No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper reports lessons in project management that are focused on large, complex development programs. The lessons often contradict what one learns in smaller projects and in everyday life. The lessons derive from over 100 consulting studies of such programs that used an extensively evolved and validated series of dynamic simulation models. Unlike the usual postmortem "lessons-learned" compilations, the lessons here are demonstrable: The simulation models allow controlled experiments to identify with certainty which management strategies are successful and why. The lessons are rules of thumb for both planning and starting a program and responding to the unexpected, both in the small (normal design rework) and the large (major redesigns or scope changes). The lessons fall into three major areas: team architecture, managing rework, and managing the plan. The value of the lessons lies in enabling program managers to respond more appropriately within the large program environment; there are many lessons that have improved cost and schedule 20% or more, usually improving quality as well.

System dynamics models have been used in legal disputes since the late 1970s to prove and quantify damages. But such use of these models to support expert witness testimony presents challenges generally not encountered in non-dispute applications of system dynamics. Perhaps the most important such challenge is establishing admissibility of expert testimony supported by system dynamics models under the prevailing standards laid down by the US Supreme Court (Daubert standards) that lean heavily on the scientific method. Best-practice system dynamics work adheres to the scientific method and should prove admissible. Work that does not adhere to the scientific method or uses less stringent standards is vulnerable to being ruled inadmissible in such challenges. In particular, use of system dynamics work as a basis for opposing expert testimony must improve significantly, to meet the current admissibility standards. The stakes are high because current and future cases are likely to set precedents that will significantly affect future use of system dynamics in the legal arena, and because legal admissibility will doubtless impact the broader perception of the legitimacy of system dynamics analysis.