Client Project Time Schedule Controls — An Empirically-Based System Dynamics Conceptual Model

Abstract

Different project participants often have different objectives and expectations, and implement different controls aimed at advancing their interests. This article investigates project controls taken by the client during the project design stage to improve project time schedule performance. Dynamic hypotheses and a System Dynamics conceptual model of client controls and their ripple effects are formulated in this article from a combination of the existing literature, mental models of project managers gathered through an embedded multiple-case study, and Systems Thinking. The results suggest that client controls that are aimed at improving project time schedule performance generate ripple effects that worsen the performance.

Unintended Negative Effects of Client Project Cost Controls: A System Dynamics Approach

“…Project managers (the client, engineering consultant, and construction contractor) take a number of project controls aimed at minimising poor project performance. However, some of their efforts tend to be in vain, as their decisions and actions quite often generate some unintended and counteractive effects that worsen the project performance [12] [13] [14] [15]. This is as a result of the dynamic complexity nature of project controls [14] [16] [17]; hence the use of system dynamics in this article, consistent with the recommendations of Sterman [17] and Forrester [18].…”

“…The first stage is an embedded multiple-case study [27] [28] that results in the formulation of a system dynamics conceptual model of client project cost controls and associated unintended effects. Non-project-specific qualitative data were gathered from a purposefully-selected major South African engineering consulting firm that focuses on infrastructure projects, as was the case in the study of Chitongo and Pretorius [12]. The non-project-specific data were gathered from multiple sources of evidence (triangulation) to enhance the construct validity of the case study [28].…”

“…The non-project-specific data were gathered from multiple sources of evidence (triangulation) to enhance the construct validity of the case study [28]. The sources were: individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews with both client and engineering consultant project managers; nonparticipant casual observations during the interviews; and document analysis, also similar to that of Chitongo and Pretorius [12].…”

“…The existing literature is replete with many cases of system dynamics modelling of project controls by different project stakeholders in a bid to try to enhance project performance, among other things, including: (presumed) engineering consultant / construction contractor project time schedule controls [14] [15]; construction contractor labour productivity control [25]; impacts of client behaviour on project time schedule performance [20]; engineering consultant project cash flow controls [13]; and engineering consultant project revenue controls [26]. More recently, Chitongo and Pretorius [12] examined the different measures of project performance as used and/or proposed by many previous scholars and researchers. They then narrowed their study to focus on investigating and formulating a system dynamics conceptual model of client project time schedule controls, with project time schedule duration being one the key measures of project performance.…”

“…Table 1 shows some of the ways in which the client negatively (often unintentionally) affects project performance, as found in the reviewed extant literature. [16] Delay in paying engineering consultants and/or construction contractors time schedule Chitongo and Pretorius [12]; Fallahnejad [19]; Kaliba et al [8]; Manu, Ankrah, Chinyio and Proverbs [21]; Odeh and Battaineh [22]; Sambasivan and Soon [23] Instituting delay damages penalty time schedule Von Branconi and Loch [24]; Chitongo and Pretorius [12] Demanding more progress reports from the engineering consultant and/or construction contractor time schedule Rodrigues and Williams [20]; Chitongo and Pretorius [12] Demanding more progress meetings from the engineering consultant time schedule Chitongo and Pretorius [12] Delay in reviewing and/or approving deliverables time schedule Rodrigues and Williams [20] Slow decision-making time schedule Odeh and Battaineh [22] Appointing incompetent engineering consultants / construction contractors time schedule;…”