tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29135326773856418.post5109016053549506495..comments2009-06-26T13:39:34.324+12:00Basil Wood, CGEIThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03272280198547335110noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29135326773856418.post-76374010875760489382009-06-26T13:39:34.324+12:002009-06-26T13:39:34.324+12:00I agree with you Denver. These are The Standish Group&#39;s definitions, which unfortunately perpetuate the problem of focus on delivery of technology rather than benefits. Accordingly, I don&#39;t agree with their definitions. One can also argue that a project that was &quot;challenged&quot; but still delivered the intended benefits was actually a success, especially if the updated business case confirmed it was still the best use of available resources.Bazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03272280198547335110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29135326773856418.post-69925182700268004932009-06-25T21:28:11.260+12:002009-06-25T21:28:11.260+12:00Success = on (or before) time, on (or below) budget, and with required features and functions?<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />What about business benefits?<br /><br />Perhaps the original proposal, that a system with such features and functions would deliver a particular set of business benefits, was faulty?<br /><br />Is the project still a success?<br /><br />Well, yes, but only if you take a narrow &quot;IT unit&quot; view, which was something I thought you were discouraging in other posts?Denverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09549056565740397398noreply@blogger.com