VeraSage

The Triangle of Truth

Ed Kless - 01/28/2007

(Quick writers note: Ok, I admit, Ron Baker has shamed me
into finally writing this post. His post on Chris Marston’s excellent blog has
motivated me.)

One of the basic principles of project management is what is
known as the triple constraint. Some call this the scope, resource, time
triangle. However, when I was the practice manager of a software implementation
consulting firm, one of the guys on the team, Dave Franz, dubbed it the
Triangle of Truth. (Franzy, if you are out there, you
should know I give you credit whenever I talk about it.)

The concept is simple. A project consists of three
interrelated variables: scope, resource (some say cost), and time. These
variables are like the angles of a triangle. If you recall from geometry class
in high school, in order for a polygon (shape) to be considered a triangle the
three angles must add to 180 degrees. I.e., Angle A (Scope) + Angle B
(Resource/cost) + Angle C (Time) = 180. If these do not add to 180 you don’t
have a triangle. So, if you make a change to the value of one of the angles,
one of the other two or both must also change to compensate or else the figure
is broken.

The big problem with most professionals is that they are
lousy and lazy about scope development. They prefer to concentrate on the
second two elements, cost and time. In some cases, the professional feels
pressure from the customer or prospect to give answers to the cost and time
questions first. To me this would be the equivalent of purchasing the lumber for
a new house before going to an architect for plans; or doctor writing a
prescription before performing a diagnosis. (Remember: prescription before
diagnosis equals malpractice!)

To refute this poor practice further, I need to reference one
of the giants of the consulting profession, Peter Block.

In his landmark book, The Answer to How is Yes!, Block posits
that consultants (read professionals) are usually presented first with what he
calls “How” questions. “How much will it cost?” and “How long will it take?”
are two of these questions — angles B and C in our triangle. Block argues that
while these are relevant questions, when asked too early, they “express our
bias for what is practical, concrete, and immediately useful. It assumes we
don’t know and this in itself becomes a defense against action.”

Scope (angle A), however, is a “What matters?” or “Yes!”
question according to Block, specifically the question is “What do we want to
create?” In order to properly begin a project with a balanced (or equilateral)
triangle we must ask and fully answer this question first. Why do we need a
balanced triangle?

If we go back to the analogy and take it one step farther, let
us draw a circle inside this triangle, the size of the circle represents the
quality of the work performed. The largest perfect circle can be drawn inside a
triangle that is equilateral, all sides the same and, therefore all angles
equal to 60 degrees.

This is an important point because for a professional
knowledge firm (PKF), quality is defined exclusively by the customer not the
professional. The professional cannot say that they do quality work. Rather,
their customers can say that about them.

What happens in most firms, as Chris so eloquently points
out, is that scope is often poorly or not-at-all defined. I am sent an email a
week from someone asking me to assist them with scope creep on a project. My
first response is to ask them to send me a copy of their scope document. In
almost all cases, I am sent back a proposal with a range of hours.

In replying to this I tell the poor sap that I say that have
some good news and some bad news. “The good news is you do not have scope
creep; the bad news is you are over budget.” What I mean is that since they
never defined scope to begin with they are not outside of scope.

(In a future post, I will visit each of the elements of a
great scope document.)

Even when they do a decent job of developing scope, some
professionals get caught in true scope creep. This happens when after having defined
a good scope, the project manager (professional)
allows more scope to be added to the project without rebalancing the triangle.
In other words, they take on more “What” and they squeeze the “How’s”. This is
what a change request is for, but that will have to be another post.

quod erat
demonstrandum