The iron triangle as an analytical tool - Revision history

S165499: /* Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? */

2021-02-28T16:54:29Z

Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 28 February 2021
Line 100:		Line 100:
	=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===		=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===

	A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the project manager must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, ~~and its~~ organization. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project in the direction of success.		A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the project manager must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, but the organization as well. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project in the direction of success.

	== Annotated bibliography ==		== Annotated bibliography ==

S165499: /* Annotated bibliography */

2021-02-28T16:10:10Z

Annotated bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 28 February 2021
Line 134:		Line 134:
	<ref name="OPERA"> Sydney Opera House: For Demonstrating Architecture's Power to Refine a City (Most Influential Projects: #50) (2019). PM Network, 33, 94–95. Last accessed: 23rd February 2021. Link: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/top-50-projects-sydney-opera-house-11757 </ref>		<ref name="OPERA"> Sydney Opera House: For Demonstrating Architecture's Power to Refine a City (Most Influential Projects: #50) (2019). PM Network, 33, 94–95. Last accessed: 23rd February 2021. Link: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/top-50-projects-sydney-opera-house-11757 </ref>
	<ref name="SIX"> Siegelaub, J. M. (2007). Six (yes six!) constraints: an enhanced model for project control. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2007—North America, Atlanta, GA. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.</ref>		<ref name="SIX"> Siegelaub, J. M. (2007). Six (yes six!) constraints: an enhanced model for project control. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2007—North America, Atlanta, GA. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.</ref>
	<ref name="EVENT">Gabriella Cserháti, Lajos Szabó, The relationship between success criteria and success factors in organisational event projects, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 32, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 613-624.</ref>

	== Bibliography ==		== Bibliography ==

S165499: /* Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? */

2021-02-28T16:04:59Z

Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 28 February 2021
Line 100:		Line 100:
	=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===		=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===

	A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the ~~Project Manager~~ must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, and its organization. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project in the direction of success.		A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the project manager must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, and its organization. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project in the direction of success.

	== Annotated bibliography ==		== Annotated bibliography ==

S165499 at 08:45, 28 February 2021

2021-02-28T08:45:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 28 February 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	''Written by Jonatan L. Edry''		''Written by Jonatan Larsen Edry''

	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

S165499: /* Type II Errors */

2021-02-28T08:43:29Z

Type II Errors

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:43, 28 February 2021
Line 52:		Line 52:
	* '''Project Success vs. Project Management Success.''' As previously stated, the Iron Triangle originally aims to evaluate project success. However, since its release, research has suggested that there should be a clear distinguishment between project success, and project management success<ref name="DEWIT" />. Once again, because of the Iron Triangle’s simplistic nature, such a differentiation is not made clear enough within the borders of the tool. Project success (effectiveness) refers to the project value and its benefits focused on the long-term. And project management success (efficiency) refers to the delivery of requirements within budget, on time, and to the agreement of other chosen constraints<ref name="CHANGE" />. As presented in the Type I limitations of the Iron Triangle, it appears that the Iron Triangle in its original context lacks the dimension of long-term benefits and focuses too much on the short-term outputs. It is therefore suggested that the Iron Triangle lacks the dimensions of for example factors such as project types, project phases and satisfaction, as mentioned previously, before it can fulfil the requirements of measuring long-term benefits. <br /> A relevant real-life example of this issue can be explained by the well-known Sydney Opera House project. The opera house opened 10 years behind schedule and ended up costing 1367% over budget <ref name="OPERA" />. So, from the perspective of the Cost and Time constraints of the Iron Triangle, it would be suggested that the project was a huge failure. However, from the perspective of the project benefits, it is clear that the project was a huge project success with its World Heritage status (UNESCO) and its positive effect on Australian tourism and thereby the economy as well. <br /> So, based on these distinctions, many researchers have actually agreed upon that the Iron Triangle by its core actually evaluates project management instead of project success.<ref name="CHANGE" />		* '''Project Success vs. Project Management Success.''' As previously stated, the Iron Triangle originally aims to evaluate project success. However, since its release, research has suggested that there should be a clear distinguishment between project success, and project management success<ref name="DEWIT" />. Once again, because of the Iron Triangle’s simplistic nature, such a differentiation is not made clear enough within the borders of the tool. Project success (effectiveness) refers to the project value and its benefits focused on the long-term. And project management success (efficiency) refers to the delivery of requirements within budget, on time, and to the agreement of other chosen constraints<ref name="CHANGE" />. As presented in the Type I limitations of the Iron Triangle, it appears that the Iron Triangle in its original context lacks the dimension of long-term benefits and focuses too much on the short-term outputs. It is therefore suggested that the Iron Triangle lacks the dimensions of for example factors such as project types, project phases and satisfaction, as mentioned previously, before it can fulfil the requirements of measuring long-term benefits. <br /> A relevant real-life example of this issue can be explained by the well-known Sydney Opera House project. The opera house opened 10 years behind schedule and ended up costing 1367% over budget <ref name="OPERA" />. So, from the perspective of the Cost and Time constraints of the Iron Triangle, it would be suggested that the project was a huge failure. However, from the perspective of the project benefits, it is clear that the project was a huge project success with its World Heritage status (UNESCO) and its positive effect on Australian tourism and thereby the economy as well. <br /> So, based on these distinctions, many researchers have actually agreed upon that the Iron Triangle by its core actually evaluates project management instead of project success.<ref name="CHANGE" />

	As stated in the above limitations, it is seen that many of the issues are directly intertwined with ~~eachother~~. While different projects in the industry could face varying issues with applying the Iron ~~Trinangle~~, the above ones have been chosen as these appear to be the most acknowledged ones. With these limitations and their suggested mitigations in mind, the following ~~sections~~ attempts to present how the Iron Triangle can be applied from the perspective of a project manager.		As stated in the above limitations, it is seen that many of the issues are directly intertwined with each other. While different projects in the industry could face varying issues with applying the Iron Triangle, the above ones have been chosen as these appear to be the most acknowledged ones. With these limitations and their suggested mitigations in mind, the following section attempts to present how the Iron Triangle can be applied from the perspective of a project manager.

	<div><ul>		<div><ul>

S165499: /* Type I Errors */

2021-02-28T08:42:41Z

Type I Errors

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 28 February 2021
Line 42:		Line 42:
	=== Type I Errors ===		=== Type I Errors ===

	* '''Short-term vs. Long-term.''' Research has suggested that the Iron Triangle is too focused on measuring short-term success criteria in comparison to more long-term focused and less tangible criteria<ref name="PINTO" /> such as the actual benefits of the project. What is meant here is, that a too narrow focus on the Iron Triangle’s classic constraints could cloud the way for not only achieving but also measuring long-term benefits. While the classic triple constraints of the Iron Triangle are by themselves not able to measure these benefits, a relevant ~~sidetrack~~ to this topic is the large area of [[Earned Value Management (EVM)]] that manages to build upon the foundations of the triple constraints to do exactly so.		* '''Short-term vs. Long-term.''' Research has suggested that the Iron Triangle is too focused on measuring short-term success criteria in comparison to more long-term focused and less tangible criteria<ref name="PINTO" /> such as the actual benefits of the project. What is meant here is, that a too narrow focus on the Iron Triangle’s classic constraints could cloud the way for not only achieving but also measuring long-term benefits. While the classic triple constraints of the Iron Triangle are by themselves not able to measure these benefits, a relevant side-track to this topic is the large area of [[Earned Value Management (EVM)]] that manages to build upon the foundations of the triple constraints to do exactly so.

	* '''Broadening the constraints.''' Depending on the type of project, and type of industry one operates project management within, it may be very likely that Time, Cost, and Quality/Scope by themselves are not sufficient to define success<ref name="PRINCE2" />. It is therefore suggested that project success must go beyond these criteria by for example including safety, risks, benefits, satisfaction etc.<ref name="TOOR" /> in the model, as depicted in Figure 3. However, to expand on the Iron Triangles constraint also calls for a comprise on one of its main features, its simplicity. The PMBOK Guide uses a popular alternative model to the triple constraint. It is called the Project Management Star<ref name="PRINCE2BLOG" /> and it lists six constraints, made from two overlapping triangles in a star shape as seen in Figure 4. Here, it says scope is constrained by the budget and schedule, while quality is assured by managing risks and resources. This also means, that the Project Management Star distinguishes between the constraints of Scope and Quality.		* '''Broadening the constraints.''' Depending on the type of project, and type of industry one operates project management within, it may be very likely that Time, Cost, and Quality/Scope by themselves are not sufficient to define success<ref name="PRINCE2" />. It is therefore suggested that project success must go beyond these criteria by for example including safety, risks, benefits, satisfaction etc.<ref name="TOOR" /> in the model, as depicted in Figure 3. However, to expand on the Iron Triangles constraint also calls for a comprise on one of its main features, its simplicity. The PMBOK Guide uses a popular alternative model to the triple constraint. It is called the Project Management Star<ref name="PRINCE2BLOG" /> and it lists six constraints, made from two overlapping triangles in a star shape as seen in Figure 4. Here, it says scope is constrained by the budget and schedule, while quality is assured by managing risks and resources. This also means, that the Project Management Star distinguishes between the constraints of Scope and Quality.

S165499: /* Abstract */

2021-02-28T08:42:17Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 28 February 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:
	This article aims to present the Iron Triangle (also known as the Project Management Triangle, Project Triangle, and Triple Constraint Triangle) as an analytical tool with a focus on Project Management through the perspective of Purpose. The Iron Triangle is considered as one of the most fundamental project management models regarding success and is based on the interrelationships between key project performance metrics, which in this case are defined as constraints. Therefore, the scope of this article is mainly considering project success management. With its origins from the 1950’s, the Iron Triangle was originally applied to settle on initial project estimates and thereby evaluating the project success regarding if these estimates were met. However, this article is going to present some of the most concurrent criticisms and limitations of the classic Iron Triangle, and how key research spanning many years and crossing various industries have let to the mitigations of these issues. This has let the enhancement of the approach of the Iron Triangle into an analytical tool with the purpose of not only defining project frameworks but also to continuously assess project performance throughout its lifespan by guiding project managers to where adjustments in project constraints must be made when changes in other constraints occur.		This article aims to present the Iron Triangle (also known as the Project Management Triangle, Project Triangle, and Triple Constraint Triangle) as an analytical tool with a focus on Project Management through the perspective of Purpose. The Iron Triangle is considered as one of the most fundamental project management models regarding success and is based on the interrelationships between key project performance metrics, which in this case are defined as constraints. Therefore, the scope of this article is mainly considering project success management. With its origins from the 1950’s, the Iron Triangle was originally applied to settle on initial project estimates and thereby evaluating the project success regarding if these estimates were met. However, this article is going to present some of the most concurrent criticisms and limitations of the classic Iron Triangle, and how key research spanning many years and crossing various industries have let to the mitigations of these issues. This has let the enhancement of the approach of the Iron Triangle into an analytical tool with the purpose of not only defining project frameworks but also to continuously assess project performance throughout its lifespan by guiding project managers to where adjustments in project constraints must be made when changes in other constraints occur.

	With regards to the application of the tool, it is first presented what should be assessed and considered in its two primary PMI’s Project Management Body of Knowledge’s processes; planning and controlling. Then, practical, and strategic approaches to the balancing of the triple constraints will be presented through the Iron Triangle’s core concept of project constraint ~~tradeoffs~~. Lastly, it will be discussed how project managers can leverage the Iron Triangle from representing a set of pre-defined specifications (classic view of projects) to an analytical tool focusing on value creation (state of the art view of projects) by implementing the tool alongside other crucial management knowledge areas.		With regards to the application of the tool, it is first presented what should be assessed and considered in its two primary PMI’s Project Management Body of Knowledge’s processes; planning and controlling. Then, practical, and strategic approaches to the balancing of the triple constraints will be presented through the Iron Triangle’s core concept of project constraint trade-offs. Lastly, it will be discussed how project managers can leverage the Iron Triangle from representing a set of pre-defined specifications (classic view of projects) to an analytical tool focusing on value creation (state of the art view of projects) by implementing the tool alongside other crucial management knowledge areas.

	== The Iron Triangle and its most common variations ==		== The Iron Triangle and its most common variations ==

S165499: /* The Iron Triangle and its most common variations */

2021-02-28T08:42:02Z

The Iron Triangle and its most common variations

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 28 February 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:
	\|}		\|}

	The Iron Triangle is most effective in displaying and communicating interdependencies between the above-presented success criteria. As seen in Figure 1 below, the classic depiction of the tool is a triangle with each constraint located at each corner of the triangle. The primary nature of the triangle’s constraint ~~behavior~~ is formulated famously as “good, fast or cheap - pick two”<ref name="THEORY" /><ref name="CONSTRUCT" />, describing how the adjustment of focus in a specific constraint warrant compensating changes in one or both of the other constraints.		The Iron Triangle is most effective in displaying and communicating interdependencies between the above-presented success criteria. As seen in Figure 1 below, the classic depiction of the tool is a triangle with each constraint located at each corner of the triangle. The primary nature of the triangle’s constraint behaviour is formulated famously as “good, fast or cheap - pick two”<ref name="THEORY" /><ref name="CONSTRUCT" />, describing how the adjustment of focus in a specific constraint warrant compensating changes in one or both of the other constraints.

	With the Iron Triangle covering such core fundamentals of project management, it has been found that the neglection of its criteria can have devastating consequences on the success of a project in spite of efficient and effective management of other project metrics<ref name="PMBOK" />. Contrarily, tunnel visioning on the tool’s criteria alone will also eventually lead to a project’s demise<ref name="CHANGE" />.		With the Iron Triangle covering such core fundamentals of project management, it has been found that the neglection of its criteria can have devastating consequences on the success of a project in spite of efficient and effective management of other project metrics<ref name="PMBOK" />. Contrarily, tunnel visioning on the tool’s criteria alone will also eventually lead to a project’s demise<ref name="CHANGE" />.

S165499: /* Application of the iron triangle */

2021-02-28T08:39:26Z

Application of the iron triangle

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:39, 28 February 2021
Line 100:		Line 100:
	=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===		=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===

	A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the Project Manager must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, and its organization. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project ~~into~~ the direction of success.		A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the Project Manager must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, and its organization. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project in the direction of success.

	== Annotated bibliography ==		== Annotated bibliography ==

S165499: /* Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? */

2021-02-28T08:37:36Z

Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:37, 28 February 2021
Line 100:		Line 100:
	=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===		=== Avoid tunnel vision - what about Program and Portfolio management? ===

	A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the Project Manager must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, and its organization. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project into success.		A crucial aspect is that the project manager does not exclusively focus on the Iron Triangle and its constraints alone – they must avoid tunnel vision. As presented by R. Atkinson and his Square Route model <ref name="DEWIT" />, the project managers should not sorely be fixated on the project’s own goal. This ties back to the presented lack of long-term measurements in the Iron Triangle and its lacking distinguishment between project success and project management success. To achieve a broader view on project success, the Project Manager must look beyond the borders of the Iron Triangle where additional constraints and additional dimensions to the tool are not necessarily sufficient. Instead, to achieve more value-focused project success, one should attempt to include the business case and vision of not only the project, and its organization. In relation to Program and Portfolio success, the organizational benefits, and the overarching strategies are in focus. Therefore, in the case of a project functioning within a program and/or a portfolio, the project manager must align the project with not only its classical constraints but most importantly the defined expected program benefits and the strategic vision of the program and the portfolio. By managing the project success within these types of constraints, e.g., business cases, organizational goals, portfolio strategies, the Iron Triangle as an analytical tool will be reinforced. It is therefore critical to apply the Iron Triangle with the rightful purpose of being an analytical tool alongside (but not exclusively) the management knowledge areas presented in this article to steer an on-going project into the direction of success.

	== Annotated bibliography ==		== Annotated bibliography ==