We are starting The Number Series with the SUKAD Four Dimensions of Project Success™.
In support of the SUKAD Customizable and Adaptable Methodology for Managing Projects™ (CAMMP™), we have developed a project success model. This model considers a strategic organizational perspective, not limited to the viewpoint of the project manager or project management.
We did write about this topic in the past – here is a link to one of those articles.
The following is an image relating to four dimensions to the SUKAD CAMMP™ standard project life cycle; this is per the 2nd version of CAMMP.
The Four Dimensions of Project Success | by SUKAD
We also have a recorded short video about this topic, which you can access here.
Mounir, while I do agree that your four dimensions are valid to measure, I still take issue with your model. Why? Because a project by definition has a defined start and a defined finish. Your model shows the project as being open ended, which means you are conflating project and operations……. The project produces an asset and operations is responsible to use or exploit that asset. The two are very different and unique constructs.
And being realistic, how can any project manager be held accountable for the “success” or “failure” of the product of the project when in reality, he/she had little or no input into the business case and to make it worse, very few project managers, at least in owner organizations have the formal authority to even make the most basic TACTICAL decisions much less STRATEGIC ones.
Your model, IMPO, is far too much influenced by PMI and not enough by the fully integrated model published by AACE, which is based on the asset centric approach developed by Diamond Shamrock or Esso back in the 1950’s and attesting to the fact is works, is still in use today by all the major and most national oil companies. In this model it is the ASSET and OPERATIONS managers who are the “stars” of the show (as it should be) with the project manager playing an important SUPPORTING role only.
Even PMI has finally admitted this and the fully integrated Asset, Portfolio, Program (Operations) and Project Management methodology first published by AACE and adopted by the Guild of Project Controls is now reflected in the PMBOK Guide 2016 (which is now a year late and probably over budget)
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
Paul, once again you are judging based on pictures and not reading – or not reading fully. Where in my article did I say the project manager is responsible for the third and fourth dimension? Where did i say that the project is open ended?
I clearly say that the first and second dimension must be assessed before project closure whereas 3 & 4 are after closure. They would be assess by the organization – sponsor – PMO – Facility Management – Strategic Planning – or whatever department or BU that owns the product of the project.
You say “Your model, IMPO, is far too much influenced by PMI and not enough by the fully integrated model published by AACE” and this is not correct. In my book on Redefining the Basics of Project Management, I clearly state that my model is influenced by my years in Exxon – and it is a model from the capital project industry and we are trying to cross it into other domains.
SO CAMMP is a Project Management and Delivery approach – that must integrate into the organization’s asset management model; from a project owner perspective.
Best Regards
Mounir
I find the SUKAD Four dimensions of project success a very useful approach and tool. One question that comes to my mind in considering the SUKAD Four dimensions however is: ‘ Is this applicable to projects in all sectors?’ It seems to be more of a PRINCE (Projects In Controlled Environment) thing??
Hello Akin, thanks for your question and feedback. Yes, I do not see why the Four Dimensions of Project Success cannot apply to any project? Well, to leave a room for error, maybe some projects are so unique that 4D, or not all 4 dimensions will apply.
CAMMP has similarities to PRINCE2 but there are numerous differences.