Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467 478
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Conceptualising uncertainty in safety-critical projects:

A practitioner perspective
Fiona C. Saunders , Andrew W. Gale, Andrew H. Sherry
The University of Manchester, UK

Received 27 January 2014; received in revised form 1 September 2014; accepted 9 September 2014
Available online 26 September 2014

Abstract

In safety-critical organisations such as civil-nuclear and aerospace, managing uncertainty is of particular importance as the consequences of
failure can be potentially catastrophic. The challenge facing project managers in these complex, socio-technical environments is how to better
understand the sources of project uncertainty and how to navigate a path through them in pursuit of successful project outcomes.
This exploratory study analyses the literature on the management of uncertainty in projects using Sderlund's (2011) seven schools of thought
on project management. Additionally it draws on interviews with project management practitioners from several large-scale projects in civil-
nuclear and aerospace companies in the United Kingdom to posit the uncertainty kaleidoscope as a means of understanding the sources of
uncertainty in safety-critical projects and identies four conceptual approaches that may be adopted by project managers to attenuate the impact of
uncertainty on the delivery of successful project outcomes.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project uncertainty; Safety-critical; Managing uncertainty

1. Introduction managers might adopt to navigate their way through project

Uncertainty is a multi-faceted concept: one that has been
debated across a broad range of intellectual disciplines including
economics, engineering and psychology (cf. Kahneman and
Tversky, 1982; Keynes, 1937; Osman, 2010; Smithson, 1989).
The management of uncertainty has also become an increasingly
popular topic for discussion in the project management literature
(see for instance Atkinson et al., 2006; Cleden, 2009; Hillson,
2002; Perminova et al., 2008). This scholarship provides several
definitions of uncertainty (Hillson, 2002; Sanderson, 2012; Ward
and Chapman, 2003), identifies the main sources of uncertainty
in projects and outlines a variety of approaches that project
Corresponding author at: School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil
Engineering, The University of Manchester, Pariser Building, Sackville Street,
Manchester M13 9PL, UK. Tel.: +44 161 3063738.
E-mail address: ona.saunders@manchester.ac.uk (F.C. Saunders).
uncertainties (Chapman and Ward, 2000; Hillson, 2004; Pich
et al., 2002; Thiry, 2004).
The context of this study is that of safety-critical industries;
where safety is of paramount importance and the consequences
of failure or malfunction may be loss of life or serious injury,
significant environmental damage, or harm to plant or property
(Falla, 1997; Wears, 2012). In archetypal safety-critical
industries, such as civil-nuclear or aerospace, the need to
manage uncertainty is of particular import as errors or failure
can result in extensive loss of life and serious environmental
damage. To study these safety-critical industries is to enter a world
dominated by massive machines, extraordinary engineering
and procedural complexities (La Porte, 2006), where project
managers are charged with delivering the next generation nuclear
plants, or building ever lighter and more fuel-efficient gas-turbine
aircraft engines. These are long-term, large-scale projects that
must satisfy myriad internal and external stakeholders and where
the uncertainties at play are legion and non-trivial in nature. For

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.002
0263-7863/00/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
468 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478
example: what values can we assign to the costs of a nuclear
new-build programme, when the design has yet to be approved by
the Office of the UK Nuclear Regulator? Or how do we determine
the development timescales of a nuclear submarine propulsion
system when the UK-based supply chain is fragile and skilled
resources are limited in number. Understanding and addressing
project uncertainty is of great importance to the project managers
involved in these complex project scenarios.
The study reported here is an exploratory one; based on
in-depth interviews with senior project management practitioners1
on a number of large-scale projects in civil-nuclear and aerospace
companies in the United Kingdom. The paper addresses three key
research questions:
RQ1. How does the academic literature conceptualise the
determinants of project uncertainty and the approaches taken
to manage these uncertainties?
RQ2. What are the determinants of project uncertainty as
articulated by project management practitioners in two
safety-critical industries?
RQ3. What conceptual approaches to the management of
project uncertainty are adopted by these project management
practitioners?
The first section of the paper reviews the extant literature on
the management of uncertainty. The second describes the
design of the empirical study. The discussion section summa-
rises the empirical findings, and synthesises theory and practice
to present the uncertainty kaleidoscope as a means of
understanding the sources of uncertainty in safety-critical
projects. It also identifies four conceptual approaches that are
adopted by project managers to navigate a way through these
uncertainties before concluding with limitations in the study
and avenues for future research.
2. Literature review
The Oxford English Dictionary defines uncertain as not
able to be relied upon; not known or definite, implying that
uncertainty is a state of unknowing where the individual
lacks full and complete knowledge of a situation. These are
circumstances in which we constantly find ourselves. This
centrality of uncertainty to the human condition has fostered a
richness and depth of research across several disciplines and
theoretical approaches to uncertainty are not the preserve of
scholars in the field of project management. Perminova et al.
(2008) highlight three other academic domains that encompass
uncertainty (mathematical probability, economics and psychol-
ogy) and that may have relevance for the management of
uncertainty in projects. Giants of economics such as John
Maynard Keynes have wrestled with notions of uncertainty;
defining it as a state in which reasonably definite probabilities
1
A term which may be interpreted as including project team members,
project team leaders, project managers and project directors p. 723 Crawford et
al., 2006; 2).
cannot be attached to different outcomes (Keynes, 1937).
Smithson (1989) posits a taxonomy of ignorance and
uncertainty as well as exploring sociological, philosophical
and mathematical conceptualisations of uncertainty. Rich
seams of ideas on uncertainty can also be found in the field of
psychology, most notably Kahneman and Tversky's (1982)
subdivision of uncertainty into that attributed to the external
world and that which is attributed to our own internal state of
knowledge.
A fourth lens through which to view uncertainty emerges
from the study of complexity a growing sense that the
environment (both natural and social) is not entirely within our
control and that the mathematically based predictive models we
use to understand it are limited, if not flawed (Milly et al.,
2008). Scholars distinguish between descriptive complexity
(that which is based on technology, structures and organisa-
tions) and perceived complexity (complexity that is subjective
and is ascribed by people on the basis of their own experience
and understanding of a specific situation) (Crawford, 2013).
The notion of deep uncertainty also arises from the study of
complexity where decision makers either do not know or
cannot agree on input parameters, appropriate models of
analysis or even the desirability of particular decision outcomes
(Lempert et al., 2003). The literature on strategy has long
wrestled with this challenge of making rational (March and
Simon, 1958) and effective strategic decisions in the absence of
perfect or complete information (see for instance: Courtney et
al., 1997; Harrison, 1992; Porter, 1980; Sutcliffe and Zaheer,
1998).
There is broad coverage of uncertainty in the domain of
project management (see for instance: Loch et al., 2006;
Perminova et al., 2008; Cleden, 2009; Meredith and Mantel,
2010) and various approaches to the management of project
uncertainty have been presented (De Meyer et al., 2002; Ward
and Chapman, 2003; Olsson, 2006; Harris and Woolley, 2009).
Uncertainty management in the context of projects is closely
related to the management of risk and there is considerable
discussion in the literature as to the difference between risk and
uncertainty (see for instance: Hillson, 2004; Loosemore et al.,
2006; Perminova et al., 2008; Sanderson, 2012).
2.1. Determinants of project uncertainty
An important theme in the literature relates to the sources of
uncertainty in projects. Table 1 categorises these into five
different perspectives.
From an environmental perspective uncertainty arises due to
factors in the external environment, for example, as a
consequence of institutional decision making processes, or the
competing and conflicting demands of project stakeholders, or
perhaps from external industry and market risks (Aaltonen,
2011; Jensen et al., 2006; Winch, 2010). In contrast indi-
vidually based determinants of uncertainty centre on two
concepts. Bounded rationality that our attempts to act
entirely rationally are constrained; for example, by incomplete
information, by limits in our cognitive capacity, or the time
available to make a decision (March and Simon, 1958); and the
 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478 469

Table 1 in individuals with different psychological profiles identifying

Determinants of uncertainty from the literature. and interpreting uncertainty in quite different ways (Madsen and
Perspective Determinants (or sources) Studies Pries-Heje, 2009).
of uncertainty The complexity perspective on the determinants of uncer-
Environmental Turbulence in the Lawrence and Lorsch (1967); tainty in a project asserts that complexity may arise from the
environment Duncan (1972); Collins and functional requirements of the product, the choices of
Hansen (2011)
technology or the diversity of actors involved in the project
Competing and conflicting Ward and Chapman (2008);
stakeholder demands Jensen et al. (2006); (Danilovic and Sandkull, 2005). To complexity, Weick (1995)
Aaltonen (2011) adds a further two sources of uncertainty in projects: that of
Competitor threats, external Winch (2010); Colarelli information load (the volume of ambiguous information that
industry and market risks O'Connor and Rice (2013) must be processed) and turbulence (the rate at which project
Institutional norms and Chapman and Ward (2002);
facts change and the randomness of their timing and direction
decision making processes Jensen et al. (2006)
Individual Internal state of knowledge Kahneman and Tversky of change). These are categorised as the information perspec-
or understanding (1982) tive and the temporal perspective respectively. In the informa-
Uncertain state of mind in Milliken (1987) tion perspective missing information (Harrison, 1992; March
response to triggers in the and Simon, 1958), a lack of understanding of what the salient
external environment
issues are in the project (Smithson, 1989) and an inability to
Uncertainty exists in the Head (1967)
mind of the person who grasp the cause and effect relationships in the project (Milliken,
doubts 1987) may increase project uncertainty. Viewed temporally,
Bounded rationality and March and Simon (1958); uncertainty changes as the project progresses, (Cleden, 2009),
Fallacy of rational decision Kahneman and Tversky with uncertainty manifesting itself most forcefully at the project
making (1982)
definition phase. At this stage in a project, the scope may be
Different psychological Madsen and Pries-Heje
profiles perceive (2009) very fluid; costs and timescales little more than unsubstantiated
uncertainty in estimates, and the required trade-offs between competing
different ways project objectives only just emerging (Atkinson et al., 2006;
Complexity Functional requirements of Danilovic and Sandkull Ward and Chapman, 2003). In addition the relationships between
the product (2005); Madsen and
parties involved in the project may still be inchoate with the
Pries-Heje (2009)
Technology choice Danilovic and Sandkull potential for misunderstandings and conflict high (Hong et al.,
(2005) 2004).
Diversity of actors and Ward and Chapman (2003);
stakeholders Atkinson et al. (2006); 2.2. Approaches to the management of uncertainty
Jensen et al. (2006);
Reymen et al. (2008)
Inherent project complexity Cleden (2009); Osman The academic literature also proffers a number of different
(including Feedback loops, (2010); Winch (2010) approaches to the management of project uncertainty. Table 2
instability and emergent classifies these according to the seven schools of thought
system properties) (optimisation, factor, contingency, behaviour, governance,
Information Incomplete and imperfect March and Simon (1958);
relationship and decision) in project management (Sderlund,
information Harrison (1992)
Lack of knowledge or Kahneman and Tversky 2011). Collectively these schools of thought provide an
understanding (1982); Smithson (1989); account of the present state of theorising in project
Cleden (2009); Bedford management (Sderlund, 2011, p. 154).
(2009) Research in the optimisation school contends that project
Incomplete understanding Milliken (1987)
uncertainty can be managed by extending the project risk
of cause and effect
relationships management process to incorporate uncertainty. Here the
Inability to estimate Ward and Chapman (2003) traditional risk management process is augmented by the use
accurately of SWOT analyses and double probability impact matrices,
Temporal Stage of project lifecycle Ward and Chapman (2003); enabling positive opportunities as well as negative threats to the
Kolltveit and Gronhaug
project to be identified, analysed and, where practicable,
(2004); Atkinson et al.
(2006) mitigated. Another theme emerging from this school of thought
Project tempo and timescale Cleden (2009) is a quantitative one that by improving the accuracy of the
Project turbulence (rate of Weick (1995) planning, estimating and resource allocation processes uncer-
change on project, timing of tainties can somehow be tamed.
changes and direction of
The factor school seeks to extend the reach of the
changes)
optimisation school in the search for common factors that
improve the ability of the project to manage uncertainty. There
fallacy of rational decision making (Kahneman and Tversky, are relatively few studies in this school, perhaps due to the
1982). Here uncertainty is viewed as a perceptive phenomenon multi-faceted nature of project uncertainty; its many sources
existing in the mind of the one who doubts (Head, 1967), resulting and forms (Ward and Chapman, 2003) and the subsequent
470 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478

Table 2
Seven schools of thought on approaches to managing project uncertainty.
School of Description of school Key contributions
thought (Sderlund, 2011)
Optimisation Optimising the implementation of projects using predominantly Extending and optimising the risk management process (Ghaffari et
school quantitative, prescriptive and management science based approaches. al., 2014; Hillson, 2002; Jaafari, 2001; Olsson, 2007)
Improved estimation of project costs and durations (Chapman, 2006;
Chapman and Ward, 2000; Khamooshi and Cioffi, 2013; Lippman et
al., 2013)
Improved project planning techniques (Danilovic and Sandkull,
2005; Dawson and Dawson, 1998; Hajiagha et al., 2014; Wagner et
al., 2014)
Improving the measurement of uncertainty (Brauers, 1986; Chapman,
2006; Frank, 1999)
Improving resource allocations in projects (Laslo and Goldberg, 2008)
Factor Establishing criteria for project success and failure. Use of structural equation modelling to assess impact of variables
school associated with uncertainty on project outcomes (Hong et al., 2004;
Wang and Liu, 2006)
Qualitative assessment of aspects of project uncertainty on outcomes.
o Complexity (Giezen, 2012),
o Reliability (Denyer et al., 2011)
Case study based investigations into factors of success in managing
project uncertainty
o 8 company study of offshore, power, transportation and technol-
ogy companies (Olsson, 2007)
o 6 companies in computer industry (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997)
Contingency Draws on aspects of organisational theory including organisational design, Project type specific case studies on approaches to managing
school structure, technical uncertainty and complexity. Often uses case studies to uncertainty
highlight differences between various types of project. o Construction projects (Gosling et al., 2013; Reymen et al., 2008)
o Product development projects (Colarelli O'Connor and Rice,
2013; Howell et al., 2010; Leon et al., 2013)
o Firefighting and other emergency projects (Bigley and Roberts, 2001)
o IT projects (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Madsen and Pries-Heje,
2009)
o Historical projects (Lenfle, 2011)
o Cross industry comparisons Construction vs IT
(Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2003)
Variety of approaches to managing project uncertainty
o Flexibility (Olsson, 2006)
o Use of pilot studies (Turner, 2005)
o Instructionist, learning and selectionist approaches (De Meyer et
al., 2002; Loch et al., 2008; Pich et al., 2002)
Strategic approaches agility or absorption or agile absorption
(Sull, 2009), postures and moves (Courtney et al., 1997)
Behaviour Both interpretive and descriptive research into facets of organisational Case studies into managing project uncertainty
school behaviour o Mega projects (Sanderson, 2012)
o Serial entrepreneurs (Schlesinger et al., 2012)
Individual practices to contend with uncertainty
o Adoption of reflective practices (Perminova et al., 2008)
o Sensemaking (Weick, 1995)
o Deliberate ignorance (Kutsch and Hall, 2010)
o Other cognitive processes (Harris and Woolley, 2009; Winch and
Maytorena, 2011)
Managing stakeholder relationships (Aaltonen, 2011; Bourne and
Walker, 2005)
Dealing with project complexity (Thomas and Mengel, 2008)
Project lifecycle based approaches (Thiry, 2004)
Governance Concerned with project governance and contractual matters such as the Governance mechanisms in mega projects (Sanderson, 2012)
school role of contracts and different forms of project structure Governance in nuclear projects (Ruuska et al., 2011)
(Alliances, Joint Ventures etc.) Governance in large scale road and rail (Bjelland and Aven, 2013;
Guo et al., 2014)
Relationship Similar to governance but more focus on project networks, stakeholder Relationships between actors and stakeholders as a source of
school interactions and relationships between project parties. uncertainty (Aaltonen, 2011; Jensen et al., 2006; Kolltveit and
Gronhaug, 2004; Thomas and Mengel, 2008)
Importance of the early phase in managing uncertainty (Atkinson et
al., 2006; Erkoyuncu et al., 2013; Kolltveit and Gronhaug, 2004;
Samset, 2009)
 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478
Table 2 (continued)
School of Description of school
thought (Sderlund, 2011)
Decision Incorporates how decisions are made (both to initiate and continue or abort
school projects) and explores the limits in rationality of decision making and the
role of political processes in project decision making
challenge of identifying the key factors that influence it.
However, the few tentative conclusions that can be drawn from
this school are that soft skills such as competence, team spirit
and communications can influence how successful project
managers are in managing uncertainty (Brown and Eisenhardt,
1997; Hong et al., 2004; Olsson, 2007).
Both the contingency and behavioural schools contain a
wider array of research into different approaches to the
management of project uncertainty. A number of industry
specific case studies investigate how uncertainty is managed in
specific organisational contexts (see for instance Bigley and
Roberts, 2001; Howell et al., 2010; Reymen et al., 2008).
Sweeping changes to the mindset and methods of the project
manager in managing uncertainty are also demanded by a
number of scholars in these schools (notably Loch et al., 2006;
Olsson, 2006; Pich et al., 2002 in the contingency school and
Weick and Sutcliffe, 2007; Perminova et al., 2008 in the
behavioural school). Pich et al. (2002) propose two methods of
managing highly uncertain projects that of learning and
selectionism. Learning involves scanning the environment to
search for unknownunknowns coupled with continuous
problem solving and changes in direction to the project as
new information emerges. Selectionism entails undertaking
multiple explorations to achieve the same outcome and making
a decision on which is best during or after the process. Olsson
(2006) contends that uncertainty can be managed by maintain-
ing flexibility in the project. This is achieved through the use of
late locking, staged development gates and the rigorous use of
project contingencies. Managing uncertainty can also be
approached by means of the project manager maintaining a
sense of mindfulness and vigilance (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2007)
throughout the project delivery, or by managing by assump-
tions rather than the traditional deterministic view of project
planning. Here the project manager can start work in an
environment of high uncertainty, learning from the outcomes of
early work to inform the future direction of the project,
gradually allowing assumptions to be converted into knowl-
edge (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000).
There are only four studies of project uncertainty directly
related to the governance school (Bjelland and Aven, 2013;
Guo et al., 2014; Ruuska et al., 2011; Sanderson, 2012) all of
which are based on case studies of large scale infrastructure
471
Key contributions
Decision making in specific project types
Mega projects (Ansar et al., 2014; Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Van
Marrewijk et al., 2008; Winch, 2013)
Technology projects (Jugend and da Silva, 2014; Van Riel et al.,
2011)
Treatment of uncertainty in investment decisions (Beisler et al.,
2013; Harrison, 1992; Jovanovic, 1999; Mikaelian et al., 2011;
Mohamed and McCowan, 2001)
Cognitive processes in decision making under uncertainty (Tversky
& Kahneman, 1982; Smithson, 2009)
Decision making techniques (Chapman and Ward, 2002; Cleden,
2009; Einhorn and Hogarth, 1987)
projects. This is a notable gap in the literature, particularly in
the context of safety-critical industries where the influence of
the regulator is strong and one of the key tensions present in
projects is that which exists between the licensee and
regulator's divergent views on new technology. This can lead
to the conservative use of tried and tested technology, and
preventing licensees benefiting from technological advances
and good industry practices developed elsewhere (Kettunun et
al., 2007). Extending recent work in the field of adaptive
governance (cf. Folke et al., 2005) where governance has
evolved from rigid top-down controlled structures to looser
partnership and collaborative arrangements to the domain of
project management may be a fruitful avenue for future
research.
Literature in the relationship school of thought focuses on
the importance of identifying, acknowledging and responding
to the needs of an often complex and diverse group of
stakeholders, particularly in the early phase of the project
(Aaltonen, 2011; Kolltveit and Gronhaug, 2004; Williams,
2009). There is broad agreement within this school that
stakeholders are major source of uncertainty in projects and
the articulation of methods for managing stakeholders (Ward
and Chapman, 2008).
Lastly, the decision making school of thought incorporates
scholarship on the cognitive processes involved in the decision
making under uncertainty (Smithson, 2009; Tversky and
Kahneman, 1982) proffering new perspectives on how we
make decisions together with descriptions of different decision
making techniques (Chapman and Ward, 2002; Cleden, 2009;
Einhorn and Hogarth, 1987). There is also a seam of literature
exploring on how uncertainty is treated in the particular context
of investment decisions, and the exemplification of decision
making on specific project environments, from mega projects
(Flyvbjerg et al., 2003) to technology projects (Van Riel et al.,
2011).
Whilst the extant literature is rich, with both complementary
and competing approaches to the management of uncertainty
there are scarcely any studies that investigate how project
management practitioners perceive the determinants of uncer-
tainty. Furthermore, only one study of project uncertainty has
been identified in a safety-critical industry and that is a
historical review of the 1940's Manhattan Project (Lenfle,
472 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478

Table 3 Table 4
Study participants by industry, role and project. Summary of respondents' views on the determinants of project uncertainty.
Organisation Project type Respondent role Perspective Determinants of uncertainty
Multi-national power Nuclear new build Programme manager Environmental Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and
generation company Environmental (PESTLE) influences (for example government
Multi-national power Nuclear new build Programme manager energy policy, oil and energy prices etc.)
generation company Regulatory framework number and role of regulators
Multi-national power Nuclear ongoing operations Portfolio manager Organisational propensity for uncertainty
generation company Decision-making ability of organisation
Multi-national engineering Nuclear new build Project manager Individual Different psychological profiles perceive uncertainty in
company different ways
Nuclear technology Nuclear decommissioning Project manager Complexity Size of project
company Perceived project complexity
Multi-national engineering Civil aerospace new Project manager Number of stakeholders and project parties
company product development Length and complexity of supply chain
Multi-national engineering Civil aerospace new Project manager Information Level of knowledge about project and the proposed technical
company product development solution
Multi-national engineering Civil aerospace Project manager Clarity of scope and objectives
company ongoing operations Temporal Project timescales and tempo
Lifecycle stage
Organisational priority of the project
2011). In response to this, the empirical focus of this study is on Capability Experience and skills of project team
how an exploratory group of practising project managers in two Maturity of project management processes
safety-critical industries understands the determinants of Resource management and resource constraints
Industry skills base and supply chain capability
project uncertainty, and identifying the strategies adopted by
project managers to navigate a way through the uncertainties
with which they are confronted. Two main limitations to the study should be noted here.
Firstly the lack of data triangulation as only one method of data
3. Research design collection was utilised, and secondly the relatively small
number of interviews carried out. However, given that the
The study uses a cross-sectional, qualitative exploratory nature of the study was exploratory, that data saturation was
research design, based on eight semi-structured in-depth seen to occur and that the study aim was to posit only
interviews of practising project managers involved in seven preliminary models this should not detract materially from the
projects in nuclear power generation, nuclear decommissioning reliability of the findings.
and civil aerospace industries in the United Kingdom. The
respondents were selected through a combination of purposive 4. Findings and discussion
and convenience sampling, using industrial contacts to identify
experienced project management practitioners currently involved 4.1. Uncertainty as a kaleidoscope of influences on the project
on large-scale nuclear and civil aerospace projects. Due to
commercial restrictions, the projects studied cannot be named, Respondents were asked: What are the determinants of
but an anonymised list of respondents and projects is provided in uncertainty facing project managers in civil-nuclear and
Table 3. aerospace projects? The responses to this question are
The interviews were carried out during 2012. All interviews summarised in Table 4 and are organised around the themes
were audio recorded, transcribed and the five step process of identified earlier in Table 1.
analysis described in McCracken (1988) followed. This Important determinants of uncertainty that emerged under
involved textual analysis of the interview transcripts; relating the environmental perspective were external political influences
observations made by respondents to develop themes and and geopolitical forces (e.g. oil prices and Governments'
patterns, and then developing the interrelationships between aviation policies will impact projects in the civil aerospace
them into more general themes, drawing on the extant academic sector). The regulatory landscape also contributes significantly
literature to make sense of the findings. A content analysis of to environmental uncertainty in projects, with civil-nuclear
the data on the determinants of project uncertainty was also projects finding themselves in a position where the preparation
undertaken, deriving the categories from the perspectives of the safety-case, or overcoming the required regulatory
identified from the literature (see Table 1). Where new themes hurdles defines the critical path of the project, and yet the
emerged in the interviews these were added to the analytical resources capable of preparing the required paperwork often
categories and the data collection and analysis process sit outside the project team. Other aspects of the environment
continued. When no new substantive themes emerged after that influenced the level of project uncertainty were the
the eighth interview, data saturation was seen to occur (Guest et organisational culture and decision making ability of the
al., 2006). Analysis of the data was undertaken by the lead project (e.g. how decisions are made, who is involved and
author and verified by the second author to minimise any the level of accountability for decisions) (Chapman and
individual bias in interpreting the data collected. Ward, 2002).
 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478
The level of knowledge about the project was also seen as a
key determinant of project uncertainty (Ward and Chapman,
2003), with project managers needing to understand how
well-defined the project scope is, how clear the project outcome
is, ex-ante, and the level of knowledge within the project team
regarding the proposed solution.
Consistent with the temporal and complexity perspectives
(Cleden, 2009; Winch, 2010), the size of the project, its
perceived complexity and timescale were also viewed by
respondents as central to the level of uncertainty present in a
given project with one nuclear project manager stating: as
soon as you go beyond a five-year horizon then you are much
more likely to experience some kind of change that will cause a
perturbation in the project.
In theory, as a well-defined project progresses, the uncertainty
should gradually reduce (Winch, 2010); but there may still be
spikes in uncertainty as a consequence of unforeseen events.
Respondents suggested that the phase of a project has a stronger
influence on the level of uncertainty than the type of project
(e.g. new build or ongoing operations).
Other elements of complexity that determined the level of
uncertainty were the number of stakeholders and parties
involved (Ward and Chapman, 2008).
Interestingly, little evidence of uncertainty as a perceptive
phenomenon (Perminova et al., 2008) existing subjectively in
the head of the project manager emerged from the interviews.
Echoing Madsen and Pries-Heje (2009) two respondents
argued that particular individuals coped better with uncertainty
than others, but no consistent view of uncertainty as being
determined subjectively was posited. Instead respondents were
pragmatic, and action oriented articulating uncertainties that
manifested themselves to the whole project team rather than to
them as individuals.
Conversely, one determinant of project uncertainty not
articulated in the literature but raised repeatedly by
respondents was the capability to deliver the project, both at a
project and at an industry level. At the project-organisation
level the major influences on uncertainty were the level of
maturity of project processes. Securing project resources was a
recurring source of uncertainty across projects in both civil
nuclear and aerospace sectors, with respondents questioning
whether their organisation had the people and facilities to meet
project resource demands.
The skills and experience of project team members also
contributed to the level of uncertainty in the project; with
projects that were able to mobilise a highly-experienced project
team better placed to manage uncertainty than those that were
not. The nuclear industry has attempted to address this issue by
introducing the concept of Suitably Qualified and Experienced
Personnel (HSE, 2007), but this formal requirement for
appropriately approved individuals can have the unintended
consequence of increasing further the resource constraints
under which the project must be delivered.
At the industry level, uncertainty in project delivery arises
due to the nature of the industry supply chain and its skill base.
Respondents described a fragmented and fragile supply
chain, in which contractual frameworks were inadequate,
473
Fig. 1. The Uncertainty Kaleidoscope (determinants in italics emerged during
the empirical study; those in non-italics were identified in the literature).
bargaining power limited and strategic alliances complex. For
long-term projects, the presence of an ageing workforce and the
difficulty in retaining key skills were a major source of
uncertainty. This is particularly true for nuclear projects, where
almost 60% of the workforce is due to retire between 2020 and
2025 (Cogent, 2009) and where the privatisation and contrac-
tion of the industry towards the end of the last century have led
to a fragmented workforce in some key areas.
The empirical observations described above are largely
consistent with the literature on the determinants of project
uncertainty with the exception of two areas of dissonance.
Theory is rich with respect to the environmental, individual,
complexity, information and temporal determinants of uncer-
tainty (see Table 1). However, the capability (of both project
team, and the wider organisation and industry), and the
regulatory environment against which the project is delivered
are less well addressed. Yet, constraints in capability and the
close scrutiny of all aspects of the project by industry regulators
emerged in this study as an important factor in determining
project uncertainty.
Synthesising theory and observation, we posit a model for
understanding the determinants of project uncertainty as a
kaleidoscope of influences on the project the uncertainty
kaleidoscope (shown in Fig. 1). This uncertainty kaleidoscope
is based on the five determinants of uncertainty found in the
literature (and presented in Table 1), validated and extended in
this study to six (from Table 4) with the inclusion of capability
(the importance of the regulatory environment was not
categorised as a seventh determinant but rather as an additional
component of the environmental perspective). At the centre of
the kaleidoscope are located the project objectives, surrounded
by the six determinants (environmental, individual, complexity,
information, temporal and capability) that influence the level of
uncertainty in the project.
474 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478

Table 5
The four conceptual approaches to managing project uncertainty, illustrative interview quotations and practical steps for project managers.
Conceptual approaches Illustrative interview quotations Practical approaches for project managers
to managing project
uncertainty
Structural It is really important to determine where you have certainty and where Uncertainty navigated by enacting the available project
you don't, as where you do make that distinction, you'll move ahead on processes particularly the risk management process, scope
firm ground with the things you believe you have certainty on. definition, gated review process.
The way in which we manage it like most other large organisations like Acknowledging where the project is in its lifecycle when
ours is to use gated review processes to step through that sort of assessing uncertainty documenting assumptions and
lifecycle approach and ultimately that is our approach to dealing with converting assumptions to knowledge.
uncertainty. Maintaining sufficient contingency in schedule and budget.
underpinned with good project processes to help decision making Managing projects at portfolio level to minimise resource
(e.g. design reviews, risk workshops) constraints.
So when we build our programmes we have to build in there quite a lot Creating platforms of certainty to help address pools of
of hold points, review points so that we can take stock. uncertainty.
It's about requirements management, configuration management,
interface management.
If you don't set yourself up well in the first place it just makes life
harder as you go through. You just make a bed that is more and more
uncertain as people embed themselves in different positions in the pool
of uncertainty and that becomes their reality and as you move on
without a solid platform it gets tougher.
Behavioural it's about being conscious and deliberate Use of soft skills important influencing, facilitation, conflict
I suppose individually I am always looking to keep options open where management.
I can, and in itself, that can sometimes introduce more uncertainty to Experienced based project manager's own or knowing the
what you are dealing with, but it is sometimes a necessity on a project right person to ask.
like this. Combination of mechanistic analysis and intuition and
So it's a mixture of intuition and judgement calling on the right people judgement: asking the right questions.
to brainstorm and discuss when necessary, and the risk review Being prepared for surprises.
mechanism is the main feeder for that. Managing uncertainty is a mind-set and attitude (the ability to live
What I am saying is that you cannot be prescriptive, as experience tells in the grey).
me that things will change, so it is a mind-set for me. It's an attitude, a Acknowledging uncertainty cannot be eliminated only reduced.
soft skill.
PMs need innate optimism, to keep going and moving forward, but not
overconfident.
It's about pulling everyone together to manage what you do in a world
that is grey or ambiguous. This involves being flexible in your approach
and able to adapt and move things forward when needed.
I follow my nose, talk to right people and ask what do you think .
This place works on who you know as we have 1000s years of
experience.
Relational I think that if the project team are aware or bought in to the fact that Increase collaboration and dialogue with stakeholders, manage
things can go wrong, apart from the risk register and at that point we've key project relationships.
got to act quickly, we have to do something differently, we've got to Make uncertainty visible can be hard when sponsors want
involve key stakeholders. predictability and certainty.
It's really about getting the buy in from our customers that these are Get buy in to the project's real level of uncertainty.
unpredictable projects and we are not always going to get the answers
we expect in them. They have to buy into that strategy as well. They
have to be prepared to stop and change direction fairly quickly.
It is also about a level of ambiguity and bringing stakeholders on a
journey with me
one of the things that I have suffered from in projects would be to give
people a number, so when you had gone through preliminary design and
were ready to start things have changed but that number is still in
people's heads, and if uncertainty had been articulated a little bit better
then projects wouldn't be so quickly dismissed as failures. This is not
always easy to do as people don't want to hear it, because they can't
deal with it either.
Orientating set moments along the way where we collect together everything and Use of structured techniques such as horizon scanning, sensitivity
then almost make a declaration, whether that be in an interim business analysis, brainstorming and Delphi technique.
case or whatever the document needs to be, so that we have a marker in Keeping options open as long as possible even if this increases
the sand uncertainty in short-term.
We can all see where we are now and look in rear view mirror, much Use of small scale trials to drive out larger uncertainties.
harder to look out front window when travelling at speed and with a fog
of uncertainty and see where you are trying to get to.
 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478 475

Table 5 (continued)
Conceptual approaches Illustrative interview quotations Practical approaches for project managers
to managing project
uncertainty
Orientating A mature project manager backed up with processes needs to have the
ability to look ahead, as these are the ones that will side swipe you. So
its trending, like sometimes you come away from a risk workshop and
it's not set out in front of you, there may be 3040 risks but there is a
general trend there that is telling you, join the dots, and that leads to
something else that is out there one bigger factor.
Managing uncertainty is about looking ahead and thinking what might
happen there.
We'll do an active trial on a small scale basis but it will give us a
wealth of information to remove the bigger risks and uncertainty

These sources of project uncertainty may be broadly similar
across safety-critical projects but, rather like the eponymous
children's toy, the kaleidoscope can create a myriad of different
landscapes of project uncertainty from these same six determinants.
The likelihood of achieving the project objectives can also be
affected by sudden changes, often small but sometimes significant,
caused by the emergence or realignment of different areas of
uncertainty in the project, whether due to the awareness of new
project data, new regulatory requirements on the project, or the
non-availability of the requisite number of skilled project resources
at a given time. The utility of the kaleidoscope lies not in its
predictive power, but as a tool to enable project professionals in
safety-critical environments better anticipate where uncertainty
may reside in projects.
4.2. Conceptual and practical approaches to managing project
uncertainty
Respondents were also asked Thinking about a specific
project that you are working on, how do you approach
uncertainty in this project? Through a textual analysis of the
responses, four conceptual approaches were identified (Table 5)
together with practical steps that can be taken by project
management practitioners to manage project uncertainty.
The first conceptual approach was a structural one:
respondents spoke in terms of platforms of certainty and
pools of uncertainty, underpinning processes, stakes in the
ground and boundaries. Respondents navigated uncertainty by
enacting the various project processes, in particular, risk
management, scope definition and gated review processes.
These processes provided a structure to identify uncertainties
and a means of managing them. Steering reviews and gated
decision points especially were seen as essential in documenting
uncertainties, and converting assumptions to knowledge to
ensure the project could be delivered. As argued by Atkinson
et al. (2006), Hillson (2002) and Ward and Chapman (2003)
the risk management process was a key process in managing
uncertainty. In the presence of high levels of uncertainty and
the imperative to deliver safety-critical projects, the familiar
processes and routines of project management were mobilised as
bridges to connect the platforms of certainty gradually shrink the
remaining pools of uncertainty.
Secondly, respondents conceptualised their approach to
managing uncertainty in behavioural terms; as an attitude
encompassing flexibility, optimism, conscious decision making
and being constantly attuned to the presence of uncertainty.
Respondents that thrived in this environment acknowledged
that uncertainty could not be eliminated; only reduced through
pro-active questioning of assumptions and pragmatic decision-
making (Olsson, 2006). Several respondents stressed the
importance of being able to remain flexible; maintaining focus
on the project outcomes whilst operating amid high levels of
uncertainty. It may simply not be possible to finalise project
schedules, or provide accurate estimates if timescales are long
and scopes vague. Managing projects in this way can stress the
prevailing organisational culture, particularly if it is risk adverse,
with project managers finding themselves at the nexus of two of
the key tensions in safety-critical industries: firstly, the tension
between an organisational culture of command and control and a
project management need for a culture more akin to doubt and
discovery (Perin, 2005) and secondly, between regulator and
licensee views on safety requirements (Kettunun et al., 2007).
Balancing these competing tensions is likely to require tough,
politically adept project managers with excellent soft skills
(Crawford et al., 2006; Sderlund and Maylor, 2012).
Thirdly, respondents viewed uncertainty as a relational
construct stressing the importance of communicating
uncertainty to sponsors and other key stakeholders such as
clients, regulators, or members of the project team. Frequent
dialogue with industry regulators was important to ensure that
the emerging project design would not spring any surprises on
the regulator. Several respondents reported the need to make
uncertainty visible, constantly communicating it, rather than
hiding or ignoring it. Obtaining buy-in for the real level of
uncertainty on a particular project was seen as essential to
managing the impact of uncertainty in safety-critical projects,
although achieving this was not without challenge and required
excellent communication and influencing skills to maintain
senior management confidence in the project and its inherent
uncertainties.
The fourth and final conceptual approach was an orientating
one: respondents used navigational metaphors such as markers
in the sand, the fog of uncertainty, rear view mirror and
looking ahead to conceptualise uncertainty. Project managers
476 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478
used markers in the sand, akin to discovery driven planning
(McGrath and MacMillan, 2000) rather than fixed project
milestones. Respondents orientated themselves within the
project uncertainty through the use of a range of structured
techniques such as brainstorming, horizon scanning and
sensitivity analysis. Brainstorming was carried out both
informally through ad-hoc conversations and formally by
assembling relevant multidisciplinary experts. Heuristics from
past projects were used by both individual respondents and
project teams to help conceptualise new projects at the scoping
phase, although interviewees acknowledged that in safety-
critical industries where individuals generally hold a surfeit of
tacit knowledge, both these techniques can lead to bias and
complacency, and an inability to spot those black swan events
(Taleb, 2007), or bolts from the blue (Cleden, 2009) that have
the potential to derail a project. Conversely lessons-learnt logs
were perceived as an ineffective source of knowledge on
project uncertainty, primarily due to problems on indexing and
accessing the relevant information. Respondents were more
likely to seek their colleagues' opinions and knowledge about
past projects, viewing this as a more efficient and contextually
rich means of orientating themselves.
Other techniques used by respondents were the use of small
scale trials, akin to the learning and selectionist approach
articulated by Pich et al. (2002), to drive out larger uncertainties
in projects (Turner, 2005). Here the trials were used to reduce
knowledge gaps, allowing the project team to learn and
subsequently adapt their approach to project delivery.
Project contingency (on cost, time and project scope) was
viewed by several as an essential tool in confronting
uncertainty (Olsson, 2006), as it provides the project manager
with the flexibility to adapt to the emergence of new
information without necessarily putting the project delivery at
risk.
The boundaries between the four approaches structural,
behavioural, relational and orientating are not fixed but
overlap, with many statements made by respondents embracing
more than one approach to the management of uncertainty.
Nevertheless, the way in which respondents articulated their
approach to the management of project uncertainty gives an
important insight into their internal mental models of uncertainty
and a window into the connection between these internal
conceptualisations of uncertainty and external actions taken to
deal with it.
5. Conclusions
This paper describes the results of an exploratory qualitative
investigation into what managing uncertainty means to experi-
enced project managers in safety-critical industries in the UK.
Drawing on the emerging body of literature in project uncertainty
and the experiences of practising project managers it posits that
project uncertainty can be understood as a kaleidoscope of
influences on safety-critical projects and articulates four concep-
tual approaches adopted by project managers to manage it more
effectively. In the context of safety-critical industries the major
determinants of project uncertainty that emerged from the study
were the environment, the inherent project complexity, the
capability of both project team and industry wide supply chain
to deliver the project and the temporal challenge of projects
exhibiting both long delivery timescales (up to 10 years for a new
nuclear plant) and extended plant lifetimes (60 years for a nuclear
power plant). The four conceptual approaches structural,
behavioural, relational and orientating also provide important
insights into project managers' internal conceptualisations of
uncertainty and the external actions they take to manage it in the
context of safety-critical projects. Managing project uncertainty
involves much more than implementing a new project process, or
broadening the scope of the risk management process to
incorporate uncertainty. Rather, managing uncertainty is a
mindset which permeates all aspects of the project, requiring
the ability to remain flexible, to maintain focus on the project
outcomes whilst operating in the midst of high levels of
uncertainty, and dwell amongst questions and assumptions rather
than answers and knowledge. These are difficult skills to learn
and confidently deploy particularly in environments which are
inherently conservative and risk-adverse.
There are a number of limitations to this study: it was
situated entirely within the United Kingdom, and only a small
number of project managers from a limited number of
organisations were interviewed. The findings may not therefore
be generalisable across other geographic regions. Future work
is required to broaden the scope of the study to a larger sample
of project managers in a number of different regions of the
world. Secondly, the linking of specific approaches to
managing uncertainty to particular determinants of uncertainty
lay outside the scope of this study, and this may also be a
fruitful avenue for future research. However, the uncertainty
kaleidoscope in its current form could be utilised as a
framework for comparative inquiry into the determinants of
project uncertainty across a wider range of industries and types
of projects. Additional research studies addressing project
uncertainty from a governance perspective would also make a
valuable contribution to knowledge in the domain of project
uncertainty.
Conict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest in this research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous
reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on
the originally submitted manuscript.
References
Aaltonen, K., 2011. Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental
interpretation process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 165183.
Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., Lunn, D., 2014. Should we build more
large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development.
Energy Policy 69, 4356.
 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., Ward, S., 2006. Fundamental uncertainties in
projects and the scope of project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24,
687698.
Bedford, T., 2009. Exploratory quantitative analysis of emergent problems
with scant information. In: Williams, T.M., Samset, K., Sunnevag, K.J.
(Eds.), Making Essential Choices with Scant Information; Front End
Decision Making in Projects. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp.
279299.
Beisler, M., Klapperich, H., Jacob, D., Schweiger, H., 2013. Modelling of input
data uncertainty for the financial evaluation of complex infrastructure
projects. Bauingenieur 88, 7888.
Bigley, G.A., Roberts, K.H., 2001. The incident command system: high
reliability organising for complex and demanding task environments. Acad.
Manag. J. 44 (6), 12811299.
Bjelland, H., Aven, T., 2013. Treatment of uncertainty in risk assessments in the
Rogfast road tunnel project. Saf. Sci. 55, 3444.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2005. The paradox of project control. Team
Perform. Manag. 11 (5/6), 157178.
Brauers, W.K., 1986. Essay review article: risk, uncertainty and risk analysis.
Long Range Plan. 19 (6), 139143.
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1997. The art of continuous change: linking
complexity theory and time pace evolution in relentlessly shifting
organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 42, 134.
Chapman, C., 2006. Key points of contention in framing assumptions for risk
and uncertainty management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 303313.
Chapman, C., Ward, S., 2000. Estimation and evaluation of uncertainty:
a minimalist first pass approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18, 369383.
Chapman, C.B., Ward, S., 2002. Managing Project Risk and Uncertainty:
A Constructively Simple Approach to Decision Making. John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester, UK.
Cleden, D., 2009. Managing Project Uncertainty. Gower Publishing Limited,
Farnham, UK.
Cogent, 2009. Power People: The Civil Nuclear Workforce 20092025. Renaissance
Nuclear Skills Series 1, 2009, (Accessed on 21st October 2012 from http://www.
cogent-ssc.com/research/Publications/NuclearReportPowerPeople.pdf).
Colarelli O'Connor, G., Rice, M.P., 2013. A comprehensive model of
uncertainty associated with radical innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 30
(S1), 218.
Collins, J., Hansen, M.T., 2011. Great by Choice. HarperCollins, New York.
Courtney, H., Kirkland, J., Viguerie, P., 1997. Strategy under uncertainty. Harv.
Bus. Rev. 75 (6), 6679.
Crawford, L., 2013. Dancing in the kaleidoscope: the challenge of leading
complex projects. PMI Global Congress, Istanbul April 2225th, 2013.
Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J., Winter, M., 2006. Practitioner
development: from trained technicians to reflective practitioners. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 24, 722733.
Danilovic, M., Sandkull, B., 2005. The use of dependence structure matrix and
domain mapping in managing uncertainty in multiple project situations. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 23, 193203.
Dawson, R.J., Dawson, C.J., 1998. Practical proposals for managing uncertainty
and risk in project planning. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 16 (5), 299310.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C.H., Pich, M.T., 2002. Managing project uncertainty:
from variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 6067 (Winter).
Denyer, D., Kutsch, E., Lee-Kelley, E., Hall, M., 2011. Exploring
reliability in information systems programming. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
29, 442454.
Duncan, R., 1972. Characteristics of organisational environments and perceived
environmental uncertainty. Adm. Sci. Q. 17, 313327.
Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M., 1987. Decision making: going forward in
reverse. Harv. Bus. Rev. 6671 (JanFeb).
Erkoyuncu, J.A., Durugbo, C., Roy, R., 2013. Identifying uncertainties for
industrial service delivery: a systems approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (21),
62956315.
Falla, M., 1997. Advances in Safety Critical Systems Results and Achievements
from the DTI/EPSRC R&D ProgrammeAccessed on 21st October 2012 from
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/resources/scs/.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., Rothengatter, W., 2003. Megaprojects and Risk:
An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge University Press, UK.
477
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of
socialecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30 (1), 441473.
Frank, M.V., 1999. Treatment of uncertainties in space nuclear risk assessment
with examples from Cassini mission applications. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 66
(3), 203221.
Ghaffari, M., Sheikhahmadi, F., Safakish, G., 2014. Modelling and risk analysis
of a virtual project team through project lifecycle with fuzzy approach.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 72, 98105.
Giezen, M., 2012. Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and
disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 30, 781790.
Gosling, J., Naim, M., Towill, D., 2013. Identifying and categorising the
sources of uncertainty in construction supply chains. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
139 (1), 102110.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L., 2006. How many interviews are enough? An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 (1),
5982.
Guo, F., Chang-Richards, Y., Wilkinson, S., Cun Li, T., 2014. Effects of project
governance structures on the management of risks in infrastructure projects:
a comparative analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5), 815826.
Hajiagha, S.H.R., Mahdiraji, H.A., Hashemi, S.S., 2014. A hybrid model of
fuzzy goal programming and grey numbers in project time, cost and quality.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71, 117126.
Harris, E., Woolley, E., 2009. Facilitating innovation through cognitive
mapping of uncertainty. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 39 (1), 70100.
Harrison, E.F., 1992. Perspectives on uncertainty in successful strategic choice
at the CEO level. OMEGA Int. J. Manag. Sci. 20 (1), 105116.
Head, G.L., 1967. An alternative to defining risk as uncertainty. J. Risk Insur. 2
(34), 205214.
Health and Safety Executive, 2007. Managing competence for safety-related
systems: Part 1 key guidanceAccessed on 21st October 2012 from http://
www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/mancomppt1.pdf.
Hillson, D., 2002. Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 20, 235240.
Hillson, D., 2004. Effective Opportunity Management for ProjectsExploiting
Positive Risk. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Hong, P., Nahm, A.Y., Doll, W.J., 2004. The role of project target clarity in an
uncertain project environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 24 (12),
12691291.
Howell, D., Windahl, C., Seidel, R., 2010. A project contingency framework
based on uncertainty and its consequences. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28,
256264.
Jaafari, A., 2001. Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on
projects: time for a fundamental shift. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19, 89101.
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., Lofstrom, M., 2006. Project relationships a model
for analysing interactional uncertainty. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 412.
Jovanovic, P., 1999. Application of sensitivity analysis in investment
project evaluation under uncertainty and risk. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17 (4),
217222.
Jugend, D., da Silva, S.L., 2014. Product portfolio management: a framework
based on methods, organisation and strategy. Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl. 22
(1), 1728.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1982. Variants of uncertainty. In: Kahneman, D.,
Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 509520.
Kettunun, J., Reiman, T., Wahlstrom, B., 2007. Safety management challenges
and tensions in the European nuclear power industry. Scand. J. Manag. 23,
424444.
Keynes, J.M., 1937. The general theory of unemployment. Q. J. Econ. 51,
209223.
Khamooshi, H., Cioffi, D.F., 2013. Uncertainty in task duration and cost
estimates: fusion of probabilistic forecasts and deterministic schedules. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 139 (5), 488497.
Kolltveit, B.J., Gronhaug, K., 2004. The importance of the early phase:
the case of construction and building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22,
545551.
Kutsch, E., Hall, M., 2010. Deliberate ignorance in project risk management.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 245255.
478 F.C. Saunders et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 467478
La Porte, T.R., 2006. A review of shouldering risks. Adm. Sci. Q. 155158
(March).
Laslo, Z., Goldberg, A.I., 2008. Resource allocation under uncertainty in a
multi project matrix environment: is organisational conflict inevitable? Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 26, 773788.
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1967. Organisation and Environment. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Lempert, R.J., Popper, S.W., Bankes, S.C., 2003. Shaping the Next One
Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative Long Term Strategy
Analysis, MR-1626-RPC. The RAND Pardee Centre, Santa Monica,
California.
Lenfle, S., 2011. The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with
unforeseeable uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29, 359373.
Leon, H.C.M., Farris, J.A., Letens, G., 2013. Improving product development
performance through iterative front loading. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 60
(2), 552565.
Lippman, S.A., McCardle, K.E., Tang, C.S., 2013. Using Nash bargaining to
design project management contracts under cost uncertainty. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 145 (1), 199207.
Loch, C.H., De Meyer, A., Pich, M.T., 2006. Managing the Unknown: A New
Approach to Managing High Uncertainty and Risk in Projects. John Wiley
and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Loch, C.H., Solt, M.E., Bailey, E.M., 2008. Diagnosing unforeseeable
uncertainty in a new venture. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25, 2846.
Loosemore, M., Raftery, J., Reilly, C., Higgon, D., 2006. Risk Management in
Projects, second ed. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK.
Madsen, S., Pries-Heje, J., 2009. Taking a closer look at uncertainty in IS
projects. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings (Accessed on 12th October 2012 from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/119).
March, J.G., Simon, H.A., 1958. Organisations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
McCracken, G., 1988. T. Sage University Paper on Qualitative Research
Methods vol. 13. Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I., 2000. The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies
for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Meredith, J.R., Mantel, S.J., 2010. Project Management: A Managerial
Approach, seventh ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Mikaelian, T., Nightingale, D.J., Rhodes, D.H., Hastings, D.E., 2011. Real
options in enterprise architecture: a holistic mapping of mechanisms and types
for uncertainty management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 58 (3), 457470.
Milliken, F., 1987. Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment:
state, effect and response. Acad. Manag. Rev. 12 (1), 133143.
Milly, P.C.D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.M., Kundzewicz, Z.
W., Lettenmaier, D.P., Stouffer, R.J., 2008. Stationarity is dead: whither
water management? Science 319, 573574.
Mohamed, S., McCowan, A., 2001. Modelling project investment decisions
under uncertainty using possibility theory. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19, 231241.
Olsson, N.O.E., 2006. Management of flexibility in projects. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 24, 6674.
Olsson, R., 2007. In search of opportunity management: is the risk management
process enough? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 745752.
Osman, M., 2010. Controlling Uncertainty: Decision Making and Learning in
Complex Worlds. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, UK.
Perin, C., 2005. Shouldering Risks: The Culture of Control in the Nuclear
Power Industry. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA.
Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M., Wikstrom, K., 2008. Defining uncertainty in
projects: a new perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 7379.
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H., De Meyer, A., 2002. On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management. Manag. Sci. 48, 8,10088,1020.
Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy. Free Press, New York.
Reymen, I.M.M.J., Dewulf, G.P.M.R., Blokpoel, S.B., 2008. Framework for
managing uncertainty in property projects. Build. Res. Inf. 36 (6), 580592.
Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., 2011. A new
governance approach for multi firm projects: lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and
Flamanville 3 nuclear power plants. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 647660.
Samset, K., 2009. Projects, their quality at entry and challenges in the front end
phase. In: Williams, T.M., Samset, K., Sunnevag, K.J. (Eds.), Making
Essential Choices with Scant Information; Front End Decision Making in
Projects. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 1835.
Sanderson, J., 2012. Risk, uncertainty and governance in mega projects. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 30, 432443.
Schlesinger, L.A., Kiefer, C.F., Brown, P.B., 2012. New project: don't analyse
act. Harv. Bus. Rev. 154158 (March).
Smithson, M., 1989. Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Springer
Verlag, New York.
Smithson, M., 2009. The many faces and masks of uncertainty. In: Bammer, G.,
Smithson, M. (Eds.), Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives.
Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 1325.
Sderlund, J., 2011. Pluralism in project management: navigating the cross
roads of specialisation and fragmentation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 13, 153176.
Sderlund, J., Maylor, H., 2012. Project management scholarship: relevance,
impact and five integrative challenges for business and management
schools. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 686696.
Sull, D., 2009. How to thrive in turbulent markets. Harv. Bus. Rev. 7888 (Feb).
Sutcliffe, K.M., Zaheer, A., 1998. Uncertainty in the transaction environment:
an empirical test. Strateg. Manag. J. 19, 123.
Taleb, N.N., 2007. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.
Penguin Books, London, UK.
Thiry, M., 2004. For DAD: a programme management lifecycle process. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 22, 245252.
Thomas, J., Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing PMs to deal with complexity
advanced PM education. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 304315.
Turner, J.R., 2005. The role of pilot studies in reducing risk on projects and
programmes. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 16.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1982. Judgement under uncertainty; heuristics and
biases. In: Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgement Under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, pp. 320.
Van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., Veenswijk, M., 2008. Managing
publicprivate mega projects: paradoxes, complexity and project design.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 591600.
Van Riel, A.C.R., Semeijn, J., Hammedi, W., Henseler, J., 2011. Technology
based service proposal screening and decision making effectiveness.
Manag. Decis. 49, 5,7625,783.
Wagner, S.M., Padhi, S.S., Zanger, I., 2014. A real option based supply chain
project evaluation and scheduling method. 52 (12), 37253743.
Wang, Q.Z., Liu, J., 2006. Project uncertainty, management practice and project
performance: an empirical analysis on customised information systems
development projects. IEEE 2006, 341345.
Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2003. Transforming project risk management into
project uncertainty management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 97105.
Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2008. Stakeholder and uncertainty management in
projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26, 563577.
Wears, R.L., 2012. Rethinking healthcare as a safety-critical industry. Work 41,
45604563.
Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., 2007. Managing the Unexpected. John Wiley and
Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Williams, T., 2009. Decisions made on scant information. In: Williams, T.M.,
Samset, K., Sunnevag, K.J. (Eds.), Making Essential Choices with Scant
Information; Front End Decision making in projects. Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, UK, pp. 317.
Winch, G.M., 2010. Managing Construction Projects: An Information
Processing Approach, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.
Winch, G., 2013. Escalation in major projects: lessons from the Channel fixed
link. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (5), 724734.
Winch, G.M., Maytorena, E., 2011. Managing risk and uncertainty on projects:
a cognitive approach. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., Sderlund, J. (Eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 345364.
Zika-Viktorsson, A., Hovmark, S., Nordqvist, S., 2003. Psychosocial aspects of
project work: a comparison between product development and construction
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 563569.