Despite the evaluation of the triple constraint not being the most efficient way in which to measure a project’s success, project management offices (PMOs) are still focused on delivering around these statistics. In a post at his blog, Kiron Bondale analyzes the metrics that will ultimately help PMOs.
Evolving Metrics Needs
Part of the reason that PMOs are more inclined to publish these types of metrics is that they provide a quick win and show them improving more substantially, but this is not necessarily good for the organization. Theoretically, imagine a company juggling one or two large projects and a plethora of small ones in its portfolio. Perhaps the small ones were all completed satisfactorily but the large ones were behind schedule and over budget. Overall, this would look like a great success rate for the company, but it is not truly indicative of its capabilities or diagnostic of problems.
PMOs should direct their focus towards the bigger picture, looking past the initial costs. When there is a delay in the project, not only does it reflect poorly on the entire organization, but it impacts the other projects. Metrics should still be accounted for, but organizations should also be inclined to look into normalizing costs and benefits in relation to the size of the projects.
Normalized performance metrics are the future and the better way to truly uncover how the organization is doing. You can read the original post here: https://kbondale.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/portfolio-metrics-need-to-advance-beyond-on-time-and-on-budget/