Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 222–229

Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: can the modelling purposes be met?

General Paper

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.

Keywords

system dynamics litigation disruption and delay modelling complex projects 

References

  1. Forrester JW (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Productivity Press: Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  2. Cooper KG (1980). Naval ship production: a claim settled and a framework built. Interfaces 10(6): 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Ackermann F, Eden C and Williams TM (1997). Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27(2): 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forrester JW (1958). Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Bus Rev 36: 37–66.Google Scholar
  7. Roberts EB (1964). The Dynamics of Research and Development. Harper & Row: New York.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Ford DN and Sterman JD . (1998). Dynamic modeling of product development processes. System Dyn Rev 14: 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Abdel-Hamid TK and Madnick SE (1991). Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rivett P (1972). Principles of Model Building. Wiley: London.Google Scholar
  15. Mitchell G (1993). The Practice of Operational Research. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  16. Pidd M (1996). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  17. Ackoff RL and Sasieni MW (1968). Fundamentals of Operations Research. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper KG (1994). The $2,000 hour: how managers influence project performance through the rework cycle. Project Mngt J 25: 11–24.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coyle RG (1977). Management System Dynamics. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Eden C, Jones S and Sims D (1983). Messing About in Problems. Pergamon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Eden C, Ackermann F and Cropper S (1992). The analysis of cause maps. J Mngt Stud 29: 309–324.Google Scholar
  24. Eden C (1994). Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building. System Dynamics Rev 10: 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ventana Systems (1998). Vensim 3.0 Manual. Ventana Systems, Inc.: Harvard, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Sterman JD (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Mngt Sci 35: 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sterman JD (1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Dec Process 43: 301–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paich M and Sterman J (1993). Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Mngt Sci 39: 1439–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Diehl E and Sterman JD (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Dec Processes 62: 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lockyer K and Gordon J (1991). Critical Path Analysis and Other Project Network Techniques, 5th edn. Pitman Publishing: London.Google Scholar
  31. Scott S (1993). Dealing with delay claims: a survey. Int J Project Mngt 11: 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morris PW and Hough GH (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodrigues AG (2000). The application of system dynamics to project management: an integrated methodology (SYDPIM). PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Williams T (2003) Assessing Extension of Time delays on major projects. Int J Project Mngt 21: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Barlas Y and Carpenter S (1990). Philosophical roots of model validation: two paradigms. System Dyn Rev 6: 148–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of StrathclydeGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations