David Lewis

[1]R. Atkinson, Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a

phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria, 1st ed. 1999.

Project management is the use of a variety of tools, techniques, and resources to

direct a plethora of resources toward contributing to a singular goal within defined

constraints. A source cited by the article defines a project as a human activity that

achieves a clear objective against a time scale. It goes on to put forth the idea that

project management is a combination of management and planning and management

of change.

This article opens up by talking about the Iron Triangle, which is a figure

constantly referred to when talking about project management. It is, as one would think,

a triangle, with the three points labelled quality, time, and cost. A point is placed

somewhere inside of this triangle to denote where priorities will lie and where

compromises will be made. This article, unlike others, supposedly, states that is not all

the new methods and attempts at project management that are at fault when it comes to

failed projects, but, instead, the criteria which is used to measure success?

It is suggested by JN Wright, cited by the paper, that the list of criteria can be

condensed into two simple points: time and budget. I personally do not find that

adequate for any self-respecting producer or what-have-you. Some sort of quality

control is a must unless you have no regard at all for whoever is receiving or otherwise

benefitting from what you are producing. So, while I do agree that quality should be
added to this list, restoring the original status quo known as the Iron Triangle, I agree

with the paper when it goes on to say that these should not be the only criteria that is

considered.

For one thing, the paper talks about temporary criteria, which can be used as a

method of measuring progress and success while the project is ongoing. While cost

CAN be considered, the argument is made that when costs are used as a control, they

measure progress, not success. Again, this goes back to my point of having a degree

of quality control. What is the point of minimizing the cost of and the time put into the

project if it is unsuccessful, unsatisfactory, etc.? Cost and time can, and should, still be

used as constraints, but they should not be the constraints which the entire project

hinges on, and the author of the paper agrees with this observation.

A good point to argue, I believe, would be the Iron Triangle as a shape. The Iron

Triangle should only be an equilateral triangle in certain situations. Depending on the

project, the triangles shape should be shifted so that the criteria that are more crucial to

the situation at hand is weighed more heavily. Atkinson, on the other hand, proposes

that The Square Route replaces the Iron Triangle. The Square Route consists of four

categories, each with their own small list of criteria to help evaluate the project on

multiple levels.

The first category is, in fact, the Iron Triangle, with cost, quality, and time. The

second category is the information system, with such points as maintainability,

reliability, and usability. The third category is titled Benefits (organization) and has

such points as improved efficiency and improved effectiveness. The fourth and final
category is titled Benefits (stakeholder community) and touches on such areas as

satisfied users, and social and environmental impact.