Talk:Project management triangle

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems: Systems engineering Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

Notability established

I just established notability by adding three references. One search in Google books shows that there are dozends of books naming this concept. Notability is not an issue here. I think original research is.

Let me make one thing clear. I didn't write this article. I separated this text from the Project management article and moved it here, as part of a series of actions to improve that article. See also Talk:Project management

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was pages merged.

The assertion at the project triangle article notwithstanding, I fail to see how the subject matter of the two articles differ. Because I believe that "project management triangle" is the more common term, I recommend merging the very similar "project triangle" article into this one. 98.212.175.119 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "project management triangle" article is not cited properly. Although the article may be titled the more common name the citations should be brought up to scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.214.91 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

google.com

Quality

The second paragraph of the introduction includes the phrase: "scope" (quality). This erroneously implies that quality is the same as, or is within scope. I tried checking the reference [5], but the referred Microsoft Office site returned an error.

Please note that Time, Cost, and Scope are quantity values, whereas Quality is of course a quality value.

Also, while placing Quality within a Time-Cost-Scope triangle indicates an association between the concepts, it erroneously implies that a decrease in scope will necessarily decrease the amount of quality (since the area of the triangle will be less). Although decreased scope might decrease the expected benefit (if all products/scope-items are required for the benefit), there are other possible scenarios: (a) the scope can decrease because a product is not needed in the project anymore (e.g. it is realised that a component has already been bought); and (b) less scope can mean more time and cost to spend on the remaining scope items, lending greater quality to them.

Rwilkin (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

The term Scope is used inconsistently within this article. The Overview section defines it as "what must be done to produce the project's end result". The STR Model section says "Scope refers to complexity (which can also mean quality)." And the 'Project management triangle topics' section identifies it as "Requirements specified to achieve the end result".

In using product-based planning, PRINCE2 focuses on products when using the term: scope. This is a more simple and less confused use of the term, where scope is the amount of stuff (products) that the project has to produce.

High level requirements are what is needed to achieve the sought benefits - which is a focus on "why". Whereas, the focus of scope is on "what"; so the definition in the 'Project management triangle topics' section (defining scope as requirements) appears unhelpful.

Rwilkin (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]