Project Behavior, Disruptions, and the Antifragility Spectrum

doi:10.1017/9781009322737.021

Chapter 17 - Project Behavior, Disruptions, and the Antifragility Spectrum

from Part III - Practical Tips

Published online by Cambridge University Press: aN Invalid Date NaN

Jeffrey K. Pinto and

Greg Usher

Edited by

Lavagnon A. Ika and

Jeffrey K. Pinto

Show author details

Lavagnon A. Ika: Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Jeffrey K. Pinto: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Projects are prone to a variety of sudden unexpected disruptions across their development cycle, requiring that effective organizations develop strategies for proactively recognizing disruption likelihood and swiftly responding to these events. We explore a hierarchy of responses to disruption and propose an “antifragile hierarchy” in which four key responses to project disruption are demonstrated (Fragile, Robust, Resilient, and Antifragile), with a range of strategies available for addressing these disruptions. Each behavior will produce different outcomes for a project, ranging from irretrievable value loss to considerable value gain. Finally, we offer a set of strategies for effectively responding to disruptions to promote antifragility in projects.

Keywords

Project Behavior Disruptions Antifragility Spectrum

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 265 - 285

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009322737.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.10.1191/030913200701540465CrossRef Google Scholar

Aleksić, A., Stefanović, M., Tadić, D., and Arsovski, S. (2014). A fuzzy model for assessment of organization vulnerability. Measurement, 51, 214–223.CrossRef Google Scholar

Alkhaldi, K. H., Austin, M. L., Cura, B. A., Dantzler, D., Holland, L., Maples, D. L., and Marcus, L. J. (2017). Are you ready? Crisis leadership in a hyper-VUCA environment. Journal of Emergency Management, 15(3), 117–132.10.5055/jem.2017.0320CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.10.1287/orsc.10.3.216CrossRef Google Scholar

Anheier, H. K. (2016). Of Hiding Hands and other ways of coping with uncertainty: A commentary. Social Research, 83(4), 1005–1010.10.1353/sor.2016.0064CrossRef Google Scholar

Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., and Lunn, D. (2016). Big is fragile: An attempt at theorizing scale. arXiv preprint, 1603.01416.Google Scholar

Aven, T. (2011). On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 31(4), 515–522.10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01528.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Aven, T. (2015). The concept of antifragility and its implications for the practice of risk analysis. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 35(3), 476–483.10.1111/risa.12279CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity – a review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 201–204.10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3CrossRef Google Scholar

Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., and Fisher, D. ([1974] 2008). Factors affecting project success (pp. 902–919). In Cleland, D. I. and King, W. R. (eds.). Project management handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar

Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V., and Gorod, A. (2016). Clarifying the project complexity construct: Past, present and future. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1199–1213.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Baxter, L. (2017). An antifragile approach to preparing for cyber conflict. Air War College.Google Scholar

Bendell, T. (2019). Are projects and project managers fragile, robust or anti-fragile? (pp. 93–97). In Dalcher, D. (ed.). Managing projects in a world of people, strategy and change, vol. 1. Routledge.Google Scholar

Bennett, N., and Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92(1/2), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2389563.Google Scholar

Bhaskar, U. (2007). 16-year delays, 2,532% cost overrun shock house panel. Mint. www.livemint.com/Politics/c5jutT7SEK6KyIeViMm6HN/16year-delays-2532-cost-overruns-shock-House-panel.html.Google Scholar

Botjes, E., Mulder, H., and Nouwens, H. (2020). Defining antifragility and the application on organisation design. Master’s thesis, Antwerp Management School.Google Scholar

Bredillet, C., and Tywoniak, S. (2014). Call for papers – special Issue on uncertainty, risk & opportunity, resilience & anti-fragility. International Journal of Project Management, 2(32), 363–364.10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.11.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Brenkert, G. G. (1998). Trust, morality and international business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(2), 293–317.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bryson, J. M., and Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 319–337.CrossRef Google Scholar

Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 73–90.10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00107.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Cleland, D. I. (1997). Project stakeholder management (pp. 275–301). In Cleland, D. I. and King, W. R. (eds.). Project management handbook. John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470172353.ch13CrossRef Google Scholar

Crawford, L., Langston, C., and Bajracharya, B. (2013). Participatory project management for improved disaster resilience. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 4(3), 317–333.10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2012-0020CrossRef Google Scholar

Dahlberg, R. (2015). Resilience and complexity: Conjoining the discourses of two contested concepts. Culture Unbound, 7(3), 541–557.10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1572541CrossRef Google Scholar

Davis, K., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). The corruption of project governance through normalization of deviance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2447–2461.CrossRef Google Scholar

de Moura, R. L., Carneiro, T. C. J., and Dias, T. L. (2023). VUCA environment on project success: The effect of project management methods. Brazilian Business Review, 20(3), 236–259.10.15728/bbr.2023.20.3.1.enCrossRef Google Scholar

Derbyshire, J., and Wright, G. (2014). Preparing for the future: development of an “antifragile” methodology that complements scenario planning by omitting causation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 215–225.10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Edson, M. C. (2012). A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), 499–516.10.1002/sres.2153CrossRef Google Scholar

Flyvbjerg, B. (2018). Planning fallacy or hiding hand: Which is the better explanation? arXiv preprint, 1802.09999.Google Scholar

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., and Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279–295.10.1080/01944360208976273CrossRef Google Scholar

Fridgeirsson, T. V., Ingason, H. T., Jonasson, H. I., and Kristjansdottir, B. H. (2021). The VUCAlity of projects: A new approach to assess a project risk in a complex world. Sustainability, 13(7), 3808.10.3390/su13073808CrossRef Google Scholar

Geambasu, G. (2011). Expect the unexpected: An exploratory study on the conditions and factors driving the resilience of infrastructure projects. PhD dissertation, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, Lausanne.Google Scholar

Gorgeon, A. (2015). Anti-fragile information systems. In T. A. Carte, A. Heinzl, & C. Urquhart (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2015) (pp. 1–19). Association for Information Systems.Google Scholar

Grabher, G., and Ibert, O. (2011). Project ecologies: A contextual view on temporary organizations (pp. 175–199). In Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K., and Söderlund, J. (eds.). Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hegel, G. W. F., Burbidge, J., and Dickey, L. (1993). The Cambridge companion to Hegel. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hole, K. J., and Hole, K. J. (2016). Principles ensuring anti-fragility. In Anti-fragile ICT Systems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30070-2_4.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ika, L., and Saint-Macary, J. (2023). Managing fuzzy projects in 3D: A proven, multi-faceted blueprint for overseeing complex projects. McGraw Hill Professional.Google Scholar

Ika, L. A., Love, P. E., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). Moving beyond the planning fallacy: The emergence of a new principle of project behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3310–3325.10.1109/TEM.2020.3040526CrossRef Google Scholar

Investigator, Q. (2017). Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. Quote Investigator. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/18/planning/.Google Scholar

Johnson, J., and Gheorghe, A. V. (2013). Antifragility analysis and measurement framework for systems of systems. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 4(4), 159–168.10.1007/s13753-013-0017-7CrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, K. H. (2014). Engineering antifragile systems: A change in design philosophy. Procedia Computer Science, 32, 870–875.10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.504CrossRef Google Scholar

Khanna, R., Guler, I., and Nerkar, A. (2016). Fail often, fail big, and fail fast? Learning from small failures and R&D performance in the pharmaceutical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 436–459.10.5465/amj.2013.1109CrossRef Google Scholar

Killen, C. P., and Hunt, R. A. (2013). Robust project portfolio management: Capability evolution and maturity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 131–151.10.1108/17538371311291062CrossRef Google Scholar

Koskela, L. (1999). Management of production in construction: A theoretical view. University of California Press.Google Scholar

Koskela, L. (2000). An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. Publication Number VTT Publications 408. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki.Google Scholar

Koskela, L., and Ballard, G. (2006). Should project management be based on theories of economics or production? Building Research & Information, 34(2), 154–163.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kriete, A. (2013). Robustness and aging –a systems-level perspective. Biosystems, 112(1), 37–48.10.1016/j.biosystems.2013.03.014CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kutsch, E., and Turner, N. (2016). Project resilience – moving beyond traditional risk management (pp. 250–257). In Dalcher, D. (ed.). Further advances in project management: Guided exploration in unfamiliar landscapes. Routledge.Google Scholar

Larsen, E. (2020). Project mManagement: The manageral process, 8th ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education (International).Google Scholar

Laursen, M., and Svejvig, P. (2016). Taking stock of project value creation: A structured literature review with future directions for research and practice. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 736–747.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.007CrossRef Google Scholar

Linkov, I., and Trump, B. D. (2019). The science and practice of resilience. Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-04565-4CrossRef Google Scholar

Lucan, S. C., Maroko, A. R., Sanon, O. C., and Schechter, C. B. (2017). Unhealthful food-and-beverage advertising in subway stations: Targeted marketing, vulnerable groups, dietary intake, and poor health. Journal of Urban Health, 94, 220–232.10.1007/s11524-016-0127-9CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lyotard, J.-F. (1993). Political writings. Trans. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman. UCL Press.Google Scholar

Mack, O., and Jungen, M. (2016). Program management in VUCA environments: Theoretical and pragmatical thoughts on a systemic management of projects and programs (pp. 41–57). In Mack, O., Khare, A., Krämer, A., and Burgartz, T. (eds.). Managing in a VUCA world. Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mack, O., Khare, A., Krämer, A., and Burgartz, T. (eds.). (2015). Managing in a VUCA world. Springer.Google Scholar

McEvoy, P., Brady, M., and Munck, R. (2016). Capacity development through international projects: a complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(3), 528–545.10.1108/IJMPB-08-2015-0072CrossRef Google Scholar

Naderpajouh, N., Matinheikki, J., Keeys, L. A., Aldrich, D. P., and Linkov, I. (2020). Resilience and projects: An interdisciplinary crossroad. Project Leadership and Society, 1, 100001.10.1016/j.plas.2020.100001CrossRef Google Scholar

Nikookar, E., Varsei, M., and Wieland, A. (2021). Gaining from disorder: Making the case for antifragility in purchasing and supply chain management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 27(3), 100699.10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100699CrossRef Google Scholar

Nowacka, A., and Rzemieniak, M. (2022). The impact of the VUCA environment on the digital competences of managers in the power industry. Energies, 15(1), 185.10.3390/en15010185CrossRef Google Scholar

Oliveira, N., Argyres, N., and Lumineau, F. (2022). The role of communication style in adaptation to interorganizational project disruptions. Journal of Operations Management, 68(4), 353–384.10.1002/joom.1183CrossRef Google Scholar

Perrow, C. (1999). Organizing to reduce the vulnerabilities of complexity. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 7(3), 150–155.10.1111/1468-5973.00108CrossRef Google Scholar

Pinto, J. K. (2014). Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 376–387.10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Pinto, J. K. (2022). No project should ever finish late (and why yours probably will, anyway). IEEE Engineering Management Review, 50, 181–192.10.1109/EMR.2022.3178174CrossRef Google Scholar

Piperca, S., and Floricel, S. (2023). Understanding project resilience: Designed, cultivated or emergent? International Journal of Project Management, 41(3), 102453.10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102453CrossRef Google Scholar

PMI. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide), 6th ed. Project Management Institute.Google Scholar

PMI. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) and the standard for project management, 7th ed. Project Management Institute.Google Scholar

Rahi, K. (2019). Project resilience: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 7(1), 69–83.10.12821/ijispm070104CrossRef Google Scholar

Rue, L. W., and Ibrahim, N. A. (1998). The relationship between planning sophistication and performance in small nusinesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(4), 24–32.Google Scholar

Russo, D., and Ciancarini, P. (2017). Towards antifragile software architectures. Procedia Computer Science, 109, 929–934.10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.426CrossRef Google Scholar

Santolini, M., Ellinas, C., and Nicolaides, C. (2021). Uncovering the fragility of large-scale engineering projects. EPJ Data Science, 10(1), 1–13.Google Scholar

Sapountzaki, K. (2012). Vulnerability management by means of resilience. Natural Hazards, 60, 1267–1285.10.1007/s11069-011-9908-3CrossRef Google Scholar

Shankar, R. K., and Clausen, T. H. (2020). Scale quickly or fail fast: An inductive study of acceleration. Technovation, 98, 102174.10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102174CrossRef Google Scholar

Shen, W., and Ying, W. (2022). Large-scale construction programme resilience against creeping disruptions: Towards inter-project coordination. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 671–684.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.06.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, A. (1950). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (1776). Reprint. Random House (Modern Library), 1937.Google Scholar

Söderholm, A. (2008). Project management of unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 80–86.10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.016CrossRef Google Scholar

Stelling, J., Sauer, U., Szallasi, Z., III Doyle, F. J., and Doyle, J. (2004). Robustness of cellular functions. Cell, 118(6), 675–685.10.1016/j.cell.2004.09.008CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Stochino, F., Bedon, C., Sagaseta, J., and Honfi, D. (2019). Robustness and resilience of structures under extreme loads. Advances in Civil Engineering, 4291703. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4291703.CrossRef Google Scholar

Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder, vol. 3. Random House.Google Scholar

Taleb, N. N., and Douady, R. (2011). A map and simple heuristic to detect fragility, antifragility, and model error. NYU-Poly working paper, SSRN.10.2139/ssrn.1864633CrossRef Google Scholar

Thomas, J., and Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity: Advanced project management education. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 304–315.10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Trump, B. D., and Linkov, I. (2020). Risk and resilience in the time of the COVID-19 crisis. Environment Systems and Decisions, 40(2), 171–173.10.1007/s10669-020-09781-0CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Usher, G. (2019). Creating confidence amongst complexity: The “lived experience” of client-side project managers in the Australian construction sector. University of Southern Queensland.Google Scholar

Usher, G. (2021). Project management in the 21st century. Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-030-71543-4CrossRef Google Scholar

Usher, G., and Whitty, S. J. (2017a). The final state convergence model. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(4), 770–795.10.1108/IJMPB-11-2016-0090CrossRef Google Scholar

Usher, G., and Whitty, S. J. (2017b). Identifying and managing drift-changes. International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 586–603.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.015CrossRef Google Scholar

Usher, G., and Whitty, S. J. (2017c). Project management yinyang: Coupling project success and client satisfaction. Project Management Research and Practice, 4, 5523–5523.10.5130/pmrp.v4i0.5523CrossRef Google Scholar

Usher, G. (2019). Next decision node (NDN) planning: An ambidextrous planning model. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(2), 390–411.Google Scholar

Walker, D. H., Davis, P. R., and Stevenson, A. (2017). Coping with uncertainty and ambiguity through team collaboration in infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 180–190.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Wiewiora, A. M., and O’Connor, P. J. (2022). Not all project ambiguity is equal: A typology of project ambiguity and implications for its management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(8), 921–933.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.10.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Winch, G. M., and Maytorena, E. (2011). Managing risk and uncertainty on projects: A cognitive approach (pp. 345–364). In Morris, P., Pinto, J., and Söderlund, J. (eds.). Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., and Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 638–649.10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009CrossRef Google Scholar

Woods, S. P., Weinborn, M., Velnoweth, A., Rooney, A., and Bucks, R. S. (2012). Memory for intentions is uniquely associated with instrumental activities of daily living in healthy older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(1), 134–138.10.1017/S1355617711001263CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Yap, S. F., Xu, Y., and Tan, L. (2021). Coping with crisis: The paradox of technology and consumer vulnerability. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(6), 1239–1257.10.1111/ijcs.12724CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.