Pick any two

The old line “good, fast and cheap: pick any two” is tossed around a lot to describe software projects. Last night Scott Trudeau let me in on an inversion of this triangle that he picked up from the 37…

When Worlds Collide

It’s the “Stupid Triangle!” That was the last thing I expected to see tonight as I was doing my normal feed-reading.

Note to those of you outside of GR, sorry.. you had to be there..

Taling about law of physics, it make me think to TRIZ..

project triangle

Simpel en elegant: The Project Triangle….

project triangle

Simpel en elegant: The Project Triangle….

As with any triangle u cannot scale it such that any side is zero. And for small gains on one side the “cost” to the other side improves astronomically….its not linear.

Think of it like a law of physics…Energy, Mass and time. Speed of light is absolute so something’s gotta give. The project triangle is older than computers…We used to use the triangle with Quality time and Cost , and I would tell a client that you can’t have all three…you get to pick two to control and I get whatever remains.

If he cannot accept that— run, do not walk the other way. This is a guy who thinks he’s not subject to the laws of physics, a condition that usually requires pharmacological treatment.

I’m in a not entirely congruous field where the ‘features’ are kind of a given, and you don’t want to tell them you’re going to deliver substandard quality. You always try your best in any case.

So a standard saying we have when faced with a client is “Do you want it good or do you want it Tuesday?” - so we can get a bit more time in.

the “cheap, light, strong” reminds me of an engineering one i like to use .. “Quick, Cheap, Good — Pick Two”

The project 3d rectangle - I try to view projects in 4 terms: “Time to market, functions, quality and cost.”

Picture the room you are in, if a wall is in front of you, look left and down to the corner and make that your origin (0,0,0). The left/right x-axis is the time to market. If the client wants it unreasonably soon that means lots of overtime (+x axis). The vertical y-axis is the functionality. I picture it as the pile of documention detailing the project’s specifications. More functionality means more documentation so (+y axis). The z-axis is the quality of the project. If the client leans forward to bang their head against the wall that is an indicator of low functionality (user antagonistic). If they lean back at ease its an indicator of user friendliness (+z axis).

The rectangle formed by these two points (0,0,0) and (x,y,z) is the pile of money it will take to get the project done.

There is a similar one that Keith Bontrager uses with reference to bicycle parts, but it applies to most manufactured objects. “Cheap, light, strong, pick any two.” Good stuff.

My father, an aircraft mechanic, used to say “Speed costs money-how fast do you want to go?”

It can be awkward to invoke “the triangle” by name, since if it’s handled wrong, it can sound like blackmail. :-)

Most clients are interested (sometimes too much) in how you charge, so that can be a good inroad.

”Well, like all things, it depends. [all share awkward, ice-breaking laugh.] We do like to structure our projects in terms of how long it is likely to take and what sort of features you’ll want. To get a good estimate, it helps us to be as specific as possible about what’s important to you.”

And that’s not BS. If the client has her heart set on a home page that’s shaped like a powder puff and squirts Polo for Men every five minutes, it’s important to frame the discussion from the beginning around that (and how that feature came to be the linchpin for the project).

I’ve found it’s also a good point to bring up past projects that they’ve thought went well and not—and to ask how, in retrospect, things might have been different if they’d used/not used a triangle-like planning model. Good way to find where the landmines are buried in a given office. :-)

Anybody got real world instances where they’ve used the triangle?

This is insightfully simple, but perhaps too simple.

For example, saying that you have fixed scope and timeframe but flexible budget implies that if a project is falling behind, more money will fix the problem. As anyone who has been introduced to Mythical Man-Month by Frederick Brooks is aware, more money and more manpower doesn’t make software projects deliverable on time.

Still this triangular metaphor is a good place to start and a good way to frame discussions with a client. And it still probably holds up for work that isn’t similar to software.

This is a very helpful concept and I’d like to integrate into my work practices. Can someone share a scenario (actual or mock) of using this to negotiate a project with a client who insists on all three?