This relates to the triple constraints triangle (cost, scope, time and quality). The increase or reduction in one constraint impacts the other constraints. Saving Changes...
Utkarsh Ajay ShahAssistant Manager| L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd.Mumbai, Maharahstra, India
The above equations I feel need to given "initial conditions" under which they are true. Else I have following way to interpret.
Second Equation :- Tight Time does not necessarily mean reduced scope. What if the client adds something new to scope, and is ready to pay for it at higher rates than what was earlier negotiated , yet wants the project on time . If the Project team has accepted this scope change , then Tight Time = Increased Scope +[ Increased Cost (increase in cost will depend on nature of increased scope) ]
Another Case :- Tight Time = Increased Cost + Original Scope .. This would be the case where the Project team has run out of time and has time constraint to meet the project deliverables without reduction in scope.
In my opinion, The second Equation given by Mr Karouta is valid when the project team has accepted scope reduction and penalty that comes with it along with cost of resource addition to finish the project on time. Not in any other case I feel. Saving Changes...
Ghahreman AbouzarCommissioning specialist| Protech Engineering.IncPort Coquetlam,, British Columbia, Canada
increased scope typically means increased time and increased cost. Two other equations are also correct if triple factors to be considered independent.
But some other factors like risk, resources and specially quality are somehow included in above equations. So all of them are incorrect. Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
The answer to all the questions is it could be but not necessarily. For example.
1- For increased scope, you might be able to Fast Track the schedule so there is no additional time or cost.
2- For tight time, you might be able to Fast Track and scope reduction should be your last resort.
3- For tight budget: Scope reduction is not an option normally, but fast tracking is.
There is no black and white when it comes to those situations. You have to assess all options and chose the one that least impacts your project.
...
2 replies by Karan Shah and Paul Hollings
Apr 23, 2018 6:25 AM
Paul Hollings
...
Rami,
this sums up my thinking very well, there are rarely definitive answers to these questions as the number of variables in most projects makes the picture too fluid.
But also, unless there is a sudden and serious deterioration in the project environment, most of these situations can be addressed/escalated over time and if necessary raised as a project CR. This provides the opportunity to gain the buy-in from management and resource teams to go that extra mile to regain lost ground.
Apr 24, 2018 12:18 AM
Karan Shah
...
Ah, yes.
But quality is another factor to consider.
If we keep the same resources for increased scope - quality will surely suffer. To maintain the same quality, we will need to increase cost (and, even then, a fast track schedule may still impact quality).
The competitive constraints it is all about how do you want to balance them. Usually decreasing scope not the best option unless the client is happy to do so.
What is the best combination ? The client, sponsor and the situation will give you the answer. Saving Changes...
Paul HollingsIT Project Manager| Self EmployedHerne Bay, Kent, United Kingdom
Apr 23, 2018 3:53 AM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
The answer to all the questions is it could be but not necessarily. For example.
1- For increased scope, you might be able to Fast Track the schedule so there is no additional time or cost.
2- For tight time, you might be able to Fast Track and scope reduction should be your last resort.
3- For tight budget: Scope reduction is not an option normally, but fast tracking is.
There is no black and white when it comes to those situations. You have to assess all options and chose the one that least impacts your project.
Rami,
this sums up my thinking very well, there are rarely definitive answers to these questions as the number of variables in most projects makes the picture too fluid.
But also, unless there is a sudden and serious deterioration in the project environment, most of these situations can be addressed/escalated over time and if necessary raised as a project CR. This provides the opportunity to gain the buy-in from management and resource teams to go that extra mile to regain lost ground.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Apr 23, 2018 10:14 AM
Rami Kaibni
...
I agree with you Paul.
Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
A change in one has an effect on another. From there, a varying array of scenarios and options. Saving Changes...
Giacomo KaroutaConsultant - Program Manager| Skytech ConsultingPlano, Tx, United States
Thanks for all comments. Here’s my own analysis. Let’s see if you agree.
The three equations I presented above are taken from a project management power point presentation by Jeremy Jay V. Lim that he called Concepts and Cases. I believe listing the three equations and calling them the Triple constraints is not correct. Here’s why:
The three competing constraints of project management remain always: Scope, Time & Cost. Now we can add to them like quality, risk, …. However, these three remain the foundation.
What I find wrong is using the equal sign as Tight Time and Tight Budget do not necessarily lead to increased costs respectively increased time.
Here’s an acceptable way of presenting the three constraints:
• increased scope typically means increased time and increased cost,
• a tight time constraint could mean increased costs and reduced scope,
• a tight budget could mean increased time and reduced scope.
While I fully agree on these three bullets, I can agree on the first equation: “Increased scope = increased time + increased cost” but I cannot agree on the second and third equation. Simply, I find replacing "could mean" by an "EQUAL SIGN" misleading.
If you don't have enough budget, you may well reduce the scope and the time.
Do you agree?
...
2 replies by Gopalakrishnan Chandramohan and Sergio Luis Conte
Apr 23, 2018 9:51 AM
Gopalakrishnan Chandramohan
...
Nice analysis. We should not even replace typically means in the first statement by "equal to" symbol.
Apr 23, 2018 10:25 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
The first one could be not right too. Who stated this equation must specify what cost mean.
Thanks for all comments. Here’s my own analysis. Let’s see if you agree.
The three equations I presented above are taken from a project management power point presentation by Jeremy Jay V. Lim that he called Concepts and Cases. I believe listing the three equations and calling them the Triple constraints is not correct. Here’s why:
The three competing constraints of project management remain always: Scope, Time & Cost. Now we can add to them like quality, risk, …. However, these three remain the foundation.
What I find wrong is using the equal sign as Tight Time and Tight Budget do not necessarily lead to increased costs respectively increased time.
Here’s an acceptable way of presenting the three constraints:
• increased scope typically means increased time and increased cost,
• a tight time constraint could mean increased costs and reduced scope,
• a tight budget could mean increased time and reduced scope.
While I fully agree on these three bullets, I can agree on the first equation: “Increased scope = increased time + increased cost” but I cannot agree on the second and third equation. Simply, I find replacing "could mean" by an "EQUAL SIGN" misleading.
If you don't have enough budget, you may well reduce the scope and the time.
Do you agree?
Nice analysis. We should not even replace typically means in the first statement by "equal to" symbol.
...
1 reply by Giacomo Karouta
Apr 23, 2018 12:39 PM
Giacomo Karouta
...
I fully agree, "typically means" should not be replaced by equal sign either. However, it's more acceptable than for "could mean".
Community Champion
