Figure 1: Three measures of effective project performance and some corresponding means for achieving success
The objectives of scope, time, and cost shown in Figure 1 include both objectives and goals, as defined by Cleland. These are the second and third highest layers of his pyramidal model. Together with the organizational mission, the topmost layer, they constitute the triad of organizational direction," and by implication, they have the authority of approval from outside the project team. On the right hand side of the table in Figure 1 are strategies decisions made within the project team regarding design configurations, courses of action, and resource allocations as means of achieving the goals and objectives.
Martin and Webster agree that bringing a project to completion within the cost, schedule, and scope (performance) objectives contained in the project charter (a document authorized by the sponsor) satisfies the general criteria for success. However, they go on to suggest that how well risks were assessed, and how the form of contract with sellers was chosen are also evaluation criteria. These kinds of choices are clearly what Cleland would call strategies.
Stuckenbruck similarly acknowledges that the achievement of the goals and objectives is a measure of project success, but observes that there may be stakeholders, other than the client or customer, with different criteria for success. The concern in this paper is with identifying the dimensions or measures of successful performance which should be agreed upon between the client and the project team, and which are objectively verifiable. It appears all of the criteria that Stuckenbruck lists as potential client requirements can be incorporated in the measures of scope, time, and cost outlined in this paper. The project manager, the team members, and the project manager's employer (in the case of a contractor organization) all may have their own objectives, explicit or hidden, which may or may not be compatible with the client's requirements as reflected in the project charter. It is not intended to address these other objectives or to formulate a more global measure of project success in this paper.
10. Cleland, D.I. Measuring Project Success: The Owner's Viewpoint. Proceedings of the 1986 Seminar/Symposium Drexel Hill, PA: The Project Management Institute, 1986, p6
11. McCoy, F.A. Measuring Success. Establishing and Maintaining a Baseline. Proceedings of the 1986 Seminar/Symposium Drexel Hill, PA: The Project Management Institute, 1986, p47
12. Ibid, p48
13. Cleland, D.I. Pyramiding Project Management Productivity, Project Management Journal, June 1984, XV, p88
14. Martin, D.M. and Webster, F.M. Contract Type and the Measurement of Project Success. Proceedings of the 1986 Seminary/Symposium Drexel Hill, P.A. The Project Management Institute, 1986, 166
15. Ibid, p171
16. Cleland, D.I. Pyramiding Project Management Productivity. Project Management Journal June 1984, XV, 2, 90
17. Stuckenbruck, L.C. Who Determines Project Success? Proceedings of the 1986 Seminar/Symposium Drexel Hill, PA: The Project Management Institute, 1986, 93