Abstract. Systems thinking is a discipline that has developed substantially over the last few decades but most project managers remain unaware of its potential power in helping analyse, refine and deliver their complex projects. In fact, over the past 30 years several hundred of the world's largest and most complex projects have successfully used the technology to improve their outcome. Traditionally, a time-consuming technique to implement, it has only been utilised for the most complex projects. However, these methods are fast becoming more accessible for large projects in general.Through modelling the rework cycle and the feedback loops that drive it, using system dynamics it is possible to analyse and hence improve the dynamic behaviour of our projects. In this paper we show how a system dynamics model of a project is constructed and used to assess project outcome. Examples of its application include: cost versus schedule trade-offs, project improvement strategies, risk assessment and assessing resource constraints. The ability to deliver such answers quickly and accurately during the bid and project definition phases provides the project management team with a powerful decision making tool for project strategy formulation. The improvement in project outcome that can be achieved at this stage of the project is massive because of the low cost of change combined with a high leverage into project commitment, risk mitigation and outcome that is available early in the project's lifecycle. WHAT IS SYSTEM THINKING?Introduction Systems thinking has its roots in the soft systems methodologies of Checkland and system dynamics analysis methods originated by Forrester (1961). Some people still dismiss these methods as being esoteric, imprecise or too "soft" for use in realworld applications, although in reality they have been used to great success on hundreds of the world's largest and most complex projects. Its applications have included: improving the accuracy of bid estimates, risk assessment and mitigation, optimising project strategy, improving the accuracy of progress monitoring and project reporting and in about 15% of the cases in resolving disputes arising from troubled projects. The applications have included complex projects in sectors as diverse as civil infrastructure, shipbuilding, aerospace, defence, railways, and telecommunications.We shall show that using a system dynamics approach to modelling the rework cycle and the feedback loops that drive it, makes it is possible to analyse and then manage the dynamic behaviour of our projects. This paper demonstrates how a system dynamics model of a project can be constructed and used to assess and manage project outcomes.In order to understand how system thinking can be applied to complex projects there are two concepts that need to be understood. First, the rework cycle and how it acts within complex projects. Second, the feedback loops which exist within projects that drive the project dynamics.The Rework Cycle. The majority of complex projects fail to deliver...

Many projects fail to deliver against their targets because conventional project management techniques are failing to cope with the project's dynamic environment, complex interactions and the multitude of ‘soft’ / people issues. If conventional techniques do not cope with the complicated factors that affect our larger projects, are there any better methods? This paper demonstrates that better management of the rework cycle and application of dynamic project modelling technology can provide a more robust means of controlling complex projects than many of those in common use today. Combining this insight with the capability of anticipating and managing complexity through dynamic project modelling offers tomorrow's project managers the ability to build more robust programme plans. Project managers will then be better able to cope with pressures present within the project's environment and to respond more effectively to change. This understanding of the rework cycle and application of dynamic project modelling offer a new and more powerful project management paradigm for the 21st century.

Concurrent engineering (CE) is reasonably well understood in a product design and build environment and can yield significant benefits in terms of shorter lead time, lower costs and reduced rework. Large complex projects typically use some form of prime contract office (PCO) to manage and coordinate the delivery of a product/project against a set of customer requirements. This PCO environment is characterised by the management of multiple subcontractors through the disciplines of systems engineering (SE) and project management. A traditional SE approach (as typified by the waterfall diagram) tends to imply sequential activities rather than the concurrency associated with design/build activities. So, does the more complex environment of a PCO still offer opportunities for significant improvements from CE? Evidence suggests that these improvements can be made in the PCO environment. This paper demonstrates how the ‘process’, ‘people’ and 'systems' changes that deliver CE can be applied in the PCO context and outlines a framework for successful PCO operation.

Systems thinking is a discipline that has developed substantially over the last few decades but most project managers remain unaware of its potential power in helping analyse, refine and deliver their complex projects. In fact, over the past 30 years several hundred of the world's largest and most complex projects have successfully used the technology to improve their outcome. Traditionally, a time‐consuming technique to implement, it has only been utilised for the most complex projects. However, these methods are fast becoming more accessible for large projects in general. Through modelling the rework cycle and the feedback loops that drive it, using system dynamics it is possible to analyse and hence improve the dynamic behaviour of our projects. In this paper we show how a system dynamics model of a project is constructed and used to assess project outcome. Examples of its application include: cost versus schedule trade‐offs, project improvement strategies, risk assessment and assessing resource constraints. The ability to deliver such answers quickly and accurately during the bid and project definition phases provides the project management team with a powerful decision making tool for project strategy formulation. The improvement in project outcome that can be achieved at this stage of the project is massive because of the low cost of change combined with a high leverage into project commitment, risk mitigation and outcome that is available early in the project's lifecycle.