Causal Process Models for Efficient Energy Project
Consultation and Strategy Development
Daniel Hug? and Silvia Ulli-Beer?
Extended Abstract
Process descriptions and models are key to understand the steps involved in projects and are
very useful as a good practice convention among affected stakeholders in business
development approaches. But often the process views are depicted linear rather than causally
explained (e.g. SIA 2014) and therefore fail to take into consideration occurring dynamics.
SD has proven to be suited for the analysis and derivation of causal interrelationships, e.g. the
ex-post analysis of failed or flawed projects (e.g. Lyneis & Ford 2007; Rodrigues & Bowers
1996; Love et al. 2002; Nasirzadeh & Nojedehi 2013). Critical phenomena considered in the
SD project-literature are: rework cycles (Cooper 1993; Cooper & Mullen 1993; Lyneis & Ford
2007; Lyneis et al. 2001), disruption and delay (Ibbs & Liu 2005; Howick 2003; Eden et al.
1998) and knock-on effects (Lyneis & Ford 2007; Lyneis et al. 2001).
We examine two approaches following good modelling practice (Sterman 2000), which arose
out of practical cases with distinct perspectives. Firstly, the project-implementation point of
view is considered (here referred to as implementation approach). It refers to a case, where a
public actor (e.g. municipality) wants to implement a set of projects to foster a regional
development and needs guidance on how to timely and successfully implement the project-
portfolio. This raises dynamic issues to be taken into consideration and links resource, know-
how and stakeholder based viewpoints. Secondly, we consider a business development
perspective and analyse critical causalities that explain acquisition success and failure of
project-based orders.
The causal relationships concerning the implementation approach are depicted in the causal
loop diagram (Figure 1). Itstates thata political target gap drives the implementation of projects
and that the target can be met by successfully realising projects (balancing loop “target
attainment”). The implementation is favoured by the building up of know-how resulting in more
efficient implementation (reinforcing loop “know-how”) as well the building up of trust in actors
(reinforcing loop “spiral of success”). The hindering dynamics are the limited resources causing
resource conflicts, either financial or workforce conflicts (balancing loop “realisation jams”).
1 Daniel.Hug@ ewz.ch
? Silvia.Ulli-Beer@ zhaw.ch
1/4
Causal Process Models for efficient Energy Project Consultation and Strategy Development
Figure 1: The causal loop diagram of the implementation approach derived from empirical
analysis and the phenomena discussed in the SD-literature.
. hk
i. ) Efficient
f Know-how implementation
Political
objective
a aw B Project _+
‘arget gap
cee R Sarge Process
\ spiral of attainment. Project
success complexity
Z
i
Laas na nn Resouros
ppm: consumption
pt NS jams
7
conflicts
ca
~ Planned
resources
The build-up of a causal model for the acquisition-approach is developed in similarly manner.
Results
By merging the SIA-process model (see Error! Reference source not found.) and the causal
loop diagram (see Figure 1) of the implementation approach as well as by accounting for
known structures from the literature, we developed the fully causal structure (not depicted
here).
Based on the explicated model, two trecommendations can be derived. First, when having a
low initial stock of know-how, itis best to start with rather simple projects to build up know-how
and trust first before tackling complex projects. Second, to best possible avoid rework, it is
favourable to provide enough workforce, which can also be hired externally. In fact, the overall
working hours can be lower when having additional workforce and as stress can be reduced,
as well.
A first application of the implementation approach shows, that a clear and explicit picture of
interrelationships helps in the communication and understanding on why certain aspects (e.g.
know-how build up) are important. We observe that the general importance of critical aspects
are often known but not why and in which context. Here the SD tools for the implementation
approach provides a clear added value. It helps to clarify operating principles of project
dynamics in ex ante and to choose most promising implementation strategies. The model
supports project planning and communication since it profoundly demonstrates, why certain
resources are needed or why collaboration makes sense when know-how is lacking.
Acknowledgement
This research is part of the activities of SCCER CREST, which is financially supported by
Innosuisse, formerly called the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI). A
special thank goes to our industrial partner Marcel Wickart and Dionys Hallenbarter from the
2/4
Causal Process Models for efficient Energy Project Consultation and Strategy Development
EWZ for their financial support, active collaboration and interest in our research. Additionally,
we highly appreciate the active engagement of the participants in the workshops.
3/4
Causal Process Models for efficient Energy Project Consultation and Strategy Development
References
Blut, M., 2008. Der Einfluss von Wechselkosten auf die Kundenbindung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Cooper, K.G. & Mullen, T.W., 1993. The Rework Cycles of Defense & Commercial S oftware
Development Projects. American Programmer, 6(5).
Cooper, K.G., 1993. The Rework Cycle.
Eden, C., Williams, T. & Ackermann, F., 1998. Dismantling the learning curve: the role of disruptions
on the planning of development projects. International J ournal of Project Management, 16(3),
pp.131-138. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0263786397000537.
Howick, S., 2003. Using system in complex delay projects be modelling purposes analyse disruption
for litigation : can the modelling purposes be met? J ournal of the Operational Research Society,
54(3), pp.222-229.
Ibbs, W. & Liu, M., 2005. System Dynamic Modeling of Delay and Disruption Claims. Cost
Engineering, 47(6), pp.1-25.
Love, P.E.D. etal., 2002. Using systems dynamics to better understand change and rework in
construction project management systems. International J ournal of Project Management,
20(August 2015), pp.425-436.
Lyneis, J .M. & Ford, D.N., 2007. System dynamics applied to project management: a survey,
assessment, and directions for future research. Built Environment, 8(4), pp.267-271.
Lyneis, J .M., Cooper, K.G. & Els, S.A., 2001. Strategic management of complex projects: A case
study using system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17(3), pp.237—260.
Nasirzadeh, F. & Nojedehi, P., 2013. Dynamic modeling of labor productivity in construction projects.
International J ournal of Project Management, 31, pp.903-911. Available at: <Go to
IS I>:/W OS :000321418300010.
Otinger, T., 2011. Wie Local Branding aus Vermittlern lokale Markenbotschafter macht. Zeitschrift fur
Versicherungswesen, pp. 658-660.
Rodrigues, A. & Bowers, J ., 1996. System dynamics in project management: A comparative analysis
with traditional methods. System Dynamics Review, 12(2), pp.121-139. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/(S IC 1)1099-1727(199622)12:2<121::AID-S DR 99>3.0.C0;2-X.
SIA, 2014. SIA 112:2014. Modell Bauplanung. Verstandigungsnorm.
Striibing, J ., 2014. Grounded Theory. Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen F undierung
eines pragmatistischen Forschungsstils. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
4/4
