Complex Systems in Finance and Econometrics

2011 Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers (Editor-in-Chief)

Delay and Disruption in Complex Projects

  • Susan Howick
  • Fran Ackermann
  • Colin Eden
  • Terry Williams
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7701-4_7

Article Outline

Glossary

Definition of the Subject

Introduction

Disruption and Delay

Analyzing D&D and Project Behavior

Cascade Model Building Process

Implications for Development

Future Directions

Bibliography

Keywords

Feedback Loop Project Management Critical Path Vicious Cycle System Dynamic Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Project Management Institute (2000) A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Project Management Institute, Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper KG (1980) Naval ship production: a claim settled and a framework built. Interfaces 10:20–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Szyliowicz JS, Goetz AR (1995) Getting realistic about megaproject planning: the case of the new Denver International Airport. Policy Sci 28:347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flyvberg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scottish Parliament (2003) Corporate body issues August update on Holyrood. Parliamentary News Release 049/2003Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Major Projects Association (1994) Beyond 2000: A source book for major projects. Major Projects Association, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flyvberg B, Holm MK, Buhl SL (2002) Understanding costs in public works projects: error or lie? J Am Plan Assoc 68:279–295Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morris PWG, Hough GH (1987) The anatomy of major projects. A study of the reality of project management. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forrester J (1961) Industrial dynamics. Productivity Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T (1997) Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27:48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lyneis JM, Ford DN (2007) System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research. Syst Dyn Rev 23:157–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lyneis JM, Cooper KG, Els SA (2001) Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 17:237–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ford DN (1995) The dynamics of project management: an investigation of the impacts of project process and coordination on performance. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rodrigues A, Bowers J (1996) The role of system dynamics in project management. Int J Proj Manag 14:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodrigues A, Bowers J (1996) System dynamics in project management: a comparative analysis with traditional methods. Syst Dyn Rev 12:121–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williams TM, Eden C, Ackermann F (1995) The vicious circles of parallelism. Int J Proj Manag 13:151–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager. Proj Manag J 24:17–21Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: How it really works.. and reworks… PMNETwork VII:25–28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: why projects are mismanaged. PMNETwork VII:5–7Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager. Proj Manag J 24:17–21Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cooper KG (1994) The $2,000 hour: how managers influence project performance through the rework cycle. Proj Manag J 25:11–24Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eden C, Williams TM, Ackermann F, Howick S (2000) On the nature of disruption and delay. J Oper Res Soc 51:291–300Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams T (2004) Analysing project cost overruns: comparing the measured mile analysis and system dynamics modelling. Int J Proj Manag 23:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nahmias S (1980) The use of management science to support a multimillion dollar precedent‐setting government contact litigation. Interfaces 10:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams TM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Howick S (2005) Learning from project failure. In: Love P, Irani Z, Fong P (eds) Knowledge management in project environments. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sterman JD (1989) Modelling of managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Manag Sci 35:321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Williams TM, Eden C, Ackermann F, Tait A (1995) The effects of design changes and delays on project costs. J Oper Research Society 46:809–818Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bennett PG, Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams TM (1997) Analysing litigation and negotiation: using a combined methodology. In: Mingers J, Gill A (eds) Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Wiley, Chichester, pp 59–88Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams T (2005) The amoebic growth of project costs. Proj Manag J 36(2):15–27Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T, Howick S (2007) Systemic risk assessment: a case study. J Oper Res Soc 58(1):39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wickwire JM, Smith RF (1974) The use of critical path method techniques in contract claims. Public Contract Law J 7(1):1–45Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scott S (1993) Dealing with delay claims: a survey. Int J Proj Manag 11(3):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howick S, Eden C (2001) The impact of disruption and delay when compressing large projects: going for incentives? J Oper Res Soc 52:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diehl E, Sterman JD (1995) Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62(2):198–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stephens CA, Graham AK, Lyneis JM (2005) System dynamics modelling in the legal arena: meeting the challenges of expert witness admissibility. Syst Dyn Rev 21:95–122.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Howick S (2003) Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: Can the modelling purposes be met? J Oper Res Soc 54(3):222–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Howick S, Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams T (2007) Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: the modelling cascade. Eur J Oper Res 186:1068–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ackermann F, Eden C (2004) Using causal mapping: individual and group: traditional and new. In: Pidd M (ed) Systems modelling: theory and practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 127–145Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Finn C (2004) Visible thinking: unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shaw D, Ackermann F, Eden C (2003) Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring. J Oper Res Soc 54:936–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ackermann F, Eden C (2001) Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems. Group Decis Negot 10(1):47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ackermann F, Eden C, Brown I (2005) Using causal mapping with group support systems to elicit an understanding of failure in complex projects: some implications for organizational research. Group Decis Negot 14(5):355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 152:615–630Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lane (2000) Diagramming conventions in system dynamics. J Oper Res Soc 51(2):241–245Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Burns JR (1977) Converting signed digraphs to Forrester schematics and converting Forrester schematics to differential equations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC 7(10):695–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Burns JR, Ulgen OM (1978) A sector approach to the formulation of system dynamics models. Int J Syst Sci 9(6):649–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Burns JR, Ulgen OM, Beights HW (1979) An algorithm for converting signed digraphs to Forrester's schematics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC 9(3):115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Oliva R (2004) Model structure analysis through graph theory: partition heuristics and feedback structure decomposition. Syst Dyn Rev 20(4):313–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ford D, Sterman J (1998) Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and mental models. Syst Dyn Rev 14(4):309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vennix J (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Howick S (2005) Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences. Eur J Oper Res 162(1):239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ackoff RL, Sasieni MW (1968) Fundamentals of operations research. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rivett P (1972) Principles of model building. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mitchell G (1993) The practice of operational research. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pidd M (2003) Tools for thinking: modelling in management science. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Williams TM, Ackermann F, Eden C (1997) Project risk: systemicity, cause mapping and a scenario approach. In: Kahkonen K, Artto KA (eds) Managing risks in projects. E & FN Spon, London, pp 343–352Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    APM Publishing Ltd (2004) Project risk analysis and management guide. APM Publishing Ltd, High Wycombe, BucksGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Howick S, Ackermann F, Andersen D (2006) Linking event thinking with structural thinking: methods to improve client value in projects. Syst Dyn Rev 22(2):113–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Williams TM (2004) Learning the hard lessons from projects – easily. Int J Proj Manag 22(4):273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Williams TM (1999) The need for new paradigms for complex projects. Int J Proj Manag 17:269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shenhar AJ (2001) One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains. Manag Sci 47:394–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    De Meyer A, Loch CH, Rich MT (2002) Managing project uncertainty: from variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Mgmt Rev 43(2):60–67Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Shenhar AJ, Dvir D (2004) How project differ and what to do about it. In: Pinto J, Morris P (eds) Handbook of managing projects. Wiley, New York, pp 1265–1286Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rodrigues A, Williams TM (1997) Systems dynamics in software project management: towards the development of a formal integrated framework. Eur J Inf Syst 6:51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Williams TM (2002) Modelling complex projects. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dixon M (ed) (2000) The Association for Project Management (APM) Body of Knowledge (BoK), 4th edn. Association for Project Management, High WycombeGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Stevens M (2002) Project management pathways. Association for Project Management, High WycombeGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Williams TM (2005) Assessing and building on project management theory in the light of badly over-run projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(4):497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lundin RA (1995) Editorial: temporary organizations and project management. Scand J Mgmt 11:315–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Packendorff J (1995) Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project management research. Scand J Mgmt 11:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Linehan C, Kavanagh D (2004) From project ontologies to communities of virtue. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop, Making projects critical, University of Western England, 13–14th December 2004Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Koskela L, Howell G (2002) The theory of project management: explanation to novel methods. In: Proceedings 10th Annual Conference on Lean Construction, IGLC-10, August 2002, Gramado, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Koskela L, Howell G (2002) The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In: Proc. PMI (Project Management Institute) Research Conference, Seattle 2002, pp 293–301Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hodgson DE (2004) Project work: the legacy of bureaucratic control in the post‐bureaucratic organization. Organization 11:81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Malgrati A, Damiani M (2002) Rethinking the new project management framework: new epistemology, new insights. In: Proc. PMI (Project Management Institute) Research Conference, Seattle 2002, pp 371–380Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lindkvist L, Soderlund J, Tell F (1998) Managing product development projects: on the significance of fountains and deadlines. Org Stud 19:931–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Baccarini D (1996) The concept of project complexity – a review. Int J Proj Manag 14:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Turner JR, Cochrane RA (1993) Goals-and‐methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. Int J Proj Manag 11:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Engwall M (2002) The futile dream of the perfect goal. In: Sahil-Andersson K, Soderholm A (eds) Beyond project management: new perspectives on the temporary‐permanent dilemma. Libe Ekonomi, Copenhagen Business School Press, Malmo, pp 261–277Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Williams TM (2003) Assessing extension of time delays on major projects. Int J Proj Manag 21(1):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Williams TM (2007) Post‐project reviews to gain effective lessons learned. Project Management Institute, Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Robertson S, Williams T (2006) Understanding project failure: using cognitive mapping in an insurance project. Proj Manag J 37(4):55–71Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Howick
    • 1
  • Fran Ackermann
    • 1
  • Colin Eden
    • 1
  • Terry Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.Strathclyde Business SchoolUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  2. 2.School of ManagementSouthampton University SouthamptonUK