Blog Detail

Tens of thousands of passengers’ bags stacked high in temporary storage, scuffles breaking out between staff and customers and the Olympic torch having to be re-routed. The stories that came out of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 launch seemed to pile on the misery – they became project folklore.

What lessons have we learned from this very high-profile ‘project’?

It all started so well. I remember at the time hearing the BBC report stating that Terminal 5 at Heathrow was being officially opened and that the project is coming in "on time and in budget". Now I know that makes a good (and unusual) story for a major project, but the thinking behind the comment told us a lot about what people thoughtmattered most.

I recall thinking that the fact that budget and schedule constraints have been met will be forgotten very soon. (I just did not imagine that it would be less than two weeks.) The things that will endure, the things that therefore really matter in the long term are more than simply ‘Time and Cost’.

‘Old-world project management' would have us believe that delivering on time and in budget are what matters, but current, 21st century thinking knows better, doesn’t it?

There are other project-related features that should concern us, such as:

SCOPE - have they delivered what was anticipated by, and promised to the customer? Are the project deliverables the right ones, functioning in the correct way?

QUALITY - is what has been delivered meeting the customers' quality expectations? Are the products and services that make up the project deliverables actually fit for their purpose of meeting requirements? Do they meet their agreed quality criteria?

OUTCOMES – will those deliverables actually meet the organisational needs? Are steps being put in place to ensure that they bring about an actual change in the organisation? Will we see identifiable outcomes?

BENEFITS - is everything that has been produced capable of achieving the benefits that were set out in the project Business Case? Any, and every, project should only exist in order to create something that can achieve customer benefits - will they be realised in this case?

We could think of these as five levels of success, with each level building on, and including the criteria of the previous level(s).

You might imagine that defining project success would be quite straightforward – we will all know what it looks like. But in practice, people define success in different ways, according to their perspective of the project.

Let’s consider two of the possible perspectives, those on the inside looking out, and those on the outside looking in.

Those on the ‘inside’ are the ones concerned with the simple success of the project. They have a project, and their aim is to ‘do the project right’. Efficiency in the way the project is delivered is uppermost in their thinking. As such, levels 1, 2, and 3 are their primary areas of concern. Whereas the ones on the ‘outside’ are looking beyond the traditional project lifecycle. Their concern is around the creation of outcomes that will meet the organisational needs.

Their aim is to do ‘the right project’. Rather than efficiency in project delivery, their thinking is around the effectiveness of what is created. Levels 4 and 5 are therefore the focus for them.

True project success would therefore seem to require that both perspectives are harmonised so that efficiency leads to effectiveness, the right project is delivered in the right manner, and that good quality deliverables lead to good outcomes and realised business benefits.

Project success - that’s what really counts.