Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

TheIronTriangleasTheTripleConstraintsinProjectManagement.pdf

Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Cargando en…3
×

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 13 Anuncio

Más Contenido Relacionado

Más reciente (20)

Anuncio

TheIronTriangleasTheTripleConstraintsinProjectManagement.pdf

  1. 1. 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 41 PUBLICATIONS 182 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Hafnidar A. Rani University Of Muhammadiyah Aceh 77 PUBLICATIONS 110 CITATIONS 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.
  2. 2. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (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) Engineering Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia 06010, email: sobry@uum.edu.my 3) Engineering Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia 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.
  3. 3. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 2 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.
  4. 4. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 3 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
  5. 5. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 4 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).
  6. 6. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 5 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.
  7. 7. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 6 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
  8. 8. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 7 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
  9. 9. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 8 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
  10. 10. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 9 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 Project Management, 20 (3): 185-190. 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 Project Management, 6 (3): 164-170. 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
  11. 11. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 10 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
  12. 12. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 11 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.
  13. 13. JURNAL TEKNIK SIPIL Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Volume 2 Nomor 1 ( Januari 2013 ) The Iron Triangle As The Triple Constraints In Project Management (Hafnidar Abdul Rani, Che Sobry Abdullah and Shahimi Mohtar) 12 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. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (6): 329-330. 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. International Journal of Project Management, 15 (3): 181-186. 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

×