Bill Duncan comments on the definition of project success (link) and touches on the different dimensions beyond merely completing the project 'on time'. His thoughts sparked a few thoughts as well.
Success can be defined in several dimensions. The more success criteria defined, the greater the chance that they will conflict with each other. Invariably, there will be 'success criteria creep.' Some ranking of success criteria may be required. Perhaps a ranking system may be of use to rank the success criteria according to importance in order to provide guidance whenever conflicts arise. For example, while it may be deemed important to achieve each major milestone according to schedule, is that more important than completing the whole project on time? And is completing the project on time more important than meeting a specified project cost?
Other questions to help rank the success criteria might include:
- What are the consequences of not meeting this success criteria?
- Are we prepared to spend more in order to meet this success criteria (otherwise is just a nice-to-have?) If so, how much?
- Is it acceptable to fail to meet a success criteria in order to achieve another criteria?
Giving this a little more thought, I find a relationship between project requirements and success criteria: why did we define success this way and not that way? The answer lies in the requirements. We defined this as a success criteria because it is important. It is important because <project requirement>. A simple example: success critera A: the stadium is ready for use by March 11, 2011. Why? Because a large event is going to use it on March 25, 2011. Failing to make the stadium available by March 11 means a failure to hold the event.
No comments:
Post a Comment