On the nature of discontinuities in system dynamics modelling of disrupted projects

When complex projects result in large-cost over-runs, managers want to understand why this happened. There may be the possibility of making a claim against another party, or managers may simply wish to learn from any mistakes made. When using system dynamics (SD) models to analyse the reasons for project over-runs as a part of a litigation or organizational learning process, there is a strong focus on explaining historical aspects precisely. This leads to a need for the inclusion of discontinuous variables. This paper discusses the nature of discontinuities in SD models of project over-runs. Examples are given to demonstrate that the modelling of such discontinuities needs to be an integral part of the continuous simulation modelling process. Their inclusion helps to improve model validity and also, by forcing validity, uncover the important drivers of project behaviour. The examples given in this paper are significant drivers and suggest important learning about the behaviour of disrupted complex projects.

[1]  Fran Ackermann,et al.  Structuring a delay and disruption claim: An application of cause-mapping and system dynamics , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  R. G. Coyle.  A system dynamics model of aircraft carrier survivability , 1992 .

[3]  Mark Paich,et al.  Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets , 1993 .

[4]  J. Sterman,et al.  Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making , 1995 .

[5]  Susan Howick,et al.  Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Kenneth Cooper.  Naval Ship Production: A Claim Settled and a Framework Built , 1980 .

[7]  Joe Bates.  PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES , 2001 .

[8]  Dayr A. Reis,et al.  Learning Curves in Food Services , 1991 .

[9]  Colin Eden,et al.  On the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) , 1999 .

[10]  Susan Howick,et al.  Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: can the modelling purposes be met? , 2003, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[11]  Craig A. Stephens,et al.  System Dynamics Modeling in the Legal Arena: Special Challenges of the Expert Witness Role , 2002 .

[12]  Susan Howick,et al.  The impact of disruption and delay when compressing large projects: going for incentives? , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[13]  R. G. Coyle.  Representing Discrete Events in System Dynamics Models: A Theoretical Application to Modelling Coal Production , 1985 .

[14]  D. Sterman,et al.  Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment , 1989 .

[15]  J. Forrester.  Industrial Dynamics , 1997 .

[16]  Fran Ackermann,et al.  Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 1997 .

[17]  J Swanson,et al.  Business Dynamics—Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[18]  Edward B. Roberts,et al.  Managerial Applications of System Dynamics , 1981 .

[19]  George P. Richardson.  Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling , 1981 .

[20]  Fran Ackermann,et al.  The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects , 2000, J. Oper. Res. Soc..