1,721,103 research outputs found
The amoebic growth of project costs
No full textIn the public arena, we often hear about projects that have suffered massive cost overruns. Often they are related to large public construction projects such as airports, bridges, or public buildings. Large overruns also exist in private industry. However, often these do not appear in the newspapers, so the public is not as aware of them. Of course, not all projects go badly wrong, but quite a few do, and frequently we find ourselves uncertain of the causes for such overruns. In this paper, industrial projects that overrun and overrun in a surprising manner are considered. In other words, the paper considers those many projects where the extent of the overrun is well beyond what might ever have been anticipated, even though what was going wrong within the projects was, for the most part, understood.The basis for the content of the paper (that is, the structure and lessons), are drawn from a postmortem analysis of many large projects as part of claims analysis, particularly "delay and disruption" claims for projects whose total expenditure appeared, at first look, inexplicable or surprising. The aim of the paper is to contribute to an understanding of how projects go badly wrong, when they do, and in particular to draw some lessons from this exploration that are likely to help all managers. The reasons for cost escalation are not just the responsibility of project managers.<br/
Dismantling the learning curve: the role of disruptions on the planning of development projects
No full textAny medium-run design and manufacture project requires manufacture learning to be estimated and controlled. Since the 1930's and the explication of Wright's Law, this learning has been usefully forecast using a logarithmic function. This ‘rule of thumb’ meets most practical requirements and the task of planners depends on their ability to estimate the ‘learning curve index’ from historical data. However, when projects are disrupted by clients changing their requirements by making additions or modifications, the process of estimating the impact of these changes becomes particularly difficult. The ‘rule of thumb’ has to be dismantled to account for wasted learning, the difference between corporate learning and personal learning, attributes of developmental work, retrofitting, new learning, and so on. This paper discusses the elements of disruption to learning in order that better estimates can be made of the impact of disruption. The conceptualization of learning which is presented is based upon detailed analysis for a contractor of one of the major projects for the Channel Tunnel, carried out to help compute delay and disruption for a litigation
The effects of design changes and delays of project costs
No full textThis paper describes a study of a large design and manufacture engineering project, undertaken as part of a Delay and Disruption litigation. Design changes and delays in design approval would have caused delay to the project; in order to fulfil a tight time-constraint, management had to increase parallel development in the network logic, reducing delay but setting up feedback loops that markedly increased total project spend. Cognitive mapping was used to elicit the relationships, which suggested the use of System Dynamics to quantify the effects. Results are described that show the effect of levels of design changes and approval delays, and their compounding effect. The wider implications on modelling projects are also discussed
Analysing project cost overruns: Comparing the "measured mile" analysis and system dynamics modelling
No full textThe forensic analysis of failed projects is often intended to identify specific reasons and allocate blame for significant cost overruns. In claim circumstances two approaches are often used: the “measured mile”, and system dynamics simulation modelling. This note compares these approaches and argues that, although it is the most popular approach in litigation, the measured mile method is unreliable in cases where disruptions and delays are a significant part of the explanation for additional costs and late delivery of a project
Structuring a delay and disruption Claim: an application of cause-mapping and system dynamics
No full textThe idea of ‘‘Delay and Disruption’’ within projects is well-known and is often the subject of litigation claims. However, the term is ill-defined, and it is difficult to justify such claims within a legal process. This paper demonstrates a well-developed approach, which is a logical, transparent, auditable and sustainable means of presenting such a claim. It describes the format for a claim document that presents first the disruptive triggers, then using a formal qualitative
model builds the case from the interacting effects of these triggers. Transformation of this model into a computer simulation and the ability to explore different scenarios provides the quantitative part of the claim document. Thus three elements are presented in the document: demonstration of causality, of responsibility and of a quantum for the
claim. This process also provides additional benefits, including a high level of participant ‘‘buy-in’’, and the basis of a model that can be used to support the claim
Vicious circles of parallelism
No full textManufacturing development projects are frequently highly parallel and time-constrained. A study was undertaken of such a project as part of a delay and disruption (D&D) litigation to show the effects of delays and in-development product enhancements. The use of the cognitive-mapping technique revealed some key vicious circles, and in particular that increasing crossrelations between concurrent activities increases activity durations, which under time constraints causes activities to become more parallel and hence increases crossrelations. System dynamics was used to model these loops quantitatively, explaining the level of D&D experienced within the project, which was more than the sum of each individual causal effect as the effects compounded each other. A case study is used as a basis to analyse these effects, and discuss the wider implications for modelling projects for which project networks are the normal modelling medium, and possible ways in which the inadequacies of networks can be overcome
Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: the modelling cascade
No full textThis paper reports on a model building process developed to enable multiple audiences, particularly non-experts, to appreciate the validity of the models being built and their outcomes. The process is a four stage reversible cascade. This cascade provides a structured, auditable/transparent, formalized process from “real world” interviews generating a rich qualitative model through two intermediate steps before arriving at a quantitative simulation model. There are a number of advantages of the cascade process including; achieving comprehensiveness, developing organizational learning, testing the veracity of multiple perspectives, modeling transparency, achieving common understanding across many audiences and promoting confidence building in the models. The paper, based on extensive work with organizations, discusses both the cascade process and its inherent benefits
Analysing litigation and negotiation: using a combined methodology
No full textPartial table of contents: Multi-paradigm Multimethodology (J. Mingers). PRACTICE OF MULTIMETHODOLOGY. Mixing Methods in Practice: A Transformation-Competence Perspective (R. Ormerod). One Size Doesn't Fit All: Reflections on Using Systems Techniques in an Operational Setting (J. Bentham). Status and Tendencies of Management Research: A Systems Oriented Perspective (M. Schwaninger). COGNITIVE ASPECTS OF MULTIMETHODOLOGY. Multimethodologies-The Knowledge Perspective (D. Skyrme). THEORY OF MULTIMETHODOLOGY. Mixing Methods: Developing Systemic Intervention (G. Midgley). Pluralism in Systems Thinking and Practice (M. Jackson). Towards Critical Pluralism (J. Mingers). Index
- …
