See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351331954

THE EXTENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES AND PROJECT

COMPLEXITY ON PROJECT SUCCESS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY

Thesis · April 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18136.83204

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.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE EXTENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES AND PROJECT

COMPLEXITY ON PROJECT SUCCESS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY

by

John Matthew Clark

WERNER D. GOTTWALD, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

RICHARD CURTIS, PhD, Program Committee Member

PAMELYNN WITTEMAN, PhD, School Committee Member

Todd C. Wilson, PhD, Dean

School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

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

success?” A quantitative method nonexperimental research design, using a correlational

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

management competencies positively predict project success. Results were inconclusive

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

management competencies, project managers can establish an environment built on collaboration

and knowledge sharing. Using collaboration and knowledge sharing, project managers can seize

creativity and ingenuity, available in complex systems through interdependence, to influence

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

my parents, this PhD is as much yours as it is mine.

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

encouragement he was always sincerely there to provide. To my friends at Harrisburg

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

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1

Background of the Problem .....................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................13

Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................16

Significance of the Study .......................................................................................17

Research Questions ................................................................................................18

Definition of Terms................................................................................................18

Research Design.....................................................................................................21

Assumptions...........................................................................................................22

Limitations .............................................................................................................25

Organization of the Remainder of the Study .........................................................26

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................27

Methods of Searching ............................................................................................27

Theoretical Orientation for the Study ....................................................................28

Review of the Literature ........................................................................................35

Synthesis of the Research Findings .......................................................................53

Critique of Previous Research Methods ................................................................56

Summary ................................................................................................................57

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................59

v
 Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................59

Research Questions and Hypotheses .....................................................................60

Research Design.....................................................................................................60

Target Population and Sample ...............................................................................61

Population .......................................................................................................61

Sample ............................................................................................................62

Power Analysis ...............................................................................................63

Procedures ..............................................................................................................63

Participant Selection .......................................................................................63

Protection of Participants ................................................................................64

Data Collection ...............................................................................................64

Data Analysis ..................................................................................................65

Instruments .............................................................................................................67

Project Management Competencies Questionnaire (PMCQ) .........................68

Complexity Assessment Tool (CAT) .............................................................69

Project Success Questionnaire (PSQ) .............................................................69

Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................70

Summary ................................................................................................................71

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ...................................................................................................72

Background to the Description of Chapter Four ....................................................72

Description of the Sample ......................................................................................73

Hypothesis Testing.................................................................................................77

Summary ................................................................................................................83

vi
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ....................84

Summary of the Results .........................................................................................84

Discussion of the Results .......................................................................................86

Conclusions Based on the Results .........................................................................88

Limitations .............................................................................................................92

Implications for Practice ........................................................................................94

Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................95

Conclusion .............................................................................................................96

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................98

vii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Data Analysis Summary ....................................................................................67

Table 2. Variables Summary .............................................................................................70

Table 3. Description of Models, Research Questions, and Hypotheses ..........................73

Table 4. Frequency Distributions .....................................................................................74

Table 5. Casewise Diagnostics .........................................................................................77

Table 6. Variance Inflation Factor ...................................................................................79

Table 7. Analysis of Variance Results .............................................................................81

Table 8. Results of Regression Coefficients .....................................................................82

Table 9. Regression Model Summary ...............................................................................82

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

Figure 1. Histogram of Project Management Competencies .............................................75

Figure 2. Histogram of Project Complexity .......................................................................75

Figure 3. Histogram of Project Success .............................................................................76

Figure 4. Examination of Assumptions of Homoscedasticity and Linearity – Project

Success ...............................................................................................................78

Figure 5. Examination of Assumptions of Homoscedasticity and Linearity – Project

Management Competencies ................................................................................78

Figure 6. Examination of Assumptions of Homoscedasticity and Linearity – Project

Complexity..........................................................................................................79

Figure 7. Histogram of Residuals ......................................................................................80

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

and limitations of the study.

Background of the Problem

The research problem concerned the relationship between project management

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

uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability.

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

increasingly applied the project structure as a fundamental mechanism to accomplish strategic

initiatives. The academic research and business communities agreed that project management

competencies were necessary to advance productivity. Comparing project management job

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

behavioral and managerial competencies are essential.

Globalization and technology advances led to a heightened awareness of project

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

recent examples (Botchkarev & Finnigan, 2015).

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

technical and interpersonal skills can counter project complexity.

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

culmination of project management best practices and advancements in project management

tools, projects continue to fail due to project complexity.

There is empirical evidence showing that project complexity negatively influences

project success (Açikgöz, Günsel, Kuzey, & Seçgin, 2016; Butler, Vijayasarathy, & Roberts,

2019; Montequín, Balsera, Fernández, & Fernández, 2018; Müller et al., 2018). Conversely,

Ballesteros-Sanchez, Ortiz-Marcos, and Rodriguez-Rivero (2019) offered evidence that project

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

on project success (Maylor & Turner, 2017).

Project management competencies are a relevant area of research in the project

management community. As evidence of importance, project management institutions, including

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

competencies available. Project management competencies are groupings of experience,

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

direction pointed towards superior work (p. 2).

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

competencies diminished investigation into the practicality of competencies.

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

manager encourages feedback.

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

management community. Complexity disrupts project planning, coordination, control, and

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

Cristóbal et al., 2018) which cause project complexity to emerge.

Baccarini (1996), an early founder of project complexity, indicated that challenging

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

accumulation of best practices, project management knowledge is grouped to affect project

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

by accumulating experience in management supported by cognitive and leadership abilities.

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

with the standard model of project management.

Traditional project management tactics, described as deterministic, are ineffective as

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.

Organizations continue to leverage the project structure to accomplish strategic

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

management competencies “axiomatic” (p. 152).

Many studies into project management competencies focus on project management

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

management competencies (p. 59).

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

and managing conflict resulted in improved project performance.

Other studies show the positive influence of interpersonal project management

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

competencies positively influenced project success.

Studying lifeforms at multiple levels of sophistication, von Bertalanffy (1950) posited

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

internal and external project properties ultimately results in unpredictable outcomes.

Gerschberger et al. (2017) offered that interdependencies found in the project system emerge as

complexity antecedents attributed to ambiguity and randomness.

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

complexity through a sustainability perspective. Girmscheid and Brockmann (2008) investigated

project complexity through the decision-making process.

There is an agreement in the complexity science community concerning various

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

complexity (Dönmez & Grote, 2018).

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

complexity is uniquely relative, a generally accepted definition of project complexity remained

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

throughout the project lifecycle was necessary.

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

consideration of knowledge sharing, collaboration, governance, and partnership (Badewi, 2016;

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

normalizing project success to encourages comparison between project types.

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).

Sustainability is now relevant in the project management community. It integrates project

execution efficiency with the usability and demand for the final project deliverables.

The relationship between project management competencies, project complexity, and

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).

Though debates continue, the project management community considers project

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,

particularly in difficult times.

Certification as a project management professional (PMP) and teaching multiple years in

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

personal doctoral goals became attainable.

Statement of the Problem

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

struggled to arrive at a generally accepted definition of project complexity (Bosch-Rekveldt et

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

negotiating interdependencies experience project success in complex projects. Maylor and

Turner (2017) elegantly described project complexity through the dimensions of structural,

sociopolitical, and emergent complexity.

The definition of project success remains centered on the triple constraints of cost,

schedule, and scope (Saed, Yong, & Othman, 2016; Project Management Institute, 2017a).

However, globalization and advancements in technology effectively broadened the definition of

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,

sustainability, project influence, project resolution, stakeholder satisfaction, end-user acceptance,

project value, specifications alignment, external customers’ satisfaction, and primary

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.

Project management competencies are groupings of related knowledge and behaviors

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

relationship-oriented competencies strengthened interdependencies between stakeholders,

resulting in improved project performance. Project managers, competent in communication skills

(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

competencies framework involved 33-questions covering team management, business domain

knowledge, people skills, project management, and personal characteristics. Similarly,

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

& Turner, 2017).

Purpose of the Study

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.

This quantitative nonexperimental correlational research applied the theory of

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).

Significance of the Study

The study contributed to project management literature by investigating the extent to

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

refined understanding of complexity theory.

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.

RQ1: To what extent do project management competencies predict project success?

RQ2: To what extent does project complexity predict project success?

Definition of Terms

Chaos Theory. Explains that slight disturbances eventually lead to unpredictable and

unstable patterns (Lorenz, 1972).

Complexity Theory. Explains that interdependencies manifest as randomness and

uncertainties that disrupt stability and emerge into new and stable patterns (Baccarini, 1996;

Khan et al., 2018).

18
 Contingency Theory. Explains that contextual circumstances dictate approaches and

decisions (Luthans & Stewart, 1977).

Expanded Standard Project Management Model. The model explains complexity,

originating from the structural, sociopolitical, and emergent dimension, disrupt the relationship

between project management practices and project performance established in the standard

project management model (Maylor & Turner, 2017).

General Systems Theory. Explains that the universe comprises interrelated systems that

act inwardly and outwardly (von Bertalanffy, 1950, 1969).

Population Definition. United States project managers are certified project management

professionals (PMP). As of August 2019, an estimated 350,000 project-management

professionals in the United States considered the total population size (Project Management

Institute, 2019).

Project Complexity Construct. Technological and organizational irregularities found in

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.

Project Complexity Operational Definition. The project’s significance, people, resources,

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

perceived by the project manager.

19
 Project Management Competencies Construct. The clusters of related knowledge and

behaviors influence project performance (Project Management Institute, 2017b). Project

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.

Project Management Competencies Operational Definition. The project manager's

skillsets centered on team building, collaborating, and communicating (Zhang, Cao, & Wang,

2018). The project management competencies construct was measured by summing the project

management competencies questionnaire (PMCQ; de Araújo et al., 2018). The instrument

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

would indicate a higher personal project management competencies level.

Project Success Construct. A multi-stakeholder consideration of the project’s ability to

demonstrate delivery efficiently, economically, beneficially, and sustainably (Shenhar &

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

et al., 2016; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).

Project Success Operational Definition. The project's ability to deliver outcomes

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

in agile, lean methods.

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

Ararújo et al., 2018; Ekrot et al., 2016; Kopmann et al., 2017).

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

Management Competencies Questionnaire (PMCQ) to measure project management

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

& Bridgmon, 2012).

Assumptions

All research designs involve consideration of methodological assumptions (Bahari,

2010). For this study, the general methodological, theoretical, and measurement assumptions

were considered.

General Methodological Assumptions

The ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological assumptions guided

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.

The research approach involved systematic data collection, measured scientifically to

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

improved project performance (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2018). Project managers deploy

methodologies to realize outcomes improvement.

Globalization and technology advancements led to an increased observance of project

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

management model broadens to include five dimensions of complexity serving as a predictor

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)

simplified the complexity construct to three dimensions: structural, sociopolitical, and

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

project complexity dimensions.

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

multidimensional complexity frameworks (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2018; de Souza Pinto, et al.,

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

Management Institute, 2017a).

Assumptions About Measures

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

the research design follow.

Design Limitations

The study involved project managers self-reporting project management competencies,

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).

Project managers might have conflated self-assessments of individual project management

competencies, the level of project complexity, and the level of project success.

25
Delimitations

The definitions of project management competencies, project complexity, and project

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

relationships (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012).

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

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

research, and opportunities for future research.

26
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

A review of the extant literature regarding project management competencies, project

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,

considering the knowledge gathered through the literature review.

Methods of Searching

This study's primary databases and journals included EBSCOhost, ProQuest Central,

SAGE Journals Online, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Psychology Database, Project

Management Journal, International Journal of Project Management, Systemics, Cybernetics and

Informatics, Complexity, Sustainability, and Academy of Management Journal. Primary search

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,

expanded standard project management model, project management competencies, project

27
complexity, and project success. This study's primary peer-reviewed journals included the

Project Management Journal and the International Journal of Project Management.

Theoretical Orientation for the Study

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

management competencies are accumulated and standardized to improve project success

(Badewi & Shehab, 2016), and the extended standard model of project management, which

describes that complexity disrupts the relationship between project management competencies

and project success (Geraldi et al., 2011),

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

interact internally and externally.

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

interrelatedness found in particularly difficult to manage projects causes uncertainty and

ambiguity to emerge. Daniel and Daniel (2018) suggested that current projects behave

nonlinearly, contributing to project complexity. Interdependencies generate tensions to appear in

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,

sponsors, and other stakeholders are interconnected. Interconnectivity leads to tensions.

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).

The connectivity between project components leads to ambiguity and unpredictable

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

the chaos theory's unpredictability.

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

of project suppliers. Structural complexity elements are measurable and controllable.

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

throughout the project lifecycle.

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.

Project management is a descendant of scientific management. Project management is the

accumulation and standardization of competencies designed to simplify (Eskerod & Larsen,

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

approaches proven to achieve superior performance. Project management competencies, the

tools, and techniques that have proven effective from past experiences are codified in the various

bodies of knowledge. Project management competencies are systematically and deterministically

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

to the circumstances, which deterministically result in beneficial outcomes.

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

deliberately strengthen competencies intended to improve project achievement. Müller, Drouin,

and Sankaran (2019) offered similar observations by asserting that projects represent merging

competencies, tools, practices, and relationships coordinated to affect project success.

Geraldi et al. (2011) proposed that the standard project management model, involving the

application of traditional processes and procedures, becomes disrupted when countered by

complex influences. Traditional project management techniques are deterministic. Complexity

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

will be contingently selected relative to project circumstances and importance. Uncertainty

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

effect of project complexity on project success (Iden & Bygstad, 2018).

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

“edge of chaos” (Kiridena & Sense, 2017, p. 63).

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

and adaptive chaotically (Geraldi, 2008; Geraldi et al., 2011).

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,

encouraged through the project manager practicing project management competence.

Review of the Literature

This study is predicated on the three primary threads of project management

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.,

2018) are disrupted. A review of the literature follows.

Project management competencies are defined groupings of behaviors and skillsets

necessary to execute projects successfully. The traditional consideration of project management

competencies centers on knowledge and application of project management processes and

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-

Sánchez et al., 2019; Project Management Institute, 2017b).

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,

which is human-centered, directly improves project success (p. 67).

There is a consensus that project management competencies involve communicating,

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

manage projects is insufficient, though. Instead, consideration of project management

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

concerning project management competencies is universal and standardized. Instead, project

managers must adapt competencies based on project type and context.

Oh and Choi’s (2020) questionnaire-based research involving project managers in South

Korea also showed that knowledge of project management competencies is inadequate.

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

competencies improve the likelihood of realizing project success.

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,

surprisingly, tactical project management competencies involving decision-making and technical

knowledge become relevant.

Since work mobility increasingly demands agility and flexibility for project managers, de

Almeida Pereira and de Freitas (2019) conducted questionnaire-based survey research to

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

phenomenon has effectively emphasized strengthening social project management competencies,

including communication, flexibility, leadership, and knowledge sharing.

It is humanly impossible to be fully proficient in all identified project management

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,

time management, and communication competencies critical in managing uncertain and

ambiguous projects.

The literature supports that the project management discipline is the future profession and

that project management competencies improve project performance. Soɫtysik, Zakrezewska,

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

execution continually. Questionnaire-based research involving project management graduate

students in Poland supported that human-centered project management competencies, built on

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.

International projects are problematic because of inconsistent standards and varied

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

competency dimensions. The literature recognizes that project management competency

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

ability of the project manager to leverage human-centered project management competencies

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

motivated in achieving project outcomes (Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2019).

Rapidly changing consumer demands require organizations to be innovative 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

managers to possess knowledge sharing and collaborative abilities. Project management

competencies are a predictor of project success. Their web-based questionnaire research

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

competencies significantly predict project success since collaboration is influenced.

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

success and involve behavior, attitude, and personality considerations. A quantitative

correlational study offered supportive evidence that project management competencies improve

project conditions, resulting in sustainable and innovative project outcomes.

The literature supports that creativity is needed to manage complexity (Granado-Alcón et

al., 2020). However, rather than centering on specific project management competencies related

to encouraging creativity, a self-administered questionnaire was administered to investigate the

approaches necessary to build creativity-related project management competencies. The study

showed that project-based learning (PBL) strengthens the awareness of interdependence in the

team and, coupled with knowledge transfer competencies, improves driving creativity.

Maturity in project management experiences appears to broaden awareness of the human

side of the discipline. Inexperienced project managers, in general, focus on technical project

management competencies involving management of the triple constraints (Badewi, 2016).

Measuring project success in terms of efficiencies, Badewi (2016) demonstrated evidence that

project management competencies have a moderate positive influence on project success.

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

inattentiveness. To compensate, project managers generally attempt to stimulate and encourage

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

members yet not overwhelm members while coping with complexity.

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

complexity to investigating guiding project managers to cope with project complexity.

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

complexity supported that interdependence is a primary source of project complexity (Floricel,

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

knowledge when improvement through information seeking is possible. Longitudinally, the

individual will become disinterested if initial attempts to clarify and address the information gap,

resulting from complexity, continue to grow.

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

behavior found in the project.

Conventionally, uncertainty is a source of project risk since variability and ambiguity

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

successful. Similarly, in a multinational survey on complex projects, Floricel et al. (2016)

presented evidence that project complexity deteriorates project success since ambiguity and

uncertainty distort project management processes (p. 1369).

Shi et al. (2020) argued that complex projects' hidden interdependencies influence

decision-making. Complexity is a multidimensional construct that involves social, financial,

technical, and organizational forces. Varying interests, emerging from technical and corporate

preferences, lead to uncertainties that complicate project-related decision-making. The research

involved studying a Hong Kong-based project using the multidimensional complexity

framework. Results validated that disagreements and unbalanced information sharing contribute

to complexity emerging from technical and organizational disputes.

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. Surprisingly, technical and organizational complexities positively influenced 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

team members who have demonstrated the ability to trust others.

To meet rapidly changing consumer demands, organizations are reverting to partnerships

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

effectively cultivates an atmosphere of collaboration and knowledge sharing, facilitating project

complexity.

Traditional project management techniques guide project managers to control threats and

uncertainties. Instead, project complexity compels project managers to facilitate tensions. As a

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

team members, facilitating project complexity.

Similarly, Islam, Gyoshev, and Amona (2020) found similar results stemming from their

mixed methods research on discontinuous innovation projects. Intermittent innovation projects

are complex. Islam et al.’s (2020) study supported that collaboration consistently resulted in

spontaneous ingenuity, which improved its competitiveness.

Complexity scientists consider complexity an opportunity if there are mechanisms to

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.

Project complexity remains a major source of project failure. To manage 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

complexity was measured using a structural scale. Complexity increases commensurate to

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

outlined in contract wording. Conversely, organizations suspended regulations and policies in

favor of trust and collaboration in high complexity project conditions.

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.

Shenhar and Hotzmann (2017), in their qualitative research of famous megaprojects,

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

constraints defined project success (Badewi, 2016).

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

of project team members.

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

maintains a high focus on customer service.

Bowers (2016) indicated that advances in neuroscience provide insights into the

impressionableness of the brain. Ashby and Rosedahl (2017) presented results showing that the

human brain inherently develops an image of exemplar performance through experience. An

individual’s perception of success is unique. Performance and success are flexible and relative to

the psychological state of the stakeholder (Michael & Christensen, 2015).

Project managers remain focused on delivering project objectives efficiently and

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

success and execution.

Projects remain a dominant mechanism to realize strategic initiatives. The definition of

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,

2017a). The modern interpretation of project success is holistic.

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

engagement and sustainability, are increasingly relevant.

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

life cycle predicts whether a project is considered successful.

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

supported that a trust-based governance structure aligned decision-making with stakeholders

leading to the ability to adapt the project relative to stakeholder feedback.

Reminiscent of project management competencies, project management methodologies

predict project success. Project management methodologies are either standardized or

customized. Joslin and Müller (2015) defined project success as considering efficiency, benefits,

impact, stakeholder satisfaction, and future potential. A cross-sectional questionnaire of project

managers located in the United States, Europe, and Australia revealed that project management

methodologies provide freedom to adapt predicted project success.

Project managers communicate and share knowledge to inspire creativity and

imagination. As a result, a chief project management responsibility is to facilitate interrelations

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.

An innovative organizational climate implies a project environment that encourages

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

innovative organizational climate predicts project success.

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

a “multidimensional concept” (Irfan et al., 2021, p. 1; Maqsoom et al., 2020, p. 2454).

Khoza and Marnewick (2020) offered an intriguing multidimensional project success

framework involving five levels. Process level success describes performance relative to the

project management methodology. Project management level success pertains to project

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.

Success is considered the alignment to business strategy. Soltani (2020) investigated if

project strategy is a predictor of project success in Iran's information and communication

technology projects. Project success was measured using a multidimensional framework

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

direction outlined by the project manager, upon project success.

Deploying a quantitative correlational study involving project managers based in

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-

taking and creativity predicts project success.

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

influence on project success.

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

constraints basis is insufficient. A broadened interpretation of project success included the

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

constraints and customer satisfaction. Rodríguez-Rivero, Ortiz-Marcos, Romero, and

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.

Synthesis of the Research Findings

Evidence showed that project management competencies positively affect project success

and that project complexity negatively affect project success. Findings from the literature

continue.

Project Management Competencies and Project Success

An essential project management competency is the ability to negotiate and facilitate.

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

uncertainty scale centered on project complexity's tangible structural elements. Project

53
management behavior facilitated project complexity. Recalling that the research approach was

qualitative, a causal relationship was misguided.

Mainga (2017) investigated project management competencies and project efficiency in

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

with project complexity (p. 467).

Leadership styles and abilities are project management competencies (Project

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,

typically found in transformational leadership tendencies, had a statistically significant effect on

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

significantly improved project success.

There is evidence that project management competencies positively affect project

success. De Araújo et al. (2018b) investigated project management competencies. Evidence

showed that applying human-centered project management competencies strengthened the team

environment leading to knowledge sharing and collaboration. Technical process-based project

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

involved the five dimensions of technology, organizational, environmental, cultural, and

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

complex project failure. Project managers competent in interpersonal skills, conflict

management, and team motivation were likely to succeed in complex projects since project

management competencies facilitate the reflective decision-making process. Though using a

limited definition of project complexity, based only on structural influences of project

complexity, surprisingly, decision-making improved in complex projects compared to

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.

Using hierarchical multiple regression analysis, Yu (2017) presented evidence that

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

centering on the project manager’s perception of complexity present in the project.

Critique of the Previous Research Methods

Ballesteros-Sánchez et al. (2019), investigating the relationship between executive

coaching and project management personal competencies, showed that competencies are

enhanced through executive training and improved the possibility of project success. The PMI’s

framework is an untested instrument.

Self-administered project management competencies frameworks are inherently flawed.

New mechanisms available to measure personal project management competencies are flawed

since instrument application typically involves a degree of self-reporting, leading to subjective

and inflated results (Ballesteros-Sánchez et al., 2019). Personal project management

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

et al., 2018) offered valid research approaches as national cultural bases.

The project management community remains unwilling to arrive at a unified definition

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

designed to identify and categorize project complexity are meaningless.

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.

Project management competencies involved a broad interpretation, but a narrowed interpretation

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,

2018; Mainga, 2017; Ordoñez et al., 2019; Raziq et al., 2018).

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

standard model (Geraldi et al., 2011).

Globalization, technology, and ambiguity challenged definitions of project management

competencies, project complexity, and project success. Project management competencies

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

summary of the chapter.

Purpose of the Study

The theory of complexity served as the theoretical foundation for this study. The theory

of complexity explains that it disrupts the relationship between project management

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

investigation into the relationship between project management competencies, project

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 &

Mostafavi, 2017). This quantitative nonexperimental correlational research study aimed to

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).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The research questions and adjoining hypotheses used for this study are listed as follows:

RQ1: To what extent do project management competencies predict project success?

H10: There is no statistically significant correlation between project management

competencies and project success.

H1A: There is a statistically significant correlation between project management

competencies and project success.

RQ2: To what extent does project complexity predict project success?

H20: There is no statistically significant correlation between project complexity and

project success.

H2A: There is a statistically significant correlation between project complexity and

project success.

Research Design

The research design applied a quantitative nonexperimental correlational approach to

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;

de Araújo et al., 2018a; Maylor & Turner, 2017).

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,

2012; Woodside, 2016).

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

recruited the remaining members of the sample in the second phase.

Target Population and Sample

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

million project managers worked in the USA.

Attainment of project management professional (PMP) certification demonstrates

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

at least 36 months, and completed 35 hours of project management education (Project

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

480,000 certified PMPs working in the USA.

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

access to the survey.

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

software yielded a minimum of 107 responses to attain a .95 statistical 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

in the second phase came from Qualtrics Panel Services.

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

participant to the informed consent page.

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

persons, beneficence, and justice.

Data Collection

Affirmation of informed consent directed participants to the survey instrument.

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

completed the survey instrument on a computer, tablet, or mobile device.

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

destroyed by applying a half-ton press on the external drive platter.

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

the three variables.

Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics were run to gain an understanding of the

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

variable results were examined to measure the dispersion of the data.

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).

The multiple linear regression statistical technique's four assumptions are

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

was applied to test the normality of residuals (Field, 2018).

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

competencies, project complexity, and project success.

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

Research Question Type of Analysis Descriptive Statistics Hypothesis Testing

1 Multiple Linear Means, Standard H0i : βi = 0

Regression Deviation Hai : βi ≠ 0
for i = 1,2,3
R2 variance

2 Multiple Linear Means, Standard H0i : βi = 0

Regression Deviation Hai : βi ≠ 0
for i = 1,2,3
R2 variance

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,

validity, and reliability for each instrument continues.

67
Project Management Competencies Questionnaire (PMCQ)

The project management competencies questionnaire (PMCQ) was used to measure

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.

Validity. Discriminate validity was checked by determining the average variance

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

acceptable for research purposes.

Complexity Assessment Tool (CAT)

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

manager. All questions contained in the CAT were asked.

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

applied to assess managerial complexity (Maylor, Vidgen, & Carver, 2008).

Reliability. The instrument was tested using Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated internal

consistency at .90 (Williams, 2018).

Project Success Questionnaire (PSQ)

The project success questionnaire (PSQ) was applied (Aga, 2016). The instrument was

selected since it encouraged participants to evaluate project results in usability, sustainability,

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

the PSQ were asked.

Validity. Discriminate validity was checked by determining the average variance

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

consistency at .93 (Aga et al., 2016).

A summary of the variables applied in this study is found in Table 2.

Table 2
Variables Summary

Research Question Variables IV/DV Data Type Instrument

1 Project Success DV Interval PSQ
Project Management Competencies IV Interval PMCQ
Project Complexity IV Interval CAT

1.1 Project Success DV Interval PSQ

Project Management Competencies IV Interval PMCQ

1.2 Project Success DV Interval PSQ

Project Complexity IV Interval CAT

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

SurveyMonkey platform once data was downloaded to a secured and password-protected

external drive. The use of informed consent addressed issues related to beneficence. This study

addressed respect to justice through self-selection randomization. The risks presented to

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

Harrisburg University IRB.

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

This research investigated whether project management competencies and project

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

statistical technique, production of the regression coefficients, and statement of acceptance or

rejection of the null hypotheses.

Background to the Description of Chapter Four

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

literature provides limited understanding concerning the relationships between project

management competencies, project complexity, and project success.

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

statistical technique deployed.

Table 3
Description of Models, Research Questions, and Hypotheses

Question Hypothesis Research Question and Hypothesis

RQ1 To what extent do project management competencies
predict project success?

H01 There is no statistically significant correlation between

project management competencies and project success.
HA1 There is a statistically significant correlation between
project management competencies and project success.

RQ2 To what extent does project complexity predict project

success?

H02 There is no statistically significant correlation between

project complexity and project success.
HA2 There is a statistically significant correlation between
project complexity and project success.

Description of the Sample

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

Statistic Project Management Competencies Project Complexity Project Success

Mean 142.77 124.95 57.48
Median 145.00 128.00 59.00
Mode 146 140 63
Standard Deviation 13.507 20.720 8.795
Skewness -8.24 -1.324 -1.486
Kurtosis 1.057 1.951 3.489
Minimum 93 57 18
Maximum 165 155 70
Range 72 98 52
Percentiles 25 133.00 116.00 54.00
50 145.00 128.00 59.00
75 153.00 140.00 63.00

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

Figure 2. Histogram of project complexity

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

treating outlier data.

Table 5
Casewise Diagnostics

Case Cook’s D Leverage Mahalanobis DFBeta PMC DFBeta PC DFBeta PS

36 .00315 .07686 8.76163 -.09388 .08007 .00949
45 .01618 .13332 15.19849 -.18874 .21219 -.06952
101 .40711 .08760 9.98650 -.52924 -.14062 1.06464
107 .15195 .01863 2.12431 .42212 -.59731 .29002
110 .60164 .09477 10.80335 .73008 .09310 -1.30144
112 .18588 .05913 6.74107 .18142 -.55789 .63745
114 .60178 .09437 10.75784 .78780 .02548 -1.27775
115 .01367 .08900 10.14595 -.13963 .03425 .16065

Average leverage .01739

Three times average leverage .03478

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

that if b = 0, then the alternate hypothesis was rejected.

Before conducting hypothesis testing, the assumptions of multiple linear regression were

examined. The assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity must be retained to conduct

multiple linear regression and indicate that the relationship between the independent and the

model's errors is nonsystematic. Scatterplots of ZRESID to ZPRED, and of residuals of 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

homoscedasticity and linearity assumptions are retained.

77
Figure 4. Examination of assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity – project success

Figure 5. Examination of assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity – project management

competencies

78
Figure 6. Examination of assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity – project complexity

The presence of multicollinearity indicates a strong correlation between the two

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

the assumption of multicollinearity is retained.

Table 6
Variance Inflation Factor

Model Collinearity Tolerance VIF

1 Project Management Competencies 1.000 1.000
2 Project Complexity 1.000 1.000

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

Summary of the Hypothesis Testing

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-

statistic greater than one is an indication of a good model.

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

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 715.787 1 715.787 17.628 .000
Residual 4263.503 105 40.605
Total 4979.290 106
2 Regression 2878.281 2 1439.141 71.238 .000
Residual 2101.009 104 20.202
Total 4979.290 106

Model 1 – Project Management Competencies and Project Success

Model 2 – Project Management Competencies, Project Complexity, and Project Success

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

relationship between the dependent and independent variables.

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

no statistically significant correlation between project complexity and project success.

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

Model B Std. Error β t Sig. Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 27.00 7.555 3.574 .001
Project Mgt Competencies .220 .052 .379 4.199 .000 1.000 1.000
2 (Constant) 8.96 5.607 1.597 .113
Project Mgt Competencies .083 .039 .143 2.111 .037 .886 1.129
Project Complexity .295 .028 .700 10.346 .000 .886 1.129

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

Model 1 – Project Management Competencies and Project Success

Model 2 – Project Management Competencies, Project Complexity, and Project Success

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

Model β t Sig Partial Correlation Tolerance VIF Min Tolerance

1 .700 10.346 .000 .712 .886 1.129 .886

Model 1 – Project Complexity and Project Success

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

model involving independent variables project management competencies and project

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

also described in the following chapter.

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

concludes with a discussion of study limitations followed by practical implications and

recommendations for future research.

Summary of the Results

The general problem of research for this study concerned the association of the project

management standard model, in which there is a positive relationship between 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

predict project success.

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,

including communication and leadership, positively influenced project success. Concerning

project complexity predicting project success, the results were inconclusive.

The purpose of this research was to investigate whether project management

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

for future research concludes this chapter.

Discussion of the Results

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

team, leading to project success.

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

predictive model results.

The second predictive model involving project management competencies, project

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

competencies, project managers can establish an environment built on collaboration and

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

to creativity and ingenuity.

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

finding innovative solutions to contemporary problems. Project management competencies

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

experience of the project stakeholders. The application of project management competencies

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

project management competencies positively improve project success. When project

management competencies are used in complex projects, project success potential is higher than

that of noncomplex projects.

Project management competencies encourage building an environment supportive of

collaboration, partnership, knowledge sharing, and openness. Cooperation and collaboration

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

project management competencies as project complexity increases. Collaboration and knowledge

sharing, encouraged with project management competencies, catalyze novel and adaptive

solutions that improve project performance.

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.

The application of project management competencies encourages involvement and action.

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

strengths and opportunities that improve project performance.

Interpretation of the Findings

Project stakeholders are a source of project complexity since interdependencies among

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

project complexity into improved performance and project success.

The model involving project management competencies, project complexity, and project

success is explained through knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer, the exchange of

knowledge and experiences between various stakeholders, addresses complex projects'

ambiguity and uncertainty. Project management competencies encourage knowledge sharing.

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

emphasized, leading to improved project performance in complex projects.

Negotiation skills are a specific classification of project management. Project managers

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,

leading to tapping project performance potency.

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

examined. This section continues with an explanation of the specified limitations.

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.

This study investigated whether project management competencies and project

complexity predict project success. Both project management competencies and project

complexity were treated aggregately. Project management competencies were measured using

the project management competencies questionnaire, which involved team management,

business domain knowledge, people skills, project management, personal characteristics

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

research participants and funding were unavailable.

Table 11
G*Power Input Parameters for A Priori Power Analysis Using Seven Predictors

G*Power Parameter Value

Test family F-test
Statistical test Multiple linear regression
Type of power analysis A priori
Effect size f2 .15
α probability .05
Power (1-β error probability) .95
Number of predictors 7
Total sample size 153

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

moderator variable, a limitation in the research design emerges.

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.

Implications for Practice

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

management, which indicates that project managers accumulate project management

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

(Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor et al., 2017).

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

complex projects can be leveraged by project managers applying project management

competencies. By using project management competencies, project managers can draw on

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.

Recommendations for Further Research

Recommendations are offered to seek additional insight into project management

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

management complexity and project success.

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

investigated a correlational relationship. Investigating project complexity from a causal

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

adaptation of the complexity assessment tool. Project complexity could be measured on a

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

gained through modification of the research design.

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

relevant to project management practitioners since project management competencies enable

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

and the general community.

97
 REFERENCES

360PMO. (2019). PMI credential holder10.s worldwide. Retrieved from

https://www.360pmo.com/pmi-credential-holders-worldwide/

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

Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity – A review. International Journal of

Project Management, 14(4), 201-204. http://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3

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

Bahari, S. F. (2010). Qualitative versus quantitative research strategies: Contrasting

epistemological and ontological assumptions. Jurnal Teknlogi, 52(5), 17-28.
http://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v52n1.256

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

Ballesteros-Sánchez, L., Ortiz-Marcos, I., Rodriguez-Rivero, R. (2019). The impact of executive

coaching on project managers’ personal competencies. Project Management Journal,
50(3), 306-321. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819832191

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

Chapman, R. J. (2016). A framework for examining the dimensions and characteristics of

complexity inherent with rail megaprojects. International Journal of Project
Management, 34, 937-956. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016 .05.001

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

Clegg, S. (2019). Governmentality. Project Management Journal, 50(3), 266-270.

http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819841260

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

Crane, B., & Hartwell, C. J. (2018). Developing employees’ mental complexity:

Transformational leadership as a catalyst in employee development. Human Resource
Development Review, 17(3), 234-257. http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318781439

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

Cullen, K., & Parker, D. W. (2015). Improving performance in project-based management:

Synthesizing strategic theories. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 64(5), 608-624. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-02-2014-0031

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

de Rezende, L. B., & Blackwell, P. (2019). Project management competency framework.

Iberoamerican Journal of Project Management, 10(1), 34-59. Retrieved from
http://www.ijopm.org

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

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational

behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-260.
http://doi.org/10.1023/a:1019637632584

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

Doyle, A. (2017). Adaptive challenges require adaptive leaders. Performance Improvement,

56(9), 18-26. http://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21735

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

Fernandez-Solis, J. L. (2013). Building construction: A deterministic non-periodic flow – A case

study of chaos theories in tracking production flow. Architectural Engineering and
Design Management, 9, 21-48. http://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2012.683671

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

Gerschberger, M., Manuj, I., & Freinberger, P. (2017). Investigating supplier-induced

complexity in supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 47(8), 688-711. http://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-07-2016-0185

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

Goduka, N. (2012). From positivism to indigenous science: A reflection on world views,

paradigms and philosophical assumptions. Africa Insight, 41(4), 123-138. Retrieved from
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ai

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

Granado-Alcón, M. C., Gómez-Baya, D., Herrera-Gutiérrez, E., Vélez-Toral, M., Alonso-Martín,

P., & Martínez-Frutos, M. T. (2020). Project-based learning and the acquisition of
competencies and knowledge transfer in higher education. Sustainability, 12(10062), 1-
18. http://doi.org/10.3390/su122310062

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

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hazy, J. K., & Prottas, D. J. (2018). Complexity leadership: Construct validation of an

instrument to assess generative and administrative leadership modes. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 30(3), 325-348. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/journal/jmanaissues

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

Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research.

Educational Researcher, 30(2), 3-13. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x030002003

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual review of psychology, 50, 109-135.

Retrieved from https://www.annualreviews.org/journal/psych

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

Kaulio, M. A. (2018). A psychological contract perspective on project networks. Project

Management Journal, 49(4), 81-88. http://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818781713

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. (2016). Towards a practice of systemic change – Acknowledging social complexity in

project management. Systems Research and Behavioral Science Systems Research, 33,
651-661. http://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2428

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

McLeod, L., Doolin, B., & MacDonell, S. G. (2017). A perspective-based understanding of

project success. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 68-86.
http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21290

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

Mingers, J. (2004). Real-izing information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning

philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14, 87-103.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2003.06.001

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 Academy of Sciences. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in

research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

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

Poveda-Bautista, R., Diego-Mas, J. A., Leon-Medina, D. (2018). Measuring the project

management complexity: The case of information technology projects. Complexity,
2018(6058480), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6058480

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. (2017b). Project manager competency development framework

(3rd 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

Rechberg, I. (2018). Knowledge management paradigms, philosophical assumptions: An outlook

on future research. American Journal of Management, 18(3), 61-74. Retrieved from
http://www.na-businesspress.com/ajmopen.html

Rehman, S. U. (2020). Impact of inclusive leadership on project success. Journal of Engineering,

Project, and Production Management, 10(2), 87-93. http://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2020-
0011

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

Taylor, A., Taylor, M. (2014). Factors influencing effective implementation of performance

measurement systems in small and medium-sized enterprises and large firms: A
perspective from contingency theory. International Journal of Production Research
52(3), 847-866. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.842023

Teece, D. J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of

Management & Organizations, 24(3), 359-368. http://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.75

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

Yu, M. C. (2017). Customer participation and project performance: A moderated-mediation

examination. Project Management Journal, 48(4), 8-21.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800402

Yuan, H. (2017). Achieving sustainability in railway projects: Major stakeholder concerns.

Project Management Journal, 48(5), 115-132.
http://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800508

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

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

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.

All Rights Reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

View publication stats