Studiens syfte är att generera kunskap om vad som påverkar förändringsprojekts utfall, genom att studera kommunalt anställdas upplevelser av att ansvara för interna förändringsprojekt. Studien är ett försök att belysa förändringsprojekt sett som processer som drivs med hjälp av projektlogik, för att ytterligare förstå svårigheter och möjligheter i kommunala projektsammanhang. För att besvara syftet utfördes semistrukturerade intervjuer med efterföljande analys utifrån ett teoretiskt ramverk, baserad på tidigare forskning inom projektledning. Intervjuerna omfattar personer anställda i olika svenska kommuner, ansvariga för framtagande och implementering av handlingsplaner mot våldsbejakande extremism. Resultatet påvisar att bristande samsyn gällande mål och prioritering samt osäkerhet gällande tillvägagångssätt upplevs försvåra projekten, medan personliga relationer och metoder som främjar samarbete, samsyn och kunskapsdelning upplevs underlätta projekten. Studien drar slutsatsen att svåra genomföranden hänger samman med låg prioriteringsnivå av projektet i organisationen, samt att de metoder som avses användas för att hantera svårigheter är oanvändbara utan handlingsutrymme genom personliga relationer inom organisationen. Genom att definiera förändringsprojekt som process med själva förändringen i fokus stärks också förutsättningarna för att kunna sätta projektmål och ramar som möjliggör ett lyckat resultat. / The aim of this study is to generate knowledge about what affects the outcome of change projects, by studying how employees in public organisations experience their work as responsible for managing change projects. The study is an attempt to shed light on change projects seen as processes that are managed by project logic, to further understand difficulties and possibilities in public project contexts. To answer the aim semi-structured interviews were conducted with following analysis through a theoretical framework, based on previous research of project management. The interviews include employees in different Swedish municipalities, responsible for developing and implementing action plans addressing violent extremism. The result shows that lack of consensus regarding goals and prioritizations as well as uncertainty regarding procedures are experienced as aggravating, while personal relations and methods supporting cooperation, consensus and knowledge-sharing are experienced as facilitating. The study concludes that difficult procedures are connected to low level of priority of the project in the organisation, as well as the methods that are intended to be used to reduce complexity are useless without room for action through personal relations within the organisation. By defining change projects as processes with the actual change in focus, the prerequisite to be able to set targets and frames that enables successful results are also strengthened.

<p>In the last three decades, complexity theory has gained a lot of importance in several scientific disciplines like astronomy, geology, chemistry etc. It has slowly extended its usage in the field of project management. While trying to understand the managerial demands of modern day projects and the different situations faced in projects, the term ‘complexity’ is progressively becoming a benchmark term. In the recent past some of the challenging projects that have been completed are the Heathrow Terminal 5 and the construction of venues for the Beijing Olympics. But can we call these projects complex?It is probably too simplistic to classify projects as complex or non-complex. What is particularly important is to identify the source of the complexity, the level and also the implications of the complexity. Several academicians have studied the different dimensions and established different classifications of complexity. These are put together into models of complexity.But is this classification well-grounded in reality? This is what we aim to explore through this research. The specific questions that we wish to explore by conducting this research are:</p><ul><li>How does the understanding of project complexity in actuality conform to the theoretical complexity models?</li></ul><p>In an effort to answer the primary question, our study will also throw some light on factors of complexity across different sectors. We hope that this distinction will pave way for further research within these sectors. This now brings us to our sub-question:- How do the factors that contribute to complexity compare across different sectors?At the outset of this research, the literature on complexity was reviewed. An attempt was made to understand what complexity means with a focus on the field of project management.It was observed that there is a new wave of thinking in this field and a camp which believes that regular project management tools and techniques cannot be used for complex projects.</p><p>This has drawn several academicians to generate models of complexity based on various factors. In this research we have focused on some important models like that of Turner and Cochrane, Ralph Stacey, Terry Williams, Kahane and Remington and Pollack. We have tried to see if any of these models fit in with how practitioners understand complexity.To find out how practitioners comprehend complexity, we followed a grounded theory approach and also used quantitative methods to supplement the results in accordance in a mixed methodology. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with nine project managers from different sectors and different  geographical locations. The interviews were analyzed and the data was broken down to different categories referred to as open coding where labelling was done. This was followed by Axial coding where we describe the properties and build relations between these categories. The final stage is selective coding where the emerged theory is integrated and refined.Quantitative data was collected through a short questionnaire which listed out some factors which could cause or lead to complexity in projects. A total of 29 responses were obtained for the questionnaires. By analyzing this data we were able to determine the factors that project managers thought caused complexity in projects. A new dimension was also added by analyzing it sector-wise. Since we collected data from two different sources, via interviews and through questionnaires, it gave us the opportunity to triangulate the findings. Wesincerely hope that this piece of work will pave way for future research on similar areas like models of complexity and perception of complexity in project management</p>

In the last three decades, complexity theory has gained a lot of importance in several scientific disciplines like astronomy, geology, chemistry etc. It has slowly extended its usage in the field of project management. While trying to understand the managerial demands of modern day projects and the different situations faced in projects, the term ‘complexity’ is progressively becoming a benchmark term. In the recent past some of the challenging projects that have been completed are the Heathrow Terminal 5 and the construction of venues for the Beijing Olympics. But can we call these projects complex?It is probably too simplistic to classify projects as complex or non-complex. What is particularly important is to identify the source of the complexity, the level and also the implications of the complexity. Several academicians have studied the different dimensions and established different classifications of complexity. These are put together into models of complexity.But is this classification well-grounded in reality? This is what we aim to explore through this research. The specific questions that we wish to explore by conducting this research are: How does the understanding of project complexity in actuality conform to the theoretical complexity models? In an effort to answer the primary question, our study will also throw some light on factors of complexity across different sectors. We hope that this distinction will pave way for further research within these sectors. This now brings us to our sub-question:- How do the factors that contribute to complexity compare across different sectors?At the outset of this research, the literature on complexity was reviewed. An attempt was made to understand what complexity means with a focus on the field of project management.It was observed that there is a new wave of thinking in this field and a camp which believes that regular project management tools and techniques cannot be used for complex projects. This has drawn several academicians to generate models of complexity based on various factors. In this research we have focused on some important models like that of Turner and Cochrane, Ralph Stacey, Terry Williams, Kahane and Remington and Pollack. We have tried to see if any of these models fit in with how practitioners understand complexity.To find out how practitioners comprehend complexity, we followed a grounded theory approach and also used quantitative methods to supplement the results in accordance in a mixed methodology. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with nine project managers from different sectors and different  geographical locations. The interviews were analyzed and the data was broken down to different categories referred to as open coding where labelling was done. This was followed by Axial coding where we describe the properties and build relations between these categories. The final stage is selective coding where the emerged theory is integrated and refined.Quantitative data was collected through a short questionnaire which listed out some factors which could cause or lead to complexity in projects. A total of 29 responses were obtained for the questionnaires. By analyzing this data we were able to determine the factors that project managers thought caused complexity in projects. A new dimension was also added by analyzing it sector-wise. Since we collected data from two different sources, via interviews and through questionnaires, it gave us the opportunity to triangulate the findings. Wesincerely hope that this piece of work will pave way for future research on similar areas like models of complexity and perception of complexity in project management