Have you ever been on a project where the client was eager
to add more and more features, but not so eager to add more budget and
schedule? In my training and consulting engagements, it’s amazing how many
times I hear this type of complaint from project teams. I tell these teams that
part of the answer for responding to this situation is to educate the client.
Many of them just don’t have a sense that when they ask for additional
features, it actually takes the project team more time and effort.

Tips in your inbox

Looking for expert IT project management? Get the help you need from TechRepublic’s free Project Management newsletter, delivered each Wednesday.

Automatically sign up today!

Part of the education process for your client might involve
the concept of the “triple constraint.” At the end of the up-front planning
process, you should have created an estimate of the work that will be completed
and the cost/time and duration that are needed to complete the work. The client
sponsor should have approved the document that contains the scope of work,
estimated effort/cost, and the project duration. These three items form the
concept called the “triple constraint.” The key aspect of the triple
constraint is that if one of the three items change, at least one, or both, of
the other items need to change as well.

This concept is easy to visualize if you think of the triple
constraint as a triangle, with the sides representing cost/effort, duration and
scope of work. Here are a couple examples of how the concept works.

  • If the
    scope of work increases, the cost/effort must increase, and the deadline
    may increase as well. This should make sense. If you have more work to do,
    it will take more cost/effort and perhaps a longer duration. It’s possible
    that the duration can remain the same, but only if the cost/effort
    increases sufficiently to complete the new work within the same duration.
  • The
    triple constraint works the other way as well. If you reduce the scope of
    work, the cost/effort will decrease and the deadline may decrease as well.
    If you don’t have as much work to do, it should not take you as much
    effort/cost to complete.
  • If you
    are asked to accelerate the project and complete it earlier than
    scheduled, it would also be logical to ask for less work. However, if you
    are asked to deliver the same work for less duration, the third leg of the
    triple constraint must increase to maintain the balance. You will need to
    increase cost/effort, perhaps by working overtime hours or perhaps by
    bringing in more resources to complete the same amount of work earlier.

Of course, one of the keys to making the triple-constraint
work is that you have to have an agreement with your client sponsor on the
scope of work to be performed and the cost/effort and duration to complete the
work. If you don’t have a formal agreement on these factors to begin with, then
the triple constraint concept does not work.

I have also heard the triple constraint referred to as a “three-legged
stool,” which carries the same type of visual connotation. In the example
of the stool, the three legs still refer to cost/effort, duration, and scope of
work. The thought is that the three legs start off in balance once the sponsor
agreement has been reached. If the length of one of the legs is increased (or
decreased), the other legs need to change as well so that the stool remains