Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance Variability and Project Dynamics

  • Published:
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a dynamical model of complex cooperative projects such as large engineering design or software development efforts, comprised of concurrent and interrelated tasks. The model contains a stochastic component to account for temporal fluctuations both in task performance and in the interactions between related tasks. We show that as the system size increases, so does the average completion time. Also, for fixed system size, the dynamics of individual project realizations can exhibit large deviations from the average when fluctuations increase past a threshold, causing long delays in completion times. These effects are in agreement with empirical observation. We also show that the negative effects of both large groups and long delays caused by fluctuations may be mitigated by arranging projects in a hierarchical or modular structure. Our model is applicable to any arrangement of interdependent tasks, providing an analytical prediction for the average completion time as well as a numerical threshold for the fluctuation strength beyond which long delays are likely. In conjunction with previous modeling techniques, it thus provides managers with a predictive tool to be used in the design of a project's architecture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • R. Ahmadi, T. Roemer, and R. Wang (2001), “Structuring Product Development Processes,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 130, 539–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reza H. Ahmadi and Hongbo Wang (1994), Rationalizing product design development processes. UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management Working Paper.

  • T.J. Allen (1966), “Studies of the Problem-Solving Process in Engineering,” IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management, EM-13(2), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig Arnold, M.M. Doyle, and N. Sri Namachchivaya (1997), “Small Noise Expansion of Moment Lyapunov Exponents for Two-Dimensional Systems,” Dynamics and Stability of Systems, 12(3), 187–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Brooks (1975), The Mythical Man-month. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Browning, J. Deyst, S.D. Eppinger, and D. Whitney (2002), “Adding Value in Product Development by Creating Information and Reducing Risk,” IEEE Trans Engrg Management, 49(4), 428–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • T.R. Browning and S.D. Eppinger (2002), “Modeling Impacts of Process Architecture on Cost and Schedule Risk in Product Development,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 428–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyson Browning (2001), “Applying the Design Structure Matrix to System Decomposition and Integration Problems: A Review and New Directions,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Management, 48(3), 292–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Carrascosa, S.D. Eppinger, and D.E. Whitney (1998), “Using the Design Structure Matrix to Estimate Product Development Time,” In Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences (Design Automation Conference, Atlanta, GA.

  • K.B. Clark (1989), “Project Scope and Project Performance: The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement on Product Development,” Management Sci., 35(10), 1247–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim B. Clark and Takahiro Fujimoto (1991), Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott Clearwater, Bernardo Huberman, and Tad Hogg (1991), “Cooperative Solution of Constraint Satisfaction Problems,” Science, 254, 1181–1183.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Cusumano and R. Selby (1995), Microsoft Secrets. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • S.K. Ethiraj and D. Levinthal (2004), “Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems,” Management Sci., 50(2), 159–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Ford and J. Sterman (1998), “Dynamic Modeling of Product Development Processes,” System Dynamics Review, 14(1), 31–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Ford and J. Sterman (1999), Overcoming the 90 percent syndrome: Interation management in concurrent development projects. Working paper, Texas A & M University.

  • Z. Füredi and J. Komlós (1981), “The Eigenvalues of Random Symmetric Matrices,” Combinatorica, 1(3), 233–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith_orgJ.R. Galbraith (1977), Organizational Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gene H. Golub and Charles F. van Loan (1989), Matrix Computations. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2nd edn.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Griffin (1997), “The Effect of Project and Process Characteristics on Product Development Cycle Time,” J. Marketing Res., 10(1), 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert Y. Ha and Evan L. Porteus (1995), “Optimal Timing of Reviews in Concurrent Design for Manufacturability,” Management Sci., 41(9), 1431–1447.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Hammer (1996), Beyond Reengineering. Harper Business, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tad Hogg and Bernardo A. Huberman (1993), “Better than the Best: The Power of Cooperation,” In Lynn Nadel and Daniel Stein, (eds.), 1992 Lectures in Complex Systems, volume V of SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, pp. 165–184. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

  • Tad Hogg, Bernardo A. Huberman, and Jacqueline M. McGlade (1989), “The Stability of Ecosystems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B237, 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardo A. Huberman and Natalie S. Glance (1993), “Evolutionary Games and Computer Simulations,” PNAS, 90, 7716–7718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardo A. Huberman and Tad Hogg (1995), “Communities of Practice: Performance and Evolution,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • William C. Ibbs (1997), “Quantitative Impacts of Project Change: Size Issues,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), 308–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan Jin and Raymond Levitt (1996), “The Virtual Design Team: A Computational Model of Project Organizations,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 2(3):171–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N.R. Joglekar (2001), Data collected at Factory Mutual Insurance Company, Norwood, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Juhasz (1982), “On the Asymptotic Behavior of the Spectra of Nonsymmetric Random (0,1) Matrices,” Discrete Mathematics, 41, 161–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen J. Kline (1985), “Innovation is not a Linear Process,” Res. Management, 28(4), 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan Krishnan, Steven D. Eppinger, and Daniel E. Whitney (1997), “A Model-Based Framework to Overlap Product Development,” Management Sci., 43(4), 427–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoph Loch, C. Terwiesch, and S. Thomke (2001), “Parallel and Sequential Testing of Design Alternatives,” Management Sci., 47(5), 663–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Mar (1999), Process improvement applied to product development. MS thesis, MIT.

  • C.D. McDaniel (1996), A linear systems framework for analyzing the automotive appearance design process. MS thesis, MIT.

  • Jürgen Mihm, Christoph Loch, Bernardo A. Huberman, and Dennis M. Wilkinson. “Hierarchies and Problem Solving Oscillations in Complex Organizations,” preprint.

  • Jürgen Mihm, Christoph Loch, and Arnd Huchzermeier (2003), “Problem-Solving Oscillations in Complex Projects,” Management Science, 49(6), 733–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henryk Minc (1988), Nonnegative Matrices. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • P.W.G. Morris (1982), “Project Organizations: Structures for Managing Change,” In A.J. Kelley, ed., New Dimensions of Project Management, pp. 155–171, Lexington, MA. Heath and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • P.W.G. Morris and G.H. Hugh (1987), The Anatomy of Major Projects. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernt K. øksendal (2003), Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications. Springer, Berlin, 6th edn.

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Peña-Mora and M. Li (2002), “Dynamic Planning and Control Methodology for Design/Build Fast-Track Construction Projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.S. Reel (1999), “Critical Success Factors in Software Projects,” IEEE Software, 16(3), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N. Repenning, P. Gocalves, and L. Black (2001), “Past the Tipping Point: The Persistence of Firefighting in Product Development,” Calif. Management Review, 43(4), 44–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.W. Rivken and N. Siggelkow (2003), “Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design,” Management Sci., 49(3), 290–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • T.A. Roemer, R.H. Ahmadi, and R.H. Wang (2000), “Time-Cost Trade-Offs in Overlapped Product Development,” Oper. Res., 48(6), 858–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert P. Smith and Steven D. Eppinger (1997), “Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration,” Management Sci., 43(3), 276–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • M.E. Sosa, S.D. Eppinger, and C.M. Rowles (2003), “Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and their Impact on Design Team Interactions,” Trans. ASME, 125, 240–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert Strang (1976), Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetsuo Tamai and Akito Itou (1997), “Requirements and Design Change in Large-Scale Software Development: Analysis from the Viewpoint of Process Backtracking,” in Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Software Engineering, pp. 167–176, Los Alamitos, California. IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Terwiesch and C.H. Loch (1999), “Managing the Process of Engineering Change Orders,” J. Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 160–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Terwiesch, C.H. Loch, and A. de Meyer (2002), “Exchanging Preliminary Information in Concurrent Engineering: Alternative Coordination Strategies,” Organization Science, 13(4), 402–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan Thomke (1997), “The Role of Flexibility in the Development of New Products,” Res. Policy, 26, 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Thompson (1978), Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Ulrich (1995), “The Role of Project Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm,” Research Policy, 24(3), 419–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. van Zandt (1999), “Decentralized Information Processing in the Theory of Organizations,” In M. Sertel, ed., Contemporary Economic Issues, pp. 125–160, London, MacMillan.

  • Daniel E. Whitney (1990), “Designing the Design Process,” Res. Engineering, 2:3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis M. Wilkinson (2005), “Moment Instabilities in Multidimensional Systems with Noise,” Eur. J. Phys. B, 43:221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali Yassine, Nitin Joglekar, Dan Braha, Steven Eppinger, and Daniel Whitney (2003), “Information Hiding in Product Development: The Design Churn Effect,” Res. Engineering Design, 14:145–161.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HP Labs, 1501 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA, 94304

    Bernardo A. Huberman

  2. HP Labs, 1501 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA, 94304

    Dennis M. Wilkinson

  3. Stanford University Physics Department, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305

    Dennis M. Wilkinson

Authors
  1. Bernardo A. Huberman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis M. Wilkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernardo A. Huberman.

Additional information

Bernardo A. Huberman is a Senior HP Fellow and Director of the Information Dynamics Laboratory. He is also a Consulting Professor of Physics at Stanford University. For the past ten years he has concentrated on understanding distributed processes and on the design of mechanisms for information aggregation and the protection of privacy as well as market-based distributed resource allocation systems.

Dennis Wilkinson is a recent graduate of Stanford University with a doctorate in Physics, and has accepted a position in the Department of Defense. His research interests include dynamics of social networks and other stochastic systems, information extraction from large, complex networks, and techniques in distributed computing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huberman, B.A., Wilkinson, D.M. Performance Variability and Project Dynamics. Comput Math Organiz Theor 11, 307–332 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-005-5587-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-005-5587-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation