Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

System dynamics modeling in the legal arena: meeting the challenges of expert witness admissibility

2005; Wiley; Volume: 21; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/sdr.312

1099-1727

Craig A. Stephens, Alan K. Graham, James M. Lyneis,

Regulation and Compliance Studies

System Dynamics ReviewVolume 21, Issue 2 p. 95-122 Research Article System dynamics modeling in the legal arena: meeting the challenges of expert witness admissibility Craig A. Stephens, Craig A. Stephens [email protected] PA Consulting Group, Inc., One Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02172, U.S.A. The authors wish to acknowledge the long-term contribution of their PA colleagues who have devoted so much thought and effort to work in the legal arena, especially Ken Cooper and Tom Mullen. We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous amount we have learned about the legal arena and the role of the expert witness from our various attorney friends, especially Jeffrey Dorman of Freeborn & Peters.Search for more papers by this authorAlan K. Graham, Alan K. Graham [email protected] PA Consulting Group, Inc., One Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02172, U.S.A. The authors wish to acknowledge the long-term contribution of their PA colleagues who have devoted so much thought and effort to work in the legal arena, especially Ken Cooper and Tom Mullen. We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous amount we have learned about the legal arena and the role of the expert witness from our various attorney friends, especially Jeffrey Dorman of Freeborn & Peters.Search for more papers by this authorJames M. Lyneis, James M. Lyneis [email protected] Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A. The authors wish to acknowledge the long-term contribution of their PA colleagues who have devoted so much thought and effort to work in the legal arena, especially Ken Cooper and Tom Mullen. We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous amount we have learned about the legal arena and the role of the expert witness from our various attorney friends, especially Jeffrey Dorman of Freeborn & Peters.Search for more papers by this author Craig A. Stephens, Craig A. Stephens [email protected] PA Consulting Group, Inc., One Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02172, U.S.A. The authors wish to acknowledge the long-term contribution of their PA colleagues who have devoted so much thought and effort to work in the legal arena, especially Ken Cooper and Tom Mullen. We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous amount we have learned about the legal arena and the role of the expert witness from our various attorney friends, especially Jeffrey Dorman of Freeborn & Peters.Search for more papers by this authorAlan K. Graham, Alan K. Graham [email protected] PA Consulting Group, Inc., One Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02172, U.S.A. The authors wish to acknowledge the long-term contribution of their PA colleagues who have devoted so much thought and effort to work in the legal arena, especially Ken Cooper and Tom Mullen. We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous amount we have learned about the legal arena and the role of the expert witness from our various attorney friends, especially Jeffrey Dorman of Freeborn & Peters.Search for more papers by this authorJames M. Lyneis, James M. Lyneis [email protected] Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A. The authors wish to acknowledge the long-term contribution of their PA colleagues who have devoted so much thought and effort to work in the legal arena, especially Ken Cooper and Tom Mullen. We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous amount we have learned about the legal arena and the role of the expert witness from our various attorney friends, especially Jeffrey Dorman of Freeborn & Peters.Search for more papers by this author First published: 27 July 2005 https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.312Citations: 16 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract System dynamics models have been used in legal disputes since the late 1970s to prove and quantify damages. But such use of these models to support expert witness testimony presents challenges generally not encountered in non-dispute applications of system dynamics. Perhaps the most important such challenge is establishing admissibility of expert testimony supported by system dynamics models under the prevailing standards laid down by the US Supreme Court (Daubert standards) that lean heavily on the scientific method. Best-practice system dynamics work adheres to the scientific method and should prove admissible. Work that does not adhere to the scientific method or uses less stringent standards is vulnerable to being ruled inadmissible in such challenges. In particular, use of system dynamics work as a basis for opposing expert testimony must improve significantly, to meet the current admissibility standards. The stakes are high because current and future cases are likely to set precedents that will significantly affect future use of system dynamics in the legal arena, and because legal admissibility will doubtless impact the broader perception of the legitimacy of system dynamics analysis. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. References Abdel-Hamid T, Madnick SE. 1991. Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T. 1997. Modelling for litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27( 2): 48– 65. Alfeld LE, Colleen SP, Wilkins JR. 1998. The virtual shipyard: a simulation model of the shipbuilding process. Journal of Ship Production 14( 1): 16– 23. Ariza CA, Graham AK. 2002. Quick and rigorous, strategic and participative: 10 ways to improve on the expected tradeoffs. Proceedings of the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference: Palermo, Italy. Available on CD from the System Dynamics Society at http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/. Berger MA. 2000. The Supreme Court's trilogy on the admissibility of expert testimony. In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd edn Federal Judicial Center, 9– 38. Black B, Ayala FJ, Saffran-Brinks C. 1994. Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: a new search for scientific knowledge. Texas Law Review 72: 715– 751. Cooper KG. 1980. Naval ship production: a claim settled and a framework built. Interfaces 10( 6): 20– 36. Cooper KG. 1993. The rework cycle: benchmarks for the program manager. Project Management Journal 24( 1): 17– 21. Cooper KG, Mullen TW. 1993. Swords and plowshares: the rework cycle of defense and commercial software development projects. American Programmer 6( 5): 41– 51. Coyle RG. 1977. Management System Dynamics. Wiley: New York. Cooper KG. 1996. System Dynamics Modeling: A Practical Approach. Chapman and Hall: London. Cyert RM, March JG. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Eden CE, Williams TM, Ackermann FA, Howick S. 2000. On the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51( 3): 291– 300. Ford DN. 1995. The Dynamics of Project Management: An Investigation of Projects' Process and Coordination on Performance. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Cambridge, MA. Ford DN, Sterman JD. 1998. Dynamic modeling of product development processes. System Dynamics Review 14( 1): 31– 68. Forrester JW. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press: Cambridge: MA. (Now available from Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA.). Forrester JW, Senge PM. 1980. Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 14: 209– 228. Garnett S. 2003. Document no. 0346, Rebuttal testimony and exhibits of Stan Garnett, in Michigan Public Services Commission, Docket U13808, In the matter of the application of The Detroit Edison Company to increase rates, amend its rate schedules governing the distribution and supply of electric energy, implement power supply cost recovery plans, factors and reconciliations in its rate schedules for jurisdictional sales of electricity and for miscellaneous accounting and regulatory asset recovery. Available at http://efile.mpsc.cis.state.mi.us/efile/electric.html [25 May 2005]. Graham AK. 2000. Beyond PM 101: lessons for managing large development programs. Project Management Journal 31( 4): 7– 18. Graham AK. 2002. On positioning system dynamics as an applied science of strategy. Proceedings of the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference: Palermo, Italy. Available on CD from the System Dynamics Society at http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/. Graham AK, Alfeld LE. 1976. Urban Dynamics. Wright-Allen Press: Cambridge, MA. (Now available from Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA.) Graham AK, Choi CY, Mullen TW. 2002a. Using fit-constrained Monte Carlo trials to quantify confidence in simulation model outcomes. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii Conference on Systems Sciences. IEEE: Los Alamitos Calif. Graham AK, Godfrey J. 2005. Achieving win–win in a regulatory dispute: Managing 3G competition. Proceedings of the 2005 International System Dynamics Conference: Boston, Mass. Available on CD from the System Dynamics Society at http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/. Graham AK, Moore J, Choi CY. 2002b. How robust are conclusions from a complex calibrated model, really? A project management model benchmark using fit-constrained Monte Carlo analysis. Proceedings of the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference: Palermo, Italy. Available on CD from the System Dynamics Society at http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/. Howick S, Eden C. 2001. The impact of disruption and delay when compressing large projects: Going for incentives? Journal of the Operational Research Society 52( 1): 26– 34. Lyneis JM. 1999. System dynamics for business strategy: A phased approach. System Dynamics Review 15( 1): 37– 70. Lyneis JM, Reichelt KS. 1996. Calibration standards. Internal document. PA Consulting Group: Cambridge, MA. Mahle S. 1999. The impact of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on expert testimony, with applications to securities litigation. Florida Bar Journal, 36, March 1999. Mahle S. 2001. Daubert and the law and science of expert testimony in business litigation. Available at http://www.daubertexpert.com [21 December 2001]. Morecroft, JDW. 1985. Rationality in the analysis of behavior simulation models. Management Science 31( 7): 900– 916. OFTA. 2004. PCCW Telephone Limited In Submissions on the Second Consultation Paper on the Review of the Regulatory Policy for Type II Interconnection. Office of the Telecommunications Authority: Hong Kong. Available at http://www.ofta.gov.hk [25 May 2005]. OFTA. 2005. Hutchison Telephone Company Limited & Hutchison 3G (HK) Limited in Submissions on Consultation Paper for " Licensing of Mobile Services on Expiry of Existing Licenses for Second Generation Mobile Services" —Analysis of Comments Received, Preliminary Conclusions and Further Consultation. Office of the Telecommunications Authority: Hong Kong. Available at http://www.ofta.gov.hk [25 May 2005]. Reichelt KS, Lyneis JM, Bespolka CG. 1996. Calibration statistics for life-cycle models. Proceedings of the 1996 System Dynamics Conference. Cambridge, Mass. Available on CD from the System Dynamics Society at http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/. Richardson G, Pugh AL. 1981. Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. (Now available from Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA.) Repenning NP. 2000. A dynamic model of resource allocation in multi-project research and development systems. System Dynamics Review 16( 3): 173– 212. Rodrigues A and Bowers J. 1995. System dynamics in project management: a comparative analysis with traditional methods. System Dynamics Review 12( 2): 121– 139. Rodrigues A and Williams TM. 1997. System dynamics in software project management: Towards the development of a formal integrated framework. European Journal of Information Systems 6( 1): 51– 66. Rodrigues A and Williams TM. 1998. System dynamics in project management: assessing the impacts of client behaviour on project performance. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49( 1): 2– 15. Simon HA. 1979. Rational decision-making in business organizations. American Economic Review 69( 4): 493– 413. Sterman JD. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking for a Complex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill: New York. Williams TM, Eden CL, Akermann FR, and Tait A. 1995. The effects of design changes and delays on project costs. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46( 7): 809– 818. Citing Literature Volume21, Issue2Summer 2005Pages 95-122 ReferencesRelatedInformation