The dynamics of project performance: benchmarking the drivers of cost and schedule overrun

Reichelt, Kimberly Sklar; Lyneis, James M.

doi:10.1016/s0263-2373(98)00073-5

Cited by 72 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the end, progress is constrained by the discovery and correction of the last bits of rework through the rework cycle (often called the "90% syndrome"). Some researchers have documented projects that also experienced a slower initial start-up period that formed an elongated "S" behavior mode for progress (Reichelt and Lyneis, 1999;Ford, 1995; Ford and Sterman, 2003b). This basic behavior mode is sometimes augmented by periods of little or no net progress (i.e., project is "stalled", often because of the recognition of undiscovered rework and actions to execute that work in a timely fashion), or by temporary (Ford, 1995) or permanent ) declines in net progress (i.e., a "decaying" project) because of added work to execute rework.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research

Lyneis

Ford

2007

System Dynamics Review

324

305

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most successful areas for the application of system dynamics has been project management. Measured in terms of new system dynamics theory, new and improved model structures, number of applications, number of practitioners, value of consulting revenues, and value to clients, "project dynamics" stands as an example of success in the field. This paper reviews the history of project management applications in the context of the underlying structures that create adverse dynamics and their application to specific areas of project management, synthesizes the policy messages, and provides directions for future research and writing. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 23, 157-189, (2007 ContextProjects abound in industry, public service, and many other endeavors. As a series of activities or tasks that (1) have a specific objective (scope) to be completed within certain specifications (requirements); (2) have defined start and end dates; (3) have funding limits; and (4) consume and/or utilize resources (Project Management Institute, 2000), projects have proven challenging to plan and manage. This is largely because project conditions and performance evolve over time as a result of feedback responses, many involving nonlinear relationships, and to accumulations of project progress and resources. This has made the application of system dynamics to project management a fertile and productive field of study. This paper surveys the large body of system dynamics work on projects, evaluates its progress, and suggests directions for future development.Many different types of models have been developed to improve project management. These models include some of the system features and characteristics addressed by system dynamics. For example, basic project models such as the critical path method explicitly model causally linked development activities and phases and cost control models use forecasted performance gaps (e.g., budget deficits) to allocate funds. More advanced models, such as the computational models developed by Levitt et al. (1999) and others, are quite system dynamics-like, as they include linked development activities as well as feedback. Another body of work models multiple projects, using system dynamics as well as other approaches. Surveying all of these works is beyond the scope of a single article. Therefore, we focus here on models of single projects built using the system dynamics methodology. But even models of single projects are too numerous to describe their structures or applications in detail. Therefore, in this article we focus on the most important and general model structures in conceptual form, and provide references to additional details. Our work is based primarily on the published literature and our experience using system dynamics to model projects. In particular, we describe contributions resulting from work we have done that has not, and very likely never will be, published or otherwise made available.The literature on system dynamics models of pro...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research

Lyneis

Ford

2007

System Dynamics Review

324

305

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each process step respectively aggregated process step was transformed into the System Dynamics composite construct of a rework cycle. In particular the rework cycle construct of Reichelt & Lyneis (1999) (Kasperek, Berger, Maisenbacher, Lindemann, et al, 2015) Original …”

Section: Qualitative System Dynamics Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phase Concurrency (Ford & Sterman, 1998aKasperek et al, 2014;Le et al, 2012; S. Lee & Sung Lim, 2007;Lin, 2006;Lin et al, 2008;Nasirzadeh et al, 2013;Parvan et al, 2013;Powell et al, 1999;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Ruutu et al, 2011) Human Factors (Haslett & Sankaran, 2009;Kasperek et al, 2014;Laverghetta & Brown, 1999;Lisse, 2013;Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Ruutu et al, 2011;Williford & Chang, 1999) Staffing (Black & Repenning, 2001;Haslett & Sankaran, 2009;Joglekar & Ford, 2005;Lisse, 2013;Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Repenning, 2000;Taylor & Ford, 2006;Williford & Chang, 1999) Outsourcing (Lisse, 2013) Testing (Lin et al, 2008;Rahmandad & Hu, 2010) Tipping Point (Rahmandad & Al., 2005;Taylor & Ford, 2006) Cost and Schedule Foresight (Cooper & Lee, 2009;Lyneis et al, 2001) Process Improvement (D'Avino et al, 2005;Repenning & Sterman, 2002) Various studies exist on the topic of Phase Concurrency (Krishnan et al, 1997;…”

Section: Purpose Of Rework Cycle Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two different methods of capturing changes in the staff level can be encountered in literature: modeling of hiring and turnover over time (Haslett & Sankaran, 2009;Lisse, 2013;Munoz Hernandez et al, 2013;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999;Williford & Chang, 1999) and resource allocation over different parts of the project (Black & Repenning, 2001;Joglekar & Ford, 2005;Repenning, 2000;Taylor & Ford, 2006).…”

Section: Purpose Of Rework Cycle Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tasks Approved (Ford & Sterman, 1998a) Tasks Completed but not Checked (Rahmandad & Hu, 2010) Work in Progress (Le, 2013) Tasks to be Reworked (Lin, 2006;Lin et al, 2008) Tasks in Testing (Repenning, 2000) Work in Quality Assurance (Joglekar & Ford, 2005) Quality Assurance Backlog (Taylor & Ford, 2006) Known Rework (Cooper & Lee, 2009;Cooper, 1980;Cooper et al, 2002;Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999) The modeler of a System Dynamics model is encouraged to rethink the structure of the observed engineering design process and which states need to be captured in the rework cycle. Each crucial state has to be modeled by one stock.…”

Section: Tasks Completed Not Checkedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Structure‐Based System Dynamics Analysis of Engineering Design Processes

Kasperek

Schenk

Kreimeyer³

et al. 2016

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamic process behavior of Engineering Design Processes (EDPs) needs to be understood in order to distribute resources appropriately as well as for cost and schedule calculation. Currently, structural and behavioral modeling approaches are used in the context of EDP management. In many use cases, it is essential to have at hand both the static structural view and the dynamic behavioral one. Currently, however, the two modeling approaches cannot be sufficiently combined. Within this work, a framework for the structure‐based System Dynamics analysis of EDPs is presented. It uses structural models as a basis for constructing System Dynamics models to simulate the process behavior and thereby supports understanding the correlation of process structure and behavior. This framework was iteratively developed by conducting case studies and consists of three layers, a five‐step procedure and special support for the transformation of the models. For the validation, a subset of the design process at a large German commercial vehicle manufacturer has been chosen. Based on the application of the framework during a six‐month project at the company, the industrial experts rated the framework as beneficial for the purpose of optimizing EDPs. Furthermore, they stated that the transparent representation of the sequence of the process, influencing factors and control variables in combination with the quantitative data had improved their understanding of the overall process.

show abstract

Implementierung und Integration digitaler Lösungen in Prozesse des Spezialtiefbaus

Bachi¹,

Bellato²

2020

Geotechnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Der Bericht stellt den Stand der Digitalisierung von Bauprozessen und ihres Datenflusses bei der Züblin Spezialtiefbau GmbH vor. Personal und Geräte werden den Projekten effizienter zugewiesen, indem ein parametrisiertes digitales Ressourcenplanungssystem alle in Vorbereitung und Durchführung befindlichen Projekte sowie Beschränkungen bei der Auswahl geeigneter Ressourcen berücksichtigt. Building Information Modeling (BIM) wird in der Ausschreibung nicht nur zur Mengenermittlung, sondern durch Einführung von 4D‐Methoden auch zur Früherkennung von Risiken und zur Planungsoptimierung eingesetzt. BIM wird auch in der Ausführung als Datenbasis verwendet, um verschiedene Datenarten, z. B. Entwurfsdaten, mit den zugehörigen 3D‐Bauteilen zusammenzuführen und deren Status zu verfolgen. Dies verbessert den Überblick über die laufenden Bauarbeiten. Die Herstelldaten werden von den Ausführenden mit Apps gesammelt und in einer Cloud‐Datenbank gespeichert. Sie ermöglichen Soll‐Ist‐Vergleiche und andere Auswertungen, z. B. Leistungsanalysen. Die von den Bohrgeräten erfassten Maschinendaten werden interpretiert, um die Dauer aller Phasen des Bohrvorgangs zu erkennen. Auf dieser Grundlage können Netto‐ und Brutto‐Bohrleistungen bestimmt und ein besserer Einblick in das tatsächliche Bodenprofil gewonnen werden. Die Kombination dieser Lösungen sorgt für Klarheit in Bauplanung und ‐betrieb, eine höhere Zuverlässigkeit und Güte der Daten und ganz allgemein für eine Verbesserung der Bauprozesse.

show abstract

The dynamics of project performance: benchmarking the drivers of cost and schedule overrun

Cited by 72 publications

References 3 publications

System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research

System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research

Structure‐Based System Dynamics Analysis of Engineering Design Processes

Implementierung und Integration digitaler Lösungen in Prozesse des Spezialtiefbaus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About