ClearPM

In my part of the United States (Florida), it's tough to watch TV without seeing these ubiquitous Golden Coral restaurant commercials where some guy visits various other unnamed restaurants to see if they can match GC's pricing.  One server yells, "SECURITY!" when the guy says he wants all kinds of food for $10 (he actually says, "all for ten bucks").  Another server dressed up in a cowboy hat, fringed shirt, and chaps asks with an exaggerated western drawl, "Are you some kind of rodeo clown?"  OK, cute, but I'm sick of it.  It was a little funny the first time I saw it, but after several hundred times, not so much.

Now that I'm past the cuteness of it my mind starts wandering every time I see it, and I've noticed they leave out some key information regarding their restaurant.  Number one, they don't mention whether or not the food actually tastes good.  They make it very clear that the food is cheap.  And although they don't mention it, since GC is a buffet style place it would be tough for another restaurant to beat their speed of service.  But what you don't see is customers closing their eyes and moaning in ecstasy as a result of the Golden Coral chef's culinary expertise.

Cost, Quality, or Price, Which Two Do You Want?

Apparently at Golden Coral, you can satisfy your schedule (speed of service) and cost (10 bucks) requirements, but the third leg of that triangle (quality) comes up short.  It's a classic case of the triple constraint in action.  A Google search returns about 195,000 hits on the triple constraints of project management so I won't go into a lot of detail here. 

I will say the triple constraint is a somewhat specific view of a project in terms of three factors, generally Cost, Schedule, and Scope, though you can see in the diagram the three legs of the triangle sometimes have different names.  The way it works is that by changing one of the three constraints, the other two are impacted.  For example, I can deliver a project faster (shorter schedule) but that might mean more cost or fewer features (Scope).  I can include more features, but that might mean more cost and a longer schedule.  Or I can decrease project cost, but it might mean more time to complete or a lower quality product.

It's Working All the Time

The fact that I thought of the triple constraint while watching a TV commercial was somewhat surprising for me.  Even though -- or maybe because -- I know the triple constraint applies all the time, I don't routinely think about it during the course of my projects.  It's always there; it always works so I don't spend a lot of time considering it.  I take a more systemic view looking at the project as a whole, are we delivering the appropriate value, how the risks impact the schedule and budget and resources, or how the customer perceives our progress and do I need to take action on that.

I believe the triple constraints are so ingrained in our thought processes that we weigh them almost automatically in every project related decision we make.  Still, there is value in recognizing the interrelationships between the various aspects of your project.  We have to be aware that changes aren't made in a vacuum.  When we change one aspect we likely impact another.

If you want a great tasting steak maybe Del Frisco's is a better choice...but you'll probably sacrifice your schedule (since it'll take longer for them to cook the order to your specifications) and a lot more money.  The question becomes, what is the best thing for your customer?  What is the best thing for your project?  Which combination of price, schedule, scope, quality, risks, resources, etc. will provide the most value?  Knowing how the project elements are affected by one another is key.  And you can't get that for just 10 bucks.