I just read a blog with this title on Aras' "How to Manage a Camel - Project Management and Recruitment site. http://projectcentric.co.uk/how_to_manage_a_camel/projectmanagement/guest-pm-blogger-whats-wrong-with-the-triple-constraint/. In summary, the premise of the post is that the three dimensions of the project management triple constraint (Time, Cost, Quality) are insufficient. The author suggests another factor, Benefits, should also be considered when making project decisions.
I like the idea that the author identified a fundamental drawback of the Triple Constraint Model and proposed a thoughtful solution. As noted in one of the replies to his post, there may be even more legs to this "stool," such as Risk.
Let's consider this for a moment...A five-legged stool? Can you see where I am going?
Though I agree the model is flawed, I don't agree that making it more complex is the answer. So in the hopes of keeping the model simple, I suggest the flaw lies in the legs themselves. I offer these 3 legs instead:
- Speed
- Value
- Performance (or maybe Quality - I need your help on this one)
For those of you who have attended my Metrics presentation, you've already heard my thoughts on the "classic" project management metrics: Time, Cost, Within Scope. I have contended for some time that they are outdated and insufficient in making sound project decisions. Here are my arguments:
Time - If you give a PM and the project team 12 months to complete a project, how long do you think it will take? I can just about guarantee it will take at least 12 months - if not more. The team will inevitably end up using all of the time they are allotted. They will establish a plan to complete the project in 12 months, and when things inevitably go wrong, they will likely miss the mark. Instead, replace this metric with:
Speed - I want to give my project teams the "must have date" and have their first response to be, "How can we beat that date?" They will respond in this manner because they know nothing contributes more to a project than getting it done! I read a Forrester report a few years ago citing schedule as the #1 factor in determining project success. Their research found that projects 50% over the original timeline almost always have zero chance of delivering their intended ROI. One of the 9 objectives I advocate for PMOs is to reduce project cycle times. I want projects completed as fast as possible.
Cost - Oh how I despise this factor. I think it is one of the worst metrics we have ever had for projects. Let me get right to my point, I don't care what a project costs. I only care about Value. Cost is a factor and metric we use because we are terrible at defining, estimating and determining value.
Value - I love this word. This is what I care about when it comes to all of my investments, the value they deliver. I have written a number of posts now on the subject and I believe organizations able to establish the governance processes to define, estimate and measure value make the best investment decisions. I understand how elusive valuation is but I am determined to advocate improved financial management systems. Imagine if you gave your project teams a new program and the first thing they considered was, "How do we get more value out of this investment?" I want them to seek opportunities for additional investment capable of delivering exponential returns. These folks are close to the work, they are close to the customer, and we would be amazed at what they might suggest if we stop them from thinking, "We better not go over budget."
Within Scope - It does not matter to me that I stayed within scope. I care whether or not I am providing the customer with the performance necessary for them to meet their business needs. I admittedly struggled with the "Quality" leg of the stool. In the past, I was replacing "Within Project Scope" with "Performance." That change is pretty straightforward. I find it is not as easy to dismiss Quality because I actually list performance as a potential dimension of Quality in my Metrics Presentation. I also list: accuracy, conformance, completeness, reliability/durability, aesthetics, and serviceability. This one requires more reflection. In the meantime:
Performance - I like this leg of the stool because it gets directly to the customer of the product or service I am delivering. As I said above, am I delivering the performance they need to meet their business objectives? I am not going to hide behind the fact I may have met "their" requirements. Good project management processes ensure requirements reflect what is needed to meet business needs.
Using these dimensions, I believe we cover the two main inadequacies of the original 3-legged stool. First, any changes in benefits will be factored into Value, and risk can be addressed in all 3 dimensions.
Are there any factors you think won't be addressed by considering Speed, Value and Performance when making project decisions? Do you think my third leg should be Quality or Performance? Is Risk a 4th leg? Let me know.
Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist