Delay and disruption in complex projects

S.M. Howick, F. Ackermann, C. Eden, T.M. Williams, R.A. Meyers (Editor)

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

There are many examples of complex projects suffering massive time and cost overruns. If a project has suffered such an overrun there may be a need to understand why it behaved the way it did. Two main reasons for this is (i) to gain learning for future projects or (ii) because one party of the project wishes to claim compensation from another party and thus is trying to explain what occurred during the project. In the latter case, system dynamics has been used for the last 30 years to help to understand why projects behave the way they do. Its success in this arena stems from its ability to model and unravel complex dynamic behavior that can result in project overruns. Starting from the first use of system dynamics in a claim situation in the late 1970's [2], it has directly influenced claim results worth millions of dollars. However, the number of claims which system dynamics has been involved in is still small as it is not perceived by project management practitioners as a standard tool for analyzing projects. System dynamics has a lot to offer in understanding complex projects, not only in a post‐mortem situation, but it could also add value in the pre‐project analysis stage and during the operational stage of a project.
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationEncyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science
Place of PublicationNew York, USA
PublisherSpringer
Pages1845-1854
Number of pages9
ISBN (Print)978-0387758886
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Publication series

NameSpringer Reference
PublisherSpringer

Fingerprint

Dynamical systems
Project management
Costs

Keywords

  • complex projects
  • system dynamics
  • system dynamics modeling
  • cost overruns
  • cause map
  • cognitive map
  • disruption and delay

Cite this

Howick, S. M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Williams, T. M., & Meyers, R. A. (Ed.) (2008). Delay and disruption in complex projects. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science (pp. 1845-1854). (Springer Reference). New York, USA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3
Howick, S.M. ; Ackermann, F. ; Eden, C. ; Williams, T.M. ; Meyers, R.A. (Editor). / Delay and disruption in complex projects. Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. New York, USA : Springer, 2008. pp. 1845-1854 (Springer Reference).
@inbook{ff1857d780474240a930e1b18c4c0dd0,
title = "Delay and disruption in complex projects",
abstract = "There are many examples of complex projects suffering massive time and cost overruns. If a project has suffered such an overrun there may be a need to understand why it behaved the way it did. Two main reasons for this is (i) to gain learning for future projects or (ii) because one party of the project wishes to claim compensation from another party and thus is trying to explain what occurred during the project. In the latter case, system dynamics has been used for the last 30 years to help to understand why projects behave the way they do. Its success in this arena stems from its ability to model and unravel complex dynamic behavior that can result in project overruns. Starting from the first use of system dynamics in a claim situation in the late 1970's [2], it has directly influenced claim results worth millions of dollars. However, the number of claims which system dynamics has been involved in is still small as it is not perceived by project management practitioners as a standard tool for analyzing projects. System dynamics has a lot to offer in understanding complex projects, not only in a post‐mortem situation, but it could also add value in the pre‐project analysis stage and during the operational stage of a project.",
keywords = "complex projects, system dynamics, system dynamics modeling, cost overruns, cause map, cognitive map, disruption and delay",
author = "S.M. Howick and F. Ackermann and C. Eden and T.M. Williams and R.A. Meyers",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-0387758886",
series = "Springer Reference",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "1845--1854",
booktitle = "Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science",

}

Howick, SM, Ackermann, F, Eden, C, Williams, TM & Meyers, RA (ed.) 2008, Delay and disruption in complex projects. in Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer Reference, Springer, New York, USA, pp. 1845-1854. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3

Delay and disruption in complex projects. / Howick, S.M.; Ackermann, F.; Eden, C.; Williams, T.M.; Meyers, R.A. (Editor).

Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. New York, USA : Springer, 2008. p. 1845-1854 (Springer Reference).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Delay and disruption in complex projects

AU - Howick, S.M.

AU - Ackermann, F.

AU - Eden, C.

AU - Williams, T.M.

A2 - Meyers, R.A.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - There are many examples of complex projects suffering massive time and cost overruns. If a project has suffered such an overrun there may be a need to understand why it behaved the way it did. Two main reasons for this is (i) to gain learning for future projects or (ii) because one party of the project wishes to claim compensation from another party and thus is trying to explain what occurred during the project. In the latter case, system dynamics has been used for the last 30 years to help to understand why projects behave the way they do. Its success in this arena stems from its ability to model and unravel complex dynamic behavior that can result in project overruns. Starting from the first use of system dynamics in a claim situation in the late 1970's [2], it has directly influenced claim results worth millions of dollars. However, the number of claims which system dynamics has been involved in is still small as it is not perceived by project management practitioners as a standard tool for analyzing projects. System dynamics has a lot to offer in understanding complex projects, not only in a post‐mortem situation, but it could also add value in the pre‐project analysis stage and during the operational stage of a project.

AB - There are many examples of complex projects suffering massive time and cost overruns. If a project has suffered such an overrun there may be a need to understand why it behaved the way it did. Two main reasons for this is (i) to gain learning for future projects or (ii) because one party of the project wishes to claim compensation from another party and thus is trying to explain what occurred during the project. In the latter case, system dynamics has been used for the last 30 years to help to understand why projects behave the way they do. Its success in this arena stems from its ability to model and unravel complex dynamic behavior that can result in project overruns. Starting from the first use of system dynamics in a claim situation in the late 1970's [2], it has directly influenced claim results worth millions of dollars. However, the number of claims which system dynamics has been involved in is still small as it is not perceived by project management practitioners as a standard tool for analyzing projects. System dynamics has a lot to offer in understanding complex projects, not only in a post‐mortem situation, but it could also add value in the pre‐project analysis stage and during the operational stage of a project.

KW - complex projects

KW - system dynamics

KW - system dynamics modeling

KW - cost overruns

KW - cause map

KW - cognitive map

KW - disruption and delay

UR - http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737923263u733p7/fulltext.html

U2 - 10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3

DO - 10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-0387758886

T3 - Springer Reference

SP - 1845

EP - 1854

BT - Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science

PB - Springer

CY - New York, USA

ER -

Howick SM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams TM, Meyers RA, (ed.). Delay and disruption in complex projects. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. New York, USA: Springer. 2008. p. 1845-1854. (Springer Reference). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3