Is the iron triangle outdated?

If you are into project management you are probably familiar with the good old iron triangle which is how project management is traditionally measuring the success of a project. It states that projects must be delivered to the triple constraints of time, cost and quality.

The iron triangle reflects the view that our role as project managers is to deliver the project to the customer’s specification (quality) within the agreed time and budgetary constraints, which to some extent is true. But it sometimes happens that we deliver a beautifully crafted product, system or device which meets all of the stated requirements, but which somehow ends up not being used the way it was intended, if at all. For the project team (or supplier) this could be seen as a successful delivery as the product met the customer’s stated requirements, but for the customer it is a failure because it didn’t produce any benefits. It did not add any value.

The problem may be that the project manager is not taking a broad enough view of what 'quality' constitutes, and is not measuring how the project will add value to the client and to society in the short and long term. Not only is this value-added view the way to successful and sustainable project delivery, it is also the way for project managers to demonstrate their genius and to get to the next level. In order to do that we have to consider a number of further dimensions that help us capture the value or benefit of the project. Outstanding project managers have been aware of this for a long time. They are not interested in running projects that end up as failures. They want to make an impact and they want to be remembered for the positive change and the benefits that their projects bring about.

Dr. Knut Samset, a professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, says that a marker of success is the delivery of benefits in a strategic context. He argues that the triple constraints of time, cost and quality are tactical success criteria, whereas factors such as sustainability, relevance and effect are strategic success criteria. Knut Samset writes that; “Success in tactical terms typically would be to meet short-term performance targets, such as producing agreed outputs within budget and on time. These are essentially project management issues. Strategic performance, however, includes the broader and longer-term considerations as to whether the project would have sustainable impact and remain relevant and effective over its lifespan. This is essentially a question of getting the business case right, by choosing the most viable project concept.”

Time may have come, not to throw away the iron triangle, but to add another one on top where we measure the triple constraints (time, cost, quality) as well as the three strategic dimensions (impact, relevance and sustainability). What is also important is that we spread this ethos across the team. It is not enough that you personally understand the end game and what the project is ultimately trying to achieve in the bigger scheme of things; the entire team needs to recognize it. Everyone must have a client-centric, cost-conscious and strategic outlook, and everyone must be focused on the same goal which is that of delivering the most suited product or service in the most effective and sustainable manner. As obvious as it may sound, adding utmost value to the client’s long term goals is far from reality on many projects.


If you liked this post, you may also like:
What the Customer Really Needs
Top  Tips for Gathering Requirements
Risk  management is how adults manage projects!
10  guidelines for estimating project effort  
How to avoid  the perception of failure