9. Define Success Criteria

Note: In this framework, the term initiative refers to programs and projects. The term work execution unit refers collectively to programs, projects, phases, releases, and work packages, all of which are considered temporary organizations.

The Evolution of Success Definitions

The predominant understanding of what constitutes a successful outcome has undergone a significant transformation. It has expanded from a narrow technical focus to a broad, strategic perspective that applies across various hierarchical levels of work.

• Early Technical Focus: Initially, success was measured in purely technical terms. The primary consideration was simple: the final deliverable either worked as intended, or it did not. This fundamental criterion applies to any output, regardless of scale.
• The Triple Constraint: This view was later expanded to include three core elements: completion on time, within budget, and at an acceptable level of quality. This framework, known as the triple constraint, has been and continues to be a predominant definition of success in many organizations for any work execution unit with a defined schedule and budget.
• Expanded Customer-Centric Views: More recent understandings broaden the criteria to include customer satisfaction with the delivery team. This encompasses factors such as how effectively problems were solved and how well communications were managed throughout the execution of the work.
• Inclusion of Soft Organizational Criteria: Additional soft criteria have been incorporated over time. These can include goals such as “not disturbing the main workflow of the organization” or “not stressing the corporate culture.” Such criteria are relevant to any work that impacts the broader organization.
• Influence from program and portfolio Management: The rise of program and portfolio management has introduced new, strategically oriented considerations. These disciplines direct attention towards business outcomes that are measured at specific levels of the organizational hierarchy:
• Program Level: Success is strongly associated with benefit realization, which tracks the achievement of strategic business outcomes over time.
• Portfolio Level: Success is measured by the achievement of corporate goals, reflecting a focus on overall business policy and organizational strategy.

This continuous expansion of success criteria means that achieving a successful outcome for any initiative has become increasingly more difficult.

The Challenge of Measuring Success

Two primary difficulties complicate the assessment of success for any defined body of work: the imprecision of definitions and the timing of the evaluation. These challenges apply to the governance of programs, projects, phases, releases, and work packages alike.

The Problem of Imprecision

A significant problem with assessing success is that it is often imprecise, which allows for different interpretations from different viewpoints. This ambiguity is crucial because the declaration of success for an initiative often serves as a springboard for career advancement. Without clear, agreed-upon criteria established at the outset, assessments can become subjective and contentious.

The Timing Dilemma: End-of-Work Assessment vs. Post-Mortem Evaluation

Defining success solely by benefit realization presents a significant timing issue. The benefits derived from an initiative’s outcomes often materialize over an extended period, well after the work itself is completed and the delivery team is dissolved. This makes benefit realization a “post-mortem definition of success.” For example, it would be impractical to wait two years after delivering an online solution to determine if the customer retention rate increased as intended.

For practical governance and authorization purposes, a declaration of success or failure is needed at the end of each specific program, project, phase, release, or work package. This assessment must be an integral part of the formal closing process for that distinct work execution unit. While a project’s output contributes to a program’s benefits, the project’s success must be declared at its own conclusion, based on its predefined criteria.

Proactive Definition: The Success Scorecard

To overcome these challenges, a clear framework for defining and measuring success should be established at the very beginning of any work execution unit, applicable at all levels. The proposed solution is to create a composite of success criteria as part of the work’s definition during its initialization. This can be formalized in a scorecard.

By defining these metrics ahead of time, the work execution unit avoids ambiguity and the hope that it will simply be considered successful upon completion. A key principle is to be mindful of the measurement overhead: if metrics are defined, the associated data must be collected. Therefore, the scorecard should not be overloaded.

Core Components of the Scorecard

The foundation of the scorecard can be the classical components of the triple constraint. For many work packages, releases, phases, and projects, this is considered a sufficient measure of success.

Advanced and Weighted Criteria

For a more sophisticated assessment, the scorecard can be expanded to include other elements, such as customer satisfaction with both the final product and the delivery team’s performance.

Crucially, the criteria do not necessarily need to have the same weight. The relative importance of being “within budget” versus “on time” or achieving “good quality” depends entirely on the specific work and the organization’s priorities. The decision on how to weight each criterion, or if overall customer satisfaction should be paramount, must be made in agreement with stakeholders during the initialization of the program, project, phase, release, or work package.

Conclusion

The most effective approach to performance assessment is to preemptively define clear, quantifiable success criteria. This must be done at the start of the work for any given program, project, phase, release, or work package, not at its end. By establishing an agreed-upon scorecard with stakeholders, delivery teams can work towards a transparent and unambiguous definition of success. This ensures that the final evaluation is based on concrete data rather than subjective interpretation or hope, providing a solid foundation for governance and decision-making at every level.