Scope Patterns for Projects Modeled as Sociotechnical Systems
Keywords:
Model-based systems engineering, scope, triple constraint, scope patterns, sociotechnical systems, project design, MBPDAbstract
This paper examines the treatment of scope as project attribute, arguing that an improved representation will allow increased fidelity of project plan trade space enumeration and preferred plan selection. Cost, schedule, and scope are emergent characteristics of a project’s integrated architecture, activities, and resources uniquely for a project at hand. System engineering as commonly practiced places strong, early emphasis on product architecture and requirements, including enumeration of system options prior to interplay with aspects of project implementation. As such, system options are often framed and pruned prior to effective examination of project feasibility. Characteristics of scope are presented suitable for model-based design of projects. Scope is defined as the tangible outcomes of project tasks. Scope items should be useful in the evolution of project knowledge and interplay with requirements and resources. Target-neutral, resource-nominal, and exception-realistic patterns of scope are described.
References
INCOSE, Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
B. R. Moser and R. T. Wood, “Complex Engineering Programs as Sociotechnical Systems,” in Concurrent Engineering in the 21st Century, Springer, 2015, pp. 51–65.
B. R. Moser and R. T. Wood, “Design of Complex Programs as Sociotechnical Systems,” in Concurrent Engineering in the 21st Century, Springer, 2015, pp. 197–220.
PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide. Project Management Institute, 2013.
M. N. Mirza, Z. Pourzolfaghar, and M. Shahnazari, “Significance of Scope in Project Success,” Procedia Technol., vol. 9, pp. 722–729, 2013.
J. R. Turner, The handbook of project-based management, vol. 92. McGraw-Hill, 2014.
L. Lee-Kelley, K. Leong, and Loong, “Turner’s five-functions of project-based management and situational leadership in IT services projects,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 583–591, 2003.
F. P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-month: essays on software engineering. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1975.
M. J. Lanigan, “Task estimating: completion time versus team size,” Eng. Manag. J., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 212–218, Oct. 1994.
D. Rodríguez, M. A. Sicilia, E. García, and R. Harrison, “Empirical findings on team size and productivity in software development,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 562–570, 2012.
K. Holtta-Otto and C. L. Magee, “Estimating factors affecting project task size in product development-an empirical study,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 86–94, Feb. 2006.
K. B. Clark, “Project Scope and Project Performance: The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement on Product Development,” Manag. Sci., vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1247–1263, 1989.
C.-S. Cho and G. E. G. Jr, “Building Project Scope Definition Using Project Definition Rating Index,” J. Archit. Eng., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 115–125, 2001.
P. R. Dumont, G. E. G. Jr, and J. R. Fish, “Scope Management Using Project Definition Rating Index,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 54–60, 1997.
L. Song and S. M. AbouRizk, “Quantifying Engineering Project Scope for Productivity Modeling,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 360–367, 2005.
B. R. Moser, “The Design of Global Work: Simulation of Performance Including Unexpected Impacts of Coordination across Project Architecture,” PhD, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Bryan R. Moser
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
