跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.87.250.158) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/01/25 19:20
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:尚靜宜
研究生(外文):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
論文名稱(外文):System Dynamics in Project Risk Management: Reallocating the Contingency Cost under the Project Scope Change
指導教授:曾清枝曾清枝引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ching-chih Tseng
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中央大學
系所名稱:工業管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
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 costSystem dynamicsProject scope
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:315
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
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 Introduction1
1.1 Background1
1.2 Research Motivation2
1.3 Research Objective3
1.4 Research Method4
1.5 Research Framework6
Chapter 2 Literature Review8
2.1 Project scope changes8
2.1.1 Causes of Project Scope Changes8
2.1.2 The Process of Scope Change Control10
2.2 Contingency Cost10
2.3 System Dynamics Method13
2.3.1 Definitions of System Dynamics13
2.3.2 The Negative and Positive Feedback Loop Structures14
2.3.3 The Basic Principle of System Dynamics14
2.3.4 System Dynamics Implementation Procedures16
2.4 System Dynamics for Project Management17
2.5 The SYDPIM Framework21
2.6 Using SYDPIM to Manage Risk Dynamics within the PMBOK Framework21
Chapter 3 Research Design24
3.1 Conceptual Framework24
3.2 Causal Loop Diagrams27
3.3 Building The Risk Dynamic Model31
Chapter 4 Modeling Pipeline Work Package32
4.1 System Dynamic Tool-Stella32
4.2 Case Background33
4.3 Model Pipeline Work Package35
4.4 Concrete Tests on Building Confidence39
4.5 Model Validation and Calibration40
4.6 Test the Impact of Policies49
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions57
5.1 Research Conclusions57
5.2 Future Research Direction58
Reference59
Appendix: Equations of SD for pipeline work case62

Figures
Figure 1-1 Overview of the SYDPIM process logic5
Figure 1-2 The framework of this thesis7
Figure 2-1 A standard system dynamics flow diagram15
Figure 2-2 Forester’s seven stage of implementation16
Figure 2-3 Tao’s system dynamics approach17
Figure 3-1 Overview of project management24
Figure 3-2 The risk dynamics model framework25
Figure 3-3 The rework cycle26
Figure 3-4 Approved process to the scope change project29
Figure 3-5 Adjustment process between cost and schedule trade-off30
Figure 4-1 Model pipeline work package38
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 phase44
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 phase47
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 policy50
Figure 4-9 Change workforce policy51
Figure 4-10 Change of delivery way policy52
Figure 4-11 Canceling of delivery way policy52
Figure 4-12 Change of skipping on QA54

Tables
Table 2-1 Application of system dynamics to project management 19
Table 4-1 Possible contingency items40
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 phase48
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 policy50
Table 4-8 Change workforce policy51
Table 4-9 Change of delivery way policy53
Table 4-10 Canceling of delivery way policy53
Table 4-11 Change of Skipping on QA55
Reference1. 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.109-1192. 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, pp127-1444. Abdel-hamid, T.K., “A Multiproject Perspective of Single-project Dynamics,” 1993, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 22, pp.151-1655. Abdel-Hamed, T.K., “Thinking in Circles,” 1993, American Programmer, Vol. 6, pp.3-96. Andrew, F., Modeling the Environment. An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems, 1999, Island press, USA7. 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.52-618. Barles, Y. and Bayraktutar, I, “An Interactive Simulation Game for Software Project Management (SOFTSIM)”Proceedings of System Dynamics, 1992, pp59-689. 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.235-24710. Chichakly, K.J., “The Bifocal Vantage Point: Managing Software Projects from a Systems Thinking Perspectives,” 1993, American Programmer, vol.6, Iss.5, pp. 18-2511. 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.41-5113. Cooper, K.G., “The Rework Cycle: Why projects are mismanaged” PM Network Magazine, February 1993, pp. 5-714. Cooper, K.G., “Benchmarks for the Project Manager,” Journal of Project Management, March, 199315. 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-C10517. Forrester, J. “Industrial Dynamics”1961, MIT Press, USA.18. Gideon Samid, PE, “Contingency Revisited,” Cost Engineering, 1994, Vol.36, No. 1219. 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. 198722. Jessen, S.A., “Can Project Dynamics be modeled?” 1988 International Conference of System Dynamic Society Proceedings, pp.171-18723. Keloharju, R and Wolstenholme, E. F., “A Case Study in System Dynamics Optimizaion” 1989, Journal of the Operation Research Society, Vol. 40, pp221-23024. 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, 199126. 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 & Sons28. 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, USA31. 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.214-22532. Rodrigues, A.G. & Bowers, J., ”The role of System Dynamics in Project Management,” International journal of Project Management, 1996, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 213-22033. 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.439-44234. 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.2-1535. 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, UK39. 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 literature1. 陶在樸, “系統動態學”, 五南出版社, 1999
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top