A Difference of Opinion

A Difference of Opinion

I have a tool that I love to use because I find it to be extremely helpful in running my projects. I will share it with you now, partly because I really believe in this tool, and partly because I have recently seen it used ‘incorrectly’, in my opinion. This is, as my colleague and I have agreed, a professional difference of opinion, as he believes he is right, and I believe I am. I would love to get your opinion on this.

I call this tool The Flexibility Matrix. It is based on the triple constraint concept, and is a terrific tool for understanding where your main constraints really are and to open up dialogue between you, the sponsor, and the customer at the beginning of a project or at first when you take over a project, if it was not previously done. The Flexibility Matrix looks like this:

Least Flexible Moderately Flexible Most Flexible
Scope
Time
Resources/Cost
Constraint Optimize PM Control


The idea is that one ‘X’ goes in each column (no cheating!). As the project manager, try to have the following discussion with both the sponsor and customer together. If you cannot, then meet with the sponsor first and ask them which constraint (time, cost, or scope) is most flexible. Of course, their answer is always ‘none, I want them all’. After you explain to them that you will do your very best to deliver everything and that you want to deliver success so they can look good, but if push comes to shove, you need to know which of the constraints has some flexibility. An experienced or logical sponsor will understand where you are going and finally give you the answer you are looking for. Then repeat the drill with the customer. Compare the two matrices, or sets of expectations. Since you obviously cannot deliver two different set of expectations, if the two tables do not match, get the sponsor and customer together so they can decide between them the project’s true constraint vs greatest flexibility.

So far, so good. This is how I use the tool, and as I said, I love it for its ability to create an early dialogue, understand and set expectations, know my true constraints, and give me a tool to help evaluate change requests. For example, if scope is the most flexible and time is least, then I will not accept a change request that will threaten my end delivery date. Also, I will not accept a change that will increase scope because that is the one area I can decrease, if necessary.

However, I just found out that a colleague of mine uses this matrix with four constraints, listing quality as the last constraint. I disagree with this, saying that quality is not really an option. Quality means the product or service works. Asking someone to rank quality as a lower priority is, in my mind, not feasible. In his mind, if the customer is willing to create a product that will only last one year instead of three, that to him is low quality. I prefer to think of it as lower grade, in that it will not last as long. Calling this quality is, I think, misleading, and I try to avoid misconceptions whenever possible. After all, we have enough miscommunication on our projects already. What message are we sending to the team or to the customer if we say that quality has the most flexibility, that it can be sacrificed somewhat if necessary to make time and/or cost and/or scope? In our world, perception is everything. I think that is a dangerous path to walk. Yet, others do. I wonder how well it works for them.

What do you think? Have you ever used a tool similar to this? If so, have you included quality as an option? If you have, has it worked? Please write and let me know.

Vicki Wrona