The right angle
The single most common approach undertaken in successful project management is to check if the project is delivered within budget, scope, and schedule baselines; but what is common is not necessarily correct. Many forward-thinking managers and researchers (Aaron J. Shenhar, Bannerman, P. L., others) believe this to no longer be a valid—or at the very least, non-optimal—method.
The modern world is prone to changing at a truly frightening speed. With the rampant volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, baselines previously held religiously are no longer set in stone. They are now more adjustable and flexible (with adaptable change management, at least, which is what every company should strive for). This is due to the fact that we have to always think about product success when delivering a project. We have to think wider than mere baselines and plans, for we might be successfully building an application that nobody needs today (ergo, failure).
This is something many project managers are not adequately grasping, that in this widely-propagated golden formula lies not only 3 variables. 4 doesn’t quite cut it either. There are many more considerations that are often overlooked: scope; budget; schedule; product success measurements; and, most importantly, something else entirely—something that is supposed to tell us are adapting and changing in the right direction.
Strategy is the Key
Strategic alignment is something that is a vital part of the equation, one that is inherent when it comes to measuring project success. With strategy, things become clear. So, with that out of the way, let us now look at the few levels or dimensions of project success:
- Delivery within baselines (scope, cost, schedule) — project level,
- Product level,
- Business and strategy level.
Modern researchers are outlining four or five levels in their construct of a definition in reference to project success. Aaron J. Shenhar (1), in his work “Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept”, narrowed his list down to four project success dimensions:
- Project efficiency,
- Impact on customer,
- Business success,
- Preparing for the future.
Bannerman (2), in the article “Defining project success: a multilevel framework”, presented five dimensions (which are considerably close to the four we’ve outlined above):
- Process success,
- Project success,
- Deliverable success,
- Business success,
- Strategic success.
Eskander Howsawi and David Eager (3), in their work “The four-level project success framework: application and assessment”, similarly described almost the same 4 dimensions:
- Project process level,
- Deliverables level,
- Business Level,
- Context level.
Let’s dive deeper into each of these dimensions that underlie project success.
Factors of Project Success
On the project level, we need to ensure that we:
- monitor and control schedule execution (SPI, release burndowns, sprints burnups, Gantts and network diagrams, etc.),
- monitor budget burn (CPI, budget burn, etc.),
- conduct project and team health checks,
- calculate Budget at Completion, and To Complete Performance Index.
So, how exactly can we tell whether a project is successful based on these product-related dimensions?
Well, we can measure if we deliver according to pre-specified target milestones, but will this guarantee the success of the product? Not likely. In that case, how then can we tell that the is en route towards the desired success we seek? Personally, I think the best judgment to base this upon is whether we are delivering what people need. To do this, we have to understand exactly what value means for the stakeholders involved in the consummation of the product, as well as those that will work with this product (promote it, distribute it, etc.).
On the levels of business and strategy, we have to, first of all, measure how the project adds to the Balanced Scorecard of the business. We can thus measure the project impact on:
- Organizational capacity improvements,
- Internal processes improvements,
- Customer satisfaction improvements,
- Financial results improvements.
In a big organization, it is quite often hard to understand how each particular project would benefit each of the aspects above. Certainty is not guaranteed just by observing the project itself. From my experience, there should definitely the measurements should mostly come from a portfolio level. It is particularly clear when this is with regards to financial results (revenue, cost, ROI/margin, etc.), simply because this area is already traditionally represented by numbers. It is also fairly clear how to measure the impact on improvements in the internal processes of your organization. We can measure how to process measurements have changed (lead time, waste, defects, etc.), but the main measurement that ultimately remains is how much value the customer of the process is actually getting. Customer satisfaction is another area where we have to infer from stakeholders, and what they consider to be of value.
To summarize, we can say that financial numbers, processes metrics improvements, and value to stakeholders are the main measurements whereby we can judge the project on business and strategy dimensions.
In the next article, we will be talking about something very important: how the concept of “perception of value” unites all levels into one cohesive whole.
May the force be with you!
References
_______________________
1 . Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Aaron J. Shenhar, Dov Dvir, Ofer Levy, and Alan C. Maltz. Published in Long Range Planning Journal, 34 (2001), p 699–725.
2 . Bannerman, P. L. (2008). Defining project success: a multilevel framework. Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference: Defining the Future of Project Management, Warsaw, Poland. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
3 . The four-level project success framework: application and assessment. Eskander Howsawi, David Eager. Organizational Project Management Journal, Vol 1 No 1 (2014) 1–15
