4.0 Article

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

Journal

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2017-0107

Keywords

Cost; Quality; Time; Scientometrics; Iron Triangle; Triple Constraint

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - The Iron Triangle, also called the Triple Constraint, is a central concept to project management research and practice, representing the relationship between key performance criteria. However, there is disagreement about which criteria should be represented on the vertices of this triangle. The purpose of this paper is to explore which concepts are part of the Iron Triangle, and how these concepts have changed over time. Design/methodology/approach - This paper explores 45 years of project management research, drawing on a database of 109,804 records from 1970 to 2015. Three corpora were constructed, representing the project management and Time, Cost, and Quality Management literature. Time and Cost are consistently identified as part of the Iron Triangle. However, the status of quality is contested. Key concepts in the project management literature were explored using scientometric research techniques, to understand the relationship between these concepts. Findings - Significant links were found between Time, Cost, and Quality, verifying these concepts as the vertices on the Iron Triangle. These links were significantly stronger than links to alternatives, such as Scope, Performance, or Requirements. Other concepts that are core to the Iron Triangle were also identified, and how these have changed over time. Originality/value - This research develops the understanding of a key project management concept by clarifying which concepts are part of the Iron Triangle, based on evidence of how the concept is used in research. This paper also reveals the context in which this concept is used, and how this has changed over the last 45 years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available