Complexity in project studies: A rhetorical device perspective

Abstract

Abstract A frequently used term in project studies is that of complexity. This term typically conveys the presence of multiple intricate and interrelated project factors that render prediction, and ultimately performance, challenging. Complexity is ubiquitous in the context of projects, and there are competing notions of complexity and, consequently, how to cope with it. Drawing on an integrative review approach, we explore four predominant notions of complexity in project studies, provide examples of illustrative research-based constructs (root metaphors) associated with each, and discuss their differences. In doing so, we first explore Bent Flyvbjerg’s idea about the “Iron Law of Mega-Projects” as an example of complexity inherent in the project environment. Next, Martin Barnes’ proposal of the “Iron Triangle” serves as an example of complexity inherent in the project. Then, Kristian Kreiner’s “Drifting Environments” concept is used as an example of complexity emerging in the project environment. Finally, Albert Hirschman’s idea about the “Hiding Hand” serves as an example of complexity emerging in the project. After exploring the four notions, we discuss how each can serve as a potential rhetorical devise for creating relationships and reasoning between complexity and project (mis-)performance. Based on the study, we suggest that complexity in project studies, despite its linguistic grounding, exhibits polysemy in the sense that it is associated with a multitude of notions and connotations. This polysemy both obscures the phenomenon of complexity while offering a plethora of opportunities for rhetorically linking and justifying project conditions and project (mis-)performance.