borini, F. M., Malik, O. F., Ahmad, M., & Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership styles,
goal clarity, and project success: Evidence from project-based organizations in Pakistan.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 309-323.
http://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2017-0212
Ren, S., & Zhu, Y. (2017). Candle in the wind: Complexity leadership in China’s fringe arts
businesses. Journal of General Management, 42(4), 80-89.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0306307017702999
Rodríguez-Rivero, R., Ortiz-Marcos, I., Romero, J., & Ballesteros-Sánchez, L. (2020). Finding
the links between risk management and project success: Evidence from international
development projects in Colombia [sic]. Sustainability, 12(9294), 1-19.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su12219294
Rolstadås, A., & Johansen, A. (2020). The dawn of a new era for project management.
Sustainability, 13(695), 1-3. http://doi.org/10.3390/su13020695
119
Rolstadås, A., & Shiefloe, P. M. (2017). Modeling project complexity. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 10(2), 295-314. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-02-2016-
0015
Rugenyi, F. (2016). Assessment of the influence of project management competence on the triple
constrain in projects in Nairobi. International Journal of Academic Research in Business
and Social Sciences, 6(4), 295-309. http://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v6-i4/2108
Rumeser, D., & Emsley, M. (2019). Can serious games improve project management decision
making under complexity? Project Management Journal, 50(1), 23-39.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818808982
Rzevski, G. (2015). Complexity as the defining feature of the 21st century. International Journal
of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 10(3), 191-198. http://doi.org/10.2495/dne-v10-
n3-191-198
Saed, M. A., Yong, K., & Othman, M. (2016). Project complexity influence on project
management performance – The Malaysian perspective. MATEC Web of Conferences,
66(65), 1-10. http://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600065
Sajid, M., Zaidi, S. R., Haq, S. U. L., Chugtai, M. A., & Ahmed, A. (2021). Linking
entrepreneurial orientation to project success in construction projects. Journal of Project
Management, 6, 61-72. http://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2021.2.001
San Cristóbal, J., Carral, L., Diaz, E., Fraguela, J. A., & Iglesias, G. (2018). Complexity and
project management: A general overview. Complexity, 2018(4891286), 1-10.
http://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4891286
Sarwar, A., Imran, M. K., Anjum, Z. U. Z., & Zahid, U. (2020). How innovative climate leads to
project success: The moderating role of gender and work culture. Innovation &
Management Review, 17(4), 413-430. http://doi.org/10.1108/inmr-08-2019-0096
Scharff, R. C. (2013). Being post-positivist…or just talking about it? Foundational Science, 18,
393-397. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9249-4
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Selart, M., Schei, V., Lines, R., & Nesse, S. (2020). Can mindfulness be helpful in team
decision-making? A framework for understanding how to mitigate false consensus.
European Management Review, 1-36. http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12415
Sergi, V., Crevani, L., & Aubry, M. (2020). Process studies of project organizing. Project
Management Journal, 51(1), 3-10. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819896482
120
Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does Agile [sic] work? – A quantitative analysis of agile
project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 1040-1051.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006
Serrador, P., & Turner, R. (2015). The relationship between project success and project
efficiency. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 30-39. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21468
Shaikh, A., Bisschoff, C. A., & Botha, C. J. (2018). Measuring management and leadership
competencies of business school educated managers in South Africa. Journal of Business
and Retail Management Research, 13(2), 152-166. Retrieved from
https://www.jbrmr.com/
Sharma, S., & Dhillon, G. (2009). IS risk analysis: A chaos theoretic perspective. Issues in
Information Systems, 10(2), 552-560. Retrieved from http://www.iacis.org/iis/iis.php
Shenhar, A., & Hotzmann, V. (2017). The three secrets of megaproject success: Clear strategic
vision, total alignment, and adapting to complexity. Project Management Journal, 48(6),
29-46. http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800604
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Project management research – The challenge and
opportunity. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 93-99.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800210
Shieh, G., & Kung, C. F. (2007). Methodological and computational considerations for multiple
correlation analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 731-734.
http://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192963
Shi, Q., Hertogh, M., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Zhu, J., & Sheng, Z. (2020). Exploring decision-
making complexity in major infrastructure projects: A case study from China. Project
Management Journal, 51(6), 617-632. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820919205
Shin, N., Yoo, J. S., & Kwon, I. W. G. (2020). Fostering trust and commitment in complex
project networks through dedicated investment in partnership management.
Sustainability, 12, 1-21. http://doi.org/10.3390/su122410397
Silva, S. K., Warnakulasuriya, B. N. F., & Arachchige, B. J. H. (2019). A scale for measuring
perceived construction project success – Sri Lankan perspective. Studies in Business and
Economics, 14(1), 245-258. http://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2019-0019
Sohi, A. J., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., & Hertogh, M. (2020). Does flexibility in project management
in early project phases contribute positively to end-project performance? International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(4), 665-694. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-
07-0219-0173
Soltani, E. (2020). Business and project strategy alignment: ICT project success in Iran.
Technology in Society, 63, 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101404
121
Soɫtysik, M., Zakrezewska, M., Sagan, A., & Jarosz, S. (2020). Assessment of project manager’s
competence in the context of individual competence baseline. Education Sciences,
10(146), 1-14. http://www.10.3390/educsci100501146
Standing, O., Standing, S., & Kordt, E. (2016). Explaining attribution in information technology
projects. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 18(2), 216-227.
http://doi.org/10.1108/jsit-01-2016-0002
Standish Group. (2015). CHAOS Report 2015. Boston, MA: The Standish Group.
Stolt, M., Suhonen, R., Puukka, P., Viitanen, M., Voutilainen, P., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2015).
Nurses’ knowledge of foot care in the context of home care: A cross-sectional
correlational survey study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 2916-2925.
http://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12922
Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales.
Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541-542. http://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-5-4-
18
Svejvig, P., & Andersen, P. (2015). Rethinking project management: A structured literature
review with a critical look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project
Management, 33, 278-290. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004
Sweetman, R., & Conboy, K. (2018). Portfolios of agile projects: A complex adaptive systems’
agent perspective. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 18-38.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818802712
Tabassi, A. A., Abdullah, A., & Bryde, D. J. (2019). Conflict management, team coordination,
and performance within multicultural temporary projects: Evidence from the construction
industry. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 101-114.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818818257
Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Toward a contingency theory of decision making. Armidale,
36(3), 212-228. http://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810214687
122
Teller, J., Unger, B. N., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio
management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal
of Project Management, 30(2012), 596-607.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.020
Teo, M. M., & Loosemore, M. (2017). Understanding community protest from a project
management perspective: A relationship-based approach. International Journal of
Project Management, 35, 1444-1458. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.004
Tereso, A., Ribeiro, P., Fernandes, G., Loureiro, I., & Ferreira, M. (2019). Project management
practices in private organizations. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 6-22.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818810966
Thompson, S., & Cox, E. (2017). How coaching is used and understood by project managers in
organizations. Project Management Journal, 48(5), 64-77.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800505
Tourish, D. (2019). Is complexity leadership theory complex enough? A critical appraisal, some
modifications, and suggestions for further research. Organization Studies, 40(2), 219-
238. http://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618789207
Turner, R., & Miterev, M. (2019). The organizational design of the project-based organization.
Project Management Journal, 50(4), 487-498. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819859746
Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). Leadership in the context of temporary
organizations: A study on the effects of transactional and transformational leadership on
followers’ commitment in projects. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
21(4), 376-393. http://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813502086
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations
for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 9-20.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001
Unterhitzenberger, C., & Bryde, D. J. (2019). Organizational justice, project performance, and
the mediating effects of key success factors. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 57-70.
http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818808984
Van de Ven, A. H., Ganco, M., & Hinings, C. R. (2013). Returning to the frontier of contingency
theory of organizational and institutional designs. The Academy of Management Annals,
7(1), 393-440. http://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.774981
VanVoorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for
determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43-50.
http://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043
123
Vidal, L. A., & Marle, F. (2008). Understanding project complexity: Implications on project
management. Kybernetes, 37(8), 1094-1110. http://doi.org/10.1108/03684920810884928
von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal of the
Philosophy of Science, 1, 134-165. http://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/1.2.134
von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory. New York, NY: George Braziller
Vukomanović, M., Young, M., & Huynink, S. (2016). IPMA ICB 4.0 – A global standard for
project, programme and portfolio management competences. International Journal of
Project Management, 34, 1703-1705. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.011
Westgate, E. C., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Boring thoughts and bored minds: The MAC model of
boredom and cognitive engagement. Psychological Review, 125(5), 689-713.
http://doi.org/10.1037/rv0000097
Williams, J. (2018). An exploration of the extent to which project management practices mediate
the relationship between project complexity and project outcomes (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.library.capella.edu/docview/2010984484?pq-
origsite=summon
Williams, T. (2017). The nature of risk in complex projects. Project Management Journal, 48(4),
55-66. http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800405
Whitty, S. J., & Maylor, H. (2009). And then came complex project management (revised).
International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 304-310.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.004
Woodside, A. G. (2016). The good practices manifesto: Overcoming bad practices pervasive in
current research in business. Journal of Business Research, 69(2016), 365-381.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.008
Xue, B., Liu, B., & Sun, T. (2018). What matters in achieving infrastructure sustainability
through project management practices: A preliminary study of critical factors.
Sustainability, 10(4421), 1-20. http://doi.org/10.3390/su10124421
Xue, J., Rasool, Z., Gillani, A., Khan, A. I. (2020). The impact of project manager soft
competences on project sustainability. Sustainability, 12(6537), 1-18.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su12166537
Yang, J., & Cheng, Q. (2021). The conditional limitation of relational governance: The
moderating role of project complexity. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021, 1-14.
http://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8886913
124
Young, R., Chen, W., Quazi, A., Parry, W., Wong, A., & Poon, S. K. (2020). The relationship
between governance mechanism and project success: An international data set.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(7), 1496-1521.
http://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-10-2018-0212
Yousef, M. J., & Lawrence, O. (2019). Knowledge-based HR practices and innovation in SMEs.
Organizacija, 52(1), 6-21. http://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019-0002
Zaman, U., Jabbar, Z., Nawaz, S., & Abbas, M. (2019). Understanding the soft side of software
projects: An empirical study on the interactive effects of social skills and political skills
on complexity – Performance Relationship. International Journal of Project
Management, 37, 444-460. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.015
Zhang, F., Zuo, J., & Zillante, G. (2013). Identification and evaluation of the key social
competencies for Chinese construction project managers. International Journal of Project
Management, 31, 748-759. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.011
Zhang, L., Cao, T., & Wang, Y. (2018). The mediation role of leadership styles in integrated
project collaboration: An emotional intelligence perspective. International Journal of
Project Management, 36(2018), 317-330. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.014
Zhang, L., & Cheng, J. (2015). Effect of knowledge leadership on knowledge sharing in
engineering project design teams: The role of social capital. Project Management
Journal, 46(5), 111-124. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21525
Zhu, J., & Mostafavi, A. (2017). Discovering complexity and emergent properties in project
systems: A new approach to understanding project performance. International Journal of
Project Management 35(2017), 1-12. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.004
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art
review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 834-852.
http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2296
125
ProQuest Number: 28416169
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 28416169
Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2021 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346