System Thinking Tools and Techniques in Project Management

Explore the application of system thinking tools and techniques in project management through case studies of Texas City Refinery Explosion and BP Deepwater Horizon. Learn how tools like Decision Matrix and Heinrich’s Domino Model of Accidents can analyze and provide solutions for project faults and accidents.

PPMP20012 - PROGRAM AND
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
System Thinking Tools and Techniques..........................................................................................3
Texas City Refinery Explosion....................................................................................................5
BP Deep Water Horizon Oil Explosion.......................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................10
2

Introduction
System engineering is referred to an interdisciplinary approach from the discipline of
engineering and management. It is considered as a significant approach in the aspects of project
management. It provides with opportunities to simplify and increase the efficiency of project
management and execution of the projects. It is required in order to execute a project
successfully. System thinking incorporates the elements such as environmental influences,
objects, attributes, relationship and boundaries. The essay will discuss the two eminent case
studies in the history of the petroleum industry. The cases studies of Texas City Refinery
Explosion and BP Deepwater Horizon will be discussed. The paper will apply the techniques and
tools of Deep Matrix and Heinrich’s Domino Model of Accidents to analyse the possible
reformative solutions for the explosions.
System Thinking Tools and Techniques
System thinking originated from the concepts of General System. It has emerged from the
concepts of engineering and later evolved as a combination of management and engineering. It
was developed by James Smuts and later developed as a General System Theory. The concepts
of system thinking can be understood as various policies and principles from the management
aspect in order to increase the intercommunication and interconnection between the various
systems of a system. System thinking enables to identify the various functions and processes of
the project or another system as different systems and further establishes greater efficiency and
management of the projects. System thinking is identified as a management principle which
creates opportunities for better management and organising the project entailing complex
procedures and assets rich functions (Adam and de Savigny, 2012). It aids a manager to deal
with the issues and difficulties in the portfolio management, analysing the quality of projects or
portfolios and organization management. The various tools and techniques involved in the
connotation of system thinking are BABOK, PMBOK, Lean, Six Sigma and TQM. These
techniques or tools can be used in order to examine the default areas in the projects and the cases
studies (Sebok, 2016). These tools provides with basis to identify the problems and issues in the
projects and portfolio. These approaches are developed in order to form reformative actions for
the project faults and accidents.
3

In the previous research and studies, it has been identified that General System Theory or the
System Management Theory is the most efficient approaches or theories providing with
opportunities to resolve the issues and problems in the projects. These theories are identified as
an integral part of the system approach. The approach of system thinking lies in the roots of
segregating the diversified function and processes to simplify and introduce effective
management in the processes of the project. The technique of Lean Project Management, for
example, defines for reducing the waste and issues in the project execution and implementation
of various project functions (Remington and Pollack, 2016). Lean project management also
focuses towards reducing the waste creating activities in the projects to increase the productivity
and efficiency of the project activities. The unevenness in work load is aimed to be reduced in
the projects to reduce the number of demerits and accidents in the projects and various other
systems of the projects.
System thinking provides with greater returns and opportunities for the project manager to
analyse and execute the project activities and systems. System thinking also derives the benefits
of optimization as it creates a deeper understanding of the functional and operational dynamics
of the organizational environment. Optimization is fostered in the outcomes of the project
functions and processes as greater efficiency and effectiveness. System thinking also creates the
atmosphere of problem solving in the projects and the management of the systems. It provides
with a benefit of discovering various possible reformative measures and analysing the most
effective of them all. It is the elements of system thinking that enable the project managers and
the project teams to overview the 3-Dimensional perspective of the systems (Sheffield, et. al.,
2012). The internal and external elements of the systems are studied in detail and executed with
increased efficiency in order to achieve the desired goals and objectives. The approach of system
thinking is applied in complex projects for reducing the wastage and issues. It enables to move
from linear to circular; system thinking combines the systems together to increase the interaction
and integration of the systems. It also provides for a greater understanding of the functions and
the drawbacks and lag holes of the systems. It follows the approach of circulating the products
and services in the models and rules out the wastage and inefficiencies.
The techniques of system thinking such as system identification, diversification, and reduction
are applied within the projects to analyse the requirements of systems in a project. The technique
4

of system identification enables the project manager to study and monitor the needs for systems
in the projects. It analyses the structure of the project and creates various systems according to
the specification required. Further the technique or methodology of system reduction is a
technique applied in order to reduce the unnecessary system in the orbits of the projects. It
creates discipline and efficiency in the projects. System reduction reduces the over expansion
and diversification of the ancillary functions and processes in the systems. System thinking is
also deployed in two approaches such as closed approach and open approach. In the open
approach open communication and flow of information is executed in order to increase the
integration between the internal and external environment and the influencing factors (Kensler,
et. al., 2012). The open approach provides with increased level of interaction with the various
systems of the projects and enables to monitor the project over its life cycle. The closed approach
does not initiate the interaction and integration between the external factors and the project
systems. The closed approach limits the scope and regulates each activity within a specified
structure. Summarising the above discussions provides with basic five elements such as objects,
attributes, relationships and environmental influences.
Texas City Refinery Explosion
The Texas City Refinery Explosion happened on 23rd March 2005. It occurred due to the ISOM
isomerization at one of the British Petroleum’s units in the Texas City. The vapours of
hydrocarbon cloud exploded and created radiations in a large area of the location. The explosion
was rated as massive and resulted in the death of 15 workers and injured around more than 170
workers at the refinery plant. It was denoted as the third largest explosion in the United States of
America and second largest for the Texas City. As per the reports and findings of British
Petroleum the major source for igniting the explosion in the Texas City was the collision
between the heavy masses of hydrocarbon clouds and the ignition source which was running the
entire system and the engine of refinery (Remington and Pollack, 2016). The contents of tower
were believed to be overheated and overfilling resulted in a heavy mass of hydrocarbon cloud. It
can be determined by the above stated study material that the negligence of the engineering
employees resulted in the explosion which risked the lives of several workers. The corporate and
the engineering department of the British Petroleum did not concerned for the risks of
overheating and overfilling the tower above it capacity. The explosion of Texas City was a sheer
5

result of system faults and default majorly by the management and the engineering sources
working in the project. It was also determined that the risk management of the British Petroleum
also did not consider the safety measures for deploying equipment deployed first time in the
British Petroleum section of the Texas City. The faults identified at the British Petroleum can be
resolved by the implementation of Heinrich’s Domino Model of Accidents a tool of system
thinking.
(Source: Remington and Pollack, 2016)
The model was developed by Heinrich in the year 1931 for ensuring the operational safety of
employees. The model focuses for transporting the emphasis from occupational safety and
unsafe conditions to the relations between the disasters and human errors. The model followed
the approach of domino’s that if one domino falls accidentally eventually it will result in
knocking down the entire system or process (Sebok, 2016). In relation to Texas City Refinery
Explosion it was identified that the complexities of fault, unsafe conditions, accident, and injury.
BP Deep Water Horizon Oil Explosion
The Deep Water Horizon Oil Explosion is termed as one of the major oil refinery explosions in
the history of the globe. It occurred near the Mississippi River delta in the Gulf of Mexico. The
explosion was so big that it created immediate reactions and reformative actions from the global
authorities in order to preserve the wetlands located in the surrounding areas form the oil
spillage. After aggressive and massive research conducted by the United States, it was identified
that British Petroleum deployed defective cement to concrete the walls of oil container in the
ocean belts. In order to execute cost cutting the safety measures were ignored and resulted in the
disaster the world witnessed. The oil explosion took place due to the negligence of the
6

engineering skills practised at the British Petroleum. Lack of proper analysis and reduced in-
depth study of the equipment and engineering processes resulted in the disaster and ancillary
effects in theatre bodies. The tool of Decision Matrix can be applied in the case study to develop
the solution. The model provides with two thinking approaches such as the Divergent Thinking
and Convergent Thinking. The divergent thinking accomplishes for identifying the issues and
problems in the systems and the projects (Haupt, 2016). The convergent process the issues and
develops final solutions. The process includes solution generation of all the possible solutions are
identified. In the solution integration process, the convergent stage appears in which evaluation
of processes is undertaken and the most effective of all is selected.
(Source: Remington and Pollack, 2016)
As per the case study more investment in the infrastructure, use of original raw material with
better quality, an adaption of safety measures, risk reduction techniques, greater analysis of the
possible negative outcomes and change management processes can be identified as the possible
solutions. The decision matrix provides with best possible solutions and results in maximising
the effectiveness of this developed solution through aggressive evaluation and analysis (Sebok,
2016). In accordance with the problems identified solutions are developed in the matrix to
introduce an effective and increased level of integration. It provides with a counterpart to each
and every problem identified and develops strategic solutions to proceed with the risk
management activities.
7

8

Conclusion
From the above discussions and findings, it can be concluded that system thinking provides with
various solutions, tools and techniques for the projects and systems to determine the defects or
problems. The approach of system thinking is concerned with the application of systematic
approach in order to exemplify the results and outcomes from the projects and its procedures. It
plays an eminent role in identifying the problems and analysing the risks or issues in the projects.
System thinking also develops opportunities for building for the effective analytical relationship
between the concepts of management and engineering (Remington and Pollack, 2016). The paper
has focused on the case study of Texas City Refinery Explosion and BP Deep Water Horizon Oil
Explosion. The paper has also discussed the tools of system thinking such as the Decision Matrix
and Heinrich’s Domino Model of Accidents to develop an understanding of the problems in the
projects and case studies.
9

References
 Adam, T. and de Savigny, D., (2012). Systems thinking for strengthening health systems
in LMICs: need for a paradigm shift. Health policy and planning, 27(suppl_4), pp.iv1-iv3.
 Caws, P. (2015). General Systems Theory: Its Past and Potential.Syst. Res., 32(5), pp.514-
521.
 Haupt, G. (2016). Hierarchical thinking: a cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision
making in design problem solving.International Journal of Technology and Design
Education.
 Kensler, L.A., Reames, E., Murray, J. and Patrick, L., (2012). Systems thinking tools for
improving evidence-based practice: A cross-case analysis of two high school leadership
teams. The High School Journal, 95(2), pp.32-53.
 Remington, K. and Pollack, J., (2016). Tools for complex projects. Routledge.
 Sebok, (2016).SEBoK. [online] Sebokwiki.org. Available at:
http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_Systems_Engineering_Body_of_Knowledge_(SE
BoK) [Accessed 2 June 2018].
 Sheffield, J., Sankaran, S. and Haslett, T., (2012). Systems thinking: taming complexity in
project management. On the Horizon, 20(2), pp.126-136.
10