Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches

Fran Ackermann, Colin Eden, Terence Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

111 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A contractor to the channel tunnel project instigated litigation to claim for the costs of disruption and delay. We used several interacting models to make the case for the claim more persuasive, coherent, and verifiable. Mixing qualitative modeling (large cognitive maps) with influence models and with system dynamics simulation modeling improved the quality of the claim. Quality, in this case, being that the modeling process was understandable to the client to the extent that it could argue the claim in court, that every aspect was expected to be transparent to the judge, and that it was robust and defensible management science. Cycling between modeling approaches gave benefits that could not have been attained by either hard or soft modeling in isolation. The claim ultimately was settled satisfactorily out of court with the client acknowledging that the modeling played a significant role.
LanguageEnglish
Pages48-65
Number of pages18
JournalInterfaces
Volume27
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1997

Fingerprint

Management science
Computer simulation
Contractors
Tunnels
Computer systems
Costs
Modeling
Litigation
Simulation modeling
Process modeling
Cognitive map
Dynamic simulation
System dynamics
Disruption
Isolation

Keywords

  • modeling
  • litigation
  • qualitative and quantitative approaches

Cite this

@article{cd3a1069e525453298d2c8e66d296540,
title = "Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches",
abstract = "A contractor to the channel tunnel project instigated litigation to claim for the costs of disruption and delay. We used several interacting models to make the case for the claim more persuasive, coherent, and verifiable. Mixing qualitative modeling (large cognitive maps) with influence models and with system dynamics simulation modeling improved the quality of the claim. Quality, in this case, being that the modeling process was understandable to the client to the extent that it could argue the claim in court, that every aspect was expected to be transparent to the judge, and that it was robust and defensible management science. Cycling between modeling approaches gave benefits that could not have been attained by either hard or soft modeling in isolation. The claim ultimately was settled satisfactorily out of court with the client acknowledging that the modeling played a significant role.",
keywords = "modeling, litigation, qualitative and quantitative approaches",
author = "Fran Ackermann and Colin Eden and Terence Williams",
year = "1997",
month = "3",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "48--65",
journal = "Interfaces",
issn = "0092-2102",
number = "2",

}

Modeling for litigation : mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. / Ackermann, Fran; Eden, Colin; Williams, Terence.

In: Interfaces, Vol. 27, No. 2, 03.1997, p. 48-65.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modeling for litigation

T2 - Interfaces

AU - Ackermann, Fran

AU - Eden, Colin

AU - Williams, Terence

PY - 1997/3

Y1 - 1997/3

N2 - A contractor to the channel tunnel project instigated litigation to claim for the costs of disruption and delay. We used several interacting models to make the case for the claim more persuasive, coherent, and verifiable. Mixing qualitative modeling (large cognitive maps) with influence models and with system dynamics simulation modeling improved the quality of the claim. Quality, in this case, being that the modeling process was understandable to the client to the extent that it could argue the claim in court, that every aspect was expected to be transparent to the judge, and that it was robust and defensible management science. Cycling between modeling approaches gave benefits that could not have been attained by either hard or soft modeling in isolation. The claim ultimately was settled satisfactorily out of court with the client acknowledging that the modeling played a significant role.

AB - A contractor to the channel tunnel project instigated litigation to claim for the costs of disruption and delay. We used several interacting models to make the case for the claim more persuasive, coherent, and verifiable. Mixing qualitative modeling (large cognitive maps) with influence models and with system dynamics simulation modeling improved the quality of the claim. Quality, in this case, being that the modeling process was understandable to the client to the extent that it could argue the claim in court, that every aspect was expected to be transparent to the judge, and that it was robust and defensible management science. Cycling between modeling approaches gave benefits that could not have been attained by either hard or soft modeling in isolation. The claim ultimately was settled satisfactorily out of court with the client acknowledging that the modeling played a significant role.

KW - modeling

KW - litigation

KW - qualitative and quantitative approaches

UR - http://www.jstor.org/stable/25062231

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 48

EP - 65

JO - Interfaces

JF - Interfaces

SN - 0092-2102

IS - 2

ER -