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

Fatigue Transportation Arena Defend 
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