Exploring the Relationship between Complexity

and Risk in Megaconstruction Projects

Huseyin Erol 1; Irem Dikmen 2; Guzide Atasoy 3; and M. Talat Birgonul 4

Abstract: Although complexity and risk are inherent characteristics of megaconstruction projects, existing project management approaches
fail to incorporate complexity-based thinking into risk management. Complexity is usually considered as the source of risk events, along with
uncertainty. However, prevailing risk management practices are oriented toward only handling the uncertainty. The lack of integration between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the complexity and other risk-related concepts leads to unrealistic project risk assessments and the formulation of imperfect management
strategies. The aim of this research is to explore the relationship between complexity and risk in detail and propose an integrated risk assessment
approach. For this purpose, a mixed-methods research approach was adopted to collect data via semistructured interviews and survey questions.
Data obtained from 11 megaconstruction projects carried out by Turkish contractors were analyzed in two ways. Quantitative findings served to
verify the relationship between complexity and risk in numerical terms, whereas qualitative findings were utilized to develop a framework that
explains the nature of this relationship. The conceptual framework represents the links between complexity and risk in megaconstruction
projects, together with uncertainty and management strategies. The existence of causal relations between these concepts may constitute a
significant challenge during the risk assessment. Therefore, an integrated risk assessment process (IRAP) was proposed so that megaproject
practitioners could develop better risk management plans. The findings of this research were based on megaconstruction projects, but they may
also apply to other types of projects. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001946. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Complexity; Risk; Uncertainty; Megaprojects; Mixed methods; Construction management.

Introduction
Risk management (RM), as one of the 10 knowledge areas in the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide (PMI
2017), is a process that allows risks to be identified, analyzed, and
mitigated to achieve performance objectives. Construction projects,
especially large-scale ones, have a bad reputation for not meeting
preset performance targets. For instance, the average cost overrun
of 30 megatransport projects worth $138.9 billion in 10 developed
countries was found to be 22%, and half of them were delivered at
least 1 year later than planned (Dimitriou et al. 2013). The impor-
tance of RM and analyzing risks for all types of construction proj-
ects, especially megaconstruction projects, have been pointed out by
several researchers (Chapman 2016; Sanchez-Cazorla et al. 2016).
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical
Univ., Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No: 1, Çankaya,
Ankara 06800, Turkey; Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Hacettepe
Univ., Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Beytepe Campus, Çankaya, Ankara 06800,
Turkey. Email: erolhuseyin@hacettepe.edu.tr
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical Univ.,
Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No: 1, Çankaya, Ankara
06800, Turkey (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-6988-7557. Email: idikmen@metu.edu.tr
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical
Univ., Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No: 1, Çankaya,
Ankara 06800, Turkey. Email: guzide@metu.edu.tr
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical Univ.,
Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No: 1, Çankaya, Ankara
06800, Turkey. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1638-2926. Email:
birgonul@metu.edu.tr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 1, 2020; approved on
July 10, 2020; published online on September 29, 2020. Discussion period
open until February 28, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
Risk analysis involves examining how project outcomes and objec-
tives might change due to the impact of risks (PMI 2017). A variety
of risk analysis methods, including failure modes and effects analy-
ses, hazard and operability studies, structured what-if techniques,
fault tree analyses, event tree analyses, Bayesian networks, and
Monte Carlo simulations, can be used by practitioners to assess risks
in projects (Aven 2015). Researchers have also developed sophisti-
cated risk analysis approaches, such as the analytic hierarchy process
(Garbuzova-Schlifter and Madlener 2016), analytical network pro-
cess (Boateng et al. 2015), artificial neural networks (Patel and Jha
2015), genetic algorithms (Pfeifer et al. 2015), fuzzy logic (Islam
et al. 2017), network theory (Chen et al. 2020), and system dynamics
(De Marco et al. 2016), that have the potential to improve risk analy-
sis efforts and project performance. Moreover, various frameworks
have been introduced for risk identification, analysis, and response
planning (del Caño and de la Cruz 2002). Guidelines like RAMP
(ICE 2014), PRAM (APM 2010), and PMBOK (PMI 2017) and
standards, such as ISO 31000 (ISO 2018) and HB 436 (SA/SNZ
2013), provide structured approaches for RM.
Even though RM is a widely discussed topic in the literature and
several knowledge artifacts exist about how to manage risks in proj-
ects, the construction industry does not have a good reputation in
terms of the RM practices (Taroun 2014). Some researchers re-
ported that RM is usually perceived as a tick-the-box exercise rather
than a value creation process (de Carvalho and Rabechini 2015;
Willumsen et al. 2019). The deficiency in the RM practices could
be explained by reasons such as difficulty in the interpretation of
risk analysis results, lack of management support, lack of organi-
zational policies and procedures, and lack of technical knowledge
to conduct risk analyses (Senesi et al. 2015). In addition to these
reasons, several researchers argue that a disintegrated approach for
RM may be one of the bottlenecks in practice (Haimes 2018;
Kardes et al. 2013). Thomé et al. (2016) particularly argue that
treating complexity and risk from distinct perspectives may result

© ASCE 04020138-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138

 in poor RM applications. Poor conceptualization of risk-related fac-
tors (e.g., project complexity and uncertainty) may result in inad-
equate risk models and RM plans and, consequently, decrease
belief in RM as a value-adding process (Dikmen et al. 2018). The
aforementioned analysis techniques, guidelines, and standards have
made vital contributions to the body of knowledge by shedding light
on how to handle uncertainty. However, although project complexity
is mentioned as an issue to consider in RM, these approaches usually
fail to explain how complexity factors can be incorporated into risk
models and management plans. Despite the existence of studies that
offer insights into the link between risk and complexity (Afzal et al.
2019; Jensen and Aven 2018; Thomé et al. 2016), existing knowl-
edge sources in construction project management literature fall short
of explaining the role of project complexity in RM.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The disconnection between complexity and RM may be caused
by vagueness about the causality relations between these factors.
The intricate patterns between complexity and risk can be unfolded
through research efforts beyond simplistic explanations based on
cause-effect relationships. This is particularly important for mega-
projects, which are not only exposed to more and greater risks but
also known to be complex initiatives mainly due to their size, tech-
nological novelty, and the high number of stakeholders involved
(Boateng et al. 2015; Hu et al. 2015b). The success of a megapro-
ject depends considerably on how well complexity and risk are ad-
dressed during decision-making (Dimitriou et al. 2013; Kardes
et al. 2013; Pitsis et al. 2018). Exploring how complexity can
be incorporated into RM is critical for formulating appropriate
management strategies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to unveil
the relationship between complexity and risk-related factors in
megaconstruction projects so that an integrated approach can be
proposed to manage them. In this respect, the following research
questions (RQ) are raised:
• RQ1: What kind of relationship exists between complexity and
risk factors in megaconstruction projects?
• RQ2: What are the implications of this relationship for RM?
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt in
the construction management literature that aims to conceptualize
causality between complexity and risk in megaprojects, which may
shed light on how RM models and practices can be improved in these
projects. For this purpose, a mixed-methods approach was utilized to
analyze quantitative and qualitative data gathered through interviews
with 18 participants from 11 megaconstruction projects. The remain-
der of this paper is organized as follows. First, the existing literature
about related concepts is reviewed. Then, the procedure of the re-
search methodology is explained. Next, the results are discussed.
After summarizing the research findings, the contributions, limita-
tions, and recommendations for future studies are presented.
Literature Review
Complexity
Complexity is a popular research topic among project manage-
ment scholars who have been trying to conceptualize, quantify,
and propose strategies to manage it since the 1990s (Geraldi
2009). From the systems perspective, the term complexity refers
to difficulty in understanding, describing, or controlling both the
system itself, as well as its dynamic behavior (Kiridena and Sense
2016). Understanding the individual components of complex sys-
tems is usually not enough to predict the overall behavior. In a
similar vein, Vidal and Marle (2008, p. 1101) defined project
complexity as “the property of a project, which makes it difficult
to understand, foresee, and keep under control its overall
© ASCE 04020138-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
behavior, even when given reasonably complete information
about the project system.”
In terms of conceptualization of complexity, the study by
Baccarini (1996) was among the first attempts in the project man-
agement domain. According to Baccarini (1996), complexity is
composed of organizational and technical dimensions. Organiza-
tional complexity refers to the abundance of organizational units
and their interactions, whereas technical complexity is related to
the number of diversified project tasks and their interdependencies
(Baccarini 1996). Williams (1999) united organizational and techni-
cal dimensions together as the structural complexity and added the
uncertainty in goals and methods as a new complexity dimension.
Later, Geraldi et al. (2011) extended the framework of Williams
(1999) by adding the dynamic, pace, and sociopolitical complexity
dimensions. Dynamic complexity pertains to a change in project
elements, such as specifications, goals, project actors, and environ-
mental components. Pace complexity refers to time pressure inflicted
by urgency and criticality of the schedule goals. Sociopolitical com-
plexity, on the other hand, is the combination of both the political
aspects related to the importance of the project and emotional aspects
related to the behavior of the stakeholders (Geraldi et al. 2011). More
recently, Maylor and Turner (2017) updated the previous frameworks
by not only incorporating the pace complexity into the structural
complexity but also synthesizing the uncertainty and dynamic com-
plexity as emergent complexity.
Relationships between Risk, Uncertainty, and
Complexity
According to the PMBOK Guide (PMI 2017, p. 720), risk is “an
uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or neg-
ative effect on one or more project objectives.” Accordingly, uncer-
tainty is related to both the occurrence of a risk event and the effect
of this event on the objectives in case it is realized. There are two
types of uncertainties that can trigger risk events. While aleatory
uncertainty represents stochastic variations in the future state of
a parameter, epistemic uncertainty refers to vagueness caused by
imperfect information or lack of knowledge (Aven 2016). On the
other hand, project complexity is also considered as the source of
risk events by various researchers (Qazi et al. 2016). Conceptual
similarities of complexity and uncertainty in terms of their relation-
ships with risk cause the intermingling of these terms (Padalkar and
Gopinath 2016). Project management literature has two distinct re-
search streams to explain their causality. According to the first per-
spective, uncertainty is a driver of project complexity (Geraldi et al.
2011; Williams 1999). It may cause more interactions and dynam-
ics that increase the overall complexity level of the project. In con-
trast to the first perspective, researchers of the second stream
advocate that uncertainty is the consequence of project complexity
(Floricel et al. 2016; Vidal and Marle 2008). Complexity may make
the project system more unpredictable and increase uncertainty.
Both perspectives have merit, and the complexity-uncertainty rela-
tionship can be modeled in a reliable way (which is one of the aims
of RM) if these conceptualizations are used consistently. However,
existing RM approaches lack a structured synthesis of these con-
cepts (Thomé et al. 2016).
Megaprojects
Fiori and Kovaka (2005) defined a construction megaproject as “a
construction project, or aggregate of such projects, characterized by
magnified cost, extreme complexity, increased risk, lofty ideals, and
high visibility, in a combination that represents a significant chal-
lenge to the stakeholders, a significant impact to the community,
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 and pushes the limits of construction experience.” As the definition
implies, size is one of the defining characteristics of megaprojects.
Although $1 billion is widely accepted as a limit for size (Flyvbjerg
2014), there are a variety of opinions in terms of cost thresholds for
megaprojects. For example, Brookes and Locatelli (2015) reported
that $100 million could also be considered as a megasize, depending
on the project context. From a different perspective, Hu et al. (2015b)
proposed to consider the ratio between project size and the gross
domestic product (GDP) of the country. Nonetheless, the cost/budget
cannot be the only feature to label a project as mega. Megaprojects
are also characterized by the expenditure of a vast amount of human,
financial, material, and technological resources over a long period of
time (Biesenthal et al. 2018; Capka 2004). According to Pollack et al.
(2018), the real mark of a megaproject is the existence of features
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
like complexity, ambiguity, ambition, politics, and risk. The public
and political attraction is a feature that is valid for most of the meg-
aprojects. Chapman (2016) attributes this not only to the size of
megaprojects but also their impacts on the environment, ecology,
economy, community, and property owners. Political interventions
may affect megaprojects considerably by reshaping their context
(Dimitriou et al. 2013). The number of direct and indirect stake-
holders is another characteristic of megaprojects. There are many
interactions and interdependencies between the owner, contractor,
government, financial institutions, subcontractors, consultants,
suppliers, public, and any other hidden stakeholders, which re-
sults in managerial complexity in megaprojects. Besides, possible
changes in the needs of stakeholders during the extended life cycle
of megaprojects may result in additional resource requirements
(Jergeas and Ruwanpura 2010).
Consequently, complexity and risk can be considered as inher-
ent parts of megaprojects. Ahn et al. (2017) examined the role of
interface management practices in reducing the complexity of
large-scale projects. In terms of complexity assessment, Rad et al.
(2017) introduced a method to measure the internal and external
complexity of megaprojects in the energy sector using a taxonomy
of 51 indicators. On the other hand, several studies have focused
on risks specific to megaprojects. For example, Boateng et al.
(2015) developed an index to prioritize the social, technical, eco-
nomic, environmental, and political risks in megaprojects. Recently,
Owolabi et al. (2020) built a framework to evaluate critical factors
affecting completion risk in megaprojects funded by the private
sector.
It is evident that previous studies about megaprojects have
handled several aspects related to risk and complexity. However,
the management of risk and complexity in megaprojects has not
been synthesized. Treating complexity and risk as independent con-
cepts can hardly explain the events that emerge from their multi-
level interactions. The literature lacks studies devoted to exploring
the dynamics of the relationship between complexity and risk.
Although some studies offer valuable advice on managing risk and
complexity in megaprojects (Dimitriou et al. 2013; Giezen 2012;
Kardes et al. 2013), how complexity shall be positioned within the
RM process requires more research efforts. This study attempts to
fill this research gap by untangling the nature of complexity and
risk relationship in megaconstruction projects, based on empirical
evidence.
Research Methodology
The research methodology adopted in this study is the mixed-
methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative ap-
proaches (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). A convergent design
was used within the context of this approach in which quantitative
© ASCE 04020138-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
and qualitative data were collected concurrently and analyzed sep-
arately, and the results were merged (Creswell and Plano Clark
2017). The rationale for integrating the quantitative and qualitative
data is to ensure integrity because qualitative evidence can support
survey data to explain unidentifiable relationships (Bryman 2006).
Several studies within the project management literature employed
mixed-methods research for topics related to complexity, risk, or
megaprojects (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. 2018; Hu et al. 2015a; Keers
and van Fenema 2018).
In this study, a hybrid approach was utilized to collect data by
interviewing 18 participants from 11 megaprojects. Collected data
were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively to have far-
reaching results. While the quantitative data analysis helped to ex-
plain the relationship between complexity and risk in numerical
terms, the qualitative data analysis served to develop a conceptual
framework to represent their interactions. Quantitative and qualita-
tive parts were integrated by relating their findings, and a new
assessment process was proposed for risk-related factors in mega-
construction projects. Fig. 1 depicts the procedure diagram of the
research design. The following sections explain the data collection,
data analysis, and strategies for validity in further detail.
Data Collection
Identification of Risk and Complexity Factors
The first step of the research was the identification of risk and com-
plexity factors to be used in the interviews. Because there is no
universally accepted taxonomy for risk and complexity, frame-
works developed by various scholars were reviewed to prepare
an initial list of risk and complexity factors. A structured classifi-
cation may help to understand the character and source of risks
better and reduce equivocality (Siraj and Fayek 2019). Thus, RM
literature was reviewed to produce a structured classification of risk
factors (Al-Bahar and Crandall 1990; Boateng et al. 2015; Dikmen
et al. 2007; Fang et al. 2004; Han and Diekmann 2001; Hastak and
Shaked 2000; Jung and Han 2017; Liu et al. 2016; Sanchez-Cazorla
et al. 2016; Tavakolan and Etemadinia 2017). As a result, eight
classes representing risk factors in megaconstruction projects were
identified. Country-related political and economic risks (R1) and
financial risks (R2) are the external risks that megaconstruction
projects are subject to because of their political and economic sen-
sitivity and strategic importance. Contractual risks (R3), owner-
related risks (R4), procurement risks (R5), and project management
and organization risks (R6) are usually related to project gover-
nance issues of megaconstruction projects. Finally, construction-
related/technological risks (R7) and design risks (R8) mostly stem
from the technical novelty of megaconstruction projects. There are
also various frameworks in the literature about the identification of
complexity factors (Bakhshi et al. 2016; Bosch-Rekveldt et al. 2011;
Dao et al. 2017). Among these studies, the technical-organizational-
environmental (TOE) framework developed by Bosch-Rekveldt
et al. (2011) for large engineering projects was accepted as the refer-
ence framework for this research, as it was utilized in similar studies
(Floricel et al. 2016; Peñaloza et al. 2020; Qazi et al. 2016). The
TOE framework has 50 complexity-adding factors in technical,
organizational, and environmental domains.
Whether risk and complexity factors taken from the literature
represent the actual practices and comply with the experiences
of practitioners were tested by conducting brainstorming sessions
with experts, and factors were categorized according to their com-
ments. The first expert has 13 years of experience as a risk manager
and is responsible for the preparation of RM plans for industrial
projects. The second expert has been a lead planning engineer
for more than 9 years and is responsible for the integration of
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Procedure: Product: Procedure: Product:
• Interviews with 18 participants Quantitative • Complexity factor scores • Interviews with 18 participants Qualitative • Interview transcripts
from 11 megaprojects Data Collection • Pre-project & post-project from 11 megaprojects Data Collection
• Closed-ended questions risk factor scores • Open-ended questions

Procedure: Product: Procedure: Product:

• Numerical analyses for
complexity, risk, and their
relationships
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Quantitative • Comparative project • Thematic analysis with the Qualitative • Conceptual framework for
Data Analysis complexity scores coding of interview transcripts Data Analysis the relationship between
• Comparative rate of change in complexity and risk
scores of project risk factors
• Contribution percentage of
the complexity on the
unpredictability of risk

Procedure: Merge and Product:

• Relating quantitative • Integrated Risk Assessment
and qualitative findings
Interpret Process (IRAP)
the Results

Fig. 1. Procedure diagram of research design.

project schedules with RM plans. The authors have explained the of the projects and lived experience of the practitioners. Sanchez-
aim of the study and presented the initial list of factors so that Cazorla et al. (2016) argue that empirical studies that can be con-
the participants can discuss their project experiences concerning ducted through surveys and in-depth interviews are still short in
the proposed risk and complexity factors. As a result of this session, supply in megaproject research. From this point of view, managers
which took around 2 h, risk and complexity factors valid for mega- of megaconstruction projects carried out by Turkish construction
construction projects were settled and categorized. Particularly, as companies during the last 20 years constituted the target population
incorporating all of the 50 complexity factors that TOE contains of this study. First of all, megaprojects suitable for this research
into the interviews would not be a practical approach, the number were investigated via public documents, press releases, company
of factors was reduced by a categorization of these factors accord- reports, and internet sources. Fifty megaprojects were identified
ing to comments of experts. Finally, 17 complexity factors listed in as candidate projects. Then, 32 companies involved in these proj-
Table 1 were determined. Seven factors (C1, C4, C6, C10, C11, ects were contacted via e-mail. Finally, protocols were signed with
C12, and C14) are related to organizational issues, whereas six fac- eight companies involved in 11 megaconstruction projects. The
tors (C7, C8, C9, C13, C16, and C17) represent technical dimen- projects examined in the research are listed in Table 2.
sion. The remaining four factors (C2, C3, C5, and C15) reflect Because the name of the projects cannot be disclosed in this
environmental issues. paper due to confidentiality agreements, they are represented by
their ID numbers (e.g., P1 or P2). The ID numbers were assigned
Sampling Procedure according to the date of the interview. The main criterion for the
In their seminal work, Cicmil et al. (2006) call for a shift from the selection of megaprojects was the size. The cost threshold of the
traditional instrumental approach to praxis-based theory through projects was greater than 0.02% of the GDP, which was suggested
actuality research, which takes into account the empirical reality by Hu et al. (2015b) for countries in Europe. Among the projects in
the data set, the minimum cost figure was $275 million, which con-
forms to the selected threshold value. The cumulative cost of the
Table 1. Complexity factors in megaconstruction projects projects is more than $17 billion. Types of projects include transport
Complexity infrastructure, pipeline, power plant, hospital, and airport. While six
ID Complexity factor category projects were undertaken by joint-ventures or consortiums, the re-
C1 Size of the project Organizational
maining projects did not have any partnership agreements. Three
C2 Strategic importance of the project Environmental
C3 Political or macroeconomic instability Environmental
C4 Variety of financial institutions or sponsors Organizational Table 2. Megaconstruction projects examined in the research
C5 Interactions between the stakeholders Environmental
Project Project cost Start
C6 Inadequacy of the contract Organizational
ID $ billion Project type year Status
C7 Lack of technical experience Technical
C8 Changes in the project scope Technical P1 0.782 Power plant 2016 In progress
C9 Unrealistic project targets Technical P2 1.200 Transport infrastructure 2008 Completed
C10 Unavailability of resources Organizational P3 0.600 Hospital 2015 Completed
(labor, material, and equipment) P4 0.300 Hospital 2013 In progress
C11 Interactions between the project disciplines Organizational P5 0.413 Pipeline 2016 Completed
C12 Cultural diversity Organizational P6 0.290 Hospital 2014 In progress
C13 Multiple critical paths (parallel activities) Technical P7 0.275 Airport 2014 Completed
C14 Staff and equipment mobility Organizational P8 1.788 Pipeline 2002 Completed
C15 Physical and logistic constraints Environmental P9 3.600 Transport infrastructure 2004 Completed
C16 Technological novelty of the project Technical P10 7.500 Transport infrastructure 2013 Completed
C17 Originality of the project design Technical P11 0.632 Power plant 2014 Completed

© ASCE 04020138-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138

 Table 3. Expert profile The interviews were composed of six parts. In the first part, par-
Item Category Frequency ticipants were asked about their education, experience, and role in
the project. Then, the second part included the questions related to
Gender Male 15
preliminary information about the project, such as duration, budget,
Female 3
Education background B.Sc. 4
and scope. The third part contained questions related to preproject
M.Sc. 13 risk assessment. Interviewees explained the RM process they uti-
Ph.D. 1 lized in their projects. Then, they were requested to evaluate the
Years of experience 6–15 years 7 eight risk factors by considering the assumptions and decisions
16–25 years 7 made at the beginning of the project. In other words, participants
26–35 years 4 were expected to talk about their risk assessments at the beginning
Megaproject experience Medium 3 of the project (expectations rather than what actually happened).
High 9 The expected impact of each risk factor was measured on a five-
Very high 6 point Likert scale ranging from very low to very high. In the next
part, open-ended questions were asked about the complexity of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

project. The experts were also asked to evaluate the magnitude of

of them were public-private partnership (PPP) projects, and other
projects had a variety of project delivery systems and payment meth-
ods. Most of the projects were completed recently, while three of
them are still in progress with a more than 50% completion rate.
Apart from two international power plant projects constructed in
Bahrain and Iraq, all projects were located in different parts of
Turkey. The average value for the peak number of workers is more
than 4,200, which also reflects the size of the projects. Despite the
existence of some successful cases, projects in the data set show a
similar tendency with international megaprojects in terms of the per-
formance problems (Boateng et al. 2015; Dimitriou et al. 2013;
Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; Huo et al. 2018). The average cost overrun
is more than 20%, and the average delay is around 14 months.
For the participant selection, two main criteria were employed.
First, all interviewees should have had sufficient expertise in mega-
project management. Second, they should have been involved in
the project from the beginning so that they had enough knowledge
about initial assumptions and plans, as well as problems actually ex-
perienced, in the project. As a result, 18 managers participated in this
study, as depicted in Table 3. All of the interviewees hold senior-level
management positions, such as general coordinator or project direc-
tor. They had an average of 20.5 years of experience in the construc-
tion industry. During the interviews, they were requested to evaluate
their own megaproject experience. Most of them selected their ex-
perience level as high or very high, as demonstrated in Table 3.
Interview Procedure
Interviews were composed of open-ended and closed-ended ques-
tions aggregated through semistructured interviews and survey
questions. The advantage of using semistructured interviews to
collect qualitative data is that they provided flexibility for partic-
ipants to explain the risk and complexity factors encountered in the
projects in the way they prefer. While structured interviews may
narrow the responses of the interviewees, unstructured interviews
may result in useless data in the case of a shift from the main topic
(Green et al. 2010). Survey questions, on the other hand, supplied
numeric data to quantify the complexity and risk in projects. Inter-
views were conducted from November 2018 to August 2019,
within a period of 9 months. The protocol that includes the ques-
tions, research objectives, and confidentiality statement were sent
to participants before the interviews. Because projects to be dis-
cussed during the interviews were determined in advance, some
information was collected by the research team using internet sour-
ces before the meetings. The interviews were held face-to-face in
the offices of the participants, and some of them included construc-
tion site visits, as well. The duration of the interviews varied be-
tween 1 and 4 h. All interviews were audio-recorded with the
permission of the participants.
the 17 complexity factors given in Table 1 using a five-point Likert
scale. Before the evaluations, participants were informed that the
project complexity definition of Vidal and Marle (2008) was used
in the research and requested to consider this definition while
evaluating complexity factors in their projects. In the fifth part,
participants were asked to compare the relative importance of
the complexity factors in terms of their contribution to overall
project complexity again using a five-point Likert scale. The next
part was related to postproject risk assessment. This time, partic-
ipants scored the impact of risk factors at the end of the project by
considering risk events that actually happened during the project.
They were also requested to comment on risk events and give spe-
cific examples.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Analysis
A quantitative data analysis was conducted to calculate the individ-
ual complexity score of each factor, overall complexity score of the
projects, rate of change in scores of risk factors before and after the
project, and, consequently, the contribution of each complexity fac-
tor to the level of unpredictability. For this purpose, survey data
acquired from the interviews were compiled into one database. First
of all, scores assigned by the participants in the fourth and fifth
parts of the interviews were utilized to assess complexity. Accord-
ingly, the score of each complexity factor in a project was estimated
by multiplying the magnitude and normalized relative importance
scores, according to Eq. (1)
I
Cik ¼ M ik × Pn ik ð1Þ
i¼1 I ik
where Cik = complexity score of factor i at project k; M ik = mag-
nitude of complexity factor i at project k; I ik = relative importance
of complexity factor i at project k; and n = number of complexity
factors (n ¼ 17 for this study).
Next, the overall complexity score of a project was calculated by
summing up the individual complexity scores of the factors as in
Eq. (2)
X
n
Ck ¼ Cik ð2Þ
i¼1
where Ck = complexity score of project k.
For the rate of change in scores of risk factors, the percentage
difference of preproject and postproject risk scores assigned in the
third and sixth parts of the interviews were calculated with Eq. (3)

© ASCE 04020138-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138

 Rjk2 − Rjk1
ΔRjk ¼ × 100 ð3Þ
Rjk1
where ΔRjk = rate of change in the score of risk factor j at project
k; Rjk2 = postproject score of risk factor j at project k; and Rjk1 =
preproject score of risk factor j at project k.
Finally, to quantify the relationship between complexity and
risk, the potential contribution of a complexity factor to the unpre-
dictability of a risk factor was measured. For this purpose, a
weighted score was calculated by multiplying the score of the com-
plexity factor and rate of change of the risk factor and then sum-
ming the results for all projects. When this number was divided by
the summation of weighted scores for all complexity factors, the
contribution percentage can be calculated, as shown in Eq. (4)
Pm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
C ΔRjk
CRij ¼ Pn k¼1 Pm ik × 100 ð4Þ
i¼1 k¼1 Cik ΔRjk
where CRij = contribution of complexity factor i to the unpredict-
ability of risk factor j; and m = number of projects (m ¼ 11 for
this study).
Qualitative Data Analysis
The qualitative data analysis was performed based on the grounded
theory approach (Corbin and Strauss 1990) to build a data-driven
framework, which is capable of explaining the interactions between
complexity and risk. For this purpose, the audio-recorded inter-
views were transcribed verbatim as the first step. Although the in-
terviews and transcriptions were in Turkish, quotations used in this
paper were translated into English by the authors. Then, text data
was coded to categorize the project events, identify commonalities
between the projects, and highlight the essential quotations. The
coding process enables one to turn qualitative data into a well-
organized and manageable information source to draw a conclusion
(Yim et al. 2015). As a result, following the thematic analysis ap-
proach of Braun and Clarke (2006), the themes explaining the re-
lationship between complexity and risk were identified through the
coding process, and they were mapped to build a conceptual frame-
work. Conceptual frameworks are not only used for theory building
but also for their explanatory power (Meredith 1993). According to
Rocco and Plakhotnik (2009, p. 122), “the goal of a conceptual
framework is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to the
study and map relationships among them.” Hence, the inclusion
of a conceptual framework to a qualitative analysis suits the pur-
pose of explaining the complexity and risk relationship.
Integration Procedure
In a convergent design, integration refers to merging the quantita-
tive and qualitative analyses by relating their findings. The intent
of integration is developing interpretations to obtain a more com-
prehensive understanding than that provided by either type of data
separately (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017). In this research, quan-
titative results served to verify the existence of complexity and risk
relationship in numerical terms. Qualitative results, on the other
hand, helped to explain the nature of their relationship. The inte-
gration procedure in the next step provided insights into the impli-
cations of this relationship for RM. As a result, by integrating the
findings of quantitative and qualitative data analyses, a new assess-
ment process incorporating all risk-related factors was proposed for
megaconstruction projects.
Strategies for Validity
The mixed-methods research may include some validity threats
(e.g., types of questions and sampling procedure) that need to
© ASCE 04020138-6
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
be addressed (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017). For the threats re-
lated to types of questions, parallel data collection questions were
asked in the interviews so that the same concepts could be ad-
dressed in the quantitative and qualitative parts. In order to improve
the reliability of quantitative results, participants were requested to
explain their rationale (e.g., assumptions and forecasts) while an-
swering the Likert scale questions in the survey. Moreover, as pre-
liminary themes in the interview protocol may lead to biased
outcomes in the qualitative analysis, the participants were encour-
aged to talk about other complexity and risk factors they encoun-
tered in their projects. The format of the interview protocol and
scales used in the questions were validated in a separate session
with the same experts who participated in the brainstorming session
for the identification of risk and complexity factors.
Quantitative and qualitative data of the research were supplied
by the same participants to ensure consistency in sampling. The
equal sample size approach might limit the statistical power of
the quantitative analysis. However, because making a statistical in-
ference was not an objective of this study, the number of samples
was the same for both analyses. For the qualitative analysis, the
number of participants was within the range of 15–20 participants
suggested by Collins (2010) for similar studies. More importantly,
the gradual decrease in the number of new themes added in the
interviews indicated that the sample size is enough to reach the
theoretical saturation point (Eisenhardt 1989).
The interviews were conducted by the same two researchers in
the same order of questions. One researcher was responsible for
asking the questions while the other took notes. After each inter-
view, the researchers recorded their initial thoughts by writing short
field memos, which helped to categorize the information in the the-
matic analysis. Before the data analysis, interview transcriptions
were sent to the participants for their confirmation. In addition
to the interviews, secondary data acquired from the participants
(e.g., presentations, project documents, and risk reports) were ex-
amined to triangulate the data sources. Moreover, the triangulation
of quantitative and qualitative data analyses through convergent de-
sign provided a methodological advantage to improve the internal
validity of the research. The results of the data analyses are pre-
sented in the next section.
Results and Discussions
Complexity Scores
Every megaconstruction project examined in this research was ex-
posed to different levels of complexity. Individual scores of the
complexity factors were calculated using Eq. (1). Besides, the total
complexity score of each project was obtained by summing up the
scores of the complexity factors according to Eq. (2). Fig. 2 depicts
the results of the complexity analysis, which enables the intrapro-
ject and interproject comparison of the factors. Project complexity
scores are given at the bottom part, whereas the right-most part
shows the average complexity levels of the factors considering
all projects.
According to the average values, the top five complexity factors
in the investigated projects were determined as interactions be-
tween the project disciplines (C11), size of the project (C1), inter-
actions between the stakeholders (C5), strategic importance of the
project (C2), and multiple critical paths (parallel activities) (C13).
This list represents all three complexity categories: C11 and C1
are organizational factors, C5 and C2 are environmental factors,
and C13 is a technical factor. They were among the top five factors
in at least six projects, which constitutes more than half of the cases.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
C = 3.76 C = 3.11 C = 3.14 C = 3.79 C = 2.80
Fig. 2. Comparison of the project complexity factors.
C11 and C5 are the complexity factors related to dynamic interac-
tions of the project elements. Interactions are deemed to be one of
the most important contributors to project complexity, which was
also previously highlighted by several researchers (Eybpoosh et al.
2011; Luo et al. 2017). Some complexity factors reflect the typical
challenges associated with megaprojects. As the size and strategic
importance are significant factors that increase the complexity of
megaconstruction projects (Jia et al. 2011), C1 and C2 were ranked
among the top factors. Because the concurrent execution of activities
due to time pressure (which may also be related to the political value
or strategic importance of the projects) also exacerbates the complex-
ity of megaprojects (Capka 2004), C13 was listed amongst the top
five complexity factors.
In addition to the top five list, two factors worth mentioning are
changes in the project scope (C8) and political or macroeconomic
instability (C3). C8 was the leading complexity factor in four proj-
ects, although it did not exist in the top five list in any other project.
This situation demonstrates that scope changes could be a signifi-
cant complexity source depending on the project context. During
the interviews, it was observed that scope creep brings additional
complexities, especially when the project design was prepared by
the owner, and the communication mechanisms between the con-
tract parties did not work well. C3 is another context-dependent
factor ranked among the top five factors in five projects, while it
was the top factor in three projects. Most of the projects were sub-
ject to country-related problems in Turkey, such as the coup at-
tempt, currency crisis, or terrorist attacks. Some of the projects
were more vulnerable because of their location, financial arrange-
ments, and contract conditions. For these projects, C3 was found as
the most significant complexity factor.
Preproject and Postproject Risk Assessment Scores
Preproject and postproject risk assessment scores are plotted in
Fig. 3. The results show different behaviors in terms of the change
in the risk impact scores. While risk impacts increased in some
projects (P2, P3, P10, and P11), a declining trend was observed
in others (P5 and P8). There were also projects with almost un-
changed risk ratings (P7 and P9) and bilateral changes regarding
specific risk factors (P1, P4, and P6).
The chart at the bottom-right corner of Fig. 3 shows average risk
levels for all projects along with the rate of change in the scores of
each risk factor calculated by Eq. (3). Postproject scores of all risk
factors showed a general tendency to increase, except for R7.
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 Pall
C = 4.14 C = 3.64 C = 4.34 C = 3.64 C = 3.73 C = 3.74 C = 3.61
Particularly, the rate of change for R1 and R4 was higher than other
factors, which demonstrates that predicting their impacts is more
challenging for the project managers. Besides, these factors did
not have a smaller postproject assessment score in any of the proj-
ects. Although the average rate of change is positive for R2, R3, and
R5, they had a lower postproject score in some of the projects. In
terms of predictability, R6 and R7 were found as the most stable
risk factors because their ratings changed only in four projects. R7
was the only factor whose average rate of change was negative,
which implies that the impact of technical risks might be overesti-
mated at the beginning of the projects. Surprisingly, only three proj-
ects had the same preproject and postproject scores for R8, even
though the average rate of change is not high for this risk factor.
This result indicates that the impacts of design risk may be higher
or lower than expected, depending on the project context.
Quantification of Complexity and Risk Relationship
The results given in previous sections handled complexity and risk
factors separately. In this section, findings will be discussed con-
sidering their interrelations. When the results of Figs. 2 and 3 are
interpreted together, it can be deduced that projects may show dif-
ferent behaviors in terms of the predictability of risk regardless of
their overall complexity. Therefore, the individual impact of com-
plexity factors on each risk factor should be examined to explain
the complexity and risk relationship more profoundly.
For this purpose, at the first step, projects were grouped based on
the change in their preproject and postproject assessment scores,
considering each risk factor. Then, the contribution of each complex-
ity factor to the unpredictability of risk factors was estimated using
Eq. (4). In order to simplify the overall picture, the average contri-
bution percentages of the complexity factors were calculated for
technical, organizational, and environmental dimensions. Table 4
gives the contribution percentage of each complexity category in the
project groups. Accordingly, environmental complexity has the high-
est proportion within the project groups, where R1 and R2 have
changed. These findings offer useful insights into the potential im-
pact of environmental complexity on the unpredictability of the
external risk factors, such as political, economic, and financial. In-
creases in postproject assessment scores of R3, R4, and R5 were
mainly associated with technical complexity. Although some schol-
ars underestimate technical complexity by putting more emphasis on
organizational factors (Qureshi and Kang 2015; Vidal and Marle
2008), results obtained in this study show that the impact of technical
04020138-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 R1 R1 R1 R1
5 5 5 5
R8 4 R2 R8 4 R2 R8 4 R2 R8 4 R2
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3

R6 R4 R6 R4 R6 R4 R6 R4

R5 R5 R5 R5
P1 (Before) P1 (After) P2 (Before) P2 (After) P3 (Before) P3 (After) P4 (Before) P4 (After)

R1 R1 R1 R1
5 5 5 5
R8 4 R2 R8 4 R2 R8 4 R2 R8 4 R2
3 3 3 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3

R6 R4 R6 R4 R6 R4 R6 R4

R5 R5 R5 R5
P5 (Before) P5 (After) P6 (Before) P6 (After) P7 (Before) P7 (After) P8 (Before) P8 (After)

R1 R1 R1
5 5 5 R1
4 4 4 (+44.64%)
R8 R2 R8 R2 R8 R2 5
3 3 3 R8 4 R2
2 2 2 (+7.94%) 3 (+24.00%)
2
1 1 1 1
R7 R3
R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3 R7 0 R3 0
(-12.70%) (+15.87%)

R6 R4
(+7.84%) (+34.43%)
R6 R4 R6 R4 R6 R4
R5
(+12.28%)
R5 R5 R5
P9 (Before) P9 (After) P10 (Before) P10 (After) P11 (Before) P11 (After) Pall (Before) Pall (After)

Fig. 3. Preproject and postproject risk assessments.

factors can be significant for megaconstruction projects. Never-
theless, organizational complexity, too, played an important role in
the unpredictability of some risk factors. Not surprisingly, it has the
highest contribution percentage for R6. This finding implies that it
could be more challenging to predict the impacts of the managerial
and organizational risks when there is high organizational complex-
ity. R7 was the only factor whose average rate of change is negative.
Hence, the results in Table 4 should be interpreted such that mini-
mizing technical and organizational complexity could facilitate the
prediction of the construction risk. Finally, change in R8 was mainly
attributed to high technical complexity. The role of organizational
complexity should not be overlooked because factors like project
size and interactions between project disciplines can also affect the
prediction of design risks significantly.
To sum up, Table 4 demonstrates that specific complexity cat-
egories are more important for the estimation of some risks and
decrease their predictability. The main implication of the quantita-
tive findings is that the high level of complexity makes it more

Table 4. Complexity categories and predictability of risk factors

Project groups Contribution of complexity category (%)
Grouping Projects with increased Projects with decreased Technical Organizational Environmental
factor impact score impact score complexity complexity complexity
R1 P1-P2-P3-P4-P10-P11 N/A 27.65 33.73 38.62
R2 P1-P3-P4-P10-P11 P5 31.70 32.37 35.93
R3 P2-P3-P6-P7-P9-P10-P11 P1-P5 38.09 29.71 32.20
R4 P2-P3-P4-P6-P11 N/A 36.86 28.20 34.94
R5 P2-P3-P4-P11 P6 36.22 32.37 31.41
R6 P1-P2-P10 P4 26.37 41.09 32.54
R7 P10 P1-P4-P8 29.43 29.47 41.10
R8 P2-P3-P6-P10 P1-P4-P5-P8 40.73 35.45 23.82
Note: Bold denotes the complexity factor that contributed most to the unpredictability.

© ASCE 04020138-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138

 difficult to predict the impact of risks on the project. Based on data
of 11 megaconstruction projects, it is seen that complexity and risk
are interrelated.
Conceptual Framework
The numerical analysis employed in this research reflects two snap-
shots taken at the start and completion of projects. Based on this
analysis, it was revealed that complexity could be a factor affecting
the project risks. However, conceptualizing the relationship be-
tween complexity and risk through linear cause-effect frameworks
could be an oversimplified approach. During the interviews, par-
ticipants mentioned several cases that show the recurrent interplay
between complexity and risk factors. Because nonlinear dynamic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
relationships can hardly be unveiled with the results of quantitative
analysis, the qualitative data obtained from the interview transcripts
were analyzed to build a data-driven conceptual framework capable
of explaining the interactions between complexity and risk in meg-
aconstruction projects. Consequently, following the thematic analy-
sis approach explained in the qualitative data analysis section,
the conceptual framework represented in Fig. 4 was developed.
Even though this research principally aims to conceptualize the re-
lationship between complexity and risk, the framework contains the
concepts of uncertainty and management strategies, as well. As dis-
cussed in the literature review section, uncertainty is usually per-
ceived as the source of risk events. On the other hand, the effect of
management strategies on risks has been reported in several studies
(Charkhakan and Heravi 2018; Zhang 2016). Furthermore, man-
agement strategies may induce a recursive relationship with com-
plexity (Maylor and Turner 2017). Because the narratives of the
participants of this study also confirmed the literature findings,
the uncertainty and management strategies appeared as the main
themes affecting the relationship between complexity and risk in
the conceptual framework. The components of the framework are
subsequently discussed further.
The investigated projects revealed that uncertainty could be an
antecedent of risk events. For example, archaeological remains
found in the construction site (epistemic uncertainty) were the most
critical source of delay that almost doubled the project duration in
one of the cases. During the interviews, many participants men-
tioned strategies they developed for the uncertainties identified
at the front-end of the project. However, the analysis of the inter-
view data further revealed that complexity and the way it is treated
Complexity
Management
Risk
Strategies
Uncertainty
Fig. 4. Multilevel interactions between complexity and risk.
© ASCE 04020138-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
could also be the reason for an increased probability for the emer-
gence of new risks (known as secondary risks) in a project. The way
complexity affects risk depends on the level of manageability and/
or effectiveness of the strategies used. In one of the cases, the major
complexity factor was the strategic importance of the project and
the political will to open the facility at a specified date. The project
was compelled to start operation even earlier than the target com-
pletion date. Because of the ongoing operations, the project teams
were able to work only 3 h per day to complete the unfinished parts.
As a result of the limited working time, the contractor had to in-
crease the resources and exceeded the budget. This example implies
that complexity and response strategies may lead to unexpected de-
viations from the project targets. On the other hand, the impacts of
risks induced by some complexity factors can be controlled to some
extent by proactive management strategies. Investigated projects
contain several examples of complexity and risk relation shaped
by the strategies implemented. As a typical complexity factor in
megaprojects, cultural diversity was observed in most of the proj-
ects. Managers of these projects mentioned cultural management
plans they established to mitigate communication risks arising from
cultural differences between the project teams. Another example
was about designating the location of pipelines through radio-
frequency identification (RFID) technology to minimize the logis-
tics risks caused by a geographically dispersed construction site. In
another project, coordination problems were identified as a risk fac-
tor due to the existence of several disciplines (high level of com-
plexity). The management action was to use building information
modeling (BIM) for clash detection. The project coordinator indi-
cated that the following: “We are still facing [coordination] prob-
lems between mechanical and electrical disciplines despite the
existence of BIM. However, there would have been more conflicts
if we have not used BIM.” Occasionally, complexity management
strategies may even result in opportunities rather than threats.
Although a few studies mention positive aspects of the complexity
(Floricel et al. 2016; Geraldi et al. 2011), it is predominantly ac-
cepted as a negative term in the project management literature
(Maylor et al. 2013). Findings obtained in this research pointed
out that complexity can decrease risk and even improve the inno-
vation potential of the project (Brockmann et al. 2016). One par-
ticipant noted that “it [complexity] helped us to be better prepared
for the project. We had to think about alternatives and take proac-
tive actions to deal with complexity factors. With contingency plan-
ning, increasing resources, and finding innovative solutions, we
aimed to build a resilient project system. Complexity affected us
in a positive way.” Changing the construction method as a response
to high technical complexity in one of the investigated projects con-
stitutes an example of the opportunity brought by the management
strategy. The project team decided to prefabricate the structural
components and assemble them at the construction site. The project
manager stated that the “construction process looked very challeng-
ing at the beginning, but then it became the easiest part of the
project.” To sum up, on the one hand, complexity may affect the
project negatively and result in threats. On the other hand, when
combined with the appropriate management strategies, complexity
may result in opportunities, and/or threats can be reduced.
It should also be noted that emergent or deliberate strategies de-
veloped to deal with a specific complexity factor or uncertainty
may introduce additional complexity factors or uncertainties to the
project system. For instance, the prefabrication strategy mentioned
previously was primarily aimed at decreasing the technical risk, but
at the same time, it increased the complexity and uncertainty in the
supply chain. Therefore, the management strategies node in Fig. 4
is connected by two-way arrows to the complexity and uncertainty
nodes. Moreover, even though resilience strategies are essential for
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

the functioning of the project system after risk events are realized,
they may also introduce new complexity factors or uncertainties.
For example, one of the participants explained that as a response
to the significant time overrun caused by expropriation problems
in the project, the project management decided to change the initial
design. This decision caused an alteration of the construction method
as well, and consequently, technical complexities identified at the
beginning of the project transformed into a new form. As shown
in this case, complexity could emerge from a risk event, and there
could be a cyclic relationship between them. The findings of this
research affirm the duality of complexity and risk, which has been
mentioned by Thomé et al. (2016).
Thus, the findings of the qualitative data analysis show the
nature of the relationship between complexity and risk. There are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reciprocal and dynamic links between the risk-related factors,
which is affected by the strategies used to manage them. Each link
denoted in Fig. 4 has the potential to exacerbate the level of unpre-
dictability in the project system.
Integrated Risk Assessment Process (IRAP)
The findings of the quantitative and qualitative parts point out the
relationship between complexity and risk factors in megaconstruc-
tion projects from different perspectives. Integrating their results
can shed light on the implications of this relationship for RM.
The quantified interrelations between risk and complexity factors
suggested that complexity should be a factor to consider while
assessing the risks. Conceptual framework, on the other hand, un-
veiled that complexity can be both the source and consequence of a
risk event, depending on the project context. Furthermore, there are
also uncertainties affecting the risk events, and each management
strategy has the potential to introduce new complexity factors and
uncertainties into the project. The level of complexity makes it dif-
ficult to predict both the probability of occurrence of risk events
and their impacts on the project. This implies that the interrelations
between the complexity and risk should be considered during the
risk assessment (RA) phase of RM so that realistic scenarios can be
developed about project outcomes. Based on research findings, an
integrated risk assessment process that includes complexity factors,
uncertainties, management strategies, and risks was proposed for
megaprojects (Fig. 5).
IRAP starts with the identification of risk sources. At the com-
mencement stage, project management can identify the complexity
factors that stem from the project characteristics (known as static
complexity), such as the magnitude of scope and technical diffi-
culty of construction operations. Similarly, based on the existing
knowledge and the experience of the project management team,
uncertainties can be identified. The next step is composed of the
formulation of strategies to decrease uncertainty and/or manage
complexity. According to the findings of this study, strategies for-
mulated to deal with risk sources may trigger the occurrence of new
sources. Therefore, there is an iterative process between the formu-
lation of management strategies and the identification of complex-
ity factors and uncertainties. This process is expected to result in a
network (rather than a checklist) that maps risk events to complex-
ity factors and uncertainties, along with the strategies formulated to
manage them. At the last step, the risk network drawn should be
assessed by means of a network analysis to prioritize the risk sour-
ces, update previous strategies, and formulate resilience strategies
to recover as quickly as possible from the adverse impacts of iden-
tified risk events if they occur. As new strategies have the potential
to introduce new risk events, there is a feedback loop to repeat pre-
vious steps prior to the finalization of IRAP.
© ASCE 04020138-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
3
Identify
Complexity
Factors
1
5
Formulate
Draw Risk 6 Assess Risk 6
Management
Network Network
Strategies
5
2
Identify
Uncertainties
4
Note: Numbers denote the sequence of steps.
Fig. 5. Integrated risk assessment process (IRAP).
It should be clarified that IRAP is presented as an initial attempt
to demonstrate how complexity- and risk-based thinking can be in-
tegrated during RA. However, further studies are required to test
both its validity in real applications and the advantages/limitations
over traditional RA approaches.
Summary of Findings
Quantitative results of this study showed that interactions between
the project disciplines, size of the project, interactions between the
stakeholders, strategic importance of the project, and multiple criti-
cal paths (parallel activities) were the most significant complexity
factors that appeared in more than half of the investigated projects.
There were also context-dependent complexity factors. Changes in
the project scope and political or macroeconomic instability were
notable factors for the projects vulnerable to scope creep and
country-related problems. Complexity scores indicate that mega-
project practitioners should account for various organizational,
environmental, and technical complexity sources considering the
characteristics of their projects. For the risk factors, it was found
that predicting the impacts of country-related political and eco-
nomic risks and owner-related risks were difficult. While project
management and organization risks and construction-related/tech-
nological risks had the lowest rate of change in the risk impact
scores, the latter was the only factor with a negative variation,
which reveals that the impact of technical risks might be overesti-
mated at the beginning of the megaprojects. The results also de-
picted that design risks are context-dependent. Their effects may
be higher or lower than expected, depending on the project condi-
tions. Interpreting the complexity and risk scores together demon-
strated that there is an alignment between the types of complexity
and risk factors. The unpredictability of the external (political, eco-
nomic, and financial) risk factors were more closely associated with
high environmental complexity. Similarly, it was observed that high
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 organizational complexity makes it more difficult to predict the im-
pacts of managerial and organizational risks. Moreover, empirical
findings revealed that technical complexity was significant for most
of the risk factors, and reducing it may facilitate the prediction of
the impacts of construction-related technical risks. The analysis
performed to quantify the relationship between complexity and risk
demonstrated that a high level of complexity makes it more difficult
to predict the impact of risks on the megaprojects. The qualitative
analysis conducted to explore the nature of this relationship further
confirmed that complexity affects the emergence of risks and their
impacts. Moreover, strategies developed to manage risk-related fac-
tors can result in additional uncertainty and complexity, which in
turn can lead to new risks. Thus, there are two-way interactions
between risk and complexity with the inclusion of uncertainty
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and strategies. Complexity, which can lead to a threat or opportu-
nity, adds more challenge to the prediction of risks and should be
considered during RA. Based on this conclusion, an integrated ap-
proach (IRAP) was proposed for the assessment of the risks.
Conclusions
This study investigated the relationship between complexity and
risk in megaprojects. A mixed-methods approach was adopted
to analyze data acquired through interviews with 18 participants
from 11 megaconstruction projects carried out by Turkish contrac-
tors. The quantitative analysis uncovered the relationship between
complexity and risk as some complexity factors were more closely
associated with the change in the scores of some risk factors. The
qualitative analysis, on the other hand, provided some evidence
about the nature of this relationship. Accordingly, complexity and
risk are interconnected by several dynamic links affected by uncer-
tainties and management strategies. The individual results of the
quantitative and qualitative parts addressed RQ1 by explaining what
kind of relationship exists between complexity and risk factors in
megaconstruction projects. Integrating their results addressed RQ2
by shedding light on the implications of this relationship for RM.
Because predicting the impacts of the interconnected factors can
be a significant challenge for managers of megaconstruction projects,
a new RA process that incorporates all risk-related concepts was
proposed.
This study can advance the body of knowledge in the construc-
tion management field with its empirical, conceptual, and methodo-
logical contributions. While there are many studies measuring risk
and complexity separately, this study offers an approach to quantify
their relationships. The metric introduced in this paper can contribute
to the literature by explaining the relationship between complexity
and risk numerically. The results showed that a high level of com-
plexity makes it more difficult to predict the impact of risks on the
megaprojects. Also, unlike what is often suggested in the literature,
complexity does not always affect the project negatively. Indeed, the
empirical findings demonstrated that complexity could lead to oppor-
tunities when combined with the appropriate management strategies.
These results can be elaborated, evaluated, and extended to other
megaprojects.
The proposed conceptual framework provides a new explana-
tion for the way complexity and risk affect each other. Although
the relationship between complexity and risk is usually conceptu-
alized with simplistic cause-effect relations, this research revealed
that they might have dynamic two-way interactions affected by the
mediating variables. Depending on the strategies implemented to
manage complexity, uncertainty, and resilience, complexity factors
can be both the source and consequence of the risk events. The
conceptual framework can be used by other researchers to explore
© ASCE 04020138-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
risk-related factors in megaprojects. Furthermore, IRAP presents a
systematic approach to link the complexity factors with the risk
events. It can pave the way for a broader academic debate on man-
aging complexity within the process of RM.
There are also some methodological contributions of this paper.
Although mixed-methods research is not new to the project man-
agement domain, combining it with the empirical reality of the
megaprojects and lived experience of the managers was the meth-
odological originality of this research. The reported quantitative and
qualitative results reflect the actual project events from the view-
points of the managers. In this regard, the structured approach pre-
sented in the methodology can be replicated by future studies that
aim to use mixed-methods design in the project actuality research.
The research findings are also expected to contribute to practi-
tioners. While RA is traditionally oriented toward identifying the
sources of uncertainty, IRAP embraces complexity as another risk
source and considers the secondary risks that may emerge from the
implemented strategies. It may help construction companies to im-
prove their practices to comprehend the risks and forecast the
project performance utilizing network analysis methods. Moreover,
this study compiles the list of the most significant complexity fac-
tors that can potentially exist in megaconstruction projects. Man-
agers of these projects can benefit from the empirical findings of
this study to evaluate the factors to be included in their RM plans.
Nevertheless, this research is subject to some limitations. First,
the research findings represent the data of megaprojects undertaken
by Turkish construction companies. Studies that include different
types of stakeholders from other countries can be conducted for
comparative purposes and/or to produce more generic findings.
The empirical results were obtained through interviews with 18
managers of 11 megaconstruction projects. Although the sample
size is enough for the qualitative data analysis used in this study,
the validity of quantitative findings should be tested with a larger
sample. On the other hand, the limitation related to qualitative
analysis is that the research findings considerably depend on the
interpretation and bias of the participants and researchers. This
study reported the results of interviews through a retrospective
analysis. However, longitudinal case studies may better explain the
sequence of risk events and their interactions with the complexity
factors. Additionally, future studies can be conducted to compare
megaprojects and other projects according to risks, complexity, and
their interactions. A forthcoming study from the research team is to
test IRAP’s applicability in practice by comparing its benefits and
limitations with the traditional RA process. Furthermore, a quanti-
tative method based on a network analysis can be developed to
quantify project risk and complexity by considering their interre-
lations. Last but not least, developing decision support tools to
quantify risk and complexity and facilitate IRAP is a promising
research topic.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
The presented work is part of a research project (Project No:
217M471) funded by the Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). TUBITAK’s support is gratefully
acknowledged.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 References
Afzal, F., S. Yunfei, M. Nazir, and S. M. Bhatti. 2019. “A review of artificial
intelligence based risk assessment methods for capturing complexity-
risk interdependencies.” Int. J. Manage. Projects Bus. https://doi.org/10
.1108/IJMPB-02-2019-0047.
Ahn, S., S. Shokri, S. Lee, C. T. Haas, and R. C. G. Haas. 2017. “Explor-
atory study on the effectiveness of interface-management practices in
dealing with project complexity in large-scale engineering and con-
struction projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (2): 04016039. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000488.
Al-Bahar, J. F., and K. C. Crandall. 1990. “Systematic risk management
approach for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 116 (3):
533–546. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1990)116:3(533).
APM (Association for Project Management). 2010. Project risk analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and management guide. 2nd ed. Buckinghamshire, UK: APM Group.
Aven, T. 2015. Risk analysis. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Aven, T. 2016. “Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent
advances on their foundation.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253 (1): 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023.
Baccarini, D. 1996. “The concept of project complexity—A review.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 14 (4): 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863
(95)00093-3.
Bakhshi, J., V. Ireland, and A. Gorod. 2016. “Clarifying the project com-
plexity construct: Past, present and future.” Int. J. Project Manage.
34 (7): 1199–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002.
Biesenthal, C., S. Clegg, A. Mahalingam, and S. Sankaran. 2018. “Apply-
ing institutional theories to managing megaprojects.” Int. J. Project
Manage. 36 (1): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06
.006.
Boateng, P., Z. Chen, and S. O. Ogunlana. 2015. “An analytical network
process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects.” Int. J. Project
Manage. 33 (8): 1795–1811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015
.08.007.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., H. Bakker, and M. Hertogh. 2018. “Comparing
project complexity across different industry sectors.” Complexity
2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3246508.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Y. Jongkind, H. Mooi, H. Bakker, and A. Verbraeck.
2011. “Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The
TOE (technical, organizational and environmental) framework.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 29 (6): 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2010.07.008.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using thematic analysis in psychology.”
Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706
qp063oa.
Brockmann, C., H. Brezinski, and A. Erbe. 2016. “Innovation in construc-
tion megaprojects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (11): 04016059.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001168.
Brookes, N. J., and G. Locatelli. 2015. “Power plants as megaprojects:
Using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction manage-
ment.” Util. Policy 36 (Oct): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup
.2015.09.005.
Bryman, A. 2006. “Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is
it done?” Qual. Res. 6 (1): 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687
94106058877.
Capka, J. R. 2004. “Megaprojects—They are a different breed.” Pub. Roads
68 (1): 2–9.
Chapman, R. J. 2016. “A framework for examining the dimensions and
characteristics of complexity inherent within rail megaprojects.” Int.
J. Project Manage. 34 (6): 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2016.05.001.
Charkhakan, M. H., and G. Heravi. 2018. “Risk manageability assessment
to improve risk response plan: Case study of construction projects in
Iran.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (11): 05018012. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001562.
Chen, F., H. Wang, G. Xu, H. Ji, S. Ding, and Y. Wei. 2020. “Data-driven
safety enhancing strategies for risk networks in construction engineer-
ing.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 197 (May): 106806. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.ress.2020.106806.
© ASCE 04020138-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
Cicmil, S., T. Williams, J. Thomas, and D. Hodgson. 2006. “Rethinking
project management: Researching the actuality of projects.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 24 (8): 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2006.08.006.
Collins, K. 2010. “Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current
practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences.” In
Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research,
edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 353–378. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Corbin, J. M., and A. Strauss. 1990. “Grounded theory research: Proce-
dures, canons, and evaluative criteria.” Qual. Sociology 13 (1): 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593.
Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark. 2017. Designing and conducting
mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Dao, B., S. Kermanshachi, J. Shane, S. Anderson, and E. Hare. 2017.
“Exploring and assessing project complexity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
143 (5): 04016126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001275.
de Carvalho, M. M., and R. Rabechini, Jr. 2015. “Impact of risk manage-
ment on project performance: The importance of soft skills.” Int. J.
Prod. Res. 53 (2): 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014
.919423.
del Caño, A., and M. R. de la Cruz. 2002. “Integrated methodology for
project risk management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 128 (6): 473–485.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:6(473).
De Marco, A., C. Rafele, and M. J. Thaheem. 2016. “Dynamic manage-
ment of risk contingency in complex design-build projects.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 142 (2): 04015080. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001052.
Dikmen, I., M. T. Birgonul, and S. Han. 2007. “Using fuzzy risk assessment
to rate cost overrun risk in international construction projects.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 25 (5): 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2006.12.002.
Dikmen, I., C. Budayan, M. T. Birgonul, and E. Hayat. 2018. “Effects
of risk attitude and controllability assumption on risk ratings: Observa-
tional study on international construction project risk assessment.”
J. Manage. Eng. 34 (6): 04018037. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000643.
Dimitriou, H. T., E. J. Ward, and P. G. Wright. 2013. “Mega transport
projects—Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Findings from the OMEGA re-
search programme.” Prog. Plann. 86 (Nov): 1–43. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.progress.2013.03.001.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research.”
Acad. Manage. Rev. 14 (4): 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr
.1989.4308385.
Eybpoosh, M., I. Dikmen, and M. T. Birgonul. 2011. “Identification of risk
paths in international construction projects using structural equation
modeling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 137 (12): 1164–1175. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000382.
Fang, D., M. Li, P. S-W. Fong, and L. Shen. 2004. “Risks in Chinese con-
struction market—Contractors’ perspective.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
130 (6): 853–861. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)
130:6(853).
Fiori, C., and M. Kovaka. 2005. “Defining megaprojects: Learning from con-
struction at the edge of experience.” In Proc., Construction Research
Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives, edited by I. D. Tommelein.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Floricel, S., J. L. Michela, and S. Piperca. 2016. “Complexity, uncertainty-
reduction strategies, and project performance.” Int. J. Project Manage.
34 (7): 1360–1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.007.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2014. “What you should know about megaprojects and why:
An overview.” Project Manage. J. 45 (2): 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002
/pmj.21409.
Flyvbjerg, B., M. K. S. Holm, and S. L. Buhl. 2003. “How common and
how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?”
Transp. Rev. 23 (1): 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640309904.
Garbuzova-Schlifter, M., and R. Madlener. 2016. “AHP-based risk analysis
of energy performance contracting projects in Russia.” Energy Policy
97 (Oct): 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.024.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Geraldi, J., H. Maylor, and T. Williams. 2011. “Now, let’s make it really
complex (complicated): A systematic review of the complexities of
projects.” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 31 (9): 966–990. https://doi
.org/10.1108/01443571111165848.
Geraldi, J. G. 2009. “What complexity assessments can tell us about proj-
ects: Dialogue between conception and perception.” Technol. Anal.
Strategic Manage. 21 (5): 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/095373
20902969208.
Giezen, M. 2012. “Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and
disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 30 (7): 781–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2012.01.010.
Green, S. D., C-C. Kao, and G. D. Larsen. 2010. “Contextualist research:
Iterating between methods while following an empirically grounded ap-
proach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1): 117–126. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000027.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Haimes, Y. 2018. “Risk modeling of interdependent complex systems of
systems: Theory and practice.” Risk Anal. 38 (1): 84–98. https://doi
.org/10.1111/risa.12804.
Han, S. H., and J. E. Diekmann. 2001. “Approaches for making risk-based
go/no-go decision for international projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
127 (4): 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)
127:4(300).
Hastak, M., and A. Shaked. 2000. “ICRAM-1: Model for international con-
struction risk assessment.” J. Manage. Eng. 16 (1): 59–69. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:1(59).
Hu, Y., A. P. C. Chan, and Y. Le. 2015a. “Understanding the determinants
of program organization for construction megaproject success: Case
study of the Shanghai expo construction.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (5):
05014019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000310.
Hu, Y., A. P. C. Chan, Y. Le, and R.-Z. Jin. 2015b. “From construction
megaproject management to complex project management: Biblio-
graphic analysis.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (4): 04014052. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000254.
Huo, T., H. Ren, W. Cai, G. Q. Shen, B. Liu, M. Zhu, and H. Wu. 2018.
“Measurement and dependence analysis of cost overruns in megatran-
sport infrastructure projects: Case study in Hong Kong.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 144 (3): 05018001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0001444.
ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institute and Faculty of
Actuaries). 2014. Risk analysis and management for projects. 3rd ed.
London: ICE Publishing.
Islam, M. S., M. P. Nepal, M. Skitmore, and M. Attarzadeh. 2017. “Current
research trends and application areas of fuzzy and hybrid methods to
the risk assessment of construction projects.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 33 (Aug):
112–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2017.06.001.
ISO. 2018. Risk management. ISO 31000. Geneva: ISO.
Jensen, A., and T. Aven. 2018. “A new definition of complexity in a risk
analysis setting.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 171 (Mar): 169–173. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.018.
Jergeas, G. F., and J. Ruwanpura. 2010. “Why cost and schedule overruns
on mega oil sands projects?” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 15 (1):
40–43. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000024.
Jia, G., Y. Chen, X. Xue, J. Chen, J. Cao, and K. Tang. 2011. “Program
management organization maturity integrated model for mega construc-
tion programs in China.” Int. J. Project Manage. 29 (7): 834–845.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.003.
Jung, W., and S. H. Han. 2017. “Which risk management is most crucial for
controlling project cost?” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (5): 04017029. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000547.
Kardes, I., A. Ozturk, S. T. Cavusgil, and E. Cavusgil. 2013. “Managing
global megaprojects: Complexity and risk management.” Int. Bus. Rev.
22 (6): 905–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.003.
Keers, B. B. M., and P. C. van Fenema. 2018. “Managing risks in public-
private partnership formation projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 36 (6):
861–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.05.001.
Kiridena, S., and A. Sense. 2016. “Profiling project complexity: Insights
from complexity science and project management literature.” Project
Manage. J. 47 (6): 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728160
4700605.
© ASCE 04020138-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
Liu, J., X. Zhao, and P. Yan. 2016. “Risk paths in international construction
projects: Case study from Chinese contractors.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
age. 142 (6): 05016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001116.
Luo, L., Q. He, J. Xie, D. Yang, and G. Wu. 2017. “Investigating the rela-
tionship between project complexity and success in complex construc-
tion projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (2): 04016036. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000471.
Maylor, H., and N. Turner. 2017. “Understand, reduce, respond: Project
complexity management theory and practice.” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man-
age. 37 (8): 1076–1093. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2016-0263.
Maylor, H. R., N. W. Turner, and R. Murray-Webster. 2013. “How hard can it
be? Actively managing complexity in technology projects.” Res. Technol.
Manage. 56 (4): 45–51. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5602125.
Meredith, J. 1993. “Theory building through conceptual methods.” Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manage. 13 (5): 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/0144357
9310028120.
Owolabi, H. A., L. O. Oyedele, H. A. Alaka, S. O. Ajayi, O. O. Akinade,
and M. Bilal. 2020. “Critical success factors for ensuring bankable com-
pletion risk in PFI/PPP megaprojects.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (1):
04019032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000717.
Padalkar, M., and S. Gopinath. 2016. “Are complexity and uncertainty dis-
tinct concepts in project management? A taxonomical examination
from literature.” Int. J. Project Manage. 34 (4): 688–700. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.009.
Patel, D. A., and K. N. Jha. 2015. “Neural network model for the prediction
of safe work behavior in construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
age. 141 (1): 04014066. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000922.
Peñaloza, G. A., T. A. Saurin, and C. T. Formoso. 2020. “Monitoring com-
plexity and resilience in construction projects: The contribution of
safety performance measurement systems.” Appl. Ergon. 82 (Jan):
102978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102978.
Pfeifer, J., K. Barker, J. E. Ramirez-Marquez, and N. Morshedlou. 2015.
“Quantifying the risk of project delays with a genetic algorithm.” Int.
J. Prod. Econ. 170 (Dec): 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015
.09.007.
Pitsis, A., S. Clegg, D. Freeder, S. Sankaran, and S. Burdon. 2018.
“Megaprojects redefined—Complexity versus cost and social impera-
tives.” Int. J. Manage. Projects Bus. 11 (1): 7–34. https://doi.org/10
.1108/IJMPB-07-2017-0080.
PMI (Project Management Institute). 2017. A guide to the project manage-
ment body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). 6th ed. Newtown Square,
PA: PMI.
Pollack, J., C. Biesenthal, S. Sankaran, and S. Clegg. 2018. “Classics in
megaproject management: A structured analysis of three major works.”
Int. J. Project Manage. 36 (2): 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2017.01.003.
Qazi, A., J. Quigley, A. Dickson, and K. Kirytopoulos. 2016. “Project com-
plexity and risk management (ProCRiM): Towards modelling project
complexity driven risk paths in construction projects.” Int. J. Project Man-
age. 34 (7): 1183–1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.008.
Qureshi, S. M., and C. Kang. 2015. “Analysing the organizational factors of
project complexity using structural equation modelling.” Int. J. Project
Manage. 33 (1): 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04
.006.
Rad, E. K. M., M. Sun, and F. Bosché. 2017. “Complexity for megaprojects
in the energy sector.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (4): 04017009. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000517.
Rocco, S. T., and S. M. Plakhotnik. 2009. “Literature reviews, conceptual
frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinc-
tions.” Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 8 (1): 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1534484309332617.
Sanchez-Cazorla, A., R. Alfalla-Luque, and A. I. Irimia-Dieguez. 2016.
“Risk identification in megaprojects as a crucial phase of risk manage-
ment: A literature review.” Project Manage. J. 47 (6): 75–93. https://doi
.org/10.1177/875697281604700606.
SA/SNZ (Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand). 2013. Risk
management guidelines—Companion to AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009.
SA/SNZ HB 436:2013. Sydney, Australia: SAI Global.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Senesi, C., A. Javernick-Will, and K. R. Molenaar. 2015. “Benefits and
barriers to applying probabilistic risk analysis on engineering and con-
struction projects.” Eng. Manage. J. 27 (2): 49–57. https://doi.org/10
.1080/10429247.2015.1035965.
Siraj, N. B., and A. R. Fayek. 2019. “Risk identification and common risks
in construction: Literature review and content analysis.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 145 (9): 03119004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0001685.
Taroun, A. 2014. “Towards a better modelling and assessment of construc-
tion risk: Insights from a literature review.” Int. J. Project Manage.
32 (1): 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.03.004.
Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie. 1998. Mixed methodology: Combining
qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tavakolan, M., and H. Etemadinia. 2017. “Fuzzy weighted interpretive
structural modeling: Improved method for identification of risk interac-
tions in construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (11):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 03/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
04017084. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001395.
Thomé, A. M. T., L. F. Scavarda, A. Scavarda, and F. E. S. de Souza
Thomé. 2016. “Similarities and contrasts of complexity, uncertainty,
© ASCE 04020138-14
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(12): 04020138
risks, and resilience in supply chains and temporary multi-organization
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 34 (7): 1328–1346. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2015.10.012.
Vidal, L.-A., and F. Marle. 2008. “Understanding project complexity: Im-
plications on project management.” Kybernetes 37 (8): 1094–1110.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920810884928.
Williams, T. M. 1999. “The need for new paradigms for complex projects.”
Int. J. Project Manage. 17 (5): 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263
-7863(98)00047-7.
Willumsen, P., J. Oehmen, V. Stingl, and J. Geraldi. 2019. “Value creation
through project risk management.” Int. J. Project Manage. 37 (5):
731–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.007.
Yim, R., J. Castaneda, T. Doolen, I. Tumer, and R. Malak. 2015. “A study
of the impact of project classification on project risk indicators.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 33 (4): 863–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2014.10.005.
Zhang, Y. 2016. “Selecting risk response strategies considering project risk
interdependence.” Int. J. Project Manage. 34 (5): 819–830. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.001.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.