Project Management Success Tripple Constraint, what do you think about this?
George LewisProgram/Project Manager| DXC Technology CompanyHeredia, Costa Rica
How would you define Success?
Would it make sense to define Success based on three factors (Scope, Time, Cost) and maybe Quality
Scope: Does Success has a Scope? Do we have to be successful in every aspect of the project? if we fail an area of the project, can we still be Successful? or Do we have to be successful in all for us to consider our selves successful?
Time: Is Success Time-Based? Once Successful, clear our mind and continue to the next? How long can we duel on a particularly successful event?
Cost: Does Success has a Cost? Can Success take us to failure in other aspects of project or life? Can Success be so costly that it becomes not worthy? or Success does not have a cost at all? what do you think?
Quality: Does Success has Quality embedded? Can we be partially successful? Can we think we are successful but others consider we are not? Can our success be of low quality or low standard? Saving Changes...
What if project success was to achieve the benefits expected from the project?
The 3 constraints of PMI or the 6 of PRINCE2 are guides! Saving Changes...
Kailash KantProgram Management| DLF Ltd.New Delhi, Delhi, India
I think it actually means;
At the end of the Project - is the work complete as per the scope? (Scope Baseline) is it done within its timeline? (Time Baseline) is the final cost within the Cost Baseline?
The Success doesn't have any scope/time or cost, but what it means that - "It Is A Success if the Project is complete as per the Scope, Time and Cost".(Quality and other aspects are applicable to the Product which is delivered by the Project). Saving Changes...
Rajeev SharmaPrincipal Consultant | Strategy, EA CoE | Digital Transformation, AI and Gen-AI| Tech MahindraGurgaon, Haryana, India
One criterion could be customer satisfaction level post delivery of a project. Though it is subjective but could be a qualitative measure of outcome (in true sense) apart of formal processes compliance's as mentioned by other experts also.
Feedback/survey or interview could be the tools for judging customer satisfaction level.
Thanks Saving Changes...
Anonymous
We follow The Four Dimensions of Project Success™ in our CAMMP™ Model. CAMMP™ is The Customizable and Adaptable Methodology for Managing Projects™.
These are:
1. Product Success and this dimension measures scope and quality at acceptance
2. PM Success and this dimension measures delivery of the product within the set time and cost parameters. It is measured at project closure.
3. Project Delivery Success and this dimension include the above two dimensions and other factors that sponsor would have established in the project authorization. Sometimes we can measure this dimension at project closure or a few weeks/months/years after completion.
4. Business Objectives Success and this dimension measure whether the project delivered per the objectives established when conceptualized and the organization realize the benefits expected during the business justification and feasibility.
For more information, including graphics and samples --- http://blog.sukad.com Saving Changes...
Quality must be integral part of the project work. Success is when you deliver value to the customer. In this respect the triple constraint can be problematic in an complex, hghly adaptive project environment. Saving Changes...
Is the initiative and identified benefits contributing and aligned to strategy? In my view success would be to achieve these benefits in a timely fashion within reasonable quality and cost (scope could change through-out the project) Saving Changes...
The relative priority of any constraint needs to be determined by the PM & team from key stakeholders to ensure that decisions get made in the best interests of the project, organizations & society.
The definition of success (like the agile Definition of Done) is project and even team-specific and should be hammered out up front.
In an extreme case, if a "extinction-event" asteroid were heading for earth, cost & schedule constraints are immaterial and we'd like even accept a diminishing of quality constraints so long as the primary objective of preventing total destruction was avoided.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Dec 29, 2017 6:55 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
George -
The relative priority of any constraint needs to be determined by the PM & team from key stakeholders to ensure that decisions get made in the best interests of the project, organizations & society.
The definition of success (like the agile Definition of Done) is project and even team-specific and should be hammered out up front.
In an extreme case, if a "extinction-event" asteroid were heading for earth, cost & schedule constraints are immaterial and we'd like even accept a diminishing of quality constraints so long as the primary objective of preventing total destruction was avoided.
Kiron
Kiron
Why do you think success (and "Done) is project specific and not organizational specific?
Sure the technical things are project specific and vary from project to project but the core definitions should be established in the OPMS (Organizational Project Management System).
For example, Done. If you are the one drafting a report --- only --- done means draft is done. If you are responsible to draft, get comments, revise, finalize and get the report approved, then Done is achieved after all of these things. On the other hands, we can go further and say Done means report's recommendation implemented.
Back to Success - for example, one of my four dimensions is PM success - which means completing the project within the established parameters. The established parameters have to be defined by the organization (OPMS; not project specific). In one organization "established parameters" might be mean below/on budget and ahead/on schedule. For others, like me, it is +/- 10% of approved budget and schedule. Which means a project completing at 109% of the budget can over expended but still considered successful, PM wise.
Even technical success and all other dimensions have to be defined by the organization. The criteria and dimensions of success, again are organizationally set - technical specifications vary based on the type of work.
I can go on but I think I made the point Saving Changes...
