Presented to Ms. Lissa Andrea K.

Magpantay
College of Computer Studies
De La Salle University, IT Department
October 23, 2018

Assessing Project Success: Moving Beyond the Triple Constraint

Michael J. Cuellar

CRITIQUE PAPER No. 1

CIS101M – Project Management and IS Development
Rommel C. Tupig
MSIT-11884835

Abstract: This paper evaluates the reconceptualization on the achievement of project

success based on the reviewed concepts and theories on the difference on the definition and
application of the traditional triple constraint approach – scope, budget, and schedule; and modern
work systems adaptation as suggested theoretical methodology in assessing the change in project
success as discussed by Michael J. Cuellar. The attempt is to provide a clear understanding on the
study of the two approaches and how it can impact the need of the project managers and
stakeholders in providing direction on how a project can be undertaken towards project success.

It has been found that the triple constraint approach is commonly used and effective in
most types of projects and that the approach is usually centered in managing the relationships and
achievement of the three core components, but its inability to manage the conflicts between
stakeholder’s expectations, and trade-offs can result to failure and disappointment at the end of
the project whereas, the shift to Work System concept introduces the view of using IT artifacts,
direct involvement of participants and/or machines, and other technologies within the project
processes and activities in order to produce products and improve the functionality of project
management approach suitable in IS project environment.

Key Words: Triple Constraint; Work System; Project Success

1. STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH the activities, processes, schedules, and

PROBLEM
The paper aims to provide assessment in the
determination of project success based on the shift of
methodology from the triple constraint to the
shifting of focus to work system framework in
relation to IS projects. The paper will put emphasis
based on the following questions:
 How would the traditional triple constraint
concept affect the project success in managing
resources of a project?
 How would the basis of the work system be
beneficial in the analysis and change in scope,
time, and cost towards the attainment of
project success?
 How would the practicality of the
possible replacement of the traditional
triple constraint with work system
method benefit general types of
projects?

1
2. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PAPER
The paper is purposely done to discuss the
major points of differences in the application of
traditional triple constraint, and the suggested
Alter’s Work System in evaluating project
performance and success as viewed by Cuellar. This
will also review the importance and effect of the
traditional triple constraint in most types of projects
and project’s processes, and how the possible
reconceptualization of project success through the
use of work system will impact the completion of the
project. Finally, the paper will consider theoretically,
the different approaches presented in shifting the
focus in the assessment of project success from the
traditional development activity to work system
considerations in producing products and services of
a project.
3. FRAMEWORK USED
 Traditional Triple Constraint Framework –
focuses in balancing of the three competing
demands: scope, cost, and time.
 Work System Framework – identifies nine
elements that are part of even rudimentary
understanding of a work system: customer, products
and services, processes and activities, participants,
information, technologies, environment,
infrastructure, and strategies.
4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The assessment of project success based on
the traditional triple constraint is probably one of the
most overlooked project management fundamentals
[1]. While the focus of the triangle is to encourage the
exploitation of the balance and flexibility of the
competing triple constraint requirements in order to
guide project managers towards the realization of
their project, it doesn’t consider the needs of
stakeholders or the performance of the business
after implementation. The focus of the triple
constraint is to provide balance in time, scope, and
cost in the performance of activities which is
essential to achieve project success, however, it lacks
the drive to intentionally control the changes in each
constraint thus, resulting to possible uncontrolled
trade-offs.
In IS projects, the introduction of work
system is strategically valuable since it merges the
use of the processes and activities, participants,
information, and technologies in the production of
products and services. It bridges between
managerial and technical perspectives of a project
[2]. Also, the environment, infrastructure, and
strategies outside the work system model has direct
effect within the work system and therefore fits in
treating unplanned changes as part of work system’s
natural progression.
The application of both models has its own
advantages. It is clear that the triple constraint is the
foundation principle in managing project success,
and the work system method can be incorporated in
the management of the triple constraint in order to
suit the rapid changes on the nature of very project
and suits its technical and managerial need.
5. POINTS OF AGREEMENT
According to Cuellar, based on his gathered
literature reviews, the predominant definition of the
actual project success is when a project meets the
directed requirement on budget, schedule, and
functionality. Being the foundation theory in
assessing project success, most books and
publications supports this idea. It states that the
project’s success is impacted by its budget,
deadlines, and features and that the trade-off
between these three constraints is a common
phenomenon. The change in one demand will create
subsequent suffering of the other [3]. The triple
constraint is a paradigm applicable to most projects
and that the initial idea is balancing those three
competing demands [4]. It is notable that these
demands are interconnected; any changes in one of
this demand will have an impact on the others [5, 1].
Agreeably, Cuellar pointed out that these issues in
the traditional triple constraint do not provide
guidance to the project managers on the changes on
schedule, functionality, and feature. Thus, project
managers must know that this aspect of the project
process is crucial in moving towards a successful
completion.
Cuellar pointed out the project success is not
just meeting the three competing demands since it
varies depending on the viewpoint of stakeholders
and on the presentation and perception of the
project manager and the customer. In his empirical
view, the traditional model ignores a fundamental
fact that in bigger IS projects, the approach has the
difficulties in focusing on the IT artifact, the
2
manipulability, and the lack of guidance that it
provide to the project manager especially in shifting
focus from the IT artifact to IT enabled system. The
triple constraint considers balance within the project
phase but doesn’t set measurement on the success of
the project after handover. Similarly, Barrata [6],
pointed out that “the current triple constraint model
can lead to a poor decision making since it does not
represent their true relationship since time is
dimension of cost and a relative metric.” He
emphasizes that the triple constraint can be replaced
by the Value Triple Constraint where Value=f (scope,
capability) interpreted as the value delivered is a
function of the scope of the project opportunity and
the capability of the process used to deliver it [7].
According to him, this model enables the project
managers to actually manage the conflicting
demands since it provides measurement of on the
effect of cost, opportunity, and schedule into a single
value that is specific in every project.
The shifting of focus into the work system
method formulated by Steven Alter can also be
beneficial. In this framework, it emphasizes its
application in most IT related projects where the
triple constraint is somehow out of line as far as
Cuellar’s definition is concerned. Work system treats
system as sociotechnical work system since it
generally put emphasis on the participation of
humans, information, technologies, machines, and
other resources in producing the products and
services for internal and external customers [8]
making it the core components of a work system
similar to that of the triple constraints where
interconnectivity within is also evident. Cuellar
evaluated the concept of work system as a system
that utilizes the use of IT artifact which is intended to
improve the performance of the work system
through the reduction of cost in operation,
improving the efficiency of the system while
minimizing resource in order to increase financial
performance and improving service quality.
Agreeable to this, the advantage of the work
system over the traditional triple constraint is that
the merging of the interests of the project team and
stakeholders through the application of IT enabled
work system can meet the needs of the customers
since success or failure of a project will be based on
the performance of the entire component of the
system. Similarly, tools and techniques in an IT
enables work system is a definite leverage in
quantifying the benefits of the project. However, this
type of system must consider the skill sets of the
project managers, relationships of the entire work
system components, and the applicable IT artifact in
order to manage the project success from planning to
handover and post implementation support.
6. POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT
Triple constraint gives you a firm sense on
what can and can’t be adjusted throughout the
course of the project [3]. Quality planning according
to Berman, defines and codifies the project standards
required and how those standards will be achieved
and confirmed [9]. Managing the trade-off activity
efficiently and incorporating techniques can be a
strategic approach in order to prioritize the activities
and resources to be traded is critical but useful
technique. Dobson’s theorem of the hierarchy of
constraints for example is helpful in providing the
project’s listing of the triple constraint’s variables
and proposes the flexibility on the exploitation
weaker constraints that can be used as a mechanism
to address the direct requirement of the driver
constraint (changing constraint). This polarity
management theory can provide an influential
instrument in managing conflict resistance, and
facilitates positive and workable change [1]
especially in identifying the moving constraints that
can directly affect the balancing of the three
competing demands.
Other areas that can be pointed out in the
determination of project success can be performance
indicator and non-physical working environment
conditions. Turner and Zolin [10] pointed out that
stakeholders’ understanding of success changes with
time. Project manager needs leading performance
indicators that looks beyond the triple constraint,
and forecast how clients view success based on
months or even years to come. This means that a
project development plan with performance
indicator will ensure that any related event can have
an advanced look out of expected results for the
coming year. Non-physical working environment
includes remuneration, job satisfaction, job security,
and working hours. Project managers must view this
type of environment as an important determinant of
triple constraint [11].
3
7. REFERENCES
[1] C. Juri Van Wyngaard, J.-H. C. Pretorius and L.
Pretorius, "Strategic Management of the Triple
Constraint Trade-off Dynamics - a Polarity
Management Approach," ResearchGate, vol. 10, p.
824, 2011.
[2] S. Alter, "Using Work System Theory to Link
Managerial and technical Perspective on BPM," in
2013 IEEE International Conference on Business
Informatics, San Francisco, USA, 2013.
[3] J. Westland, "The Triple Constraint in Project
Management: Time, Scope & Cost,"
ProjectManager.com, 22 March 2018. [Online].
Available:
https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/triple-
constraint-project-management-time-scope-cost.
[Accessed 20 October 2018].
[9] C. Berman, "Why is Quality Planning Important in
Project Management?," HEARTS Newspaper, 2017.
[Online]. Available:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/quality-planning-
important-project-management-81402.html .
[10 R. Turner and R. Zolin, "Forecasting Success on Large
] Projects: Developing Reliable Scales to Predict
Multiple Perspectives by Multiple Stakeholders Over
Multiple Time Frames," Project Management Journal,
Wiley Online Library,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pmj.2
1289/full, 2012.
[11 S. A. R. Hamid, G. H. Adnan and S. T. Zehra, "Work
] Environment and its Impact on Triple Constraint of
Project Management," Management and Business
Review, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 545-552, 2012.

[4] D. Somer, "Beyond the Triple Constraint: Why Project

Success Requires a Keen Focus on Business
Objectives (Part 1 of 2)," www.net-translators.com, 1
May 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.net-
translators.com/blog/beyond-the-triple-constraint-
l10n-project-success-part-1/. [Accessed 20 October
2018].

[5] M. McDonough, "What is the Triple Constraint?,"

Bright Hub Project Management, 22 April 2013.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.brighthubpm.com/monitoring-
projects/9793-what-is-the-triple-constraint/.
[Accessed 20 October 2018].

[6] A. Barrata, "The triple Constraint, A Triple Illusion,"

PMI Global Congress Proceedings, Seatle,
Washington, 2006.

[7] A. Barrata, "The Value Triple Constraint: Measuring

the Effectiveness of the Project Management
Paradigm," in PMI® Global Congress 2007, North
America, Atlanta, GA. Newtown Square, 2007.

[8] S. Alter, "The Work System Method: Systems

Thinking for Business Professionals," in Industrial
and Systems Engineering Research Conference, San
Francisco, CA, 2011.