Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Project Leadership and Society
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/project-leadership-and-society
Empirical Research Paper
Avoiding or disregarding: Exploring the relationship between scope creep,
project complexity, and the success of construction projects
Riaz Ahmed *, Muhammad Jawad
Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Scope creep
Project success
Project complexity
Construction industry
Complexity theory
This study aims to investigate the relationship between scope creep and the success of construction projects in the
presence of project complexity. This study employed a positivism approach. Therefore, a survey method is used
to collect data from 327 Pakistan’s construction industry practitioners. We employed regression and PROCESS
techniques were used to test research hypotheses. The findings revealed that scope creep factors (i.e. techno­
logical, organizational, and human) negatively impacts the success of construction projects, indicating that more
scope creep has fewer chances of project success. Furthermore, project complexity significantly moderates the
relationship between scope creep and project success, and a more complex project has fewer chances of success.
The finding implies that the organizational factors have the highest influence on the success of construction
projects, followed by human and technical factors of scope creep, which need to be addressed during the
initiating and planning phases of the construction projects.
1. Introduction
Apart from scope creep, project complexity is also one of the main
concerns that influence project success, directly or indirectly. Regardless
of the improvement of knowledge and practices in the field of project
management, the outcome of complex projects is not satisfactory
(Nachbagauer, 2021). Owing to an enhanced level of complexity, goals,
and objectives become vague which affects the cost, quality, and time of
a project (Kimaru et al., 2019). Shahroz et al. (2021) reported that only
32% of construction projects met the defined goals, where 44% of pro­
jects failed to meet the requirement of time and cost overruns, and the
remaining 24% of projects faced premature termination due to certain
reasons. Also, the failure rate is perceived to be high in the case of
complex projects which creates difficulties in identifying clear goals and
objectives (Ghaleb et al., 2022). Due to the complexity issues, several
construction projects undergo scope creeping and hence failed to meet
the stated goals and objectives (Ghaleb et al., 2022).
In construction projects, the concern about project complexity has
increased significantly in recent years but fails to get sufficient attention
which resulted in poor project performance (Nguyen et al., 2019).
However, the complexity theory facilitates project managers to manage
complex projects more successfully by avoiding scope creep and
providing a better understanding of the varied system (Bakhshi et al.,
2016). Over time, project complexity became a hot topic for researchers
for enhancing the probability of delivery of a successful project. On the
The performance of construction projects is continuously besmirched
due to scope creep because of ineffective and inefficient management
(Yap et al., 2019). Construction is one of the biggest and the most
challenging industries of today’s globalized world (Shinde and Hedaoo,
2017) that deals with the transformation of ideas into a finished product
to benefit society (Gamil and Rahman, 2017). With the rise of technol­
ogy during the 21st century, the complex and mega construction pro­
jects have risen exponentially (Gavali and Halder, 2020) where the
eventual target is to complete projects within the specified time, allo­
cated budget, and an essential level of quality (Shibani et al., 2021).
AL-fadhali, Soon, Zainal, Ahmad, and Hasaballah (2018) and Shibani
et al. (2021) argued that the successful completion of construction
projects in today’s world is very rare. Furthermore, construction projects
are often considered unsuccessful when not meeting the requirements i.
e. not completed within time, scope, and cost, and also not achieving the
desired level of quality (Yap et al., 2019). However, project delays
generally follow the additional work in complex projects which also
leads to additional budget (Sambasivan et al., 2017). Owing to such time
and cost overruns, construction projects are unable to meet their ob­
jectives (Ullah et al., 2017), therefore face different project-related
problems including scope creep (Shibani et al., 2021).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: riazutm@gmail.com (R. Ahmed).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100064
Received 30 June 2022; Received in revised form 26 September 2022; Accepted 13 October 2022
Available online 14 October 2022
2666-7215/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/).
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
other hand, the construction industry has become more challenging for
clients and contractors over the last few decades (Gunduz and Yahya,
2018). Also, the complexity of large-scale projects is the most critical
and controversial feature in the project management literature (Nguyen
et al., 2019). Nevertheless, project complexity often causes project
failure concerning time and cost (Nguyen et al., 2019). Joseph and
Marnewick (2020) delineated that complex project requires an excep­
tional level of management instead of the conventional approach
adopted for ordinary projects. To overcome such concerns, complexity
theory apprises the managerial problems of disguising project re­
quirements and provides explicit directions to alter perspectives and
re-evaluate priorities for the effective management of projects (Luo
et al., 2020).
Indeed, the performance of construction and infrastructure projects
particularly in Pakistan is comparatively poor as compared to other
sectors of the country (Ahmed and bin Mohamad, 2014) and construc­
tion projects are yet facing schedule overruns and cost escalation
(Ahmed et al., 2018) due to an increase in demand from the clients and
society (Ammar, 2018). Moreover, the complex construction projects
undertaken in Pakistan face considerable schedule delays in completion
which result in the wastage of a huge amount of capital as well as
precious time because of scope creep (Nawaz et al., 2013). Also, Maq­
soom et al., (2018) highlighted that scope creep is one of the main
factors causing delays in construction projects in Pakistan. In the past,
although different studies have been carried out, however, much
attention has not been given to scope creep and complexity in con­
struction projects. Nevertheless, the Pakistani construction sector is
facing delays owing to scope creep and complexity, where comprehen­
sive research is required to overcome this problem and bridge the
research gaps (Ammar, 2018).
This study provides a significant contribution to the body of
knowledge and practice as scope creep is an under-researched area and
limited research has been conducted in the field of project management.
Høylandskjær (2018) and Gazder and Khan (2018) highlighted that very
little emphasis has been given to scope creep in construction projects.
Moreover, the study of Soomro et al. (2019) was limited to the identi­
fication of various factors causing a delay in the completion of the
projects. Likewise, the study of Khahro and Memon (2018) was
restricted to various non-excusable delays in the construction industry.
Komal et al. (2020) study was limited to identifying scope creep factors
based on a reflective model and exploring the impact of scope creep on
the success of software projects. Imran and Shazia (2011) reported that
projects face delays and cost overruns owing to scope creep in Pakistan,
which needs to be investigated at the sector or industry level. Never­
theless, the area of scope management in general and scope creep, in
particular, requires further investigation and exploration in the context
of complex construction projects (Al-Rubaiei et al., 2018). Hence, to
provide importance for the project managers enabling them to avoid
scope creep, manage complexity, and improve the project success rate of
construction projects undertaken by the organizations, in addition to
guiding the project stakeholders for better decision making, this study
aims to answer the following question:
2. Literature review and theoretical framework
2.1. Project success
Project success is the most cherished word for project managers
(Saad et al., 2020) while the success of any project is an achievement of
pre-planned goals (Ma and Fu, 2020). Indeed, the successful completion
of a project is always the main concern of project stakeholders where the
success of a project is the conclusive aim chased by the stakeholders as it
has positive impacts on the results (Luo et al., 2020). Although the
success of a project is perceived as an attainment of a specific blend of
objectives and subjective targets, present in the success standards (Joslin
and Müller, 2016). Therefore, all project stakeholders expect that their
project should be completed within budget, on time, and as per the
requirement and satisfaction of the customers (Wahaj et al., 2017).
According to Bjorvatn and Wald (2019), project success is an
accomplishment of a project within the specified time, cost, and quality
that fulfills the specifications and should be sustainable as well (Khan
et al., 2020). Moreover, a successful project is beneficial to the stake­
holders by solving the problem for which it was undertaken (Albert
et al., 2017). Indeed, project success is the attainment of a particular
blend of subjective as well as objective measures illustrated in the suc­
cess criteria of the project (Khan et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the topic of
project success is debatable and difficult to determine (Ma and Fu,
2020). Although there are various approaches for project success where
the iron triangle i.e. time, cost, and quality, are the basis of almost all the
approaches (Albert et al., 2017), however, the success of any construc­
tion project may not be restricted to the parts of the iron triangle (Raziq
et al., 2020). According to Kimaru et al. (2019), the traditional iron
triangle criteria for success is no longer adequate, now
multi-dimensional construct is becoming important that includes;
effective resource management, quality, and stakeholder satisfaction.
2.2. Scope creep
The outcomes of many construction projects are never the same as
initially worked out owing to client-initiated scope changes (Amoatey
and Anson, 2017). During the execution of the project, many changes
emerge which may not be completely prevented but can be controlled.
However, some changes are justifiable but most of the changes that
sneak into a project are due to either consequence never examine or the
impact of the changes being underestimated (Hofland, 2018). Such
changes lead to delays in the completion of the project as well as an
increase in overall cost (Jayalath and Somarathna, 2021). Indeed, scope
creep is about unanticipated changes or demands in a project that
stretch the primary limits of the project scope (Amoatey and Anson,
2017), which directly influence the outcome of the project as an
unbridled scope change (Usman, 2019). According to Høylandskjær
(2018), scope creep is detrimental to the project’s success since it leads
to schedule delay, increase in cost, and drop in quality. Also, Amoatey
and Anson (2017) articulated that scope creep is a pejorative tag
awarded to a procedure in which the client came across what they
desired. Moreover, changes in scope often occur without prior agree­
ment between the project manager and client (Sharma et al., 2017). The
scope creep factors are discussed below.
“Does project complexity moderate the relationship between scope
creep and the success of construction projects?”
The remainder of the study is organized in the following manner.
First, the literature review explaining the theoretical framework and
formulation of research hypotheses is discussed. Then research methods
describing the population, sampling, and measurement of variables are
presented. Afterward, the results of the study are provided followed by a
discussion of the findings. Finally, implications, conclusions, limitations,
and future research directions are discussed.
2.2.1. Technological factors
The technical changes in the scope should be integrated with other
project areas like risk, quality, schedule, and cost through the scope
change management system so that the changes may be agreed upon,
failing to do so will result in scope creep (Shirazi et al., 2017). The main
reason for technical factors of scope creep is undetermined and vague
scope. Furthermore, when the scope is poorly defined at the beginning of
the construction project, the scope creeping in the later stages of the
project is imminent (Usman, 2019). Safapour and Kermanshachi (2019)
argued that scope should be clearly defined to avoid scope creeping.
2
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
Amoatey and Anson (2017) asserted that when the project scope is not
properly defined at the beginning of the project, various mis­
understandings on how and what to accomplish will result, pushing the
project towards the unintended direction and as an outcome the scope
creep happens. According to Komal et al. (2020), the issues related to
construction are rising in the projects which are linked with the
expansion of the project. Safapour and Kermanshachi (2019) articulated
that the bigger the project is the more the cost of scope creep is asso­
ciated with it, and the bigger the project is, the more issues are associ­
ated with it. Technological scope creeps also happens to own the market
volatility where some external factors are involved that are not under
the control of the project manager, like continuous changes in market
trends that make the already defined requirements obsolete (Amoatey
and Anson, 2017).
project in terms of understanding the trouble and governing project
scope (San Cristóbal, Carral, Diaz, Fraguela and Iglesias, 2018). Indeed,
infrastructure projects are complex (Hofland, 2018) which are often
dynamic (Gamil and Rahman, 2017), and involve organizational struc­
ture and hierarchy (Mogens Frank Mikkelsen et al., 2020). However,
success is the eventual goal of stakeholders in project management,
which can be affected due to the complexity of the project (Luo et al.,
2020). Furthermore, complexity is also a substantial source of ambiguity
and risk in projects which damages project performance that increases
the overall project budget (Floricel et al., 2016), and also affects the
efficacy of the project (Floricel et al., 2018). According to Luo et al.
(2020), the main reason for project failure is an increase in project
complexity or underrating the project complexity.
The complexity theory objectively group and analyze the down-toearth trouble of tackling issues about limited combinative items at the
organization and project level. de Rezende and Blackwell (2019) sug­
gested exploring the complexity of projects through the lens of
complexity theory, system thinking, and project management practices,
explaining it in terms of project scope, emergence, diversity, connec­
tivity, project context, belonging, and autonomy. Abbas and Erzaij
(2020) highlighted that the output of a project is strongly connected
with its complexity and can determine success or failure. Rodríguez
Montequín et al. (2018) emphasized that when project complexity is
badly recognized and controlled, failure is imminent. The miscalculation
of project complexity owing to the influence of external stakeholders
sometimes leads to low performance of the projects (Luo et al., 2020).
Indeed, complexity has become an indivisible feature of projects and
also the major component of project failure by associating more risk of
inescapable changes (Hofland, 2018). Komal et al. (2020) used scope
creep as a formative construct while project success as a reflective
construct based on SLR and interview data of software projects. How­
ever, Komal et al. (2020) concluded that applying their framework
suggests that a formative measurement model is more appropriate for
such studies, therefore, a formative measurement model is adopted for
the constructs (scope creep, project complexity, project success) of this
study, and proposed research model is presented in Fig. 1.
2.2.2. Organizational factors
Organizational factors are also contributing to the scope creep of
projects. Amoatey and Anson (2017) advocated that when the goals of
the project are not clearly defined, misunderstanding arises as to how
and what to achieve will lead the project team in the unintended di­
rection that eventually leads to scope creep. Among others, budget
constraint is also an organizational factor of scope creep which con­
tributes to scope creep in construction projects (Komal et al., 2020).
Furthermore, organizational capabilities also serve as significant scope
creeping factor in some cases, the more the organization is capable of
handling issues, the less the chances of scope creeping and vice versa.
According to Ajmal et al. (2019), frequent and faster communication
between client and project manager results in better and timely trans­
mission of ideas. In case, the communication lapses, the project expe­
rience scope creeping. Indeed, poor communication also causes the
scope of the project at the beginning as the scope of the project is not
documented properly due to communication gaps which results in the
scope creeping at later stages. However, the lack of effective and strong
communication leads to delays and even can cause conflict between the
project stakeholders (Safapour and Kermanshachi, 2019).
2.2.3. Human factors
Another important factor of scope creep in construction projects is
the human factor which revolves around all stakeholders. In case the
scope creep happens, the employees of the project cannot concentrate on
a single plan of action which results in decreasing performance, as a
result, success in a project is hard to achieve (Usman, 2019). Indeed,
experienced human resources are the backbone of any organization and
are also considered important in deciding the fate of the project. How­
ever, the well-versed employees are firmly connected with the success of
the project (Komal et al., 2019) but when employees do not formalize
and control change accurately, scope creep happens (Hofland, 2018). In
scope creep, changes occurred unofficially make it very difficult to track
down their causes (Sindi, 2018). Scope creep might also happen when
the project manager accepts little changes made by the client to keep
them happy, which eventually became a threat to successful project
completion (Amoatey and Anson, 2017). The poor involvement of
stakeholders is also one of the reasons for scope creep (Ajmal et al.
(2019) which is critical in achieving project success (Komal et al., 2020).
On the other hand, if the project stakeholders are not properly involved,
the scope will be vague and the results would be ambiguous (Amoatey
and Anson, 2017). Furthermore, scope creep happens in construction
projects due to the incompetency of the project manager’s risk analysis
and planning processes (Safapour and Kermanshachi, 2019).
2.4. Hypotheses development
The result for most construction projects is never the one that is
originally planned because of the change in scope of the project
(Amoatey and Anson, 2017). Technical factors are the main factors for
scope creep in construction projects. Technical factors like schedule
constraints, poor definition of scope, changing market requirements,
project size, and risk if it is not properly analyzed and managed (Komal
et al., 2019). Therefore, complexity theory advocates that new ad­
vancements guide toward unpredictability but it is hard to manage the
scope creeping (Mogens Frank Mikkelsen, 2020). According to Luo et al.
(2020), scope creep is more in large-size construction projects which is
detrimental to the successful completion of the project. However, a lack
of recognition and understanding of project complexity is the main
source of substandard performance (Morcov et al., 2021). Complexity
theory recommends early detection of changes in the project scope and
essentially adopts a suitable managerial approach (Mogens Frank Mik­
kelsen, 2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. The technological factors of scope creep are negatively associated
with the success of construction projects.
Organizational factors of scope creep are also the most important
factors that impede the success of construction projects. Owing certain
delays which are often caused by undocumented frequent change or­
ders, can make or break any project (Sweis et al., 2008). Komal et al.
(2019) highlighted various organizational factors that hamper the suc­
cess of construction projects including poor communication, lack of
resources, and unclear objectives. On the other hand, effective
communication is essential to control the challenges of scope creep faced
2.3. Project complexity
Project complexity is a characteristic of a project that makes it hard
to predict and comprehend (Giezen, 2012). Project complexity is often
due to the interlinkage of dynamic, structural, and unknown elements
which lead to project failure (Bakhshi et al., 2016) and also harms the
3
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
Fig. 1. Proposed research model.
H5. Project complexity negatively moderates the relationship between
organizational factors of scope creep and project success.
by the construction sector owing to its dynamic and complex nature
according to Gamil and Rahman (2017). Furthermore, the dearth of
communication can negatively influence the success of a construction
project and guide it towards the failure of the project (Majeed et al.,
2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Complexity is critical in managing construction projects, which
sometimes makes it difficult to achieve project success. Furthermore,
frequent changes in project scope influence the morale of the project
team which results in low performance (Butler et al., 2020). Also, the
complexity of the project must be managed by the project manager
involving the project to enhance the likelihood of project success (Jo­
seph and Marnewick, 2021). Over the past decade, project complexity
has increased without receiving any attention because of a lack of
expertise in the construction industry which resulted in poor project
performance (Nguyen et al., 2019). Therefore, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H2. The organizational factors of scope creep are negatively associated
with the success of construction projects.
In construction projects, human factors are also contributing to scope
creep. Komal et al. (2019) highlighted that the human factors of scope
creep result in a low rate of success in construction projects which
include human capabilities, low stakeholder involvement, lack of
experience, change requests, and personal capacity of project team
members. Indeed, the complexity theory enables project practitioners to
rectify their understanding of the organization as well as the involved
processes (Abbas and Erzaij, 2020), in addition to providing a frame­
work for understanding the human factors involved in scope creep
(Callaghan, 2008). Also, the complexity theory provides creative ways
to project undertakers for effective decision-making and avoid scope
creep (Mogens Frank Mikkelsen, 2020). Therefore, the following hy­
pothesis is proposed:
H6. Project complexity negatively moderates the relationship between
human factors of scope creep and project success.
3. Methods
3.1. Population and sample size
This study followed a positivism approach, therefore, the data was
collected through a survey method from construction projects in
Pakistan, to examine the impact of scope creep on project success in the
presence of project complexity. The population of this study was con­
struction projects, i.e. residential buildings, commercial high rise, resi­
dential high rise apartments, residential societies, and office buildings,
from the construction industry of Pakistan. The respondents should be
the key information (Pesämaa et al., 2021), therefore data was collected
from the individuals who were well versed with the construction pro­
jects, which include contractors, consultants, contractors & consultant
firms, and clients (working on different positions, i.e. project directors,
project managers, civil engineers, project supervisors). Following
Moneke and Echeme (2016), a sample size of 398 was identified.
H3. The human factors of scope creep are negatively associated with
the success of construction projects.
Although construction projects are larger, complicated, challenging,
and complex (Morcov et al., 2021). According to Butler et al. (2020),
project complexity gives rise to project risk, and technical factors of
scope creep are related to a negative result of the project. Ika, Couillard,
and Garon (2021) highlighted that complexity can cause serious prob­
lems for project managers and even can lead the project towards failure.
Also, project complexity is a significant factor that leads to scope creep
and cost overrun (Niazai and Gidado, 2012), owing to its complex na­
ture, an extra risk is associated with the construction projects (Gunduz
and Yahya, 2018). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Project complexity negatively moderates the relationship between
technological factors of scope creep and the success of construction
projects.
3.2. Data collection and measures
The data collection technique was the survey method which is a
productive way for quantitative research. For this purpose, the details of
construction projects i.e. residential buildings, commercial high rise,
residential high rise apartments, residential societies, and office build­
ings were obtained from the official websites of construction companies,
through emails, and personal visits, in addition to obtaining the contact
details (emails) of contractors, consultants, contractors and consultant,
and clients (working on different positions, i.e. project directors, project
managers, civil engineers, and project supervisors) for collection of data.
Accordingly, the survey instrument was developed and distributed
among 398 individuals in the construction industry of Pakistan, and 327
responses were received which are used for analysis in this study. The
In construction projects, effective communication is the main factor
that can make or break the project’s success but when the channel of
effective communication broke down, achievement of success becomes
impossible (Ghaleb and Abdullah, 2021). Also, project complexity has a
considerable influence on the time, quality, and cost objectives of a
project, which hampers the clear recognition of objectives (Kimaru
et al., 2019). Indeed construction is a very complex process (Sindi, 2018)
and it is very challenging to avoid scope creep and achieve project
success. According to Luo et al. (2020), the success of a construction
project is highly dependent upon its complexity. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
4
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
survey instrument was divided into four parts (see Appendix-I). The first
part was about the demographics, the second part contains 11 questions
on project success anchored on a 5-point Likert scale adapted from
Usman (2019), and the third part contains 13 questions on scope creep
anchored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = average, 4
= high, 5 = very high) adapted from Moneke and Echeme (2016), and
the fourth was related to 08 questions of project complexity anchored on
5-point Likert scale (1 = simple, 2 = mildly complex, 3 = moderately
complex, 4 = highly complex, 5 = extremely complex) adapted from Luo
et al. (2020).
Table 2
Summary of exploratory factor analysis.
Variable
Scope Creep
3.3. Reliability and validity
Reliability is about the correctness in the measurement of charac­
teristics of data where Cronbach alpha is one of the most commonly used
methods and adopted for the current study (Amirrudin et al., 2021).
According to Kocak et al. (2014), the value of Cronbach alpha should be
0.70, hence, the values of all variables of this study were above the
cutoff value (see Table 1). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test
of Sphericity were performed to check the appropriateness and homo­
geneity in sampling variance. According to Williams et al. (2010), the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index ranges from 0 to 1, and a value of 0.5 is
considered to be appropriate for factor analysis whereas the p-value of
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity should be < 0.05 for factor analysis.
Accordingly, the results are presented in Table 1, and values are greater
than 0.5 for each variable i.e. scope creep, project complexity, and
project success, where the p-value for each variable was less than 0.05
which shows the appropriateness of the sample data.
Furthermore, the validity of the data was checked through explor­
atory factor analysis (EFA). The higher value of extraction indicates that
variables fit well with the factors solution (Jamil et al., 2020). Explor­
atory factor analysis is useful in reducing large sets into more suitable
ones (Reio Jr and Shuck, 2015). Generally, a sample size of more than
100 is considered suitable for factor analysis which means that the
sample size of this study is suitable for EFA (n = 327). According to
Watkins (2018), the loadings of EFA must exceed 0.40. As per the results
depicted in Table 2, all the 32 values are above 0.40, hence the data is
valid for further analysis and hypothesis testing.
Project complexity
Project success
Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity
PValue
Scope Creep
Project
Complexity
Project Success
0.793
0.868
0.90
0.88
1586.34
1034.94
0.00
0.00
0.875
0.85
1702.61
0.00
0.599
0.584
0.564
0.573
0.440
0.578
0.489
0.516
0.402
0.501
0.696
0.541
0.729
PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC6
PC7
PC8
PS1
PS2
PS3
PS4
PS5
PS6
PS7
PS8
PS9
PS10
PS11
Factor 3
0.627
0.617
0.628
0.708
0.646
0.546
0.533
0.553
0.705
0.558
0.544
0.572
0.526
0.431
0.766
0.742
0.539
0.723
0.633
In response to 398 questionnaires distributed to individuals in con­
struction companies in Pakistan, 327 responses were received with a
response rate of 82%. Demographic details are presented in Table 3. The
result of the demographic profile shows that above 88% of the re­
spondents were male which shows the male dominance in the con­
struction sector of Pakistan. Furthermore, more than 90% of the
respondent lies in the age group of 25–45, working as a contractor and
consultant. Moreover, about 72% of firms aged between 6 and 20 years
show that the construction sector in Pakistan is comparatively nascent.
4.2. Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis was used to determine whether the relationship
exists between the variables is positive or negative. Furthermore, the
same method is also helpful to determine the strength of the relationship
between the variables, i.e. strong, moderate, or weak. Table 4 shows the
correlation results where the technological factors of scope creep have a
significant negative correlation with project success (r = − 0.58, p <
0.01) and a significant positive correlation with project complexity (r =
0.65, p < 0.01). The organizational factors of scope creep have a sig­
nificant negative correlation with project success (r = − 0.68, p < 0.01)
and a significant positive correlation with project complexity (r = 0.54,
p < 0.01). The human factors of scope creep have a significant negative
correlation with project success (r = − 0.56, p < 0.01) and a moderate
positive correlation with project complexity (r = 0.38, p < 0.01).
Finally, project complexity has a significant negative relation to project
success (r = − 0.69, p < 0.01).
Table 1
Summary of reliability and validity analysis.
KMO
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
SC8
SC9
SC10
SC11
SC12
SC13
Factor 2
4.1. Demographics
Although there were rare chances of biasness as data was collected
from different types of respondents who belong to contractors, consul­
tants, and clients of various construction mega projects. Additionally,
Harman’s single factor test was applied to check whether the data is
influenced by common method bias (CMB) or whether the data is valid
for further analysis. According to Ahmed et al. (2021), Harman’s single
factor is commonly used by researchers to check whether the data is
affected by common variance or not. However, the results of Harman’s
single factor test should be less than 50% for the data if it is not affected
by common method variance or biased. For this purpose, all 32 items of
this study were loaded for single-factor analysis through principal axis
factoring. The result showed that 34.8% of extraction is done by
single-factor analysis, which is far less than 50%, therefore, the data was
free from common method biased and hence valid for further
computation.
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Factor 1
4. Findings
3.4. Common method bias
Variable
Item(s)
5
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
Table 3
Summary of demographic profile.
Item
Characteristics
Number
Item
Characteristics
Number
Gender
Male
Female
25–35
36–45
46–55
56 and above
Diploma
Bachelors
Masters
Ph.D.
Contractor
Consultant
Clients
Contractor & Consultant
290
37
140
163
21
3
131
135
61
–
118
31
14
164
Type of Project
Infrastructural
Industrial Buildings
Commercial Buildings
Housing Societies
18
29
139
141
Age of Organization
1–5 years
6–10 years
11–20 years
21 or above
1–5 years
6–10 years
11–15 years
16–20 years
20 years plus
48
119
118
42
92
134
68
29
4
Age
Qualification
Role
Experience
scope creep (TFSC) are negatively associated with project success.
To test whether organizational factors of scope creep are negatively
associated with project success, the results of regression analysis are
presented in Table 5, where the value of R square is 0.473 indicating that
approximately 47.3% variance in project success is due to organizational
factors of scope creep. The coefficient standardized Beta’s value is
− 0.688 which indicates that there exists a strong negative relationship
between the variables. Moreover, the value of p = 0.000 indicates the
significant relationship between organizational factors of scope creep
and project success, therefore, Hypothesis 2 of the study is supported,
which authenticates that the organizational factors of scope creep
(OFSC) are negatively associated with project success.
The regression analysis was carried out to test whether the human
factors of scope creep are negatively associated with project success. The
results are presented in Table 5, where the value of R square is 0.313
indicating that approximately 31.3% variance in project success is due
to the human factors of scope creep. The standardized coefficient Beta’s
value is − 0.559 which indicates that there exists a strong negative
relationship between the variables. Moreover, the value of p = 0.000
indicates the significant relationship between human factors of scope
creep and project success, therefore, Hypothesis 3 of the study is sup­
ported, which authenticates that the human factors of scope creep
(HFSC) are negatively associated with project success.
To test the moderating effect of project complexity on the relation­
ship between scope creep factors and project success, a special tool
called “PROCESS” developed by Hayes (2012) was used, which exam­
ines the impact of the independent variable (scope creep) on the
dependent variable (project success) then the reaction of moderating
variable (project complexity) on the dependent variable (project suc­
cess) and lastly check the combined effect of the independent variable
(scope creep) and moderating variable (project complexity) on the
dependent variable (project success). This tool automatically calculates
all the necessary results which are impossible in other regression tech­
niques (Ahmed et al., 2021). However, the precondition for the signif­
icance of the results through the PROCESS tool indicates that the value
of p should be less than 0.05, and the value of both Lower Level of
Confidence Interval (LLCI) and Upper Level of Confidence Interval
(ULCI) should be the same i.e., both positive or both negative and zero
Table 4
Summary of correlation analysis.
Sr
Variables
1
1
Scope creep
(technological factors)
Scope creep
(organizational factors)
Scope creep (human
factors)
Project complexity
Project success
1
2
3
4
5
a
2
3
0.526a
1
0.412a
0.617a
a
a
0.653
− 0.583a
0.536
− 0.688a
4
5
1
− 0.687a
1
1
0.381a
− 0.599a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2- tailed).
4.3. Hypotheses result
The main reason for testing research hypotheses was to check the
relationship between scope creep and project success and the moder­
ating effect of project complexity on the relationship between scope
creep factors and project success. Moreover, Coltman et al. (2008) ar­
ticulated that regression influence diagnostics are used for formative
models; therefore, the same methods are adopted in this study accord­
ingly. For this purpose, the first three hypotheses were used to check the
relationship between the factors of scope creep (technological, organi­
zational, human) and project success, where regression analysis was
used to validate the relationship (Ahmed et al., 2021). The next three
hypotheses were used to check the moderating effect of project
complexity on the relationship between scope creep factors and project
success, through the “PROCESS” technique (Hayes, 2012). To test
whether the technological factors of scope creep are negatively associ­
ated with project success, regression analysis was carried out. The re­
sults of the tests are presented in Table 5, where the value of R square is
0.339 indicating that approximately 33.9% variance in project success is
due to the technological factors of scope creep. The coefficient of stan­
dardized Beta’s value is − 0.583 which indicates that there exists a
strong negative relationship between the variables. Moreover, the value
of p = 0.000 indicates the significant relation between technological
factors of scope creep and project success, therefore, Hypothesis 1 of the
study is supported, which authenticates that the technological factors of
Table 5
Summary of regression analysis for direct hypotheses.
Hyp
Variable
Project Success
Coefficient
H1
H2
H3
TFSC
OFSC
HFSC
Model Summary
ANOVA
Beta
T
Sig
R
R-Square
F
Sig
− .0583
− 0.688
− 0.559
− 12.921
− 17.091
− 12.161
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.583
0.688
0.559
0.339
0.473
0.313
166.995
292.094
147.881
0.000
0.000
0.000
6
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
value should not lie between the two.
To check whether project complexity moderates the relationship
between technological factors of scope creep and project success or
otherwise, the PROCESS tool was run and the results are shown in
Table 6 which shows that R2 = 0.530 and p = 0.000, indicating 53%
variance in the project success due to technological factors of scope
creep, project complexity and their combined effect. The Int_1 in the last
row of the table of coefficient values (see Table 6) shows moderating
results of interaction terms, both the values of Lower Level of Confidence
Interval (LLCI) and Upper Level of Confidence Interval (ULCI) are pos­
itive i.e., 0.180 and 0.471, respectively, and Zero does not lie between
them. The value of p is < 0.001 which authenticates that project
complexity significantly moderates the relationship between techno­
logical factors of scope creep and project success. The positive value of
both LLCI and ULCI indicates that project complexity is strengthening
the relationship between the technological factors of scope creep and
success to improve the performance of construction projects.
Furthermore, to check whether project complexity moderates the
relationship between organizational factors of scope creep and project
success or otherwise, the PROCESS tool was run and the result shows
that R2 = 0.631 and p = 0.000 indicating 63.1% variance in the project
success due to organizational factors of scope creep, project complexity
and their combined effect. The Int_1 in the last row of the table of co­
efficient values shows moderating results of the interaction term (see
Table 7), both the values of Lower Level of Confidence Interval (LLCI)
and Upper Level of Confidence Interval (ULCI) are positive i.e., 0.099
and 0.320 respectively and Zero does not lie between them. The value of
p is < 0.001 which authenticates that project complexity significantly
moderates the relationship between organizational factors of scope
creep and project success. The positive values of both LLCI and ULCI
indicate that project complexity is strengthening the relationship be­
tween organizational factors of scope creep and project success.
Finally, to check whether project complexity moderates the rela­
tionship between human factors of scope creep and project success or
otherwise, the PROCESS tool was run and the result shows (see Table 8)
that R2 = 0.592 and p = 0.000 indicating that 59.2% variance in the
project success due to human factors of scope creep, project complexity
and their combined effect. The Int_1 in the last row of the coefficient
value in Table 8 shows moderating results of interaction terms, both the
values of Lower Level of Confidence Interval (LLCI) and Upper Level of
Confidence Interval (ULCI) are positive, i.e., 0.074 and 0.239 respec­
tively and Zero does not lie between them. The value of p is < 0.001
which authenticates that project complexity significantly moderates the
relationship between human factors of scope creep and project success.
The positive value of both LLCI and ULCI indicates that project
complexity is strengthening the relationship between human factors of
scope creep and project success.
the presence of existing frameworks, scope creep is one of the main
factors that directly impact a project’s success and construction projects
fail to achieve success because of scope creep (Madhuri et al., 2018). The
technological factors have a significant negative correlation with project
success (p = 0.000) and a significant positive correlation with project
complexity (p = 0.000) which indicates that when the technological
factors of scope creep are increased, project complexity increases while
project success decreases. Furthermore, technological factors of scope
creep also increase in projects with the increase of project complexity.
The results indicated that approximately a 33.9% variance in project
success is due to the technological factors of scope creep, which means
that one unit of change in technological factors of scope creep brings
33.9% variation in project success. Moreover, the technological factors
of scope creep are negatively associated with project success (B =
− 0.583, p = 0.000), which indicates that if the technological factors of
scope creep are increased, the project success decreases, and the rela­
tionship is weakened in the presence of project complexity. The finding
of this study supports the existing literature wherein scope creep is
negatively associated with project success (Khan et al., 2020).
The organizational factors have a significant negative relationship
with project success (p = 0.000) and a significant positive relationship
with project complexity (p = 0.000), indicating that when the organi­
zational factors of scope creep decrease, project success decreases.
Furthermore, approximately 47.3% variance in project success is due to
the organizational factor of scope creep, in addition to a negative impact
on project success (B = − 0.688, p = 0.000). Therefore, it is substantiated
that if the organizational factor of scope creep is increased, project
complexity increases while project success decrease. The human factor
of scope creep has shown a significant negative relationship with project
success (p = 0.000) and a moderate positive relationship with project
complexity (p = 0.000), indicating that when the human factor of scope
creep decreases, project success decreases. Furthermore, approximately
31.3% variance in project success is due to the human factors of scope
creep having a negative impact on project success (B = − 0.559, p =
0.000). There are more chances of project success if the level of
complexity is low but if the complexity level is high then the chances of
project success will be low. Thus, it is substantiated that if the human
factors of scope creep are increased, project complexity increases while
project success decrease (Komal et al., 2020; Madhuri et al., 2018).
The findings reveal significant variance in the project success due to
technological factors (53%), organizational factors (63%), and human
factors (59%) along with project complexity and their combined effects,
where the values of both LLCI and ULCI were positive (P = 0.000), which
highlight that project complexity strengthen the relationship between
the technological factors, organizational factors, and human factors of
scope creep and the success of construction projects. The findings
further substantiate that construction projects face adverse effects
because of scope creep which results in cost and schedule overruns
(Madhuri et al., 2018). Moreover, scope creep is negatively associated
with construction projects where project complexity enhances the
negative relationship between scope creep and project success. Thus,
scope creep in general and factors of scope creep i. e, technological,
5. Discussion
The research was undertaken to check whether project complexity
moderates the relationship between scope creep and project success. In
Table 6
Moderation results (technological factors-project complexity-project success).
Model Summary
R
R2
MSE
F
df1
df2
P
0 .728
Coefficients
0.530
0.125
121.869
3.000
323.000
0.000
Model
Coeff
Se
T
p
LLCI
ULCI
Constant
Technological Factors
Project Complexity
Int_1
8.580
− 1.288
− 1.490
0.326
0.713
0.236
0.234
0.074
12.034
− 5.453
− 6.355
4.403
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.177
− 1.753
− 1.951
0.180
9.983
− 0.823
− 1.029
0.471
7
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
Table 7
Moderation results (organizational factors-project complexity-project success).
Model Summary
R
R2
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
.7943
Coefficients
0.631
0.098
184.074
3.00
323.000
0.000
Model
Coeff
Se
T
p
LLCI
ULCI
Constant
Organizational Factors
Project Complexity
Int_1
7.395
− 1.083
− 0.980
0.210
0.507
0.186
0.159
0.056
14.579
− 5.824
− 6.138
3.739
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.397
− 1.449
− 1.294
0.099
8.393
− 0.717
− 0.666
0.320
Table 8
Moderation results (human factors-project complexity-project success).
Model Summary
R
R2
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0.769
Coefficients
.0592
0.108
156.750
3.000
323.000
0.000
Model
coeff
Se
T
P
LLCI
ULCI
Constant
Human Factors
Project Complexity
Int_1
6.596
− 0.752
0.892
0.157
0.363
0.141
0.111
0.042
18.171
− 5.302
− 7.980
3.734
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.882
− 1.031
− 1.112
0.074
7.310
− 0.473
− 0.672
0.239
organizational, and human have a significant negative impact on the
success of construction projects in Pakistan. However, this negative
impact can be controlled through contingency plans, processing change
through a proper change control board, and slack time. To manage
project complexity, it is important to assess it at the initial stages which
decrease the chances of scope creep at the later stages of the project
(Komal et al., 2020).
consultants, and clients who need to recognize the significance of
complexity and scope creep in construction projects. Moreover, the
delay in delivery of the project is one of the main hurdles in the suc­
cessful completion of a construction project, which often happens due to
poor planning resulting in scope creep. Addressing such kind of concern
is the need of the hour for construction projects in general and the
construction sector of Pakistan in particular. Moreover, the practitioners
should not disregard coping with creeping and complexity to minimize
the chances of scope creep early in construction projects which are often
major contributors to increase in cost and delays in schedule. Further­
more, the involvement of customers and a proper change control
mechanism need to be established to avoid scope creep in construction
projects (Tariq et al., 2020). Indeed, the organizational factors of scope
creep need more attention while undertaking construction projects to
achieve success, which is one of the top reasons impeding the successful
completion of construction projects in Pakistan, followed by human
factors and then technological factors of scope creep. Additionally, the
undertaker of projects in the construction industry must focus on man­
aging the complexity instead of focusing to reduce it only (Kerman­
shachi et al., 2020). Moreover, project complexity needs to be managed
effectively by the project stakeholders, as more project complexity has
more chances of scope creep and fewer chances of project success.
5.1. Implications of the study
5.1.1. Theoretical implication
This study advances the knowledge base on scope creep, project
complexity, and project success in many ways. The majority of earlier
relevant studies took several constructs for research like an anticipation
of scope creep, controlling of scope creep, and the significance of scope
creep, which were lacking support of relevant theories. However, this
research used the lens of complexity theory to empirically authenticate
that scope creep factors (technological, organizational, and human
factors) significantly thwart the successful completion of construction
projects, in addition to establishing that scope creep has a significant
negative impact on the success of construction projects in Pakistan. The
finding implies that the organizational factors have the highest influence
on the success of construction projects, followed by human and then
technical factors of scope creep. Furthermore, recognizing and man­
aging complexity is significantly important to project contractors, con­
sultants, and practitioners for making constructively and timely
decisions to attain project goals (Ghaleb et al., 2022). Finally, findings
endorse that project complexity strengthens the relationship between
scope creep factors and project success, due to which the involvement of
contractors, consultants, and clients is essential to avoid scope creep
during the project lifecycle, maximize the chances of success and
minimize the probability of project failure.
6. Conclusions
Construction projects are often complex and the successful comple­
tion of the construction project is always a big challenge for its un­
dertakers where scope creep and project complexity are often the main
hurdles to the successful completion of a project. This study makes an
effort to investigate the relationship between scope creep and project
success, and moderating effect of project complexity on relationship
between the scope creep and project success. This study focuses on
construction projects where data was collected through a survey which
was analyzed using SPSS software where regression analysis and the
PROCESS tool were used to test the research hypothesis. The findings
show that all the factors of scope creep i.e. technological, organizational,
and human have a significantly negative impact on project success.
Furthermore, the organizational factors of scope creep should be given a
special focus which is one of the significant factors that influence the
5.1.2. Practical implications
For practitioners, achieving project goals within the specified time­
frame and budget is one of the major challenges while scope creep and
project complexity are the main concerns in the success of construction
projects. Therefore, the practical implications of this study are for the
practitioners including top management, project managers, contractors,
8
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
success of construction projects, followed by human and technological
factors. Furthermore, the project complexity significantly moderates the
relationship between factors of scope creep and the success of con­
struction projects. Thus, the project undertakers of complex construc­
tion projects, particularly in Pakistan, should acknowledge the impact of
scope creep and project complexity on project success and must devise a
plan at the start of the project to avoid scope creep and manage project
complexity.
There are certain limitations and directions for future research. First,
the data was collected from project-based construction companies in
Pakistan, future studies may consider the collection of data across sec­
tors and countries for more generalizability of the findings. Second, the
survey method was used to collect cross-sectional data to test the
formative measurement model of this study which may prone to error
owing to respondents’ unfocused attitudes owing to their busy schedules
or sometimes they are reluctant to provide information due to their
concern over privacy issues. Therefore, future research studies may
consider conducting cases studies and interviews, applying both
formative and reflective models, in addition to longitudinal studies to
substantiate the findings of this study. Thirdly, scope creep is quite an
under-research area so the availability of relevant data exacerbates the
data collection. It is suggested that organizational archives should
maintain data of completed projects about project complexity and scope
creep, and future studies may be undertaken including construction
firms across the construction industries and other countries to get more
authenticated results. Fourthly, the theoretical framework of this study
was limited to complexity theory, whereas future studies may use the
lens of other theories, like, resource-based view theory, conservation of
resources, stakeholders’ management theory, etc. Finally, this study
tested project complexity as a moderator, and scope creep is also asso­
ciated with a lack of communication between the client and project
managers. Furthermore, this study was limited to examining the overall
impact of project complexity as a unidimensional construct. Therefore, it
is recommended that effective communication may be taken as a
moderating and mediating variable to check its significance between
scope creep and success, in addition to an in-depth study of examining
the significant intermediary effect of multi-dimensions of project
complexity related to technical, organizational, and human elements of
projects.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix- I. Measures of Variables
Scope Creep.
SC1
Customers’ requirements changed the scope of the last project
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
SC8
SC9
SC10
SC11
SC12
SC13
Internal changes made by the development team in the last project
Meeting advance estimates of schedules and resources in the last project
New ideas or market needs arise during the execution of the project
Lack of knowledge and poor understanding of product versatility/technical complexity by the project team
Unavailability of formal risk analysis and planning process in the project
Poor requirements specifications that lack in details or contain conflicting needs that were not identified before the specification was issued in the last project
Poor understanding of customers’ requirements prior to project scope definition and contract signing
A formal communication plan for the project was not available during the project
Poor quality of design/work breakdown structure in the project
Incompetency of Project manager/team management during the project
Inability to manage stakeholders, particularly the clients
Lack of defined and disciplined procedures of project scope management during the project
Project complexity.
PC1
Complexity due to insufficient experience of team members in my last project
PC2
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC6
PC7
PC8
The complexity involved with the information uncertainty in my last project
Project management methods and tools give rise to complexity in my last project
The tasks involved in my last project were complex
The level of uncertainties in my last project scope was complex
In my last project, the project goals’ level of clarity amongst the team was insufficient
The degree of dependencies involved in my project was high
Complexity in implementing the novel technology in construction products was high
Project Success.
PS1
The project was completed on time
PS2
PS3
PS4
The project was completed according to the allocated budget
The outcomes of the project are used by its intended end-users
The outcomes of the project are likely to be sustained.
(continued on next page)
9
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
(continued )
PS1
The project was completed on time
PS5
PS6
PS7
PS8
PS9
PS10
PS11
The outcomes of the project have directly benefited the intended end-users, either through increased efficiency or effectiveness.
Given the problem for which it was developed, the project seems to do the best job of solving that problem
The client was satisfied with the implementation of the project
Project team members were satisfied with the process by which the project was implemented
The project had no minimal or start-up problems because it was readily accepted by end-users
The project has directly led to improved performance for the end-user/target beneficiaries’
The project has made a visible positive impact on the target
References
Hayes, A.F., 2012. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable
mediation, moderation, and Conditional Process modeling. University of Kansas, KS.
Hofland, B., 2018. Anticipating Scope Creep in the Design Phase of Infrastructure
Projects: A Case Study on Scope Creep and its Effects.
Høylandskjær, M., 2018. Managerial perceptions of scope creep in projects: a multiplecase study.
Ika, L., Couillard, J., Garon, S., 2021. Coping with project complexity: the complexity
based project management framework. PM World J. 10 (5), 1–22.
Imran, H.N., Shazia, A., 2011. The impact of stakeholder communication on project
outcome. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5 (14), 5824–5832.
Jamil, N., Baharuddin, F., Sulaiman, T.T., Rosle, A., Harun, A., 2020. Exploratory factor
Analysis-key to a successful mentoring relationship. J. Adv. Res. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2
(1), 11–21.
Jayalath, C., Somarathna, K., 2021. Key performance indicators in upholding scope creep
management in road projects. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Construction
Symposium, 9-10 July 2021, Sri Lanka, pp. 381–391.
Joseph, N., Marnewick, C., 2020. Clarifying IS project complexity through factor
analysis. Afr. J. Inf. Syst. 12 (2), 2.
Joseph, N., Marnewick, C., 2021. Measuring Information Systems Project Complexity: A
Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Complexity, 2021.
Joslin, R., Müller, R., 2016. The impact of project methodologies on project success in
different project environments. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 9 (2), 64–88.
Kermanshachi, S., Dao, B., Rouhanizadeh, B., Shane, J., Anderson, S., 2020.
Development of the project complexity assessment and management framework for
heavy industrial projects. Int. J. Construct. Educ. Res. 16 (1), 24–42.
Khahro, S.H., Memon, Z.A., 2018. Non excusable delays in construction industry: a
causal study. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 8 (6), 3561–3564.
Khan, M.A., Ali, M.I., Umar, M., 2019. Impact of leadership styles on project success:
evidence from private sector firms of construction industry. Global Manag. J. Acad.
Corp Stud. 9 (2), 20.
Khan, A.A.N., Singh, J.S.K., Kaur, D., Arumugam, T., 2020. The success of construction
projects: empirical evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Global Bus. Manag. Res.
12 (3), 47–59.
Kimaru, J.M., 2019. Effects of Project Complexity on Project Success: The Case of
Telecom Firms in Nairobi. Strathmore University.
Kocak, C., Egrioglu, E., Yolcu, U., Aladag, C.H., 2014. Computing Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficient for fuzzy survey data. Am. J. Intell. Syst. 4 (5), 204–213.
Komal, B., Janjua, U.I., Madni, T.M., 2019. Identification of scope creep factors and their
impact on software project success. In: Paper Presented at the 2019 International
Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCIS).
Komal, B., Janjua, U.I., Anwar, F., Madni, T.M., Cheema, M.F., Malik, M.N., Shahid, A.R.,
2020. The impact of scope creep on project success: an empirical investigation. IEEE
Access 8, 125755–125775.
Luo, L., Zhang, L., He, Q., 2020. Linking project complexity to project success: a hybrid
SEM–FCM method. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 27 (9), 2591–2614.
Ma, L., Fu, H., 2020. Exploring the influence of project complexity on the mega
construction project success: a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) method.
Engineering. Construct. Architect. Manag. 27 (9), 2429–2449.
Madhuri, K.L., Suma, V., Mokashi, U.M., 2018. A triangular perception of scope creep
influencing the project success. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 27 (1), 69–85.
Majeed, H., Kayani, U.N., Haider, S.A., 2021. The project communication and trust nexus
as an antecedents of project success: moderating role of authentic leadership. Int. J.
Bus. Commun., doi:23294884211019098
Maqsoom, A., Khan, M.U., Khan, M.T., Khan, S., Ullah, F., 2018. Factors influencing the
construction time and cost overrun in projects: empirical evidence from Pakistani
construction industry. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 21st
International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real
Estate.
Mikkelsen, M.F., 2020. Perceived project complexity: a survey among practitioners of
project management. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 14 (3), 680–698.
Mikkelsen, M.F., 2021. The lived experience of managing the dynamics of project
complexity. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 9 (2), 145–157.
Mikkelsen, M.F., Venable, J., Aaltonen, K., 2020. Researching navigation of project
complexity using action design research. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 14 (1), 108–130.
Moneke, U., Echeme, I., 2016. Causes and effects of scope creep on large-scale public
sector construction projects. Int. J. Envineering Tech. Res. 5 (2), 165–172.
Morcov, S., Pintelon, L., Kusters, R.J., 2021. A practical assessment of modern it project
complexity management tools: taming positive, appropriate, negative complexity.
Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj Manag. 12 (3), 90–108.
Nachbagauer, A., 2021. Managing Complexity in Projects: Extending the Cynefin
Framework, vol. 2. Project Leadership Society, 100017.
Abbas, H.F., Erzaij, K.R., 2020. Study of the complexity factors associated with the theory
of complexity in Iraqi construction projects. Period. Eng. Nat. Sci. 7 (4), 2034–2044.
Ahmed, R., bin Mohamad, N.A., 2014. Performance of projects in public sector of
Pakistan: developing a framework for future challenges. Serbian Proj. Manag. J. 4
(1), 3–12.
Ahmed, S., Memon, A.H., Memon, N.A., Laghari, A.N., Akhund, M.A., Imad, H.U., 2018.
Common factors of cost escalation in construction industry of Pakistan. Eng.
Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 8 (6), 3508–3511.
Ahmed, R., Hussain, A., Philbin, S.P., 2021. Moderating effect of senior management
support on the relationship between schedule delay factors and project performance.
Eng. Manag. J. 33 (3), 1–20.
Ajmal, M., Khan, M., Al-Yafei, H., 2019. Exploring factors behind project scope
creep–stakeholders’ perspective. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 29 (7), 2786–2809.
AL-fadhali, N., Soon, N.K., Zainal, R., Ahmad, A.R., Hasaballah, A.H.A., 2018. Influential
factors in construction industry of Yemen. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of
the 21st International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management
and Real Estate.
Al-Rubaiei, Q.H.S., Nifa, F.A.A., Musa, S., 2018. Project scope management through
multiple perspectives: a critical review of concepts. In: Paper Presented at the AIP
Conference Proceedings.
Albert, M., Balve, P., Spang, K., 2017. Evaluation of project success: a structured
literature review. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 10 (4), 796–821.
Amirrudin, M., Nasution, K., Supahar, S., 2021. Effect of variability on Cronbach alpha
reliability in research practice. Jurnal Matematika, Statistika dan Komputasi 17 (2),
223–230.
Ammar, A.A., 2018. Issues Contractor’s Face in the Construction Industry of lsamabad
and Rawalpindi (Pakistan). Final Year Project. ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSITY, pp. 1–15.
Amoatey, C.T., Anson, B.A., 2017. Investigating the major causes of scope creep in real
estate construction projects in Ghana. J. Facil. Manag. 15 (4), 393–408.
Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V., Gorod, A., 2016. Clarifying the project complexity construct:
past, present and future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (7), 1199–1213.
Bjorvatn, T., Wald, A., 2019. Complexity as a driver of media choice: a comparative
study of domestic and international teams. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 25 (1), 90–109.
Butler, C.W., Vijayasarathy, L.R., Roberts, N., 2020. Managing software development
projects for success: aligning plan-and agility-based approaches to project
complexity and project dynamism. Proj. Manag. J. 51 (3), 262–277.
Callaghan, G., 2008. Evaluation and negotiated order: developing the application of
complexity theory. Evaluation 14 (4), 399–411.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F., Venaik, S., 2008. Formative versus reflective
measurement models: two applications of formative measurement. J. Bus. Res. 61
(12), 1250–1262.
de Rezende, L.B., Blackwell, P., 2019. Revisiting project complexity: a new dimension
and framework. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 6 (3).
Floricel, S., Michela, J.L., Piperca, S., 2016. Complexity, uncertainty-reduction strategies,
and project performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (7), 1360–1383.
Floricel, S., Piperca, S., Tee, R., 2018. Strategies for managing the structural and dynamic
consequences of project complexity. Hindawi Special Issue, 1–17.
Gamil, Y., Rahman, I.A., 2017. Identification of causes and effects of poor
communication in construction industry: a theoretical review. Emerg. Sci. J. 1 (4),
239–247.
Gavali, A., Halder, S., 2020. Identifying critical success factors of ERP in the construction
industry. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 21 (2), 311–329.
Gazder, U., Khan, R.A., 2018. Effect of organizational structures and types of
construction on perceptions of factors contributing to project failure in Pakistan.
Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 37 (1), 127–138.
Ghaleb, H., Abdullah, A.A., 2021. A conceptual framework for impact of project
complexity on success of railway construction projects: the moderating role of
effective communications to all stakeholders. The J. Manag. Theor. Pract. 62–69.
Ghaleb, H., Alhajlah, H.H., Bin Abdullah, A.A., Kassem, M.A., Al-Sharafi, M.A., 2022.
A scientometric analysis and systematic literature review for construction project
complexity. Buildings 12 (4), 482.
Giezen, M., 2012. Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages
of reducing complexity in mega project planning. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (7),
781–790.
Gunduz, M., Yahya, A.M.A., 2018. Analysis of project success factors in construction
industry. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 24 (1), 67–80, 67–80.
10
R. Ahmed and M. Jawad
Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100064
and Technical Conference on Computer Sciences and Information Technologies
(CSIT), 2. IEEE, pp. 106–114.
Shibani, A., Mahadel, O., Hassan, D., Agha, A., Saidan, M., 2021. Causes of time overruns
in the construction industry in Egypt. Int. Res. J. Mod. Technol. Eng. Sci. 3 (1),
510–531.
Shinde, V., Hedaoo, M., 2017. A review on productivity improvement in construction
industry. International Research Journal of Engineering Technology 4 (11),
210–215.
Shirazi, F., Kazemipoor, H., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, 2017. Fuzzy decision analysis for
project scope change management. Decision Science Letters 6 (4), 395–406.
Sindi, M., 2018. Scope creep in construction industry of Saudi Arabia. Adv. Eng. Sci. 3
(2), 277–281.
Soomro, F.A., Memon, M.J., Chandio, A.F., Sohu, S., Soomro, R., 2019. Causes of time
overrun in construction of building projects in Pakistan. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res.
9 (1), 3762–3764.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Hammad, A.A., Shboul, 2008. Delays in construction projects: the
case of Jordan. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (6), 665–674.
Tariq, S., Ahmad, N., Ashraf, M.U., Alghamdi, A.M., Alfakeeh, A.S., 2020. Measuring the
impact of scope changes on project plan using EVM. IEEE Access 8, 154589–154613.
Ullah, F., Thaheem, M.J., Siddiqui, S.Q., Khurshid, M.B., 2017. Influence of Six Sigma on
project success in construction industry of Pakistan. The TQM Journal 29 (2),
276–309.
Usman, M., 2019. Impact of Abusive Supervision on Project Success, Mediating Role of
Employee Performance, Moderating Effect of Scope Creep. CAPITAL UNIVERSITY.
Wahaj, M., Deep, S., Dixit, R.B., Khan, M.B., 2017. A study of project success and
procurement frameworks in Indian construction industry. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 8
(3), 167–174.
Watkins, M.W., 2018. Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice. J. Black
Psychol. 44 (3), 219–246.
Williams, B., Onsman, A., Brown, T., 2010. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide
for novices. Australasian journal of paramedicine 8 (3).
Yap, J.B.H., Chow, I.N., Shavarebi, K., 2019. Criticality of construction industry
problems in developing countries: analyzing Malaysian projects. J. Manag. Eng. 35
(5), 04019020.
Nawaz, T., Ikram, A.A., Qureshi, A.A., 2013. Causes of schedule overruns in Pakistani
construction industry. J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 5 (4), 1–11.
Nguyen, L.D., Le-Hoai, L., Tran, D.Q., Dang, C.N., Nguyen, C.V., 2019. Effect of project
complexity on cost and schedule performance in transportation projects. Construct.
Manag. Econ. 37 (7), 384–399.
Niazai, G.A., Gidado, K., 2012. Causes of project delay in the construction industry in
Afghanistan. Proc. EPPM 63–74.
Pesämaa, O., Zwikael, O., HairJr, J., Huemann, M., 2021. Publishing quantitative papers
with rigor and transparency. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 39 (3), 217–222.
Raziq, M.M., Ahmad, M., Iqbal, M.Z., Ikramullah, M., David, M., 2020. Organisational
structure and project success: the mediating role of knowledge sharing. J. Inf. Knowl.
Manag. 19 (2), 2050007.
Reio Jr., T.G., Shuck, B., 2015. Exploratory factor analysis: implications for theory,
research, and practice. Adv. Develop. Hum. Resour. 17 (1), 12–25.
Rodríguez Montequín, V., Villanueva Balsera, J., Cousillas Fernández, S.M., Ortega
Fernández, F., 2018. Exploring project complexity through project failure factors:
analysis of cluster patterns using self-organizing maps. Complexity-Hindawi Special,
1–17, 2018.
Saad, A., Zahid, S.M., Muhammad, U.B., 2020. Role of awareness in strengthening the
relationship between stakeholder management and project success in the
construction industry of Pakistan. Int. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 1–10.
Safapour, E., Kermanshachi, S., 2019. Identifying manageable scope creep indicators and
selecting best practice strategies for construction projects. In: Paper Presented at the
Proceedings of the 7th CSCE International Construction Specialty Conference.
Sambasivan, M., Deepak, T., Salim, A.N., Ponniah, V., 2017. Analysis of delays in
Tanzanian construction industry: transaction cost economics (TCE) and structural
equation modeling (SEM) approach. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag.
San Cristóbal, J.R., Carral, L., Diaz, E., Fraguela, J.A., Iglesias, G., 2018. Complexity and
Project management: A General Overview. Complexity, 2018.
Shahroz, F., Khan, R.A., Khushnood, M., Aslam, S., Khattak, Z.Z., Abbas, S., 2021. Impact
of project complexity on cost overruns with the moderating effect of contractors’
financial attributes in construction projects. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 15,
187–206.
Sharma, R., Sohi, A.J., Hertogh, M.J., Deketh, J.R., 2017. Controlling the uncontrolled by
noticing the unnoticed. In: Paper presented at the 2017 12th International Scientific
11