Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

1

Development of Systems and Process Models -- Private Landfills Application

J. Darrell Tipton II, P.E.1 Cecelia Wigal, Ph.D., P.E.2

Abstract This paper presents methods and tools to develop systems and process models for the project

development path applied to private solid waste disposal projects. Model development is

performed to establish the level of accuracy needed to reveal business opportunities and to

establish a model suitable for strategic analysis and business development. The models are central

to a comprehensive understanding of how projects in the “heavy-civil” category develop and how

that understanding can be used to further the goals of an engineering consulting company.

The paper discussion emphasizes systems definition and analysis, project development

processes, and solid waste disposal projects. The development path for solid waste disposal

projects is compared to the development path for software and manufacturing projects. Systems

and process modeling software are used to create models from the collected data. Limitations with

regards to data accuracy and software complexity are discussed.

Introduction The goal of the subject research is to determine whether the project development process can be

modeled similar to the way business processes are modeled. Of specific interest is whether a

1 The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, College of Engineering and Computer Science, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403, dtipton@arcadis-us.com, Phone: (423) 756-7193, Fax (423) 756-7197. 2 The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, College of Engineering and Computer Science, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403, Cecelia-wigal@utc.edu, Phone: (423) 425-4015, Fax: (423) 425-5229.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

2

systems approach can serve as a basis for establishing project definition and whether existing

business process modeling software can serve as a basis for the model.

The growth in the current state of knowledge concerning the use of systems engineering in

business development is the result of competitive pressures. Specifically, businesses are looking

for ways to define aggregate demand for its products, its market share, threats of substitution for its

products, and, most urgent, trends in each of these areas. Evidence of this is the response of

universities offering training in financial engineering, as a process of research and development of

new profitable financial products and services that meet customer needs (Miskin & Eakins, 2003).

The most revealing trend, however, is the recognition that increasing numbers of businesses are

moving to a systems-based approach to produce greater profits and higher levels of customer

satisfaction. This approach looks beyond company boundaries at the whole process of meeting

client requirements for profit. It forces the business to ask itself “What is it we are trying to do?”

The target population for this analysis is civil engineering projects from the category of

“heavy civil”, public works, or infrastructure. These types of projects generally involve one or

more activities including earthmoving, concrete placement, and structural steel erection.

Software development, assembly line installation, and chemical process projects were not

considered as part of the population for this capstone work. Landfill projects were selected for

detailed analysis and modeling based on the Mr. Tipton’s experience in landfill design,

operation, and closure.

The desired outcome of the exercise is a sufficiently detailed model of the process

associated with developing civil engineering-related projects that reveals business opportunities

beyond the traditional civil engineering consulting services. This model can then be used as a

tool for strategic analysis and business development within the solid waste discipline.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

3

Systems Definitions and Analysis Definitions of a system and of systems analysis extend back to ancient Greek philosophy

concerning positivism and vitalism. A distinction between an open and closed system was

introduced in 1950. Toebes (1979) indicates that the term “system” is context-dependent and is

used to designate entities from concrete to abstract. Toebes defines a system as “a set of sub-

systems and a structure of relationships selected for their bearing on the question asked or goals

pursued and related to selected systems in its environment.” Kenyon Degreene defines a system

as “a set of elements or sub-systems in active interaction as a bounded entity to achieve a

common purpose that transcends that of the elements in isolation” (Wigal, 2003).

The systems approach presented by Meredith (Meredith, et al 1985) emphasizes the

definition of the “problem environment” before defining the problem itself. The problem

environment is defined in broad terms to allow identification of a wide variety of needs having

relevance to the problem. Sharp and McDermott define a process as “a collection of interrelated

work tasks, initiated in response to an event, achieving a specific result for the customer and other

stakeholders of the process” (Sharp, 2001).

Systems engineering recognizes that a system or process has life cycles. The number of

phases in a systems life cycle can vary from three to many (even 22) depending on the application.

(Sage, 2000) Table 1 presents items adapted from a seven-phase life cycle (Sage, 2000). This life

cycle is a breakdown of the three main phases of definition (Phases 1 - 2), development (Phases 3 -

4), and deployment (Phases 5 - 7).

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

4

Table 1: 7-Phase System Life Cycle

Phase Description

1. Program Planning Formulating the activities and projects supportive of overall system.

2. Project Planning Increasing interest in the individual specific projects of an overall system

3. System Design Preparing detailed architectures, detailed specifications, drawings, and bills of materials

4. Production Bringing the system to physical reality. 5. Distribution Deploying the product (system) to the consumer (user).

6. Operations Operating and maintaining the system 7. Retirement Phasing out or replacing the system.

Project Development Project development can be viewed in the context of a life cycle similar to a product life cycle.

Typical phases include:

• Research and Development

• Market Introduction

• Growth

• Maturity

• Deterioration

• Elimination or Repositioning

Harold Kerzner’s interpretation of the phases of a project life cycle are shown in Table 2. His

descriptions reflect undertaking the project with emphasis on project management; however his

phase definitions are useful in studying project development.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

5

Table 2: Project Life Cycle (Kerzner, 2003)

Phase Description

Conceptual Preliminary evaluation of an idea including analysis of risk to the company and feasibility of the project. Determine if project is to be competitively bid.

Planning Refinement of elements, identification of required resources to execute the project, and the establishment of time, cost and performance parameters. Performance of cost benefit analysis and feasibility study. Preparation of documents necessary to support the system including the total bid package.

Testing Completion of all documentation, testing, and standardization efforts.

Implementation Integration of project’s end product or service into receiving entity. Includes product life cycle phases.

Closure Reallocation of resources to new projects and divestment of assets. Performance of “lessons learned” analysis for input into next project.

The World Bank Institute and the United Nations have published articles and training

material incorporating a model of the project life cycle for international development projects. The

life cycle was developed by Warren Baum (Baum, 1982). This interpretation is presented in

Figure 1.

Figure 1: Baum's Project Cycle

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

6

The most comprehensive project process applicable to this paper was found during

research of a consortium of specialty firms focused on power generation in remote locations. In

an interview with the President and CEO of this consortium, the following project process was

defined (Ector, 2003).

1. Find and express need.

2. Define stakeholders and assess key relationships.

3. Determine initial project parameters (e.g. quantifying need or demand, willingness and

ability to pay, etc.)

4. Assess project financial value

5. Seek permits.

6. Design project.

7. Construct project.

8. Create project management structure.

9. Perform operations training.

10. Track operations and revenue.

11. Update operation and maintenance status.

Project development is well documented for large infrastructure and power projects as well as

foreign aid projects. Studies of project development in landfills are relatively under documented.

Solid Waste Projects The solid waste literature contains information on regulatory-based and operations issues—for

example, how regional plans satisfy regulatory requirements—but does not address how private

companies operate under market forces. Missing from the literature is how private waste

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

7

companies use financial information for valuation analysis (non-profit and municipal entities use

published cost data when publicly financing their waste disposal projects). However, anecdotal

evidence indicates some convergence between regulatory/municipal operations and commercial

ventures is taking place. Lethlean and Chapman, (2002) use the business process language and

inclusive consultation techniques to formulate a waste reduction plan. Cirko (2000) discusses a

new computer model that considers both the environmental and economic impacts of waste

management. Susan Thorneloe discusses techniques for assessing life cycle costs when accounting

for the complete set of environmental effects and costs associated with the entire life cycle of

municipal solid waste. Unfortunately, it does not address financial and political factors in

calculating costs.

Experts consulted about public and private landfill development provided estimates of

market prices for waste disposal, relative importance of factors contributing to landfill

development, and differences in political factors between public and private landfill development.

Based on this information, the following items are considered relevant to the project development

process from a systems view:

• Political constraints

• Financial requirements

• Environmental issues

• Project management constraints

• Quality management practices

• Value engineering methods

• Societal interests representing a wide range of inputs and outputs

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

8

Process Definition – Applying Systems Analysis The methodology used to model the project process is based on a standard established by the

Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing (ICAM) program of the United States Air Force.

Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0) as the process is now called was designed

to provide better analysis and communication tools for improving manufacturing productivity.

The IDEF family of models is based on the concepts of Structured Analysis and Design

Technique (SADT) developed by Douglas T. Ross at SoftTech, Inc. IDEF0 (Integration

DEFinition language 0) focuses on the functional or process model of a system. IDEF1 and

IDEF2 produce models focused on information structure/semantics and dynamic characteristics,

respectively. IDEF3 focuses on a process and object state-transition definition of the system.

IDEF0 is used in this study to thoroughly define the project development process.

IDEF0 is used to produce a structured representation of functions, activities, or processes

within a system of interest. The resulting model contains cross-referenced hierarchical diagrams,

text, and glossary. The IDEF0 technique is effective because the hierarchical diagrams introduce

levels of increasing detail in gradual fashion.

The hierarchical diagrams consist of an external system diagram (A-1), a context diagram

(A-0), a top-level function diagram (A0), and often between three and six sub-function

decomposition diagrams (A1-A#). The A-1 diagram illustrates the limits or bounds of the system

and conveys the changes that can be made and the changes that result. The A-0 diagram contains

the top-level function (the parent) and the inputs, controls, outputs, and mechanisms (ICOMs)

that enter from, and exit to, systems external to the modeled system. The A0 diagram illustrates

the high-level relationship between the major system sub-functions (the children) as well as the

associated ICOMs defined in the A-0 diagram. The A1 – A# diagrams decompose the sub-

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

9

functions that compose the A0 diagram and illustrate the functional relationships within these

decompositions.

The main components of the diagrams are the functions (or activities or processes)

represented as boxes. The functions are actions, that which is to be accomplished or

transformed, and are described as verbs or verb-noun phrases. ICOMs, (inputs, controls, outputs,

and mechanisms) are represented as labeled arrows. Input arrows represent data or objects being

transformed by the function and terminate on the left side of the function box. Output arrows

represent data or objects produced by the function and initiate at the right side of the function

box. Control arrows represent conditions or guidance required to produce the desired output.

They terminate at the top of the function box. Mechanism arrows represents the supporting

means (physical resources) used to perform the function and terminate at the bottom of the

function box. Figure 2 illustrates these orientations.

Figure 2: IDEF (Function and ICOMs)

Function (Verb-Noun)

Control

Output Input

Mechanism

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

10

Systems Modeling Software Two software packages designed to illustrate systems diagrams using standardized methods were

studied for this application. The first package considered was CORE by Vitech Corporation.

The educational version was limited to fewer activities than are in the process being developed.

AI0Win, by KBSI Inc., had no limitation and was fully compliant with IDEF0 standards.

AI0Win is a key factor in successfully diagramming the project development process due

to user friendly features. These include easy input of system components, automatic tracking of

component connections, and clearly-labeled output. The software also facilitates modeling of the

process by outputting prepared data already in the verb-noun format required by the process

model.

The definition, development, and deployment phases of the project development process

were defined using the AI0Win software. The A0 diagram shows the ICOM relationships

between the three phases. The resultant A1 – A3 diagrams (A1 for definition, A2 for

development, and A3 for deployment) break the break the individual phases into subfunctions

and their ICOM relationships. The result is a rather large diagrammed definition of the process.

Since the model is very large, the conversion of the system model to the process models was

considered in three modules – definition, development, and deployment. This paper addresses

the conversion of the definition module or subsystem. The A1 diagram that defines the main

subfunctions of the definition subsystem constructed using A10Win software is shown in Figure

3.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

11

O3

O1

I3

O2

I1

I2

C2

M3M2 M1

C1 C3 C4

M4

C5

Present Project Concept

A16

Define Project Value

A15

Prepare Conceptual Design

A14

Define Feasibility

A13

Define Stakeholders

A12

Quantify Need

A11

Revisions

Design Go-Ahead

No Go

Conceptual DesignMarket Information

Pro-Forma

Opinion of Construction Cost

Design Parameters

Investment / Funding

Project Parameters

Defined Stakeholders

Needs Defined Needs

Regulations

Machines/EquipmentEngineering Analysis

Financial Analysis

Social ConcernsPolitical Climate

Professional Staff / Experts

Meetings, Faxes, and Letters

Expert Opinion

Figure 3: Typical Systems Subfunction Diagram (A0)

Process Modeling Software Software to model business processes is now coming into widespread use because increasing

competition and customer demands are pushing businesses to think differently and find new

ways to deliver a complete solution, not just a product. Business process modeling goes beyond

the goal of automating processes for cost or quality goals. Business process modeling combines

the discovery, design, and deployment of the business process with the executive, administration,

and supervisory control of the business process to ensure compliance with business objectives

and client requirements.

Software packages that specialize in business process modeling were evaluated for

applicability, availability, and affordability. Proforma Corporation’s ProVision suite is suitable

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

12

for optimizing organizational operations by representing the composition and reflecting issues of

timeliness, cost, and, quality. Its model components can be adjusted and analyzed to measure the

effects of the change. ProVision goes beyond traditional business models representing

hierarchical relationships by analyzing business processes that move across organizational

boundaries. It models business processes that are initiated by an event, consume resources,

perform activities, and produce goods and services. The model allows the user to analyze event

timeliness, resource consumption, process quality, and product quality. The cost of this model at

the time of the study, however, exceeded the project budget and thus prohibited its use.

Process Model’s ProcessModel4 is a process engineering tool specifically designed for

visualizing and analyzing business processes. It combines flowcharting with simulation to

present an animated model to support decision-making. Decisions regarding cycle time,

throughput capacity, and resource utilization are made easier when the process can be seen

operating as a system. ProcessModel4 uses input data in the form of elements, connections, and

operational information about the elements and connections to simulate a process. This format is

similar enough to the activity and ICOM structure of the system analysis; thus this software can

be used to convert the system definition of the AI0Win software to a business process.

ProcessModel4 also provides process capability not found in AI0Win. For example,

durations are assigned to travel times along the connections between elements and input queue

size, processing capacity, and output queue size are defined for each activity, resource, and

connection. Activity, resource, or connection cost or value for each use and/or each hour of use of

that activity, resource, or connection can also be entered.

ProcessModel4 is a discrete state model, acting on one change at a time through careful

tracking of a system clock. This inherent feature is well suited for modeling operations and

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

13

manufacturing processes that are tightly scheduled and integrated. The project process for heavy

civil projects, however, is not a discrete state process. Heavy civil projects span a larger number of

functional areas but activity durations are sufficiently long enough that overlaps in activities are

deemed to have a negligible effect on the model’s usefulness.

Creating the Process Model Creating the process model based on the systems model revealed a key difference between the two.

ProcessModel4 does not use mechanisms and controls as explicit elements or connections. A

convention was created, to treat both mechanisms and controls as resources for the activity. The

effectiveness of a mechanism in facilitating the activity is described by a resource’s availability.

The effectiveness of a control in regulating the activity is described by the operational data

assigned to the connection between the resource and the activity. Control of the activity is

achieved by limiting the resource to less than required by the activity. Facilitating the activity is

achieved by supplying the resource without constraints. For example, in the systems model,

professional staff is defined as a control for the activity of defining the feasibility of the project and

engineering analysis is defined as a mechanism by which the activity is performed. In the process

model, however, professional staff and engineering analysis are both defined as resources but the

amount of time the professional staff is available is initially set less than the amount of time

assigned to complete the activity. The amount of time the engineering analysis resource is

available is initially set as more than what is required to complete the activity.

The initial state of the process model is based on the operational information defined by

the systems model. Using the initial state, the model produces utilization information for each

resource and cost/value information assigned to each unit produced during the simulation.

An illustration of the process model is presented in Figure 4.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

14

Figure 4: Process Model Diagram

Testing the Process Model Unfortunately, ProcessModel4 cannot output data for decision making using only the inputs

established for activity sequence, duration, and cost. A simple process consisting of two inputs, a

process and two storage entities was built to test the conditional routing feature and the input

distribution pattern assignable to connections. Figure 5 illustrates the simple model. Table 3

presents a summary of the operational data.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

15

Figure 5: Simple Process Model

Table 3: Simple Model Operational Data

Object Name Output Text Output ID Output Number

Customer (Entity) Process 3 3

Customer (Entity) Process 3 3

Process Item2 12 5

Item3 25 6

Item (Entity)

Item (Entity)

This simple model is presently being analyzed and perfected. Upon completion of the

analysis, a second qualitative model that yields actionable information to support a go or no-go

decision will be developed. This second model will investigate the project viability by varying the

quality of the inputs. The variation would consist of an integer score assigned to two or three

quality states or conditions and a corresponding probability for each quality state. For example, an

investor input can be assigned a value of 1, 2, or 3 based on a ratio of the investor’s available funds

to historical project costs. The likelihood of each ratio occurring is based on a user-defined

Need

Funds

Process Item2

Item3

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

16

distribution (based on a survey of experts). Table 4 presents values and distributions for selected

entities and resources for the second model.

Table 4: Entity State Scores and Distributions Entity State Score Distribution Needs Severe

Moderate Slight

3 2 1

30% 50% 20%

Investment / Funding >5x Historic Cost 1-4x Historic Cost <1x Historic Cost

5 3 1

20% 60% 20%

Market Information High Prices Medium Prices Low Prices

1 2 3

25% 55% 20%

Social Concerns Active Inactive

1 2

65% 35%

Political Climate Favorable Unfavorable

2 1

55% 45%

Professional Staff Extensive Knowledge Moderate Knowledge Limited Knowledge

5 3 1

65% 20% 15%

Regulations Pervasive Extent Limited Extent

1 2

60% 40%

Model and Process Limitations and Roadblocks The completion of the model is dependent on overcoming a number of roadblocks and

limitations. A key roadblock is the difficulty in mastering the ProcessModel software.

ProcessModel4 is a powerful program and once the learning curve is traveled, the model results

of a modeled definition, development, and deployment system life cycle phases will be

presented. However, as is for all simulation models and output analysis, the system model and

ultimately the process model of the project development process are only as accurate as the data

provided as inputs, controls, and mechanisms. The data collected from the literature and expert

opinions is deemed current but is not universally applicable to all projects in the population.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

17

Findings and Analysis The findings below explain the results of the data collection and analysis portions of the project.

The findings also explain the significance of the limitations and the changes to the process used.

1. The data collected regarding development of heavy-civil projects in general, and private

landfills in particular, are sufficiently robust. The process established in this report

correlates well with processes for software and product development. The data indicate use

of similar terminology and sequencing to describe and order major phases.

2. The systems diagrams produced by the AI0Win software illustrate clearly the project

development process. The diagrams are in IDEF0 format resulting in better

communication among systems engineers and system users.

3. The step of creating a convention for converting mechanism and control data output from

the systems model to resource data and connection data before input into the process

model reduces the author’s confidence in answering the high-level question.

4. The process model for only the project definition phase demonstrates the methodology.

However, present model operation without the decision-making capability provides

limited immediate use in business development or strategic management efforts.

5. The parameters assigned to inputs and resources in the process model are not output by the

systems model. The majority of values for input for activity duration and cost were based

on expert opinion.

6. The functional areas spanned by heavy civil projects are more susceptible to variations in

output behavior than those in a manufacturing or operations process. Accurately assessing

the impact of political and social controls to a system, along with the corresponding

probability of that impact requires more data.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

18

Conclusions This paper defines a means, using systems analysis techniques, to comprehensively define the

project development process for ease of understanding and conversion for modeling purposes.

The paper describes how ProcessModel4 software can be used to develop the resultant process

model. The purpose of this model is to increase ease and quickness of discovering business

opportunities in the development process. In addition, it can better inform stakeholders of

variations in key inputs and their influence on project scope.

Completing a model of all three phases is expected to reveal points along the waste

disposal supply chain where a power (the means to create a favorable position) and value exist.

Knowledge of these points is assumed to be a key factor in developing strategies for business

development in consulting engineering.

Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the results of the paper and the knowledge gained

during the study. Specific recommendations to improve the process model are followed by general

recommendations for subsequent use of systems analysis and process modeling in business

development.

Important to improving the model is accuracy with which the activity duration and cost

values reflect reality. Values for each input and resource need updating to keep the model current

with market conditions. Relative weights and probabilities for each state of input and resource

need to be adjusted for project location and economic conditions.

Future landfill-specific issues should be considered for modeling given the potential for

increased consulting opportunities, potential cost savings to landfill operators, and potential

reductions in overall risk of widespread groundwater contamination. These include:

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

19

• Suitability of the capacity and price structure of individual local landfills for

regionalization and/or consolidation

• Viability of strategy to regionalize landfills along the corridor of I-75 in Tennessee

• Impact of technology developments on cost reduction of waste disposal

More generally, the value of consulting services not currently provided by traditional

engineering firms, but used by solid waste project stakeholders, are suitable for investigation

using the methods and tools presented here. These services include:

• Market research focused on locations of future solid waste disposal facilities,

• Value engineering for existing facilities and upcoming expansions that incorporates the

wider systems view,

• Financial consulting to provide project valuation and recommendations for capital and

cost structure to increase project returns,

• Operations consulting to provide process improvement recommendations, and

• Strategic consulting to increase the client’s power in value chains present in the client’s

environment.

References AIG Environmental. "Environmental Protection Program." Online. August 28, 2002.

<http://home.aigonline.com/AIGEnvironmental/read_product/1,1992, MjAwMzMtL0FJR0V

AIG Environmental. "Closure/Post Closure." Online. August 28, 2002.

<http://home.aigonline.com/AIGEnvironmental/read_product/1,1992, MjAwMDktL0FJR0V

AIG Environmental. "Cleanup Cost Cap." Online. August 28, 2002.

<http://home.aigonline.com/AIGEnvironmental/read_product/1,1992,20028,00.html>

AIG Environmental. Clean-Up Cost Cap Insurance Policy. 2000.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

20

Asian Productivity Organization. "Participatory Project Cycle Management - A Planning Method

for Community Development." October 2002.

BC Environmental. "Closure / Post Closure Insurance Program." 2000. Online. September 9,

2002. <http://ww.environmentalinsurance.com/b_site/SP_8.html>

BC Environmental. "All-Risk Geotechnical Development Insurance." 2000. Online. September

9, 2002. <http://ww.environmentalinsurance.com/b_site/SP_10.html>

Baum, Warren C. The Project Cycle. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group. 1982.

Beale, Chris, et al. "Credit Attributes of Project Finance." The Journal of Structured and Project

Finance. Fall 2002: 5-9.

Bellinger, Gene. "Systems: Understanding the Way." Online. July 16, 2003.

<http://www.outsights.com/systems/systems/systems.htm>

Bellinger, Gene. "Bureaucracy & Organizational Politics: Emergent Characteristics of Structure."

Online. July 16, 2003. <http://www.outsights.com/systems/bop/bop.htm>

Bioreactor Landfill Program Review Meeting. Technical Advisory Group Meeting Minutes.

March 24, 1999. Online. September 13, 2002.

<http://www.bioreactor.org/tag_meeting_031599.htm>

Bishop, Clare. "Project Cycle Management Technical Guide." 2001.

Brownfields Redevelopment International. "Decision Modeling." Online. January 8, 2003.

<http://www.brnfldsred.com/decision.html>

Buede, Dennis M., The Engineering Design of systems: Models and Methods, John Wiley and

Sons, New York, 2000.

Cirko, Cathy. "New Computer Model for Integrated Waste Management." L'Actualité chimique

canadienne. May 2000.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

21

"Closure and post-closure insurance." Rupp's Insurance & Risk Management Glossary, NILS

Publishing, 2002.

Cooper, Donald R. and Pamela S. Schindler. Business Research Methods, 6th ed. Boston:

McGraw-Hill. 1998.

Crow, Kenneth. "Capability Maturity Model." Online. July 15, 2003. <http://www.npd-

solutions.com/cmm.html>

Crow, Kenneth. "Characterizing and Improving the Product Development Process." Online. July

15, 2003. <http://www.npd-solutions.com/pdprocess.html>

Crow, Kenneth. "Computer-aided Process Planning." Online. July 15, 2003. <http://www.npd-

solutions.com/capp.html>

Crow, Kenneth. "The Principles of Integrated Product Development." Online. July 15, 2003.

<http://www.npd-solutions.com/principles.html>

Crow, Kenneth. "A Strategic Approach to Product and Process Development." Online. July 15,

2003. <http://www.npd-solutions.com/pdstrategy.html>

Crow, Kenneth. "Value Analysis and Function Analysis System Technique." Online. July 22,

2003. <http://www.npd-solutions.com/va.html>

Doering, Susan. "Understanding Environmental Impairment Liability." Society of Environmental

Insurance Professionals newsletter. Spring 2001.

Drake, Bob. "Alternative Landfill Cover Demonstration." January 23, 1996.

DRM Associates. "Systems Engineering Process." Online. July 15, 2003. http://www.npd-

solutions.com/se.html

Ector, Richard H. “Project Development”. Personal Interview. President & CEO of Tennessee

Valley Infrastructure Group, Inc. February 10, 2003.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

22

Franklin Associates, Ltd. "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States." June

1997.

Geotrans, Inc. "Financial Strategies for Environmental Closure." Online. March 4, 2003.

<http://www.geotransinc.com/Finance.shtml>

Geotrans, Inc. "Strategy Development." Online. March 4, 2003.

<http://www.geotransinc.com/Finance.shtml>

Gerlat, Allan. "WMI executive calls for collaboration." Waste News. November 11, 2002.

Hudson, Andrew. "Influence of Mechanical and Hydrological Properties of Waste on Sustainable

Waste Management Practices." Online. September 9, 2002.

<http://www.soton.ac.uk/~sunrise/hudson.htm>

Hull, Paul. "Landfill Gases & Leachate: Changing the Schedule." Jack's MEB Newsletter.

Volume 2, Issue 1. January 1, 2002.

Humphrey, Watts S. "The Personal Software Process." Software Process Newsletter. Volume 13,

No.1, September 1994, pp. 1-3.

Humphrey, Watts S. "A Process or a Plan?" Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.

April 22, 2003. Online. July 15, 2003. <http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/articles/watts-

humphreys/process-or-plan.html>

International Projects Group. "Business Planning & Proposals." Online. February 10, 2003.

>http://www.ipg-inc.com/3business_planning_&_proposals.htm>

International Projects Group. "Project and Trade Finance." Online. February 10, 2003.

>http://www.ipg-inc.com/2project_and_trade_finance.htm>

Jacobs, Brian. "Results focused Project Cycle Management using the Logical Framework." 2002.

Johnson, Jim. "California nonprofit does good recycling wood." Waste News. October 14, 2002.

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

23

Kanellos, Michael. "Old-school theory is a new force." CNET News.com. February 18, 2003.

Online. <http://news.com.com/2102-1001-984695.html>

Kerzner, Harold. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and

Controlling, 8th ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003.

Kulick, Kathryn A. "Technical Performance Measurement - A Systematic Approach to Planning,

Integration, and Assessment.", The Measurable News, June 1997.

Lethlean, Jill and Neil Chapman. “An Integrated Waste Management Program for the Commercial

and Industrial Sector – A Methodology.” Enviro 2002/IWA World Water Congress Joint

Conference, Melbourne 2002.

Marino, Troy. "RCRA Provisions Go Under the Scope." Waste Age. July 1, 2001. Online.

January 8, 2003. <http://www.wasteage.com/>

Meridian Consulting Group, Inc. "Earned Value Management Systems." Presentation at Project

Management Institute, Washington, DC Chapter. March 17, 1998.

Meredith, Dale D., et al. Design & Planning of Engineering Systems, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1985.

Mishkin, Frederic S. and Stanley G. Eakins. Financial Markets and Institutions, 4th ed. Boston:

Addison Wesley. 2003.

O'Connell, Kim A. "Sorry, Landfill Closed." Waste Age. July 1, 2001. Online. August 28, 2002.

<http://wasteage.com/>

O'Leary, Philip and Patrick Walsh. "Landfilling as the Cornerstone of an Integrated Waste

System." Landfill Continuing Education Course. January 5, 2002. Online. August 28, 2002.

<http://landfill-ed.wasteage.com/microsites/newsarticle.asp?mode=print&newsarticleid=278

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

24

Paulk, Mark C. "Practices of High Maturity Organizations." 1999 SEPG Conference, Atlanta,

Georgia, March 8-11, 1999.

Pepper Hamilton LLP. "Project Finance." 2002. Online. February 4, 2003.

<http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/show_practice_area.cfm?RID=45.0>

Powrie, William. "Liquid and gas flow processes in wastes." Online. September 9, 2002.

<http://www.soton.ac.uk/~sunrise/platform.htm>

Proforma Corporation. "Business Process Improvement." Technical White Paper. Copyright ©

2002-2003

Pugh, David G. "Winning More Than Your Share." Lore International Institute. 2002.

Sage, Andrew P. and James E. Armstrong Jr. Introduction to Systems Engineering, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., 2000.

Secor, Mike. "Sample Models for High Performance Consulting Sales." Online. January 31,

2003. <http://rgba.com;Article_sample_sales_models_2_secor.html>

Sharp, Alec and Patrick McDermott. Workflow Modeling. Boston: Artech House. 2001.

Smith, Howard and Peter Fingar. Business Process Management: The Third Wave. Tampa,

Florida: Meghan-Kiffer Press. 2003.

Stix, Gary. "A Calculus of Risk." Scientific American. May 1998. Online. February 21, 2001.

<http:www.sciam.com/1998/1598issue/0598stix.html>

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. "New rules to dispose of waste

proposed." Online. January 8, 2003. <http://www.tmll.org/TTC/2001/09-24-

01/solidwaste.htm>

Thornloe, Susan. "Life Cycle Assessment." MSW Management. Online. February 20, 2002.

<http://www.forester.net/msw_9912_life.html>

Abstract 002-0318

Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico,

April 30 – May 3, 2004.

25

Toebes, Gerrit H. "Systems Analysis." Proceedings of the National Workshop on Reservoir

Systems Operations. Boulder, Colorado. August 13-17, 1979.

Truch, Pete. "The Beat Goes On." Waste Age. April 1, 2001. Online. August 28, 2002.

<http://wasteage.com/magazineareicle.asp?magazinearticleid=71866&magazineid=121

United States Department of Agriculture. "Preventing the Introduction of Plant Pathogens into the

United States: The Role and Application of the 'Systems Approach'." February 2002.

United States Small Business Administration. "Research Summary: Environmental Financial

Responsibility." Online. January 8, 2003. <http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/research/rs150.html>

Walsh, Patrick and Philip O'Leary. "Bioreactor Landfill Design and Operation." Waste Age. June

2002: 72-76.

Wetzstein, Doug, et al. "Minnesota Closed Landfill Program - 1998 Annual Report." Presented to

the Minnesota Legislature. December 1, 1998.

Wigal, Cecelia M. "A Systems Approach to Integrating Technical Communications Instruction

with the Engineering Curriculum." Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering

Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Session 2793, April 2003.

The World Bank Group. "The Project Cycle." 2001. Online. February 18, 2003.

<http://www.worldbank.org/infoshop/projectcycle.htm>

XL Environmental. "Cost-Effective Alternatives for C/PC Financial Assurance." Online.

December 13, 2002. http://www.xlenvironmental.com/library/rmtart01.htm

Yula, Steve. "New Financial Assurance Requirements For Closure And Post-Closure Of

Municipal Landfills: Impact On Disposal Costs." The ECS Claims Review. Winter 1996.

Online. September 9, 2002.

http://www.xlenvironmental.com/claims/library/winter96.landfil.htm>