Tipping point failure and robustness in single development projects

Abstract

Tipping point feedback structures can push a series of product development projects into firefighting mode in which rework overwhelms progress. Similar dynamics also threaten the performance of individual development projects. The current work extends previous tipping point dynamics research to single projects and demonstrates how a simple, common feedback structure can cause complex tipping point dynamics, trap projects in deteriorating modes of behavior, and cause projects to fail. Basic tipping point dynamics in single projects are described, demonstrated, and analyzed with a model. The concept of applying robustness to project design is preliminarily tested and system robustness to tipping point-induced failure is quantified for a simple project and analyzed with sensitivity analysis. Impacts of tipping points on project performance and future research opportunities concerning tipping point and robustness in project management are discussed.

Dynamics of concurrent software development

“…In line with previous research, schedule pressure and different organizational reactions to it emerged as a central concept in our analysis (Cooper, 1994;Graham, 2000;Ford and Sterman, 2003;Nepal et al, 2006;Taylor and Ford, 2006). Schedule pressure measures the gap between available Human (and other) Resources required to develop Features Under Development on time, fi x the bugs in previous releases, and invest in capability development.…”

“…Through simulation experiments, we showed how these multi-project feedback processes lead to tipping dynamics that can push the software organization into an ineffi cient mode of working harder and achieving less, eroding development capability and market performance (Repenning, 2001;Taylor and Ford, 2006). We introduce new feedback processes to this literature and analyze the impact of alternative resource allocation policies.…”

“…He showed that if product design and testing are given higher priority in resource allocation than concept design, a temporary resource shortage can lead to sustained decline in future project performance, as lower quality of concept design triggers rework in product design and leaves fewer resources for concept design of the next project, and the cycle continues. Taylor and Ford (2006) demonstrate tipping dynamics in a single project as a result of the impact of schedule pressure on quality. Here we introduce and analyze other coupling mechanisms among different releases of a software product.…”

Structure‐Based System Dynamics Analysis of Engineering Design Processes

“…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;…”

“…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).…”