3 ms·
The first time I heard the "triangle argument", the points were labeled "Good" (as in quality), "Fast" (in terms of time to deliver), and "Cheap" (cost of the
by Alex63 17y ago
The first time I heard the "triangle argument", the points were labeled "Good" (as in quality), "Fast" (in terms of time to deliver), and "Cheap" (cost of the project). Maybe that version is more specific to MIS-type projects?
- roc 17y agoI also found quality/features to be an odd distinction to make. Then again, I've never been a real fan of 'cheap' either. Experience has shown that there are very real upper-bounds on the effectiveness of throwing resources at projects. And, particularly when you're having these late-cycle meetings, it strikes me as flat-out disingenuous to imply that throwing money at a project is a reasonable or even plausible way to hit an expanded scope on an existing schedule.
- Alex63 17y agoTrue. The triangle doesn't really call out the issue of non-linear increase in cost/risk of changes as the project progresses, or other aspects of Brooks's Law.