Reimagining Project Management: From Iron Triangle to the Pyramid of Paper Straw

Abstract

The origins of this paper take the idea put forward by Dr. Roger Atkinson¹ regarding the changing of the iron triangle of project management — that being cost, quality, and time. In this paper, he speaks about this model being too fixed and the possible use for adding or replacing one of these elements with stakeholders. 

The Rationale Behind the Idea for the Study

The justification for a change in the three points on the triangle has been seen in numerous journals, such as: “Ideas of ‘impact’ are coupled with a narrow use of the contingency approach; some less helpful ‘triangulated’ relationships might be evident.”¹¹ Below, I review previous studies and works on this topic to show the reasoning for my idea and where others have either suggested the same or proven why the current setup is not working in the way it should. 

Literature Review of Current Studies in This Area

The reason for the fourth member of the iron triangle of project management being risk is as follows: the concept of complexity justifies this idea¹². 

The justification for this radical change from the iron triangle is simple. The concept of scope creep, which is defined as the extras meant to divert from a project’s main goal, is, in my view, one of the main causes of project failure. This concept is suggested for use as a diagram, following⁵. It draws 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 and the foundation of project management. By using 3D, PMs have the ability to imagine the impact of any additional input on the three factors in a more visual way. This approach has a greater impact than the current 2D model, with stakeholders being the main cause of creep, yet many are unable to see it. 

I have also added Risk, as when it is not addressed or seen, its impact can cause projects to fail¹³. 

As stakeholders are regarded as the main cause of scope creep, the downward pressure they exert can have a catastrophic impact, which is why they are placed at the top of the pyramid. If the needs of stakeholders are met with equal pressure downwards and the four factors are taken into consideration, then no issues should arise¹⁴. 

The fact that the original paper speaks of Type 2 mistakes gives weight to the reasoning behind this new concept, as it should be tested to see if it makes a positive change. The concept of adding elements to the iron base has recently gained popularity (Aljaber, 2024), with variations of triangles depending on methodology — from linear to agile shapes, adding resources rather than quality (Vahididi, Greenwood, 2009). Their variations, from the David star to quadrants and five-point stars, do not meet what this study proposes. All these are two-dimensional, with the ability to move in only one direction if any element changes, making them restrictive. This restrictiveness oversimplifies the issues and the impact that stakeholders can have on a project and the directions scope creep can push it. 

With the pyramid style, the influence, strength and impact become obvious from the start. The forces that other diagrammatic styles represent miss the point of the entire concept. These diagrams not only show the foundation on which a project should concentrate but also highlight the fact that project force changes throughout its lifecycle. If management is adjusted to exert an equal amount of pressure, the bend or shape change will not be catastrophic but will reveal where resources are needed to control it. This point of the triangle, showing the effect, is well-discussed in (Morris & Semmber, 2008) and gives further reasoning for the pyramid’s justification. 

Why should we even care about changing any of this? That is a valid question. I would suggest several answers. First, why not try new things? If we remain in one mode and never seek change, we stagnate¹⁵. Another point is the question of methodology: what makes them wrong? Many other concepts fail to address risk. Risk is the one constant in projects that is missed from all others. Why? It seems they forget that stakeholders bring risk, time brings risk, and quality brings risk. Risk is the one cog within the project machine that interacts with all the others. 

Now, the data in this paper is drawn from literature and secondary sources, but with luck, it sets the stage for new ideas and how to review them without getting stuck in older methods. 

What this study proposes is simple: take that additional fourth vector to project control and add one more vertical element. This encourages the reader to think in three dimensions rather than a flat, linear idea. "Nonlinear thinking consists of seven distinct yet interrelated dimensions: intuition, creativity, values, imagination, flexibility, insights, and emotions”². These additional ways of viewing the work can only aid idea production, thereby avoiding risks and issues. 

The reasoning for this radical change from the iron triangle is simple. The concept of scope creep, which this study aims to help project participants visualise more clearly, is meant to reduce the chances of it occurring. It is also one of the main reasons for using this concept as a diagram³. 

This diagram requires the ability to imagine the result of adding inputs to the three main factors. With stakeholders being the main cause of creep, they are often unable to see or comprehend their own impact. Therefore, I have included them in the diagram. I have also added Risk, as when it is not addressed or seen, the impact can cause projects to fail⁴. 

As stakeholders exert downward pressure for change, the impact can be catastrophic. The needs of stakeholders must be met with equal downward pressure, taking into consideration the four factors. Then, no issues should arise⁵. They examined how the triangle had changed, but that was nearly six years ago, and there has been a lack of studies since. 

The fact that the original paper discusses Type 2 mistakes gives further weight to the reasoning behind this new concept. It should be tested to determine if it makes a positive difference. The concept of adding components to the iron base has become popular recently⁵, with triangles varying based on methodology. From linear to agile shapes, resources are added rather than quality⁸. Variations from the David star to quadrants and five-point stars do not align with what this study proposes. All these are two-dimensional, moving in only one direction if any element changes, making them restrictive. This oversimplification misses the importance of stakeholders and how they can affect a project. 

The pyramid style, on the other hand, makes the influence of stakeholders clear from the start. The force diagrams in other styles miss the point of the concept. These diagrams not only show the foundation of a project but also demonstrate how changes in project force throughout its lifecycle can be managed without catastrophic consequences. This is well-explained in the paper by Ebbesen & Hope⁷, providing more support for the pyramid concept. 

Why should we care about changing any of this? A valid question. First, why not try new things? Stagnation occurs when we do not embrace change. Second, the other methodologies do not address risk. Risk is a constant factor in projects, and it interacts with all other elements — stakeholders, time, and quality. 

Why should we even care about changing any of this? This is a very valued question for the reader. To this, I would suggest a selection of answers. First, why not try new things? If we stay in one mode and never look to change, we stagnate6 also the other, methodology what makes them wrong. If we look at some of the other concepts, they all fail to address risk. Now, risk is the one constant in projects that is missed by all of them. Why? Well, it seems to be that they forget that with stakeholders come risk, with time comes risk, with quality comes risk. It is the one cog within the project machine that interacts with all the others.

“Comments suggest that the Iron Triangle does indeed need to be updated to consider a broader range of critical constraints. One commenter argues that the Iron triangle should be broken up and that a 360-degree understanding of what project success should be should be created instead. Another example is put forward by (Haughey, 2008), who describes the ‘Project Management Diamond’ (see Figure 3 (b)). Here quality is seen as a critical constraint that cannot be neglected and should be given equal importance alongside time, cost and scope.”9. The PMI was looking at the idea of changing the triangle with the thinking of the star shape. The reasoning in the document referenced here, gives backing to the idea of not only a new type of shape but also the addition of Risk to the group.

Conclusion

For project management to move forward, as most of it has in the last five years, all sections need to be pushed. This study suggests that means revisiting the foundations to get the best or better plans and methodologies. 

What this study recommends is opening the idea to testing and determining if there is a quantifiable increase in the ability to reduce impact and scope creep. With project management evolving over the last five years, with agile, scrum, and praxis becoming mainstream, it makes sense to ensure that the foundations of project management do not stagnate in older thinking and continue to align with modern ideas. 

Reference Literature:

¹Atkinson, R., 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International journal of project management, 17(6), pp.337-342. 

²Groves, K.S. and Vance, C.M., 2015. Linear and nonlinear thinking: A multidimensional model and measure. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(2), pp.111-136. 

³Smith, A., 2021. Leading Project Teams. 

⁴Hubbard, D.W., 2020. The failure of risk management: Why it's broken and how to fix it. John Wiley & Sons. 

⁵Pollack, J., Helm, J. and Adler, D., 2018. What is the Iron Triangle, and how has it changed?. International journal of managing projects in business, 11(2), pp.527-547. 

⁶Pauwelyn, J., Wessel, R.A. and Wouters, J., 2014. When structures become shackles: stagnation and dynamics in international lawmaking. European Journal of International Law, 25(3), pp.733-763. 

⁷Hope, A., Ebbesen, J.B. and Hope, A., 2013. Re-imagining the Iron Triangle: Embedding Sustainability into Project Constraints. Re-imagining the Iron Triangle: Embedding Sustainability. PM World Journal, 2(2). 

⁸Zwikael, O. and Smyrk, J.R., 2019. Project management: A benefit realisation approach. springer. 

⁹Ebbesen, J.B. and Hope, A., 2013. Re-imagining the iron triangle: embedding sustainability into project constraints. PM World Journal, 2(III). 

¹⁰Room, C., 2024. Iron Triangle. system, 9(17), p.48. 

¹¹Reynolds, M., 2015. (Breaking) The iron triangle of evaluation. IDS Bulletin, 46(1), pp.71-86.  

¹²Šeduikis, L., 2024. Factors of successful it project risk management in the organization and their influence on it project success (Doctoral dissertation, Vilniaus universitetas.). 

¹³Akoh, S.R., Sun, M., Ogunlana, S. and Mahmud, A.T., 2024. Exploring the key risk factors impeding the performance of highway construction projects: an evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Facilities Management. 

¹⁴Wicaksono, A.P. and Setiawan, D., 2024. Impacts of stakeholder pressure on water disclosure within Asian mining companies. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(3), pp.6493-6515. 

¹⁵Dron, S.2024, From Stagnation to Success: How Business Process Reengineering Can Drive Growth and Innovation in Business.