IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v19y2016i4p334-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Project Performance through a System Dynamics Learning Model

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Walworth
  • Mike Yearworth
  • Laura Shrieves
  • Hillary Sillitto

Abstract

Monitoring of the technical progression of projects is highly difficult, especially for complex projects where the current state may be obscured by the use of traditional project metrics. Late detection of technical problems leads to high resolution costs and delayed delivery of projects. To counter this, we report on the development of a updated technical metrics process designed to help ensure the on‐time delivery, to both cost and schedule, of high quality products by a U.K. Systems Engineering Company. Published best practice suggests the necessity of using planned parameter profiles crafted to support technical metrics; but these have proven difficult to create due to the variance in project types and noise within individual project systems. This paper presents research findings relevant to the creation of a model to help set valid planned parameter profiles for a diverse range of system engineering products; and in establishing how to help project users get meaningful use out of these planned parameter profiles. We present a solution using a System Dynamics (SD) model capable of generating suitable planned parameter profiles. The final validated and verified model overlays the idea of a learning “S‐curve” abstraction onto a rework cycle system archetype. Once applied in SD this matched the mental models of experienced engineering managers within the company, and triangulates with validated empirical data from within the literature. This has delivered three key benefits in practice: the development of a heuristic for understanding the work flow within projects, as a result of the interaction between a project learning system and defect discovery; the ability to produce morphologically accurate performance baselines for metrics; and an approach for enabling teams to generate benefit from the model via the use of problem structuring methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Walworth & Mike Yearworth & Laura Shrieves & Hillary Sillitto, 2016. "Estimating Project Performance through a System Dynamics Learning Model," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 334-350, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:4:p:334-350
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21349
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21349?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J Davis & A MacDonald & L White, 2010. "Problem-structuring methods and project management: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(6), pages 893-904, June.
    2. P Keys, 2006. "On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 822-829, July.
    3. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    4. Donna H. Rhodes & Ricardo Valerdi, 2007. "Enabling research synergies through a doctoral research network for systems engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 348-360, December.
    5. White, Leroy, 2009. "Understanding problem structuring methods interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 823-833, December.
    6. Sarah A Sheard & Ali Mostashari, 2009. "Principles of complex systems for systems engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 295-311, December.
    7. C Eden & F Ackermann, 2006. "Where next for problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 766-768, July.
    8. Morrison, J. Bradley, 2008. "Putting the learning curve in context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 1182-1190, November.
    9. Donna H. Rhodes & Ricardo Valerdi & Garry J. Roedler, 2009. "Systems engineering leading indicators for assessing program and technical effectiveness," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 21-35, March.
    10. L White, 2006. "Evaluating problem-structuring methods: developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 842-855, July.
    11. Kenneth G. Cooper, 1980. "Naval Ship Production: A Claim Settled and a Framework Built," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 10(6), pages 20-36, December.
    12. Richard J Ormerod, 2014. "The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 65(8), pages 1245-1260, August.
    13. John Mingers & Jonathan Rosenhead, 2011. "Introduction to the Special Issue: Teaching Soft O.R., Problem Structuring Methods, and Multimethodology," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-3, September.
    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. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.

    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. Michael Yearworth & Gordon Edwards, 2014. "On the Desirability of Integrating Research Methods into Overall Systems Approaches in the Training of Engineers: Analysis Using SSM," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 47-66, January.
    2. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    3. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    4. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    5. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    6. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    7. Ormerod, Richard & Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2023. "Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: A research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 810-827.
    8. White, Leroy & Burger, Katharina & Yearworth, Mike, 2016. "Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 983-1004.
    9. Lowe, David & Espinosa, Angela & Yearworth, Mike, 2020. "Constitutive rules for guiding the use of the viable system model: Reflections on practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1014-1035.
    10. Brocklesby, John & Midgley, Gerald, 2016. "Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of interventionAuthor-Name: Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 968-982.
    11. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    12. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2018. "Spontaneous emergence of Community OR: Self-initiating, self-organising problem structuring mediated by social media," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 809-824.
    13. Franco, L. Alberto & Greiffenhagen, Christian, 2018. "Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 673-684.
    14. Ackermann, Fran, 2012. "Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 652-658.
    15. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    16. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    17. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    18. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    19. Katharina Burger & Leroy White & Mike Yearworth, 2018. "Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 789-810, October.
    20. William Jones & Mahesh Sooriyabandara & Mike Yearworth & Angela Doufexi & R. Eddie Wilson, 2016. "Planning For 5G: A Problem Structuring Approach for Survival in the Telecoms Industry," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 301-321, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:4:p:334-350. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.