Simulate the human factor

Transcription

1 Simulate the human factor André Kik MSc annual Air Transport and Operations Symposium 28-29th of, Delft, the Netherlands

2 Why projects fail Completed research Own research Conclusions 2

3 Why projects fail (film as example of human behavior) 3

4 Why projects fail 1. professional- and team experience 2. completeness of information 3. decision making 4. complexity of the work 5. standardisation of work 4

5 Why projects fail A model developped on Information Transfer, based on Contingency Theory (March, 1970) Processing Information Theory (Galbraith, 1976) And able to Quantify organisational risks Risks based on cultural- and organisational characteristics 5

6 Program Elements Simulation model Quantitative Forecasts o o Work and Work processes Organisation (structure, manpower, skills, experience) o Communication and Information Flow o Leadership and Governance o Business Environment SimVision Model (behaviour files) o Quality (product, process, integration, coordination) o Resources (workloads, backlogs, constraints, decisions) o Schedule and critical path o Cost (work, rework, wait, communication) o Final perfomance (labor, nonlabor, revenue) (With courtesy of epm) 6 Organisation Qualities Decision- Making Processes Communication Practices Matrix Behaviours and Culture

7 Completed research 1. Lockheed Martin vehicle launcher 2. Simulate system failure 3. Maintenance cycle time F414 engine 7

8 Completed research F414 engine of F/A 18E Hornet 8

9 Completed research Reduction on maintenance time of the F414 engine, F/A-18E Hornet Team focused at work processes Meeting frequencies and durations Parallel activities Decrease centralisation Reduction on maintenance time by 26 days/engine (35%) on an average of 75 days. (Hagan, Slack, 2003). 9

10 Own Research Main purpose: check if operalisations of the Stanford model are valid within a Dutch environment. For this intention : The tender process of four different Public Private Partnership projects were used All tender processes were carried out under the direction of Governmental departments (including administrative decision making) Work processes of all projects were more or less identical All tender processes were completed 10

11 Own Research People, Skills, Experience Culture and Leadership Work Processes and Interfaces (With courtesy of epm ) 11

12 Own Research Example Loaded the model with organisational characteristics Assigned rework and communication links Compared outcome with planned and actual dates (in retrospect) Planned date: 01MAR06 Actual date vs. simulated date: 01NOV06 vs. 17NOV06 01MAR06 Δ 8 mths vs. 8,57 mths 8.57/8.0= ,1% 12

13 Own Research Results: Government building, Government building, Government building, Military complex, The Hague Groningen Doetinchem Utrecht Actual delay: Actual delay: Actual delay: Actual finish: 1 month 8 months 2 months 12 months ahead of schedule 7.1 % 14.0 % 4.0 % 13 % Simulated outcomes give reliability of 86% 13

14 Own research Findings 1. Simulated outcomes indicate reliability of model on Dutch projects 2. Possibility of work processes analysis through benchmark 3. Concept of Information Transfer is based on the human factor Key contribution Run simulation on four equal projects within the Netherlands Development of 20 propositions to operationalise characteristics Research methodology with an very high respons rate (90%) 14

15 QUESTIONS? 15