This document provides a summary of an operational level agreements (OLA) document for pool of people applied in project management complexes. It outlines the current problem of insufficient capacity to meet service demands on time. It describes stakeholders and their needs. It also reviews relevant literature on organizational responsibility models, leadership decision making frameworks, and project management methods. Finally, it provides an overview of the proposed solution to implement OLAs between areas to share resources and meet deadlines through improved communication and responsibility.

1. Draft
Guttenberg Ferreira Passos
gut.passos@gmail.com
Operational Level Agreements (OLAs) of Pool of
People applied in Project Management Complexes
Version 1.0
Belo Horizonte
13/12/2013

2. 2
Summary
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................3
1.1 OBJETIVE................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT ................................................................................................................. 3
2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................3
2.1 CURRENT SCENARIO .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 STAKEHOLDERS........................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 EXPECTED BENEFITS OF A SOLUTION............................................................................................... 4
3. DESCRIPTION OS STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR NEEDS ............................................................4
3.1 ABOUT THE STAKEHOLDERS........................................................................................................... 4
3.2 MAP OF COMMUNICATION........................................................................................................... 4
3.3 KEY REQUIREMENTS STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................... 5
4. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................5
4.1 ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY MODEL ...................................................................................... 5
4.2 FRAMEWORK OF A LEADER FOR DECISION MAKING............................................................................. 8
4.3 CRITICAL CHAIN........................................................................................................................ 11
4.4 CASCADE MODEL CASCATA X ITERATIVE ........................................................................................ 12
5. SOLUTION OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 13
5.1 OPERATIONAL LEVEL AGREEMENTS (OLA) OF POOL OF PEOPLE......................................................... 16
5.2 REPORT FROM THE TIMELINESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES .............................................. 17
5.3 REPORT FROM THE TIMELINESS OF COMPLETION OF SUPPLIES............................................................. 17
5.4 EFORT PLANNED X REALIZED ....................................................................................................... 18
6. ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 18
7. RESTRICTIONS..................................................................................................................... 18
8. RISKS................................................................................................................................... 18
9. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 18

3. 3
Introduction
This document defines the vision that stakeholders have the solution to be developed,
specified in terms of needs and functions desired by them. Contains an outline of the main
requirements, which provides a basis for further technical details later. Future decisions to
be evaluated must always take into consideration the contents of this document.
1.1 Objetive
The purpose of this document is to collect, analyze and define in macro level, stakeholder
needs and requirements of the new solution, as well as why these needs / requirements.
1.2 Scope of Document
This document provides an overview of the current problem / scenario, its stakeholders,
impacts and the proposed solution, with models and expected benefits.
It is not intended to predict the cost and time involved.
2. Problem Description
Evidence has shown that the working capacity installed in the Company has not proven
sufficient to fully meet current demands for services, in relation to agreed with customers
and the efficiency of the solutions provided deadlines, resulting in noncompliance with
deadlines and affecting the quality of services.
An aggravating factor that can trigger delay is the fact that the delivery of customer service
depends, in general, two or more areas, setting a very delicate situation: if an area delay the
execution of some of its activities, the functioning of all the system may be compromised.
Another difficulty is that the Company currently leads the development of systems using
the waterfall model, each phase is sequential and discrete manner over time, with a
dedicated team for each phase. This model can produce idle capacity.
2.1 Current Scenario
The organizational and operational structure of the Company currently comprises several
areas, with their respective activities commissioned and functions.
In this context, the activities of each area that make up the customer services are performed
only by employees of that area. No moving people to perform activities of other areas.
2.2 Stakeholders
Company
Customers

4. 4
2.3 Impacts
Noncompliance with deadlines.
Rework.
Reduced quality of services.
Idle capacity.
2.4 Expected Benefits of a Solution
Increase the quality of services provided.
Meet the deadlines agreed with the customer.
3. Description os stakeholders and their needs
3.1 About the stakeholders
Version: 1.0
Name Role in Project Influence
1 Executing Main Area
Responsible for the execution
of the service
High
2 Executing Secondary Area
Involved in the execution of
the service
High
3 Project Manager Managing the project High
4 GDO
Managing Operational Level
Agreements
High
5 Customers
Approve the project
deliverables
High
Project: XXX
OLAs of Pool of People
Identification of Stakeholders
Responsible for the preparation: GDO
Date updated: __/__/____
Figure 1. Identification of stakeholders
3.2 Map of Communication
Version: 1.0
What to communicate Who communicates
For those who
communicate
How to
communicate
When
communicating
1
Timeliness of
implementation of activities
Executing Main Area
Área executora
principal , Project
Manager
Email, (EPM,
FlexSI)
Fortnightly
2
Timeliness of execution of
deliveries
Executing Secondary
Area
Área executora
principal , Project
Manager
Email, (EPM,
FlexSI)
Fortnightly
3
Effort Planned x Realized
(HR)
Executing Secondary
Area
Área executora
principal , Project
Manager
Email, (EPM,
FlexSI)
Fortnightly
Project: XXX
OLAs of Pool of People
Map of Communication
Responsible for the preparation: GDO
Date updated: __/__/____
Figure 2. Map of Communication

5. 5
3.3 Key requirements Stakeholders
Version: 1.0
Nome Principais Necessidades
1 Executing Main Area
Return of human resources assigned to the secondary
area performing the agreed deadline, according to the
signed OLAs.
2 Executing Secondary Area
Provision, the main executing area qualified for the
execution of the project activities staff, according to the
signed OLAs.
3 Project Manager
Meet deadlines and quality targets agreed with the client
on project deliverables.
4 GDO
Maintaining effectiveness in the management of
Operational Level Agreements.
5 Customers
Receive the contracted services at the agreed time and
with quality.
Project: XXX
OLAs of Pool of People
Stakeholder needs
Responsible for the preparation: GDO
Date updated: __/__/____
Figure 3. Needs of stakeholders
4. Literature Review
4.1 Organizational Responsibility Model
Models related to Systems Thinking ( Senge, 1998) can facilitate the study of
environmental organizations as well as the process of decision making, expanding
opportunities to learn, to work and to produce the engine of economic growth.
The research aims to understand some organizational models from the perspective of
system dynamics and agent-based modeling as well as the phenomena related to the
implementation of productivity demands, integration between areas, organizational
management, process management and people management mainly because the people are
the foundation of any organization.
The Organizational Responsibility Model was implemented in a Company of Information
Technology of the State of Minas Gerais to analyze some of their key problems, known
problems related to management by results in order to improve public services in the face
of demand for higher capacity services installed. The full paper was presented as Working
Late Specialization Course Distance Learning in Complex Systems Modeling, conducted
by the University of Brasilia – UNB, Brazil, between August 22, 2011 and February 28,
2013.

6. 6
The main steps for the model are shown in Figure 1:
Figure 4. Main stages of the proposed model
Each of the stages occurs in sequence and are described briefly below:
1. Qualification of Demand - Government projects, aims to improve citizen service and to automate the
state’s management processes, using more and more frequently and powerfully ICT resources. To
meet this demand a structured database with information on all ICT services was build and presented
as a Notebook Service structure, grouped into two categories: Notebook Products and Services
includes Data Center, Information Systems, Information Warehouse, Infrastructure Services, Network
Services, Certification and Digital Content Management. Notebook Management and Business
Support comprises Human Resources, Finance, Infrastructure, Control, Support / Management and
Support Services. After classifying demands by type of service the demand qualification process starts.
2. Capacity Plan - Because of the limitations of a public organization, for which simple replacement of
employees by other lower cost resources cannot be applied, despite the vegetative growth of payroll,
the model TDABC [1] was adjusted eliminating the variable cost, which is considered only in the
overall calculation from the comparison between the installed capacity and the need for new
admissions. A primary survey data was launched in order to identify the adequate workforce for the
organization. A Form Capacity Plan was applied for all functional areas to identify the activities,
based on the Notebook Products and Services and Notebook Management and Business Support. For
this model, “books” are grouped by towers using category of services. The services are broken down
into various activities, which supported the rise of the Capacity Plan. People had been distributed in
areas of the organization, performing activities related to services of the Notebook Products and
Services and Notebook Management and Business Support.

7. 7
3. Operational Level Agreements - Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is a set of
best practices to be applied in the infrastructure, operation and maintenance of information
technology services [12]. Among their disciplines can highlight the Process of Service Level
Management, responsible for ensuring the quality of services delivered to customers. Therefore, it
becomes necessary to build Operational Level Agreements – OLA. Agreements are signed between
Main Executing Area, directly responsible for the execution of a service for the customer, and an area
that provides service internally (Secondary Executing Area), with the goals of internal services and
responsibilities of both parties. The OLAs establish safeguards for people, distributed in areas of the
organization, so that they can perform the necessary activities for services delivery of Notebook
Products and Services and Notebook Management and Business Support.
4. Optimizing Productivity - The Productivity Optimization model establishes a relationship between
the demand for services found in an organization and people productivity for carrying out the
activities that make up the service, providing the opportunity to establish the best cost / benefit.
5. Evolution of Employees - Upon completion of the survey of personnel needs, through the Capacity
Plan, the process of hiring staff begins according to the number suggested. The life cycle of the
employee in the organization has a structure similar to the Aging Chains model proposed by John
Sterman [2] in the book “Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World”.
The evolution of employees model can map the evolution of the people in their careers, taking into
account their promotions and licenses, from hiring to retirement. During this cycle there is a delay
that causes the employee takes a while to move from beginner-employee status to more-experienced
one. There is also another delay for the employee to move to senior level employee when he quits from
the company prematurely, during the intermediate phases.
6. Employee Experience - Scaling the adequate workforce for the company is necessary but not
sufficient for the provision of services. In order to employees having the required knowledge to deal
with the complexity of demand, it is necessary, among other factors, for the company, to provide
structure that subsidizes training experience appropriately for individuals to perform their activities
correctly.
7. Loops of OLAs between Areas – All the effort presented is not enough if only one employee performs
his activities in right time and quality. In many cases the services dependent upon the activities of
several people distributed in different areas of the company. The OLAs signed between the Main
Executing Area and Secondary Executing Area defines the safeguards for people performing their
activities to the delivery of services. Through this mapping the manager can see that a given area A
depends on the area B to perform their service. The area B also depends upon the area A to perform
their service, thereby establishing a loop between areas.
8. Organizational Responsibility - The service to be delivered to the customer can depend on two or
more areas by setting a very delicate situation specially when the execution delay of some of area
activities may compromise the functioning of the entire system. The Organizational Responsibility
Model maps the relationship between the areas considering the loops involved in the provision of
services, by adapting the PageRank model developed by Stonedahl and Wilensky [13], which uses the
same algorithm to search GOOGLE. The algorithm addresses the ranking of more accessed pages on
a network such as the Internet, taking into account also the source pages, raising the ranking of the
page accessed considering the page ranking of origin. In the Organizational Responsibility Model the
reasoning is analogous, however the ranking demonstrates the bottleneck in the execution of activities
that make up the service, as much higher the ranking, the higher will be the bottleneck, indicating the
high probability that the area may initiate a cascade of perceived delay. The model thus allows
distributing responsibility in performing services for all company areas involved in the process,
allowing managers to share best management for results in the organization.

8. 8
Figure 5. Organizational Responsibility Model
The model with the full version, in English, using NetLogo, can be accessed and executed
at: http://api.adm.br/netlogo/Organizational%20Responsibility.html
4.2 Framework of a leader for decision making
The Cynefin framework proposed by Snowden and Boone (2007) helps leaders determine
the predominant operational context so they can make appropriate choices. According to
the authors:
"Each area requires different actions. Simple and complicated contexts assume an ordered universe,
where cause and effect are noticeable, and the correct answers can be determined based on the
facts. Complex and chaotic contexts are not ordered, there is no immediately apparent relationship
between cause and effect, and the way forward is determined based on emerging standards.
The orderly world is the world of fact-based management, the world is not ordered based
management standards. The very nature of the fifth context, disorder, makes it particularly difficult
to know when it is. The output of this kingdom is to break the situation into constituent parts and
assign each of the other four kingdoms. Leaders can then make decisions and intervene in
contextually appropriate way. "

9. 9
Figure 6. Cynefin Framework
Effective leaders learn to change their styles of decision making to meet the new business
environments. Simple contexts, complicated, complex and chaotic (figure 7) require
different management responses. To correctly identify the administrative level, being aware
of danger signs, and avoiding inappropriate reactions, managers can effectively lead in a
variety of situations.

10. 10
THE CONTEXT’S
CHARACTERISTICS
THE LEADER’S JOB DANGER SIGNALS
RESPONSE TO DANGER
SIGNALS
SIMPLE
- Repeating patterns and
consistent events;
- Clear cause-and-effect
relationships evident to
everyone;
- right answer exists;
- Known knowns;
- Fact-based management.
- Sense, categorize, respond;
- Ensure that proper
processes are in place;
- Delegate;
- Use best practices;
- Communicate in clear, direct
ways;
- Understand that extensive
interactive communication
may not be necessary.
- Complacency and comfort;
- Desire to make complex
problems simple;
- Entrained thinking;
- No challenge of received
wisdom;
- Overreliance on best practice
if context shifts.
- Create communication
channels to challenge
orthodoxy;
- Stay connected without
micromanaging;
- Do not assume that things
are simple;
- Recognize both the value
and the limitations of best
practice.
COMPLICATED
- Expert diagnosis required;
- Cause-and-effect relationships
discoverable but not
immediately apparent to
everyone;
- more than one right answer
possible;
- Known unknowns;
- Fact-based management.
- Sense, analyze, respond;
- Create panels of experts;
- Listen to conflicting advice.
- Experts overconfident in
their own solutions or in the
efficacy of past solutions;
- Analysis paralysis Expert
panels;
- Viewpoints of nonexperts
excluded.
- Encourage external and
internal stakeholders to
challenge expert opinions to
combat entrained thinking;
- Use experiments and
games to force people to
think outside the familiar.
COMPLEX
- Flux and unpredictability;
- No right answers;
- Emergent instructive patterns;
- Unknown unknowns;
- Many competing ideas;
- A need for creative and
innovative approaches;
- Pattern-based leadership.
- Probe, sense, respond;
- Create environments and
experiments that allow
patterns to emerge;
- Increase levels of interaction
and communication;
- Use methods that can help
generate ideas;
- Open up discussion (as
through large group methods);
- Set barriers and stimulate
attractors;
- Encourage dissent and
diversity;
- Manage starting conditions;
- Monitor for emergence.
- Temptation to fall back into
habitual, command-and-
control mode;
- Temptation to look for facts
rather than allowing patterns to
emerge;
- Desire for accelerated
resolution of problems or
exploitation of opportunities.
- Be patient and allow time
for reflection;
- Use approaches that
encourage interaction so
patterns can emerge.
CHAOTIC
- High turbulence;
- No clear cause-and-effect
relationships, so no point in
looking for right answers;
- Unknowables;
- Many decisions to make and
no time to think;
- High tension;
- Pattern-based leadership.
- Act, sense, respond;
- Look for what works instead
of seeking right answers;
- Take immediate action to
reestablish order (command
and control);
- Provide clear, direct
communication.
- Applying a command-and-
control approach longer than
needed;
- “Cult of the leader”;
- Missed opportunity for
innovation;
- Chaos unabated.
- Set up mechanisms (such
as parallel teams) to take
advantage of opportunities
afforded by a chaotic
environment;
- Encourage advisers to
challenge your point of view
once the crisis has abated;
- Work to shift the context
from chaotic to complex.
Figure 7. Leader's Guide

11. 11
4.3 Critical Chain
The concept of critical chain can be best applied in managing complex projects than the
traditional concept of critical path.
The methodology of Critical Chain Goldratt (1997 ) introduced a paradigm that addresses
both the human side and algorithmic methodology of project management into a unified
discipline.
The Critical Chain operates differently in the stages of planning and control. In the
planning phase, it develops a plan retrograde in time, from a target date . The focus is the
completion date based on the reasoning that it is less likely add tasks that do not add value
to the goals.
In complex projects, knowledge increases as the project develops. Taking advantage of this
growing knowledge, it is possible to significantly minimize the need for rework and non-
compliance with agreed deadlines.
In Figure 8, the left, there is a resource conflict that can be caused due to shortage of labor,
when considering only a resource for performing the tasks . You plan shown at right,
observe a leveling of resources used in the Critical Chain. He considers both the
dependence of the tasks of resources.
Figure 8. Resource leveling in Critical Chain
In the terminology of the traditional critical path, all tasks are important: an increase in the
duration of any task that will push the project end date. The Critical Chain solution to this
problem is to insert buffers in key points of the project plan, which will act as shock
absorbers to protect their due date. Buffer management is key for monitoring the
performance of the project Critical Chain.

12. 12
Figure 9. Buffers in Critical Chain
4.4 Cascade Model Cascata x Iterative
Cascade Model - Discrete
Figure 10. Waterfall Model
It appears that the above model can produce idle capacity, because at the end of each stage,
person could not be allocated on a new task. This can also lead to delays in relation to the
deadlines agreed with customers.
Note that this spare capacity aggravates the situation of public enterprises, which generally
have budget constraints and difficulty in hiring staff.

13. 13
Iterative Model - Continuous
Figure 11. Iterative model
Iterative model in the inclusion of different disciplines allows a person to be specifically
trained in that discipline will act. This model also allows the activities of each discipline
occur continuously over time, taking best advantage of the teams and reducing idle
capacity, because the effort required may decrease allowing the allocation of people into
new tasks.
5. Solution Overview
The Organizational Responsibility Model allows distributing responsibility in performing
services for all areas of the company involved in the process, assisting managers to share
best management for results in the organization.
The model establishes a relationship between the demand for services found in an
organization and productivity of people in the execution of the activities that make up the
service (Figure 12), allowing to establish the better cost / benefit relationship.

14. 14
Figure 12. Interaction of the agent to the environment
However, there are some situations in which the model does not appear sufficient to fully
meet demands, requiring a more complex solution. In complex systems the patterns can be
altered by changes in the structure and / or behavior.
In the situations described above, a possible solution is to change the organizational
structure of the company to a hybrid model between the centralized and returned (Figure
13).
Figure 13. “Centralizado x Devolvido”

15. 15
In the model "devolvido", system development evolves from the Cascade Model, each
stage is sequentially and discrete manner over time, for iterative model with the inclusion
of different disciplines to allow activities to occur continuously over time.
In the current model, with respect to the behavior, activities that make up the services are
performed by fixed employees in a particular area. No moving people to perform activities
of other areas.
A possible solution for better managing these complex projects would be the
implementation of a Pool People (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Analogy molecule H2O and Pool People
Available in: www.stefanelli.eng.br/webpage/p-molecula-agua.html
The system would have a similar behavior of the electrons in the water molecule, ie, people
can move from one area to perform activities in other areas and would return to the source
area after finish the activity. This makes you have a better use the teams and reducing idle
capacity.
To ensure the return of the people within the agreed time, taking into account the deliveries
to customers, propose to Critical Chain solution with the inclusion of buffers in the key
points of the project plan, which will act as buffers to protect the end date.
Also, as the proposal is a hybrid system, remains some people fixed in some areas to run
activities in this areas.

16. 16
An example of this concept for team building is exposed in the following table:
GRP
Prontuário
Tribunus
Infopen
NúcleoBaseGAC
Arquitetura
executável
Gestãodeativos
reutilizáveis
P&D
Gestor de Interação X
Especialista III X
Especialista II X X
Analista X
Analista X
Analista X
Analista X
Analista X
Analista X X X
Analista X
Gestor de Interação X
Especialista III X X
Especialista II X X
Analista X
Analista X X
Analista X
GerênciadeArquiteturaCorporativa
Responsabilidade
da GAC
Projetos da
Empresa
Arquitetura
deSoftware
Arquitetura
deDados
In order to achieve efficient management of this whole system, it is necessary to prepare
Operational Level Agreements (OLAs) of this Pool of People, described in the next
chapter.
5.1 Operational Level Agreements (OLA) of Pool of People
Agreements of the Pool of People are executed between the "Area Executing Principal",
directly responsible for the implementation of a specific service to the client, and an area
that provides you service internally (Area Executing Secondary), with the goals of internal
services and the responsibilities of both parties.
OLAs provide safeguards for people, distributed in the areas of organization, so they can
perform the necessary activities to delivery of services to the client.
Gerência de Arquitetura Corporativa – GAC (Área executora Principal)
Government Resource Planning – GRP (Área executora
Secundária)
META
OBJETIVO(%) percentual
mínimo tolerável
1 Pontualidade da execução das atividades. x x
2 Pontualidade da execução das entregas. x x
3 Esforço Previsto x Realizado (HR). x x

17. 17
5.2 Report from the timeliness of the implementation of activities
Timeliness of Implementation of Activities
Reference Period: 01/10/2010 a 31/10/2010
Nome do Projeto Status
Tarefas a
Finalizar
Tarefas
Finalizadas
% de
Pontualidade
PRE.DDS.PCN 32 16 50%
POLICIA CIVIL- Pcnet Célula Trânsito Em execução 4 0 0%
POLICIA CIVIL-PCnet Célula Institutos -
Laudos Periciais
Em execução 11 2 18%
POLICIA CIVIL-PCnet Célula Trânsito -
Controle de AR dos Correios
Em execução 15 13 86%
POLÍCIA CIVIL-POLÍCIA CIVIL-PCnet
Célula Geral - DIP
Em execução 1 0 0%
POLÍCIA CIVIL-POLÍCIA CIVIL-PCnet
Célula Geral
Em execução 1 0 0%
POLÍCIA CIVIL-POLÍCIA CIVIL-PCnet
Célula Trânsito
Em execução 0 1 0%
5.3 Report from the timeliness of completion of supplies
Timeliness of Deliveries in Projects
Reference Period: 01/12/2010 a 31/12/2010
Nome do Projeto Status
Entregáveis a
Finalizar
Entregávei
s
Finalizados
% de
Pontualidad
e
PRE.DDS.SAS.GES 1 0 0%
SEPLAG-Manutenção Minas Transparente Em execução 1 0 0%
PRE.DDS.SSC.GSI 1 1 100%
SES-RHMINAS - Banco de Talentos Em execução 1 1 100%
PRE.DDS.SSD 1 0 0%
SEDS-SIDS-PADI-Integração PCnet-DIP Em execução 1 0 0%
PRE.DDS.SSD.GSM 1 0 0%
CBMMG- Controle do Registro de Cães Em execução 1 0 0%
PRE.DDS.SSO.GSD 1 1 100%
IPSEMG-PSEG-MigraçãoPortal Segurança Em execução 1 1 100%
Totais da DDS 5 2 40%

18. 18
5.4 Efort Planned x Realized
Situação 1: jan fev mar abr
Esforço Previsto: 150h 50h 50h 50h Aumento Prazo, atraso na entrega e;
Esforço Realizado: 150h 50h 0h 50h 50h Esforço mantido
Situação 2: jan fev mar abr
Esforço pevisto: 150h 50h 50h 50h Aumento Escopo ou;
Esforço realizado: 200h 50h 50h 50h 50h Retrabalho e;
Aumento Prazo
Atividade
Atividade
Esforço Previsto x Realizado
6. Assumptions
The solution will be applied to services classified as PROJECTS.
Schedule updated with the activities planned in the EPM.
Record of hours by staff in the implementation of activities.
Sort the projects and the people who will use the Pool.
7. Restrictions
Deadlines agreed with clients to implement projects.
Availability and allocation of human resources.
8. Risks
Change cultural paradigm, according to the new solution.
The assumptions must be accompanied throughout the project to not turn into risks.
9. References
ANDRADE, E. L. Introdução à Pesquisa Operacional: métodos e modelos para análise de
decisões. 3ª Edição. Rio de Janeiro: LTC, 2002.
GOLDRATT, Eliyahu M. Critical Chain. Great Barrington: The North River Press, 1997.
KAPLAN, R. S., R; ANDERSON, Steven R. Timedriven activity-based-costing. Havard
Business Review, 2004.
PASSOS, G.F. CHAMOVITZ, I., THEODOULIDIS, B. Organizational Responsibility
Model: Dealing with demand for services higher than installed capacity. Article accepted
for presentation at the IEEE SMC 2013 Conference (SMC: Systems Science), October,
2013.
PASSOS, G.F. CHAMOVITZ, I. Modelo de Responsabilidade Organizacional, aplicado
em empresa pública de Tecnologia da Informação e fundamentado em dinâmica de
sistemas. In: IX Congresso Nacional de Excelência em Gestão - CNEG 2013, 2013, Rio
de Janeiro - RJ.
PFLAEGING, N., Beyond Budgeting presentation - 11/07/2007.

19. 19
SENGE, P. M. A Quinta Disciplina: arte e prática da organização que aprende. São Paulo:
Editora Best Seller, 1998.
SNOWDEN, D. BOONE, M. “A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making.” Harvard
Business Review, 1 de Nov de 2007: 10 p.
STERMAN, J. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world.
Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2000.
STONEDAHL, F. and WILENSKY, U. NetLogo PageRank model.
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/PageRank. Center for Connected Learning and
Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2009.