EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 66 (2016) MATEC Web Conf., 66 (2016) 00065 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 66, 2016
The 4th International Building Control Conference 2016 (IBCC 2016)
Article Number 00065
Number of page(s) 10
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600065
Published online 13 July 2016
  1. Williams T., Modelling complex projects. 2002. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bosch-Rekveldt M., Managing project complexity. Delft Centre for Project Management, the Netherlands., 2011. ISBN 978-94-91005-00-8. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sinha S., B. Kumar, and A. Thomson, Measuring project complexity: a project manager’s tool. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2006. 2(3): p. 187–202. [Google Scholar]
  4. Vidal L.-A. and F. Marle, Understanding project complexity: implications on project management. Kybernetes, 2008. 37(8): p. 1094–1110. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bryde D., Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success. International Journal of Project Management, 2008. 26(8): p. 800–809. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lucas C., The philosophy of complexity. On-line at www.calresco.org, retrieved August, 2005. 8: p. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chan A.P., D. Scott, and A.P. Chan, Factors affecting the success of a construction project. Journal of construction engineering and management, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  8. Remington K., R. Zolin, and R. Turner. A model of project complexity: distinguishing dimensions of complexity from severity. in Proceedings of the 9th International Research Network of Project Management Conference. 2009. IRNOP. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chan A.P., D. Scott, and A.P. Chan, Factors affecting the success of a construction project. Journal of construction engineering and management, 2004. 130(1): p. 153–155. [Google Scholar]
  10. Parsons-Hann H.a.L., K., Measuring requirement complexity to increase the probability of project success. Proceedings of ICEIS 2005, Miami, Florida, USA, 2005. pp. 434–8. [Google Scholar]
  11. Corning P.A., Complexity is just a word! Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1998. 59(2): p. 197–200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pich M.T., Loch C.H. and de Meyer A., On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 2002. Vol. 48 No. 8(pp. 1008–23). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Calinescu A., et al., Applying and assessing two methods for measuring complexity in manufacturing. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1998: p. 723–733. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chu D., R. Strand, and R. Fjelland, Theories of complexity. Complexity, 2003. 8(3): p. 19–30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jaafari A., Project management in the age of complexity and change. Project Management Journal, 2003. Vol. 34 No. 4: p. pp. 47–57. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sinha S., B. Kumar, and A. Thomson, Complexity measurement of a project activity. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 2011. 8(4): p. 432–448. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Koivu T., Nummelin J., Tukiainen S., Tainio R. and Atkin B., Institutional complexity affecting the outcomes of global projects. VTT Working Papers 14, VTT, Espoo, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  18. Baccarini D., The concept of project complexity—a review. International Journal of Project Management, 1996. 14(4): p. 201–204. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Edmonds B., Syntactic measures of complexity. 1999, University of Manchester. [Google Scholar]
  20. Laurikkala H., Puustiner E., Pajarre E. and Tanskanen K., Reducing complexity of modelling in large delivery projects. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’01, Glasgow, 2001. Vol. 1, Professional Engineering Publishing, Bury St Edmunds, pp. 165-72. [Google Scholar]
  21. Corbett L., J. Brockelsby, and C. Campbell-Hunt, Tackling industrial complexity. Tackling Industrial Complexity, 2002: p. 83–96. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cicmil S. and D. Marshall, Insights into collaboration at the project level: complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research & Information, 2005. 33(6): p. 523–535. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jones B.S. and P. Anderson, Diversity as a determinant of system complexity. Complexity in Design and Engineering, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Koivu T., et al., Institutional complexity affecting the outcomes of global projects. 2004. [Google Scholar]
  25. Genelot D., Manager dans la complexité: réflexions à l’usage des dirigeants. 2001: INSEP éditions. [Google Scholar]
  26. Turner J.R. and R.A. Cochrane, Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. International Journal of Project Management, 1993. 11(2): p. 93–102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Stacey R.D., Complexity and creativity in organizations. 1996: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kahane A., Solving tough problems: An open way of talking, listening, and creating new realities. 2004: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  29. Snowden D.J. and M.E. Boone, A leader’s framework for decision making. harvard business review, 2007. 85(11): p. 68. [Google Scholar]
  30. Remington K. and Pollack J., Tools for complex projects. 2007: Gower Publishing, Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  31. Guadagnoli E.V.W., Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 1988. 103(2): 265-75. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sapnas KG Z.R., Minimizing sample size when using exploratory factor analysis for measurement. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 2002. 10(2): 135-53. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Tabachnick BG, F.L., Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  34. B., T., Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pett MA, Sullivan L.N. JJ., Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage Publications Inc, 2003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.