Beyond the Triple Constraints
(→Abstract) |
(→Abstract) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
After including quality as one of the key constraints, other constraints have also proved to be essential in project management. Factors such as; Resources, Customer Satisfaction, Risk and Expectations. Regardless of the constraint model´s shape, the constraints depend greatly on each other and will be adjusted depending on the particular project. This paper will outline the traditional approach of the Triple Constraint, together with some project success factors beyond the three primary objectives and the relationships between them. | After including quality as one of the key constraints, other constraints have also proved to be essential in project management. Factors such as; Resources, Customer Satisfaction, Risk and Expectations. Regardless of the constraint model´s shape, the constraints depend greatly on each other and will be adjusted depending on the particular project. This paper will outline the traditional approach of the Triple Constraint, together with some project success factors beyond the three primary objectives and the relationships between them. | ||
| − | In reality, a project manager is challenged by numerous constraints apart from the “measureable” mentioned factors; A project needs ground rules for communication and behavior, in addition to awareness around the individual´s needs for motivation and confirmation. These “soft pyramid sides” are related to internal satisfaction, and have traditionally been considered as complementary to the core trade-offs of the Iron Triangle, which will not be sufficient enough in many cases | + | In reality, a project manager is challenged by numerous constraints apart from the “measureable” mentioned factors; A project needs ground rules for communication and behavior, in addition to awareness around the individual´s needs for motivation and confirmation. These “soft pyramid sides” are related to internal satisfaction, and have traditionally been considered as complementary to the core trade-offs of the Iron Triangle, which will not be sufficient enough in many cases. |
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
Revision as of 10:55, 18 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract
To define project management success, the Triple Constraint (also called the Iron Triangle) 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 model 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 and scope.
After including quality as one of the key constraints, other constraints have also proved to be essential in project management. Factors such as; Resources, Customer Satisfaction, Risk and Expectations. Regardless of the constraint model´s shape, the constraints depend greatly on each other and will be adjusted depending on the particular project. This paper will outline the traditional approach of the Triple Constraint, together with some project success factors beyond the three primary objectives and the relationships between them.
In reality, a project manager is challenged by numerous constraints apart from the “measureable” mentioned factors; A project needs ground rules for communication and behavior, in addition to awareness around the individual´s needs for motivation and confirmation. These “soft pyramid sides” are related to internal satisfaction, and have traditionally been considered as complementary to the core trade-offs of the Iron Triangle, which will not be sufficient enough in many cases.
