Why the PMIs new definition of project success is wrong

Many people have been debating the definition for a successful project for decades. If we want the holy grail of a definition, one would think the Project Management Institute, the people who define our frameworks for running projects, would have a pretty good definition, right? Wrong.

The definition of success has missed the mark for a long time

The PMI conference in 2008 proposed a multilevel framework for measuring success. In this paper, success was broken out into 5 components.

“Project Management Success” was achieved if the schedule was met, budget was not exceeded and scope was achieved. Whereas “Business Success” evaluated if the business benefits were realised. If they were, the business elements of the project were a success. Putting aside the fact that this feels like everyone gets a medal for turning up, it still encourages calling projects that were not good, a success. Consider the implementation of ePassport gates in the UK. Delivered on its business benefit. Met it’s schedule, achieved its scope, met its budget. By the PMI’s early 2008 definition, this project looks successful. But the National Audit Office lambasted the project for spending millions more on consultants than necessary.

There has to be an element of what was possible in the definition and in 2008 that was missing.

In 2024, the definition is even worse

So let’s fast forward 16 years to the present day — we’ve all learnt a lot in the last 16 years, surely it has got better now?

In September 2024 the PMI came out with their new definition of success — “successful projects deliver value that justifies the effort and expense”. On whose terms? The ePassport gates could still be considered a success in the definition. Or take the International Space Station delivered 30 years late and billions over budget, but which continues to teach us new science that we may not have got to another way — successful?

Could it have been more successful?

Success is not an absolute

Success is a continuum not an absolute and is perspective-dependent. The definitions so far don’t recognise these concepts sufficiently. The ePassports project had elements of success, but could have been more successful — it’s a continuum. The project also was perceived as more successful by the sponsors than it was by the National Audit Office — it’s perspective-dependent. Trying to boil down a success definition into a sentence might win social medial eyeballs, but it’s just not a good definition.

Success is also time-dependent. Something that was not considered successful on its completion, could be considered successful 10 years later. Van Gogh was not successful in his lifetime and died broke. Now, he’s one of the most valuable artists that there is. Success?

I know the topic is hard, but the current definition over-simplifies it. We need a better definition to move the industry forward and to help us deliver more successful projects. Whatever that might be!