May 3, 2014 at 11:02 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Better, Faster, and Cheaper
May 5, 2014 at 5:06 am
I'd always been of the impression that the "faster" portion of the saying was more focused on time-elapsed, in the context of how "soon" you may have the completed product, effort, project, etc. Therefore, the laptop from your example is surely a better & cheaper laptop, but was not available for purchase until 5 years after the one to which you're comparing it. Better, faster (in the context of relative performance), and cheaper IS the norm for computers. laptops, and smartphones, as advances in technology inevitably lead to such.
In the same vein, a "superstar" may be able to provide a solution that's faster and better than an "average" team. The "superstar" may cost more per a productive hour (in the short term) than an "average" person providing the same/similar solution at a lower cost in twice the time. When "time is money," managers may opt to go to the superstar for a solution. When "cost savings" are the focus, or a solution may not be needed immediately, the lower-priority projects may be pushed to the "average" team. I prefer a balanced approach, as the "average" tech may become a superstar with time and experience, and the current "superstar" can best focus their time and effort on critical projects.
May 5, 2014 at 6:19 am
Faster, Cheaper, Better -- Perhaps you can get all three but I have found that when dealing with my customers I need to have a tool to communicate the cost of a feature. Yes you can bring in a superstar at a higher rate for a shorter period of time but there are costs associated with recruiting and placing the superstar. Also, when it comes down to faster or cheaper -- most project leads do not address the necessary rework and remediation to be done when going for faster or cheaper.
Project architects and leads need to address the cost of each feature so the customer can at least be aware of the cost they are incurring with each additional feature (bells and whistles). When the cost of additional features exceeds the costs of all the previous features, customers tend to reject the new features.
May 5, 2014 at 6:28 am
I'll throw in with Jonathan here in that the "Fast" aspect has to do with the concept-to-production timeline, not so much the performance aspect of whatever it is.
The point of this saying - though admittedly the shorthand version states it inelegantly - is the three elements are interrelated and optimizing them for any project involves making decisions and accepting certain trade-offs between them. Changing any one will affect the other two to some degree or another. The effects may be negligible, significant but acceptable or simply unacceptable for that project, but the effects are there.
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
May 5, 2014 at 6:53 am
lshanahan, I know I pushed the example by using "fast" the way I did:-) But are you really, really sure that the triangle is always true?
May 5, 2014 at 6:56 am
The triangle is a reliable indicator of how projects go. The counter example isn't perfection, it is a project out of control - delayed, late and of poor quality.
May 5, 2014 at 6:59 am
... what I’m challenging you to do is to avoid reducing conversations to “pick two” when sometimes the right person with the right idea might well be able to see a way to achieve all three.
I think "sometimes" is the key word in that statement. There may be a very limited number of edge-cases where all three have been achieved. But I wouldn't go changing any rule based on edge-cases.
We should try to keep an open mind towards the possibility of achieving all three, without fooling ourselves into thinking it is always going to work that way.
"Pick two" becomes more than just a myth, perpetuated by those who don't want to do work, when it is backed by decades of common experience, amongst a large number of project managers from all over the world.
May 5, 2014 at 7:03 am
We should try to keep an open mind towards the possibility of achieving all three, without fooling ourselves into thinking it is always going to work that way.
Nicely said!
May 5, 2014 at 7:07 am
Dave, I hear you on the PM's, yet PM's are just as fallible as the rest of us. How many use/repeat that phrase just because? Which is perhaps doing a disservice to PM's - I know a lot of good ones.
The problem (or greatness) of the phrase is the mental image of the triangle. The triangle can turn dogma into physics. See - I made this side longer, see how it changes the triangle?
May 5, 2014 at 7:12 am
Yeah, the laptop example was not the best.
Anyway, the point of the triangle (if there is one) is an easy to remember example to show that the 3 factors are "related".
Of course you can get all 3. You just need to have a loose enough requirement for all 3 relative to the difficulty of the task/project.
But what happens when we are planning out your project and you say "any way you can finish it sooner?", or "can it also do this", or "can you put a faster processor in it (a measure of 'good' ...), or "that's outside our budget, get it done for 5k less". The point is that to get more of one, you need to sacrifice one of the other two (usually money or time). That is usually true enough, and even when its not is useful to keep people from pushing unrealistic demands on a project team.
The falsehood of the example is really in the assumption that you'll get even two of those satisfied. Too many projects come in slower and more expensive and still don't deliver quality.
Anyway, it kind of reminds me of a dialogue quote from the film "Idiocracy"
"Every time they asked me to Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way, I got out of the way"
"You're not meant to choose that. The statement is meant to shame you into leading or at LEAST following"
The triangle reminds me of that. No one is ever meant to sacrifice on good. Reminding them of the relationship is meant to get you more money or at least more time to finish.
May 5, 2014 at 7:16 am
I'd say that Chipotle Mexican Grill is good, fast, and cheap. However, as with any application, whether it be software or a restraunt, how the end user perceives "good" is more subjective than the more objective goals of fast and cheap.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
May 5, 2014 at 7:21 am
Nice article, but I think you missed the point of "good, fast, or cheap". You crossed the end result (the laptop) with the project (research, design and produce). The end product should be be better, faster, and cheaper, but in order to get to that point, the managers of the project still had to make trade offs to get there.
You could get the design done quickly by using part you already have tested (less time but slower end product) or go through the test process of new part (requires more time). If you want better parts tested and still done quickly, it requires more people (cost). If time is not the issues you reseach the best components for the price and use existing resources as time permits (slower but cheaper).
End products should always strive to be better, faster, and cheaper (at least to maintain). But when creating those end products, there will always be decisions that have to be made, and yes, trade offs to some extent (even if you have a superstar team).
May 5, 2014 at 7:39 am
Eric M Russell (5/5/2014)
I'd say that Chipotle Mexican Grill is good, fast, and cheap. However, as with any application, whether it be software or a restraunt, how the end user perceives "good" is more subjective than the more objective goals of fast and cheap.
I went to a Chipolte restaurant last year, and I tried their online ordering system. When I got to the restaurant the workers were confused. My online order was finally given to me after people who came in to the restaurant after me were out the door.
May 5, 2014 at 7:55 am
The triangle is meant to suggest that time, scope and money have a relationship. You can pick time and money as the controlling factors, but then you give up on scope - this is not the same thing as "good" although it's usually translated as such ("fast, good, cheap - pick two").
The laptop manufacturers are following the same rules - each new generation of hardware starts off hot, noisy, expensive and a battery hog, to get a little faster. There is then an iterative process to make them cooler, quieter and less expensive for the same speed.
Most projects don't get an iterative process. Why?
1. The client says "that triangle doesn't apply to my project because I'm special. Oh and by the way, can you add in this bit?"
2. The workers try to deliver all of the scope (including the new bit), resulting in the project being late and over budget.
3. The client says "well, those workers weren't very good, but my idea was sound."
Repeat until the client goes bankrupt.
May 5, 2014 at 8:02 am
Robert.Sterbal (5/5/2014)
Eric M Russell (5/5/2014)
I'd say that Chipotle Mexican Grill is good, fast, and cheap. However, as with any application, whether it be software or a restraunt, how the end user perceives "good" is more subjective than the more objective goals of fast and cheap.I went to a Chipolte restaurant last year, and I tried their online ordering system. When I got to the restaurant the workers were confused. My online order was finally given to me after people who came in to the restaurant after me were out the door.
Was it at least good and cheap?
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply