Triangles, Sex and Simplicity
We went to a project management presentation the other day and the subject
of "The Iron Triangle" was brought up. We think that if the term,
and what it implies in the project management field is mentioned one more time
we shall either be driven to shoot the perpetrator, or commit suicide. For
the uninitiated, the iron triangle, or triple constraint, or Holy Trinity,
or whatever it happens to be called, is supposed to represent the three constraining
goals, objectives or targets of the classic project. According to whomsoever
you talk, that might mean "scope, time and cost ", "time, cost
and performance", "time, cost and technology", and so on.
So, what happened to quality? The fact is, there are four variables involved
in balancing the management constraints on a project and those are scope,
quality, time and cost. And they need to be in reasonable balance if the
project is
to be successful on all four dimensions. In reality, of course they rarely
are and one or more need to be compromised depending on the priorities of
the project in question. We will avoid further discussion here of this
topic and
the consequent validity of wild reports of numbers of project failures.
Instead, the point we are making is that we are dealing with a square and
not a triangle and, incidentally, the serious omission of the quality dimension.
We asked one of the meeting participants "What happened to quality?" The
respondent shot back, "That's part of Scope Definition." Not in
our book, quality is part of Requirements Definition. We got into a hassle
over
which authority says what on the subject and it transpired that we had a
bypass in communication and were talking about two different aspects of quality.
For
our part we were referring to Quality Grade, whereas our respondent was talking
about Conformance to Requirements, with names like Demming and Juran being
bandied about.
How can you have two types of quality? Simple. Before you can "conform
to requirements", those requirements first have to be established and
such requirements are an interdependent variable, i.e. one of the four corners
of our square. In other words the setting of the quality baseline against
which quality control can be established. That baseline constitutes the quality
grade
required by the project. Heck, this is even made clear in the current 2000
version of the Project Management Institute's Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge ("PMBOK") for those who care to study it that
closely. Still, it seems to continue to be an elusive concept for a lot of
otherwise clever people.
To illustrate this, let's use this classic simple analogy. Suppose we have
to go downtown for a meeting. We can view this as a project, after all it
has
a clear objective, a scope with a fairly well established set of activities
including a "getting ready" work package, a limited time between
start and finish and a budget. But in this example, the quality dimension
is unspecified. The quality is variable and depending on the grade will have
a
significant impact on the project and its outcome. For example, we could
choose to get downtown by walking, cycling, renting a taxi cab, driving our
own car
and so on. Which would you choose? That probably depends on your circumstances
and the constraints imposed by the other three of the four sides of our square. Which
one you choose will have a significant impact on the quality of your condition
upon arrival!
This is not exactly a new concept. After all, we have been writing about
it since the publication of the first Project Management Body of Knowledge
published
by the Project Management Institute back in 1987. True it was depicted there
as a four-cornered star, but the configuration is the same. And that was
sixteen years ago. The mind boggles at the rate of progress. The iron triangle
has
to be pretty rusty by now.
Once we got ourselves sorted out with our respondent, we asked why they continued
to use the "Iron Triangle" as a construct. The response to that
question was that it went down well with clients. What a motivation! We suppose
anyone
is free to flog second-rate concepts and go on doing so if it makes money,
but we would hardly call that a product of professional quality grade.
Some years ago, we asked a similar question of Dr. Francis Hartman of the
University of Calgary why he continued to use the triangle by way of illustration
of his
project management concepts. He replied that the triangle is more sexy. He
has a point. This connection seems to date back to the days of the ancient
Greeks, the Parthenon at Athens and a rather crude stone carving depicting
the focus of men's interest in the female form to provide direction to visitors
bent on participating in the activities within.
Hartman also added that the mathematics of a triangle are much simpler than
that of a square when it comes to analyzing the relationships between three
variables rather than four. He has another good point. So, I suppose we are
going to have to put up with the reality that sex and simplicity will continue
to rule the day. What a shame!
|
