Four Concepts: Time, Cost, Scope, And Project Triangles

820 Words 4 Pages
A project triangle can be considered a misnomer in that a triangle has three sides. A project triangle actually consists of four things: Time, Cost, Scope, and overall quality (Figure 1). Quality is not a part of the management triangle, but merely an implied aspect and can actually be the most important part of the project. Figure 1: Project Triangle Parts Even though the sides of the triangle appear rigid, the triangle is actually an ever changing “blob” as each aspect changes through the course of the project. Time always plays a major role in any project as the amount given to complete the project is usually one of the first constraints a project manager will have. This constraint is generally put in place as a general, though reliable, …show more content…
It has been my experience as an aircraft avionics technician and a financial resource advisor, the deadline of a project can be moved, and more often than not, does. A project is not set in stone even once it is approved. A lot of times change orders come up which is yet another way for a company to make more money on a project. These change orders will often result in extensions to the project deadline.
To say time and its constraint are important is an understatement. Failure to know the exact constraints involved in how much time is allowed, what the overall cost of the project is, or understanding the scope of the work that is needed will surely tank the
…show more content…
The perfect world would hold quality as the number one priority. However, quality is generally controlled mostly by just time and budget. I’ve seen this example all through my military career. Supervision wants to fly as many flights as possible to make their numbers look better than others for performance reports. There is usually zero emphasis on quality. Often supervision was quoted as saying, “fix it anyway you can, just get it done for the next flight.” having opted to not worry over the safety of the flight, nor consider the consequences of a faulty repair. This seemed to work at first as parts of the project were completed, but was soon found unreliable. Aircraft would fly, and start to break more often, resulting in more downtime and more costly repair cost. Finally, after losing several aircraft and aircrew, supervision saw the error of their ways and started to look for quality fixes and not look at number of flights. Because the aircraft were being fixed correctly the first time, the ending result were more flights

Related Documents