by Jamie Baird
Often when a project begins, our clients typically have a good grasp of the estimated costs and scope expected with their web build. One big question that is often asked and not always easily identifiable as a project begins is the calendar time needed to complete the work.
"How long does it take to build a website?"
Let me start by saying that in my experience most clients would rank schedule above cost in their list of project priorities. That should be expected. We build high quality, custom web-based solutions and it's easy to get antsy when I, your friendly project manager, tell you that you can expect at least 12 weeks of development before your site will be ready for launch.
Adding to this anticipation, bells, whistles and miscellaneous cool website enhancements are often added to the agreement, which in turn (yes, wait for it) typically take more time to develop. The obvious answer to additional work is “Work faster!” right? Not without potentially compromising quality, and potentially hampering the overall usability and effectiveness of the product.
Understanding the relationship between the costs, scope and the estimated calendar time needed to develop will help guarantee a high quality, usable product in the end. I use a simple tool to help convey the relationship between these three components to my clients visually. It's called the Iron Triangle.
Although
PMBOK (Project Management Book of Knowledge), the holy grail of PM reference materials, has altered this concept in the latest version to account for additional project constraints that need to be accounted for, it is still a useful tool in conveying relationships amongst project elements. Here is a rundown of how it works with LRS Web Solutions agreements and processes in particular.
The triangle is based on balance. The size of the project (scope), the estimate we've put together based on the size and specific scope of the project (cost) and the resulting project release plan we put together based on the size of the build, the developer’s availability, the complexity of the build and the associated costs (time) all represent equal, balanced sides to the triangle, and all have a symbiotic relationship with one another. If the project initiation, estimation and planning have been done accurately and thoroughly, these sides are equal and balanced when we execute the project plan.
Here is an example of a balanced triangle when the time = cost = features:
Any project manager will tell you it is a true balancing act to keep this harmony throughout the execution of the project plan, but it becomes especially difficult if any of these constraints change after having become established.
For example, if we establish a release plan based on the scope of work and costs in a contract, and additional functionality is added to the project thereafter, the triangle suddenly becomes unbalanced as seen below:
When this occurs, more time might be needed to complete the work and the associated costs might increase or the project is in danger of running over on budget or not being completed on time. Generally, we estimate the additional costs per the features requested, and adjust the release plan accordingly.
We can also tackle issues like these in a more creative way. If additional features are added that are more of a value added sort or not imperative to the initial launch, we can segment the project into phases. This way, we can account for these enhancements upfront from a site architecture standpoint to ensure the site will support the features when we’re ready to add them, without adjusting the time and potentially the costs of the initial phase.
Helping our clients realize the benefits of proper planning and utilizing the triple constraint relationship helps us prioritize, plan and deliver a high quality product in the end. After all, the pyramids weren’t built overnight.
----------
Jamie Baird is a senior project manager at LRS, and has been with the Web Solutions group for 3 years. He worries more than anyone in our office, which is why he is so good at his job. Well... he's a people person too.
----------
