 |
|
|
|
以作者查詢圖書館館藏 、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 、以作者查詢全國書目 、勘誤回報 、線上人數：44 、訪客IP：3.144.108.200
姓名 尚靜宜(Ching-I Shang) 查詢紙本館藏 畢業系所 工業管理研究所 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)相關論文 檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
[檢視]
- 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
- 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
- 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。
摘要(中) 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.摘要(英) 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.關鍵字(中) ★ 應變成本
★ 專案範圍
★ 系統動態關鍵字(英) ★ Contingency cost
★ System dynamics
★ Project scope論文目次 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 55參考文獻 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指導教授 曾清枝(Ching-chih Tseng) 審核日期 2002-7-4 推文 plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
網路書籤 Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit