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

net/publication/317400713

Model-Based Project-Product Lifecycle Management and Gantt Chart Models: A

Comparative Study

Article  in  Systems Engineering · September 2017

DOI: 10.1002/sys.21407

CITATIONS READS
7 2,592

2 authors:

Dov Dori Amira Sharon

Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
376 PUBLICATIONS   5,649 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   205 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Tesperanto View project

Systems Engineering and Thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dov Dori on 18 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Page 1 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 1

1
2
3
4
Model-Based Project-Product Lifecycle
5
6 Management and Gantt Chart Models:
7
8
9
A Comparative Study
10
11
12 Amira Sharon Dov Dori
13 Technion, Israel Institute of Technology Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
14 Haifa, Israel Haifa, Israel
15
16
17 domains of Project Management/Program Control, "reflecting
18 Abstract—Systems engineering (SE) and project management the unavoidable connectedness of these three domains."
Fo
19 (PM) are two complementary disciplines that aim at achieving a Along these lines, the INCOSE SE Handbook includes
20 common goal. In order for systems engineers and project elements of planning, scheduling, reviewing, and auditing
managers to communicate efficiently, there is a need for a
21 under Systems Engineering process. The Handbook calls for
common language that balances system performance, quality,
22 stakeholder expectations and needs, cost, and schedule. We use including the Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP)
r
23 Object Process Methodology (OPM) as the basis for Project- and the Systems Engineering Master Schedule (SEMS) as
24 Product Lifecycle Management (PPLM), where SE and PM are systems engineering deliverables. In doing so, the SE
Pe

25 complementary parts of an overarching system. Handbook further underscores the tight links and
26 Since the project plan is one of the first artefacts that both SE dependencies between the PM and the SE domains. While PM
27 and PM professionals should agree on, we compared Gantt chart,
a commonly used method, and a PPLM project plan. We present methods have traditionally focused on scheduling, budgeting,
28 and scope management, SE emphasizes the management of
a three-stage comparative research, investigating how differences
er

29 the combined project-product ensemble and issues related to

between a Gantt chart and an OPM model based PPLM project
30 plan are perceived by mid-career systems engineers, who were the technologies of the product to be ultimately delivered by
31 graduate students in systems engineering academic programs. the project.
32 The outcomes indicate that the comprehension of information The literature has been struggling with delineating the
Re

33 contained in the OPM model-based PPLM project plan is more

34 easily grasped than the same information presented via the Gantt
chart. The results suggest that PPLM has the potential to better
35
36 clarify the intricate relationships between SE and PM involved in
developing systems through projects. It can enable better
border between the SE and PM domains. For example, the
INCOSE SE Handbook [1] indicates that "although there are
some important aspects of PM in the SE process, it is still
much more of an engineering discipline than a management
vi

37
understanding and communication between systems engineers discipline. It is a very quantitative discipline, involving trade-
38 and project managers, thereby improving decision-making,
39 off, optimization, selection, and integration of the products of
project outcomes, and product performance.
ew

40 many engineering disciplines." [1]. Underlying this statement

41 Index Terms—Project Plan, Model-Based Systems
is the tacit assumption that management is primarily
42 Engineering, Project-Product Lifecycle Management, Systems qualitative while engineering is primarily quantitative. More
43 Engineering, Project Management, Object-Process Methodology, specifically, it implies that PM is less "quantitative" than SE.
44 Project Management Tools and Techniques Yet, PM does involve the quantities of time and budget, while
45 SE does have managerial aspects that are not too far from
46 I. INTRODUCTION those of PM [3], [4]. Perhaps a better distinction would be that
47 PM has traditionally been focusing on the "iron triangle" of
48
49
S YSTEMS Engineering (SE) and Project Management
(PM) are two tightly intertwined domains. Indeed, put
simply, project is the process through which a system or
scheduling, budgeting, and scope management, while SE
emphasizes the management of the project-product ensemble.
50 product start their lives. Not only is this observation Over the past few years, the International Council On
51 straightforward, as expressed in at least two prominent SE Systems Engineering (INCOSE) and the Project Management
52 handbooks. The first is the SE Handbook of the International Institute (PMI) have made efforts to reach out towards each
53 Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) [1], which other's practitioners. The leaders of INCOSE and PMI believe
54 provides framework and guidelines for SE and addresses the that a cultural barrier between SE and PM exists, but can and
55 strong relationships between SE and PM. The second is the must be overcome. Therefore, these organizations started
56 working together, hoping to foster a collaborative approach for
NASA Systems Engineering Handbook [2], over one third of
57 the benefit of their members. This cooperation produced a
which is devoted to "management issues in systems
58 whitepaper highlighting four key elements to reduce
engineering". Indeed, indicated in this Handbook is the fact
59 unproductive tension between program managers and system
that it covers topics that are also considered to be in the
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 2 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 2

1
engineers and support the integration of these roles [5]. project domain with the product domain via a shared ontology
2
On the PMI side, there are initiatives of integrating SE and that explicitly relates project entities to product entities within
3
PM, calling for exploring the idea of using systems a unifying frame of reference, utilizing Object Process
4
engineering in project management and the complementary Methodology (OPM) [29] as the underlying conceptual
5
6 aspects of SE and PM [6]. INCOSE offers a project manager’s modeling paradigm and language. This is the context within
7 guide to systems engineering measurement for project success, which this research has been conducted.
8 supported by the organization’s measurement working group OPM is one of the six systems engineering methodologies
9 [7]. recognized by INCOSE [32]. OPM is currently in the process
10 Over the last years, some books have been offering ways to of becoming an ISO 19450 standard and the basis for model-
11 deal with the critical relationships and interconnections based enterprise standards [33], [34]. It is a formal yet
12 between PM and SE, describing how SE and PM can be intuitive paradigm for systems architecting, engineering,
13 integrated in order to streamline project workflow, improving development, lifecycle support, and evolution. OPM has been
14 cost, schedule, and technical performance [8], [9], [10]. used for modeling natural [35], [36] and artificial complex
15 The need to fill the gap between SE and PM may be a result systems [37], where artificial ones might comprise humans,
16 of history and tradition of people coming from different physical objects, hardware, software, regulations, and
17 backgrounds—management on one hand and engineering on information. As its name suggests, the two basic building
18 the other hand—who cope with the same problem of designing blocks in OPM are (stateful) objects—things that exist
Fo
19 products and systems, but emphasize different aspects of this (possibly at some state), and processes—things that transform
20 problem. Specifically, PM focuses on the work required in the objects by creating or destroying them, or by changing their
21 project, whereas SE is concerned with the SE efforts needed state.
22 and the performance of the resulting system or product. Object-Process Diagram (OPD) is the graphic representation
r
23 Nevertheless, the managerial methods and tools that systems of an OPM model, which has also an equivalent textual
24 engineers use originate from the same arsenal that project representation. Tasks in an OPM-based project plan are
Pe

25 managers use. These methods include Work Breakdown modeled as processes, denoted by ellipses, while resources
26 Structure (WBS) [11], Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) and deliverables are objects, modeled by rectangles. Objects
27 [12], Reliability, Availability, Maintainability (RAM) [13], can include specifications, drawings, approvals, reports and
28 Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) according to the other document types, prototypes, simulation and analysis
er

29 Theory of Constraints (TOC) [14], resource scheduling [15], results, as well as the final system, product, or service—the
30 procurement techniques [16], and risk management methods ultimate project outcome. Structural links include whole-part
31
[17], [18]. Other more traditional and commonly used (denoted by a black triangle) connecting a whole to its part(s),
32
methods are Earned Value Method (EVM) [19], [20], Design and characterization (black-on-white triangle), connecting an
Re

33
Structure Matrix (DSM) [21], System Dynamics (SD) [22], object with its attribute(s). Specific time-related extensions to
34
[23], Critical Path Method (CPM)/Program Evaluation and OPM, such as start-finish relations between processes, were
35
36 Reviewing Technique (PERT), and Gantt chart [24]. defined as part of the PPLM research. Based on OPM’s
Among the PM methods, which vary in terms of their formality, specific OPM-based templates were developed for
vi

37
38 objectives and applications, Gantt chart is probably the most modeling of combined project-product plans.
39 widely used method for SE. Graphically, a Gantt chart
ew

40 comprises horizontal scheduling bars with time flowing from II. RESEARCH POPULATION AND SETTING
41 left to right, allowing for both planning and tracking of project The research was conducted on two research groups in three
42 schedule. In its original form [25], invented in the early stages. The first group, which participated in the first stage,
43 1900's, roughly forty years before PERT and CPM, the Gantt included 24 mid-career systems engineers, who were graduate
44 chart showed the timing of tasks without specifying students in the Systems Project Management course at the
45 relationships among them. Constraining relationships between Systems Design and Management (SDM) program at MIT's
46 tasks, such as start-to-start and finish-to-start, were added only Engineering Systems Division. In the first stage, conducted
47 in the late 1990's, making it possible to view and understand during the spring 2008 semester course [38], the research
48 the impact of a single task delay on the entire project duration. participants studied different PM methods and practiced them
49 Indeed, in its latest form, Gantt charts are used also for CPM- through targeted homework assignments, along with a specific
50 based project analysis, where software tools extend the number of 3-hour class sessions devoted to each method. All
51 network model representation. the participants had prior knowledge of Gantt and OPM from
52 Model-based approaches for designing the product are a previous systems architecture course. In the fifth homework
53 already widely used within SE practice, but the managerial of the course, the participants were requested to create two
54 aspects of SE still benefit from using mostly traditional PM project plan versions by using two different methods: A Gantt
55 methods. A new initiative that has attempted to resolve this chart model and an OPM model, based strictly on the text
56 dichotomy is the Project-Product Lifecycle Management
57 given in former homework.
(PPLM) research [26], [27], [28], [30], [31]. PPLM calls for The second and third research stages were conducted with a
58 construction and deployment of an integrated comprehensive
59 second research group, which included 32 mid-career systems
product-project model. The PPLM framework integrates the engineers from companies across Israel with 3-15 years of
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 3 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 3

1
practice, who were graduate students at the Systems
2 TABLE I
Engineering Masters of Engineering Program at the Technion
3 THE THREE STAGES OF THE RESEARCH
– Israel Institute of Technology, during the fall 2009 semester.
4 Research Comprehension Population Description Project-
The participants in both research groups were introduced to
5 Stage aspect Product
6 the PPLM approach during a three-hour lecture session. The combination
7 UAV case study, which was the basis for the structured 24 mid-
8 questionnaires administered to both groups, was familiar to the career
MIT (first stage) participants, since it was based on the case systems
9 engineers,
10 study they had used during the semester and on which their who were A Gantt
fifth homework assignment was based. The UAV case study The project
11 graduate chart and
and the
12 was new to the Technion (second stage) participants. In order students in a PPLM
product
the Systems model
13 to familiarize the Technion group with this system, they were Project were
aspects were
asked to (1) construct a task table from the project description expressed combined in
14 Stage 1 comprehension
Manageme compared
an OPM
15 in a “technological order”, and (2) create the project activities level
nt course at based on
model with
network plan graph of the type "activity on nodes". These the Systems a
16 Design and simplifie
no underlying
17 same two tasks had been assigned to the MIT group as their PPLM
Manageme d UAV
methodology
18 second homework. Neither one of the groups received any nt (SDM) OPM
guidelines.
Fo
19 guidance regarding modeling with Gantt chart, assuming this program at model.
MIT's
20 is a common planning tool, of which participants are familiar Engineerin
21 with from prior work experience. g Systems
22 The Gantt chart contains a list of activities, which, in OPM Division.
r
23 terms, are processes. It is therefore quite straightforward to 32 mid-
24 construct the process aspect of the OPM model from the Gantt career
Pe

25 chart. However, an OPM model is not complete without the systems

26 objects that serve in different roles. A subset of these objects engineers
27 who were
is expressed in the Gantt chart as milestones. In the OPM expressed
graduate Same as Same as
28 Stage 2 comprehension
model, participants had to add objects of various kinds to the students at Stage 1. Stage 1.
er

level
29 originally process-only model obtained from translating the the systems
30 engineering
Gantt chart. The PPLM framework includes an objects program at
31
typology that classifies the Deliverables (OPM objects), which the
32 Technion.
are the outcomes of Tasks Execution (OPM processes), in the
Re

33
combined project-product plan. The objects typology includes Gantt
34
deliverables such as product components, documents related chart and
35 a PPLM The project
36 to derived requirements, approvals, simulations, analyses,
model and product
specifications, and other types of reports. Each one of the
vi

37 were aspects were

38 deliverables results directly and explicitly from a specific perceived compare combined in
Same as in
process in the PPLM model, and is used in a subsequent Stage 3 comprehension d using a an OPM
39 Stage 2.
ew

level simplifie model

40 process, either as an instrument (usually if it is an informatical d CT according to
41 object, which does not change), or as a consumee (usually a scanner the PPLM
42 physical object that is consumed by or embedded into a larger model as methodology.
the case
43 component). The participants were not introduced to the in point.
44 PPLM objects typology since our goal was to gauge the
45 “natural” systems engineers approach for adding objects in the models based on a given text, in the third stage, the
46 model rather than enforcing our objects typology. The analysis participants were provided with both the "book solution"
47 of the PPLM models produced by the participants was based PPLM model and the Gantt chart, and we asked to respond to
48 on classifying the objects contained in each model according comprehension questions.
49 to the typology, with each object classified into a single type.
50 The participants in the third research stage were the same III. RESEARCH QUESTION AND METHODOLOGY
51 participants as the ones in the second stage, namely the 32
52 The research question investigated in this study is the
mid-career systems engineers who were graduate students at
53 following: What are the differences, if any, between systems
the systems engineering program at the Technion. This stage
54 engineers' comprehension of a project plan specified via a
was conducted through a class assignment, given after
55 Gantt chart on one hand and a conceptual PPLM model on the
reviewing the solution of the homework that had been
56 other hand? The comprehension was evaluated according to
assigned to the participants a week earlier, serving as the
57 the following two aspects: (a) the systems engineers'
second stage of our research. The class assignment was given
58 expressed comprehension and (b) the systems engineers'
individually, allotting one hour for its completion. While in
59 perceived comprehension.
the former two stages the participants were asked to create the
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 4 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 4

1
The research comprised the three stages as described above (Technion) research group. They were introduced to the
2
and summarized in Table I in terms of the population, stage PPLM approach during a three-hour lecture, followed by
3
description, and the combination of the project and the product homework. In this homework they were given the exact text
4
aspects. given to the first (MIT) group, and were asked to create three
5
6 Like other similar studies of descriptive and exploratory project plan versions by using three different representations:
7 nature with a similar number of participants, percentage and (1) an Activities Network Plan (AON type) model, (2) a Gantt
8 mean were calculated, followed by t-test for significant chart model, and (3) an OPM model. No particular order of
9 difference comparison [39], [40], [41]. creating the models was imposed or suggested. The
10 participants were instructed to document the process they had
11 IV. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH METHOD BY undergone while creating each model by recording their
12 STAGES reflections, assumptions, and decisions they had made during
13 Stage 1 was based on a UAV case study [32] – see Fig. 1 (left) the modeling process.
14 and included a structured assignment designed to explore the The research conducted in Stage 3 was designed to answer
15 reflections of systems engineers regarding differences between the same research question. However, this time, the
16 a project plan expressed by a Gantt chart and the same project examination was elaborated to investigate project and product
17 plan expressed by a PPLM model. The participants in the first aspects when these are integrated according to the PPLM
18 (MIT) research group were divided randomly into two equal methodology in a pre-prepared model, as explained below. For
Fo
19 subgroups, similar in number of participants. Subgroup 1 was this stage, we used a simplified CT scanner model – see Fig. 1
20 instructed to model the project by a Gantt chart first, and then (right).
21 to create the OPM model. Subgroup 2 was instructed to do the The participants were provided with the following models: (1)
22 same, but in reverse order. The participants were asked to do a PPLM model, that is, an OPM-based CT scanner model, in
r
23 this in a specific order without backtracking, and to document which the project and product aspects were combined
24 their reflections on the way they did their project planning. according to the PPLM methodology (see Appendix A), and
Pe

25 The assignment was designed to enable analysis by two (2) A Gantt model of the same project plan (see Appendix B).
26 comparisons of project plan types between the two subgroups: Both models were identical in their information content,
27 (1) The Gantt chart created by Subgroup 1 vs. the Gantt except for a few specific differences, which were intentionally
28 created by Subgroup 2, and (2) the PPLM model created by inserted in order to enable us to examine them against our
er

29 Subgroup 1 vs. the PPLM model created by Subgroup 2. The expected results of the models comparison.
30 reverse plan construction order was aimed at cancelling out In both models, the given information contained the same
31 potential differences that might have been related to the order tasks planned for developing and integrating the five planned
32 of plan or model construction. development cycles of the CT scanner, which in PPLM
Re

33 We did not instruct the participants to model in a specific ontology are called system builds (SBs). The objects of the
34 methodology. Rather, they could freely use their own judg to planned development cycles in the OPM-based model were
35 create a model that integrates the project and the product. represented by equivalent milestones in the Gantt chart. The
36 Neither group was introduced with the complete PPLM participants were given 33 comprehension questions that were
vi

37 methodology or the PPLM objects typology. They added directly related to the project plan, as well as to the product-
38 objects in the PPLM model based on their own judgment of based rationale of this project plan. Appendix C presents four
39 the given text, after or before creating the Gantt model. of these questions with their type and rationale. The
ew

40 There was no one single "correct" solution for the PPLM participants were asked to answer these questions based on the
41 model. However, the model had to comply with the following Gantt chart model and the PPLM model that were provided to
42 basic requirements: them. The questions were of three types, designed and
43 - It had to express all the information provided in the administered in a gradually increasing level of difficulty: (1)
44 text.
process or task duration questions, (2) general completeness
45 - It had to follow the basic OPM rules, including:
questions—questions related to the completeness of the PPLM
46 o Starting with a top-level process at the first
model or the Gantt chart model, and (3) project-product
47 System Diagram (SD) of the model,
48 representing the entire project-system completeness questions—questions related to the
49 model. completeness of the PPLM model or the Gantt chart model in
50 o Hierarchical decomposing using the in- terms of cross-relations between the project domain and the
51 zooming mechanism. product (system) domain.
52 o At each level, the processes should be laid The participants answered the questions regarding their
53 from top downwards, indicating the view on the ease of finding the answer to each question in the
54 technological order of sub-processes. Gantt chart and PPLM model using the following scale: (a)
55 - It has to contain additional OPM things (objects and The answer can be easily found in the chart or the model, (b)
56 processes), as required for a complete model. The answer can be found in both the Gantt chart and PPLM
57 model, (c) The answer can be found in the Gantt chart or in
58 Stage 2 was based on the same UAV case as in Stage 1 the PPLM model with difficulty, and (d) It is impossible to
59 (Fig. 1, left), but this time, the participants were the second find the answer in the Gantt chart or in the PPLM model.
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 5 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 5

1
V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS model was much more diversified in terms of the number of
2
We present the research results and their analysis according objects modeled.
3
4 to the three research stages. B. Results of Stage 2 and their analysis
5 A. Results of Stage 1 and their analysis Based on the results of Stage 1, we expected the Gantt charts
6 designed by the participants in Stage 2 (Technion) to be the
7 Since the Gantt chart can be produced easily from the given same as in Stage 1, containing the given 21 tasks and their
8 text, we expected that the Gantt charts that participants relationships, plus two milestones – project start and project
9 modeled first would only contain the given tasks and end. The results matched our expectations. The participants
10 relationships among them. We also expected that the Gantt did not add to the Gantt charts any information such as
11 chart produced after modeling the same text in OPM will be hammocks or additional milestones. As in Stage 1, based on
12 influenced by the OPM model, such that, for example, the reflections provided by the participants, they had
13 clustered processes in the OPM model would become considered the creation of the Gantt chart from the provided
14 hammocks in the Gantt chart, while added objects in OPM problem text to be straightforward.
15 would be reflected as milestones in the Gantt chart. The great variability among the OPM models was also
16 repeated in this stage. The total number of processes varied
17 Surprisingly, however, all the Gantt charts produced by the between 6 and 32, with the median result again being 23.
18 participants were almost identical, regardless of the order in Indeed, in most of the cases, as in Stage 1, the OPM models
Fo
19 which they were designed. They all contained the 23 given contained the 23 tasks, which we had provided in the text.
20 tasks expressed by the problem text: 21 tasks and their Some participants did not include in the OPM model all the 21
21 relationships plus the two milestones project start and project tasks from the Gantt chart. As expected, some of the
22 end (both assigned zero duration). Reflections participants participants did not model the first task (project start) and the
r
23 provided on the Gantt chart design process indicated that they last task (project end) as processes, but rather used objects for
24 had felt the provided text contained all the required modeling them.
Pe

25 information for creating the Gantt chart. Therefore, no The total number of objects in the OPM model varied from 2
26 assumptions were made nor were data added to the Gantt chart to 35, with a median of 20, a very similar result to the one
27 other than what was given in the text. Some selected obtained in Stage 1, where the number of objects ranged from
28 reflections, provided by the participants in this part of the 2 to 44 with a median of 21.5. In cases where more than 20
er

29 research, are presented in Appendix D. While no differences objects were included in the model, the large number of
30 were found among the Gantt charts, the OPM models objects was again a result of modeling each stateful object as
31 participants produced were very different from each other. The several separate stateless objects.
32 total number of processes ranged from 14 to 31, with the C. Results of Stage 3 and their analysis
Re

33 median being 23, which is the same number of processes in

We quantified the participant responses as follows: (a) The
34 the text. While this might seem incidental, it does reflect one
answer can be easily found in the model – 4 points, (b) The
35 aspect of the power of "crowdsourcing." Indeed, most of the
answer can be found in the model – 3 points, (c) The answer
36 OPM models participants produced contained the 23 tasks
can be found in the model with difficulty – 2 points, and (d) It
vi

37 which had been provided in the text. Some of the participants

is impossible to find the answer in the model – 1 point. This
38 included abstractions by clustering processes using the OPM
grading scheme reflects the notion that (a) is the best situation
39 in-zooming mechanism. The total number of objects in the
ew

and (d) is the worst.

40 OPM model ranged greatly, from 2 to 44 objects, with a
Based on (1), the total grade for each question, QTotal Grade,
41 median of 21.5. This indicates that the majority of participants
in each model was calculated. Each total grade for each one of
42 modeled at least 21 objects, as expected, since each one of the
the 33 questions is based on the quantity (Count) of a, b, c,
43 21 processes (which remain after excluding the project start
and d found among the 32 participants’ answers.
44 and project end pseudo-processes) should have at least one
The total grade for each one of the 33 questions was
45 deliverable, otherwise the process does not meet the OPM
analyzed based on paired samples statistics for PPLM and
46 definition of process as a thing that transforms at least one
Gantt. PPLM-based plans scored significantly (p<0.001)
47 object. Several participants modeled only few objects. The
higher (Mean Score=94.7, SE=3.47) than Gantt chart based
48 high number of objects in some of the models was due to the
plans (Mean Score=77, SE=4.83).
49 fact that in these models, objects were not modeled as being
50 stateful, but rather, each state was taken as a separate distinct    

stateless object. For example, instead of having one object
  

 = 4   + 3   + 2   +   (1)
51  !  !  !  !
52 called "Fuselage" with states "designed" and "manufactured",
53 the model contained two objects—"Designed Fuselage" and
Examining the results for individual questions reveals
54 "Manufactured Fuselage".
significant differences in participants' comprehension between
55 The standard deviation of the number of objects was 10.6, the PPLM model and the Gantt chart model in more detail.
56 almost three times bigger than the standard deviation of the The results of grades obtained for each one of the 33 questions
57 number of processes, 3.9. This outcome is in accord with the separately for the PPLM model and the Gantt chart model are
58 results presented previously: while there was little difference depicted in Fig. 2. The horizontal axis indicates the question
59 in modeling the processes, modeling the object in the OPM
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 6 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 6

1
number (1 through 33), while the vertical axis indicates the from 8% to 65% difference, while in three questions the
2
total grade, calculated according to (1). perceived comprehension was significantly higher for the
3 For each one of the 33 questions, a T-test comparison was Gantt chart than for the PPLM model, ranging from 34% to
4 conducted between the grades obtained for the PPLM model 56% difference. In six questions, there was no significant
5 and for the Gantt chart. There were only six questions, 1, 2, 5, difference between the perceived comprehension of the Gantt
6 13, 21, and 23, for which no significant difference was found chart model and the PPLM model.
7 between the Gantt chart model and the PPLM model. These This is a very encouraging result, indicating that, at least for
8 are denoted by circles on the horizontal axis. The questions for the examined CT scanner case and the systems engineers’
9 which no significant difference was found matched our population we tested, the answers to the comprehension
10 expectations, as detailed in Appendix E. According to Fig. 2, questions were more easily found by consulting the PPLM
11 Q14, 15 and 30 scored more for the Gantt chart model than for model than by consulting the Gantt chart model. Given that
12 the PPLM model. These results matched our expectations as Gantt charts are commonly used with consensus, and that the
13 well, as detailed in Appendix F. The results for the remaining participants became familiar with OPM only one week prior to
14 24 questions for which a significant difference was found in getting the researched assignment, we had expected to find the
15 favor of the PPLM model are specified and discussed in PPLM model scores close to, or perhaps slightly lower than
16 Appendix G. the Gantt chart model scores. However, the results we
17 obtained exceeded our expectations from the PPLM model.
18 VI. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH This result may also indicate that OPM is easy to learn, at least
Fo
19 for the purpose of comprehending PPLM models, but not
In this three-stage comparative research we investigated how
20 necessarily also for designing them—this needs to be
differences between a Gantt chart project plan, an OPM model
21 investigated separately.
based project plan, and an OPM-PPLM model based project
22 Both ways of creating a project plan – the Gantt chart and
plan are conceived by systems engineers. In the first and
r
23 the OPM-based model – are supported by software tools.
second stages, the number of entities (tasks and milestones) in
24 Creating the PPLM project plan requires acquaintance with
the Gantt chart was 23, which is identical to the number of
Pe

25 OPM, so it may take longer, but it enables grasping more new

tasks in the text provided to the participants. Based on the
26 concepts than tasks and milestones that the Gantt chart
participants’ reflections, this correspondence can be explained
27 requires. However, the extra effort is supported by using the
by the fact that the text contained the tasks and their
28 in-zooming refinement mechanism that is built into OPM.
relationships in a straightforward manner, which did not
er

29 This mechanism ensures consistency with upper level OPDs

encourage the participants to question or investigate the plan
30 deeper. The assignment enabled the coverage of the processes of the model. As the project and the product evolve over time
31 in both models with only little effort. Based on our throughout the development process, the project plan has to be
32 professional experience in the field of project planning, we updated accordingly to reflect the changes. Unlike in Gantt,
Re

33 suspect that a more profound reason for this is the common the execution of changes in the PPLM project plan readily
34 belief that capturing the tasks and their relationships, if reveals the change impact on the product, since the product
35 conducted thoroughly and correctly, guarantees the domain objects and , along with their relationships to the
36 construction of a “good” project plan. project entities, are inherent in the PPLM model.
vi

37 The diversity of the PPLM models that participants The ability to simultaneously express the required information
38 developed, both within each stage and between Stage 1 and from both the project and the product domains within a single
39 Stage 2, can be explained as follows. The participants modeled integrated model-based framework can potentially lead to a
ew

40 the processes (which are in the project domain) and the objects more reliable project plan, which is less prone to the need for
41 (in the product domain) in the OPM model in a free manner, repeated changes and corrective actions. The increased
42 as we wanted to gauge the participants’ systems engineering robustness of the resulting project plan stems from the need to
43 approach prior to exposing them to a the PPLM methodology. make decisions about the project's process order and logic
44 Modeling the combined project-product plan according to the while explicitly addressing the associated product model.
45 PPLM methodology would probably result in models that are Change management of the project-product plan is made easy
46 more similar to each other. This can be examined in a test as the PPLM plan contains the details of the project activities
47 similar to Stage 3 in several ways: (1) teaching the PPLM and their relations to specific product entities. This enables
48 methodology in detail to the participants prior to asking them tracking down product processes or objects that are in
49 to produce the OPM model, (2) providing text that explicitly jeopardy, in case some specific project activities are delayed.
50 contains the objects in addition to the processes, or a This information facilitates the system engineering as well as
51 combination of (1) and (2). In Stage 3 we did part of this, as the project management by enabling better coping with
52 we generated the models ourselves in accordance with the changes. This is achieved by following the explicitly modeled
53 PPLM methodology and administered a comprehension relationships, which are the potential paths of project-product
54 questionnaire on the model provided. impacts. Such combined project-product knowledge cannot be
55 Taking in account all 33 questions asked in Stage 3 of the extracted from commonly-used project plans models.
56 research, the PPLM model median grade was about 20% In future work, we propose a unifying OPM-based
57 higher than the Gantt chart model median grade. In 24 of the underlying PPLM model as the basis for various project
58 33 questions, the perceived comprehension was significantly management tools and representations. In their new, model-
59 higher for the PPLM model than for the Gantt chart, ranging based versions, these are guaranteed to be consistent, as they
60 would be derived from a single common source—the OPM-

John Wiley & Sons

Page 7 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 7

1 [28] A. Sharon, O. de Weck, and D. Dori, Model-Based Design Structure

based PPLM model that is updated along the development
2 Matrix: Deriving a DSM from an Object-Process Model. Accepted to
process. Moreover, each representation will be enhanced with
3 information on resources and deliverables gleaned from the
Systems Engineering, July 2012.
4 [29] D. Dori, Object-Process Methodology – A Holistic Systems Paradigm.
common underlying model, facilitating a shift from activities- Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2002.
5 based to deliverables-based project management. [30] A. Sharon, D. Dori, and O. de Weck, Project Management vs. Systems
6 Engineering Management: A Practitioners' View on Integrating the
7 Project and Product Domains. Systems Engineering, 14(4), pp. 427-440,
REFERENCES Oct. 2011.
8 [31] A. Sharon and D. Dori, Integrating the Project with the Product for
[1] INCOSE 2004 Systems Engineering Handbook, INCOSE-TP-2003-016-
9 02, Version 2a. Applied Systems Engineering Management. Proc. 14th IFAC
10 [2] NASA 1995. Systems Engineering Handbook, NASA-SP-6105. SP- Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing
11 6105. (INCOM 2012) Bucharest, Romania, May 23-25, 2012. Winner of the
[3] A. P. Sage and W. B. Rouse, Handbook of Systems Engineering and Track Paper Award.
12 [32] J. Estephan, Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
Management. John Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2009.
13 [4] B. S. Blanchard, System Engineering Management. John Wiley and Sons Methodologies, INCOSE-TD-2007-003-02. Accessed Feb. 22 2010.
14 Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2004. http://www.incose.org/ProductsPubs/pdf/techdata/MTTC/MBSE_Metho
15 [5] Conforto, Rossi, Rebentisch, Oehmen & Pacenza, dology_Survey_2008-0610_RevB-JAE2.pdf
Improving the Integration of Program Management and Systems [33] ISO N1049 - OPM Study Group, Terms of Reference, 2009. Accessed
16 Feb. 20, 2010.
Engineering. Whitepaper presented at the 23rd INCOSE Annual Internat
17 ional Symposium, Philadelphia, USA, June 2013. http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=547513&objAction=
18 [6] D. Van Gemert, Systems engineering the project, 2013: RunReport&InputLabel1=004315.
Fo
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/systems-engineering-project-5857 [34] ISO N1078 ISO/TC 184/SC 5 Plenary Meeting Resolutions 2010-03-
19 25/26, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan, 2010.
[7] The Project Manager’s Guide to Systems Engineering Measurement for
20 Project Success, INCOSE Measurement Working Group: [35] D. Dori and M. Choder, Conceptual Modeling in Systems Biology
21 http://www.incose.org/ProductsPublications/techpublications/pmguide Fosters Empirical Findings: The mRNA Lifecycle. Proceedings of the
22 [8] H. Eisner, Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, Library of Science ONE (PLoS ONE), September 12, 2007.
r
John Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2008. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00
23 00872
[9] A.P. Sage and W. Rouse, Handbook of systems engineering and
24 management, John Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2009. [36] J. Somekh, M. Choder, and D. Dori, Conceptual Model-Based Systems
Pe

25 [10] E. Rebentisch (Editor), Integrating Program Management and Systems Biology: Mapping Knowledge and Discovering Gaps in the mRNA
26 Engineering: Methods, Tools, and Organizational Systems for Transcription Cycle. PLoS ONE, 7(12): e51430.
Improving Performance. John Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051430, Dec. 20, 2012.
27 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pon
Jersey, 2017.
28 [11] Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Material Items, Military e.0051430
er

29 Standard Mil-Std-881, 1968. [37] C. A. Osorio, D. Dori, and J. Sussman, COIM: An Object-Process Based
30 [12] Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, Office of Government Method for Analyzing Architectures of Complex, Interconnected, Large-
Commerce, 2005. Scale Socio-Technical Systems. Systems Engineering 14(3), 2011.
31 [38] O. L. de Weck, MIT ESD.36 System Project Management course
[13] Department of Defense Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and
32 Cost Rationale Report Manual, Department of Defense, Washington, assignment, 2008.
Re

33 DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2009. [39] D. McKinney, J. L. Dyck and E. S. Luber, iTunes University and the
[14] E. M. Goldratt, Critical Chain. Great Barrington, MA: North River classroom: Can podcast replace Professors? Computers & Education 52,
34 pp. 617–623, 2008.
Press. 1997.
35 [15] C. L. Gray and E. W. Larson, Project Management: The Managerial [40] K. G. Ricks, et al, An Engineering Learning Community To Promote
36 Process. 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2003. Retention And Graduation Of At-Risk Engineering Students, American
vi

37 [16] Systems Engineering Fundamentals, Defense Acquisition University Journal of Engineering Education, p 5 (2), December 2014.
Press, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5565, 2001. [41] N. Patel et al., A comparative study of speech and dialed input voice
38 interfaces in rural India, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
[17] Risk management — Vocabulary, ISO/IEC Guide 73, 2009.
39 Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 51-54, Boston, MA, USA,
ew

[18] Risk management — Principles and guidelines on implementation,

40 ISO/DIS 31000, 2009. 2009.
41 [19] Earned Value Management Textbook, Defense Systems Management
42 College, EVM Dept., 9820 Belvoir Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565,
1997.
43 [20] Practice Standard for Earned Value Management. Project Management
44 Institute, 2005.
45 [21] The Design Structure Matrix (DSM), http://www.dsmweb.org/.
[22] A. Rodrigues and J. Bowers, “The role of system dynamics in project
46 management,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14,
47 Issue 4, August 1996, pp. 213-220.
48 [23] J. M. Lyneis and David N. Ford, “System dynamics applied to project
49 management: a survey, assessment and directions for future research,”
System Dynamics Review Vol. 23, No. 2/3, pp. 157–189, 2007.
50 [24] A Guide To The Project Management Body Of Knowledge (3rd ed.).
51 Project Management Institute, 2003.
52 [25] Gantt, Henry L., A graphical daily balance in manufacture, Transactions
53 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Volume XXIV, pages
1322-1336, 1903.
54 [26] A. Sharon, V. Perelman, and D. Dori, A Project-Product Lifecycle
55 Management Approach For Improved Systems Engineering Practices, in
56 Proc. 18th Annual INCOSE Conf., Utrecht, the Netherlands, 2008.
57 [27] A. Sharon, D. Dori, and O. de Weck, “Is there a Complete Project Plan?
A Model-Based Project Planning Approach,” in Proc. 18th Annual
58 INCOSE Conf., Singapore 2009.
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 8 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 A. Sharon holds a B.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering (1992), a M.Sc. in Industrial Design (1997), and a Ph.D. in Information
13 Management Engineering (2010), all from Technion, Israel Institute of Technology. Her professional career spans the areas of
14 mechanical engineering, programming, systems engineering, systems engineering management, leading systems engineering
15 methodologies development, and robotic systems development. Her research interests include conceptual modeling of complex
16 systems, systems engineering management, and combining systems engineering with project management in large-scale complex
17 project-product systems. Amira Sharon is a member of the executive committee of the INCOSE_IL, the Israeli Chapter of
18 INCOSE.
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28 D. Dori is Harry Lebensfeld Chair in Industrial Engineering and Head of the Enterprise System Modeling Laboratory at the
er

29 Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology. He is Fellow of IEEE – Institute of
30 Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Fellow of INCOSE – International Council on Systems Engineering, and Fellow of IAPR –
31 International Association for Pattern Recognition. Since 2000, he has been intermittently Visiting Professor at MIT. He received
32 his PhD in Computer Science in 1988 from Weizmann Institute of Science, MSc in Operations Research from Tel Aviv
Re

33 University in 1981, and BSc in Industrial Engineering and Management from Technion in 1975. His research interests include
34 model-based systems engineering, conceptual modeling of complex systems, systems architecture and design, software and
35 systems engineering, and systems biology. Prof. Dori invented and developed Object-Process Methodology (OPM), recently
36 adopted as ISO 19450. He has authored over 300 publications and mentored over 50 graduate students. He is co-chair of the
vi

37 IEEE SMC TC on Model-Based Systems Engineering and chaired or was co-chair of nine international conferences and
38 workshops. He was Associate Editor of IEEE Transaction on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, and currently he is
39 Associate Editor of Systems Engineering. He is Member of Omega Alpha Association – International Honor Society for Systems
ew

40 Engineering, and Senior Member of ACM.

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 9 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 9

1
APPENDIX A – SAMPLE DIAGRAMS OF THE PROVIDED CT SCANNER PPLM MODEL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25 Figure A1. SD1 - CT scanner Project-Product Lifecycle Management in-zoomed (1)

26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Figure A2. SD1 - CT scanner Project-Product Lifecycle Management in-zoomed (2)
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 10 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29 Figure A3. System Build #1 view

30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 Figure A4. System Build #2 view
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 11 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24 Figure A5. System Build #3 view
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Figure A6. SD1.1 - CT scanner Developing and Integrating in-zoomed
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 12 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25 Figure A7. SD1.1.1 - First developing cycle in-zoomed

26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46 Figure A8. SD1.1.3 - Third developing cycle in-zoomed
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 13 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
Figure A9. UD5 - CT scanner unfolded
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure A10. SD1.2 - 3D Organ Imaging in-zoomed
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 14 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 14

1
2 APPENDIX B – THE PROVIDED GANTT CHART OF THE CT SCANNER PLAN
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 Figure B1. The Gantt chart of the CT scanner plan used in the experiment
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 15 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 15

1
2
3 APPENDIX C – FOUR OF THE 33 QUESTIONS GIVEN IN STAGE 3, THEIR TYPE, RATIONALE, AND EXPECTED OUTCOME
4 # Question Type Rationale and expected outcome
5
6
What is the planned Process In Gantt chart – the duration assigned to the hammock.
7 Q2 duration of the first duration
8 In the PPLM model – the duration assigned to the process.
development cycle?
9 The first development cycle of the CT scanner is clearly identified in both the Gantt chart
model and the PPLM model. No significant difference was expected to be found between the
10
models for this question.
11
12
13 Are there General In Gantt chart – the components names are part of a task name (as a convention, in relevant
14 Q7 components of the completeness tasks).
15 CT scanner that are
In the PPLM model – the components are inherent objects in the model, related to relevant
not covered by the
16 plan?
processes.
17 For answering this question based on the provided Gantt chart and the PPLM model, the
18 participants had to alternate between the two to find out whether there are components of the
Fo
19 CT scanner that are not covered by the plan. This information is clearer in the combined
project-product PPLM model, therefore we expected to get higher scores from students who
20 consulted the PPLM model.
21
22
r
23 How many In Gantt chart – the speciation names are part of a task name or milestone (as a convention, in
Q13 General
24 specifications are
completeness
relevant tasks or milestones).
Pe

25 contained in the
In the PPLM model – the specifications are inherent objects (of specific type according to the
plan?
26 PPLM methodology) in the model, related to relevant processes.
27 No significant difference was expected to be found between the models for this question, since
28 they both contain the same information regarding to the specifications contained in the plan –
er

29 modeled as objects in the PPLM model and as milestones in the Gantt chart model.
30
31
If a software Project- There are three identical software specifications in both models. However, their nature as
32 Q24 specification is product software specifications can be derived only from the PPLM model, which specifically indicates
Re

33 delayed, how is the completeness these three objects as being software components. For answering this question based on the
34 plan affected? Gantt chart model and the provided product model, the participants had to alternate between the
35 two to find out the answer. This information is clearer in the combined project-product PPLM
model, hence we expected to get higher scores from students who consulted the PPLM model.
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 16 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 16

1
APPENDIX D – SELECTED REFLECTIONS PROVIDED BY THE PARTICIPANTS
2
3 Some selected reflections provided by the participants, are presented in this Appendix: first for the Gantt chart model, followed
4 by the PPLM model, through PPLM vs. Gantt reflection.
5
6 A. The Gantt chart model
7
8 All the participants reported on the ease of creating the Gantt chart, based on the given text, in which the tasks along with their
9 durations and relationships were included:
10
11 “While building the [Gantt] model, the most critical aspect was figuring out task dependencies. I did not feel that fully
12 understanding the nature of the task or its end results were very significant for building the model. Overall, there were three
13 items I needed for each task: 1 - task duration, 2 - task dependencies, 3 - task resources (though not very significant for the
14 model’s structure).
15 When building the model I was only interested in the task itself and what it depended on. It was not very important to
16 understand where the task fits within the overall project.” [Subject 17]
17
18 “It took me 0.5 hours to develop the Gantt chart in MS project. Per the given information, the step and time duration of each
step, as well as the dependency are very clear, and easily organized into the Gantt chart… I did not make any additional
Fo
19
20 assumption beside the given information.” [Subject 18]
21
22 “The [Gantt] model was very easy to create, no need for intermediate objects to be created, only the sequence matter and
Microsoft Project worked very well for it.” [Subject 24]
r
23
24
Some of the participants provided judgment of the Gantt chart utility, as contained in the following phrasing:
Pe

25
26
27 “It [the Gantt chart] is a general timeline which helps assessing the duration of the project, and the general outline.”
28 [Subject 11]
er

29
30
31 B. The PPLM model
32
Many participants indicated the longer time spent on producing the PPLM model, but reported added value to the effort of
Re

33
34 including both the processes and the objects in the combined PPLM model:
35 “While the [PPLM] model took significantly more time, I found it quite interesting that the end result gave me an insight on
36 both the project process and the system being built (product). Throughout the process I was also very much engaged in
vi

37 understanding the outcome of each task and the resulting states. Overall it is interesting to observe that through OPD I was
38 able to both model the project flow and the outcomes.” [Subject 17]
39
ew

40 “It took significantly longer to make an OPM model of the project (probably partly because I was not close to as comfortable
41 with OPCAT as I was with Project)…I had to make some more assumptions when using OPCAT. I decided to model the
42 informational and physical aspects of the project as separate objects (i.e. the “software” was treated as one physical object,
43 while the “software design” was a separate informational object). I also had to make assumptions for the state and process
44 for each task “grouping.” In the end it generally ended up that I modeled each task from HW2 as a set of an object with two
45 states and a process that changed the object from one state to the next. When viewing the completed project model, there is
46 more information presented in the OPM model as far as interactions and statuses, however the Gantt chart better shows the
47 timing of tasks since those are contained within the properties box on OPCAT.” [Subject 12]
48
49 “It took me about 3 hours to complete the OPM of the UAV product System as shown above. Clearly, the project plan has
50 been divided into five high level processes…Each of these high level processes are further subdivided into processes as
51 shown in the OPM above. Each sub-process, for example “Develop Engine Specification” depends on a deliverable (UAV
52 Requirements document in this case as a result of previous process) and results in a deliverable namely, Engine Specification
53 in the above model. All tasks in the project are thus mapped into process and object deliverables.” [Subject 14]
54
55 “It took me 5 hours to develop OPM model. I regrouped the tasks on the basis of task content such as design spec defining,
56 designing and developing, integrating and assembling, as well as testing. These meta-groups have clear sequences. The
57 previous group tasks are done, and then the next group tasks can begin.” [Subject 18]
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 17 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 17

1
Some of the participants explicitly phrased the added value, in their opinion, from the combined OPM based project-product plan
2
they had produced with the OPCAT software:
3
4 “In the process of writing the OPM, you need to think of operators like ECC and states of objects in a project… I used the
5 creation of objects like Engine Specification or Payload Specification as a deliverable of an activity to later be used by
6 consecutive process as a pre-requisite. The good thing about this diagram is that it pictures what process affects on a
7 particular object (deliverable) and which processes depend on those objects (previous activity deliverable).” [Subject 24]
8
9 “What I did like about this tool [OPCAT], is the strong relationship between objects and processes. I think it simplifies the
10 way one thinks about a project. It makes the stages more clear. You know that at the end of each process there is an object to
11 create, and it feels like little milestones, that helps define the step by step execution of the project.” [Subject 11]
12
13
14 C. PPLM vs. Gantt
15
16 Many participants included a comparison of the two models they had produced, as part of their reflection on the modeling
17 process, expressing their criticism on both the modeling process and the produced models. A single participant was entirely in
18 favor of the Gantt chart:
Fo
19 “After my experiencing with both softwares, I believe the MS Project can demonstrate most critical factors of a project much
20 more explicitly than OCPAT.” [Subject 18]
21
22 All the other participants provided a more balanced comparison, overall favoring OPM and indicating its advantages over Gantt.
r
23 Following are a few excerpts of students’ reflections.
24
Pe

25 “The OPM model adds another perspective to the CPM model in HW2. Despite the time to create, the OPM is quite useful
26 and best describes the project plan and its resulting objects... the OPM model is a much more of a comprehensive
27 representation of the project and its corresponding process…The Gantt chart should only be used for analyzing higher level
28 tasks when schedule is the managers only concern.” [Subject 10]
er

29
30 “OPM also triggers the need to identify the output or object, and incorporate that as a deliverable, this can be reflected in
31 the Gantt chart. By doing so, all stakeholders in the Gantt chart will understand the deliverable being received and also the
32 deliverable being delivered downstream…OPM can assist to reflect which task should be completed first before engaging in
Re

33 subsequent task. In this example, the task list in diagram 3 would be completed first, and then the link will continue in
34 diagram 2. Diagram 2 would of course be initiated first due to Requirement Definition task, but the next step would be to
35 branch into this task, and as the micro task of Requirement Definition is completed, then the Gantt chart should refer back to
36 Diagram 2 for subsequent tasks.” [Subject 9]
vi

37
38 “I guess the concept of these 2 tools is very different, and concentrate on different aspects of a project. While Gantt gives you
39 a general idea about the project schedule, the OPM model represents the project as a relationship between objects and
ew

40 processes that need to be accomplished. It helps understanding the different stages of development, and makes it simpler… It
makes sense to me to have an OPM of the product first, specify each component, and its function and then map it directly to
41
the project OPM, making sure that the product is being built correctly, timely manner.” [Subject 11]
42
43
“The Gantt was directly created from the Task details in HW2, using the task durations and Early Start and Early Finish
44
times for the project. It’s an interesting observation that, remarkably enough the OPM diagram (above) has captured much
45
more detail compared to the Gantt (below). In the Gantt the object and process relationships are really embedded within
46
each task, there is no clear way to differentiate what really are the deliverables at each stage of the project… There is also
47
no straight way to figure out which tasks can be grouped together for iterations.” [Subject 14]
48
49
So far, from Figure 6 [OPM], it does not appear that I can visualize the project timeline, nor the start dates. If you recall, I
50 indicated that once I entered the project start date, and the task dependencies and durations, the Gantt chart calculated the
51 ES and EF of each of my tasks, and showed them graphically with blue bars. It is helpful for me to visualize the schedule
52 part of the iron triangle (cost, schedule, scope) in that way. However, it is better for me to visualize the scope part of the iron
53 triangle through the OPCAT model in figure 1. Displaying the tasks and resources separately makes it very easy to see
54 who/what is needed and when. ... The major change from the Gantt to the OPM is that I created objects that signify the end
55 of a process. All tasks in a real project have a deliverable. Using these objects to indicate the deliverables, what creates
56 them and who requires them is extremely useful.” [Subject 13]
57
58 “The change that I made to the OPM model that I did not have in the Gantt chart was the NMA facilities. One explanation
59 would be that I just picked out something in the second reading of the project description that I did not see in the previous
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 18 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 18

1
reading when I created the Gantt chart. However, I would suggest that this was not the only reason. Making a pictorial
2
distinction between the objects and processes enabled me to think harder as to what other ‘resources’ could be needed.
3 When I thought about this, I then noticed that it said ‘NMA Facility’ in the project description.” [Subject 23]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 APPENDIX E QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND BETWEEN THE PPLM MODEL AND THE GANTT CHART MODEL
13 Question Score T-Test
Discussion
14 # Phrase PPLM Gantt result
15
This result indicates that in this stage, where we provided the models,
16 What is the planned we overcame the problem of the inconvenience of the presentation of
17 not
1 duration of the first 122 126 process durations in the PPLM model. It also suggests that with
significant
18 development cycle? proper training, one can produce both models – PPLM and Gantt –
Fo
19 with little difference if any with respect to presentation of process
durations.
20 What is the planned
21 duration of the not
2 118 124 The discussion in question 1 above is applicable here as well.
22 second development significant
r
23 cycle?
We expected the results for both models to be close, since both
24 Are there system models do not contain all development cycles, or PPLM system
Pe

25 not
5 builds that are not 101 94 builds (SBs), although both show the intent of having 5 SBs in the
significant
26 covered by the plan? plan.
27
How many We expected the results for both models to be close, since they both
28 specifications are not contain the same information regarding to the specifications
er

13 110 102
29 contained in the significant contained in the plan – object in the PPLM and milestones in the
30 plan? Gantt.
31 How many design
not Both models got the same low score.
32 21 reviews are 64 64
significant We expected these, or even lower scores, since neither one of the
Re

planned?
33 models contains planned design reviews.
34 If the table sub-
The results for the two models are close and match our expectations,
35 23
system specification
90 98
not
since both models contain all five specifications, as objects in PPLM
36 is delayed, how is significant
and as milestones in Gantt.
the plan affected?
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
Page 19 of 20 Systems Engineering
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 19

1
2
3
4
APPENDIX F – QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND BETWEEN THE PPLM MODEL AND THE GANTT CHART MODEL
5
Question Score T-Test
6 # Phrase PPLM Gantt result
Discussion
7 Gantt is about 56% better than the PPLM. We expected this result
When is the built-in
8 14
test (BIT) planned?
49 110 P<0.05 since the BIT is clearly completely missing in the PPLM model
9 while clearly fully contained in the Gantt model.
What is required for Gantt is about 47% better than the PPLM.
10 15
the BIT?
48 91 P<0.05
The discussion in question 14 is applicable here as well.
11 How long does Gantt is about 34% better than the PPLM.
12 30 System Build #5 75 114 P<0.05 We expected this result since the fifth development cycle (SB#5),
13 take? which appears in the Gantt model, is missing in the PPLM model.
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons
 Systems Engineering Page 20 of 20
> Manuscript ID SYS-16-056 < 20

1
2 APPENDIX G – QUESTIONS FOR WHICH A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PPLM MODEL
3
4 Question Score T-Test
Discussion
5 # Phrase PPLM Gantt result
6
When does the first PPLM is about 8% better than the Gantt. This is due to the question phrasing.
7 cycle start with While the relationship between the first cycle and the Definition is explicit in
8 3 respect to the 118 109 P<0.05 both models, the reason is explicit only in the PPLM model. This result is an
9 Definition? What is example for the strength of the PPLM model: it provides the rationale for the
the reason for this? relationship, which is that the deliverables resulting from the first cycle and
10 required for the Definition.
11 PPLM is about 12% better than the Gantt. We expected the results for both
12 How many System
models to be close, since neither contain all the development cycles (SBs), but
13 4 122 107 P<0.05 both show the intent of including 5 SBs in the plan. We expected that when a
Builds are planned?
SB is missing, it would be indicated as “can be easily found out”, but many
14 participants chose other answers to reflect the missing SBs.
15 Is the plan PPLM is about 13% better than the Gantt.
6 91 79 P<0.05
16 complete? The discussion in question 4 is applicable here as well.
17 PPLM is about 17% better than the Gantt.
Are there
For answering this question based on the Gantt and the provided product model,
18 components of the
the participants had to alternate between the two to find out whether there are
Fo
19 7 CT scanner that are 91 75 P<0.05
components of the CT scanner that are not covered by the plan. The result
not covered by the
20 indicates that this information is clearer in the combined project-product PPLM
plan?
model.
21 Are there
22 components of the
r
23 8
CT scanner that are
90 73 P<0.05
PPLM is about 19% better than the Gantt.
24 not required The discussion in question 7 is applicable here as well.
according to the
Pe

25 plan?
26 Is there a parameter
27 9
of the CT scanner
92 61 P<0.05
PPLM is about 34% better than the Gantt.
28 that is not covered The discussion in question 7 is applicable here as well.
by the plan?
er

29 What specifications PPLM is about 10% better than the Gantt.

30 are required for the This result is an example for the strength of the PPLM model – it provides the
10 115 104 P<0.05
31 first development rationale of the plan in terms of explicit deliverables that result from each
32 cycle? process and are required for each process in order for it to start.
What specifications
Re

33 PPLM is about 21% better than the Gantt.

are required for the
11 120 95 P<0.05 We expected the results for both models to be close, since all five specifications
34 second development
are contained in both models – as objects in PPLM and as milestones in Gantt.
35 cycle?
What is the outcome
36 12 of the Definition 121 106 P<0.05
PPLM is about 12% better than the Gantt.
vi

37 The discussion in question 10 is applicable here as well.

activity?
38 What product
39 processes are
ew

planned to be PPLM is about 26% better than the Gantt.

40 16
achieved by the end
106 78 P<0.05
The discussion in question 10 is applicable here as well.
41 of the second
42 development cycle?
43 What product
processes are
44 17 planned to be 107 74 P<0.05
PPLM is about 31% better than the Gantt.
45 The discussion in question 10 is applicable here as well.
achieved by System
46 Build 3?
What product
47
processes are
48 PPLM is about 52% better than the Gantt.
18 planned to be 89 43 P<0.05
The discussion in question 10 is applicable here as well.
49 achieved by System
50 Build 4?
How many product PPLM is about 39% better than the Gantt.
51 19
processes?
88 54 P<0.05
The discussion in question 10 is applicable here as well.
52 PPLM is about 45% better than the Gantt.
53 20
How many product
73 40 P<0.05
Actually neither one of the models contains the product requirements. The result
54 requirements? can be explained by the halo effect of the deliverables being in general more
explicit in the PPLM model than in the Gantt chart model.
55 Are all the product
56 PPLM is about 44% better than the Gantt.
22 processes covered 79 44 P<0.05
The discussion in question 10 is applicable here as well.
57 by the plan?
58
59
60
John Wiley & Sons

View publication stats