The Iron Triangle. Is it Broken? + FREE CHEAT SHEET

The Iron Triangle. Is it Broken? + FREE CHEAT SHEET


Previously We looked at the Iron Triangle. Today I planned to move on to a new subject. But then a question came in that really had me scratching my head. Welcome to Development That Pays My name is Gary Straughan And this is the question that spoiled my week In essence the question is: “If you want good and cheap How does making the project longer help?” RaxDaMan, thank you so much for your question. Here’s the clip I think you were referring to. “I can do Fast, Good, and Cheap.” “Which TWO would you like?” Cheap and Fast … rush the the job and the
Quality will suffer Cheap and Good… is going to take time Fast and Good – which might mean putting more
people on the job – will push the price up. We’ve just seen three pairs of constraints I confess that when I was putting together
last week’s episode, It was this one that didn’t sit well with me. The case where cost and quality/scope are
fixed that didn’t sit right with me. More time means more cost, right? My first thought was to blame the model. Cost and time aren’t independent. But then I realised that the Iron Triangle
is composed entirely of parameters that are very INTER-dependent. If I can’t blame the model I better make sure I’m interpreting it correctly. We can fix one parameter We can fix a second parameter But we can never fix a third. We’re saying is that the third one must be allowed
to CHANGE. Last time I strongly implied the direction
of the change. But change in the opposite direction is also
possible. We’ll see an example of that in a moment. For my next trick I’m going to bring back
the decorator. And introduce a client They have come to a shared expectation about
the quality/scope. For both parties, quality/scope is fixed. They’re also agree to do the project on a Fixed Price Basis. Does that mean the cost is fixed? Well, it means that the client’s cost is fixed. What about the decorator’s costs? Well, one way or another, the decorator has
estimated the cost for
the job. It’s likely to be based on how long it will take He thinks it will take 5 days – and he prices the job accordingly. Assuming that he’s a sole trader, there are
three possible outcomes: 1. He does the job in 5 days as expected 2. he gets the job gets done in 4 days 3. He runs into difficulties and the job takes
7 days. In each case, the costs are different I think it’s true to say that from the decorator’s
point of view, the quality/scope is fixed It’s the ONLY parameter that’s fixed. In each of the cases we just looked at, cost
and time are different But from the client’s point of view, two parameters were fixed: Quality/scope and Cost One project, two people, two different views
of the Iron Triangle. The Iron Triangle is just one element of the “Waterfall vs Agile Cheat Sheet” If you’ve yet to grab a copy, you’ll find
a link somewhere around this video. click the link, follow the instructions. and
it’s all yours. Thank you very much for watching
If you liked this episode Please click to “like” Share it far and wide, and click the logo to subscribe for a new
episode every Wednesday. Thanks for watching and I look forward to
seeing you next time.

4 thoughts on “The Iron Triangle. Is it Broken? + FREE CHEAT SHEET

  1. We're back… with another episode on the Iron Triangle. In this one, I attempt to answer a tricky question. Not really sure that I nailed it. Can you do better?

  2. interesting proposition, client view remains fixed while the team working on the project will adjust to meet the expectation.

  3. Things get more and more 'interesting' when only one point of triangle is fixed – in case of our current project it's budget. Non-fixed scope and no deadlines apparently turned our project into never-ending mayhem with lots of stopovers, budget re-calculations and delayed release (actually, delayed several times). How to convince a customer to fix the scope or set a deadline along with the fixed budget?

  4. nice video Gary, so that means that cost/quality will remain fixed with from a client perspective, but from the worker's perspective time/cost might fall be different depending on real ground empiric circumstances.. it might take him longer to do it , so more money spent on his part , or just in time so no pb or less than what was planned so it will be profitable for him.. Alm I getting this right or am I missing it as I must admit that I failed to the connection with the question. Maybe it's just me..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *