Beyond the Triple Constraints
(→Abstract) |
(→Abstract) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
To define project management success, the Triple Constraint (also called the Iron Triangle of Project Management) has traditionally been applied in order to balance between key factors that constraint the overall project delivery. Regardless of a project´s size and degree of complexity, there will always be constraints to bear in mind throughout the whole project. The Triple Constraint points out that a project manager is assumed to reach a reasonable and balanced trade-off between competing and visible constraints in order to deliver in time, cost, quality and scope. Furthermore, it points out how the ability to produce results while maintaining this balancing act between time and cost, illustrates to what extent a project manager is qualified to manage a project. | To define project management success, the Triple Constraint (also called the Iron Triangle of Project Management) has traditionally been applied in order to balance between key factors that constraint the overall project delivery. Regardless of a project´s size and degree of complexity, there will always be constraints to bear in mind throughout the whole project. The Triple Constraint points out that a project manager is assumed to reach a reasonable and balanced trade-off between competing and visible constraints in order to deliver in time, cost, quality and scope. Furthermore, it points out how the ability to produce results while maintaining this balancing act between time and cost, illustrates to what extent a project manager is qualified to manage a project. | ||
| − | In reality, the project manager is challenged by numerous constraints apart from the “measureable” mentioned. A project needs ground rules for communication and behavior, as well as taking the individual´s needs for motivation and confirmation into account. These “soft pyramid sides” related to internal satisfaction, have traditionally been considered as complementary to the core trade-offs of the Iron Triangle, which will in many cases not be sufficient enough. | + | In reality, the project manager is challenged by numerous constraints apart from the “measureable” mentioned. A project needs ground rules for communication and behavior, as well as taking the individual´s needs for motivation and confirmation into account. These “soft pyramid sides” related to internal satisfaction, have traditionally been considered as complementary to the core trade-offs of the Iron Triangle, which will in many cases not be sufficient enough. In A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) <ref name= "Project Management: A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide)"> there are proposed a few suggestions concerning the awareness of individuals satisfaction (in the Project Human Resource Management), which should explicit be part of project management best practices to identify a successful project. |
| − | + | This paper will outline the traditional approach of the Triple Constraint, together with some project success factor beyond the three primary objectives. | |
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
Revision as of 15:33, 10 February 2018
Abstract
To define project management success, the Triple Constraint (also called the Iron Triangle of Project Management) has traditionally been applied in order to balance between key factors that constraint the overall project delivery. Regardless of a project´s size and degree of complexity, there will always be constraints to bear in mind throughout the whole project. The Triple Constraint points out that a project manager is assumed to reach a reasonable and balanced trade-off between competing and visible constraints in order to deliver in time, cost, quality and scope. Furthermore, it points out how the ability to produce results while maintaining this balancing act between time and cost, illustrates to what extent a project manager is qualified to manage a project.
In reality, the project manager is challenged by numerous constraints apart from the “measureable” mentioned. A project needs ground rules for communication and behavior, as well as taking the individual´s needs for motivation and confirmation into account. These “soft pyramid sides” related to internal satisfaction, have traditionally been considered as complementary to the core trade-offs of the Iron Triangle, which will in many cases not be sufficient enough. In A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) [1]
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
