See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229036929

A Project Management Flight Simulator

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS
0 366

2 authors, including:

T. Michael Toole
University of Toledo
39 PUBLICATIONS   1,108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Increasing sustainability rating system credit for off-site construction View project

S-STEM Greater Equity, Access, and Readiness for Success in Engineering and Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by T. Michael Toole on 25 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Project Management Flight Simulator
By T. Michael Toole1 and Cameron Hufford2

Proceedings of the ASCE CRC Specialty Conference

“Management and Leadership Issues in Construction”
Hilton Head, NC March 24-26, 2004

Abstract
The increasing complexity of AEC projects, the call for civil and construction engineering
students to understand systems thinking, and the deficiencies in current project management
tools all indicate the need for a project management flight simulator (PMFS). A PMFS will
allow aspiring project managers to learn project management principles by functioning as
managers of virtual project systems. This paper summarizes the fundamentals of systems
thinking and system dynamics and the historical use of management flight simulators to teach
business management principles. The paper then describes the system dynamics model that
underlies a construction PMFS developed by the authors using Ithink software. The decisions
that users of the PMFS must make and the causal relationships within the model that determine
the outcomes of the users’ decisions are summarized. One of the key benefits of a system
dynamics-based model is that it facilitates the inclusion of qualitative variables such as goodwill,
competence, and fatigue. PMFS users therefore learn that successful project management
involves managing people, not just tasks.

Introduction
Effective teaching of project management skills to architectural, (civil) engineering and
construction (AEC) students is a timely and important topic for several reasons. Perhaps more
than other disciplines, engineering or otherwise, AEC work is project based. Moreover, due to
the increasing technological complexity of constructed facilities, the market demand for shortest
possible completion time, and the fact that concurrent design and engineering (i.e., fast tracking)
is becoming more common, construction projects are becoming increasingly more complex and
difficult to manage. Equipping AEC students with solid project management skills is therefore
critical for the future of the individual professions and the AEC industry as a whole.

Also relevant is the suggestion by faculty and practitioners that civil engineering graduates need
to possess more systems thinking skills (Revelle, Whitlach and Wright 2004). The ability to
demonstrate holistic thinking is required to manage large, complex projects, to manage the
deteriorating and under funded U.S. infrastructure (ASCE 2003), and to integrate sustainable
engineering approaches into the profession. A popular systems thinking book, The Fifth
Discipline (Senge 1990), has increased systems thinking awareness among business managers.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837.
ttoole@bucknell.edu.
2
Undergraduate Civil & Environmental Engineering student at Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837.
chufford@bucknell.edu.

Toole and Hufford page 1

Project management researchers who are familiar with system dynamics have written that current
project management tools are not adequate for managing construction and other dynamic
projects (Sterman 1992, Love, Rodrigues and Bowers 1996, Love et al 2002). The structures of
project management systems are too complex and volatile and contain too much inherent
randomness to be managed effectively by linear, deterministic tools that focus on one portion of
the system at a time. These researchers have suggested project management principles and tools
can be improved by integrating system dynamics into them. Specifically, as noted by Rodrigues
and Bowers (1996), the application of system dynamics to project management has been
motivated by three primary goals:
• To take a holistic approach (recognizing that the whole is greater than sum of the parts);
• To better understand non-linear behavior within project management systems;
• To provide a learning laboratory tool for aspiring project managers.

One potential tool for addressing the challenges posed by the above factors is a project
management flight simulator (PMFS), that is, a computer simulation that enables aspiring project
managers to learn project management principles and practice effective decision making in a
dynamic setting. A PMFS provides the potential to achieve all three goals. Students can learn
project management principles by studying the individual causal relationships within the system
dynamics model that underlies the simulation. Students can also learn that such relationships are
part of an overall system, the structure of which leads to non-linear system behavior and
significantly influences the outcome of the simulation. Because a system dynamics-based PMFS
allow the inclusion of qualitative or “soft” variables, students also gain an understanding of how
the attributes and actions of people, such as bosses and assistant project managers, can affect a
project’s progress. Students are then forced to consciously formulate an approach to managing
those people in order to achieve project goals. By allowing students to serve as virtual project
managers, the model provides a learning tool that allows them to experiment, observe the
outcomes, and revise their mental models to match the simulation model.

PMFS also provide the opportunity to meet pedagogical goals unrelated to system dynamics.
Numerous studies have shown that traditional teaching methods are not resulting in deep and
lasting comprehension (National Research Council 1999). Students who multi-task nearly every
minute outside of the classroom have trouble staying focused in passive learning environments.
Engineering faculty across the country are realizing that the traditional lecture method needs to
be supplemented with innovative pedagogies that promote active, collaborative and problem-
based learning (Prince et al 2002).

Teaching project management can be particularly challenging because the concepts are quite
abstract. It has been the first author’s experience that engineering students typically learn
quantitative PM techniques such as how to construct a network diagram (i.e., CPM or PERT)
quite easily, but they have trouble fully grasping management concepts because they often have
never worked in an organization. A PMFS may make the abstract concepts become more
meaningful by embedding them in a context that simulates the “real world” and requiring them
to perform on high levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom and Krathwohl 1956). That is, rather
than merely memorizing terms and knowing how they are applied, students will be required to
demonstrate analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Students’ learning will therefore be deeper than
achieved through traditional lecture-based teaching.

Toole and Hufford page 2

After summarizing the basic principles of system dynamics, this paper describes a project
management flight simulator being developed by the authors. It is hoped that this simulator will
not only be used to improve the teaching of project management, but also to facilitate the
integration of systems thinking into project management.

Introduction to system dynamics and management flight simulators

To help the reader understand why current project management tools are deficient and why a
systems-based project management simulation program is needed, it is appropriate to provide the
reader with background information and key principles of systems dynamics.

System dynamics is a methodological approach and set of tools based on systems thinking.
System dynamics was originated by Prof. Jay Forrester at MIT and has slowly spread to other
universities and into industry. Initially used to model electro-mechanical processes, system
dynamics has been used extensively to model organizational, social, economic, biological and
other types of systems.

Fundamental system dynamics concepts, assumptions, and tools that underlie the project
management flight simulator are summarized below. These fundamental concepts are drawn
from Forrester (1961, 1969, 1971), Senge (1990), and Sterman (1994).
• Systems can be defined simply as a collection of connected things, that is, a set of
elements that influence one another. The things may be easily quantifiable, such as the
revenues of a firm, or more intangible and qualitative, such as goodwill, motivation, and
burnout.
• Much of the system structure and the underlying relationships can be depicted graphically
using causal loop diagrams (CLD). For example, Figure 1 depicts a portion of a simple
project management system. If the actual rate at which a task is accomplished—task
productivity—increases, schedule variance will decrease. If schedule variance increases,
it will cause the project manager to direct that overtime occur, which will increase the
rate of task accomplishment. (A plus sign in CLDs indicates that when the variable next
to the tail of an arrow increases, the variable next to the head of the arrow also increases.
A minus sign indicates that when one variable increases, the other variable decreases.)

Figure 1: Causal Loop Diagram Example

• A key benefit of creating causal loop diagrams is that individual mental models can be
elicited and compared. People often incorrectly assume that every one shares their
understanding of how one thing affects another. When people disagree on how a specific

Toole and Hufford page 3

 problem should be resolved, it is often because they share different mental models of the
system in which the problem is embedded.
• Portions of the structure of a system may include feedback loops, that is, element A
affects element B which affects element C which affects element A. The causality
around the loop typically occurs over time, that is, a change in element A takes several
iterations to cause changes in the other variables within the feedback loop. Feedback
loops can be positive or negative. Positive loops are self-reinforcing; that is, variables
within positive loops will continue to increase indefinitely. Negative loops are self-
balancing; that is, variables within negative loops will stabilize over time.
• The pattern of changes in the values of variables within a simple system over time (i.e.,
the shapes of plots of the variables) can often be predicted based on the structure of the
system, specifically, the number of accumulating variables within feedback loops. On
the other hand, the values of variables within more complex systems—that is, systems
that include many accumulating variables and more than one feedback loop—may not be
easily predictable. In fact, the patterns may be highly counterintuitive.

Management flight simulators (MFS) were created to teach systems thinking principles using
simulation contexts that students could understand without advanced knowledge of a specific
industry or underlying technologies. Just as flight simulators allow users to be pilots in virtual
cockpits, MFS allow users to be managers of virtual organizations. One well known MFS is the
People Express MFS developed at MIT’s Sloan School. As the virtual CEO of the infamous
discount airline, a user of this MFS is required to make strategic decisions each quarter, such as
how many planes to purchase, how many employees to hire, and what prices to charge. The
simulation then advances one quarter and allows the user to observe the current state of the
company. Users quickly realize that what seem to be rational decisions inevitably cause their
virtual company to follow a pattern very similar to the real People Express of rapid growth
followed by serious problems that lead to bankruptcy. Harvard Business School has marketed a
system dynamics simulation called the Balanced Corporate Scorecard in which the user is the
CEO of a virtual technology-based company.

It should be mentioned that several simulation models relating to project management have been
created by other researchers. AROUSAL and COPLAN were used at M.I.T. in the 1980s and
1990s to allow users to run a construction organization; however, they were not system
dynamics-based. Pena-Mora and Park (2001) used causal loop diagrams and a detailed computer
simulation to investigate the effect of concurrent design and construction (fast-tracking) on
building completion time and cost. Love et al (2002) used causal loop diagrams to gain insight
into the effect of scope changes on construction projects. The PMFS presented here differs from
these previous models in two fundamental ways. First, it focuses only on managing the
construction portion of a project, not design and construction or a construction organization.
Second, the system structure underlying the model is intended to be analyzed by users to increase
its value as a learning tool. The structures underlying AROUSAL and COPLAN were not
accessible to users and the other two simulations mentioned above were intended to be used only
for analysis, not for student learning.

Toole and Hufford page 4

PMFS context and operation
The authors have created a PMFS that is intended to improve the teaching of project
management concepts and skills. Because the PMFS is to be used in both a civil engineering
project management class as well as a construction engineering elective, the virtual project that
the model user is required to manage is the construction of a commercial office building. The
simulation was created using Ithink software, a proprietary system dynamics-based software that
is sold by High Performance Systems. (Ithink is very similar to STELLA, which has been used
by academics for several decades.) The model is not yet ready for public distibution. It is
operational but its graphical user interface is still being refined.

The simulation begins with a user briefing. She is told she is the project manager for a general
contractor who has a fixed price contract with the client for the construction of an office
building, which will be completed using fixed price contracts with nineteen subcontractors.
Each subcontractor is associated with one task that has a predetermined contract amount,
manhour estimates, and duration. Her goals as project manager are to complete the project by
the predetermined deadline within the predetermined budget, to keep the client happy, and to
have no serious injuries on site.

After the briefing, the user is required to make a series of initial decisions. First, she must hire
two or three assistant project managers (APM) from a pool of four candidates who range in
experience, salary demands, and temperament, and assign the tasks for which each APM is
responsible. She then chooses whether her new staff should be trained, the amount of autonomy
she will give them, and how she will motivate them (ignore them, give them verbal praise, give
them an occasional afternoon off, or award them a cash bonus). The user also chooses the
relative emphases on deadlines, cost, safety and quality, the frequency of site visits and the
frequency and mode of communication with her APMs, boss and client.

Once the user has entered her initial decisions through the graphical user interface, she hits the
“Run” button, causing the software to immediately simulate one week of activity on the project.
The user can then quickly identify the status of key project variables, such as schedule and cost
variances associated with individual tasks and the overall project, and the overall levels of safety,
quality, and client and boss satisfaction on the project. The user then has the opportunity to
change the relative emphasis on specific project goals or communication frequency before
directing the model to simulate through a second time period. Throughout the simulation the
user can decide to crash individual tasks, which decreases task duration but increases project
cost, increases the injury rate, and decreases quality. The user continues to advance the
simulation one time period at a time until the project is completed. The user’s overall success is
determined by the final completion date, cost, accident history, and client and boss satisfaction
levels.

Model structure
Figures 2-5 provide graphical depictions of key portions of the system dynamics model
underlying the PMFS. The model consists of approximately 150 unique variables, of which
approximately 50 variables play a principle role in controlling and determining outcomes for the

Toole and Hufford page 5

 Figure 2: Task Sectors
Task Schedule

Change Scope
Task Manhours
Extent Per Task Task Complete Task Budget
Task Completed
Manhours Remainiing Task Working
Task
Change
Task Projected BCWP
Scope?
Remaining Duration Change Scope
Task Complete
Extent Per Task
Task Task Percent
Change In Task Manhours Worked Change Complete Actual Task Scope
Scope Flow Value Per Day Scope? Wage Rate
Change In Task Percent
Task Scope Task Task
Task ON? Complete Variance
APM Productivity Budget Wage Rate
Task Total
Accident? Assignment Task Overtime
Manhours Task Daily
Wage Rate
Crash Task? Task Labor Cost
Task Trigger Task Crash Task
Manhours
ACWP
Task Manhours Task
Worked Per Day Workday
Task Overtime
Length
Man Hours Worked
Task Overtime
Task Complete Man Hours Worked
Task Task
Task Overtime
Crew Size Manhours
Task
Overtime
Expenditures
Task Planned Schedule
Task …

Task Planned
Task
Manhours Task Planned
Fatiguing
Worked Per Day Duration In Days
Daily Planned Task
Task Task
Manhours Overtime Spending
Fatigue Workday
Task Planned Length
Remaining Task Planned
Task Planned
Duration Workday Length
Percent Complete

Task Fatigue Task

Overtime Task Overtime
Dissipation
Task Planned Working Task Planned Accumulation Worked
Task Planned
Manhours Completed
Manhours Remaining

Figure 3: Assistant Project Management Sector

APM Sector

CPM Scheduling APM Competence

Change in APM Av erage APM
Chosen?
Competence Competence

Training
Number Of
Inv olv ed In APMs
Frequency of
Planning
APM Salaries Communication

APM Goodwill
APM
Independence
APM Selected?
Change in APM
Goodwill

APM Workload
APM Productiv ity

Total Project Emphasis on

Motiv ation Method
Fatigue Saf ety
Emphasis On
+
Deadlines

Toole and Hufford page 6

 page 7
Project Ov ertime Spending
+ Sum Of
Total Ov ertime
Sum of Construction Budgets
Expenditures Sum of Task Planned Project Sch…
Ov ertime Spending + +
ACWPs
Planned Project
Man Hours Sum of Planned Task
+
Figure 4: Project Progress and Cost Sectors

Man Hours
Project Budget and EVA
Construction
BCWS Planned Project
Budget +
ACWP Duration in Day s
Ov ertime Expenditure
To Date
Sum of Planned Task
Man Hours Completed
CPI
+
Ov ertime Spending
CV
SPI Project Planned
Change In Scope Cash SV
Percent Complete
Project Budget
Actual Project Schedu…
Change
Scope? APM Salary Bank APM Salary Project Percent
Summer Complete Variance
Change In Scope BCWP
Cash Flow +
Sum of Total
+
General Ov erhead Task Man Hours
Motiv ation Method Project Percent
Complete Actual
+

Toole and Hufford

Total Expenditures Sum of Task
Cash Remaining Spending To Date Man Hours Completed
In Budget
+ Daily
Labor Cost
 Figure 5: Project Quality, Safety, Client and Boss Sectors
Quality Sector

Emphasis On Emphasis on
Deadlines Quality

Change in Project Quality Project Quality

Rework1
+ ~
Quality Variance
Quality and Saf ety
Weighting
Variance Weighting
Emphasis On
Budget

Total Project
PM Site Visit
Fatigue
Frequency +

Saf ety Sector

Accident Rate Probability

Per Man Hour +
Emphasis on
Sum of Total
Saf ety
Manhours Worked
Change in Accident Rate Per Day
Accident?
~
Accident Variance Accident Frequency
Weighting Emphasis On Emphasis On
Budget Deadlines

+ Total Number
Quality and Saf ety of Accidents
Variance Weighting Change in Total Accidents

Client & Boss Goodwill

Project Quality

Changing Client
Goodwill Client Goodwill
Total Number
Project Percent
of Accidents
Complete Variance

SPI
CPI
~
Variance Goodwill
Accident Frequency
Weighting
Boss Goodwill
Changing Boss Goodwill

Toole and Hufford page 8

simulation. The remaining variables are analogous to accounting variables for performing cost
and progress calculations.

There are three basic types of variables in the model: stocks (the rectangular boxes), flows (the
pipe and valve type structure) and converters (circles). Stocks act as reservoirs, storing their
previous values and causing things to accumulate over time. The accumulation or depletion of
things within a given stock is governed by the flows entering and leaving that stock. That is,
flows act as valves by regulating how quickly things accumulate within a stock or are dispensed
out of a stock. A flow can operate based on a fixed, user-determined, equation, or can vary with
time, based on the inputs from other stocks, flows and converters. Converters do not store
previous values, but merely take one or multiple inputs, perform a mathematical operation on
that input and provide an output to another converter or flow.

On the whole the equations governing the relationships between variables are relatively
straightforward and usually consist of basic algebra and one or more “If/Else” statements. Due
to space limitations, the equations that govern the relationships between the variables of the
model are not provided here but can be found at http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/ttoole/PMFS
Equations.doc .

The various interconnected variables are grouped into 12 sectors (identified by the solid boxes
around a set of variables) for visual clarity. One of the five task sectors controls how much work
is accomplished on a given task each time period. Other task sectors take this and other
information and determine the progress, cost, schedule variance and other calculations for that
particular task. The progress and cost data are then taken from each individual task and
combined to perform an earned value analysis (EVA) for the entire project. Other sectors take
user inputs and determine the accident rate, the overall project quality and the happiness of the
owner and user’s “boss” for the project. One of the most critical sectors is the APM sector. This
sector determines how effective each of the APMs is at moving the project towards completion.
All of these sectors are interconnected and influence each other, some in very obvious, and some
in very counterintuitive ways.

Figure 2 shows the five sectors associated with task 1’s planned and actual progress and costs,
use of overtime and resulting worker fatigue. The portions of the model associated with tasks 2-
19, which are identical to the portion shown in Figure 2, are not shown. Figure 3 shows the
APM sector, which includes the competence, workload and level of goodwill (i.e., morale) of the
assistant project manager 1. Identical sectors for the other APMs are not shown. Figure 4 shows
the three sectors associated with the budget and progress of the entire project, which are
aggregates of the budget and progress of the nineteen tasks. Figure 5 shows the three sectors
associated with the levels of quality and safety on the project and the goodwill of the project
client and user’s boss.

Several key relationships substantially affect the project outcomes. First, each APM’s
productivity influences the progress achieved on all tasks for which the APM is responsible (see
Task Schedule Sector in Figure 2). An APM’s productivity is determined by his competence,
goodwill towards his boss (the user), his workload and the user’s relative emphasis on deadlines
(see APM sector in Figure 3). APM competence always grows as the project progresses but is

Toole and Hufford page 9

elevated initially if he is involved in project planning and received training, and is accelerated by
frequent communication with the user. APM goodwill reflects his workload, whether he was
involved in project planning and received training, and the user’s choice of motivation method.

Exposing users to the portion of the model involving APM productivity helps them understand
one of the key trade offs that project managers must make. Investing in APMs through higher
initial salaries (because initial salaries are commensurate with experience), involving them in
project planning, training them, and effectively motivating them results in immediate budget
pressures, but generally pays off in the end due to increased productivity.

Another key set of variables are the user’s emphases on deadlines, budgets, quality and safety.
The model assumes that these criteria are somewhat mutually exclusive. That is, one cannot
effectively emphasize all four criteria simultaneously. For example, if deadlines are emphasized,
then quality and safety will suffer to some extent. The principle is that the user should put more
emphasis on the one or two criteria that seem to be most important at each point in the
simulation.

The need for trade offs between project goals is reflected in the option to crash any task.
Crashing a critical task means requiring a certain amount of overtime, which increases the rate at
which the task is accomplished and decreases the task duration. But overtime is paid for from
the project budget, so it increases cost variance while reducing schedule variance (if the task is
critical). Overtime also may lead to worker fatigue, which decreases quality and productivity
and increases the probability that a lost-time injury will occur.

A key project management principle that users learn is that project managers need to ensure they
receive timely information about the status of critical tasks, and then exert timely and effective
project control. Users are not provided the status of each task unless they intentionally seek it.
Because tasks may not progress as planned due to external events or lower APM productivity, it
is important that users monitor the status of critical tasks at a minimum and then crash one or
more tasks if appropriate.

The model includes less important but debatable causal relationships for boss and client goodwill
towards the user (see Client and Boss Goodwill sector in Figure 5). Not surprising, both boss
and client goodwill are affected by schedule variance. In addition, client goodwill reflects the
overall quality level while boss goodwill reflects cost variance, client goodwill, and injury
history. (Client goodwill does not depend on cost variance because her contract with the user’s
company is fixed price.)

The final project management principle that should be mentioned is that unanticipated events
happen regularly on construction projects and project managers must respond appropriately to
best achieve project goals. Several one-time events occur either at predetermined points in the
simulation or in response to some variable in the model reaching a critical value. These “crises”
range in severity and include events such as differing site conditions, design conflicts, material
delays, change orders, and an OSHA inspection after a serious injury occurs.

Toole and Hufford page 10

One of the key benefits of the model is that it can be viewed by users after running the
simulation in the hopes that they might be able to correlate behavior seen during simulation with
the structure of the model, then to use this deeper comprehension to change their actions both in
the simulation and on an actual construction site. The simulation can also be run multiple times
with different goals. One user might be directed to place an emphasis on safety, while another
might try to minimize cost, while another tries to minimize construction time. The results from
each of these simulations can then be compared to enhance a deeper understanding of how
different priorities influence project management success.

Conclusions
This paper has suggested that a project management flight simulator could help integrate system
dynamics into project management and improve teaching of project management principles. The
overall structure and key individual causal relationships of a PMFS for the virtual management
of a construction project created by the authors was described. The authors will gladly provide a
copy of the model to interested readers who have access to Ithink software.

Project management tools and simulations have historically failed to include variables associated
with people because those variables were not easily quantifiable. This model is valuable because
it allows users to realize how “soft” variables associated with people can have a significant
influence on the progress or quality of a project, sometimes in a very counterintuitive manner. It
is hoped that users of the PMFS will understand that successful project management requires
effective management of people as much as it requires effective management of tasks.

It is believed that the overall structure of the construction PMFS described in this paper could be
modified with relatively little difficulty to create an engineering design PMFS. Instead of APMs,
the user would have a design team composed of junior engineers. Instead of performing the
work associated with construction trades, tasks would consist of design work packages from
concept through construction documents. Instead of construction site injuries, accidents could be
associated with conflicts between design documents or not meeting clients’ functional
requirements.

As is true for all models, the value of the PMFS described here will not be realized until the
model is validated. The validation is planned to occur through four processes. First, it is hoped
that academic researchers will provide constructive criticism of the model based on this paper
and their use of the PMFS. Second, fourth year CEE students at Bucknell University will be
required to use the PMFS, discuss the underlying model, and comment on their perception of its
effectiveness. Third, graduate engineers working for contractors and construction managers will
be asked to use the PMFS and comment on its accuracy. Fourth, the outcomes of several real
construction projects will be compared to simulation outcomes when the decisions made on the
real projects are entered into the PMFS.

The simulation program described in the paper may be viewed as merely a modest programming
effort to be used for teaching purposes. The authors, however, are cautiously optimistic that this
and future project management flight simulators may make meaningful contributions to several
larger goals, including:
• Increasing the depth of student learning of project management principles;

Toole and Hufford page 11

 • Improving project management principles by providing researchers and practitioners with
a tool for eliciting and discussing mental models of project management systems and
processes; and
• Increasing the integration of system dynamics principles and tools into the project
management body of knowledge and into civil and environmental engineering curricula.

Acknowledgements
Melissa Lawson (Bucknell BSCE 2002) created an earlier version of a PMFS that was helpful in
developing the current model.

References
American Society of Civil Engineers (2003). “Progress report on the report card for america’s
infrastructure.” http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm.

Bloom, B. S. and D. R. Krathwohl (1956). “Taxonomy of educational objectives: the

classification of educational goals.” Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans
Green.

Forrester, J.W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Forrester, J.W. (1971). “The counterintuitive behavior of social systems.” Technology Review
73 (January):52-68.

Love, P.E.D., G.D. Holt, L.Y. Shen, H. Li, Z. Irani (2002). “Using systems dynamics to better
understand change and rework in construction project management systems.” International
Journal of Project Management 20 (6):425-436.

National Research Council (1999). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school.
J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, Editors; Committee on Developments in the
Science of Learning.

Pena-Mora, F. and M. Park (2001). “Dynamic planning for fast-tracking building construction
projects.” ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127(6): 445-456.

Prince, M., M. Hanyak, B. Hoyt, D. Hyde, E. J. Mastascusa, W. Snyder, T. M. Toole, M.

Higgins, and M. Vigeant (2002). “Developing problem solving and team skills across the
engineering curriculum.” Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Canada, June 2002.

Revelle, C.S., E. E. Whitlach and J. R. Wright (2004). Civil and environmental engineering
systems engineering, second edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Toole and Hufford page 12

 Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/ Currency, New York.

Sterman, J.D. (1988). “People express management flight simulator.” Available from John
Sterman (give email address).

Sterman, J. D. (1992). “System dynamics modeling for project management.” Unpublished

manuscript available at www.

Sterman, J. D. (1994). “Learning in and about complex systems”. System Dynamics Reviews 10:
291-330.

Williams, T. M. (1999). “The need for new paradigms for complex projects”, International
Journal of Project Management 17 (5): 269-273.

Toole and Hufford page 13

View publication stats