Assessing Project Success: Moving Beyond the Triple Constraint

Michael J. Cuellar
CRITIQUE PAPER #2
CIS101 - Project Management
Joseph Conrado S. Jacer MIT - 11686901

OVERVIEW OF THE PAPER

The research explores the use of project scope, budget and schedule
that defines project success. The difficulties of this approach, the relativity
and manipulability, and the lack of guidance that it provides to the project
manager.

PURPOSE OF THE PAPER

The author suggests the need to consider a different approach to the
assessment of project success. A shift of focus from the development
activity to work systems considerations. The author used Work System
Method that provide a theoretical set of relationship between the
participants, information and their technologies that interact with the
process and activities to produce the products and services of the work
system.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The paper was conducted as a theoretic assessment and proposed a

change in the definition of success to be based on the performance of this IT
enabled work system.
The authors reconceptualization considered needs of all stakeholders,
transparent measure of success, project managers objective directions, and
the IT artifact in the context of how it will be used.

POINTS OF AGREEMENT

1. Project Success is a result of finishing a project on time, on budget, and

on met objectives. This may appear as the basic guideline, but with so many
methodologies to choose from, project success needs to be assessed beyond
this triple constraint. As stressed by William R. Duncan of Project
Management Partners, as cited by Jean Scheid (2013), stressed that the
appraisal should not be based if project was a success, but rather, how
successful was the project. Duncan further pointed out that project outcome
can be measured by the scope, its baseline, individual goals, and end-user
opinions.
2. The reason of going beyond the triple constraint is that people are the
most important element in project success assessment. The customers and
those people involved in the making of the project that affects success.
Susanne Madsen, argued that if the client achieved the short and long term
objectives they set out to, then, the project is successful. Time, cost and
quality may only mean much only when the customers goals and benefits
are realized.
3. Another consideration is the lack of details of triple constraint to
manage problems and project outcomes. Tony Gruebl and Jeff Welch (2016)
described project as a discrete opportunity to capture or retain as much
value as possible from a larger value potential, through a set of coordinated
and controlled activities. The authors suggests that project manager should
facilitate value-based decisions while managing projects.

POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT

1. Quality Planning
One element that the author should consider to integrate in his
reconceptualization is quality planning. Craig Berman pointed out that in
quality planning, the project manager defines and codifies the standards the
project will be required to meet to be successful, and how those standards
will be achieved and confirmed.
With strong quality planning, scope are clearly measured, points of
references for the entire project duration are identified, people accountable
are delegated and cost-benefit analysis is determined.
2. Performance Indicator
Another element that the author could have considered is performance
indicator. Rodney Turner and Roxanne Zolin (2012) pointed out that
stakeholders understanding of success changes with time. Project manager
needs leading performance indicators that looks beyond the triple constraint,
and forecast how clients view success based on months or even years to
come.
This is precisely the reason why 3-year or 5-year development plans
have performance indicator in every year of projected implementation. This
ensures, that any program will have advanced look out of expected results
for the coming years, if and when programs are implemented.
3. Non-Physical Work Environment
The last element that the author could have mentioned is non-physical
work environment. Hamid, et. al. (2012) includes remuneration, job
satisfaction, job security and working hours as component of non-physical
work environment. The authors concluded that project managers view work
environment as an important determinant of triple constraint.
Indeed, workers who are more satisfied with these motivational factors
tend to perform well. With rewarding and secured employment, and good
pay, any project managers will surely have nothing more to worry about.
And with flexible working hours, something that is rarely practiced by most
companies, project managers will have time freedom to maximize decision
making at the best preferred time of the day.
REFERENCES

Berman, Craig. Why Is Quality Planning Important in Project Management?

HEARST Newspapers, Copyright 2017.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/quality-planning-important-project-
management-81402.html

Duncan, William R. (3013) of Project Management Partners as cited by

Jean Scheid (2013). How Can Project Success Be Measured? Bright Hub
Project Management.
https://iccpm.com/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/how_do_you_measure_
success_or_failure_of_a_project.pdf

Gruebl, Tony and Welch, Jeff (2016). Triple Constraint Theory Fails in the
Field. Think Systems, Baltimore, MD. https://thinksi.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Triple-Constraint-Theory-Fails-in-the-Field-
Final.pdf

Madsen, Susanne. How Do You Measure Success or Failure of A Project?

CPM Opinion Column. BUILDING CAPABILITY IN COMPLEX
ENVIRONMENTS.
https://iccpm.com/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/how_do_you_measure_
success_or_failure_of_a_project.pdf

Syed Ali Raza Hamid, Hateem Adnan Ghafoor, Tamkeen Zehra Shah
(2012). Work Environment and its Impact on Triple Constraint of Project
Management. Information Management and Business Review. Vol. 4,
No. 10, pp. 545-552, Oct 2012. http://www.ifrnd.org/Research
%20Papers/I4(10)5.pdf

Turner, Rodney, Zolin, Roxanne (2012). Forecasting Success on Large

Projects: Developing Reliable Scales to Predict Multiple Perspectives by
Multiple Stakeholders Over Multiple Time Frames. Project Management
Journal. Wiley Online Library.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pmj.21289/full