DOCSLIB.ORG

Systems Breakdown Structure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Systems Breakdown Structure Dedicated to my kind and devoted parents Summer 2016 – London -------------------------------------------- DISCIPLINE BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE BRIDGING PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING TO FORM AN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN MULTIDISCIPLINARY RAIL PROJECTS Hadi Sanei A PhD thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy UCL Centre for Systems Engineering University College London 2016 Under supervision of Professor Alan Smith 1 Declaration I, Hadi Sanei, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signature: Location: LONDON, UK Date: 23 July 2016 © HADI SANEI UCL CENTRE FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM JULY 2016 The copyright of this thesis remains with the author. No quotation or information derived from this document may be published without the prior written consent of the author. 2 Abstract……. The complexity of multidisciplinary projects requires that many specialities and disciplines work together. In rail infrastructure projects, the term ‘systems engineering (SE)’ is being widely used, yet it is still loosely defined. This PhD thesis proposes the use of a Disciplinary Breakdown Structure (DBS), an approach that better integrates SE as it is currently understood with traditional project management (PM) to make PM more efficient. A review of PM, SE and their relationship, particularly in the rail sector, identified gaps in performance, the most significant of which is a lack of integration between the SE and PM activities. Case study material was examined and a survey was conducted. The results highlighted the lack of consensus and consistency of the definition of SE and its application by project practitioners at various levels. Interface management (IM) was identified as a key factor contributing in project failure or success. IM was reviewed in the context of SE and PM, and existing methods and solutions were examined. The DBS as a new solution, was developed and introduced to improve the IM life cycle from definition to closure. This solution is based on industry discipline sectors (in this case, the rail sector) and therefore it is independent from project specific requirement. Exploring more detail of the DBS revealed its capability in integrating SE and PM more generally. The DBS is a modular solution (with a potential to become an industry standard) that provides a basis for the rapid development of project-bespoke management systems, improving PM efficiency by saving time and resources. The approach has been tested in two major rail project case studies in the UK and one in Canada and the results, benefits, constraints and the areas of improvements are discussed in more detail. 3 Table of Contents DECLARATION ............................................................................................................. 2 ABSTRACT……. ............................................................................................................ 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ 4 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ 16 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 18 ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 19 FOREWORD……. ........................................................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 23 1.1. Research Background ................................................................................................................ 24 1.1.1. Systems Engineering in Construction (Rail) Projects ............................................................. 24 1.1.2. Systems Engineering and Project Management Integration .................................................. 25 1.1.3. Project Management Efficiency ................................................................................................ 26 1.1.4. Interface Management ............................................................................................................... 26 1.2. Research Problem Definition .................................................................................................... 28 1.3. Solution Development ................................................................................................................ 30 1.3.1. Solution Requirements Definition ............................................................................................ 31 1.3.2. Solution Requirements Analysis ............................................................................................... 32 1.4. Research Question Analysis ...................................................................................................... 33 1.5. Literature Review Structure ..................................................................................................... 34 1.6. Research Summary .................................................................................................................... 35 1.6.1. Research Scope ........................................................................................................................... 35 1.6.2. Work Packages ........................................................................................................................... 36 1.7. PhD Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................. 38 4 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................. 40 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 41 2.2. Research Philosophy .................................................................................................................. 41 2.2.1. Ontology ...................................................................................................................................... 41 2.2.2. Epistemology .............................................................................................................................. 42 2.2.3. Paradigm .................................................................................................................................... 43 2.2.4. Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 43 2.2.5. Research Type ............................................................................................................................ 44 2.2.6. Mode of Enquiry ........................................................................................................................ 44 2.2.7. Research Methods ...................................................................................................................... 46 2.2.7.1. Case Study .................................................................................................................................. 46 2.2.7.2. Grounded Theory ...................................................................................................................... 46 2.2.7.3. Mixed-method ............................................................................................................................ 47 2.2.8. Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................................... 47 2.2.8.1. Survey/Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 47 2.2.8.2. Interviews ................................................................................................................................... 48 2.2.8.3. Observation ................................................................................................................................ 49 2.2.8.4. Workshops .................................................................................................................................. 49 2.2.8.5. Data Triangulation .................................................................................................................... 50 2.3. Adopted Methodology ............................................................................................................... 50 2.3.1. Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 52 2.3.2. Data Acquisition and Analysis .................................................................................................. 52 2.3.2.1. Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 52 2.3.2.2. Project Case Study ..................................................................................................................... 53 2.3.3. Solution Development ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Software Project Work Breakdown Structures
    CSSE 372 Software Project Management: Software Project Work Breakdown Structures Shawn Bohner Office: Moench Room F212 Phone: (812) 877-8685 Email: [email protected] XKCD: In honor of the RHIT bonfire… Plan for the Day n Plus/Delta Evaluation Reflections n Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) +/∂ Feedback: Lectures Pace Improvements 0 – much too fast ● On Target 13 – somewhat too fast ● More interactive exercises 24 – Somewhat too slow ● Bit slow (3) vs. Bit fast (2) 0 – much too slow ● More (2) vs. Less (2) depth Working well ● More visual material ¨ Lectures well-organized/paced ● More analogies/connect dots ¨ Good class/group activities ● More case studies ¨ Right material & good slides ● Avoid dry material ¨ Group games ● Avoid random calling on people ¨ Daily quizzes ● Less discussions with partner ¨ Knowledgeable instructor ● Move time to later in day ¨ Good case studies ¨ Cartoons/humorous slides +/∂ Feedback: Quizzes Quizzes Improvements 14 – Very helpful ● Quizzes are fine 20 – somewhat helpful ● Be more specific in answers 2 – somewhat unhelpful ● Easier (4) vs. 1 – Very unhelpful Harder (3) questions ● More open-ended questions (2) Working well ● Make questions even shorter (1) ¨ Enforced note-taking ● Avoid “list the…” questions ¨ Focuses lecture direction ● Better matching questions to ¨ Indicates high points slide content ¨ Good study guide/aid ● Put a fun question on quiz! ¨ Questions work well ● Don’t have quizzes (1) ¨ Integration with material ¨ Good coverage of important topics +/∂ Feedback: Reading and Homework Reading
    [Show full text]
  • The Work Breakdown Structure Matrix: a Tool to Improve Interface Management
    THE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE MATRIX: A TOOL TO IMPROVE INTERFACE MANAGEMENT MYRIAM GODINOT A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2003 The Work Breakdown Structure Matrix: Myriam GODINOT 2003 A tool to improve interface management _______________________________________________________________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible without help and support from many people and organizations. I wish particularly to express my greatest gratitude to the following: - My supervisor, Professor David K.H. CHUA, for his invaluable advice, support, and never-fading passion for construction management throughout the course of this research. - The infrastructure team in the company that was at the center of my case study, and in particular Vincent PROU and Mathias BERRUX for their good will and interest in its implementation, and Siti YUSOOF for her joyful support. - The Intelligent Transport and Vehicle Systems laboratory of the National University of Singapore, who welcomed me in its team. - And finally, my family, who let me go away for a second, even harder year, and my friends, both in France and in Singapore, for their patience, encouragement, understanding and continuous support throughout my research. I am grateful to all of them and wish them all to be passionate as I was about what they do and to accomplish their dreams. ii The Work Breakdown Structure Matrix: Myriam GODINOT 2003 A tool to improve interface
    [Show full text]
  • NASA WBS Handbook
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20180000844 2018-11-27T18:41:15+00:00Z NASA/SP-2016-3404/REV1 NASA Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Handbook National Aeronautics and Space Administration January 2018 Page NASA STI Program…in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. the advancement of aeronautics and space Collected papers from scientific and science. The NASA scientific and technical technical conferences, symposia, seminars, information (STI) program plays a key part in or other meetings sponsored or helping NASA maintain this important role. co-sponsored by NASA. The NASA STI program operates under the SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, auspices of the Agency Chief Information technical, or historical information from Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for NASA programs, projects, and missions, archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI. The often concerned with subjects having NASA STI program provides access to the NTRS substantial public interest. Registered and its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports Server, thus providing one of TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. the largest collections of aeronautical and space English-language translations of foreign science STI in the world. Results are published in scientific and technical material pertinent to both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA’s mission. NASA STI Report Series, which includes the following report types: Specialized services also include organizing and publishing research results, distributing TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of specialized research announcements and feeds, completed research or a major significant providing information desk and personal search phase of research that present the results of support, and enabling data exchange services. NASA Programs and include extensive data or theoretical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Development Life Cycle
    Systems Development Life Cycle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see SDLC (disambiguation). Model of the Systems Development Life Cycle with the Maintenance bubble highlighted. The Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC), or Software Development Life Cycle in systems engineering, information systems and software engineering, is the process of creating or altering systems, and the models and methodologies that people use to develop these systems. The concept generally refers to computer or information systems. In software engineering the SDLC concept underpins many kinds of software development methodologies. These methodologies form the framework for planning and controlling the creation of an information system[1]: the software development process. Contents y 1 Overview y 2 History y 3 Systems development phases o 3.1 Requirements gathering and analysis o 3.2 Design o 3.3 Build or coding o 3.4 Testing o 3.5 Operations and maintenance y 4 Systems development life cycle topics o 4.1 Management and control o 4.2 Work breakdown structured organization o 4.3 Baselines in the SDLC o 4.4 Complementary to SDLC y 5 Strengths and weaknesses y 6 See also y 7 References y 8 Further reading y 9 External links [edit] Overview Systems and Development Life Cycle (SDLC) is a process used by a systems analyst to develop an information system, including requirements, validation, training, and user (stakeholder) ownership. Any SDLC should result in a high quality system that meets or exceeds customer expectations, reaches completion within time and cost estimates, works effectively and efficiently in the current and planned Information Technology infrastructure, and is inexpensive to maintain and cost-effective to enhance.[2] Computer systems are complex and often (especially with the recent rise of Service-Oriented Architecture) link multiple traditional systems potentially supplied by different software vendors.
    [Show full text]
  • Download English-US Transcript (PDF)
    MITOCW | ocw-16.885-lec19 This will be Professor Cohen's kind of last complete lecture, although, on the last day of classes the plan is we're going to take some of the time just to talk over what we've done and review things. And it will be really oriented towards general aspects of systems engineering. And, Aaron, I will turn it over to you. Thank you. Today, I'm going to lecture primarily on systems engineering but management as it relates to systems engineering. I have several checks and balances. And, of course, today I've got people from the Draper Laboratories and people from the predecessor to Draper Laboratories, MIT Instrumentation Laboratory are going to check me to see if I say the right thing. First of all, I would like to say to you as a class that I read your last submission reports and really thought they were outstanding. They show a great deal of interest, a great deal of understanding and a great deal of initiative. And so, I really compliment you. And I'm sure your final reports will be better, but they really were very, very, very good. You've heard a lot of people talk previously, starting with, in my way of thinking, Dale Myers who was sort of the person who started the program in Washington at the time. You didn't hear from another very important man, George Miller, who was really Dale's boss at the time. But George is still alive, is still doing very well.
    [Show full text]
  • A Project–Product Model–Based Approach to Planning Work Breakdown Structures of Complex System Projects A
    IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL 1 A Project–Product Model–Based Approach to Planning Work Breakdown Structures of Complex System Projects A. Sharon and D. Dori, Senior Member, IEEE Abstract—Project planning practices employ various methods domain and the product domain—gradually and hierarchically at various stages, with work breakdown structure (WBS) being evolve from abstract concepts into detailed information. The a prominent starting point. Using WBS, the components and hierarchical decomposition in the project domain cannot be associated enabling products are often not explicitly expressed. We first introduce the notions of generic project construct and performed independently of the system domain. In other words, system build. Using a running example of a simplified unmanned this decomposition requires zigzagging between these two aerial vehicle, we review the WBS method and discuss prob- adjacent domains in order to map them to each other. This lems stemming from the lack of explicit and direct representa- mapping between the two domains becomes more difficult tion of the product facet in the project plan. A comprehensive as the product to be developed gets more complex or as the project–product life cycle management model is the exclusive authoritative source for deriving project management tools, in- project scale grows. Project complexity often depends also on cluding WBS, augmented with product-related information. the complexity of the organization and the connections among its parties [4]. A definition that integrates the product aspect Index Terms—Complex systems, conceptual modeling, model- based planning, object–process methodology (OPM), project man- with the project aspect has been suggested by Shenhar and agement, project planning, project–product life cycle management Dvir [5], [6], who argued that the project complexity depends (PPLM), work breakdown structure (WBS).
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the NEPA Process Through Project Management Best Practices
    Improving the NEPA Process through Project Management Best Practices November 1, 2018 Marie Campbell NAEP President • President, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. • 35 years experience with environmental compliance • Served as Acting Chief, Environmental Resources Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Firm received 2012 Recipient California Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award and California Air Resources Board Climate Action Leader Award • MA, University of California, Los Angeles, Geography • BA, University of California, Los Angeles, Ecosystems What is NAEP? • The multidisciplinary association for professionals dedicated to the advancement of the environmental professions • A forum for state-of-the-art information on environmental planning, research and management • A network of professional contacts and exchange of information among colleagues in industry, government, academia, and the private sector • A resource for structured career development from student memberships to certification as an environmental professional • A strong proponent of ethics and the highest standards of practice in the environmental professions What does membership include? • Subscription to the peer-reviewed, quarterly journal Environmental Practice • The NAEP National e-news, an exchange of short topics of interest, news and information • The NAEP National Desk, an informative bi-weekly publication • Discounted registration fees for NAEP’s Annual Conference • Discounted registration fees to our Educational Webinar Series • Opportunities to advance
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 47 Work Breakdown Structure
    CHAPTER 47 Work Breakdown Structure BOAZ GOLANY AVRAHAM SHTUB Technion—Israel Institute of Technology 1. INTRODUCTION: DIVISION OF 4.3. A WBS Based on Project Life LABOR AND Cycle 1269 ORGANIZATIONAL 4.4. A WBS Based on Geography 1269 STRUCTURES 1264 4.5. Other WBS Designs 1271 1.1. Introduction 1264 4.6. Discussion 1271 1.2. Organizational Structures 1264 1.3. The Functional Structure 1265 5. WORK PACKAGES: DEFINITION AND USE 1272 1.4. The Project Structure 1265 5.1. Introduction 1272 1.5. The Matrix Structure 1265 5.2. Definition of Work Packages 1272 2. HIERARCHIES IN THE 5.3. Definition of Cost Accounts 1272 PROJECT ENVIRONMENT: THE NEED FOR A WORK 6. USING THE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 1266 BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE: 2.1. Introduction 1266 EXAMPLES 1273 2.2. The Scope 1266 6.1. R&D Projects 1273 2.3. Implementing Division of 6.2. Equipment-Replacement Labor in Projects 1266 Projects 1273 2.4. Coordination and Integration 1266 6.3. Military Projects 1273 3. THE RELATIONSHIP 7. CHANGE CONTROL OF THE BETWEEN THE PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN ORGANIZATION AND THE STRUCTURE 1274 WORK BREAKDOWN 7.1. Introduction 1274 STRUCTURE 1267 7.2. Change Initiation 1276 3.1. Introduction 1267 7.3. Change Approval 1276 3.2. Responsibility 1267 7.4. Change Implementation 1276 3.3. Authority 1268 8. THE WORK BREAKDOWN 3.4. Accountability 1268 STRUCTURE AND THE 4. THE DESIGN OF A WORK LEARNING ORGANIZATION 1276 BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 8.1. Introduction 1276 AND TYPES OF WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURES 1268 8.2. WBS as a Dictionary for the Project 1277 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Management Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Guide
    Document control sheet Contact for enquiries and proposed changes If you have any questions regarding this document or if you have a suggestion for improvements, please contact: Project Manager Vincent Granahan (PPMU / Program Delivery Improvement PD&M) Phone (07) 3120 7206 E-mail [email protected] Approved by: John Worrall – Director (Project Delivery Improvement) Road & Delivery Performance – Engineering & Technology Version history Version no. Date Changed by Nature of amendment 1 18.06.07 Marisa Carpentier Final Draft Department of Transport and Main Roads Contents Page Glossary........................................................................................................................4 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................5 2.0 What is a Project?............................................................................................. 6 3.0 What is Project Management? .........................................................................6 4.0 What is a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)?................................................7 5.0 Project Management WBS (PM WBS)..............................................................7 6.0 MR Standard Project Management WBS (PM WBS) .......................................7 7.0 Types of Projects.............................................................................................. 8 7.1 Road Infrastructure Projects........................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Work Breakdown Structure Work Breakdown Structure
    MnDOT Project Management Office Presents: WBS ––– Work Breakdown Structure Presenter: Jonathan McNatty, PSP Senior Schedule Consultant DRMcNatty & Associates, Inc. Housekeeping Items Lines will be muted during the webinar Questions can be submitted thru the GoToWebinar Questions box on right of your screen Webinar slides available in pdf on MnDOT webiste within 5 days Questions will be posted on the MnDOT website with answers within in 5 days Webinar is being recorded and will be available on the MnDOT website within 5 days http://www.dot.state.mn.us/pm/ MnDOT Webinars http://www.dot.state.mn.us/pm/ MnDOT Webinars http://www.dot.state.mn.us/pm/learning.html Click on the “Learning” link MnDOT Webinars Introduction to Webinar A well-developed WBS is a critical aspect to managing the project schedule. Learn how the WBS assists the Project Team in managing Work Packages at the schedule level for organizing, reporting and tracking. What is a WBS? Definition of a WBS A Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a fundamental project management technique for defining and organizing the total scope of a project, using a hierarchical tree structure. A well-designed WBS describes planned outcomes instead of planned actions. Outcomes are the desired ends of the project, such as a product, result, or service, and can be predicted accurately. Levels of a WBS The first two levels of the WBS (the root node and Level 2) define a set of planned outcomes that collectively and exclusively represent 100% of the project scope. At each subsequent level, the children of a parent node collectively and exclusively represent 100% of the scope of their parent node.
    [Show full text]
  • Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model
    Date : April 2008 Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification Version 2.0 OMG Document Number: formal/2008-04-01 Standard document URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/PDF Associated Files*: http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801 http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM2-Process-Behavior-Content.merged.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/Infrastructure.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/LM.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SoftwareProcessEngineeringMetamodel.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM2-Method-Content.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM2-Process-Behavior-Content.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM2.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM2.merged.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM2-Method-Content.merged.cmof http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM 2.0 Base Plugin Profile.xmi http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/20070801/SPEM 2.0 UML2 Profile.xmi * original .zip files: ptc/07-08-08, ptc/07-08-09 Copyright © 2004-2007, Adaptive Ltd. Copyright © 2004-2007, Fujitsu Copyright © 2004-2007, Fundacion European Software Institute Copyright © 2004-2007, International Business Machines Corporations Copyright © 1997-2008, Object Management Group Copyright © 2004-2007, Softeam USE OF SPECIFICATION - TERMS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES The material in this document details an Object Management Group specification in accordance with the terms, conditions and notices set forth below. This document does not represent a commitment to implement any portion of this specification in any company's products. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Nasa Johnson Space Center Oral History Project
    NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM TACIT KNOWLEDGE CAPTURE PROJECT ORAL HISTORY TRANSCRIPT JERRY W. SMELSER INTERVIEWED BY REBECCA WRIGHT HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA – MAY 15, 2008 WRIGHT: Today is May 15, 2008. We are in Huntsville, Alabama to speak with Jerry Smelser, who served as Project Manager for the Space Shuttle Main Engine and External Tank areas at the Marshall Space Flight Center, as well as a number of other leadership positions for NASA. This interview is being conducted for the JSC Tacit Knowledge Capture Project for the Space Shuttle Program. Interviewer is Rebecca Wright, assisted by Jennifer Ross-Nazzal. We thank you again for stopping by and visiting with us today for this project. If you would, we'd like to start with you telling us how you became involved with the Space Shuttle Program. SMELSER: My career with NASA and the Marshall Space Flight Center [Huntsville, Alabama] began in 1960. I was a charter member of Marshall Space Flight Center. In the early days, I worked in design on the Apollo Program, and then several years in manufacturing. One of my mentors was Bob [Robert] Lindstrom, and Bob became basically the Development Manager for the Space Shuttle Program. It was through my association with Lindstrom back in the manufacturing laboratory that I became involved as a member of the External Tank Development Program in 1975. 15 May 2008 1 Johnson Space Center Tacit Knowledge Capture Project Jerry W. Smelser WRIGHT: After that time period, your positions evolved, and your duties and level of responsibilities changed and grew more and more.
    [Show full text]