Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Anton Zaides's avatar

Usually the pushback for deadlines (especially ‘fake’ once, not connected to external events) is that it’s a way to make us work harder. In reality - it’s just a way to make us more FOCUSED.

The triangle is a great concept, but often abused. Playing with the time ‘lever’ is the worst option in my opinion, that’s how you end up with never ending projects.

But the resources vertex is also problematic. I’ve experienced PMs using it, pushing back on deadlines with the argument that I can get more developers. They forget about “Brook’s law” - adding human resources to a late software project makes it later. It holds also for non-late projects - beyond an optimal number, adding more resources can be inefficient.

For example if it’s a medium sized project, and I already have 3 people working on it, adding developers from another team will just slow us down.

(If you have a tip on how to explain it to non-technical people, I’ll be forever grateful)

The best lever to use is the scope. A fixed deadline, with fixed resources, and a scope that is open to negotiation. The best PM/EM duos I’ve seen, worked that way.

Expand full comment
Marcus Gardiner's avatar

I have found this particularly helpful for getting 'important, non-urgent' things done (especially on my personal to do list). Without a deadline, these high-impact strategic actions can languish due to a day-to-day focus.

Of course there is a balance: I have also seen many times that made-up unrealistic deadlines caused a lot of unnecessary suffering and demotivation. My view is that this balance is down to the skill of the individual manager in question and the specific context they are operating in: are we "delivering sustainable results to the business over time"?

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts