May 5, 2014 at 8:30 am
I'm sorry but I can't agree for a very simple reason. You are using the wrong mantra to argue a completely different mantra. So staying on exactly what you said, no, you can't have all three.
Now, to your ending point, yes it is possible to have good, quick and "cheaper than years ago", but that is a completely different thing. If I want to make banana bread, and I am out of bananas, I can substitute apples, but it is no longer banana bread.
Your underlying point is something I agree with though. Too often we hear "that's how we always do it". I can't count the number of times I wanted to slap some sense into someone who couldn't see that times had changed, things could and should be done differently. Fortunately slapping sense into someone isn't acceptable. 🙂 Unfortunately, people who are unwilling to do what needs to be done are far more common than those of us who are willing to accept change.
Dave
May 5, 2014 at 8:59 am
Eric, as much as I like Chipotle (I do!), it would be more interesting to take the current state as a baseline and then challenge someone to do it better, faster, and cheaper. V1 is always hard, so many unknowns, and the triangle feels useful if not all perfect. Then you iterate and maybe the triangle just doesn't help you as much (or maybe I'm wrong), and then eventually you've wrung out the inefficiencies and only a game change of some sort gets you further.
It's certainly hard enough sometimes to agree on what better is. Cheaper can be complex if you do (or don't) factor in support costs, etc, for half baked solutions.
May 5, 2014 at 9:22 am
It's hard to argue against the rule as it applies to the management of resources towards the completion of multiple projects. Yes, project A can be done faster, but only at the expense of B and C or the expense of bringing in extra resources. Cheap is a project that can be done when there's time. Good is of course, relative, but often the difference not of good v bad, but of good enough v better (if there were more time). There is certainly a minimum standard that must be met.
May 5, 2014 at 9:56 am
Sometimes, getting all three can be possible. For example, if code is available for reuse, and there are good processes and standards in place, the wheel won't constantly have to be re-invented. Not saying that it will happen all of the time, though.
Once, I saw a restaurant with a sign with that very statement. They are now closed, but if I ever see that again, I will point out to the manager that slow service means fewer meals served and less profit.
May 5, 2014 at 10:43 am
Can one achieve all three? Maybe. Such maxims are rarely absolute -- few things in life are truly absolute. "It depends" is a highly overworked phrase. But the general truth here certainly seems borne out by looking at any significant body of data. For one thing, generally, it depends on the project. If the project is to write the numeral one on a piece of paper, pull out a piece of paper and write a one on it. It probably can't be done much better, faster, or cheaper, but that's not the type of project this sort of thing is usually applied to. On the other hand this type of thing usually has an implied "all other things being equal" and changing the situation by replacing the team with a set of superstars working for free would no doubt make it faster, cheaper and better, but that's really changing the "rules" in a way which the phrase was never intended to cover and which is unrealistic for the average project. Keeping an open mind is a good thing and designers should always be open to finding ways of pushing the envelope but it isn't realistic to just expect that to happen and the maxim applies more often than not. Rather than looking for ways of overcoming that general truth, one's time would probably be better spent ensuring that, unlike too many projects, the results aren't poor, slow and expensive.;-)
May 5, 2014 at 10:47 am
lnoland, I agree that bringing in superstars is changing the rules some - but that's the point, maybe there is a way to get all three and maybe that way is to get the superstars. In practice I'd argue that what a superstar brings to the table is ideas and a comfort level with pushing against status quo. When you get to execution just betting on superstars, well, that's quite a bet!
May 5, 2014 at 11:30 am
In my 20 years of experience working on IT projects of various scope, I have found the triangle to be a very simple yet accurate mechanism of project management decision making. Some argue for shapes with more sides but really the triangle is simple and effective for most projects. I agree with the other posters that the Laptop example doesn't really apply as it is the resulting product of a project and not the project itself. Within the project to produce the laptop referenced, the managers would have had to balance Cost, Time and Scope.
That being said, I completely understand where you are coming from though, as it does at first glance, seem to defy the triangle. One way you might reconcile that the product was better, cheaper and released on a fixed product cycle, is that there was some percentage of carryover from the last project completed in knowledge learned and production scale achieved that provided advantages to the subsequent project when comparing the project outcomes (i.e. the laptop itself being better and cheaper). I would argue as others have already that Faster would not apply as most of these products are developed on a fixed product cycle.
Great post though, it certainly makes you think and wonder!
Thanks
Ray
May 5, 2014 at 11:38 am
The triangle is meant to be applied to a specific situation. Comparing a laptop today and saying the triangle is false because a laptop today is faster, cheaper, and better than a decade old laptop is a misapplication of the triangle constraints.
If you want to see the triangle in action compare two laptops from today, or two from a decade ago. Compare two projects with similar requirements built with similar tooling and similar staffing levels.
Seriously the original post just provides people who are short on rational thought processes already (i.e. some/most/all of the management at the organizations that I've seen/worked for/escaped from) fuel for their idiocy of I WANT IT NOW AND IT SHOULD COST NOTHING AND IT BETTER INCLUDE EVERY FEATURE - SOME I HAVEN'T EVEN THOUGHT OF YET. IF IT DOESN'T I'LL MAKE IT RAIN PINKSLIPS.
I beg you to stop, just stop.
May 5, 2014 at 11:53 am
... fuel for their idiocy of I WANT IT NOW AND IT SHOULD COST NOTHING AND IT BETTER INCLUDE EVERY FEATURE - SOME I HAVEN'T EVEN THOUGHT OF YET. IF IT DOESN'T I'LL MAKE IT RAIN PINKSLIPS. ...
ROTFL
That's got to be worth more than +1
+100
😀
May 5, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Tresiqus, I'd like to think that idiots don't need any help from me! I'm not trying to convince anyone that the laws of physics don't apply because I wrote a post. What I do hope is that we even when dealing with the most demanding and/or least thoughtful customers that we bring our best game to the table and that includes not just believing in something because everyone says it or because it's sometimes true. Even if often true that's fine, as long as we can see when it does and doesn't apply. As someone who has been on both sides I much prefer a quantified answer - show my why quality does this if we do this. Maybe I agree, maybe not, but then we're in the real world (or close) and we can have a good discussion. The triangle can help focus the debate, I just hate to see it used to end (or ignore the debate). Which isn't is to say that you or most in IT do, it's just something I've seen enough to want to talk about it.
May 5, 2014 at 12:38 pm
The speed of your processor qualifies as "better" not faster. You had to wait 5 years for it. Therefore, you got better and cheaper and slower (not faster).
May 5, 2014 at 1:12 pm
A couple of followups
1) The food at Chipolte wasn't cheaper (than the competition at Moe's). The quality was ok.
2) How many projects have you worked on? How many of them did this rule apply?
May 5, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Andy Warren (5/5/2014)
lnoland, I agree that bringing in superstars is changing the rules some - but that's the point, maybe there is a way to get all three and maybe that way is to get the superstars. In practice I'd argue that what a superstar brings to the table is ideas and a comfort level with pushing against status quo. When you get to execution just betting on superstars, well, that's quite a bet!
Do keep in mind that my suggestion included the superstars working for free -- it's possible that a more realistic scenario might cost more money than not going with the superstars even if they finish earlier so it is not a slam-dunk that you are going to "beat" the triangle.
May 5, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Seriously though, the reason the triangle is applied so much is simply because it's so applicable.
But it IS misapplied in this case. For the sake of this discussion, look at the laptop market right now. If your neighbor is willing to wait another decade to buy a laptop, he could get an even better unit than he bought today, for even less. But he'll have to wait another decade to use it. Just imagine what he could get in 5 more decades for a mere $50?
Wait a minute, I see a trend building...if I wait forever, I can get everything for nothing!
Really the triangle is a guideline about this:
You can choose two items from the timeline, budget or feature set for a project, and the other item is determined by the choices you've made.
So you want 20 features and you have 20,000 shekels to spend? You've selected the budget and the features, now you're going to have to wait until the one person you could afford can get the work completed (say in 20 months.) If you don't want to wait 20 months, you could hire another programmer, but that will cost 20,000 more shekels. Or you could pare away enough features so it gets done in 20 months for 20,000.
But let's say you refuse to do either, AND insist on a 10 month timeline BECAUSE YOU'RE THE DAMN BOSS AND YOU SAID SO. AND THE TRIANGLE IS LOAD OF FILTHY LIES ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU READ IT ONLINE.
What happens is the developer, or the dba, or the sysadmin (always salaried but non-management personnel) is forced to absorb the additonal cost for your project by working free overtime to make the schedule. So all you actually did was transfer the additional costs for the project to someone who shouldn't have to be covering for your demands.
And all this makes your employees not sweat that pinkslip threat because they're already carpet bombing every possible employer with their resumes, because they're planning to quit in hopes the next place they land will be a little less hateful. Sometimes they meet each other coming and going from interviews.
So I beg you not encourage the poshly suited, MBA holding, but reality challenged Chief of Golf Activities Officer with a (mis)revelation about the triangle being some ruse. It really isn't, and they already have some weird notions about how expendable us little worker ants... um, wait ... people are for their benefit.
May 5, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Heh... I don't bother trying to explain the triangle to people that don't know what a straight line is. I just tell them "If you want it real bad, that's the way you'll get it".
There is no "cheap". If you do it wrong, the rework costs will kill you.
There is no "fast" unless you get damned lucky and actually took the time to define the problem. Heh... think about that paradox for a minute.:-P
The only thing left to do is do it right because neither cheap or fast is possible without doing it right. And, as Tom Thompson said on a similar thread, if you do it right, both cheap and fast are much more likely to happen. 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply