The Role of People and Data in Complex Spatial-Related Long-Term Decisions: A Case Study of Capital Project Management Groups

Authors: Peter Boyes, Sarah Sharples, Paul Tennent, Gary Priestnall, Jeremy Morley

Abstract:

Significant long-term investment projects can involve complex decisions. These are often described as capital projects and the factors that contribute to their complexity include budgets, motivating reasons for investment, stakeholder involvement, interdependent projects, and the delivery phases required. The complexity of these projects often requires management groups to be established involving stakeholder representatives, these teams are inherently multidisciplinary. This study uses two university campus capital projects as case studies for this type of management group. Due to the interaction of projects with wider campus infrastructure and users, decisions are made at varying spatial granularity throughout the project lifespan. This spatial-related context brings complexity to the group decisions. Sensemaking is the process used to achieve group situational awareness of a complex situation, enabling the team to arrive at a consensus and make a decision. The purpose of this study is to understand the role of people and data in complex spatial related long-term decision and sensemaking processes. The paper aims to identify and present issues experienced in practical settings of these types of decision. A series of exploratory semi-structured interviews with members of the two projects elicit an understanding of their operation. From two stages of thematic analysis, inductive and deductive, emergent themes are identified around the group structure, the data usage, and the decision making within these groups. When data were made available to the group, there were commonly issues with perception of veracity and validity of the data presented; this impacted the ability of the group to reach consensus and therefore for decision to be made. Similarly, there were different responses to forecasted or modelled data, shaped by the experience and occupation of the individuals within the multidisciplinary management group. This paper provides an understanding of further support required for team sensemaking and decision making in complex capital projects. The paper also discusses the barriers found to effective decision making in this setting and suggests opportunities to develop decision support systems in this team strategic decision-making process. Recommendations are made for further research into the sensemaking and decision-making process of this complex spatial-related setting.

Keywords: decision making, decisions under uncertainty, real decisions, sensemaking, spatial, team decision making

References:

[1] A. P. C. Chan, D. Scott, A. P. L. Chan, “Factors Affecting the Success of a Construction Project”, in Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 130: 1, 2004, pp. 153-155.
[2] B. Xia, A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study”, in Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 19: 1, 2012, pp. 7-24.
[3] Q. He, L. Luo, Y. Hu, A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China – A fuzzy analytic network process analysis”, in International Journal of Project Management, vol. 33: 3, 2015, pp. 549-563.
[4] Y. Lu, L. Luo, H. Wang, Y. Le, Q. Shi, “Measurement model of project complexity for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective”, in International Journal of Project Management, vol. 33: 4, 2015, pp. 610-622.
[5] V. Dayeh, B. W. Morrison, “The Effect of Perceived Competence and Competitive Environment on Team Decision-Making in the Hidden-Profile Paradigm”, in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 29, 2020, pp. 1181-1205.
[6] K. Vincent, R. E. Roth, S. A. Moore, “Improving spatial decision making using interactive maps: An empirical study on interface complexity and decision complexity in the North American hazardous waste trade”, in Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 46: 9, 2018, pp. 1706-1723.
[7] C. Scott-Young, D. Samson, “Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries”, in Journal of Operations Management, vol. 26: 6, 2008, pp. 749-766.
[8] T. Cooke-Davies, “The “real” success factors on projects”, in International Journal of Project Management, vol. 20: 3, 2002, pp. 185-190.
[9] P. Pirolli, D. M. Russell, “Introduction to this Special Issue on Sensemaking”, in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 26: 1-2, 2011, pp. 1-8.
[10] G. Klein, S. Wiggins, C. O. Dominguez, “Team Sensemaking”, in Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, vol. 11: 4, 2010, pp. 304-320.
[11] U. H. Richter, F. F. Arndt, “Cognitive Processes in the CSR Decision-Making Process: A Sensemaking Perspective”, in Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 148, 2018, pp. 587-602.
[12] M. Suprapto, H. L. M. Bakker, H. G. Mooi, W. Moree, “Sorting out the essence of owner-contractor collaboration in capital project delivery”, in International Journal of Project Management, 2015, vol. 33: 3, 2015, pp. 664-683.
[13] T. Dall, S. Sarangi, “Ways of ‘appealing to the institution’ in interprofessional rehabilitation team decision-making”, in Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 129, 2018, pp. 102-119.
[14] A. Lanceley, J. Savage, U. Menon, I. Jacobs, “Influences on multidisciplinary team decision-making”, in International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer, vol. 18: 2, 2008, pp. 215-222.
[15] J. G. Geraldi, G. Adlbrecht, “On Faith, Fact, and Interaction in Projects”, in Project Management Journal, vol. 38: 1, 2007, pp. 32-43.
[16] M. Jelokhani-Niaraki, J. Malczewski, “Decision complexity and consensus in Web-based spatial decision making: A case study of site selection problem using GIS and multicriteria analysis”, in Cities, vol. 45, 2015, pp. 60-70.
[17] Bernard 1988 R. H. Bernard, “Research methods in cultural anthropology”, Newbury Park, Sage Publications, 1988.
[18] V. Braun, V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, in Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3: 2, 2006, pp. 77-101.