SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Project Stakeholders Management as a Key Driver for Managing Complexity Within Mega-projects

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Complexity and Sustainability in Megaprojects (MERIT 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 342))

Abstract

While the existing research has mainly investigated a project management’s static view, this contribution aims at discussing the impacts of projects’ structure and dynamics on their performances, with a specific focus on the influence of stakeholder management within mega projects.

The chapter starts with the discusses a project as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). In the second part, it analyzes stakeholder management as a key driver for managing complexity within mega projects. The proposed model integrates several previously developed tested project structures, adding a separate, even if complementary, structure for the negotiation process. Simulations describe the behaviors generated by the interaction of customized development processes in single-phase projects. Project performances are measured with common variables such as time, quality and cost. Originality/value – This research aims at showing how human behavior through stakeholder management is a key factor for the management of complexity within mega projects. With the aim of including the dynamic dimension, the extension of the models used to managing stakeholders within projects requires, for researchers and practitioners, a change of perspective and interpretation, especially regarding the mega projects.

Methodology - The system dynamics methodology provides some of the tools for develo** and implementing such a wider extension in project models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aguiari, R., Di Nauta, P.: Governing business dynamics in complex contexts. Mercati e Competitività, fascicolo. 1, pp 39–59, Franco Angeli, Milano (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arcuri M (2021) Il Project Management. Conoscenze, strumenti e tecniche in accordo con la UNI ISO 21502:2021, Tangram Edizioni Scientifiche Trento

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arcuri M, Simone C, La Sala A, Simone C (2018) The PMBOK standard evolution: leading the rising complexity. In: Workshop PMI 2018, Sapienza University of Rome, 14 September, Sapienza University Press

    Google Scholar 

  4. Armenia S (2018) Analysing management effectiveness and project performance through a system dynamics approach: the case of software development projects. In: Nonino F, Annarelli A, Gerosa S, Mosca P, Setti S (a cura di), Project Management. Driving Complexity, Atti 3rd PMI® Italian Academic Workshop, Project Management Institute Italy Chapters, pp. 139–144, Roma, 20–21 settembre 2018, Sapienza Università Editrice [ISBN 978-88-9377-086-6]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Armenia S, Canini D, Falsini D, Schiraldi MM (2011) Improving management and tools for project performance in software development: a system dynamics approach. Proceedings of the 11th European Academy of Management (EURAM) Conference, Tallinn, Estonia

    Google Scholar 

  6. Armenia S, Dangelico RM, Nonino F, Pompei A (2019) Sustainable project management: a conceptualization-oriented review and a framework proposal for future studies. Sustainability 11(9):2664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Armenia S, Di Nauta P, Simone C, (2019) Understanding project structure and dynamics as key complexity drivers for project management. The case of a software project in a system dynamics perspective. In: Proceedings of the 2019 WOA Congress, Palermo Italy. Associazione Italiana di Organizzazione Aziendale (Assioa)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Armenia S, Di Nauta P, Simone C, Pompei A, (2019) La modellizzazione dei progetti come Complex Adaptative Systems (CAS). Il contributo della System Dynamics”, in Barile S., Paniccia P. (a cura di), Il fascino della precarietà. Studi sull’evoluzionismo sistemico, Edizioni Nuova Cultura, Roma, pp 243–267. [ISBN 978-88-3365-248-1]

    Google Scholar 

  9. Armenia S, Ferreira FE, Mecella M, Onori R (2017) Smart model-based governance: from big-data to future policy making. In: (a cura di): Fabio Nonino, Stefano Armenia, Gandolfo Dominici, Model-based Governance for Smart Organizational Future - BSLab-SYDIC International Workshop - Book of Abstract. Business Systems Laboratory (2017) ISBN: 9788890824258

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ashby WR (1985) Requisite variety, and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica. 1(2)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bakhshi J, Ireland V, Gorod A (2016) Clarifying the project complexity construct: past, present and future. Int J Proj Manag 34(7):1199–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barile S, Di Nauta P, Iandolo F (2016) La decostruzione della complessità. Studi MOA – Collana di Management e Organizzazione Aziendale, Editrice Minerva Bancaria, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bredillet, CN (2006) The future of project management: map** the dynamics of project management field in action. In: Global Project Management Handbook: Planning, Organizing, and Controlling International Projects. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Calabrese G, Di Nauta P (2014) Professionalization and dissemination processes for project management practices. A situationist perspective. In: Baglieri D, Metallo C, Rossignoli C, PezzilloIacono M (eds) IS, Management, Organization and Control: Smart Practices and Effects. LNISO, vol. 6, pp 289–300. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  15. Calabrese M, Simone C, Magliocca P (2016) Going away from the “protocol culture”: innovation, complexity and the need for a culture of variety. China-USA Bus. Rev. 15(4):194–204

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cerić A, Vukomanović M, Ivić I, Kolarić S (2021) Trust in megaprojects: a comprehensive literature review of research trends. Int J Project Manage 39(4):325–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper KG (1980) Naval ship production: a claim settled and a framework built. Interfaces 10(6):20–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Diehl E, Sterman JD (1995) Effects of Feedback Complexity on Dynamic Decision Making Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ep**er SD, Whitney DE, Smith RP, Gebala DA (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Des 6(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01588087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Floricel S, Miller R (2001) Strategizing for anticipated risks and turbulence in large-scale engineering projects. Int J Project Manage 19:445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Forrester JW (1961a) Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Halpin DW, Woodhead RW (1980) Construct Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Howick S, Eden C (2001) The impact of disruption and delay when compressing large projects: going for incentives? J. Oper. Res. Soc. 52:26–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kelly JC (1987) A comparison of four design methods for real-time system. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering table of contents, Monterey. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kerzner H (2006) Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. van Oorschot KE, Sengupta K, van Wassenhove LN (2009) Dynamics of agile software development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society 2009, Albuquerque NM, USA

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kwak YH, Anbari FT (2009) Analyzing project management research: perspectives from top management journals. Int J Project Manage 27(5):435–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. IPMA (2018), Individual Competence Baseline for Project Management.

    Google Scholar 

  29. ISO (2021) ISO 21500:2021 Project, programme and portfolio management -- Context and concepts

    Google Scholar 

  30. ISO (2020) ISO 21502:2020 Project, programme and portfolio management - Guidance on Project Management

    Google Scholar 

  31. ISO (2017) ISO 21505:2017 Project, programme and portfolio management - Guidance on Governance

    Google Scholar 

  32. ISO (2018) ISO 21508:2018 Earned Value Management in project and programme management

    Google Scholar 

  33. ISO (2018) ISO 21511:2018 Work Breakdown Structures for project and programme management

    Google Scholar 

  34. ISO (2018) ISO/TR 21506:2018 Project, programme and portfolio management – Vocabulary

    Google Scholar 

  35. Leach LP (1999) Critical chain project management improves project performance. Proj Manag J 30(2):39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lindstrom L, Jeffries R (2003) Extreme programming and agile software development methodologies. In: Brown C, Topi H (eds) IS Management Handbook, 8th Edition. Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420031393.ch41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Martinez M, Di Nauta P, Merola B (2016) Dynamic Capabilities and T-Shaped Knowledge in Project Management. A Viable Systems perspective. In: eBook of Abstracts of the 4rd Business Systems Laboratory International Symposium

    Google Scholar 

  38. Martinez M, Di Nauta P, Sarno D (2017) Real and Apparent Changes of Organizational Processes in the Era of Big Data Analytics. Studi Organizzativi, n. 2/2017, Franco Angeli

    Google Scholar 

  39. Meadows DH (2009) Thinking in systems : a primer. Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA

    Google Scholar 

  40. Meso P, Jain R (2006) Agile software development: adaptive systems principles and best practices. Inf Syst Manage 23(3):19–30. https://doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/46108.23.3.20060601/93704.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Miscia S (1997) in “Introduzione” a Archibald R.D., Project Management. La gestione di progetti e programmi complessi (ed. it.) Franco Angeli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  42. Moder JJ, Phillips CR, Davis EW (1983) Project Management with CPM, PERT and Precedence Diagramming. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ostvold M, Magne Jorgensen K (2005) A comparison of software project overruns-flexible versus sequential development models. IEEE Trans Softw Eng

    Google Scholar 

  44. Morelli MD, Ep**er SD, Gulati RK (1995) Predicting technical communication in product development organizations. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 42(3)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nevins JL, Whitney DE (1989) Concurrent Design of Product and Process. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ng ICL, Badinelli R, Polese F, Di Nauta P, Löbler H, Halliday S (2012) S-D logic research directions and opportunities: the perspective of systems, complexity and engineering. Mark. Theory. 12

    Google Scholar 

  47. Paich M, Sterman JD (1993) Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Manage Sci 39(12):1439–1458. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.12.1439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pirozzi M (2018) The Stakeholder management perspective to increase the success rate of complex projects, featured paper. PM World J. 7(I)

    Google Scholar 

  49. PMI® (2014) Navigating Complexity: A Practice Guide. Project Management Institute. Newton Square, PA

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rechtin E (1991) Systems Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Systems. Prentice Hall, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  51. Reichelt KS (1990) Halter Marine: A Case Study in the Dangers of Litigation, Technical Report D-4179, System Dynamics Group. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rodrigues AG, Williams TM (1996) System dynamics in software project management: towards the development of a formal integrated network. Eur J Inf Syst 6:51–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Saviano M, Bassano C, Piciocchi P, Di Nauta P, Lettieri M (2018) Monitoring viability and sustainability in healthcare organizations. Sustainability 10(10):3548. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Saviano M, Di Nauta P, Montella MM, Sciarelli F (2018) Managing protected areas as cultural landscapes: the case of the Alta Murgia National Park in Italy. Land Use Policy 76:290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Saviano M, Di Nauta P, Montella M, Sciarelli F (2018) The cultural value of protected areas as models of sustainable development. Sustainability 10(5):1567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Saviano M, Di Nauta P (2011) Project Management as a compass in complex decision making contexts. A viable systems approach. In: Caivano D, et al PROFES 2011, 12th International Conference on Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement. ICPS, pp 112–119. ACM

    Google Scholar 

  57. Senge P (1992) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Sperling & Kupfer

    Google Scholar 

  58. Yacoub SM, Ammar HH (2001) A Methodology for Architectural-Level Reliability Risk Analysis. Publishing Systems and Solutions Laboratory, HP Laboratories Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  59. Shore B, Cross BJ (2005) Exploring the role of national culture in the management of large-scale international science projects. Int J Project Manage 23:55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Simone C, Arcuri M, La Sala A (2017) Be vicarius: the challenge for project management in a service economy. IConference Proceedings of the 20th Excellence in Services International Conference, 7–8 September 2017, Verona, pp 853–867

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sterman J (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking for a Complex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sterman JD (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2–3):291–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Turner JR, Cochrane RA (1993) Goals-and-methods matrix: co** with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. Int J Project Manage 11(2):93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(93)90017-H

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wheelwright SC, Clark KB (1992) Revolutionizing Product Development, Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  65. White D, Fortune J (2002) Current practice in project management an empirical study. Int J Project Manage 20(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1990) The Machine that Changed the World. Rawson Associates, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Foggia, Via Romolo Caggese 1, 71121, Foggia, Italy

    Primiano Di Nauta

  2. Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Cristina Simone & Francesca Iandolo

  3. Università Telematica degli Studi IUL, Via Buonarroti 10, 50122, Firenze, Italy

    Stefano Armenia

  4. AMPM Consulting s.r.l., Viale Le Corbusier 39, 04100, Latina, Italy

    Marco Arcuri

Authors
  1. Primiano Di Nauta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Simone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Iandolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Armenia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marco Arcuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Primiano Di Nauta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DIG, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Edoardo Favari

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze economiche e sociali, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy

    Franca Cantoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Di Nauta, P., Simone, C., Iandolo, F., Armenia, S., Arcuri, M. (2023). Understanding Project Stakeholders Management as a Key Driver for Managing Complexity Within Mega-projects. In: Favari, E., Cantoni, F. (eds) Complexity and Sustainability in Megaprojects. MERIT 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 342. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30879-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30879-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30878-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30879-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation