IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v54y2003i3d10.1057_palgrave.jors.2601502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: can the modelling purposes be met?

Author

Listed:
  • S Howick

    (University of Strathclyde)

Abstract

System dynamics (SD) is a modelling approach that has been used to analyse disruption and delay (D&D) for litigation in a number of cases over the last 30 years. However, there is a lack of literature addressing the question of whether or not it is actually a suitable modelling approach to take in this environment. This paper explores this question by considering whether or not SD is capable of meeting the modelling purposes of analysing D&D for litigation. The author's experience as part of a team which has carried out post-mortem analysis on projects for a number of litigation cases is used to consider the degree to which SD can meet these modelling purposes. This process highlights limitations of using SD. An understanding of these limitations is important, so that a modeller can make an informed decision about the appropriateness of SD as a modelling approach to support any specific claim for compensation.

Suggested Citation

  • S Howick, 2003. "Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: can the modelling purposes be met?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(3), pages 222-229, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:54:y:2003:i:3:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2601502
    DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601502
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601502?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden & Terry Williams, 1997. "Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 48-65, April.
    2. S Howick & C Eden, 2001. "The impact of disruption and delay when compressing large projects: going for incentives?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 52(1), pages 26-34, January.
    3. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann & Steve Cropper, 1992. "The Analysis Of Cause Maps," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 309-324, May.
    4. Diehl, Ernst & Sterman, John D., 1995. "Effects of Feedback Complexity on Dynamic Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 198-215, May.
    5. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    6. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    7. Mark Paich & John D. Sterman, 1993. "Boom, Bust, and Failures to Learn in Experimental Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1439-1458, December.
    8. Kenneth G. Cooper, 1980. "Naval Ship Production: A Claim Settled and a Framework Built," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 10(6), pages 20-36, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M Winter, 2006. "Problem structuring in project management: an application of soft systems methodology (SSM)," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 802-812, July.
    2. Santos, Sérgio P. & Belton, Valerie & Howick, Susan & Pilkington, Martin, 2018. "Measuring organisational performance using a mix of OR methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 18-30.
    3. Georgiou, Ion, 2012. "Messing about in transformations: Structured systemic planning for systemic solutions to systemic problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 392-406.
    4. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden, 2005. "Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 355-376, September.
    5. Howick, Susan & Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran & Williams, Terry, 2008. "Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: The modelling cascade," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(3), pages 1068-1083, May.
    6. S Howick & C Eden, 2004. "On the nature of discontinuities in system dynamics modelling of disrupted projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(6), pages 598-605, June.
    7. H A Akkermans & K E van Oorschot, 2005. "Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(8), pages 931-941, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S Howick & C Eden, 2004. "On the nature of discontinuities in system dynamics modelling of disrupted projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(6), pages 598-605, June.
    2. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.
    3. Gibson, Faison P., 2000. "Feedback Delays: How Can Decision Makers Learn Not to Buy a New Car Every Time the Garage Is Empty?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 141-166, September.
    4. Atun, Rifat A. & Lebcir, Reda M. & McKee, Martin & Habicht, Jarno & Coker, Richard J., 2007. "Impact of joined-up HIV harm reduction and multidrug resistant tuberculosis control programmes in Estonia: System dynamics simulation model," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(2-3), pages 207-217, May.
    5. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    6. Repenning, Nelson P. (Nelson Peter), 1998. "The transition problem in product development," Working papers WP 4036-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    7. Lurie, Nicholas H. & Swaminathan, Jayashankar M., 2009. "Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 315-329, March.
    8. Atkins, Paul W. B. & Wood, Robert E. & Rutgers, Philip J., 2002. "The effects of feedback format on dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 587-604, July.
    9. Villa, Sebastián, 2022. "Competing for supply and demand: Understanding retailers' ordering decisions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    10. Schnier, Kurt E. & Anderson, Christopher M., 2006. "Decision making in patchy resource environments: Spatial misperception of bioeconomic models," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 234-254, October.
    11. Arango, Santiago & Castañeda, Jaime A. & Larsen, Erik R., 2013. "Mothballing in power markets: An experimental study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 125-134.
    12. Arango, Santiago & Moxnes, Erling, 2012. "Commodity cycles, a function of market complexity? Extending the cobweb experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 321-334.
    13. F Ackermann & C Eden & T Williams & S Howick, 2007. "Systemic risk assessment: a case study," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(1), pages 39-51, January.
    14. U Benzion & Y Cohen & R Peled & T Shavit, 2008. "Decision-making and the newsvendor problem: an experimental study," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1281-1287, September.
    15. Anne M. Farrell & Joan Luft & Michael D. Shields, 2007. "Accuracy in Judging the Nonlinear Effects of Cost and Profit Drivers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1139-1169, December.
    16. John Hey & Tibor Neugebauer & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2009. "An Experimental Analysis of Optimal Renewable Resource Management: The Fishery," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 263-285, October.
    17. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    18. Thomke, Stefan H., 1998. "Simulation, learning and R&D performance: Evidence from automotive development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 55-74, May.
    19. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    20. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & Ali Kerem Saysel, 2017. "Role of Information Feedback in Soil Nitrogen Management: Results from a Dynamic Simulation Game," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 424-439, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:54:y:2003:i:3:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2601502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.