System Thinking Tools and Techniques in Program and Portfolio Management Information Systems

This study explores system thinking tools and techniques in program and portfolio management information systems. It discusses the Texas City refinery explosion and BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Explosion to analyze the effectiveness of system engineering and system thinking tools in resolving complex problems.

PPMP20012 - PROGRAM AND
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Main Body.......................................................................................................................................4
Overview of system thinking tools and techniques.....................................................................4
Texas City refinery explosion......................................................................................................6
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Explosion.........................................................................................7
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
References........................................................................................................................................9
2

Introduction
System thinking is an effective approach to analysis and evaluating distinct factors involved in a
decision-making process. Complexities are increasing day by day which has created a significant
change in the business operations. It is effective to deal with the needs of change in a project or
organisation. It improves adaptability and technological innovation aspects in an organisation.
System thinking approach generally used by the project, program and portfolio managers to
resolve a specific problem which will be more discussed in the assignment. System engineering
will also describe in this project which is enabled in the realisation of a successful system. Texas
City Refinery Explosion and BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Explosion will be discussed in this
study to identify the effectiveness of system thinking tools and system engineering. This study
will present the possible solutions for both cases by analysing the problems with the system
engineering and system thinking tools.
3

Main Body
Overview of system thinking tools and techniques
System thinking approach is used to develop interrelationships in the system to analysing and
evaluate it. It is a contrasting approach for traditional analysis due to its vitality in the analysing
process. It is effective to use to analyse a particular system, process or project to identify the
problems and issues (Swanson, et. al. 2012). It is essential to manage fluency in the project
activities and processes in which system thinking tools are effectively provided with its support.
Business and projects become huge complex which has created different problems to retain
fluency in the activities so it is essential to use the system thinking tools which provides a
support to analyse and identify the root cause behind the problem or an issue in the project. It
also supports in the investigation of supporting elements for problematic issues in the project
which is creating disruption in the execution. It helps to use technological innovation in the
activities and process which effects positively on the organisation or a project. Basically, system
thinking tools are used in the project problems investigations to identify the root cause of the
problems and issues (Adam, et a.. 2012). It helps to make effective decisions regarding problems
and issues. Most of the companies and project managers are using these system thinking tools to
analyse the problems and issues faced by them to develop solutions.
System thinking is effective to develop structural thinking in the project which helps to review
and analyse a situation systematically to cover all factors involved in a problematic situation.
Brainstorming tools are generally used in the system thinking in which helps to define and
analyse different variable involved in a situation. Double Q diagram is used in the brainstorming
in which qualitative and quantitative variables are equipped with the situation analyser in a
fishbone diagram (Root-Bernstein and Root-Bernstein, 2013). Qualitative variables are
considered as soft variables and quantitative variables are considered as hard variables which
separately analysed by the project managers to identify the root cause and effect of the change in
these variables. Dynamic thinking tools are also used in the systematic thinking in which
“Behaviour Over Time Diagrams” is used primarily. This diagram analyses the dynamic
relationships among the variables involved in the issues. Different operations which are involved
4

in the project are interrelated on which this tool works. It analyses the dynamic relationship and
co-relations in between the variables. It helps to develop effective changes in the different
activities of the project to resolve any problem and issues and as well as it helps to analyse the
effects on the different interrelated variable of this change. Variations in the variables are
evaluated in a graph which helps to finalise an effective decision regarding a problem and issue.
“Casual loop diagram” is another tool of dynamic thinking which help to represent dynamic
thinking. It helps to develop a systematic structure to understand the system CLD is used with
the behavioural over time diagram which provides rich framework to describe complex dynamic
phenomena. “Systems Archetypes” helps to develop combinations of the variable to ascertain the
most suitable archetype (Kensler, et. al. 2012). Structural thinking is another concept used in the
system thinking in which “Graphical Functions Diagrams” “Policy structure” and “Structure
behaviour pairs diagrams” are used to identify the nonlinear relationship in between the variable.
These tools are effective to quantify the effects of distinct variables which are difficult to
evaluate and measure. Computer-based tools are also used to identify the interrelationships in
between the variable. It is effective to use by the project managers and these contain a superior
quality output. The realistic output is the major strength of the computer-based tools. These are
effective to develop relationships in between the variable and also to co-relate them to identify
the effect of the change in the outcomes.
System engineering is related to the engineering management and it is an interdisciplinary
approach which works to develop and design a complex system to attain objectives by the
effective outcomes (Sheffield, et. al. 2012). It works over the lifecycle of a project or an
organisation. System engineering is mainly working on the engineering process utilisation in the
project to enhance the development activities effectively. System engineering is also used in the
system of thinking principles to identify the root cause of a problem and develop effective
solutions. System engineering management works on the regular development of the process of
working which helps the organisation to develop and implant fluency in the work which is
essential. System engineering management is the core part of the system engineering which is
linked with the foundation, application, enabling and discipline (van den Akker, et. al. 2012). It
is essential to manage engineering process in those organisations and projects which are related
to the engineering kinds of activities and process. System engineering is effective in the
5

engineering-based projects which help to resolve problems, decision making, process
development, execution and process management. It works in the development phase of any
product and also in the life cycle planning of a project. it develops the integration of the team in
the system engineering process to develop effective life cycle for the project.
Texas City refinery explosion
In the year of 2005, the Texas City Refinery explosion occurred at one of the British Petroleum
unit in the Texas City. This accident was happened in the isomerization process when cloud of
hydrocarbon vapours exploded. The basic cause behind this accident is process failure in the
project which has developed a massive explosion in the city. Approximately 15 employees were
killed in this accident and around 170 employees were injured which were working in the plant
at that time. In the history of USA, it was the third largest explosion of petroleum in a oil
refinery. British Petroleum had produced a report on this accident in which they defined the
major reasons behind this failure and accident. It was found that during the process of
isomerization process vapours of hydrocarbon clouds were exploded by an ignition source. It
was significant to avoid these kinds of problems and issues on small level to restrict the risk for
these kinds of situations (Manca and Brambilla, 2012). It was found that ignition source may be
any vehicle nearby the refinery plant which supported in the explosion. Reason behind the
development of the hydrocarbon cloud was overheating and overfilling of the containers in
which the hydrocarbon fuel was stored, it was transformed the liquid fuel in the vapour has
exploded. So a clear assumption has been developed by this case of Texas City Refinery
Explosion that this case is based on the avoidance of engineering risk associated under the plant
process by the engineers and management team working in this plant. It also analysed that
authorities are also not properly involved in the safety precautions that’s why this case has
happened in the history. Different types of risks were associated in the refinery project which
was essential to analysed by the project managers and engineers working in the British
Petroleum refinery. Safety measures and precautions were totally avoided by the management
and engineers in this case. Risk management team has analysed that negligence of safety
measures and equipment’s has lead in that situation which has worked as a measure cause behind
that whole scenario. It is found in the research on this case that defective glass, alarm system and
control pressure valve were equipped in the plant which has leaded on this situation (Manca and
6

Brambilla, 2012). System engineering management is effective to use in these kinds of situation
which can help to the engineers and managers of the project to identify the loopholes involved in
the project. Execution of the project is an essential phase of the project lifecycle which is
measured in the system engineering process. System thinking tools are also effective to
investigate the reason behind the problem to produce and develop better solutions. Lack of
involvement of engineers, authority and management regarding to safety precautions is the
qualitative variable involved in this project. Use of defective materials such as; glass, pressure
valve etc. are the quantitative variable which has lead on the situation and created possibilities of
explosion. System engineering and thinking tools are effective to use in these kinds engineering
based plants and projects which helps to avoid and restrict risk (Remington and Pollack, 2016).
System engineering concept involved life cycle which helps to run activities and project for
specific time which helps to analyse the risk factors associated in the project which can be cause
for accidents.
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Explosion
Deepwater Horizon Oil Explosion is one of the biggest oil explosions in the petroleum industry
of the world which has made a significant effect on the industry. It happened in the Gulf of
Mexico on which huge controversies were created in this case by the wildlife experts and
engineers many more other associations (Barron, 2012). It was found by the research of British
Petroleum on that accident that use of defective cement in the rig wall was the major loophole in
this project which has to lead to this accident. It was found by the British Petroleum that cost-
cutting measures were used in this project which has led to the safety measures which has made
drastic result on the project. It was also had the same basic cause negligence of engineering risk
that was associated with the project. It has been analysed that effective decision making needed
in the project which helps to analyse the effects of the decision on different variables. As, in this
project defective cement has been used in the well for cost-cutting purposes but effects of this
decision have not been evaluated by the engineers, managers and authorities involved in this
project (Barron, 2012). It clearly indicates that systematic thinking and engineering has not been
used by the engineers and managers which has made this disaster as a result. Each and every
decision which has made by the engineers and managers in the project has an effect on distinct
variable involved in the project so it is essential to use the system thinking tools and techniques
7

appropriate to opt best suitable decision according to the situation. Different tools are variable
under the system thinking which can be applied by the engineers and managers to make effective
decisions in a particular situation (Aboumatar, et. al. 2012). The qualitative and quantitative
variable is covered in the system thinking which helps to the managers and engineers to consider
all variable and make an effective decision regarding a particular situation.
8

Conclusion
On the basis of above study, a conclusion has been developed that system thinking process and
approach is effective to analyse the situations properly on the basis of which an effective
decision can be taken. In both cases, it has been analysed that system thinking has not been used
by the authorities of the project. Different tools are available in the system thinking to develop
diagrams to identify the co-relation under the variables. It has been analysed by the study that it
is significant to consider the safety measures in the engineering projects due to the threat on
employees.
9

References
 Aboumatar, H.J., Thompson, D., Wu, A., Dawson, P., Colbert, J., Marsteller, J., Kent, P.,
Lubomski, L.H., Paine, L. and Pronovost, P., (2012). Development and evaluation of a 3-day
patient safety curriculum to advance knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking among
medical students. BMJ Qual Saf, pp.bmjqs-2011.
 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.
 Barron, M.G., (2012). Ecological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill:
implications for immunotoxicity. Toxicologic pathology, 40(2), pp.315-320.
 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.
 Manca, D. and Brambilla, S., (2012). Dynamic simulation of the BP Texas City refinery
accident. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 25(6), pp.950-957.
 Remington, K. and Pollack, J., (2016). Tools for complex projects. Routledge.
 Root-Bernstein, R.S. and Root-Bernstein, M.M., (2013). Sparks of genius: The thirteen
thinking tools of the world's most creative people. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
 Sheffield, J., Sankaran, S. and Haslett, T., (2012). Systems thinking: taming complexity
in project management. On the Horizon, 20(2), pp.126-136.
 Swanson, R.C., Cattaneo, A., Bradley, E., Chunharas, S., Atun, R., Abbas, K.M.,
Katsaliaki, K., Mustafee, N., Mason Meier, B. and Best, A., (2012). Rethinking health
systems strengthening: key systems thinking tools and strategies for transformational
change. Health policy and planning, 27(suppl_4), pp.iv54-iv61.
 van den Akker, J., Branch, R.M., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N. and Plomp, T. eds.,
(2012). Design approaches and tools in education and training. Springer Science & Business
Media.
10