saurabh mahajanPMP, ITIL, PRINCE2| vodafonePune, Maharashtra, India
From a project manager's point of view when can he/she say the project is success
1) Only when the results meet client needs in defined time and cost ?
2) When project manager has managed all project management areas well ? even if he/she manages 8 areas well out of 10 knowledge areas can the project be success ?
or questions like below also should add to project success
1) is the team happy to work ?
2) Is the manager good ? Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Khawaja: the key is to understand what you state. If the project manager, at the very begining of project definition, does not put in objective manner all related to meassure the project success then it will fail. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Sergio my friend
1. The question is not about the PMBOK Guide, it is about project success in general
2. Before the 5th edition the PMBOK Guide did not even have a proper definition
3. The PMBOK Guide take the perspective of the project from PM perspective - NOT organizational perspective (I hear this is changing in the 6th edition)
4. the PMBOK Guide is only a guide and it is open for elaboration
5. Finally, The PMBOK guide is not the only resource on project management
By the way - on the definition of project success in the PMBOK Guide; I think it is changing in the 6th edition. The standard is already showing a difference. Saving Changes...
Elizabeth, in order to learn from your comment please let me say that I disagree with your point about "the project deliver useful outcome". The project manager is accountable for project quality what mean to deliver the outcome as defined. But is not in charge to,define the outcome. So, if the outcome is useful or not is outside project manager scope of work.
Sergio, that is what is the different between Project success and Project Management success. I came across that some time ago and suppport Elizabeth's Statement. PMI defines success like "Project Management success". Sponsors are more interested in "Project success" as useful outcome. Agile practices take that into account and focus more on "Project success" as they stress Business value for prioritization of backlog. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
In order to clarify the question at hand, I would introduce a third success ranking to 'project success' and 'project management success', which is 'program success'. Many confuse the concepts of programs and projects, but it makes a hugh difference. If you want to have successful outcomes (also called benefits), you cannot use project management alone, but the project has to be embedded in a program. Program management includes the tools&techniques to provide benefits, project management (PMBoK) does not.
Hence for me:
- 'project management success' is meaningless to clients, maybe interesting for the project manager and the PMO, a process measure
- 'project success' means primarily satisfied stakeholders with an output, and for most projects most of the time schedule, budget and quality compliance - and I have seen satisfied customers of a project over budget and delayed (along PMBoK's definition)
- 'program success' means stakeholders satisfied with the outcomes because the outcomes are creating value Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
The great thing for me to spend my time in this type of forum is it helps to me to improve myself by reading all comments. PMBOK, inside page 8, talked about project success. While I agree that project management world does not end in the PMI (in fact, I have worked with other approaches) I allways follow that guide (see table 1-1 in page 8) to define the project success, to define the meassurements and metrics to make it visible and to agree that with all the stakeholders no matter the position inside the organizational pyramid they are. Other can argue that the defintion they use is different. Not problem with that. But what I ever "fighting" against is the tendency to assign product sucess as project success. I allways take that position in the case I am impacted. As I mentioned before, project sucess like "growth 5% in market share in the current year" is unacceptable for me. But it is my personal experience and I have sustained it by demostrating why it is not right, mainly because it is out of project management scope. As I mentioned is my personal experience only. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Hi Sergio
I know your comments could be in response to a few of us. I will answer from my perspective.
In the model we have developed - I am concerned with the organizational perspective ---- NOT ---- the project manager.
I agree with you, the PM could not be responsible for the 5% growth in market share and I am not advocating he/she should be.
What I am saying is that from the organization perspective, if the organization launched a new project because they expect a 5% growth and they do not realize that benefit then the "Objectives" was not achieved - benefits not realized - and this is a failure. For the organization to learn and grow, they must understand why the failure; bad or no feasibility, no proper market research, bad or poor management, etc.
IF organizations (project owner - developer) do not consider the fourth dimension - then how can they sustain as a business or enhance their performance? Saving Changes...
Anonymous
In regard to the PMBOK Guide - again - the guide is designed for a narrow perspective which is the process to deliver a project ------ AFTER the feasibility study and project authorization. Therefore, what Sergio describe is in line with the PMBOK Guide and no issue there.
What I am proposing is to expand beyond the PMBOK Guide and consider the organization strategic aspects. We have been promoting this for many years and I think, finally, PMI is starting to consider this. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Thomas
If the project is part of the program, then at the program level we must consider success as well and agree with you. However, not all projects are part of programs.
...
1 reply by Thomas Walenta
Apr 26, 2016 2:35 PM
Thomas Walenta
...
Hi Mounir,
you are nailing the point: not every project is in a program.
But you yourself are promoting things like a pre-project, after-project etc.
So my thesis is this is the one reason why so many so called projects fail (even if they deliver in time&budget): because they should be run as programs.
I would argue, that indeed every project is in a program.
It just might not yet be defined as a program. As soon as there is a benefit expected, there is a program. The project manager does regularly not have the tools, knowledge, education, attitude and most important the responsibility to deliver the benefit. So who is charge of that program? Mostly it is middle management, business people, maybe portfolio managers.
It is similar to project portfolio management: every organization with projects is doing it, maybe unconscionably, if they call it so or not. Only when they understand that they might try a standardized and proven way, they might establish it.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Mounir: All things before a project exists and after a project ends is on the field of business analysis. That is because, I guess, the PMI is putting its attention on business analysis. But it is not new for the PMI. The PMI tried to participate in that field from 2003 in cooperation manner with the IIBA. While it do not have good results (I do not why) then the PMI take its own way. I fully agree with you that lot of people like us started working in a project initiating the pre-project activities (as people that works with PRINCE2 do) but it is a busines analysis field. And as I mentioned, business analysis and project manager are roles so the same person (as many of us do) can perform both roles (in my opinion is not the best of the world). So, in my personal opinion, the PMBOK must be keep as today. All the other activities pre and post projects must be put in the business analysis BOK that the PMI is creating right now. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Sergio - what you describe is fine in the business and technology world not in the industrial world. In my world (past world) we do not use business analyst for our facilities and new assets; we have strategic planners, facilities planners, and engineering planners.
This is why I think PMI is moving more and more toward technology because many of the things they advocate recently is in those areas and not "most projects - most of the time". However, this is another discussion.
Again - remember what I said - what I am looking for is the organizational perspective and not the person (PM, BA, PM+BA, Jack of All Trades ...).
From the org perspective - we need to consider the product and asset and not only delivery of the product. We must shift --- or --- consider the outcome and not only the output; and this often mean numerous people will be involved or responsible and not only the PM. Saving Changes...
