Performance and success are two central components that determine the efficiency of any organization and its managers. For this reason, attempts to identify basic factors that impact these aspects and precondition either improved results or failure have always been an ongoing issue. There are numerous performance measurement criteria that are used regarding the peculiarities of a particular project. However, time, cost, and quality have always remained fundamental elements that are considered by managers. That is why in 1999 Atkinson introduced a term iron triangle to describe these three central measures and create the basis for the further evolution of the idea. The concept became essential to performance management and diverse projects that functioned regarding the iron triangle. However, today there are numerous claims to reconsider this approach and introduce new more appropriate, and topical measures.
At the same time, performance factors remain not the only critical indicators that should be used when evaluating the efficiency of a particular project, its achievements, and its results. There are also specific success criteria that are defined as measures used to judge the success or failure of a business or project. The majority of investigators consider these to be the key performance factors that should be considered when creating a particular framework for the further evolution of projects. In this regard, the iron triangle becomes not the only measure that could be used to evaluate the nature of a particular business, its outcomes, and success as new and significant criteria appear.
Nevertheless, the importance of success criteria is evidenced by their applicability in todays project management. Usually, KPIs help to compare the actual and estimated performance regarding the quality of product, terms, spending, etc. For this reason, the use of different evaluation criteria in managing projects remains a central concept that proves its topicality and applicability. These also help managers to improve planning and achieve their goals.
Thus, revolving around the issue, it is critical to realize the difference between project success and project management success. The fact is that if a particular project meets the requirements of the iron triangle, or it is finished within the outlined framework, cost, and demonstrates an appropriate quality it should be referred to as project management success. It means that managers were able to organize the functioning in a way that helped to achieve all outlined goals. However, project success is different. It could be described as a return on monetary investment in the amount which answers or exceeds expectations. In this regard, the project success evidently depends on the project management as only in case all requirements are met, some rewards might be expected.
Finally, cogitating about the nature of the iron triangle and such aspects of time, cost, and quality their topicality should be admitted. Despite numerous claims to avoid using this measure and introduce a new more efficient model, its relevance could still be seen in diverse projects that use these dimensions as the main criteria to organize the functioning and guarantee the final success. In this regard, the iron triangle preserves its high applicability. At the same time, it could be extended by adding new significant criteria that are also considered by project managers in their functioning. It will help to attain the enhanced outcomes and guarantee the further evolution of the sphere.