Abstract
System dynamics (SD) is a modelling approach that has been used to analyse disruption and delay (D&D) for litigation in a number of cases over the last 30 years. However, there is a lack of literature addressing the question of whether or not it is actually a suitable modelling approach to take in this environment. This paper explores this question by considering whether or not SD is capable of meeting the modelling purposes of analysing D&D for litigation. The author's experience as part of a team which has carried out post-mortem analysis on projects for a number of litigation cases is used to consider the degree to which SD can meet these modelling purposes. This process highlights limitations of using SD. An understanding of these limitations is important, so that a modeller can make an informed decision about the appropriateness of SD as a modelling approach to support any specific claim for compensation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Forrester JW (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Productivity Press: Portland, OR.
Cooper KG (1980). Naval ship production: a claim settled and a framework built. Interfaces 10(6): 20–36.
Weil HB and Etherton RL . (1990). System dynamics in dispute resolution. In: Andersen D, Richardson G and Sterman J (eds). Proceedings of the 1990 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill, MA, pp. 1311–1324.
Ackermann F, Eden C and Williams TM (1997). Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27(2): 48–65.
Eden C, Williams T, Ackermann F and Howick S (2000). On the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. J Opl Res Soc 51: 291–300.
Forrester JW (1958). Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Bus Rev 36: 37–66.
Roberts EB (1964). The Dynamics of Research and Development. Harper & Row: New York.
Roberts EB (1978). A simple model of R&D project dynamics. In: Roberts EB (ed). Managerial Applications of System Dynamics. Productivity Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 293–314.
Ford DN (1995). The dynamics of project management: an investigation of the impacts of project process and coordination on performance. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ford DN and Sterman JD . (1998). Dynamic modeling of product development processes. System Dyn Rev 14: 31–68.
Abdel-Hamid TK and Madnick SE (1991). Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sengupta K, Abdel-Hamid TK and Bodley M (1999). Coping with staffing delays in software project management: an experimental investigation. IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybernet—Part A: Systems and Humans 29: 77–91.
Lyneis JM, Cooper KG and Els SA (2001). Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics. System Dyn Rev 17: 237–260.
Rivett P (1972). Principles of Model Building. Wiley: London.
Mitchell G (1993). The Practice of Operational Research. Wiley: Chichester.
Pidd M (1996). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. Wiley: Chichester.
Ackoff RL and Sasieni MW (1968). Fundamentals of Operations Research. Wiley: New York.
Cooper KG (1994). The $2,000 hour: how managers influence project performance through the rework cycle. Project Mngt J 25: 11–24.
Howick S and Eden C (2001). The impact of disruption and delay when compressing large projects: going for incentives? J Opl Res Soc 52: 26–34.
Coyle RG (1977). Management System Dynamics. Wiley: Chichester.
King RA and Brooks PL (1996). Types of claims. In: Cushman RF, Jacobsen CM and Trimble PJ (eds). Proving and Pricing Construction Claims, 2nd edn. Wiley: New York, p. 1-1-1-25.
Eden C, Jones S and Sims D (1983). Messing About in Problems. Pergamon: Oxford.
Eden C, Ackermann F and Cropper S (1992). The analysis of cause maps. J Mngt Stud 29: 309–324.
Eden C (1994). Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building. System Dynamics Rev 10: 257–276.
Ventana Systems (1998). Vensim 3.0 Manual. Ventana Systems, Inc.: Harvard, MA.
Sterman JD (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Mngt Sci 35: 321–339.
Sterman JD (1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Dec Process 43: 301–335.
Paich M and Sterman J (1993). Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Mngt Sci 39: 1439–1458.
Diehl E and Sterman JD (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Dec Processes 62: 198–215.
Lockyer K and Gordon J (1991). Critical Path Analysis and Other Project Network Techniques, 5th edn. Pitman Publishing: London.
Scott S (1993). Dealing with delay claims: a survey. Int J Project Mngt 11: 143–153.
Morris PW and Hough GH (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects. Wiley: Chichester.
Williams T (1997). The need for new paradigms for complex projects. In: Williams T (ed). Managing and Modelling Complex Projects. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, pp. 9–19.
Rodrigues AG (2000). The application of system dynamics to project management: an integrated methodology (SYDPIM). PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, UK.
Williams T (2003) Assessing Extension of Time delays on major projects. Int J Project Mngt 21: 19–26.
Howick S (2001). Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences. Working Paper 2000/17; Theory, method and practice series. Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, UK.
Barlas Y and Carpenter S (1990). Philosophical roots of model validation: two paradigms. System Dyn Rev 6: 148–166.
Acknowledgements
A team that is based at Strathclyde University and consists of Colin Eden, Terry Williams, Fran Ackermann, and Susan Howick has been involved in the claims referred to above. Many of the issues discussed in this paper have, inevitably, been influenced by the thinking of all the team members. In particular, the author thanks Colin Eden and Terry Williams for the discussions regarding the material contained in this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Howick, S. Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: can the modelling purposes be met?. J Oper Res Soc 54, 222–229 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601502
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601502