Information systems projects play an important strategic role in organisations and are key drivers to the delivery of change. Given this prominence it is essential to find measurement methods that effectively analyze and communicate the performance to its stakeholders. Further, to assure contribution to both research and practice it is essential to verify the utility of the artifacts (i.e. methods) developed to help validate or justify that the solutions are suitable for practice, and fit the needs and contexts for which it is created.

Grounded in the design science paradigm, this paper reports an exploratory evaluation of the perception of certain qualities of two recently developed measurement methods (The Project Performance Scorecard and Project Objectives Measurement Model) against the traditional Triple Constraint method. An analytic scenario-based survey of fifty-one (51) participants, comprising of three (3) sets of independent sample of seventeen (17) respondents each was used. The study analyzed dimensions of task performance, ease of use, perceived usefulness, perceived semantic qualities and user satisfaction from the perspective of the participants. The preliminary study revealed encouraging results for the new methods and the general design process which can help guide current use and further refinements. The limitations of the study and future research directions are discussed.