buildings

Article
Classification of Key Elements of Construction Project
Complexity from the Contractor Perspective
Marin Nikolić 1, * and Anita Cerić 2

1 Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

2 Department for Organization, Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; anita@[Link]
* Correspondence: marinnik9@[Link]

Abstract: Contractors are facing an increasing degree of complexity in their construction projects.
Due to inadequately prepared project plans, they have been suffering significant losses during
the execution of construction projects. One of the key disadvantages of such plans is that during
the planning process, a construction project is mostly defined as a linear rather than a dynamic
and complex process with a high degree of uncertainty. Therefore, a contractor who is in the
planning phase of a construction project should consider the impact of the project characteristics on
its implementation according to the elements of project complexity. In this research, we therefore first
made an overview of the existing research related to the elements of project complexity. Based on the
frequency of their occurrence in existing surveys, this paper singled out eight groups of complexity
characteristics that contractors should be aware of during construction projects. After that, based on
the frequency of occurrence in the existing surveys, fifteen elements of complexity were classified
for each project complexity group. The research conducted among construction project managers
Citation: Nikolić, M.; Cerić, A.
identified key complexity elements of the construction project from the contractor’s perspective.
Classification of Key Elements of
Thereby, the classification of groups with the associated key elements determining the complexity of
Construction Project Complexity
a construction project from the perspective of the contractor was performed. By properly analyzing
from the Contractor Perspective.
the impact of key elements of complexity on project flow during the planning phase, contractors can
Buildings 2022, 12, 696. https://
[Link]/10.3390/buildings12050696
be more successful when planning the project objectives to be performed.

Academic Editors: Srinath Perera, Keywords: construction project; project complexity; construction project complexity; project management;
Albert P. C. Chan, Dilanthi
project success
Amaratunga, Makarand Hastak,
Patrizia Lombardi, Sepani Senaratne,
Xiaohua Jin and Anil Sawhney

Received: 21 April 2022 1. Introduction

Accepted: 20 May 2022 The success of contractor organizations in the construction sector, which mostly op-
Published: 23 May 2022
erates as a project-oriented, depends on the success of individual projects. In the case of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral construction projects, success is measured on the basis of the results achieving the project
with regard to jurisdictional claims in objectives related to cost, time, quality, safety, and environmental conservation [1]. Under-
published maps and institutional affil- standing and properly dealing with project complexity is the key determinant of success,
iations. especially in project-oriented organizations [2]. The literature dealing with complexity
defines uncertainty as one of its essential determinants [3,4], and, going along with it, the
risks of the project and the consequences that they can cause. Successful completion of
a project depends significantly on the number of activated risks in the project that cause
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
deviations from the planned results and project goals, which are set in advance.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Problems during projects that cause cost and deadline overruns have been a common
This article is an open access article
hurdle that researchers have dealt with for years [5]. Among the reasons why projects fail
distributed under the terms and
are their increasing complexity [3] or underestimations of the complexity of the project
conditions of the Creative Commons
during the planning phase [6]. In practice, the contractor for the construction project
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
during the planning phase, while defining the budget and time required to execute the
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).
project, views the project as being a proper and predictable process. However, a more

Buildings 2022, 12, 696. [Link] [Link]

Buildings 2022, 12, 696 2 of 26

detailed analysis of practical examples leads to the conclusion that construction projects
are non-linear and dynamic, i.e., complex processes that often exist on the border of chaos.
Therefore, in order to influence the results and success of the project, the contractor should
consider the project as a complex and unpredictable process when developing the plan.
One feature of unsuccessful projects is a delayed response to a problem that occurs
during the execution of the project, while a feature of successful projects is the prediction
of such problems [7]. Each project that the contractor performs has different variable and
immutable characteristics and requires a different approach to management and execution.
When planning a construction project with a contractor, it is necessary to analyze and
determine the project’s degree of complexity. The degree of project complexity is an
indicator of the impact of the project characteristics on the activation of the risk in the
project and therefore the impact of these complexity characteristics on the goals and success
of the project as well. To determine the degree of project complexity, it is first necessary to
define the term complexity of the project from a contractor perspective and the elements
that affect its degree.
Although project complexity is not clearly defined [3,8–11], it is recognized as one of
the critical characteristics of a project that determines the appropriate actions that will result
in the success of the project [12]. It is widely accepted that the complexity of the project
affects the results of execution and possibly results in the success of the project [13–16].
Baccarini [12] stated that project complexity helps to determine the requirements in terms
of the planning, coordination, and control of the project; makes it difficult to clearly
identify and define the objectives of the project; and plays a major role in selecting the
appropriate organizational structure, selecting project inputs, and selecting the appropriate
procurement arrangement for the project. As a determinant of the project, complexity
significantly affects the project objectives related to time, costs, and quality. Based on the
need to create a realistic plan for the execution of the project with indicators through which
the successfulness of the project is monitored, Wood and Gidado [17] found that the degree
of project complexity should be identified at the earliest stage of the project.
Measuring the complexity of construction projects is different for investors, designers,
contractors, project managers, and site managers [18]. In previous surveys determining the
complexity of a construction project, the elements that make up complexity, and how to
measure it, the research was generally carried out for projects, IT projects, and construction
projects. These surveys were mainly conducted from the point of view of investors.
In their work [11], Luo et al. analyzed the previous research related to the complexity
of construction projects in detail and state in their conclusions that future research should
address elements of project complexity from the perspectives of different participants in
the construction project, the connection between complexity and project success, and how
to increase complexity over the course of the project. Although research related to the
complexity of construction projects has intensified over the last twenty years, a review
of the literature found that there are no significant complexity studies that focus on the
perspectives of contractors. As investors are increasingly using forms of contracting that
transfer risks to the contractor, contractors encounter a greater degree of project complexity
than investors [19].
The main objective of this paper is to identify groups of complexity and the key el-
ements of the complexity in construction projects from the perspective of the contractor.
Project complexity groups were determined based on a review of the literature and the
frequency of occurrence in existing surveys and complexity models. Key elements of
complexity were identified based on the literature review, as well as their frequency of
occurrence in existing surveys and research conducted among construction project man-
agers with contractors. In this way, a classification of groups of complexity and the key
elements of project complexity is obtained and can be viewed from the perspective of the
contractor. This paper presents the literature related to complexity, with special reference to
the definition of project complexity and the complexity of construction projects. After that,
the elements of project complexity are identified and summarized from the perspective
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 3 of 26

of the contractor, and the research methodology is presented. The research question for
project managers which was included in investigation on project complexity was: Which
element of complexity do you consider most important from the contractor’s perspective?
When we ask how managers perceive project complexity elements, we do not ask only
in a specific case of a given project but rather in a more general manner. In other words,
the question concerns the mental model, not the assessment in a single case. The results
of the research show the degrees of importance of key elements of complexity within the
different groups of complexity. Based on the results of the research, a classification of the
complexity groups with the associated key elements of complexity was determined from
the perspective of the contractor on the construction project. A discussion and guidelines
for future research are provided, along with conclusions.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Project Complexity Theory
Project Complexity Management is becoming an important segment of project manage-
ment that is crucial for the success of projects [20,21]. It is important to understand the link
between project success and different project conditions, and it represents an intervention
variable for successful project implementation [22,23].
The beginnings of the application of complexity theory in project management are
related to works by Morris [24], Bennet and Fine [25], Bubshait and Selen [26], Bennet
and Cropper [27], Gidado [28], Wozniak [29], and Baccarini [12]. All of these studies were
mainly devoted to illuminating the notion of complexity in general, both in terms of projects
and its impact on project objectives, though to a lesser extent.
When talking about complexity, its unpredictability (the degree that needs to be de-
termined) depends on the interdependence and dynamic interaction between the system
and individual elements of the system itself. In order to prevent a project’s unpredictability
from growing and creating additional problems, it is necessary to define the degree of com-
plexity as soon as possible. In this way, the possibility of unpredictability (risk activation)
is reduced, and the chances of the project being successful are increased.
From the point of view of complexity theory, each project is complex [30]. The claim
that we often hear from those participating in different projects is that their project is
complex from the point of view of complexity theory, but this is not a clear determinant.
All of the authors above stated that the participants believe that their projects have a high
degree of complexity and that because of insufficient knowledge of this theory, they reach
for such definitions. Thus, every project, even the smallest, has complexity as its basic
determinant; the degree of this complexity changes depending on its characteristics. The
idea is that project complexity is applicable to all projects, regardless of their size.
Processing the complexity of the project is one of the most important but also the most
controversial topics in project management. It is considered controversial because most
standards, as well as researchers in the field of project management, have a different view
on project complexity. Through a large number of surveys, there is still no consensus on
how to define an unambiguous concept and measurement system to determine project
complexity [31]. In the last few decades, complexity theory has been used in various fields,
such as physics, astronomy, finance, biology, geology, chemistry, and meteorology [32,33].

2.2. Definition of the Project Complexity

The problems with complexity begin with the very notion of complexity [34]. Given
that this is a multidimensional concept, providing an unambiguous definition of project
complexity is still impossible. The most frequently quoted researchers are more concerned
with the question of what complex systems are not than with what they actually are. In
general, complexity refers to the difficulty of understanding certain phenomena in a given
context or environment. In more specific terms, its use denotes a complex interaction
between parts of a system. Complexity is defined in different ways across different groups
of disciplines and in relation to different systems. However, as already stated, there is still
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 4 of 26

no consensus on the exact definition of complexity [33,35–43]. A detailed review of the

literature finds a large number of definitions of complexity. Sinha et al. [44] found that there
is not a single concept of complexity that can adequately encompass the intuitive notion of
what complexity should mean. The first definitions of complexity were encountered in the
1950s and 1960s. However, it was only over the past thirty years that the number of authors
studying what constitutes the notion of complexity increased. Baccarini [12] created one
of the foundational works related to project complexity and found that overall project
complexity does not exist and that we need to determine different types of complexity
when we talk about project complexity. Complexity theory provides a general definition of
complex systems for certain fields and analyzes the interaction of individual elements of
complexity within those fields (e.g., the financial market field, IT sector field, construction
field, biology field, etc.).
By reviewing complexity research, it can be established that it deals with elements
that affect the degree of complexity, the impact of complexity on the project, and methods
for measuring and managing complexity during the project [45,46]. A significant number
of surveys address the elements of complexity as determinants of complexity and show
the disaggregated structures of the notion of complexity itself. Complexity elements are
arranged into groups of complexities, while individual authors determine the elements of
complexity as independent indicators of the overall complexity of the project.

2.3. Complexity of the Construction Project

The notion of complexity is often used when talking about construction projects.
Construction projects consist of a large number of elements, and their implementation
requires a large number of participants and a large number of resources, as well as various
techniques for their management. With their characteristics, construction projects match
our general understanding of something that is significantly complex.
Project complexity is one of several concepts that represent the irregular behaviour
of the project, but in the field of construction, this concept is of utmost importance [47,48].
As a scientific discipline, complexity is an emerging topic, but it is also a critical topic in
the field of construction project management [21]. Construction projects are immutably
complex and have been progressively becoming more complex since World War II [12]. In
fact, construction processes can be considered to be some of the most complex ventures
across all industries [49]. Today, the construction industry has experienced speedy progress
in projects of rising size and complexity [43]. Large scales, sophisticated technical processes,
long lead times, huge numbers of people involved, diverse geographic locations and
high-performance pressures make these projects more complex than ever [50].
Although complexity is a widespread term that can be associated with any subject,
there is still a lack of published literature in the field of complexity in construction. Thus,
construction projects are often described as complex, but there is no universally accepted
definition of complexity in the construction industry [17]. When it comes to complexity,
it is most often analyzed from the theoretical or abstract perspectives, while the practical
applications of complexity theory are very small. A large number of authors have noted
the difficulty of applying theory in practice in relation to complexity theory [51–55].
The construction industry has shown great difficulty in dealing with the increased
complexity of major construction projects [56]. Bertelsen [38] explained that the general
view of construction projects is such that they are considered to be a regulated and linear
phenomenon that can be organized, planned, and managed in a proper manner. Frequent
examples of failure to complete construction projects on time and within the established
plans has led to a reconsideration of how accurate such a general view of construction is and
has forced us to consider whether construction projects are as predictable as we consider
them to be. A more detailed processing of examples from practice led to the conclusion that
construction projects are essentially non-linear, complex, and dynamic processes that often
exist on the border of chaos. Therefore, he concluded that the perception that projects are
regular and linear by nature is a crucial mistake that could impair the success of the project,
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 5 of 26

and project management must consider the project as a complex and dynamic process with
non-linear characteristics.
Continuous requirements related to the speed of construction; cost and quality control;
workplace safety and dispute avoidance, as well as the technological progress; economic
liberalization and globalization; environmental issues; and fragmentation of the construc-
tion industry have led to a significant increase in the complexity of construction processes.
Regardless of how their relationship was conceptualized in the literature, it is clear that
complexity and uncertainty have substantial impacts on project performance. Today, com-
plexity has reached a level where construction project managers have to consider its impact
on the success of the project with great care [28]. It is a common opinion that the reason for
poor results lies in the planning process and that construction processes are significantly
more complex for a large number of reasons [12,57,58]. Most believe that the main reason
for the failure of a construction project is poor project management. The critics are partly
right. However, they are correct not in the way that they think they are. In order to properly
manage a project, it is important to understand the nature of the project. From the above, it
can be concluded that we do not know enough about the nature of the construction projects
that project managers try to manage in the right way.
The complexity of construction projects significantly influences various aspects of
the project results [18]. Many empirical studies in the field of construction have found
that complexity affects project duration, cost, and quality [43,59–65]. It is widely accepted
that the complexity of a project should be something that can be measured objectively for
the purposes of continuous feedback, which would help control the project implemen-
tation process [12,66–70]. A systemic analysis of the complexity of construction projects
is a crucial element in decision making used by project managers and in the successful
implementation of complex construction projects [11]. Complexity is crucial for project
resource management, and finding ways to manage complexity can affect the improvement
of project results [70]. Leung [70] stated that it is necessary to define a quantitative method
for measuring the complexity of construction projects.

2.4. Project Complexity from Contractor Perspective

Contractors are the main actors concerned with project management performance
and need to manage their perceived project complexity [71]. When we talk about the
complexity of a construction project, it is important to emphasize that it can be viewed
from the different perspectives of the participants involved in the construction project. A
significant degree of project complexity for the investor does not necessarily mean the
same or similar degree of project complexity for other participants who are involved in its
execution. It is necessary to specifically analyze the complexity for each of the participants
in the construction project from their individual perspective. Previous research has mainly
dealt with the analysis of complexity from the perspective of investors, but in accordance
with the research of Lu et al. [10], it is necessary to investigate and define complexity
from the different perspectives of the participants who are involved in the project. This
paper analyzed complexity from the perspective of the contractor, and it determined the
classification of the groups for the associated key elements of complexity. In this way, a
basis for future research, which requires the establishment of a framework for evaluating
the elements of complexity in contractors, was created. The creation of such a framework
will provide the contractor with an adequate tool to analyze the impact of the project
features on the activation of the risk and on the success of the project.
It is also important to emphasize that, for the different participants involved in the
construction project, the complexity of the construction project needs to be defined at
the different stages of the project. It is known that the construction project begins at
different stages for different participants, but it is also necessary that each project participant
define the degree of project complexity from their own perspective as soon as possible,
immediately after he/she becomes involved in the project’s implementation. From the
investor perspective, complexity should be defined immediately, as soon as the initial
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 6 of 26

project realization planning starts—that is, in the project design phase. In the planning and
design phase, it is mainly the designers and the supervising engineer who are involved
in the project. At this stage of the project, it is necessary to determine the degree of
project complexity from their perspectives, and thus influence the reduction in the overall
complexity of the project by influencing the complexity related to the designer and the
supervising engineer. Complexity from the perspective of the contractor—the subject of
the research in this paper—should be analyzed upon the beginning of the contractor’s
involvement in the project. The contractor is included in the project during the execution
stage. The inclusion of the contractor in the project also means the inclusion of other
participants related to the execution of the work, i.e., subcontractors, suppliers of different
resources, etc.
Although there have been a number of surveys of the complexity of construction
projects over the last thirty years, surveys on the complexity of projects from the contractor’s
perspective are very rare. Today, given the methods of contracting, as well as the fact that
the contractor employs the vast majority of the resources required for the project, the state
of construction is such that most of a construction project’s complexity is transferred to
the contractor. Therefore, for the overall success of the construction project, it is necessary
to analyze complexity as a significant determinant of the project from the perspective of
the contractor. From the contractor’s perspective, the project represents a subproject of the
entire project, as seen from the investor’s perspective. From the contractor’s perspective,
the success of the project can affect the success of the complete project. However, the success
of the project from the contractor’s perspective does not necessarily mean the success of
the entire project, nor the opposite.
The present research is based on previous research and compares project complexity
for the different participants involved in the construction project. In their 2012 research,
Xia and Chan concluded that measuring project complexity is different for investors,
designers, project managers, and contractors. In his research, Gidado [28] deals with project
complexity in relation to time and money as the most important indicators (according
to him) of how a construction project is managed by contractors. According to him, the
situation of the contractor in relation to the other participants in the project is much more
complex. The conclusion is that the degree of complexity to which the contractor is exposed
is greater than the degree of complexity to which the other participants involved in the
construction project are exposed. Brockmann and Girmscheid [46] state that contractors on
large construction projects respond to the overall complexity, as well as the complexity of
individual tasks by dividing them into smaller elements along their sections of functioning,
and in this way, they can manage them more or less successfully. Contractors employ large
amounts of resources, have less impact on the environment than investors, use state-of-the-
art scientific and technological know-how, and combine different methods in the workflow.
The contractor’s situation is much more complex than the situation of the other participants
involved in the construction project [28].
Taking into account the phases of construction projects, the largest number of interac-
tions between the participants and the project elements occur in the project execution phase.
At this stage, the project has the most participants, it correlates with the environment the
most, and has the most financial flows present. Therefore, it is clear that this phase of the
construction project is one in which the complexity of the project should receive special
attention. All of this was confirmed by Winchur [72], who, through his research, came to
the conclusion that the complexity of a construction project is the greatest at the stage in
which the work is executed. The contractor largely controls the processes and has the most
influence on the project at the work execution stage, and, therefore, the complexity of the
project at this stage is of the greatest importance for him/her.
Information on project complexity can make it easier for contractors to make manage-
ment decisions during the procurement process, to set project objectives and manage risks,
and to determine project personnel [18]. When taking over project management from the
contractor, each project manager’s primary interest is the complexity of the project, which
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 7 of 26

is set for execution, and he/she seeks answers to the questions related to the characteristics
that make up the complexity of the project.
Before defining the bid for work execution, contractors generally do not have adequate
information about the project because they are only provided with data related to the
estimated value of the work, the deadline for execution, and project documentation, and
they are sometimes warned about special construction conditions through a tour of the
construction site with the investor. Therefore, for a more successful project implementation,
it would be very important that the contractor be able to determine the degree of project
complexity from the available or possibly additional information based on the complexity
model before defining the bid price. Thus, the contractor could influence and increase
the chances his project has of success as a sub-project of the main project by looking at
it from the investor’s perspective. However, by increasing the success of performance in
this way, the contractor can also greatly influence the increase in the investor’s success
in performance, as well as the success of all of the other participants involved in the
execution of work on the construction project. Therefore, it is very important for the
investor to provide the potential contractor with input data of the highest quality, which
will then enable the contractor to determine the degree of project complexity as accurately
as possible. Once the complexities of the construction project are better understood, it
could enable the project management team to apply a proactive and front-end planning
approach in the initiation phase in order to better manage scope changes in the delivery of
the project, eventually improving the project performance [73]. Studies have shown that
project complexity has an impact on the project performance but detailed studies on direct
impacts are missing [11,74].
Traditional research related to project complexity focuses on components and elements
of project complexity [21]. In accordance with all of the above, in order to define the
classification of groups comprising the key elements associated with complexity from the
perspective of the contractor, it is important to first analyze and systematize potential
groups of complexity and elements of project complexity. The classification of groups and
key elements of complexity for the contractor is the first step in analyzing the impact of a
project’s characteristics on the activation of risks and the success of the project.

2.5. Review and Identification of Elements of Complexity from the Contractor’s Perspective
With the purpose of identifying the elements of complexity from the perspective of
the contractor, a detailed review of the literature was conducted. The literature review was
carried out in three steps. First, the search was performed based on the following keywords:
project complexity, construction project complexity, complexity from contractor perspective,
complexity, and project success. The first step of the search was performed in six databases,
namely Science direct, ASCE Library, Taylor & Francis Online, Emerald insight, Academic
Search Complete (EBSCO), and Google Scholar. The first step singled out 92 articles. The
criterion for selecting the articles for the analysis was that the articles deal, either partly or
completely, with the analysis of project complexity. In addition to searching the databases,
in the second step, a search was performed in journals dealing with topics related to the
field of research, namely: Construction Management and Economics, the International Journal
of Project Management, the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, the Project
Management Journal, and the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. The second
step singled out an additional 34 articles. When searching the databases and journals, time
filters were not included. In addition to the articles in the third step, two books and six
PhD theses that were in the relevant fields of research were included.
By reviewing the literature in accordance with the above-stated methodology, a total
of 37 articles defining the project complexity model were extracted. These 37 articles
identified 267 different associated elements of complexity. For the purposes of the research,
an analysis of these models was conducted. There is a large diversity of models of project
complexity and complexity elements. This diversity can be illustrated by the variety of
selected dimensions in the different models [75]. As stated, the key role in defining the
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 8 of 26

complexity of a project is the fact that it needs to be defined from the different perspectives
of the participants involved in the project. Accordingly, when reviewing the literature and
the elements of complexity, the existing elements of complexity and groups of complexity
were structured to best suit the contractor’s perceptions.
The literature review identified eight indicators that will be defined in the research as
groups of project complexity based on the frequency of their occurrence in existing research.
Through the reviewed literature, it was found that certain groups of complexity in certain
studies also appear as elements of complexity in complexity models. When analyzing the
frequency of occurrence of these complexity groups, these occurrences were also taken
into account.
It is important to emphasize that when structuring groups of complexity and elements
of complexity, different names related to the same characteristics of the project were linked.
Thus, more credible data based on the frequency of occurrence of individual groups and
elements of complexity as real characteristics of the project were obtained. The analysis of
the research determined the frequency of occurrence for individual groups of complexity
elements, which were determined to be components of the complexity framework from the
contractor’s perspective. All of this was determined on the basis of an analysis of previously
conducted research, the applicability of parts of existing models, and interviews with
construction project managers with years of experience. Reviewing the complexity groups
with the goal of defining the framework identified eight complexity groups, namely the
complexity of the project scope, organizational complexity, operational and technological
complexity, the complexity of the project environment, complexity related to resources
on the project, legal and socio-political complexity, and communication and economic
complexity. Below is an overview of the frequency of their occurrence in previous surveys
(Table 1).

Table 1. Project complexity groups—occurrence frequency in existing surveys.

Complexity Groups Frequency of Occurrence

Scope complexity 75.67%
Organizational complexity 59.46%
Operational and technological complexity 56.76%
Environment complexity 40.54%
Complexity related to resources on the project 37.84%
Legal and socio political complexity 27.03%
Communication complexity 16.22%
Economic complexity 18.92%

After a review of the literature, the elements of complexity were classified into groups
of complexities based on previous research. Some of the elements of complexity that related
to the same project characteristics, but that had different names in the existing research,
were merged into a unique element of complexity to obtain more credible results. After
that, the analysis of the frequency at which the elements of complexity occurred in previous
surveys began.
Since the previous surveys did not consider complexity from the perspective of the
contractor, the need to add elements of complexity to certain groups of complexity and
elements that were not represented in the previous surveys arose. These elements were
considered to be a significant contributor to the adequate definition of the framework and
the classification of key elements of complexity from the perspective of the contractor.
The review of existing research dealing with elements of complexity identified several
elements of complexity that were allocated to groups of complexity by means of analy-
sis. The complexity group related to operational and technological complexity includes
26 elements of complexity; scope complexity includes 29 elements; organizational complex-
ity includes 31 elements; complexity related to resource use during the project includes
22 elements; legal and socio-political complexity includes 19 elements; economic complexity
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 9 of 26

includes 17 elements; communication complexity includes 17 elements; and environment

complexity includes 21 elements of complexity. The remaining elements (36) could not
be classified into one of the identified groups of project complexity from the contractor’s
perspective. The analysis of the frequency of occurrence of certain elements of complexity
was then initiated. Based on these results as well as through the addition of additional
elements of complexity, which are characteristic of the contractor, 15 elements of complexity
were defined for each group of complexity of the project to be used in further research after
conducting interviews with project managers with significant experience (Table 2).

Table 2. Project complexity groups with associated complexity elements.

Project Complexity Groups with Frequency of Project Complexity Groups with Frequency of
Associated Complexity Elements Occurrence Associated Complexity Elements Occurrence
OPERATIONAL AND LEGAL AND
TECHNOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY SOCIO-POLITICAL COMPLEXITY
Incompleteness of the project documentation 2.70% Political impact of the project 8.11%
Incorrect project documentation 2.70% Local legislation 13.51%
Technological competence 18.91% Cultural diversity of participants 13.51%
Technological diversity 13.51% Contract type 2.70%
Usage of complex technologies 16.22% Culture of claims 2.70%
Investors on the project from a
Requirements of preparatory work 5.40% 2.70%
different country
Change of technology during the execution
2.70% Local experience 5.40%
of works
Presence of transport system near the
2.70% Number of contracts 2.70%
construction site
Changes in legislation during the execution
Energy Requirements 5.40% 2.70%
of the project
Changing of the policies over the course of
Insufficient project data 2.70% 5.40%
the project
Holding elections over the course of
Quality Requirements 13.51% 2.70%
project execution
Inadequate bill of work expenses 5.40% Workforce fluctuations 5.40%
Preparedness of the local community for
Function of the structure being built 2.70% 5.40%
the project
Lack of quality management tools 2.70% Interest of the local community in the project 5.40%
Technology that is unknown to the Investor 10.81% Political and social instabilities 5.40%
SCOPE COMPLEXITY ECONOMIC COMPLEXITY
Duration of the project 27.02% Project Financing 13.51%
Project value 16.22% Change in prices in the course of the project 8.11%
Number of activities in the project 27.03% Poor contractual price 0.00%
Accuracy of the statistical office data, on
Number of Critical Activities 8.11% 0.00%
the situation
Activity overlap 29.73% Funding from various sources 5.40%
Overlap of Critical Activities 8.11% Currency of cost calculation 5.40%
Overlap of the project phases 8.11% Availability of cost data for specific 8.11%
Number of Cost Significant Items 5.40% Change in the investor’s budget 13.51%
Cost Significant Items on Critical Path 0.00% Economic stability of the investor 10.81%
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 10 of 26

Table 2. Cont.

Project Complexity Groups with Frequency of Project Complexity Groups with Frequency of
Associated Complexity Elements Occurrence Associated Complexity Elements Occurrence
Interconnectedness of activities from 8.11% Financial condition of the contractor 5.40%
different stages
Changes in the scope of the project over the
5.40% Payment deadlines 5.40%
course of execution
Quantity of additional works 8.11% Number of variations in the project 5.40%
Amount of activities with a long duration 8.11% Existence of a minimum chargeable amount 2.70%
Size of the project in terms of funds 8.11% Changes in the global economy 2.70%
Variety of project scope 13.51% The existence of advance payment 0.00%
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPLEXITY COMMUNICATION COMPLEXITY
Number of investors 5.40% Communication within the project team 8.10%
Number of hierarchical levels in the Communication between the project
10.81% 10.81%
project team manager and the project team
Significance of the project for the Relationship between the project manager
8.11% 8.11%
parent organization and the parent organization
Number of construction site locations 10.81% Large amount of information on the project 8.10%
Communication with the
Number of subcontractors 5.40% 0.00%
supervising engineer
Number of suppliers 16.22% Communication with the investor 5.40%
The influence of the supervising engineer 10.81% Procedures during the project 16.21%
Subcontractor work on the critical path 0.00% Communication with subcontractors 8.11%
Subcontractor work overlapping 0.00% Communication with suppliers 5.40%
Capacity of the project team to transfer
Size of the project team 10.81% 5.40%
the information
Diversity of participant
Multiple contractors on the project 8.10% 8.11%
communication cultures
Interdependence of the
The importance of the project for the investor 5.40% 8.11%
established procedures
Coordination of participants 16.22% Inconsistency of procedures 5.40%
Changes of the project team members during
5.40% Meetings 0.00%
the progress
Concealment of information
Interconnectedness of participants 21.62% 10.81%
between participants
COMPLEXITY RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT COMPLEXITY
RESOURCES ON THE PROJECT
Resource Quantity 18.92% Dependence on the environment 10.81%
Diversity of material resources 8.11% Local climatic conditions 13.51%
Diversity of the workforce 5.40% Geological conditions 8.11%
Availability of material resources 18.92% Geographical location of the participants 2.70%
Availability of a skilled workforce 18.92% Hydrological and hydrogeological conditions 2.70%
Equipment availability 10.81% Stability of the environment 5.40%
The variety in equipment 10.81% Extreme weather conditions 5.40%
The experience of the project manager
16.22% Construction site in a public environment 5.40%
acquired on similar projects
Experience of the project team acquired on Interaction between the technological system
16.22% 5.40%
similar projects and the environment
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 11 of 26

Table 2. Cont.

Project Complexity Groups with Frequency of Project Complexity Groups with Frequency of
Associated Complexity Elements Occurrence Associated Complexity Elements Occurrence
Oscillations in the number of available 8.11% Groundwater protection zone 2.70%
human resources
Changes in the project manager in the course Construction site in
21.62% 2.70%
of execution contaminated environment
Smaller quantities of different
5.40% Construction site in the historical core 2.70%
material resources
Larger quantities of equal material resources 5.40% Incorrectly planned geological conditions 2.70%
Resource Delivery 8.11% Construction site in traffic 0.00%
Oscillations in the necessary equipment for
5.40% Frequent variability in weather conditions 8.11%
the execution of works

When it comes to operational and technological complexity, it should be noted that in

a significant number of surveys, operational and technological complexity are separated.
Bearing in mind how connected they are at the work execution stage, in this case, they
represent a single group of elements of complexity. The complexity of the project scope as a
group of complexities appears, as stated above, most often in the existing research, from
all groups of elements of complexity. This can be concluded if we consider that the two
terms that are used have the same meaning, namely, the complexity of the project scope
and the complexity of the task. For this complexity group, in addition to those determined
by the literature review, the element of Cost Significant Items on the Critical Path has
been included as an element characteristic of the contractor that can significantly affect the
course of the project. As a group of complexities, organizational complexity was recognized
at the very beginning of the process of defining and exploring the notion of complexity.
Through analyzing the existing research, it can be concluded that there is virtually no
research dealing with elements of complexity at any level without addressing a group or
element of complexity related to the organization of the project. The contractor mainly
uses the project resources during its implementation. Accordingly, the analysis of existing
research indicates the existence of adequately defined elements of complexity for this
complexity group by looking at them from the perspective of the contractor. The current
state of the construction market results in resources, which can have a very large impact
on its results from the perspective of the contractor. In the existing research, elements
related to the quantity and diversity of resources, namely, labour and force, as well as
elements related to the contractor’s project manager, appear the most often. For this group
of complexities based on research from existing research, 13 elements of complexity were
distinguished based on the frequency of occurrence, while 2 other elements of complexity
that are characteristic for the contractor were included, namely, Subcontractor Work on a
Critical Path and Subcontractor Overlap. Legal and socio-political complexity was analyzed
to a lesser extent in the existing research. This complexity represents an additional challenge
for providing a quality definition for the associated elements of complexity. They were
analyzed by looking at legislation and contracting on the project. These elements, at the
work execution stage, have a greater impact on the implementation of the project from
the contractor’s perspective than from the investor’s perspective. During the beginning
of the realization of the project as well as when work on the project is being executed, the
contractor can encounter various challenges related to the legislation but also related to the
social aspects that surround the project being executed. The complexity group related to
economic indicators was found in existing surveys the least, along with communication
complexity. Nevertheless, the financial stability of the project is a key determinant of its
implementation from any perspective. Any significant irregularity in this area may not only
affect the success of the project but may also lead to its suspension or the total interruption
of its implementation. The review of existing research dealing with elements of complexity
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 12 of 26

highlights Project Financing, as well as possible Budget Changes and Investor Economic
Stability and Contractor Financial Status as the most important elements. Bearing in mind
the insufficient processing of economic complexity and taking into account the economic
complexity from the perspective of the contractor, the elements of complexity that will
be used in further research are included in the elements of complexity related to the Poor
Contract Price of Works, the accuracy of data of the Statistical Office on the state of the
market, and the existence of advanced payment. Communication complexity plays a
very important role in a complex system such as a construction project. As a complexity
group, it is necessary for it, to be part of the complexity framework from the contractor’s
perspective. Communication complexity contains a large amount of information circulating
about the project, as well as a large number of interactions with other participants involved
in the project, along with the local community. Communication complexity, similar to
economic complexity, is not significantly analyzed in the existing research. One of its
forms can be found in 16% of the research that deals with elements of complexity in
some way. Among the existing elements of complexity that are highlighted in the table
below, elements related to the procedures on the project, as well as communication within
the project team itself, are particularly prominent. As the communication complexity
was not sufficiently analyzed in the existing research, and considering its importance for
complexity from the perspective of the contractor, the inclusion of additional elements of
complexity was performed, namely the inclusion of elements related to meetings, as well as
communication with the supervising engineer. The environment of the project can influence
its execution significantly, and, as a determinant of the project, has a great influence on
the degree of complexity from the perspective of the contractor. In existing surveys of
complexity, the environment of a project appeared in a significant number of surveys as
one of the determinants of project implementation. By analyzing the frequency at which
the elements related to the project environment occurred, as well as their applicability
from the perspective of the contractor, 14 elements were singled out. The most common
elements related to the environment were the Environmental Dependence of the project
and the Local Climate Conditions of the project being executed. In addition to the fourteen
elements singled out from the existing research, the element related to the Construction
Site under traffic was included as an element of project complexity from the perspective of
the contractor, which will be a part of the research for defining the model of the complexity
for a specific construction project from the perspective of the contractor.
By examining the elements of complexity separated into groups of complexity, it
can be established that for each complexity group, there are elements that stand out with
regard to their presence in the existing research. The most common elements in the existing
research are the overlap of activities, the project duration, and the number of activities on
the project. All of these elements belong to the group of project scope complexity elements.
In continuation of the present work based on the results of the pre-existing research, key
elements of complexity for each complexity group are distinguished, and in this way,
a classification of groups and the associated elements of complexity of the construction
project was created from the perspective of the contractor. It is important to emphasize
that the frequency of occurrence in the existing research has no impact on the present
research or on the final definition of the key elements of complexity from the perspective of
the contractor.

3. Research Methodology
The research presented in this paper was based on the need to determine how a
project’s characteristics affect the success of the construction project from the perspective of
the contractor. Complexity characteristics do not all have the same impact on the success of
a project [10,76], so it is important to understand and quantify the aggregated weight of
each complexity element and its impact on the overall level of project complexity.
The theoretical framework of this research is explained in the previous section. In
order to increase the performance of the project, the contractor should timely identify the
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 13 of 26

characteristics of the project that, as elements of complexity, affect the success of the project.
The research consists of collecting data through a review of the literature made in the
previous section, sending questionnaires and collecting answers to the questionnaire given
by the project managers who work in organizations which are contractors on construction
projects. After that, the analysis of the received data was performed, on the basis of
which the results of the research will be presented. The analysis and the presentation
of the research results were made on the basis of mathematical data processing and the
application of the mean value of the obtained results.
To collect the necessary data to conduct this project, based on the determined input
data, the focus group method was applied and consisted of 41 experts who provided
answers to the questions asked. In order to determine the final form of the research, the
research was first analyzed with five members of the focus group with the most experience
as the contractor project managers. While defining the questionnaire in the initial interviews
about the research itself, detailed interviews about the content of the questionnaire were
conducted with five members of the focus group. Through initial discussions and an
analysis of the prepared questionnaire, the number of complexity elements per group was
reduced from 15 to 10.
The project managers considered that it was possible to reduce the number of complex-
ity elements that would be addressed by the research immediately at the beginning of the
survey. In addition, they considered that conducting extensive research with a large number
of complexity elements with common characteristics would create a number of ambiguities
when providing answers to the questions asked and would significantly affect the increase
the scope of the overall research. Bearing in mind that the focus group consisted of repre-
sentatives of contracting organizations with extensive experience, their suggestions were
accepted. In this way, the key elements of complexity from the contractor’s perspective had
largely been identified already. The reduction in the number of complexity elements was
mainly carried out by linking similar and easily connectable complexity elements into one
common complexity element encompassing a slightly wider area based on the experiences
of five members of the narrower focus group to conduct the research in a more efficient
manner. In cases where linking alone was not sufficient to reduce the number of complexity
elements to ten per group, the expulsion of those complexity elements whose appearance
was less frequent compared to others was initiated by looking at the review of previous
research, and some of the complexity elements that were found to be less suited to the
perspective of the contractor were expelled through initial discussions with members of
the focus group. In this way, the complexity groups containing other associated elements
of complexity could be defined.
In the continuation of the research, it was necessary to determine the importance
of the influence of individual elements of complexity on the degree of complexity of
each complexity group and thus on the overall degree of complexity of the project. By
determining the intensity of this impact, the classification of complexity groups and key
elements of complexity from the perspective of the contractor could be determined.
In addition to the aforementioned five representatives of the focus group, the survey
was sent to fifty-four more addresses, and we received answers from thirty-six of those
addresses. A total of 18 respondents did not provide a response to the questionnaire. Of
those eighteen non-responders, nine declared that the research presented here is a complex
task that would take them a long time to complete and that they are currently unable to
send a response. Three respondents stated that they were not sure if they could provide
adequate answers to the above questions and that they would not submit their answers. No
feedback was ever received from the remaining six addresses to which the questionnaires
were sent. Nevertheless, the 41 responses that were received provided a significant sample
that could adequately define the answers to the questions.
It is important to emphasize that more than half (53%) of the respondents who partici-
pated in the survey were working in at least two countries; this confirms them as having
the necessary international experience, which can add relevance to the results of the sur-
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 14 of 26

vey (Table 3). It is possible that the diversity of the market could influence the different
complexity elements and the overall measure of complexity. In addition, more than 80%
of respondents had worked for two or more construction companies throughout their
working life. This data indicates that the respondents have the necessary experience in
different companies or systems to realistically assess the impact of the complexity of the
project on the contractor without taking into account the characteristics of the system of
only one organization. In addition, companies of different sizes—i.e., different number of
workers—are represented in the survey. Based on this data, it is possible to analyze the
results obtained by the research with regard to this indicator and to identify differences in
the definition of key elements of complexity with regard to the size of the company.

Table 3. Characteristics of the responders.

Characteristic Number of Respondents

Female 37
Sex
Male 4
<30 0
30–40 28
Age 41–50 10
51–60 2
>60 1
NSS 0
Secondary school 0
Qualifications University degree 28
Master’s degree in science 12
Doctor of Science 1
5–10 21
Years of experience in 11–20 13
managing exection of
construction works 21–30 4
More than 30 3
1 20
2 12
Number of states in which the
3 4
respondent worked
4 2
5 and more 3
1 8

Number of the construction 2 11

companies where the 3 9
respondent worked
4 4
5 and more 9
0–50 4
51–100 7
Number of workers in the
101–250 5
respondents company
251–500 8
More than 30 17
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 15 of 26

4. Research Results
In the conducted research, the levels of importance of the individual elements of
complexity for construction projects were defined from the perspectives of the contractors
for each of the complexity groups based on the submitted answers. For the previously
defined lists of complexity elements for each complexity group, the degree of importance
of their impact on each group of complexity elements and on the overall complexity of
the project was offered from the perspectives of the contractors. During the period of time
in which the replies to the questionnaire were being sent back, there were no significant
questions or ambiguities regarding the nature of the project, which represents a particular
element of complexity that is part of the present research. The degree of importance was
determined by the respondents by providing answers on a Likert scale of importance that
ranged from 5 to 1. On the scale of importance determining the impact, 5 represents the
largest possible impact, and number 1 represents the smallest possible impact that an
element could have on the degree of complexity of the group. The impact with an intensity
of 4 on the Likert scale represents a large impact on the degree of complexity of the group,
3 represents a medium impact, and 2 represents a low impact of elements of complexity on
the degree of complexity of the group.
By analyzing the data obtained from the questionnaire responses and by creating a
ranking of importance with regard to the mean value of the received responses, we were
able to obtain the data presented below.
The elements are arranged based on level of importance with regard to the mean value
of all 41 responses submitted over the course of the research.
When talking about the elements of operational and technological complexity, the
elements that stand out are the ones related to how technology changes when work is being
executed, as well as the incompleteness and inaccuracy of the project documentation. The
least important elements of an operational and technological complexity group are Quality
Control and Quality Requirements and Function of the structure being built (Table 4).

Table 4. Degrees of importance of elements of operational and technological complexity.

Operational and Technological Complexity Group Mean Value Rankings

Change in technology intended for the execution of works
3.9756 1.
during the execution of works
Incomplete and inaccurate project documentation 3.8537 2.
Technology intended for the execution of work 3.7805 3.
Inadequate bill of work expenses 3.7317 4.
Presence of transport system near the construction site 3.3902 5.
Requirements of preparatory work 2.7073 6.
Technology which is unknown to the Investor 2.7073 7.
Energy Requirements 2.6098 8.
Quality Control and Quality Requirements 2.5366 9.
Function of the structure being built 2.5366 10.

Through the analysis of the results of the examination on the importance of individual
elements of complexity in the group of complexities related to the scope of the project, it can
again be concluded that the element with the greatest possibility of variability has the most
significant impact on the project. Changes in the scope of the project during the period of
time in which work is being conducted thus have a mean value of importance that amounts
to 4.1220. The characteristics of the project that, according to the respondents, can play a
significant role in the degree of complexity of this complexity group, are the number and
the overlap of critical activities, as well as the number and the overlap of activities on the
project. The overlap of project phases represents the least important element of complexity
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 16 of 26

out of all the isolated elements from the complexity group related to the scope of the project
(Table 5).

Table 5. Degrees of importance of elements of scope complexity.

Scope Complexity Group Mean Value Rankings

Changes in the scope of the project over the course of execution 4.1220 1.
Number and overlap of Critical Activities 4.0000 2.
Number and overlap of activities on the project 3.8537 3.
Quantity of additional works 3.7805 4.
Variety of project scope 3.6585 5.
Number of Cost Significant Items and Cost Significant Items on
3.5366 6.
a Critical Path
Project value 3.2927 7.
Size of the project in terms of funds 3.2195 8.
Duration of the project 3.1951 9.
Overlap of project phases and the interconnectedness of
3.1220 10.
activities from different project phases

Organizational complexity as a determinant of complexity has been present from

the very beginning of complexity theory. Regardless of what has been stated above,
it does not necessarily represent the most important groups of complexities from the
contractor’s perspective.
The number of construction site locations itself, as well as the number of investors
participating in the project, has the least important impact on the degree of complexity when
talking about the organizational complexity of the project. The number of site locations and
the number of investors represent the characteristics of the project that are known to the
contractor since the contractor’s inclusion in the project and their impact of those elements
on the project can be properly planned without the significant changes being initiated while
work is being completed. The least important elements of an organizational complexity
group in accordance with survey results are the number of construction site locations and
the number of investors (Table 6).

Table 6. Degrees of importance of elements of organizational complexity.

Organizational Complexity Group Mean Value Rankings

The importance of the project for the investor 4.0732 1.
The influence of the supervising engineer 4.0244 2.
Significance of the project for the company 3.8780 3.
Subcontractor works on the critical path 3.8537 4.
Coordination of participants 3.8049 5.
Multiple contractors on the project 3.4878 6.
Number of subcontractors and suppliers 3.1463 7.
Number of hierarchical levels in the project team 3.0976 8.
Number of construction site locations 2.8049 9.
Number of investors 2.5854 10.

Considering the problems in the construction market, it is expected that the research
results show how the diversity of the workforce, as well as its availability, represent the
most important element of complexity related to the resources required for the project.
What can also be of great importance, in accordance with the results of the research, is
the experience that the project manager has working on similar projects. The availability
of such a resource significantly facilitates the position of contractors when work is being
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 17 of 26

executed on a project. The number of resources itself represents the least important element
of this group of project complexity since it contains the least unknowns, so it can thus be
planned and will not change significantly over the course of the project (Table 7).

Table 7. Degrees of importance of resource-related complexity elements.

Complexity Group Related to Resources on the Project Mean Value Rankings

Diversity and Availability of Workforce 4.1951 1.
The experience of the project manager acquired on similar projects 4.1220 2.
Workforce fluctuations 3.8049 3.
Experience of the project team acquired on similar projects 3.7561 4.
Oscillations in the number of resources required on the project 3.7317 5.
Change in the project manager over the course of execution 3.5854 6.
Diversity and availability of material resources 3.5122 7.
Diversity and availability of equipment 3.4146 8.
Resource Delivery 3.1707 9.
Resource Quantity 3.0244 10.

Bearing in mind that the execution of construction projects is an undertaking that

drives the entire social community, the socio-political and legal elements surrounding the
project play a significant role in its success. According to the research results, the political
impact on the project is the most important element of the complexity of the project from
this group. The least important elements of the legal and socio-political complexity group
are the number of contracts and the cultural diversity of participants (Table 8).

Table 8. Degrees of importance of elements of socio-political complexity.

Legal and Socio-Political Complexity Group Mean Value Rankings

Political impact on the project 4.0732 1.
Local legislation 4.0000 2.
Local experience 3.9024 3.
Holding elections over the course of project execution 3.8780 4.
Local community 3.1951 5.
Changes in legislation during the execution of the project 3.0488 6.
Contract type 2.7561 7.
Culture of claims 2.7073 8.
Number of contracts 2.5854 9.
Cultural diversity of participants 2.4634 10.

Financing a project of any kind, including a construction project from the perspective
of the contractor, represents a significant determinant of the complexity of the project’s
implementation. The most important elements of the economic complexity group are the
financial condition of the contractor and the economic stability of the investor.
The existence of advanced payment and the currency of cost calculations represent
the least important elements affecting the economic complexity of the project, especially
when taking into account that they are known characteristics of the project from the very
beginning and cannot change. What may partly affect the contractor is the currency of cost
calculations, especially in certain volatile markets. However, this research mainly covers
markets with stable currencies, and this research result is expected (Table 9).
Given its nature, communication complexity, which is mainly characterized by various
types of uncertainties, represents a very significant group for the overall complexity of
a project.
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 18 of 26

Table 9. Degrees of importance of elements of economic complexity.

Economic Complexity Group Mean Value Rankings

Financial condition of the contractor 4.2439 1.
Economic stability of the investor 4.1463 2.
Project Financing 4.0976 3.
Payment deadlines 3.8780 4.
Number of variations on the project (impact of changes in the
3.5122 5.
financial value of the order)
Change in prices over the course of the project (adjustment for
3.3659 6.
changes in
Changes in the global economy 3.2195 7.
Availability of cost data for specific activities 3.0244 8.
The existence of advance payment 2.8293 9.
Currency of cost calculation 2.4878 10.

From the contractor’s point of view, in accordance with the results of the research,
the most important element of complexity relates to communication with the supervising
engineer and the investor, as well as concealing information between the participants in
the project. When all of these elements of complexity have an adequate impact, they can
significantly affect the overall complexity of the project and thus its results and success.
For this complexity group, the least important element of complexity is the diversity of
communication cultures of the participants involved in the project because the diversity of
cultures cannot significantly contribute to the quality of communication itself if some other
problem is not present (Table 10).

Table 10. Degrees of importance of elements of communication complexity of the project.

Communication Complexity Group Mean Value Rankings

Communication with the supervising engineer and the investor 4.1951 1.
Concealment of information between participants 4.1707 2.
Relationship between the project manager and the parent organization 4.0488 3.
Communication with subcontractors and suppliers 4.0244 4.
Procedures on the project 3.8537 5.
Communication within the project team 3.7073 6.
Large amount of information about the project 3.4390 7.
Capacity of the project team to transfer the information 3.2927 8.
Meetings 3.0488 9.
Diversity of participant communication cultures 3.0244 10.

The results obtained through the test indicate that the inaccuracy of the projected
geological conditions, as well as the geological conditions themselves, have the most
significant impact on the degree of complexity of this complexity group from the perspective
of the contractor. However, the elements with the greatest share of uncertainty in their
occurrence and impact on the execution of the project are shown to be the most significant
elements of each complexity group. In accordance with the above, the elements that are
known and whose impact can be predicted and that are related to the construction site in
historical areas or in contaminated and groundwater protection zones have the least impact
on the degree of complexity related to the environment of the project being executed. Via
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 19 of 26

proper planning, the contractor can significantly reduce their impact on the complexity and
results of the project (Table 11).

Table 11. Degrees of importance of elements of complexity of the project environment.

Environment Complexity Group Mean Value Rankings

Incorrectly planned geological conditions 4.2927 1.
Geological conditions 4.1951 2.
Construction site in traffic 4.1220 3.
Local climatic conditions 3.7805 4.
Interaction between the technological system and the environment 3.7317 5.
Construction site in a public environment 3.7073 6.
Hydrological and hydrogeological conditions 3.5122 7.
Construction site in the historical core 3.3902 8.
Construction site in contaminated environment 3.1220 9.
Groundwater protection zone 2.6585 10.

By conducting the present research and by analyzing the results of the degree of
influence of a particular element of complexity on a particular group affecting the project,
the elements of complexity were ranked according to their level of importance. What is also
important is that the research confirmed that the proposed elements of complexity, which
were collected through the existing research—as well as from the suggestions of the focus
group members with adequate experience in project management and in the execution
of projects—formed appropriate elements of project complexity from the perspective of
the contractor.
By distinguishing and agreeing on the importance of each element, a classification
of complexity groups was created with the associated key elements of complexity from
the perspective of the contractor. The research found that the elements of complexity that
have uncertainty and dynamism as their basic characteristics have the greatest importance
for the degree of complexity in individual groups. From the above, a clear link can be
drawn to the previously stated claim that elements of complexity are the drivers of risk
during a project.
The established framework consists of eight groups of complexity elements with ten
associated complexity elements in each group (Table 12). The established classification
represents the first significant result related to groups and elements of complexity from
the contractor’s perspective. As such, this classification is the basis for analyzing the
impact of complexity elements on the activation of risks on the project and consequently
on the success of the project from its perspective. Within this framework, the elements of
complexity are classified with regard to their importance for the contractor. Depending on
the contractor’s needs for the project being executed, the contractor may also allocate a
smaller number of key elements of complexity to possibly reduce the scope of the analysis
of the impact of elements of complexity over the course of the project. Based on this
classification and the conducted research, the classifications of key elements of complexity
for different types of projects and the values of the projects that are being executed, as well
as the types of contracts on the basis of which the construction work on the project is being
executed, can also be defined.
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 20 of 26

Table 12. The classification of groups with associated key complexity elements from the contractor’s perspective.

Operational and Complexity Group Legal and

Scope Organizational Economic Communication Environment
Technological Related to Resources Sociopolitical
Complexity Group Complexity Group Complexity Group Complexity Group Complexity Group
Complexity Group on the Project Complexity Group
Change in technology Communication with
intended for the Changes in the scope of Diversity and
The importance of the Political impact on the Financial condition of the supervising Incorrectly planned
execution of works the project over the Availability
project for the investor project the contractor engineer and geological conditions
during the execution course of execution of Workforce
the investor
of works
The experience of the
Incomplete and Concealment of
Number and overlap of The influence of the project manager which Economic stability of
inaccurate project Local legislation information Geological conditions
Critical Activities supervising engineer is acquired on the investor
documentation between participants
similar projects
Relationship between
Technology intended for Number and overlap of Significance of the Construction site
Workforce fluctuation Local experience Project Financing the project manager and
the execution of works activities on the project project for the company in traffic
the parent organization
Experience of the Holding elections in the Communication with
Inadequate bill of Quantity of Subcontractor works on Local
project team acquired course of Payment deadlines subcontractors
work expenses additional work the critical road climatic conditions
on similar projects project execution and suppliers
Presence of transport Oscillations in the Interaction between the
Coordination Number of variations Procedures on
system near the Variety of project scope number of resources Local community technological system
of participants on the project the project
construction site required for the project and the environment
Number of Cost
Change in the project Changes in legislation
Requirements of Significant Items and Multiple contractors on Change in prices over Communication within Construction site in a
manager over the during the execution of
preparatory work Cost Significant Items the project the course of the project the project team public environment
course of execution the project
on a Critical Path
Number of Diversity and Large amount of
Technology unknown to Changes in the Hydrological and
Project value subcontractors availability of Contract type information about
the Investor global economy hydrogeological conditions
and suppliers material resources the project
Number of hierarchical Diversity and Capacity of the project
Size of the project in Availability of cost data Construction site in the
Energy Requirements levels in the availability Culture of claims team to transfer
terms of funds for specific activities historical core
project team of equipment the information
Quality Control and Number of construction The existence of Construction site in con-
Duration of the project Resource Delivery Number of contracts Meetings
Quality Requirements site locations advance payment taminated environment
Overlap of project
phases and the
Function of the Cultural diversity Currency of Diversity of participant Groundwater
interconnectedness of Number of investors Resource Quantity
structure being built of participants cost calculation communication cultures protection zone
activities from different
project phases
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 21 of 26

5. Discussion
In the existing research, the authors mainly established the fact that there are a sig-
nificant number of defined complexity models with associated elements. The research
found that the models of complexity that have been established for construction projects
were mostly analyzed from the investor’s perspective. Bearing in mind that the existing
research found that complexity is different for the individual participants involved in
the construction project, this research sought to classify groups of complexity with the
associated key elements of complexity from the perspective of the contractor. Given the
existing practices in construction, the contractor bears the greatest burden of the complexity
of the project and the impact of the complexity of the project on the activation of risk and
on the success of the construction project.
The defined classification of complexity consists, as mentioned before, of eight com-
plexity groups with the associated 10 key elements of project complexity for each group.
In operational and technological complexity, there stand out elements of complexity
which, as main characteristics, have a significant degree of uncertainty in regard to their
appearance during the project being their basic characteristic. With all of the above in mind,
the high level of importance that these elements of complexity in the group of operational
and technological complexity have is quite logical. The function of the structure being built
comes out as the least important element of complexity in a group of organizational and
technological complexity. Viewed from the contractor’s perspective, this element really
cannot play a more significant role in the results of the contractor’s project, especially when
bearing in mind that for the contractor, operational and technological tasks arise from the
project documentation and not from the function of the structure being built.
The increase in the number of activities, as well as the overlap of those activities during
the execution of works, significantly increases the degree of complexity related to the scope
of the project. This complexity element, as well as the element related to the increasing of
a scope of works, can significantly affect the success of the project. Phase overlapping is
something that is known to the contractor at the very beginning of the project, and it is a
characteristic that he can affect with adequate planning and can reduce its influence on the
results and the success of the project.
Through the discussions with the participants of construction projects, which were
related to the problems on their projects, they mainly put the emphasis on organization
problems. From the point of view of organizational complexity, the most important ele-
ments of complexity are the importance of the project for the investor and the influence
of the supervising engineer on the organization of the work to be completed during the
project. If the project, which is performed by the contractor, represents something crucial
for the investor, which often means that it has to be completed before the agreed upon time,
then the total complexity of the project in each of the segments increases. In addition, the
supervising engineer, the person authorized to manage the project in accordance with his
contract with the investor, can significantly influence the atmosphere during the period of
time in which work is being executed and can, through his actions, have the most influence
on the necessary time, as well as the costs of the contractor.
In today’s market, which is characterized by a lack of work force and problems with
deliveries and changes in the prices of material resources and equipment, the complexity
related to resources plays an important role in the overall complexity of the project from
the perspective of the contractor. Significant changes in resource prices are common, which
can put the contractor in a situation in which the execution of works is not a profitable task.
However, a thing that most significantly affects the area of research related to resources is the
growing shortage in the workforce. The market is characterized by a lack of both a trained
and educated workforce and workers without any education and experience. Therefore, in
this market, there is an increasing tendency to find workforce from Eastern Europe, as well
as from Asia, specifically Turkey, India, or Bangladesh. The adaptation of the market to
these conditions will be time-consuming and will require significant investment.
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 22 of 26

The impact of politics depends significantly on the realization of individual construc-

tion projects, and it is therefore expected that the political impact plays a significant role on
the project’s complexity. Local legislation, given the nature of the performing organizations
and their operations in different communities, also has a high impact on the success and
degree of complexity of a project. If we look at larger construction projects, we can conclude
that construction has long been globalized, and it is therefore expected that, if there is
cultural diversity among the participants involved in the project, then it will not affect the
results of contractors significantly.
The frequent increases in purchase prices that characterize today’s market can create
significant inconvenience for the contractor when work is being executed. If these price
increases are reflected in several major projects that the contractor is carrying out, then it
may lead to problems with the contractor’s overall financial condition. The results of the
research define how the financial condition of the contractor represents the most important
element of complexity in this group. If the financial condition of the contractor is not in
accordance with the needs of the project, then it is expected that it will cause an increase in
the complexity of the execution of the project. In addition to the financial condition of the
contractor, the financial condition of the investor is an almost equally important element of
complexity. The financial condition of the investor determines the dynamics of payments
and can consequently also affect the financial condition of the contractor; the importance of
this element of complexity on the overall complexity of the project can be easily deduced
from this fact. For the contractor, this can be particularly negative if the key investor, with
whom the contractor may have several contracts with at a certain time, is experiencing
financial problems. Such a scenario is highly negative for the contractor, and the contractor
should therefore endeavour to avoid being dependent on only one or several key investors.
Quality communication at any level reduces the complexity the project and thus
affects the increase in success and the decrease in the overall complexity of the project.
If the communication during a project leads to distrust between the participants, the
consequences can be extremely negative. Deficiencies in communication can occur within
the contractor’s project team itself, which the contractor can solve on their own within their
organization after recognizing them. However, if appropriate communication with the
other participants involved in the project is achieved during the project’s execution, this
can play a major role in simplifying its implementation, thus creating a positive atmosphere
and trust and affecting the results and success of the project both from the perspective of
the contractor and the overall success of the construction project.
The environment of the project represents an important determinant of its execution.
A lack of or the inaccuracy of the data about the environment of the contractor’s project
will mislead the contractor, as they prepare for certain conditions and not knowing that
they will be met with completely different conditions during the execution of the project.
The contractor has to reorganize these changes as soon as possible in order to ensure that
as little time is lost as possible. Such ventures can generate large amounts of additional
costs, both for the contractor and, consequently, the investor.
Related to the existing frameworks of the complexity of construction projects, it is
important to point out that the adopted framework of complexity from the perspective of
the contractor has almost the same groups of complexity, such as the Nguyen model for
Complexity of Transportation projects from 2015 [77]. This framework also confirms the
importance of the elements of complexity that the authors have singled out in previous
research. It was also confirmed that the elements of complexity are the same for all partici-
pants in the project, but do not have the same impact on each of the participants. A more
significant comparison of the defined framework of complexity with similar frameworks
cannot be made, given that the researchers in the previous period did not deal in more
detail with the analysis of complexity from the perspective of contractors.
A defined classification of complexity groups with associated key complexity elements
represents a good theoretical basis for the contractor, but it cannot introduce significant
benefits for the contractor as a participant in the implementation of the construction project
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 23 of 26

without adequate quantification. Therefore, in future research, it will be necessary to

establish a framework for evaluating the key elements of complexity with regard to their
impact on the activation of risks and the success of the construction project. By establishing
such a framework and putting it into practice, the contractor can influence the proper
planning of the project and thus influence their success and overall business.
The results of this study should be viewed in light of several limitations. They are
mainly related to the choice of respondents. Due to market constraints, the survey could
not be conducted among project managers with more experience in different fields of con-
struction projects. Caution is required in extending findings to construction companies of
different dimensions, belonging to different fields of construction and with different organi-
zational settings. The results of the research need to be analyzed with regard to the different
characteristics of the companies from which the respondents come, and in this way to form
new frameworks of complexity. Although the findings are based on data from several
construction companies, mostly from Southeast Europe, these outcomes can still provide
reference for other countries considering the parallel construction industry experiences.
In addition to the conducted research, in order to classify the key elements of com-
plexity in more detail, the same elements can be analyzed with regard to the types of
construction projects that contractors tend to execute the most, as well as the size of the
contracting firms themselves and the size of the construction projects they execute. In
this way, more precise key elements of complexity would be defined with regard to the
different characteristics of contractors and their projects. Thus, certain key elements of
complexity constitute a good basis for a more accurate definition of the results and could
thus significantly affect contractor performance.

6. Conclusions
The aim of this article was to classify groups of complexity with the associated key
elements of complexity from the perspective of the contractor working on a construction
project. Existing research related to the complexity of projects and the complexity of
construction projects were analyzed. By researching the existing literature in the field of
complexity, it was established that the existing research rarely or does not deal with the
complexity of construction projects from the perspective of the contractor. In addition, the
complexity of construction projects was found to be different for the different participants
involved in the project, and the key elements of complexity are different for each of
them. Through the literature review, the groups of complexity and elements of complexity
that appear in the existing research were distinguished. Based on the frequency of their
occurrence and the experiences of members of the focus group, the elements of complexity
that are characteristic of contractors were distinguished as input data to conduct the present
research. The research conducted among the construction project managers resulted in
the creation of a classification comprising eight groups and ten associated key elements
of complexity for each group of complexity. In this way, a framework of complexity for
construction projects was formed from the perspective of the contractor and will hopefully
serve as a basis for contractors to quantify the impact of complexity on the success of the
projects they perform. Bearing in mind the impact of the contractor on the construction
project, determining the key elements of complexity from the contractor’s perspective
affects the overall success of construction projects. In future works, it will be necessary
to analyze and quantify the impact of the key elements of complexity on the results of
construction projects according to the contractor’s impact on the initiation of risk during
the project. Based on this, a framework will be created, and by applying it, the contractor
will be able to properly plan the objectives of the projects being performed and will thus
influence the success of those projects.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.N. and A.C.; methodology, M.N. and A.C.; software,
M.N. and A.C.; validation, M.N.; formal analysis, M.N.; investigation, M.N.; resources, M.N.; data
curation, M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N.; writing—review and editing, A.C. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 24 of 26

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhou, P.X.W.; Zhang, G.; Wang, J. Understanding the Key Risks in Construction Projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25,
601–614. [CrossRef]
2. De Toni, A.; Pessot, E. Investigating organisational learning to master project complexity: An embedded case study. J. Bus. Res.
2020, 129, 541–554. [CrossRef]
3. Williams, T.M. Modelling Complex Projects; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 2002.
4. Trinh, M.T.; Feng, Y. Impact of Project Complexity on Construction Safety Performance: Moderating Role of Resilient Safety
Culture. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04019103. [CrossRef]
5. Flyvbjerg, B.; Bruzelius, N.; Rothengatter, W. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2003.
6. Neleman, J. Shell gaat diep. FEM Bus. 2006, 9, 30–34.
7. Loosemore, M.; Raftery, J.; Reilly, C.; Higgon, D. Risk Management in Projects, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis: Abengdon, UK, 2006.
8. Bertelsen, S.; Koskela, L. Avoiding and Managing Chaos in Projects. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction IGLC-11, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 22–24 July 2002.
9. Vidal, L.A.; Marle, F.; Bocquet, J.C. Measuring project complexity using the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011,
29, 718–727. [CrossRef]
10. Lu, Y.; Luo, L.; Wang, H.; Le, Y.; Shi, Q. Measurement model of project complexity for large-scale projects from task and
organization perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 610–622. [CrossRef]
11. Luo, L.; He, Q.; Jaselskis, E.J.; Xie, J. Construction Project Complexity: Research Trends and Implications. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2017, 143, 04017019. [CrossRef]
12. Baccarini, D. The concept of project complexity—A review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1996, 14, 201–204. [CrossRef]
13. Raymond, N.N. Construction time-influencing factors: The contractor’s perspective. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1995, 13, 81–89.
14. Molenaar, K.R.; Songer, A.D. Model for public sector design-build projects selection. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1998, 124, 467–479.
[CrossRef]
15. Austin, S.; Newton, A.; Steele, J.; Waskett, P. Modelling and managing project complexity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 191–198.
[CrossRef]
16. Chan, A.P.C.; Scott, D.; Chan, P.L. Factors affecting the success of a construction project. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 153–155.
[CrossRef]
17. Wood, H.L.; Gidado, K. Project complexity in construction. 2008. Available online: [Link]
266281421_Project_Complexity_in_Construction (accessed on 15 March 2022).
18. Xia, B.; Chan, A.P. Measuring complexity for building projects: A Delphi study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 7–24.
[CrossRef]
19. Girmscheid, G.; Brockmann, C. The Inherent Complexity of Large Scale Engineering Projects, Project Perspectives; International Project
Management Association: Espoo, Finland, 2008; pp. 22–26.
20. Pich, M.T.; Loch, C.H.; De Meyer, A. On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48,
1008–1023. [CrossRef]
21. He, Q.; Luo, L.; Hu, Y.; Chan, A.P.C. Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China-A fuzzy analytic network
process analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 549–563. [CrossRef]
22. Merrow, E.W. Industrial Megaprojects—Concepts, Strategies and Practices for Success; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
23. Scott, B.; Barnes, C.M.; Wagner, D.T. Chameleonic or consistent? A multi-level investigation of emotional labor variability and
self-monitoring. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 905–926. [CrossRef]
24. Morris, P.W.G. The Management of Projects; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1997.
25. Bennett, J.; Fine, B. Measurement of Complexity in Construction Projects; Department of Construction Management, University of
Reading: Reading, UK, 1980.
26. Bubshait, K.A.; Selen, W.J. Project characteristics that influence the implementation of project management techniques: A survey.
Proj. Manag. J. 1992, 23, 4347.
27. Bennett, P.; Cropper, S. Uncertainty and conflict: Combining conflict analysis and strategic choice. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1990, 3,
29–45. [CrossRef]
28. Gidado, K.I. Project complexity: The focal point of construction production planning. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1996, 14, 213–225.
[CrossRef]
29. Wozniak, T.M. Significance vs Capability: Fit for Use Project Controls; AACE International Transactions; Association Advancement
Cost Engineering: Fairmont, WV, USA, 1993.
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 25 of 26

30. Weaver, P. A Simple View of Complexity in Project Management; Mosaic Project Services Pty Ltd.: South Melbourne, Australia, 2007.
31. Chu, D.; Strand, R.; Jelland, R.J. Theories of Complexity: Common denominators of complex systems. Wiley Period. 2003, 8, 19–30.
32. Thomas, J.; Mengel, T. Preparing project managers to deal with complexity: Advanced project management education. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 304–315. [CrossRef]
33. Whitty, S.J.; Maylor, H. And then came Complex Project Management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2009, 27, 304–310. [CrossRef]
34. Horgan, J. From Complexity to Perplexity. Sci. Am. 1995, 272, 104109. [CrossRef]
35. Kauffman, S.A. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
36. Edmunds, B. What is complexity?—The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some examples in evolution. In The
Evolution of Complexity; Heylighen, F., Aerts, D., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.
37. Corning, P.A. Complexity is just a word! Technol. Soc. 1998, 59, 197–200. [CrossRef]
38. Bertelsen, S. Construction as a complex system. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 22–24 July 2003.
39. Vidal, L.A.; Marle, F.; Bocquet, J.C. Using a Delphi process and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity
of projects. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 5388–5405. [CrossRef]
40. Ireland, V. Exploration of complex system types. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 20, 248–255. [CrossRef]
41. Makui, A.; Zadeh, P.M.; Bagherpour, M.; Jabbarzadeh, A. A structural equation modeling approach to examine the relationship
between complexity factors of a project and the merits of project manager. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 3, 1–12. [CrossRef]
42. Ma, L.; Fu, H. Exploring the Influence of Project Complexity on the Mega Construction Project Success: A Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) Method. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 2429–2449. [CrossRef]
43. Hossny, H.; Ibrahim, A.H.; Enady, A. Factors affecting project complexity. Egypt. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2022, 37, 24–33.
44. Sinha, S.; Thomson, A.I.; Kumar, B. A complexity index for the design process. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Engineering Design ICED’01, Glasgow, UK, 21–23 August 2001; Volume 1, pp. 157–163.
45. Nguyen, L.D.; Le-Hoai, L.; Tran, D.Q.; Dang, C.N.; Nguyen, C.V. Effect of project complexity on cost and schedule performance in
transportation projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 37, 384–399. [CrossRef]
46. Dikmen, I.; Qazi, A.; Erol, H.; Birgonul, M.T. Meta-Modeling of Complexity-Uncertainty- Performance Triad in Construction
projects. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 27, 3044. [CrossRef]
47. Brockmann, C.; Girmscheid, G. Complexity of megaprojects. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2007 Construction
for Development, Cape Town, South Africa, 14–17 May 2007; Haupt, T., Milford, R., Eds.; CIB: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2007;
pp. 219–230; ISBN 1-920-01704-6.
48. Nguyen, V.M. An Analysis of the Complexity of Infrastructure International Development Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Pukyong
National University, Busan, Korea, 2021.
49. Bennett, J. International Construction Project Management: General Theory and Practice; Butterworth-Heinemann: London, UK, 1991;
p. 387.
50. Mirza, E.; Ehsan, N. Quantification of Project Execution Complexity and its Effect on Performance of Infrastructure Development
Projects. Eng. Manag. J. 2017, 29, 108–123. [CrossRef]
51. Smith, A.; Graetz, F. Complexity theory and organising form dualities. Manag. Decis. 2006, 44, 851–870. [CrossRef]
52. Brodbeck, P.W. Complexity theory and organization procedure design. Bus. Process Manag. 2002, 8, 377–402. [CrossRef]
53. Smith, A.; Humphries, C. Complexity theory as a practical management tool: A critical evaluation. Complex. Organ. 2004, 6,
353–360. [CrossRef]
54. Moldoveanu, M.; Bauer, R. On the relationship between organisational complexity and organisational structuration. Organ. Sci.
2004, 15, 98–118. [CrossRef]
55. McElroy, M. Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organisational learning. J. Knowl. Manag. 2000, 4,
195–203. [CrossRef]
56. Stocks, R.K.; Male, S.P. An investigation into the client’s perceptions of contractual form and procedures: The instigation of
good practice. In Proceedings of the CIB W-65 4th International Symposium on Organization and Management of Construction,
Waterloo, ON, Canada, 22–26 July 1984; pp. 291–299.
57. Mills, A. A systematic approach to risk management for construction. Struct. Surv. 2001, 19, 245–252. [CrossRef]
58. Mulholland, B.; Christian, J. Risk assessment in construction schedules. J. Constr. Manag. 1999, 125, 8–15. [CrossRef]
59. Gidado, K.I.; Millar, A.J. The effect of simple overlap of stages of building construction on the project complexity and contract
time. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Isle of Man, UK,
18–20 September 1992; pp. 307–317.
60. Walker, D.H.T.; Sidwell, A.C. Benchmarking Engineering and Construction: A Manual for Benchmarking Construction Time Performance;
Construction Industry Institute (CIIA), University of South Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 1996.
61. Chan, D.W.M.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 1997, 15, 55–63. [CrossRef]
62. Chan, D.W.M. Modeling Construction Duration for Public Housing Project in Hong Kong; The University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong,
China, 1998.
63. Dissanayaka, S.M.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Evaluation of factors affecting time and cost performance in Hong Kong building
projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 1999, 6, 287–298. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 696 26 of 26

64. Tatikonda, M.V.; Rosenthal, S.R. Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success:
A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2000, 47, 74–87. [CrossRef]
65. Nassar, K.M.; Hegab, M.Y. Developing a complexity measure for project schedules. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 554–561.
[CrossRef]
66. Little, G.; Tuttle, R.; Clark, D.E.R.; Corney, J. A feature complexity indeks. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 1997, 212, 405–412.
67. Calinescu, A.; Efstathiou, J.; Sivadasan, S.; Schirn, J.; Huaccho, H.; Luisa, D. Complexity in manufacturing: An information
theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Complexity and Complex System in Industry, Warwick,
UK, 19–20 September 2000; University of Warwick: Warwick, UK, 2000.
68. Sinha, S.; Kumar, S.; Thompon, A. Measuring project complexity: A project manager’s tool. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2006, 2,
187–202. [CrossRef]
69. Lessard, D.; Sakhrani, V.; Miller, R. House of project complexity-Understanding complexity in large infrastructure projects.
Eng. Proj. Organ. J. 2014, 4, 170–192. [CrossRef]
70. Leung, W.T. Classification of Building Project Complexity and Evaluation of Supervisory Staffing Patterns Using Cluster and Factor
Analysis Techniques; Department of Building and Construction, City University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong, China, 2007.
71. Wang, S.; Han, T.; Chen, X. The Impact of Construction Project Complexity on Performance: An Empirical Study from China’s
Construction Industry. For. Chem. Rev. 2021, 1228–1242.
72. Winchur, M. Managing Complexity on Construction Projects; Australian Institute of Project Management: New South Wales,
Australia, 2020.
73. Nguyen, L.D.; Le-Hoai, L.; Tran, D.; Dang, C.N.; Nguyen, C.V. Fuzzy AHP with Applications in Evaluating Construction Project
Complexit. In Fuzzy Hybrid Computing in Construction Engineering and Management; Emerald Publishing Ltd.: Bingley, UK, 2018;
pp. 277–299.
74. Shahroz, F.; Khan, R.A.; Khushnood, M.; Aslam, S.; Khattak, Z.Z.; Abbas, S. Impact of Project Complexity on Cost Overruns with
the Moderating Effect of Contractors’ Financial Attributes in Construction Projects. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 2021, 15, 187–206.
75. Mikkelsen, M.F. Perceived project complexity: A survey among practitioners of project management. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus.
2021, 14, 680–698. [CrossRef]
76. Safapour, E.; Kermanshachi, S.; Habibi, M.; Shane, J. Resource-based exploratory analysis of project complexity impact on
phase-based cost performance behaviour. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana,
2 April 2018; pp. 2–4.
77. Nguyen, A.T. Quantifying the complexity of transportation projects using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2015, 33, 1364–1376. [CrossRef]