The Triple Constraints Model of Project Management - Essay Example

The Triple Constraints Model of Project Management Turner (1991: 2) states that there are three dimensions to project management: the project itself, the process of managing the project and the various levels within in the project. Each is inter-related and further is necessary steps to ensure success of the project. The successful outcome lies in ensuring that there is a seamless flow between these three dimensions. Projects themselves come in various forms and too often we think of them only as the massive undertakings, when in reality we undertake many projects daily.

Turner (1991) defines project management as “the art and science of converting vision into reality” (p. 3). In the following paragraphs we will discuss the three steps to project management and discuss how this theory differs from traditional project management theories. As outline above the fist dimension is that of the project itself which he defines as “an endeavour…designed to produce some novel, unitary objective from which we expect to derive new benefits” (p. 5). The key is to understand what needs to be accomplished (the plan) and the amount of time to accomplish it while still ensuring quality.

Flexibility, innovation, cooperation and a sense of urgency are important characteristics. Turner (1991) stresses that the project manager must focus on the results, what it is the project is to accomplish. Focusing on anything less increases the opportunity for failure or deviation…”ensure that all work done delivers essential project objectives” (Turner, 1991: 7). To accomplish this five essential functions are involved: “scope of the work, the organization (the people who do the work), quality, cost and duration” (Turner, 1991: 7).

The last three he stresses, although important, are merely constraints; without the project or people there would be no project. The second dimension of this theory is the management process, which takes the vision or dream and makes it the reality, the outcome. This encompasses a four part process for successful outcome, each important and overlapping requiring process definition that looks beyond department boundaries to a seamless flow requiring cooperation and multiple, simultaneous effort by teamwork.

These for stages begin with the proposed idea and beginning of the project move onto design and evaluation onto execution and process improvement and control. The forth process is the culmination or finalization of the project, the reality, which leads to closure. Each process requires planning and check to test viability and progress. Turner (1991) also reminds us that each project is unique. In some the plans, goals, and methods are clear. Also one may have poorly defined aspects as well making evaluation and planning imperative to understand that not one mould fits all projects.

The last dimension of the project is the over-all management which encompasses three levels: “integrative, strategic and detail” (Turner, 1991: 16). The integrative level is the planning/doing which requires by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The strategic level is the administrative end, where processes are decided, budgets are constructed and operational issues are finalized and the detail is laying out the specific operational steps and requirements; the importance and difference for success, as alluded to early, is the management which relies on crossing departmental barriers.

Also, there must be flexibility as no two projects are identical and there needs to be stop and check points within the process to ensure progress and that the project is progress to meet the needs of intermediate end users (those further in the process). This discovers potential problems while they are happening as opposed to the traditional method that discovers problems after the completion of the process. In closing, Turner emphasises that planning is important but the true key to success and being the first to market lies in the ability to be flexible, keeping your eye on the results (strategic plan), whilst being able to alter the method to get there as required.

Keep your eye to the desire outcome at all times. ReferencesTURNER, R., 1991. ‘Projects and their Management’ in Handbook of Project-Based Management, 1-31.