Project Management Institute's (PMI) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) (PMI, 2008) depicts (Exhibit 2) the distribution of various levels of project success:Įxhibit 2 - Levels of project success according to the PMBOK ® Guide-Fourth Edition Popular project management standards are quite well aligned with this view of project success. Project portfolio management success may be measured in terms of the distance of the active project portfolio from the efficient frontier, the curve whose points represent the portfolio structure delivering the maximum value for each value of the invested capital (Levine, 2005). Project success may be measured in terms of benefits, changes of numeric values related to the organization business when the project's product has been delivered and incorporated into the organization's practices and procedures. Project management success may be measured in terms of cumulative values of the earned value methods, Cost Performance Index (CPI) and Schedule Performance Index (SPI). Then (Morris & Pinto, 2004), as shown in Exhibit 1, project success spans a continuum in which project management success (Was the project done right?) is complemented by project success (Was the right project done?), to project portfolio management success (Were the right projects done, time after time?).Įxhibit 1 - The three levels of project successĬonsideration should be given to the fact that for each of these levels, project success is measured with numerical indicators related to the “external projection” of the project (in line with the semantics of to project). In this view, projects, programs, and project portfolios represent the space for connected levels of organizational project management, in which project management practices are complemented with practices of benefits identification, planning, delivering, and tracking (program management) and with practices dealing with the goal to maximize capital investment in comparison with the value represented by a project portfolio.
In this approach, the interest is shifted from the limited ability to deliver the product of the project, to an expanded view in which projects are considered the enablers for change and associated organizational benefits then to a view in which project portfolios are considered a way in which the organization translates its strategic plan into tangible efforts. Management by projects is an organizational model, which is adopted by those organizations recognizing that their ability to produce value for stakeholders depends greatly on their capability to execute good projects. What makes a project successful? Customer satisfaction? Being on time? Minimizing changes? Being on budget? This question is well answered whenever a reference to “management by projects” is made. Few extensions to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge ( PMBOK ® Guide) are proposed in the Project Human Resource Management Knowledge Area, and practical suggestions are provided for the “year zero” of this new awareness. To be successful, the project manager should also reach a reasonable trade-off among various concurrent heterogeneous factors that constitute the “soft pyramid,” which is much more than “making use of soft skills in project management” and should be made explicit in project management best practices. There is more than the “iron triangle” there is the “soft pyramid,” a metaphor for concurrent constraints related to the “internal satisfaction” of the individuals working on the project. Finally, individuals should be facilitated in exploiting their own prominent assertive or holistic attitudes, but the nature of the project and the context at-large may be in contrast. The ground rules for behavior and communication should be established, but the performing organization could influence and limit the choices.
Individuals need motivation, but the available motivational space is not infinite. The project manager is challenged by constraints other than the “measureable” scope, cost, time, and quality. This paper postulates that this is not enough.
The “iron triangle” is a very popular metaphor pointing out that the project manager is asked to reach a reasonable trade-off among various concurrent, heterogeneous, and visible constraints.Īt the same time, the “soft skills” for the project manager have traditionally been identified as a set of cross-cutting skills that should complement the core job of establishing and maintaining reasonable tradeoffs among the elements of the iron triangle. Success in project management has been traditionally associated with the ability of the project manager to deliver in scope, time, cost, and quality.