The Iron Triangle: Measuring Project Success with Time, Cost and Quality

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354733896
The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management
Article in Jurnal Teknik Sipil · January 2013
CITATIONS
17
READS
4,009
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Precedence Diagram Method View project
Location Quotient Method View project
Shahimi Mohtar
Universiti Utara Malaysia
42 PUBLICATIONS 162 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
C S Abdullah
Universiti Utara Malaysia
SEE PROFILE
Hafnidar A. Rani
University Of Muhammadiyah Aceh
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Hafnidar A. Rani on 21 September 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh
Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 )
(Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 1
THE IRON TRIANGLE AS THE TRIPLE CONSTRAINTS
IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Hafnidar Abdul Rani1
, Che Sobry Abdullah2
and Shahimi Mohtar3
1)
Engineering Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia
Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia 06010, email: nidar_rani@yahoo.com.my
2)
Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia 06010, email: sobry@uum.edu.my
3)
Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia 06010, email: shahimi@uum.edu.my
ABSTRACT
Project management can be used as a tool to maximize the success of a project. Empirically,
there is strong evidence that the practice of project management knowledge can affect of the
project success. Time, cost and quality, over the last 50 years have become inextricably
linked with measuring the success of project. The iron triangle are the principle criteria for
the project success. In fact, almost every plan relating to mention three of them and show the
importance of criteria in project development. This is perhaps not surprising, since over the
same period those criteria are usually included in the description of project management.
Time and cost are best guesses, typically calculated when less is known during the planning
phases, and quality is an attitude that changes over the project life cycle. The iron triangle
comprises three well recognized criteria against which project success is measured. The
measure of project success is how far the triple constraints can be filled out.
Keywords: Project management; iron triangle; triple constraints; project success.
ABSTRAK
Manajemen proyek dapat digunakan sebagai alat untuk memaksimumkan kesuksesan
proyek. Secara empiris, ada bukti kuat bahwa praktik pengetahuan manajemen proyek dapat
mempengaruhi keberhasilan proyek. Waktu, biaya dan kualitas, selama 50 tahun terakhir
telah menjadi terkait erat dengan mengukur keberhasilan proyek. The iron triangle adalah
kriteria asas untuk keberhasilan proyek. Malah hampir setiap rencana berkaitan menyebutkan
ketiga-tiganya dan menunjukkan pentingnya kriteria itu dalam proyek konstruksi. Hal ini
mungkin tidak menghairankan karena selama tempoh yang sama kriteria selalu termasuk
dalam deskripsi manajemen proyek. Waktu dan biaya merupakan terkaan terbaik yang
biasanya dikira jika kurang dikenali selama fasa perencanaan dan kualitas merupakan suatu
sikap perubahan selama kitaran hidup proyek. The iron triangle terdiri daripada tiga kriteria
yang dikenali dengan baik terhadap keberhasilan proyek yang diukur. Ukuran keberhasilan
proyek adalah sejauh mana tiga kendala dapat diisi.
Kata kunci: Manajemen proyek; iron triangle; tiga kendala; keberhasilan proyek.

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1960s (at least) project management researchers have been trying to discover
which factors lead to project success (e.g. Baker and Murphy, 1988; Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Lochler,
1998) and have reached conclusions that have been widely reflected in literature written for project
management practitioners (Cooke and Davies, 2001).
However, project management is difficult to establish the conclusive distribution of project size
or practice over industry sectors, as responses to surveys are subject to sample bias. The influence of
industry bias is identified by Evaristo & van Fenema (1999), who state that “the current knowledge
based on the management of projects emanates from large capital construction projects responsible
for only 10% of the projects”. Betts & Lansley (1995) found that in project management “by far the
most frequently addressed industry was construction”.
Most of the early studies in the area focused on the reasons for project failurerather than project
success (Hall, 1980; Bedell, 1983; Balachandra and Raelin, 1984). In those studies it was assumed
that if a projects completion time exceeded its due date, or expenses overran the budget, or outcomes
did not satisfy a company’s pre-determined success criteria, the project was assumed to be a failure.
Today we know that determining whether a project is a success or a failure is far more complex
(Belassi and Tukel, 1996).
Project success criteria are the measures by which we judge the successful outcome of a project
(Morris & Hough, 1987; Wateridge, 1998; Jugdev & Müller, 2005; Turner, 2009).
In recent decades, there has been a remarkable growth in the number, size, and complexity in
large infrastructure projects in many countries that grow. Management of projects dealing with the
will of uncertainty that may arise from the project. Uncertainty is the root cause of project delays and
a decrease in organizational success (Ofori, 1991; Ogunlana, Promkuntong and Jearkjirm, 1996).
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The Iron Triangle as Project Success Criteria
In the early 90s’, project success was inherently tied to success measures, which in turn were
tied to project objectives. At project level, success was measured on the bases of time, monetary cost
and quality (Navarre& Schaan, 1990).
Time, cost and quality are the basic criteria to project success, nearly every related article
mentions these three and point out the importance of them in a construction project and in the views
of project participants, such as Walker (1995;1996), Belassi & Tukel (1996), Hatush & Skitmore
(1997), Pinto & Slevin (1988), McCoy (1987), Archibald (1992), Baccarini (1999), Turner (1993),
Westerveld (2002), Belout & Gauvreau (2003).
Atkinson (1999) identified these three criteria as the iron triangle. The three of them are the
important parameter to the project managers who usually associated as the project’s target.
On the factors that contribute to the success of the project, a study was done in the field of
project performance and failure attributes. Traditionally, time, cost and quality are usually referred to
as the "iron triangle" has been accepted as the most widely used criteria for measuring success (Jha
& Iyer, 2007). Figure 1 shows the iron triangle.

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Figure 1 : The Iron Triangle
(McCoy, 1987; Morris & Hough, 1987; De Wit, 1988; Pinto & Slevin, 1988;
Kerzner, 1989; Gray et al., 1990; Navarre & Schaan, 1990; Saarinen, 1990;
Archibald, 1992; Mohsini & Davidson, 1992; Turner, 1993; Paek, 1995; Walker,
1995; 1996; Ballantine et al., 1996; Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Munns & Bjeirmi,
1996; Deane & Clark, 1997; Hatush & Skitmore, 1997; Shenhar et al., 1997;
Soeharto, 1998; Wateridge, 1998; Atkinson, 1999; Baccarini, 1999; Baccarini &
David, 1999; Chua et al., 1999; Turner, 1999; Andersen & Jessen, 2000; Brown &
Adams, 2000; Gardiner & Stewart, 2000; Tukel & Rom, 2001; Cleland &
Ireland, 2002; Westerveld, 2002; Belout & Gauvreau, 2003; Kerzner, 2005;
Fortune & White, 2006; Jha & Iyer, 2007)
For almost 30 years, project management was viewed as a process that might be nice to have,
but not one that was necessary for the survival of the firm. Companies reluctantly invested in some
training courses simply to provide their personnel with basic knowledge on planning and scheduling.
Project management was viewed as a threat to established lines of authority and, in most cases, only
partial project management was used. This half-hearted implementation occurred simply to placate
lower and middle-level personnel (Kerzner, 2000).
Kloppenborg & Opfer (2002) provided a detailed review of project management research,
covering more than 40 years of publications. According to their observations, project management
research was focused on planning and scheduling during most of the 1960s. In the 1970s, automated
software of project management has created an increased interest in cost and schedule control. This
trend continued into the 1980s, with new studies on life-cycle costing and risk management
planning. Yet that time also marked the appearance of studies on team building and leadership,
leading to the 1990s, with even more focus on humanresources, teams, and leadership.
In period 1 (1969s-1980s), early studies looked at why projects failed or succeeded by focusing
on the schedule; other studies defined success in terms of achieving the goals of time, budget, and
performance (Pinto & Slevin, 1988). The literature also focused on the implementation for execution
phase where the attention was on these three variables (Lim & Mohamed, 1999).
Looking closely, criteria for success would suggest that in general can be divided into two
broad categories: objective and subjective. Objective evaluation criteria, a clear and measurable, it is
time, cost, quality, safety, and dispute, while the subjective evaluation criteria will include customer
satisfaction: satisfaction with the contractor, and satisfaction with the project management team.
Cost
Quality Time

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
In 1983 Baker et al., suggested that instead of using time, cost and performance as measures for
project success, perceived success should be the measure (Navarre & Schaan, 1990; Chan, 1996;
1997).
Success has hard and soft dimensions. Some project success criteria are hard i.e., objective,
tangible and measurable. These are usually related to the objectives of cost, time, and quality
(McCoy, 1986; Archibald, 1992). Hard criteria are relatively easy to gauge and to reach some degree
of consensus. The soft success criteria refer to such aspects as happiness, job satisfaction, enhanced
reputation, and attention to detail. This dimension is subjective, subtle and more difficult to evaluate.
De Wit (1988) discusses the concept of project success in terms of time, cost, and quality, and
indicates that project success involves broader objectives from the viewpoints of stakeholder
throughout the project life cycle. Although good project management can contribute towards project
success, it is unlikely to be able to prevent failure (De Wit, 1988).
One reason for the emphasis on time, cost, and quality relates to project managers being
appraised on their ability to deliver to these short-term criteria (Wateridge, 1998).
The literature to the mid-1980s listed success factors using anecdotes and single case studies
(Pinto & Prescott, 1988). Project success contributed to excellence within time, cost, and quality
levels (Kerzner, 1989). These metrics may be misleading if expectations are not met.
The literature on project management often mentions cost, time and quality as the project
success criterion though there are many skeptics (De Wit, 1988; Deane & Clark, 1997; Shenhar,
Levy & Dvir, 1997;Atkinson, 1999; Turner, 1999).
The literature reflected a gradual trend towards including client satisfaction as a variable in
assessing project success, both at the end of the project life cycle and into the product life cycle. This
included an understanding of upfront measures such as defining needs at the onset, but also assumed
that the parties knew how to define their needs (Shenhar et al., 1997).
The objective measurement of project success appears to be difficult and ambiguous. This is
because the success of one may be the failure of another. According to Shenhar et al. (1997), this
happens when project management success disregards product success, e. g., a project has been
managed efficiently but eventually does not meet customer or organizational expectations. This
suggests that a project is regarded as success only when time, cost, and quality targets are met.
According to Baccarini(1999), it is common for project management literature to confusingly
intertwine these two separate components of project success and present them as a single entity. In
order to properly define and assess project success, a distinction should be made between product
success and project management success, as they are not the same. Project management success
focuses upon the project process and, in particular, the success accomplishment of cost, time, and
quality objectives.
Following this line of research, Andersen & Jessen (2000) emphasized the need on separating
the task-and people-oriented aspects in evaluating the project results. They further divided the results
into ten elements to give a more comprehensive picture of the outcomes of a project. These
dimensions that include the traditional time, budget and quality elements but also the usefulness of
the products to the base organization. the appeal of the results to all stakeholders, the learning
experience, the motivation for future work, knowledge acquisition, the way the final report is
prepared and accepted, and how the project is closed (Andersen & Jessen, 2000).
Cleland and Ireland (2002) suggested that success be viewed from two vantage points: the
degree to which technical project success objectives were attained (time, cost, and scope) and the
contribution that the project made to the strategic mission of the firm. Others took this one step
further and included the customer organization as an additional concept (Belassi & Tukel, 1996;
Kerzner, 1987; Morris & Hough, 1987; Turner, 1999).

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Sidwell (1983) listed several criteria which were generally used to evaluate a project. These
include time, cost, aesthetics, function, quality, client’s satisfaction, and team members’relation.
In their book, Morris and Hough (1987) studied eight large, complex projects which had great
potential economic impact but were poorly managed and generally failed. They identified the
success and failure factors for each of them. Based on this experience, they suggested seven
dimensions of project success. They included that although their analysis of success factors is aimed
at large, complex projects, they arealso relevant to projects in general.
Compared with the studies on project success criteria, a considerably larger body of knowledge
has been accumulated on the generic and critical factors responsible for the project success or failure.
Good reviews of the research conducted over the last four decades can be found in Pinto and Slevin
(1987), Belassi & Tukel (1996), Westerveld (2003), Diallo and Thuillier (2004, 2005), and Fortune
and White (2006).
Baker et al. (1983), who postulated that the perceived project success a function of time and
cost. As well as that expressed by Jaselskis and Ashley (1991); Hartman & Ashrafi (2002); Wright
(1997); Yang, O’Connor & Wang (2006).
Pinto and Slevin (1988) developed a 12 factor model based on the key constructs of time, cost,
satisfaction, usage, performance and effectiveness. In doing so the central theme was for the success
criteria to focus on the needs of the project. The idea that project success assessments may differ
according to the assessor facilitated the introduction of multidimensional frameworks for the
assessment of project success. These frameworks reflect different interests and different points of
view.
The inclusion of satisfaction as a success measure can be found earlier in the work of Wueliner
(1990). And what was investigated by Munns (1995), that the cost, time, quality and customer
satisfaction is the criteria for project success.
According to Beale and Freeman (1991), Freeman and Beale (1992), found the cost, time, and
meet the technical specifications, the criteria for project success.
Pinto and Pinto (1991), Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999), recorded six criteria used to
measure the success of the project. These include cost, time, customer satisfaction, satisfaction with
the architect, contractor satisfaction, and satisfaction with the project manager/team members.
Temporary, fragmented and short-term are also significant characteristics inherent in the
construction industry. Such characteristics greatly affect the effectiveness of project team, especially
the project managers. The concept of project success is a means to improve the present situation.
However, this concept has remained ambiguously defined in the minds of the construction
professionals. Many project managers still attend to this topic in an intuitive and ad hoc fashion as
they attempt to manage and allocate resources across various project areas.
The measurement of project success in the construction industry has traditionally been
grounded in the industry-accepted classic objective success metrics: cost, schedule, quality, and
safety (Albenese, 1994; Lim & Mohamed, 1999; Hughes, Tippett & Thomas, 2004).
Naoum (1994), Jang and Lee (1998), Collins and Baccarini (2004) identified to measure the
success of the project and concluded the cost, time, and customer satisfaction are the main criteria for
project success.
Safety is another issue the construction industry is very aware of. It is reasonable to expect that
if accidents occur, both contractors and clients may be subject to legal claims, as well as financial
loss and contract delay in the construction project. Kometa, Olomolaiye and Harris (1995) used a
comprehensive approach to assess project success. These criteria include: safety, economy (cost),
running/maintenance cost, time and flexibility to users.

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Cost, time, quality, customer satisfaction, satisfaction with the architect, contractor satisfaction,
customer satisfaction, satisfaction with the project manager/team members, and expectations of
consumers found empirically by Wateridge (1995) as the criteria for project success.
Alarcón and Ashley (1996) identifies three levels of project success criteria: cost, time, and
effectiveness/value. Kumaraswamy and Thorpe (1996) recorded eight criteria for project success.
This is the cost, time, quality, customer satisfaction, satisfaction with the project manager/team
members, functional, safety, and environmentally friendly.
3. THE RESULTS OFANALYSIS
Traditionally, time, cost and quality are usually referred to as the iron triangle has been accepted
as the most widely used criteria for measuring success. Most of the identified criteria is cost and time
factors, respectively by 90 researchers. Quality factor is the second most number of criteria obtained
by 74 researchers. Following criteria are satisfaction, as many as 46 researchers, and then project
team factor, by 14 researchers. There are 73 researchers who stated that the cost, time, and quality is
the criteria for project success. The next criteria see in table below.
Table 1 : Summary of Project Success Criteria
Literature
Criteria
Cost
Time
Quality
Satisfaction
Project
team
Meet
technical
specification
No
legal
claim
Safety
Different
viewpoints
Authors Year
Baker et al. 1983
Sidwell 1983
Tuman 1986
Kerzner 1987
McCoy 1987
Morris & Hough 1987
Baker et al. 1988
DeWit 1988
Pinto & Slevin 1988
Gray et al. 1990
Navarre & Schaan 1990
Saarinen 1990
Wuiliner 1990
Beale & Freeman 1991
Jaselskis & Ashley 1991
Pinto & Pinto 1991
Archibald 1992
Freemann 1992
Freeman & Beale 1992
Mohsini & Davidson 1992
Sanvido et al. 1992

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Literature
Criteria
Cost
Time
Quality
Satisfaction
Project
team
Meet
technical
specification
No
legal
claim
Safety
Different
viewpoints
Authors Year
Parfitt & Sanvido 1993
Turner 1993
Albenese 1994
Munns 1995
Kometa et al. 1995
Paek 1995
Walker 1995
Wateridge 1995
Alarcon & Ashley 1996
Ballantine et al. 1996
Belassi & Tukel 1996
Hartman & Ashrafi 1996
Kumaraswamy & Thorpe 1996
Munns & Bjeirmi 1996
PMI 1996
Pocock et al. 1996
Songer et al. 1996
Tan 1996
Walker 1996
Deane & Clark 1997
Hatush & Skitmore 1997
Pocock et al. 1997
Shenhar & Levy 1997
Shenhar et al. 1997
Songer & Molenaar 1997
Wright 1997
Belout 1998
Chang & Ibbs 1998
Jang & Lee 1998
Liu & Walker 1998
Soeharto 1998
Atkinson 1999
Atkinson et al. 1999
Baccarini 1999
Baccarini & David 1999
Chang & Ibbs 1999
Chua et al. 1999
Dissanayaka & Kumaraswamy 1999
Lim & Mohamed 1999
Liu 1999
Turner 1999
Wateridge 1999
Andersen & Jessen 2000
Brown & Adams 2000

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Literature
Criteria
Cost
Time
Quality
Satisfaction
Project
team
Meet
technical
specification
No
legal
claim
Safety
Different
viewpoints
Authors Year
Cheung et al. 2000
Crawford 2000
Fortune & White 2000
Gardiner & Stewart 2000
Hayes 2000
Kerzner 2000
Sadeh et al. 2000
Chan 2001
Shenhar 2001
Tukel & Rom 2001
Cleland & Ireland 2002
Kerzner 2003
Westerveld 2003
Belout & Gauvreau 2004
Bryde & Brown 2004
Collins & Baccarini 2004
Hughes et al. 2004
Diallo & Thuillier 2005
Wang & Huang 2006
Yang et al. 2006
Müller & Turner 2007
Yu et al. 2007
Songer et al. 2008
Pinto et al. 2009
Toor & Ogunlana 2010
Source: Developed for this research
4. REFERENCES
Alarcon, L. F., & Ashley, D. B. 1996. Modeling Project Performance for Decision Making.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management: 265-273.
Albanese, R. 1994. Team Building Process: Key to Better Project Results. Journal of
Management in Engineering: 36-44.
Andersen, E. S., & Jessen, S. A. 2000. Project Evaluation Scheme: A Tool for Evaluating
Project Status and Predicting Project Results. Project Management Journal, 6 (4): 61-
69.
Archibald, R. D. 1992. Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, Second Edition.
Chichester: Wiley.
Atkinson, R. 1999. Project Management: Cost, Time and Quality, Two Best Guesses and A

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Phenomenon, Its Time To Accept Other Success Criteria. International Journal of
Project Management, 17 (6): 337-342.
Baccarini, D. 1999. The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success. Project
Management Journal, 30 (4): 25-32.
Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher, D. 1983. Factors Affecting Project Success-Project
Management Handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Balachandra, R., & Raelin, J. A. 1984. When to Kill That R & D Project. Resources
Management Journal: 30-33.
Ballantine, J., Bonner, M., Levy, M., Martin, A., Munto, I., & Powell, P. L. 1996. The 3-D
Model of Information Systems Successes: The Search for The Dependent Variable
Continues. Information Resources Management Journal, 9 (4): 5-14.
Beale, P., & Freeman, M. 1991. Successful Project Execution: A Model. Project Management
Journal, 22 (4): 23-30.
Bedell, R. I. 1983. Terminating R & D Projects Prematurely. Resources Management
Journal: 32-35.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. 1996. A New Framework for Determining Critical
Success/Failure Factors In Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14
(3): 141-151.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. 2003. Factors Influencing Project Success : The Impact Of
Human Resource Management. International Journal of Project Management, 22: 1-
11.
Betts, M., & Lansley, P. 1995. International Journal of Project Management: A Review of
The First Ten Years. International Journal of Project Management, 13 (4): 207-217.
Brown, A., & Adam, J. 2000. Measuring The Effect of Project Management on Construction
Outputs: A New Approach. International Journal of Project Management, 18 (5): 327-
335.
Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., & Loh, P. K. 1999. Critical Success Factors for Different Project
Objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management: 142-150.
Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. 2002. Project Management: Strategic Design and
Implementation, 4th
ed. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cleland, D. I., & King, W. R. 1983. Systems Analysis and Project Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Cooke-Davies, T. 2001. The Real Success Factors on Projects. International Journal of
Deane, R. H., & Clark, T. B. 1997. Creating A Learning Project Environment. Cover Story,
Information System Management, 14 (3): 54-61.
De Wit, A. 1988. Measurement of Project Management Success. International Journal of
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. 2004. The Success Dimensions of International Development
Projects: The Perceptions of African Project Coordinators. International Journal of
Project Management, 22: 19-31.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. 2005. The Success of International Development Projects, Trust
and Communication: An African Perspective. International Journal of Project
Management, 23: 237-252.
Dissanayaka, S. M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. 1999. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Time

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
and Cost Performance in Hong Kong Building Projects. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 6 (3): 287-298.
Evaristo, R., & van Fenema, P. C. 1999. A Typology of Project Management Emergence and
Evolution of New Forms. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (5): 275-
281.
Fortune, J., & White, D. 2006. Framing of Project Critical Success Factors by A Systems
Model. International Journal of Project Management, 24 (1): 53-65.
Freeman, M., & Beale, P. 1992. Measuring Project Success. Project Management Journal, 23
(1): 8-17.
Gardiner, P. D., & Stewart, K. 2000. Revisiting The Golden Triangle of Cost, Time and
Quality: The Role of NPV in Project Control, Success and Failure. International
Journal of Project Management, 18: 251-256.
Gray, C., Dworatschek, S., Gobeli, D., Knoepfel, H., & Larson, E. 1990. International
Comparison of Project Organization Structure: Use and Effectiveness. International
Journal of Project Management, 8 (1): 26-32.
Hall, P. 1980. Great Planning Disasters. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. A. 2002. Project Management in The Information Systems and
Information Technologies Industries. Project Management Journal, 33: 5-15.
Hatush, Z., & Skitmore, M. 1997. Evaluating Contractor Prequalification Data: Selection
Criteria and Project Success Factors. Construction Management and Economics
Journal, 15 (2): 129-147.
Hughes, S. W., Tippett, D. D., & Thomas, W. K. 2004. Measuring Project Success in The
Construction Industry. Engineering Management Journal, 16: 3.
Jang, Y., & Lee, J. J. 1998. Factors Influencing The Success of Management Consulting
Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 16 (2): 67-72.
Jaselskis, E. J., & Ashley, D. B. 1991. Optimal Allocation of Project Management Resources
for Achieving Success. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117 (2):
321-340.
Jha, K. N., & Iyer, K. C. 2007. Commitment, Coordination, Competence and The Iron
Triangle. International Journal of Project Management, 25: 527-540.
Jugdev, K., & Muller, R. 2005. A Retrospective Look At Our Evolving Understanding of
Project Success. Project Management Institute, 36 (4): 19-31.
Kerzner, H. 1989. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and
Controlling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kerzner, H. 2000. Applied Project Management – Best Practices On Implementation. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H. 2005. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and
Controlling. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. 2008. Success Criteria and Factors for International
Development Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based Framework. Project Management Journal,
39 (1): 72-84.
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A. 2002. The Current State of Project Management
Research: Trends, Interpretations, and Predictions. Project Management Journal, 33
(2): 5-18.
Kometa, S., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Harris, F. C. 1995. An Evaluation of Clients’ Needs and

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Responsibilities in The Construction Process. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 2 (1): 45-56.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Thorpe, A. 1996. Systematizing Construction Project Evaluations.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 12 (1): 34-39.
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. 1999. Criteria of Project Success: An Exploratory Re-
Examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (4): 243-248.
Locke, D. 1984. Project Management. New York: St. Martins Press.
McCoy, F. A. 1987. Measuring Success: Establishing and Maintaining A Baseline. Project
Management Institute, Seminar/Symposium, Montreal, Canada: 47-52.
Mohsini, R. A., & Davidson, C. H. 1992. Determinants of Performance in The Traditional
Building Process. Construction Management and Economics Journal, 10 (4): 343-359.
Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H. 1987. The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of The
Reality of Project Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Munns, A. K. 1995. Potential Influence of Trust on The Successful Completion of A Project.
International Journal of Project Management, 13 (1): 19-24.
Munns, A. K., & Bjeirmi, B. F. 1996. The Role of Project Management in Achieving Project
Success. International Journal of Project Management, 14 (2): 81-87.
Naoum, S. G. 1994. Critical Analysis of Time and Cost of Management and Traditional
Contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120 (3): 687-705.
Navarre, C., & Schaan, J. L. 1990. Design of Project Management Systems from Top
Management’s Perspective. Project Management Journal, 21 (2): 19-27.
Ofori, G. 1991. Programmes for Improving The Performance of Contracting Firms in
Developing Countries: A Review of Approaches and Appropriate Options. Journal of
Construction Management Economy, 9: 19-38.
Ogunlana, S. O., Promkuntong, K., & Jearkjirm, V. 1996. Construction Delays in A Fast-
Growing Economy: Comparing Thailand with Other Economies. International Journal
of Project Management, 14 (1): 37-45.
Paek, J. H. 1995. Critical Success Factors of The Construction Management Service in The
Dual-Role Contract. Project Management Journal: 23-28.
Parfitt, M. K., & Sanvido, V. E. 1993. Checklist of Critical Success Factors for Building
Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 9 (3): 243-249.
Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. 1991. Determinants of Cross-Functional Cooperation in The
Project Implementation Process. Project Management Journal, 22 (2): 13-20.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. 1988. Variations in Critical Success Factors Over Stages in The
Project Life Cycle. Journal of Management, 14 (1): 5-18.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. 1988. Project Success Definitions and Measurement Techniques.
Project Management Journal, 19 (3): 67-73.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. 1989. Critical Success Factors in R & D Projects. Technology
Management Journal: 31-35.
Saarinen, T. 1990. Systems Development Methodology and Project Success. Information and
Management, 19: 183-193.
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Pariff, K., Guvents, M., & Coyle, M. 1992. Critical Success Factors
for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118
(1): 94-111.

JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL
Shenhar, A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. 1997. Mapping The Dimensions of Project Success.
Project Management Journal, 28 (2): 5-13.
Sidwell, A. C. 1983. A Critical Study of Project Team, Organizational Forms Within The
Building Process. University of Aston.
Soeharto, I. 1998. Manajemen Proyek (Dari Konseptual Sampai Operasional), Jilid 1.
Erlangga: Jakarta, Indonesia.
Tukel, O. I., & Rom, W. O. 2001. An Empirical Investigation of Project Evaluation Criteria.
International Journal of Operations & Production, 21 (3): 400-413.
Turner, J. R. 1993. The Handbook of Project-Based Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. R. 1999. Project Management: A Profession Based on Knowledge or Faith.
Turner, J. R. 2009. The Handbook of Project-Based Management-Leading Strategic Change
in Organizations. Third Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Walker, D. H. T. 1995. An Investigation into Construction Time Performance. Construction
Management and Economics, 13 (3): 263-274.
Walker, D. H. T. 1996. The Contribution of The Construction Management Team to Good
Construction Time Performance – An Australian Experience. Journal of Construction
Procurement, 2 (2): 4-18.
Wateridge, J. 1995. IT Projects: A Basis for Success. International Journal of Project
Management, 13 (3): 169-172.
Wateridge, J. 1998. How Can IT/IS Projects Be Measured for Success?. International Journal
of Project Management, 16 (1): 59-63.
Westerveld, E. 2002. The Project Excellence Model: Linking Success Criteria And Critical
Success Factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21: 411-418.
White, D., & Fortune, J. 2002. Current Practice in Project Management-An Empirical Study.
International Journal of Project Management, 20: 1-11.
Wright, J. N. 1997. Time and Budget: The Twin Imperatives of A Project Sponsor.
Wueliner, W. W. 1990. Project Performance Evaluation Checklist for Consulting Engineers.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 6 (3): 270-281.
Yang, L. R., O’Connor, J. T., & Wang, C. C. 2006. Technology Utilization on Different Sizes
of Projects and Associated Impacts on Composite Project Success. International
Journal of Project Management, 24: 96-105.
View publication stats

The Iron Triangle: Measuring Project Success with Time, Cost and Quality

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a The Iron Triangle: Measuring Project Success with Time, Cost and Quality

Similar a The Iron Triangle: Measuring Project Success with Time, Cost and Quality (20)

Último

Último (20)

The Iron Triangle: Measuring Project Success with Time, Cost and Quality