chapter 7 we discussed the stakeholder-interaction model (SIM) as a framework for creating a satisfactory project development environment, which is crucial to successful project outcomes. The underpinnings of the framework are pairwise communication and interaction between the IS/technical staff and the users group, between senior management and the users group, and between senior management and the IS/technical staff. The drive to maintain proper balance between the three elements of the project triangle can be controlled within the context of SIM. Successful project outcomes invariably entail maximizing, in a satisfactory sense, the desired features of the completed product under the constraints of the given or available resources and schedule for completion.The project-interaction triangle of resources, features, and schedule is analogous to the SIM model of chapter 7. The distinctive difference is that in this case all the elements are to a large extent controllable, or at least can be manipulated, by the project leader to achieve the desired project outcome. On the other hand, the project triangle is also similar in its interaction behavior to the stakeholder-interaction triangle, in the sense that changes in any one of the elements has repercussions for the remaining elements, hence the need to always maintain proper balance among the elements in the triangle. For example, any new significant functionality resulting from changes in the project requirements may have a direct impact on, say, the schedule, and possibly on the resources already budgeted to tackle the project. It is therefore imperative for the project leader to ensure that proper balance is maintained among the three interacting elements of resources, features, and schedule at all times during the development process. This need to maintain proper balance among the three project entities requires that their determination at the start of the project be a joint effort developed from the ground up—that is, among all the stakeholder groups, especially those with direct responsibilities for the actual project development. Thus, for example, the schedule should not be developed from the ranks of senior management and passed down to the development team. Instead, it must be the responsibility of the project team, and the individual members involved in each phase must be held accountable for their specific role in achieving the expected outcomes (McCarthy 1995). Cost overruns and schedule delays, which are the bane of many software development failures, can at times be traced to the ill-advised effort of some stakeholder groups, in particular senior executives, to usurp the responsibility for determining the completion schedule and associated budget from the project team and its leadership. The DIA's baggage handling system is a case in point. The schedule for completion of BHS was essentially dictated by the opening date for the airport and not by the complexity of the features of BHS and the adequacy of the resources available to handle it.
لطفا منتظر باشید ...
