Deliberating the triple constraint trade-offs as polarities to manage — A refreshed perspective

What is the Iron Triangle, and how has it changed?

“…These authors asserted that the Iron Triangle simplifies the perception of project work as experienced by project managers, as a result of practitioner anxiety about the impossibility of complete control over project outcomes. van Wyngaard et al (2012, p. 1992) have also suggested that “[…] project managers often create an illusion of tangible progress by relying heavily upon traditional on-time, on-budget and on-target measures”, with the implication that the Iron Triangle is an oversimplification of project practice. These papers are part of a broader stream of research that explores the limitations of the Iron Triangle as the core measure of success.…”

“…Badewi, 2016; van Wyngaard et al , 2013). For example, van Wyngaard et al (2012, p. 1991) stated that “Although the triple constraint theme has various interpretations, the literature shows a general agreement that project scope, time and cost comprise the three key triple constraint variables […]”, and these authors argued that it would be more useful to include Scope, than Quality, as one of the vertices in the Iron Triangle. Mokoena et al (2013) also took this position, defining that Scope in the Iron Triangle is made up of three aspects: Quality, Standards, and Specifications.…”

“…Failure in one constraint will likely lead to negative pressure on one or both of the other two (Mokoena et al , 2013, p. 814). This is sometimes expressed as “good, fast or cheap – pick two” (van Wyngaard et al , 2012, p. 1993). Misunderstanding or misinterpreting the Iron Triangle can lead to project failure despite effective management of all other aspects of a project (Mokoena et al , 2013, p. 813).…”

“…Misunderstanding or misinterpreting the Iron Triangle can lead to project failure despite effective management of all other aspects of a project (Mokoena et al , 2013, p. 813). Effectively managing the Iron Triangle has been found to be central to project success, however, it has also been found that research into the Iron Triangle is “[…] one of the most overlooked fundamentals of project management” (van Wyngaard et al , 2012, p. 1997).…”

The Case for Core Competency and Competent Corps: Using Polarity Management to Illuminate Tensions in Training

“…2,20,21 By understanding these tensions instead through a both/and lens, this approach helps identify solutions that balance seemingly incompatible opposites. 22,23 Identifying the positive value of each polarity while also considering and addressing related risks or fears, Polarity Management allows leaders and educators to clarify the risks of emphasizing one polarity over the other. [24][25][26] An Approach to the Polarity Paradox…”