Susanne Madsen Intl. Developing Project Leaders
  • Home
  • Services
    • Workshops
    • Speaking
    • Coaching
    • Stress management
    • Master Class Series
    • Testimonials
  • Bio
  • Books
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Library

Is the iron triangleĀ outdated?

3/12/2013

21 Comments

 
Picture
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.

Picture
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.”

Picture
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


21 Comments
Frank McDowell
3/12/2013 11:54:08

If your project initiation and planning process did not some how identify relevnance, impact and sustainability (possibly) I submit that perhaps there was not enough rigor applied to those activities. Progressive elaboration notwithstanding; I find it difficult to see opportunities being missed at stage gates and periodic discssions with stakeholders in updates and meetings. Am I missing something?

Reply
Susanne Madsen link
3/12/2013 12:28:07

Dear Frank,

Thank you for your comment. It sounds like you work in a very structured environment with good processes and gateway reviews which is fabulous. That's however not the norm on many projects, hence why so many of them continue to fail. Keep up the good work :-)

Kind regards,
Susanne

Reply
Rich Maltzman, PMP link
8/12/2013 21:07:10

Frank-
Actually, *you* aren't missing anything. But you would be amazed at the number of PMs who not only don't take into account the strategic and sustainability aspects of their projects, but defend their right to not be constrained by what they consider to be unnecessary frivolity such as sustainability thinking. We know - we literally wrote the book on this and get tons of negative feedback. Glad you're on board!

Thanks!

Reply
Rich Maltzman, PMP link
8/12/2013 21:07:18

Frank-
Actually, *you* aren't missing anything. But you would be amazed at the number of PMs who not only don't take into account the strategic and sustainability aspects of their projects, but defend their right to not be constrained by what they consider to be unnecessary frivolity such as sustainability thinking. We know - we literally wrote the book on this and get tons of negative feedback. Glad you're on board!

Thanks!

Reply
David Mercer
4/12/2013 09:42:58

The iron triangle was the brainchild of Dr Msrtin Barnes who soon replaced 'quality' with 'performance' thus making it as relevant today as it ever has been

Reply
Linda Schaldonat
5/12/2013 11:04:26

Dear Susanne,

Thank you for your continued commitment to give back to the project management profession. On the topic of Triple Constraints, I agree with Frank McDowell that progressive elaboration and updates keep projects strategically aligned. Quality is impacted when any one of the triple constraints (Time, Cost, and Scope) changes. Adding Impact, Relevance, and Sustainability to the iron triangle would emphasize the importance of enabling business change and embracing Agile, which not only adds value but eliminates low value adds (typically, over 60% of features are not used).

Reply
Saman
6/12/2013 02:30:29

Dear Susanne,

Thanks for the valuable insight article. I believe, in any major project, the important part is Benefit Management, where you try to achieve the business benefit, in terms of Profitability, Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Organization. In your article, you have to include Triple constraints as scope, time, cost and within this you have to manage the Project Quality. As you highlighted, sustainability of the project once completed should be considered through out the project.

Reply
Richard Thiel
7/12/2013 07:32:23

Great posting. I absolutely agree that too many projects are more concerned about delivering the project on the iron triangle, and the customer is left with something they can't or won't use. I would definitely like to learn more about how you would apply this second triangle.

Reply
Rich Maltzman, PMP link
8/12/2013 21:00:06

Saman, please see my response direct to Susanne. You are spot on. Thanks.

Reply
Gary Scherling
7/12/2013 05:53:17

I have always valued and adopted the triple constraint triangle to my clients needs and expectations. I start by helping them understand that the scope, time and cost are three constraints that directly impact the quality. My diagram shows the scope cost and time on each of the lines, and quality in the middle. We then prioritize those constraints so they can ensure what is most important. In a medical field quality is more important, and in a legislative government project time may be more important.

As stated earlier, the scope should includes benefits, and a discussion on any other constraints such as sustainability should be conducted in the initiation stages.

Reply
Rich Maltzman, PMP link
8/12/2013 20:57:30

Susanne, an excellent and very relevant post. As I know you're aware, this subject is core to our book, Green Project Management. We're extremely interested in connecting with Dr. Samset and any of your readers who believe, as we do, that project managers are key change agents for sustainable thinking in ANY type of project.

Thanks for keeping this in the forefront!

Reply
Jon Whitty link
8/12/2013 22:43:08

Great post. I’d say it’s outdated and wrong. The triangle is prevalent and survives for other reasons than being right. I’ve written papers on this and given a couple of talks. Kailash over on Eight to Late has reviewed one paper http://eight2late.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/on-the-emotions-evoked-by-project-management-artefacts/ and a talk I gave that equates the iron triangle to the paper aeroplane of project management is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwtH5KFNCkM

Reply
Bob Heggie, PMP link
12/12/2013 12:17:01

I do agree with the direction of your article, the title is somewhat provocative however. Short-sighted project managers are using the Iron Triangle as a crutch for delivering to poor quality using the excuse of "Out of Scope." As good PMs know the Scope, as well as many other project documents, are updated throughout the life of a project. The Iron Triangle should never be used as an excuse to avoid Communication, Negotiation and Problem-Solving. I do however find myself using the Iron Triangle when I have to explain to Stakeholders the cost of additional requirements or quality. One should never use it to justify a bad job.
10 cents delivered (we no longer use pennies in Canada)

Reply
Danie
12/12/2013 18:52:45

Hi all,
I totally agree that there is more than just the 3 sides, because if you have not done your pre-work and diligently fix the budget and scope things will go wrong.
This is when only 2 corners will apply, it will not matter how you look at it but you can only pick 2, any 2… lock in scope + budget and schedule will slip, lock in schedule + scope (quality) and you will pay more…

Reply
Bob Hopkins
13/12/2013 03:45:33

All,
this may be where an Agile approach should bring benefits. In many case the effects of the programme of work only become clear after the business case, as development work progresses. New issues and opportunities arise and having the programme team, including all stakeholders involved in some form of regular review of direction is vital. Changes during these reviews may have impacts on the time, cost, quality of the original business case but as long as the customer buys into those changes including risks and benefits then the programme will deliver a meaningful success.
In general we do not work in a stable business environment, change will happen and we need to cope with it.

Reply
Rob Wilkinson link
13/12/2013 06:02:27

Suzanne. I think it is right to raise the question. I have never been comfortable with the definition that projects deliver outcomes and programmes deliver benefits. All projects that I have worked on have had targeted benefits, even if they were part of a programme. So I always think of the "Iron Triangle" as a Pentagon with Business Benefits and Risks added into the multi-dimensional balance. The project management task is then to keep the whole picture under constant review and make sure that the gap between project "reality" and stakeholder expectations is kept manageable. Clients will then want to keep the project manager for the next job!:)

Reply
Gary Smith
15/12/2013 21:20:04

Spot on! I believe that the topic however speaks to the maturity and capacity of the Project Manager and his/her ability to lead a change intervention. Change is not only about delivering the "change" but ensuring that the deliverable is fit for purpose at the end of the project - i have yet to come across any strategic project where the planned deliverable remains "fixed" during the execution phases. Many constraints and other information is surfaced only during the latter phases of a project and which has a direct influence on the initial strategic intent - hence teh need to ensure continious alignment. The challenge remains to make a call as to the extent that you should apply change so as to ensure that you do not remain in delivery but at some stage do deliver value.

Reply
Bill Pike
16/12/2013 13:08:46

I believe the 'outside' of the triangle still applies. When you change one, there is an impact on the others. However to 'complete' the picture, the 'iron' triangle needs to be filled with appropriate management of Risk & Resources to deliver Quality and ultimately Customer Satisfaction. I have a graphic to depict this...but haven't figured out how to include in this reply :)

Reply
Michael Fleron
17/12/2013 02:37:47

I guess that no model / formula is quite sufficient to describe to future. The original triangle by Dr. M. Barnes do state Performance and not Quality alone. By performance is all so covered, the why, what and scope. This initial description in the Mandate lies before definition of the triangle. Best is visualized in the Objective breakdown technique. So all in all – still the best triangle.

Reply
Emeka
15/4/2014 04:46:42

This is well thought out. its about being futuristic. Not just about managing the project to solve current problems and meet current needs, but about the value that the project will deliver considering changing times. Although the Triple constraint triangle is very valid, it is high time it is reviewed and updated. Increasing the tenets of the triangle will increase value derived from how projects are managed and the projects themselves.

Reply
VJBaskar link
3/4/2017 08:36:08

Nice explanation, It reminds me to remember things I know in Project Management, but tend to forget during my busy day! Thanks! Constraints are used to impose logic on activities that may not be realistically scheduled with logic links, Two constraints are permitted against each activity. They are titled Primary and Secondary Constraint. After the Primary has been set, a Secondary may be set only when the combination is logical and therefore a reduced list of constraints is available from the Secondary Constraint list after the Primary has been set.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Agile
    Authenticity
    Building Relationships
    Coaching
    Communication
    Delegation
    Estimation
    Feedback
    Handling Conflict
    Innovation
    Iron Triangle
    Limiting Factor
    My Story
    Perception Of Failure
    Planning
    Podcasts
    Positive Attitude
    Proactive Project Management
    Progress Reporting
    Project Costs
    Project Failure
    Project Initiation
    Project Leadership
    Project Management Mistakes
    Recruitment
    Requirements
    Resistance To Change
    Risk Management
    Self Esteem
    Stakeholder Management
    Stress Management
    Team Motivation
    Time Management
    Trust
    Vision And Mission

    Picture

    Susanne Madsen

    Susanne is a project leadership coach and the author of The Power of Project Leadership (now in 2nd edition). Read more..

    Picture

    Download FREE PM RESOURCES

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    June 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    February 2011

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    RSS Feed

Susanne Madsen International - Developing Project Leaders