Yes, you are correct in your observation about Portfolio Management and checking the current validity of the project based on various parameters.

Also, in normal project management their a component as Risk Management, which is very much overlooked by many. Risk Mgmt. is a continuous process to see how viable the project - even when it is midway and what can be done to prevent, avoid or completely abandon. Various techniques such as Monte Carlo, Decision Tree Analysis etc. are used. This is the work of the concerned project manager. A great project manager never looses sight of this.

Indirectly, I see you are making a case for a PPM or portfolio management approach, which applies a set of higher level metrics for measuring success. Project Managers are often just focused on scope, budget and timeline measures. Portfolio Managers look to apply metrics such as strategic fit, competitive advantage and ROI to assign value to the project.

Depending on the weightings used, these higher level measures are the real drivers for the project, with the timeline, scope and budget being the levers management have to get the project to the point where it starts generating value.

Great feedback.

Yes, a failure of the project can be not blamed on the project manager if it is delivered on time, within cost and it adheres to the scope. And that is primary reason for differentiating between a Project success and Project Management success. A successful project management does not necessarily translate to the success of a project OR a successful project does not mean that project management is a success. However, odds against a successful project without a good project management are pretty high.

Also, I would like to point out a big picture. Senior Managers, Directors and CEO are also Project Managers at a high level. It is not only the first level of managers. They are as much as responsible for the whole outcome of the project as is the first level direct project manager.

However, in a real world it does not happen that easily. For high profile project, the echo is heard at the highest level and they are hold responsible, but not for a low profile one. Even in case of a big budget movie, failure of the movie very much translates as the failure of the director (he is also a high level project manager) – even though it is flawlessly executed by many low level project managers. In such a case it is unfair to blame them director and all its managers.

Hence, understanding the differentiation and defining goals for success for managers at every level definitely helps.

1. The only thing wrong may be the initial estimates of cost and schedule (and perhaps benefit). e.g. Titanic. The PM often has no say in these but arrives once they have been set. If the customer decides he’d rather increase the budget than reduce the scope, that is a choice and is not an indicator of the failure of the project. It just means the budget was wrong.
2. The business case may have been mistaken. e.g. Iridium. Again, this is not to say the project failed.
3. The business case may have been right at the start of the project but the situation may have changed by completion. Again, not the fault of the project unless this was very obvious and no review was made.

I think the key requirement is to separate the ultimate aim of the project from the agreed means to achieve that aim. The project manager should only be held responsible for things he can influence. Often, what he can influence is just successful delivery of the agreed project, not whether the project actually achieves what people thought it would. e.g. The Iridium PM presumably had no influence on whether the service would sell. He just delivered on time and mostly to budget.

I think this is what you are saying in your article but I don’t think the answer is to give the project manager the responsibility for the success of the higher level project. A movie is a great example. No one can be sure whether it will be a hit, however successful the project to make it.