Xia, B and Chan, A P C (2012) Measuring complexity for building projects: A Delphi study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(1), pp. 7-24. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The aim of this study is to identify complexity measures for building projects in the People's Republic of China (PRC). A threeround of Delphi questionnaire survey was conducted to identify the key parameters that measure the degree of project complexity. A complexity index (CI) was developed based on the identified measures and their relative importance. Six key measures of project complexity have been identified, namely: building structure & function; construction method; the urgency of the project schedule; project size/scale; geological condition; and neighboring environment. These complexity measures help stakeholders assess degrees of project complexity and better manage the potential risks that might be induced to different levels of project complexity. The findings provide insightful perspectives to define and understand project complexity. For stakeholders, understanding and addressing the complexity help to improve project planning and implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; China; complexity; Delphi method; measurement |
| Index terms: | relative importance, survey, construction method, questionnaire, China, project planning, project complexity, complexity, Delphi method, implementation |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, risk assessment, data collection methods, control systems, building construction, systems engineering, organizational theory, Geography |
| Topics: | Site Management, Procurement, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here