跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 尚靜宜
Ching-I Shang
論文名稱： 專案範圍變動下應變成本之重新配置:系統動態學在專案風險管理的應用
System Dynamics in Project Risk Management:Reallocating the Contingency Cost under the Project Scope Change
指導教授： 曾清枝
Ching-chih Tseng
口試委員:
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 管理學院 - 工業管理研究所
Graduate Institute of Industrial Management
畢業學年度： 90
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 70
中文關鍵詞： 應變成本 、專案範圍 、系統動態
外文關鍵詞： Contingency cost, System dynamics, Project scope
相關次數： 點閱：12  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • The fast changing environment and the complexity of projects has increased risk exposure. Traditional tools and technologies used in the process of risk management are not appropriate owning to its static analysis attribute. The project manager perceives the importance of taking prospective tools to face the challenge and keep the effort to control the project. This research proposes a project risk dynamics model to lead the project manager how to reallocate the contingency cost under the project scope change with a holistic view. By combining the process of risk management and system dynamics analysis in the project management, early signs of risk emergence, which would remain unperceived until problems would aggravate, can be identified in the project. Hence, the project manager can take better advantage offered by System Dynamics modeling, while enhancing the performance of the existing risk management process.
    Project scope change creates a series of effects and causes cost overruns that affect the schedule and lower performance in the long run. This research presents a risk dynamics framework that displays a trade-off process between cost and schedule and thereby attempts to revise the contingency cost and keep it under control. A pipeline work package is modeled and discussed.

    The fast changing environment and the complexity of projects has increased risk exposure. Traditional tools and technologies used in the process of risk management are not appropriate owning to its static analysis attribute. The project manager perceives the importance of taking prospective tools to face the challenge and keep the effort to control the project. This research proposes a project risk dynamics model to lead the project manager how to reallocate the contingency cost under the project scope change with a holistic view. By combining the process of risk management and system dynamics analysis in the project management, early signs of risk emergence, which would remain unperceived until problems would aggravate, can be identified in the project. Hence, the project manager can take better advantage offered by System Dynamics modeling, while enhancing the performance of the existing risk management process.
    Project scope change creates a series of effects and causes cost overruns that affect the schedule and lower performance in the long run. This research presents a risk dynamics framework that displays a trade-off process between cost and schedule and thereby attempts to revise the contingency cost and keep it under control. A pipeline work package is modeled and discussed.

    Table of contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Research Motivation 2 1.3 Research Objective 3 1.4 Research Method 4 1.5 Research Framework 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review 8 2.1 Project scope changes 8 2.1.1 Causes of Project Scope Changes 8 2.1.2 The Process of Scope Change Control 10 2.2 Contingency Cost 10 2.3 System Dynamics Method 13 2.3.1 Definitions of System Dynamics 13 2.3.2 The Negative and Positive Feedback Loop Structures 14 2.3.3 The Basic Principle of System Dynamics 14 2.3.4 System Dynamics Implementation Procedures 16 2.4 System Dynamics for Project Management 17 2.5 The SYDPIM Framework 21 2.6 Using SYDPIM to Manage Risk Dynamics within the PMBOK Framework 21 Chapter 3 Research Design 24 3.1 Conceptual Framework 24 3.2 Causal Loop Diagrams 27 3.3 Building The Risk Dynamic Model 31 Chapter 4 Modeling Pipeline Work Package 32 4.1 System Dynamic Tool-Stella 32 4.2 Case Background 33 4.3 Model Pipeline Work Package 35 4.4 Concrete Tests on Building Confidence 39 4.5 Model Validation and Calibration 40 4.6 Test the Impact of Policies 49 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions 57 5.1 Research Conclusions 57 5.2 Future Research Direction 58 Reference 59 Appendix: Equations of SD for pipeline work case 62 Figures Figure 1-1 Overview of the SYDPIM process logic 5 Figure 1-2 The framework of this thesis 7 Figure 2-1 A standard system dynamics flow diagram 15 Figure 2-2 Forester’s seven stage of implementation 16 Figure 2-3 Tao’s system dynamics approach 17 Figure 3-1 Overview of project management 24 Figure 3-2 The risk dynamics model framework 25 Figure 3-3 The rework cycle 26 Figure 3-4 Approved process to the scope change project 29 Figure 3-5 Adjustment process between cost and schedule trade-off 30 Figure 4-1 Model pipeline work package 38 Figure 4-2 Contingency cost on different level of scope change 42 Figure 4-3 No change at each period (0% change) 43 Figure 4-4 100% change at the design phase and 0% at pipe work phase 44 Figure 4-5 Contents of contingency cost (100% at design phase and 0% at pipe work phase) 44 Figure 4-6 75% change at design phase and 20% change at pipe work phase 47 Figure 4-7 Contents of contingency cost (75% change at design phase and 20% at pipe work phase) 47 Figure 4-8 Change of overtime policy 50 Figure 4-9 Change workforce policy 51 Figure 4-10 Change of delivery way policy 52 Figure 4-11 Canceling of delivery way policy 52 Figure 4-12 Change of skipping on QA 54 Tables Table 2-1 Application of system dynamics to project management 19 Table 4-1 Possible contingency items 40 Table 4-2 Contents of contingency cost data 42 Table 4-3 100% at design phase and 0% at pipe work phase 45 Table 4-4 Contents of each contingency cost item (100% at design phase and 0% at pipe work phase) 45 Table 4-5 75% at design phase and 20% at pipe work phase 48 Table 4-6 Contents of each contingency cost item (75% at design phase and 20% at pipe work phase) 48 Table 4-7 Change of overtime policy 50 Table 4-8 Change workforce policy 51 Table 4-9 Change of delivery way policy 53 Table 4-10 Canceling of delivery way policy 53 Table 4-11 Change of Skipping on QA 55

    Reference
    1. Abdel-Hamid, T. K., “The Dynamics of Software Project staffing: A System Dynamics Based Simulation Approach” 1989, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol.15, pp.109-119
    2. Abdel-Hamed, T.K. and Madnick, SE Software Project Dynamics: An integrated Approach, Prentice-Hall, USA (1991)
    3. Abdel-Hamed, T.K., “Investigating the Impacts of Managerial Turnover: Succession on Software Project Performance”, 1992, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 9, pp127-144
    4. Abdel-hamid, T.K., “A Multiproject Perspective of Single-project Dynamics,” 1993, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 22, pp.151-165
    5. Abdel-Hamed, T.K., “Thinking in Circles,” 1993, American Programmer, Vol. 6, pp.3-9
    6. Andrew, F., Modeling the Environment. An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems, 1999, Island press, USA
    7. Aranda, R. R, Fiddaman, T and Oliva, R “Quality Microworlds: Modeling the Impact of Quality Initiative over the Software Product Life Cycle,”1993, American Programmer, Vol.6, Iss. 5, pp.52-61
    8. Barles, Y. and Bayraktutar, I, “An Interactive Simulation Game for Software Project Management (SOFTSIM)”Proceedings of System Dynamics, 1992, pp59-68
    9. Chapman,R.J., “The role of System Dynamics in Understanding the Impact of Changes to Key Project Personnel on Design Production within Construction Projects, ” International Journal of Project Management, 1998, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.235-247
    10. Chichakly, K.J., “The Bifocal Vantage Point: Managing Software Projects from a Systems Thinking Perspectives,” 1993, American Programmer, vol.6, Iss.5, pp. 18-25
    11. Construction Industry Institute, 1986, Scope Definition and Control, Publication 6-2, pp.45, Austin,
    12. Cooper, K.G. & Mullen, T.W. ”Swords and Plowshares: The Rework Cycles of Defense and Commercial Software Development Projects,” American programmer, 1993,Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.41-51
    13. Cooper, K.G., “The Rework Cycle: Why projects are mismanaged” PM Network Magazine, February 1993, pp. 5-7
    14. Cooper, K.G., “Benchmarks for the Project Manager,” Journal of Project Management, March, 1993
    15. Coyle, R.G., System Dynamics Modeling: A Practical Approach, 1994,UK: Chapman & Hall
    16. Edward E. (Ted) Douglas third, “Project Trends and Change Control,” AACE International Transactions, 2000, C101-C105
    17. Forrester, J. “Industrial Dynamics”1961, MIT Press, USA.
    18. Gideon Samid, PE, “Contingency Revisited,” Cost Engineering, 1994, Vol.36, No. 12
    19. Greenberger, Martin; Matthew; and Crissey, Brian. 1976. Models in the policy process. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    20. House, Peter, and McLeod, John. 1977. Large scale models for policy evaluation, New York: John Wiley.
    21. Humphreys, Kenneth, Project and Cost Engineers’ Handbook, NY: Marcel Dekker. 1987
    22. Jessen, S.A., “Can Project Dynamics be modeled?” 1988 International Conference of System Dynamic Society Proceedings, pp.171-187
    23. Keloharju, R and Wolstenholme, E. F., “A Case Study in System Dynamics Optimizaion” 1989, Journal of the Operation Research Society, Vol. 40, pp221-230
    24. Kerzner, H., Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and controlling, rev. edition, 2001,Canada: John Wiley & Sons
    25. Kuntson, Joan & Ira Bitz, Project Management, N.Y. AMACOM, 1991
    26. Lin, C. Y., “Walking on Battlefields: Tools for Strategic Software Management,”1993, American Programmer, Vol.6, Iss. 5, pp. 33-40
    27. Mantel, et, 2001, Project management in Practice, NY, John Wiley & Sons
    28. Project Management Institute (PMI) 2000. A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute, North Carolina.
    29. Pugh Roberts Associates-PA Consulting Group, PMMS-Program Management Modeling System Pugh Roberts Associates, USA (1993)
    30. Richardson, G. P. & Pugh, A.L., Introduction to system dynamics Modeling with Dynamo, 1981, MIT Press, USA
    31. Rodrigues, A.G., ”The Role of System Dynamics in Project Management: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional Models,” 1994 International System Dynamics Conference Proceedings Lincoln Ma, USA, pp.214-225
    32. Rodrigues, A.G. & Bowers, J., ”The role of System Dynamics in Project Management,” International journal of Project Management, 1996, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 213-220
    33. Rodrigues, A.G.,”SYDPIM-A System Dynamics-based Project-management Integrated Methodology,” 1997 International System Dynamics conference: “Systems Approach to Learning and Education into the 21st century”. Istanbul, turkey, pp.439-442
    34. Rodrigues, A.G. & Williams, TM, “System Dynamics in Project Management: Assessing the Impacts of Client Behavior on Project Performance,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1998, Vol. 49, pp.2-15
    35. Rodrigues, A.G., “Managing and modeling Project Risk Dynamics: A System Dynamics-Based Framework,” The fourth European Project Management Conference, 2001
    36. Smith,B.J., Nguyen, H and Vidale, R.F. “Death of a Software Manager: How to Avoid Career Suicide through Dynamic Software Process modeling” 1993, American Programmer, Vol.3, Num.5, pp.10-17
    37. Stephen Ward, C., ”Assessing and Managing Important Risks,” International Journal of Project Management, 1999, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 331-336
    38. Wolstenholme, E.F. “System Enquiry-A System Dynamics Approach,” 1990, John Wiley and Sons, UK
    39. Williams, Terry et al, “The Effects of Design Changes and Delays on Project Costs,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1995, Vol. 46, pp.809-818
    Chinese literature
    1. 陶在樸, “系統動態學”, 五南出版社, 1999

    QR CODE
    :::