page_title: Project management triangle
section_title: Evolution of the Project Constraint Model
hierarchical_section_title: Project management triangle / Evolution of the Project Constraint Model
caption_attribution_description: English: Diagram based on traditional Project Management Constraint Triangle, suggested personal evolution or interpretation.
context_page_description: The project management triangle is a model of the constraints of project management. While its origins are unclear, it has been used since at least the 1950s. It contends that:
  The quality of work is constrained by the project's budget, deadlines and scope.
  The project manager can trade between constraints.
  Changes in one constraint necessitate changes in others to compensate or quality will suffer.
  For example, a project can be completed faster by increasing budget or cutting scope. Similarly, increasing scope may require equivalent increases in budget and schedule. Cutting budget without adjusting schedule or scope will lead to lower quality.
  "Good, fast, cheap. Choose two." and similar statements are often used to encapsulate the triangle's constraints concisely.
  In practice, however, trading between constraints is not always possible. For example, throwing money at a fully staffed project can slow it down. Moreover, in poorly run projects it is often impossible to improve budget, schedule or scope without adversely affecting quality.
  The Project Management Triangle is used to analyze projects.
context_section_description: Traditionally the Project Constraint Model recognised three key constraints; "Cost", "Time" and "Scope". These constraints construct a triangle with geometric proportions illustrating the strong interdependent relationship between these factors. If there is a requirement to shift any one of these factors then at least one of the other factors must also be manipulated.
  With mainstream acceptance of the Triangle Model, "Cost" and "Time" appear to be represented consistently. "Scope" however is often used interchangeably given the context of the triangle's illustration or the perception of the respective project. Scope / Goal / Product / Deliverable / Quality are all relatively similar and generic variation examples of this, while the above suggestion of 'People Resources' offers a more specialised interpretation.
  This widespread use of variations implies a level of ambiguity carried by the nuance of the third constraint term and of course a level of value in the flexibility of the Triangle Model. This ambiguity allows blurred focus between a project's output and project's process, with the example terms above having potentially different impetus in the two contexts. Both "Cost" and "Time" / "Delivery" represent the top level project's inputs.
  The ‘Project Diamond’ model  engenders this blurred focus through the inclusion of "Scope" and "Quality" separately as the ‘third’ constraint. While there is merit in the addition of "Quality" as a key constraining factor, acknowledging the increasing maturity of project management, this model still lacks clarity between output and process. The Diamond Model does not capture the analogy of the strong interrelation between points of the triangles however.
  PMBOK 4.0 offered an evolved model based on the triple constraint with 6 factors to be monitored and managed. This is illustrated as a 6 pointed Star that maintains the strength of the triangle analogy (two overlaid triangles), while at the same time represents the separation and relationship between project inputs/outputs factors on one triangle and the project processes factors on the other. The star variables are:
  Triangle
  Scope
  Cost
  Time
  Triangle
  Risk
  Quality
  Resources
  When considering the ambiguity of the third constraint and the suggestions of the "Project Diamond"; it is possible to consider instead the Goal or Product of the project as the third constraint, being made up of the sub factors "Scope" and "Quality". In terms of a project's output both "Scope" and "Quality" can be adjusted resulting in an overall manipulation of the Goal/Product. This interpretation includes the four key factors in the original triangle inputs/outputs form. This can even be incorporated into the PMBOK Star illustrating that "Quality" in particular may be monitored separately in terms of project outputs and process. Further to this suggestion, the use of term "Goal" may best represent change initiative outputs, while Product may best represent more tangible outputs.
caption: Interpretation of Triangle Model
exif: {}