John RiceSustainment Engineer| Lockheed MartinHarmony, Fl, United States
Doubts often arise about what and who determine project success. The purpose of this topic is to discuss the issues from different viewpoints of people looking at the project. Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (199) discussed the difference between factor and criterion. Factors are the set of circumstances, facts, or influences which contribute to the result; whereas criteria are the set of principles or standards by which judgment is made (Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z., 1999).
Scope, time, cost (The Iron Triangle) and quality, over the last 50 years have become indistinguishable connected with measuring the success of project management. Throughout the 50 years, the description of project management included those criteria and not surprising. The scope is what the initiating organizations define, but time and costs are at best, only guesses, initially calculated with incomplete information about the project.
Quality is a singularity; it is a developing property of people’s different attitudes and beliefs, which often changes as the project’s life-cycle continues. Is project management so reluctant to adopt other criteria to assess project’s progress? Are there another criterion outside the Iron Triangle, such as stakeholder benefits? (Atkinson, 1999).
Projects, however, continue to be designated as failing, despite the management. Why should this be if both the factors and the criteria for success are believed to be known? One argument could be that project management seems keen to adopt new elements to reach success, such as methodologies, tools, knowledge, and skills, but continues to measure or judge project management using tried and failed criteria (Atkinson, 1999). If the standards were the cause of reported failure, continuing to use those same rules will only repeat the failures of the past.
Kiznyte, J., Welker, M., & Dechange, A. (2016) exhibits that the Blendlee case derives the largest part of the combined methods of project management from PMBoK. According to the project cycle approach of that methodology, the project sponsors divided the start-up creation into four stages: the business plan, the company establishment, the platform development and the business sustainability. This method helped to create an overall business management strategy and to structure the business creation processes using the project process groups (Kiznyte, J., Welker, M., & Dechange, A., 2016).
After 50 years it appears that the definitions for project management remain to include an established criteria to measure success, namely the Iron Triangle, scope, cost, and time with quality. These criteria, it is suggested, are no more than two best guesses and a phenomenon (Atkinson, 1999). A determinate time resource is possibly the feature which discriminates project management from most other types of control.
However, to focus the success criteria solely upon the delivery criteria to the segregation of others, it is suggested, may have produced an inaccurate picture of so called failed project management. Atkinson’s (1999) argument demonstrates that two Types of errors can exist within project management.
Type I error is team members incorrectly completes tasks or steps, while a Type II error is when team members do not accomplish tasks as well as it could have been, or missed something. The significant point to be made is that project management may be committing a Type II error and that error is the reluctance to include additional success criteria (Atkinson, 1999).
Baumann, E., Krokos, K. J., & Hendrickson, C. (2014); Kiznyte, J., Welker, M., & Dechange, A. (2016), Atkinson, R. (1999), and Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999) support the argument as the literature indicates. Researchers identify other success criteria, but to date, the Iron Triangle seems to continue to be the preferred success criteria.
References
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International journal of project management, 17(6), 337-342.
Baumann, E., Krokos, K. J., & Hendrickson, C. (2014). Building Algorithms to Estimate Training Resource Requirements. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 58 (1), pp. 2335-2339. SAGE Publications.
Kiznyte, J., Welker, M., & Dechange, A. (2016). Applying Project Management Methods to the Creation of a Start-up Business Plan: The Case of Blendlee. PM World Journal, V(V), 1-24.
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination. International journal of project management, 17(4), 243-248. Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Mar 27, 2017 4:20 PM
Replying to Robert Youker
...
The iron triangle is obsolete since it does not include resources which usually are the key variable. Bob Youker
Resource consideration are inside the time umbrella. Saving Changes...
John RiceSustainment Engineer| Lockheed MartinHarmony, Fl, United States
Mar 27, 2017 3:49 PM
Replying to Ed Tsyitee Jr
...
How do I define the success of the project?
Is it what the client asked for? Did the project relatively stay with in budget and schedule?
For internal projects-does it further the business' strategy?
I'm sure there are other criteria, but for me that would be the base.
Thank you, Ed... I am online with what you suggest. Saving Changes...
John RiceSustainment Engineer| Lockheed MartinHarmony, Fl, United States
Mar 27, 2017 4:20 PM
Replying to Robert Youker
...
The iron triangle is obsolete since it does not include resources which usually are the key variable. Bob Youker
Bob,
Interesting, can you explain more about the resources which usually are the key variables? How would you monitor and control to project a successful outcome? Saving Changes...
Simple-- manpower leveling and allocation. Be sure you have enough of the right quality skills to do the job EVERY day. Bob
...
1 reply by John Rice
Mar 28, 2017 11:35 PM
John Rice
...
thank you Bob
Saving Changes...
John RiceSustainment Engineer| Lockheed MartinHarmony, Fl, United States
Mar 28, 2017 9:11 AM
Replying to Robert Youker
...
Simple-- manpower leveling and allocation. Be sure you have enough of the right quality skills to do the job EVERY day. Bob
thank you Bob Saving Changes...
Leonard ByrdProject Manager| Brican Inc.Mansfield Center, Ct, United States
I wouldn't say the big 3 (Schedule, Budget, Quality) is the criteria of success but rather how you manage and implement them is. We all know Quality is a design - installation driven component. Budget is determined by a good initial estimate and change control while Schedule is a good base line document, change control and adequate staffing. Any poor front end product can derail any of the three before you get started so if you can spot the bad baseline product, control the pitfalls of the project evolution and deliver the product within reason given the obstacles - then you can consider it a success. The secret is validating the baseline schedule, budget and scope design and minimizing impact with what you have to work with. If you are lucky enough to control all three from conception - success should occur more often than not. Saving Changes...
The iron triangle was obsolete decades ago. It should be a rectangle. You have to add Resources to scope and time and cost. Resources is different from money. It is manpower and equipment which are critical to cost and time and scope. Quality is part of scope. You have not defined scope until you define quality. Saving Changes...
