Which definition of complexity is more helpful for you, the one give in PMBoK ed6 (perception of an individual) or ed7 (characteristic of a system)?

Hi Luis,

agree that they are different perspectives on complexity and both can be useful. Which one does apply more to your reality?

Hi Keith

thanks for your comment.
Agree that difficulty may feed into complexity. Besides the sheer number of components, I think their number and type of connections and dynamic behaviour (time factor) also play a role.
Doerner added lack of clarity and multiple goals (purposes) to his definition of complexity.

What is difficult for one person, might be easy for another. This means difficulty also is a perception.

Hi Kiron,

agree, Snowden added a model of complexity and distinguished it from complicatedness.

Now, PMBoK as being a guide to the base of knowledge would be expected to explain these different models. As PMs we need a range of ways to look at things, depending on their usefulness for the situation at hand.

I found it a good strategy to increase complexity in a project, as it creates more options and helps to keep political players out. If you need this.

Dear Thomas
In the PMBOK Guide 7th Edition there is a section that covers: " Models, Methods, and Artifacts".
Two models are proposed to understand the complexity and determine how to make decisions in a complex environment:
- Cynefin framework, created by Dave Snowden
- Stacey Matrix developed by Ralph Stacey
So far, in PMIstandards+, we still haven't found any sense of reference to these two frameworks.

Hi Keith,

wow, appreciate your elaboration. Very much.
On the one hand, I am glad I gave you some challenge, on the other hand, you also create some new food for thought. Thanks.

While I agree with you on some things, I also have different views on others.

As agent provocateur, let me focus on the differences, I hope these will give reason for others to chime in or at least extend their views. It also is shorter and more interesting.

Being a mathematician, I learned logical thinking and persistence in university 40 years ago and this mindset helped me being a systems engineer and understanding systems in a wider sense. It is necessary but not sufficient to gain wisdom.

When I switched to project management, I understood life it is a business with humans and systems thinking/rationality is only one aspect or set of mind. Others are human perceptions, and behaviours, our biases and moods but also the behaviours and capabilities of human groups, tribes, swarms. To see life merely as a system, cause/effect driven and linear is oversimplification (and we need this sometimes) and leads to failure.

So I see complexity more often NOT as a feature of a system but as a perception of humans looking at this system. Rarely people would say the a crystalline structure is complex, when they perceive it as beautiful, harmonic and hence simple. They grasp it even if they do not understand each detail. Every aha-effect makes complexity simple - in our minds.

When I said difficulty feeds into complexity, I meant this not be the only way they relate to each other, also complexity feeds into difficulty, as you elaborate. Think of fractals, the outside becomes inside and vice versa. Or think of iterative lifecycles. Or the egg and the hen. The correlation bias means we tend to look for cause/effect (linearity) when we see a correlation, even if we cannot prove it.

We agree that there is some confusion and some ambiguity over the term and its meaning. I once participated in the 'Navigating complexity' practice guide by PMI, from 2014, and we tried to get some handle on the topic. I was not so content with the result though.

Thomas