Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Delay and Disruption in Complex Projects

  • Reference work entry
Complex Systems in Finance and Econometrics

Article Outline

Glossary

Definition of the Subject

Introduction

Disruption and Delay

Analyzing D&D and Project Behavior

Cascade Model Building Process

Implications for Development

Future Directions

Bibliography

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Cause map:

A cause map is similar to a cognitive map however it is not composed of an individuals perception but rather the views/statements from a number of participants. It follows the same formalisms as cognitive mapping but does not reflect cognition as it is composite.

Cognitive map:

A cognitive map is a representation of an individuals perception (cognition) of an issue. It is graphically depicted illustrating concepts/statements connected together with arrows representing causality. They are created using a set of established formalisms.

Complex project:

A complex project is a project in which the project behaviors and outcomes are difficult to predict and difficult to explain post-hoc.

Disruption and delay:

Disruption and delay (D&D) is primarily the consequence of interactions which feed on themselves as a result of an initial disruption or delay or portfolio of disruptions and delays.

Project:

A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service [1].

Bibliography

  1. Project Management Institute (2000) A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Project Management Institute, Newtown Square

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cooper KG (1980) Naval ship production: a claim settled and a framework built. Interfaces 10:20–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Szyliowicz JS, Goetz AR (1995) Getting realistic about megaproject planning: the case of the new Denver International Airport. Policy Sci 28:347–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Flyvberg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Scottish Parliament (2003) Corporate body issues August update on Holyrood. Parliamentary News Release 049/2003

    Google Scholar 

  6. Major Projects Association (1994) Beyond 2000: A source book for major projects. Major Projects Association, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flyvberg B, Holm MK, Buhl SL (2002) Understanding costs in public works projects: error or lie? J Am Plan Assoc 68:279–295

    Google Scholar 

  8. Morris PWG, Hough GH (1987) The anatomy of major projects. A study of the reality of project management. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  9. Forrester J (1961) Industrial dynamics. Productivity Press, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T (1997) Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27:48–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lyneis JM, Ford DN (2007) System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research. Syst Dyn Rev 23:157–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lyneis JM, Cooper KG, Els SA (2001) Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 17:237–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ford DN (1995) The dynamics of project management: an investigation of the impacts of project process and coordination on performance. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rodrigues A, Bowers J (1996) The role of system dynamics in project management. Int J Proj Manag 14:213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rodrigues A, Bowers J (1996) System dynamics in project management: a comparative analysis with traditional methods. Syst Dyn Rev 12:121–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Williams TM, Eden C, Ackermann F (1995) The vicious circles of parallelism. Int J Proj Manag 13:151–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager. Proj Manag J 24:17–21

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: How it really works.. and reworks… PMNETwork VII:25–28

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: why projects are mismanaged. PMNETwork VII:5–7

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cooper KG (1993) The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager. Proj Manag J 24:17–21

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cooper KG (1994) The $2,000 hour: how managers influence project performance through the rework cycle. Proj Manag J 25:11–24

    Google Scholar 

  22. Eden C, Williams TM, Ackermann F, Howick S (2000) On the nature of disruption and delay. J Oper Res Soc 51:291–300

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams T (2004) Analysing project cost overruns: comparing the measured mile analysis and system dynamics modelling. Int J Proj Manag 23:135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nahmias S (1980) The use of management science to support a multimillion dollar precedent‐setting government contact litigation. Interfaces 10:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams TM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Howick S (2005) Learning from project failure. In: Love P, Irani Z, Fong P (eds) Knowledge management in project environments. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sterman JD (1989) Modelling of managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Manag Sci 35:321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Williams TM, Eden C, Ackermann F, Tait A (1995) The effects of design changes and delays on project costs. J Oper Research Society 46:809–818

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bennett PG, Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams TM (1997) Analysing litigation and negotiation: using a combined methodology. In: Mingers J, Gill A (eds) Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Wiley, Chichester, pp 59–88

    Google Scholar 

  30. Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams T (2005) The amoebic growth of project costs. Proj Manag J 36(2):15–27

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T, Howick S (2007) Systemic risk assessment: a case study. J Oper Res Soc 58(1):39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wickwire JM, Smith RF (1974) The use of critical path method techniques in contract claims. Public Contract Law J 7(1):1–45

    Google Scholar 

  33. Scott S (1993) Dealing with delay claims: a survey. Int J Proj Manag 11(3):143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Howick S, Eden C (2001) The impact of disruption and delay when compressing large projects: going for incentives? J Oper Res Soc 52:26–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Diehl E, Sterman JD (1995) Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62(2):198–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stephens CA, Graham AK, Lyneis JM (2005) System dynamics modelling in the legal arena: meeting the challenges of expert witness admissibility. Syst Dyn Rev 21:95–122.35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Howick S (2003) Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: Can the modelling purposes be met? J Oper Res Soc 54(3):222–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Howick S, Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams T (2007) Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: the modelling cascade. Eur J Oper Res 186:1068–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ackermann F, Eden C (2004) Using causal mapping: individual and group: traditional and new. In: Pidd M (ed) Systems modelling: theory and practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 127–145

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Finn C (2004) Visible thinking: unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shaw D, Ackermann F, Eden C (2003) Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring. J Oper Res Soc 54:936–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ackermann F, Eden C (2001) Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems. Group Decis Negot 10(1):47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ackermann F, Eden C, Brown I (2005) Using causal mapping with group support systems to elicit an understanding of failure in complex projects: some implications for organizational research. Group Decis Negot 14(5):355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 152:615–630

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lane (2000) Diagramming conventions in system dynamics. J Oper Res Soc 51(2):241–245

    Google Scholar 

  47. Burns JR (1977) Converting signed digraphs to Forrester schematics and converting Forrester schematics to differential equations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC 7(10):695–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Burns JR, Ulgen OM (1978) A sector approach to the formulation of system dynamics models. Int J Syst Sci 9(6):649–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Burns JR, Ulgen OM, Beights HW (1979) An algorithm for converting signed digraphs to Forrester's schematics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC 9(3):115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Oliva R (2004) Model structure analysis through graph theory: partition heuristics and feedback structure decomposition. Syst Dyn Rev 20(4):313–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ford D, Sterman J (1998) Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and mental models. Syst Dyn Rev 14(4):309–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vennix J (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  54. Howick S (2005) Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences. Eur J Oper Res 162(1):239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ackoff RL, Sasieni MW (1968) Fundamentals of operations research. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rivett P (1972) Principles of model building. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mitchell G (1993) The practice of operational research. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pidd M (2003) Tools for thinking: modelling in management science. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  59. Williams TM, Ackermann F, Eden C (1997) Project risk: systemicity, cause mapping and a scenario approach. In: Kahkonen K, Artto KA (eds) Managing risks in projects. E & FN Spon, London, pp 343–352

    Google Scholar 

  60. APM Publishing Ltd (2004) Project risk analysis and management guide. APM Publishing Ltd, High Wycombe, Bucks

    Google Scholar 

  61. Howick S, Ackermann F, Andersen D (2006) Linking event thinking with structural thinking: methods to improve client value in projects. Syst Dyn Rev 22(2):113–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Williams TM (2004) Learning the hard lessons from projects – easily. Int J Proj Manag 22(4):273–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Williams TM (1999) The need for new paradigms for complex projects. Int J Proj Manag 17:269–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Shenhar AJ (2001) One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains. Manag Sci 47:394–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. De Meyer A, Loch CH, Rich MT (2002) Managing project uncertainty: from variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Mgmt Rev 43(2):60–67

    Google Scholar 

  66. Shenhar AJ, Dvir D (2004) How project differ and what to do about it. In: Pinto J, Morris P (eds) Handbook of managing projects. Wiley, New York, pp 1265–1286

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rodrigues A, Williams TM (1997) Systems dynamics in software project management: towards the development of a formal integrated framework. Eur J Inf Syst 6:51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Williams TM (2002) Modelling complex projects. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  69. Dixon M (ed) (2000) The Association for Project Management (APM) Body of Knowledge (BoK), 4th edn. Association for Project Management, High Wycombe

    Google Scholar 

  70. Stevens M (2002) Project management pathways. Association for Project Management, High Wycombe

    Google Scholar 

  71. Williams TM (2005) Assessing and building on project management theory in the light of badly over-run projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(4):497–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lundin RA (1995) Editorial: temporary organizations and project management. Scand J Mgmt 11:315–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Packendorff J (1995) Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project management research. Scand J Mgmt 11:319–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Linehan C, Kavanagh D (2004) From project ontologies to communities of virtue. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop, Making projects critical, University of Western England, 13–14th December 2004

    Google Scholar 

  75. Koskela L, Howell G (2002) The theory of project management: explanation to novel methods. In: Proceedings 10th Annual Conference on Lean Construction, IGLC-10, August 2002, Gramado, Brazil

    Google Scholar 

  76. Koskela L, Howell G (2002) The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In: Proc. PMI (Project Management Institute) Research Conference, Seattle 2002, pp 293–301

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hodgson DE (2004) Project work: the legacy of bureaucratic control in the post‐bureaucratic organization. Organization 11:81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Malgrati A, Damiani M (2002) Rethinking the new project management framework: new epistemology, new insights. In: Proc. PMI (Project Management Institute) Research Conference, Seattle 2002, pp 371–380

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lindkvist L, Soderlund J, Tell F (1998) Managing product development projects: on the significance of fountains and deadlines. Org Stud 19:931–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Baccarini D (1996) The concept of project complexity – a review. Int J Proj Manag 14:201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Turner JR, Cochrane RA (1993) Goals-and‐methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. Int J Proj Manag 11:93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Engwall M (2002) The futile dream of the perfect goal. In: Sahil-Andersson K, Soderholm A (eds) Beyond project management: new perspectives on the temporary‐permanent dilemma. Libe Ekonomi, Copenhagen Business School Press, Malmo, pp 261–277

    Google Scholar 

  83. Williams TM (2003) Assessing extension of time delays on major projects. Int J Proj Manag 21(1):19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Williams TM (2007) Post‐project reviews to gain effective lessons learned. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square

    Google Scholar 

  85. Robertson S, Williams T (2006) Understanding project failure: using cognitive mapping in an insurance project. Proj Manag J 37(4):55–71

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Susan Howick, Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden

  2. School of Management, Southampton University , Southampton, UK

    Terry Williams

Authors
  1. Susan Howick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fran Ackermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Colin Eden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Terry Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RAMTECH LIMITED, 122 Escalle Lane, Larkspur, CA, 94939, USA

    Robert A. Meyers Ph. D. (Editor-in-Chief) (Editor-in-Chief)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag

About this entry

Cite this entry

Howick, S., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Williams, T. (2009). Delay and Disruption in Complex Projects. In: Meyers, R. (eds) Complex Systems in Finance and Econometrics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7701-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7701-4_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-7700-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7701-4

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation