The document discusses tools and methods for assessing project complexity. It introduces the Helmsman model, which measures both technical and soft complexity factors. The model provides complexity ratings to help determine appropriate delivery approaches, resources, and governance. It analyzes complexity drivers for TfL projects and finds multi-disciplinarity, timeframes, accountability structures, and large stakeholder groups contribute most to complexity. Higher cost projects also tend to be more complex, though lower cost ones show more variability. The document aims to help TfL address the most variable drivers locally and the most consistent ones corporately through tools, systems and competency development.

1. Delivery & Commercial Capability
Programme
Understanding Complexity
1

2. The Killer Question...
• Are "complex projects" real or are they simply a result
of poorly defined scope. How can one distinguish
between a genuinely complex project and one that has
not had its scope and context sufficiently developed?
2

3. Complexity & Capability
Projects this side of the cliff
need a greater maturity than
current organisation al
capability
Complexity v
Performance
for Company X
Project portfolio
Projects this side of the cliff are
within the host organisation’s
inherent capability
Helmsman performance cliff model
A project’s performance/complexity rating
Increasing maturity level raises the complexity cliff
Note: Diagram is illustrative. Not TfL data.
Complexity
Cliff

4. Why Assess Complexity?
Helmsman
Increase Capability
Maturity
requirement of
host organisation
Choice of Team Appointments
Choice of Delivery Model
Authority approval level
DECA / Helmsman
Assurance strategy
Complexity rating
Degree of rigour
to apply
Enables
capability gaps
to be identified
Monitoring/Reporting
Lifecycle/Gates
These are
factored into
Pathway and
will continue to
be used to
refine default
levels of
control
Process / Techniques
Helmsman
Strategies to treat
complexity drivers
De-scoping
Feasibility studies
Agile
Optioneering
Proof of Concept
Project Teams
can use the
results to
target the
factors driving
up their
complexity

5. Helmsman Model (comprehensive)
The Helmsman model measures
both hard and soft factors

6. Results for Project ‘X’

7. Comparing similar projects
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
C ontex t
S oc ial
A mbig uity
Tec hnic al
P rojec t
Manag ement
C omplex ity
R ating
B aker S treet S tation Improvement
5.3
5.0
5.0
3.1
5.4
4.8
B ond S treet S tation Upg rade
6.7
5.0
6.6
6.2
7.0
6.3
C hanc ery L ane S tation Improvement
4.7
5.3
5.0
3.1
5.3
4.7
G reen P ark S F A
5.3
4.5
4.7
3.6
6.1
4.8
Marble A rc h
5.3
6.0
5.1
4.2
6.3
5.4
Notting Hill G ate
5.3
4.0
4.6
3.9
5.4
4.6
Tottenham C ourt R oad S tation Improvements
7.0
5.6
4.9
7.3
7.6
6.5
V ic toria S tation Upg rade P rojec t
7.3
5.5
5.3
5.5
7.0
6.1

8. Top 5 Sub-Factors
10.0
The D&CC governance
workstream has been
helping with this issue,
but there’s still more to
do: e.g. Only submitting
investment papers to
the final decision-maker
9.0
8.0
conflict
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Multi-dis c iplinary
A verag e R ating
Timeframes
S truc ture
L evel of
A c c ountability
S takeholder
Numbers
8.1
7.4
7.2
7.1
6.9
• TfL typically has a large number of core disciplines involved in projects.
• Timeframes are typically quite long, meaning it is likely that scope will be
ambiguous and/or subject to change and continuity of stakeholders and
project personnel is unlikely.
• Project Managers typically are accountable for delivering new capabilities
(not just tangible outputs), However, there are typically 4-5 decision-making
layers above the Project Manager
• There are generally a lot of stakeholders interested in TfL projects
8

9. Complexity & Cost
10
Generally, the bigger the project by cost, the
more complex it is.
9
But lower value projects have a wider spread of
complexity. The ranges shown here cover a 90%
confidence interval..
8
It could be more critical to understand complexity
drivers for projects <£100m than in other cost
bands.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
£1-25m
£25£50m
£50m£100m
£100m£300m
£300m£1bn
£1bn+

10. Variability
Most variable
Least variable
To be addressed
by projects teams
To be addressed
corporately
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
TfL P ortfolio A verag e
S TD E V
• The least variable complexity drivers should be addressed
corporately – e.g. factored into TfL pathway, tools/systems,
competency development etc
• The most variable complexity drivers should be addressed
locally, and factored into team selection, assurance etc.

11. What we are doing next...
Context
ource: Ackoff / Senge & Roth
Approach

12. The Killer Question...
• Are "complex projects" real or are they simply a result
of poorly defined scope. How can one distinguish
between a genuinely complex project and one that has
not had its scope and context sufficiently developed?
• My experience...
– Even for well defined projects
– Some complexity drivers are inherent
– Some can be tamed
– Others cannot
– Some complexity drivers are self-inflicted
– For poorly defined projects
– Most complexity drivers are self-inflicted
12