Eric M Russell (4/16/2014)

---

Gary Varga (4/16/2014)

---

Eric M Russell (4/16/2014)

---

Jim P. (4/15/2014)

---

I've introduced more manager to the following:

You always have choice:

1. Cheap

2. Fast

3. Good

Pick any two.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with my last manager about that. She couldn't break the logic anymore than anyone else I've explained it too. But once a manager gets it down over scheduling seems to go down.

Cheap (budget) and Fast (deadlines) are quantifiable and arbitrary; we either the hit mark or we don't. Good, however, is more subjective. We can add features to a product, because the end users (or just some of them) requested it, and in the process create headaches for operations and management. If management ultimately thinks it was a bad idea, then that may not be "good" for us in IT, even if the end users love it. There may also be features that are perceived as a good by half the users and bad by the other half. If we choose to throw out that feature, are we compromising good in favor of time and budget?

I think that is why most times I have seen this list it talks in terms of quality, e.g. defect free, performant etc., as opposed to good in a commercial sense.

It is possible to create a solution quickly and cheaply and also not sacrifice quality, so long as the scope is constrained. For example, I consider Chipotle Mexican Grill to be Fast, Cheap, and Good Enough (taste, quality, and reliability). Of course, I have to stand in line, choose from a limited menu, and clean off the table when I finish. It's not my favorite, but I've also tried more expensive restraunts with a more elaborate decor and service that failed to meet my personal expectations. I guess my point is that quality and richness of features are two seperate dimensions.

So it would be more like:

Fast, Cheap, Quality, Scope; pick any ... three?