The model has certain limitations. The major limitations are:
• Generic structure: The model is designed as a generic project management tool that captures only the most common project behaviors. However, the variety of projects will always require modifying the structure to adequately reflect any specific project. These modifications include calibration of the simulation model as well as the adjustment of the GUI. This might require intensive data collection and parameter estimation processes. Formal procedures should be established to perform these processes effectively.
• Number of project tasks: One of the major limitations of the model is that it can contain up to only 10 project tasks5. Although sometimes this might be a simple aggregation issue, more often it would limit the usage of the model for complex projects without making proper changes in the model. The model should be improved to flexibly incorporate a “user-defined” number of tasks to the project structure.
• Model size and complexity: The size and the complexity of the model would have to increase significantly for the model to be applied to larger projects and the design of the model may not scale well.
• Task dependencies: Although the effect of task dependencies is uniquely incorporated to the model, there are some limitations. A task can only be dependent on only one other task in PMSM. However, in reality it is possible that tasks can be dependent on more than one task.
• Integration to traditional methods: PMSM can successfully serve as a complementary tool for project management. However, integration to current project management methods is essential. Moreover, standard techniques for automatic data transfer from widely-used project management software will help to decrease the effort needed to modify the model for specific projects.
• Validation of GUI: Although several validation tests are performed in order to increase confidence in the model, the teaching effectiveness and learning efficiency of PMSM graphical user interface has not yet been investigated.
This paper gives a brief summary of an on-going research. More detail information can be found in (Bulbul 2004). An example application of PMSM is discussed in (Bulbul 2005).
This research is a part of a PhD dissertation. In the research, so far the model development phase is accomplished and various tests are applied to the model to increase the confidence to the
34 model. In the next step PMSM will be applied to some real-world project cases. This will give opportunity to better validate the model and the GUI. Once this accomplished, certain characteristic project management problems will be analyzed using this new tool.
35
References
Abdel-Hamid, T. K., and S.E. Madnick (1983). "The dynamics of software project scheduling." Communications of the ACM 26(5): 340-346.
Abdel-Hamid, T. K., S.E. Madnick (1991). Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. New Jersey, Prentice Halls.
Baccarini, D. (1996). "The Concept of Project Complexity." International Journal Of Project Management 14(4): 201-204.
Bulbul, A. (2004). Capturing Project Dynamics with a New Project Management Tool: Project Management Simulation Model. Systems Science Ph.D. Program. Portland, Portland State University.
Bulbul, A. A. (2005). Intoducing a new project management tool: Project Management Simulation Model (PMSM). To be presented in Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland.
Cooper, K. G. (1980). "Naval ship production: a claim settled and a framework built." Interfaces
10(6): 20-36.
Cooper, K. G. (1993b). "The rework cycle: why are projects mismanaged." PM Network Magazine(February): 5-7.
Eden, C. (1994). "Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building." System Dynamics Review 10(2-3): 257-276.
Eden, C. W., T. and Ackermann F. (2003). Issues with the measured mile analysis. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Ford, D. N., and J. Sterman (1998). "Dynamic modeling of product development processes." System Dynamics Review 14(1): 31-68.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W., P. Senge (1980). Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. New York.
Hebert, J. E. (1979). Applications of Simulation in Project Management. Winter Simulation Conference.
Howick, S. (2001). Using system dynamics models with ligitation audiences. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Howick, S. (2002). Should system dynamics be used to model distruption and ligitation? An exploration of criteria. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Howick, S., and C. Eden (2002a). Organizational learning and litigation analysis in project management: on the nature of discontinuities in system dynamics modeling of disrupted projects. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Kelton, W. D., R.W. Sadowski, and D.A. Sadowski (2001). Simulation with Arena. London, McGraw-Hill.
Kerzner, H. (1992). Project Management - A Systemic Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kerzner, H. (2000). Applied Project Management: Best Practices on Implementation. New York, Wiley.
Lyneis, M. J., K.G. Cooper, and S.A. Els (2001). "Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics." System Dynamics Review 17(3): 237-260.
36 Morris, P., and G. Hough (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects. Newyork, Chichester, Wiley. Ondash, C. S., J. M. Huerta, and M. Stephen (1988). Large project simulation: A powerful tool
for project management analysis. Winter Simulation Conference.
Ottjes, J. A., and H.P.M. Veeke (2000). Project management with simulation - A critical view on critical path. ICSC Symposia on Intelligent Systems & Applications, Wollongong,
Australia.
PMI, P. M. I. (2000). Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK). Upper Darby, PA, Project Management Institute.
Repenning, P. N. (1999). Resource dependence in product development improvement efforts. Cambridge, MA, Sloan School of Management, MIT.
Repenning, P. N. (1999b). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation. Cambridge, MA, Sloan School of Management, MIT. Rodrigues, A. G. (1998). SYDPIM - A system dynamics-based project management integrated
methodology. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Rodrigues, A. G., and T.M. Williams (1996a). System dynamics in software project
management: towards the development of a formal integrated framework. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Rodrigues, A. G., and T.M. Williams (1996b). System dynamics in project management: assessing the impacts of client behaviour on project performance. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Rodrigues, A. G., J.A. Bowers (1996c). "System dynamics in Project management:a comparative analysis with traditional methods." System Dynamics Review 12(2): 121-139.
Schlichter, J. (2001). PMI's organizational project management maturity model:emerging standards. PMI Annual Conference 2001, Upper Darby, PA,USA, PMI.
Sterman, J. D. (1984). "Appropriate summary statistics for evaluating the historical fit of system dynamists models." Dynamica 10(II).
Sterman, J. D. (1992). System Dynamics Modeling for Project Management. Cambridge, MA, Sloan School of Management, MIT.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics, System Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston, Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. R., R.A. Cochrane (1993). "Goals-and-methods matrix:coping with projects with ill- defined goals and/or methods of achieving them." International Journal Of Project Management 11: 93-102.
Vlatka, H., and S. Robinson (1998). Business process modeling and analysis using discrete-event simulation. Winter Simulation Conference.
Williams, T. (1999). "The need for new paradigms for complex projects." International Journal Of Project Management 17(5): 269-274.
Williams, T. (2001). Assessing extension of time delays on major projects. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
Williams, T. (2002). Learning from projects. Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School. Williams, T. (2002a). Modeling Complex Projects. Warminster, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Williams, T. (2003). Why Monte-Carlo Simulations of Project Networks are Wrong. Glasgow. Williams, T., C. Eden, F. Ackermann, and S. Howick (2001). The use of project post-mortems.
Glasgow, Strathclyde Business School.
37
Appendix - Applications of System Dynamics to Project Management
Author Years Project type Summary
Roberts 1964 R&D Perceived vs. real progress
Kelly 1970 R&D Development of R&D dynamics, multi-project management Richardson, Pugh 1981 R&D Productivity and rework generation staff hiring policy Jessen 1988 R&D, construction Project team motivation and productivity, client and project team relationship Keloharju,
Wolstenholme 1989 R&D Time-cost trade-off
Abdel-Hamid 1988-1993 Software development Project staffing policies, multi-projects scheduling, quality assurance policies, cost and schedule estimates as targets, managerial turnover
Barlas, Bayraktutar 1992 Software development Simulation based game, staffing policies Pugh-Roberts
Associates 1993
Various large projects
PMMS: a specialist SD project management tool, design and workscope changes, dispute resolution
Smith et al. 1993 Software development Charles Stark Drapper Laboratory
Chichakly 1993 Software development High Performance System Inc, technology transition Lin 1993 Software development NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: integrating engineering and management Aranda 1993 Software development Aragon Associates Inc, TQM and product life cycle Cooper, Mullen 1993 Software development The rework cycle, project monitoring progress ramps Williams et al. 1995 Product development Dispute resolution, impact of parallelism
Software development
System dynamics integrated to traditional project management (a hybrid approach). Implemented for BAeSEMA Company.
Rodrigues, A.G.;
Williams, T.M 1996
Software development
System dynamics integrated to traditional project management (a hybrid approach). Implemented in KDCOM project for Korea Navy
Kimberly and James 1999 R&D Discussing the rework cycle, feedback effects, and knock-on effects which create budget and schedule overrun