ML
M.X.K. Lonissen
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Master thesis
(2026)
-
M.X.K. Lonissen, M.G.C. Bosch-Rekveldt, L.S.W. Koops, J.S.J. Koolwijk, Marianne Hafkenscheid
In this MSc thesis, the Q-methodology was used in conjunction with the TOE-complexity framework to find different perspectives on project complexity within projects and between projects. To this end, three projects were analysed. The research took both the role of an individual, and the organization type they work at into consideration at the same time.
In two projects two different perspectives were identified. Whilst in the third project, three perspectives emerged. In the two projects with two perspectives, the perspectives were split between on one hand participants that found more complexity from the experienced lack of trust and other relational sources, and on the other hand participants that found complexity stemming from project content. The perspectives in the third project were more nuanced. With one finding political influence and higher management more complex, one finding the number of subprojects and influence from external stakeholders complex, and a third finding technical and project environment elements more complex. Within this third project, the complexity from lack of trust was ranked lower. The project manager from that project expressed that they had put a lot of effort into creating and keeping trust throughout the project. It seems that putting high effort into elements that are ranked high in one or more of the perspectives could lower the perceived complexity of that element. But if this actually is the case, and if this can lead to better project results or collaboration needs to be researched further.
When looking at all projects at the same time, complexity experienced from the lack of trust was also prevalent in two of the three perspectives that emerged.
The research confirms that multiple, distinct perspectives exist within project teams, each reflecting a different understanding of which elements are most complex. These perspectives do not systematically align with project roles nor organisational boundaries. In one project, the perspective aligned more with IPM role, in one project results were similar between role and company, and in one project perspectives aligned more with organisation.
Identifying perspectives on project complexity through (for example) the Q-methodology, can be used to increase collaboration by enabling project professionals to understand each other better. This allows for perspective-taking, enhancing group performance through fostering cooperation and coordination.
Through the different perspectives on project complexity, different complexity elements emerge as adding the most complexity to the project. These emerging elements should be investigated within a team, by directing more attention to them. For example, by focussing on them more during risk analysis sessions. If everyone had thought the same about the complexity, these elements might not emerge and be overlooked. Thus, having different perspectives should be embraced.
The complexity of a project, and the perception thereof are not static, therefore identifying perspectives should be repeated. Over time the perspective of a person could drift away from what others think that person has as a perspective. By systematically repeating the exercise throughout a project lifecycle, (for example) before each project follow-up, helps project professionals to keep understanding each other, keeping perspective-taking possible. Whilst simultaneously identifying new emerging complexity elements that warrant investigation and attention. ...
In two projects two different perspectives were identified. Whilst in the third project, three perspectives emerged. In the two projects with two perspectives, the perspectives were split between on one hand participants that found more complexity from the experienced lack of trust and other relational sources, and on the other hand participants that found complexity stemming from project content. The perspectives in the third project were more nuanced. With one finding political influence and higher management more complex, one finding the number of subprojects and influence from external stakeholders complex, and a third finding technical and project environment elements more complex. Within this third project, the complexity from lack of trust was ranked lower. The project manager from that project expressed that they had put a lot of effort into creating and keeping trust throughout the project. It seems that putting high effort into elements that are ranked high in one or more of the perspectives could lower the perceived complexity of that element. But if this actually is the case, and if this can lead to better project results or collaboration needs to be researched further.
When looking at all projects at the same time, complexity experienced from the lack of trust was also prevalent in two of the three perspectives that emerged.
The research confirms that multiple, distinct perspectives exist within project teams, each reflecting a different understanding of which elements are most complex. These perspectives do not systematically align with project roles nor organisational boundaries. In one project, the perspective aligned more with IPM role, in one project results were similar between role and company, and in one project perspectives aligned more with organisation.
Identifying perspectives on project complexity through (for example) the Q-methodology, can be used to increase collaboration by enabling project professionals to understand each other better. This allows for perspective-taking, enhancing group performance through fostering cooperation and coordination.
Through the different perspectives on project complexity, different complexity elements emerge as adding the most complexity to the project. These emerging elements should be investigated within a team, by directing more attention to them. For example, by focussing on them more during risk analysis sessions. If everyone had thought the same about the complexity, these elements might not emerge and be overlooked. Thus, having different perspectives should be embraced.
The complexity of a project, and the perception thereof are not static, therefore identifying perspectives should be repeated. Over time the perspective of a person could drift away from what others think that person has as a perspective. By systematically repeating the exercise throughout a project lifecycle, (for example) before each project follow-up, helps project professionals to keep understanding each other, keeping perspective-taking possible. Whilst simultaneously identifying new emerging complexity elements that warrant investigation and attention. ...
In this MSc thesis, the Q-methodology was used in conjunction with the TOE-complexity framework to find different perspectives on project complexity within projects and between projects. To this end, three projects were analysed. The research took both the role of an individual, and the organization type they work at into consideration at the same time.
In two projects two different perspectives were identified. Whilst in the third project, three perspectives emerged. In the two projects with two perspectives, the perspectives were split between on one hand participants that found more complexity from the experienced lack of trust and other relational sources, and on the other hand participants that found complexity stemming from project content. The perspectives in the third project were more nuanced. With one finding political influence and higher management more complex, one finding the number of subprojects and influence from external stakeholders complex, and a third finding technical and project environment elements more complex. Within this third project, the complexity from lack of trust was ranked lower. The project manager from that project expressed that they had put a lot of effort into creating and keeping trust throughout the project. It seems that putting high effort into elements that are ranked high in one or more of the perspectives could lower the perceived complexity of that element. But if this actually is the case, and if this can lead to better project results or collaboration needs to be researched further.
When looking at all projects at the same time, complexity experienced from the lack of trust was also prevalent in two of the three perspectives that emerged.
The research confirms that multiple, distinct perspectives exist within project teams, each reflecting a different understanding of which elements are most complex. These perspectives do not systematically align with project roles nor organisational boundaries. In one project, the perspective aligned more with IPM role, in one project results were similar between role and company, and in one project perspectives aligned more with organisation.
Identifying perspectives on project complexity through (for example) the Q-methodology, can be used to increase collaboration by enabling project professionals to understand each other better. This allows for perspective-taking, enhancing group performance through fostering cooperation and coordination.
Through the different perspectives on project complexity, different complexity elements emerge as adding the most complexity to the project. These emerging elements should be investigated within a team, by directing more attention to them. For example, by focussing on them more during risk analysis sessions. If everyone had thought the same about the complexity, these elements might not emerge and be overlooked. Thus, having different perspectives should be embraced.
The complexity of a project, and the perception thereof are not static, therefore identifying perspectives should be repeated. Over time the perspective of a person could drift away from what others think that person has as a perspective. By systematically repeating the exercise throughout a project lifecycle, (for example) before each project follow-up, helps project professionals to keep understanding each other, keeping perspective-taking possible. Whilst simultaneously identifying new emerging complexity elements that warrant investigation and attention.
In two projects two different perspectives were identified. Whilst in the third project, three perspectives emerged. In the two projects with two perspectives, the perspectives were split between on one hand participants that found more complexity from the experienced lack of trust and other relational sources, and on the other hand participants that found complexity stemming from project content. The perspectives in the third project were more nuanced. With one finding political influence and higher management more complex, one finding the number of subprojects and influence from external stakeholders complex, and a third finding technical and project environment elements more complex. Within this third project, the complexity from lack of trust was ranked lower. The project manager from that project expressed that they had put a lot of effort into creating and keeping trust throughout the project. It seems that putting high effort into elements that are ranked high in one or more of the perspectives could lower the perceived complexity of that element. But if this actually is the case, and if this can lead to better project results or collaboration needs to be researched further.
When looking at all projects at the same time, complexity experienced from the lack of trust was also prevalent in two of the three perspectives that emerged.
The research confirms that multiple, distinct perspectives exist within project teams, each reflecting a different understanding of which elements are most complex. These perspectives do not systematically align with project roles nor organisational boundaries. In one project, the perspective aligned more with IPM role, in one project results were similar between role and company, and in one project perspectives aligned more with organisation.
Identifying perspectives on project complexity through (for example) the Q-methodology, can be used to increase collaboration by enabling project professionals to understand each other better. This allows for perspective-taking, enhancing group performance through fostering cooperation and coordination.
Through the different perspectives on project complexity, different complexity elements emerge as adding the most complexity to the project. These emerging elements should be investigated within a team, by directing more attention to them. For example, by focussing on them more during risk analysis sessions. If everyone had thought the same about the complexity, these elements might not emerge and be overlooked. Thus, having different perspectives should be embraced.
The complexity of a project, and the perception thereof are not static, therefore identifying perspectives should be repeated. Over time the perspective of a person could drift away from what others think that person has as a perspective. By systematically repeating the exercise throughout a project lifecycle, (for example) before each project follow-up, helps project professionals to keep understanding each other, keeping perspective-taking possible. Whilst simultaneously identifying new emerging complexity elements that warrant investigation and attention.
Student report
(2023)
-
D.F.G. Tijdeman, J.H.M. Stevens, L.G. Teuber, M.X.K. Lonissen, N.H.M. Roeders, R.J. Lip, F.C. Lange, J.S. Hoving, O.J. Kirichek
This paper investigates the technical, life cycle, and economic feasibility of a 30 MW upscaled downwind turbine, comparing it to a 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy downwind turbine and a benchmark 15 MW IEA Umaine VolturnUS-S upwind turbine in the 450 MW Sud de la Bretagne I wind farm site. The study is significant due to the rising energy demand, the potential for decreasing the levelized cost of energy with increased turbine size, and the optimized use of space. The size limit of current upwind turbine designs could be addressed using a downwind turbine solution.
The research is conducted by modelling the global dynamic response of the structure using OpenFAST and computing the natural frequencies and stresses using a finite element model. A lifecycle analysis is performed to identify potential pitfalls and bottlenecks by analysing the individual lifecycle phases. The economic feasibility is assessed by simulating the annual energy production using TOPFARM and utilizing structural analysis and lifecycle assessment to quantify capital, operational, and abandonment expenditures. Based on the annual energy production and the performance indicators the levelized cost of energy is calculated.
The findings indicate that while the global stability is within boundaries, the stress in members is too high with a simple scale-up of the proposed design. Bottlenecks are found in lifting operations and supply chain readiness. The levelized cost of energy and capital expenditure increased due to substructure self-weight, rendering the proposed 30 MW scale-up currently unfeasible when compared to the other two wind farms.
These findings are important as they demonstrate that the 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy is not scalable without design changes. The levelized cost of energy does not decrease with an increased floater solution. The 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy downwind turbine seems more economically viable, making it a more interesting option for future development. ...
The research is conducted by modelling the global dynamic response of the structure using OpenFAST and computing the natural frequencies and stresses using a finite element model. A lifecycle analysis is performed to identify potential pitfalls and bottlenecks by analysing the individual lifecycle phases. The economic feasibility is assessed by simulating the annual energy production using TOPFARM and utilizing structural analysis and lifecycle assessment to quantify capital, operational, and abandonment expenditures. Based on the annual energy production and the performance indicators the levelized cost of energy is calculated.
The findings indicate that while the global stability is within boundaries, the stress in members is too high with a simple scale-up of the proposed design. Bottlenecks are found in lifting operations and supply chain readiness. The levelized cost of energy and capital expenditure increased due to substructure self-weight, rendering the proposed 30 MW scale-up currently unfeasible when compared to the other two wind farms.
These findings are important as they demonstrate that the 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy is not scalable without design changes. The levelized cost of energy does not decrease with an increased floater solution. The 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy downwind turbine seems more economically viable, making it a more interesting option for future development. ...
This paper investigates the technical, life cycle, and economic feasibility of a 30 MW upscaled downwind turbine, comparing it to a 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy downwind turbine and a benchmark 15 MW IEA Umaine VolturnUS-S upwind turbine in the 450 MW Sud de la Bretagne I wind farm site. The study is significant due to the rising energy demand, the potential for decreasing the levelized cost of energy with increased turbine size, and the optimized use of space. The size limit of current upwind turbine designs could be addressed using a downwind turbine solution.
The research is conducted by modelling the global dynamic response of the structure using OpenFAST and computing the natural frequencies and stresses using a finite element model. A lifecycle analysis is performed to identify potential pitfalls and bottlenecks by analysing the individual lifecycle phases. The economic feasibility is assessed by simulating the annual energy production using TOPFARM and utilizing structural analysis and lifecycle assessment to quantify capital, operational, and abandonment expenditures. Based on the annual energy production and the performance indicators the levelized cost of energy is calculated.
The findings indicate that while the global stability is within boundaries, the stress in members is too high with a simple scale-up of the proposed design. Bottlenecks are found in lifting operations and supply chain readiness. The levelized cost of energy and capital expenditure increased due to substructure self-weight, rendering the proposed 30 MW scale-up currently unfeasible when compared to the other two wind farms.
These findings are important as they demonstrate that the 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy is not scalable without design changes. The levelized cost of energy does not decrease with an increased floater solution. The 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy downwind turbine seems more economically viable, making it a more interesting option for future development.
The research is conducted by modelling the global dynamic response of the structure using OpenFAST and computing the natural frequencies and stresses using a finite element model. A lifecycle analysis is performed to identify potential pitfalls and bottlenecks by analysing the individual lifecycle phases. The economic feasibility is assessed by simulating the annual energy production using TOPFARM and utilizing structural analysis and lifecycle assessment to quantify capital, operational, and abandonment expenditures. Based on the annual energy production and the performance indicators the levelized cost of energy is calculated.
The findings indicate that while the global stability is within boundaries, the stress in members is too high with a simple scale-up of the proposed design. Bottlenecks are found in lifting operations and supply chain readiness. The levelized cost of energy and capital expenditure increased due to substructure self-weight, rendering the proposed 30 MW scale-up currently unfeasible when compared to the other two wind farms.
These findings are important as they demonstrate that the 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy is not scalable without design changes. The levelized cost of energy does not decrease with an increased floater solution. The 15 MW X1 Wind PivotBuoy downwind turbine seems more economically viable, making it a more interesting option for future development.