Project Management

Project Management Central

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Topics: Quality
Quartet Constraint vs. Triple Constraint
Hi,Distinguished Members

One of the greatest challenges facing the future projects in all sectors is Global Sustainability. Personally ,i call it " Global Quality " which should care about the matter seriously and find ways for a clean and sustainable designs , materials and practices.I believe that every project in the future should formulate a carbon management plan and set realistic carbon reduction targets to meet. Therefor, project manager should commit his project to "Quartet constraints" instead of triple :
(Time – Cost – Scope - Carbon Footprint).
carbon footprint represents the "Global Quality constraint" vs, Local Quality.

How far do agree with that approach?
©2015, Tareq Al-Behairi, PMP, PMI-ACP

File attached.

Sort By:
The idea of Triple Constraint with Scope time and Cost being the three, is no more valid and is obsolete already. this fact can be viewed by not having ANY reference of triple constraint in PMBOK Guide 4th and 5th editions. As it has been established that there are not only three constraints but many, like scope, time, cost, quality, risk, communications and so on. Now if want to add the carbon footprint, you can add to the list but I won't really agree to that ass it would have already be covered in quality, risk or some other known constraint.

I would say this concept of quartet constraint is faulty and misguiding right at the time of inception.
Many thanks for useful criticism

The matter doesn't comply any misguiding right as we all acknowledge that environmental- focused standards like ISO 14000 , consider carbon emissions criteria into the practices of quality management .
Yet ,still managing projects dismiss clear process or procedures for reduction the project carbon emissions. Which i strongly consider it needs shifting from local quality practices ( degree of fulfillment the specific project stakeholders requirements ) into a wider approach i've called it "global quality " (as illustrated in file attached ) . The global quality will ensure full integrating the project environment aspect as a mandate and basic constraint into the core focus of project management completely as well as the three most significant restrictions on any project: scope, schedule and cost.

Any way ,i agree with you it is an idea ,promising idea target to establish a solid practice in the future consider project foot carbon as a constraint. perhaps we find projects in the future will be rejected or terminated because of over carbon-emitted . in line with the same approach of failure because of cost-overrun and behind schedule

I agree with and understand your point of view. There is a possibility this gets into the list of constraints and I have absolutely no problem with that. I would rather say t should. Mu points were.

1. There are not only three constraints anymore.
2. Scope, Time and Cost, beside being constraints in addition to many others, are now being addressed as project objectives as per PMBOK Guide 5th Ed.
3. There is a current list of over 8 constraints recognised for projects.
4. Carbon footprint has all the potential to be the next recognizable constraint.
5. Carbon footprint can be made part of Quality or any other existing constraint.

Having said that, and after reviewing your file attached, I won't be so easily convinced without some solid research. My objective remains your diagram is based on triple constraint philosophy which is already obsolete for last many years. Even if your assertion is right, your basis needs to be established on solid and current research.

Hope this is not treated as criticism but a suggestion.

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."

- Mark Twain