Mon 18 Apr 2005
â€œPick two: good, fast, or cheap.â€
(…) for example, if your client has $50,000 to spend, and needs the project done in 8 weeks, then the scope is flexible. If the scope isnâ€™t flexible, and they need it done in 8 weeks, then the budget needs to be flexible. If the budget and scope arenâ€™t flexible, the the timeframe needs to be flexible. Something has to give if you want to deliver a great project. Trying to make a fixed scope, fixed timeframe, and a fixed budget fit a project is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
While I agree with this perspective, I know for a fact that some agencies deliver all 3, no flexibility, period. However a fourth factor needs to give: the team. This is possible in one – and in one only – situation: when people are willing to work in extraordinarily demanding conditions because working for agency “xyz” and being a part of project “abc”
is might be “good” for their carreers. I’ve seen it happen. Been there, did that for the exact ammount of time it took me to realize how incredibly unfair that was and that we (the team) were paying the price for what made the agency look good. So good that more and more people were willing to work there, under the exact same conditions. We were feeding the system ourselves. And so, I left…
I’m not sure how this works in other countries. I consider myself to be a very hard worker and extremely commited. While running my own agency, I work a lot and seldomly can afford to take personal time in regular intervals. Pretty much the same way it was back in those days when I worked for this specific agency. But I am doing this for myself, for my own benefit. It’s a personal decision, no one will ‘fire me’ if I take personal time, as if this was some kind of sinful action. I guess in the end, I’m still the one delivering flexibility. And so, I agree: something has to give!