IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v19y2016i1p44-58.html

Implementing Systems Engineering in Civil Engineering Consulting Firm: An Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Robin de Graaf
  • Hans Voordijk
  • Len van den Heuvel

Abstract

This study explores the challenges that civil engineering consulting firms face in their projects when they apply Systems Engineering (SE). It is also explained were these firms should focus when improving the use of SE. To conduct this study, the methodology of Eisenhardt (Building theories from case study research, Acad Manage Rev 14 [1989], 532–550) for building theory from case study research is used. The extent, to which SE is applied, is assessed in six civil engineering projects, using a newly developed framework containing an extensive list of questions about how and why SE was applied. Based on this assessment, it is shown that there are three major reasons why SE was not applied to the full extent. First, SE procedures and responsibilities were not always clearly established and communicated to team members. Second, team members were in a learning process and did not yet possess all the SE knowledge and skills required. Finally, there was a lack of a demanding client to enforce the use of SE. This paper also presents recommendations for improving the application of SE in projects, related to methods, skills, and the client. Further research should focus on different (kinds of) companies within the civil engineering industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin de Graaf & Hans Voordijk & Len van den Heuvel, 2016. "Implementing Systems Engineering in Civil Engineering Consulting Firm: An Evaluation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 44-58, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:44-58
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21336
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Elliott & Anne O'Neil & Clive Roberts & Felix Schmid & Ian Shannon, 2012. "Overcoming barriers to transferring systems engineering practices into the rail sector," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 203-212, June.
    2. G. Maarten Bonnema, 2011. "Insight, innovation, and the big picture in system design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 223-238, September.
    3. Chris Piaszczyk, 2011. "Model Based Systems Engineering with Department of Defense Architectural Framework," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 305-326, September.
    4. Alan B. Marchant, 2010. "Obstacles to the flow of requirements verification," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, March.
    5. Brian Sauser, 2006. "Toward mission assurance: a framework for systems engineering management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 213-227, September.
    6. Aaron J. Shenhar, 2001. "One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring Classical Contingency Domains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(3), pages 394-414, March.
    7. Eric D. Smith & A. Terry Bahill, 2010. "Attribute substitution in systems engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 130-148, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ping Yung, 2015. "A new institutional economic theory of project management," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 228-243, February.
    2. Sinyagin, Yury (Синягин, Юрий) & Sheburakov, I.B. (Шебураков, И.Б.), 2017. "Mechanisms and Tools for the Formation of Effective Project Teams in the Executive Authorities of the Subjects of the Russian Federation [Механизмы И Инструменты Формирования Эффективных Проектных Команд В Органах Исполнительной Власти Субъектов Р," Working Papers 061704, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    3. Ellinas, Christos & Allan, Neil & Johansson, Anders, 2016. "Project systemic risk: Application examples of a network model," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 50-62.
    4. Brian Sauser, 2006. "Toward mission assurance: a framework for systems engineering management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 213-227, September.
    5. Dustin Nottage & Steven Corns & Ahmet Soylemezoglu & Kurt Kinnevan, 2015. "A SysML Framework for Modeling Contingency Basing," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 162-177, March.
    6. Indranil R. Bardhan & Vish V. Krishnan & Shu Lin, 2007. "Project Performance and the Enabling Role of Information Technology: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Alignment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 579-595, May.
    7. John Wood & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi & Timothy Eveleigh, 2013. "A framework for capturing the hidden stakeholder system," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 251-266, September.
    8. Aga, Deribe Assefa, 2016. "Factors affecting the success of development projects : A behavioral perspective," Other publications TiSEM 867ae95e-d53d-4a68-ad46-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Hasan A. M. Hamdan & Luitzen de Boer & Daniela Baer, 2021. "When Green Procurement Meets Complexity: The Case of Sustainable Neighborhood Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    10. Mahdieh Sabaghpour Azarian & Abdul Rahman Ahmad Dahlan, 2013. "Effectiveness of Knowledge Management in Achieving Success in Malaysian Government Agencies: A Literature Review," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 5(7), pages 324-330.
    11. De Toni, Alberto F. & Pessot, Elena, 2021. "Investigating organisational learning to master project complexity: An embedded case study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 541-554.
    12. Wesley S. Randall & Stephan P. Brady & David R. Nowicki, 2012. "Business Case Analysis and the Confounds of Innovation Driven by Performance‐Based Postproduction Support Strategies," Transportation Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 33-58, January.
    13. Arekhandia Patrick Eigbe & Brian J. Sauser & John Boardman, 2010. "Soft systems analysis of the unification of test and evaluation and program management: A study of a Federal Aviation Administration's strategy," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 298-310, September.
    14. Stevanovic, Anna, 2021. "Environmental Context and Team Structure," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 6(2), pages 393-407.
    15. Gil, Nuno & Tether, Bruce S., 2011. "Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 415-428, April.
    16. Pankaj Tiwari & B Suresha, 2021. "Moderating Role of Project Innovativeness on Project Flexibility, Project Risk, Project Performance, and Business Success in Financial Services," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(3), pages 179-196, September.
    17. Pascal Le Masson & Sylvain Lenfle & Benoit Weil, 2013. "Testing whether major innovation capabilities are systemic design capabilities: analyzing rule-renewal design capabilities in a case-control study of historical new business developments," Post-Print hal-00881700, HAL.
    18. Tee, Richard & Davies, Andrew & Whyte, Jennifer, 2019. "Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 51-61.
    19. A. Terry Bahill, 2012. "Diogenes, a process for identifying unintended consequences," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 287-306, September.
    20. Serghei Floricel & Sorin Piperca & Richard Tee, 2018. "Strategies for Managing the Structural and Dynamic Consequences of Project Complexity," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-17, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:44-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.